Discussion:
Weird wireless behavior at Starbucks
(too old to reply)
Bhairitu
2014-09-10 18:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
Roy
2014-09-10 19:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
I have seen this with other "subscriber only" wifi like Uverse and
Xfinity. I told my phone not to connect to those SSIDs.
Bhairitu
2014-09-11 19:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
I have seen this with other "subscriber only" wifi like Uverse and
Xfinity. I told my phone not to connect to those SSIDs.
It occurred me it might be a residual effect of having logged into
Google Wifi there a couple months back to do a speed test to see what it
offered. But this just came on recently. Funny thing was before Google
Wifi I would have a tough time using the app to pay if wifi was turned
on so would just temporarily turn it off to pay letting it go through
T-Mobile instead.

Then this morning the first attempt to view a site on Chrome connected
without the problem then 20 minutes later it insisted on logging into
Starbucks so I just deleted Starbucks from the wifi network list which
solved the problem.
David Kaye
2014-09-10 21:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
My understanding is that most of these phones are designed to log into wi-fi
first if it's available due to the lower cost than 3G or 4G. My new tablet
has the annoying (but considered useful) function of abandoning a lower
signal for a higher one. This is good for moving around web surfing, but
plays havoc when I'm trying to use my tablet to set up wi-fi systems. I
specifically WANT to check out the low-level signal, but nothing short of
"forgetting" the settings for the higher level wi-fi will stop my tablet
from switching over.

Oh...don't get me started on all these "smart" features offered by devices
today....




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bhairitu
2014-09-11 19:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
My understanding is that most of these phones are designed to log into wi-fi
first if it's available due to the lower cost than 3G or 4G. My new tablet
has the annoying (but considered useful) function of abandoning a lower
signal for a higher one. This is good for moving around web surfing, but
plays havoc when I'm trying to use my tablet to set up wi-fi systems. I
specifically WANT to check out the low-level signal, but nothing short of
"forgetting" the settings for the higher level wi-fi will stop my tablet
from switching over.
Oh...don't get me started on all these "smart" features offered by devices
today....
Or don't get me started on how dumb some of the inexperienced Google
Android team is. They really don't think things through and just "do
things" sometimes with bad consequences. Apparently they just push
things out to stay ahead in the race.

Just read that they finally increased the cancel time for app to 2
hours. I thought 15 minutes was fine for games but for apps it might
take longer for someone to determine if the app was something could use.
Then game app started using extra download for assets and in some
cases that might take up much of the 15 minutes.
(null)
2014-09-10 23:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
If on a recent version of Android, go to Settings->WiFi and long press
the access point name then de-select "auto-connect".
In iOS, go to Settings->WiFi and turn on "Ask to Join Networks".
Bhairitu
2014-09-11 19:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by (null)
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
If on a recent version of Android, go to Settings->WiFi and long press
the access point name then de-select "auto-connect".
In iOS, go to Settings->WiFi and turn on "Ask to Join Networks".
I have a Nexus and won't be seeing 4.4 (I have another non-phone device
with KitKat for testing). "Forget" seems to do the trick with version 4.3.
Keith Keller
2014-09-10 23:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
You should just turn off your wifi unless you intentionally want to use
wifi. You'll save battery by not searching for open access points all
the time.

--keith
--
kkeller-***@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Bhairitu
2014-09-11 19:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Keith Keller
Post by Bhairitu
Since I have T-Mobile and downtown is 4 bars I don't bother with
Starbuck's Google wifi. T-Mobile is much faster. Recently though when
sitting out on the patio I have to turn off wifi or my phne won't use
T-Mobile to access the Internet. It insists on logging into Starbucks.
Anyone else see this?
You should just turn off your wifi unless you intentionally want to use
wifi. You'll save battery by not searching for open access points all
the time.
--keith
Battery stays up fine with wifi on all day. I need wifi up at the house
because cellular reception is poor. Wouldn't be if T-Mobile could have
put in the tower they wanted to behind my house.
David Kaye
2014-09-11 19:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Battery stays up fine with wifi on all day. I need wifi up at the house
because cellular reception is poor. Wouldn't be if T-Mobile could have
put in the tower they wanted to behind my house.
Maybe you can rent them space for a tower in your back yard. The cell
companies go to great lengths to disguise their antennas these days.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bhairitu
2014-09-12 18:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Bhairitu
Battery stays up fine with wifi on all day. I need wifi up at the house
because cellular reception is poor. Wouldn't be if T-Mobile could have
put in the tower they wanted to behind my house.
Maybe you can rent them space for a tower in your back yard. The cell
companies go to great lengths to disguise their antennas these days.
They were going to put in a tower disguised as a fir tree. The
neighbors were in an uproar but I think the city council was going to
approve but it was scuttled by the attempted AT&T takeover.
David Kaye
2014-09-12 20:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
They were going to put in a tower disguised as a fir tree. The neighbors
were in an uproar but I think the city council was going to approve but it
was scuttled by the attempted AT&T takeover.
Cities almost always side with the cell companies. The objections are
usually from the bogus "radiation" wackos. Since city councils are used to
hearing from wackos on every topic imaginable, they usually ignore them.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Thad Floryan
2014-09-13 06:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
They were going to put in a tower disguised as a fir tree. The neighbors
were in an uproar but I think the city council was going to approve but it
was scuttled by the attempted AT&T takeover.
Cities almost always side with the cell companies. The objections are
usually from the bogus "radiation" wackos. Since city councils are used to
hearing from wackos on every topic imaginable, they usually ignore them.
Hi David,

That would be true for every city except Palo Alto whose
city council is a bunch of know-nothing wackos who approve
20-story buildings flanking housing and 1000s of other
insane projects including annually raising their salaries
and pension plans by large amounts without any feedback
permitted from the over-taxed citizens of Palo Alto.

Palo Alto is the poster child for corrupt city councils,
and Mountain View is a close second approving projects to
make Mountain View a totally dysfunctional city.

See for yourself:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/

http://www.mv-voice.com/

http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/

I'm not impressed with Santa Clara, either, since they never did
any due diligence regarding the new 49ers' "Levi" stadium and the
new infrastructure that would have been required to properly support
it (think parking and transportation to/from) and financing it and
building it next to a long-time residential community whose residents
can't even get to their homes on any game day as a friend who lives
there informed me:

http://santaclaraca.gov/

Thad
David Kaye
2014-09-13 07:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
I'm not impressed with Santa Clara, either, since they never did
any due diligence regarding the new 49ers' "Levi" stadium and the
new infrastructure that would have been required to properly support
it (think parking and transportation to/from) and financing it and
building it next to a long-time residential community whose residents
can't even get to their homes on any game day [....]
What's more, the TV coverage won't even boost Santa Clara's image to the
national audience. TV isn't going to show the merry-go-round at Great
America more than once or twice. What other landmarks are there to show?
Uh...the Redwood City arch maybe. But then there are the Golden Gate
Bridge, Bay Bridge, Coit Tower, Treasure Island, downtown SF skyline. And
the team will still be the SF 49ers, and Jed York has said that if they win
the Superbown the parade would be in SF. He's said that at the outset. For
him it appears that Santa Clara is stadium-only.

Suckers...




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Peter Lawrence
2014-09-16 08:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
Hi David,
That would be true for every city except Palo Alto whose
city council is a bunch of know-nothing wackos who approve
20-story buildings flanking housing and 1000s of other
insane projects including annually raising their salaries
and pension plans by large amounts without any feedback
permitted from the over-taxed citizens of Palo Alto.
What the hell are you talking about? Name a single 20-story building
located in Palo Alto. The tallest building in Palo Alto is a 15-story
building built in 1965, almost 50 years ago!

Nor do Palo Alto council members draw a salary, let alone a pension. They
do get, currently, a monthly stipend of $600. Wow!
Post by Thad Floryan
Palo Alto is the poster child for corrupt city councils,
and Mountain View is a close second approving projects to
make Mountain View a totally dysfunctional city.
The Palo Alto City Council isn't corrupt. They don't benefit financially in
regards to some of the dumb developments they have approved. They have been
often clueless, but not corrupt.

The ones who are corrupt and are often "in bed" with the developers are
members of the city staff, especially many who work in the Palo Alto
planning department. But the City Council is actually waking up to their
shenanigans, witness the rejection of the redevelopment proposal for 261
Hamilton Avenue, which was supported by the Palo Alto's planning staff even
though it violated Palo Alto zoning laws and regulations.


- Peter
Thad Floryan
2014-09-16 09:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thad Floryan
Hi David,
That would be true for every city except Palo Alto whose
city council is a bunch of know-nothing wackos who approve
20-story buildings flanking housing and 1000s of other
insane projects including annually raising their salaries
and pension plans by large amounts without any feedback
permitted from the over-taxed citizens of Palo Alto.
What the hell are you talking about? Name a single 20-story building
located in Palo Alto. The tallest building in Palo Alto is a 15-story
building built in 1965, almost 50 years ago!
Nor do Palo Alto council members draw a salary, let alone a pension.
They do get, currently, a monthly stipend of $600. Wow!
Post by Thad Floryan
Palo Alto is the poster child for corrupt city councils,
and Mountain View is a close second approving projects to
make Mountain View a totally dysfunctional city.
The Palo Alto City Council isn't corrupt. They don't benefit
financially in regards to some of the dumb developments they have
approved. They have been often clueless, but not corrupt.
The ones who are corrupt and are often "in bed" with the developers are
members of the city staff, especially many who work in the Palo Alto
planning department. But the City Council is actually waking up to
their shenanigans, witness the rejection of the redevelopment proposal
for 261 Hamilton Avenue, which was supported by the Palo Alto's planning
staff even though it violated Palo Alto zoning laws and regulations.
I'm going by the Reader Comments I see in the Palo Alto Online:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/

every time there's an article about either the city government's and/or
the council's shenanigans. Many reader comments are deleted and/or censored
by the Palo Alto Online staff and what's left is still very indicative of
total corruptness, incompetence, malfeasance and a residents-be-damned and
and residents-be-ignored attitude in Palo Alto.

I have to deal with the idiots who run Los Altos and their corruptness,
idiocies, ineptness, lack of using good sense, and violating many city
ordnances and state and Federal law and even the US Constitution is legion
as is the case in Mountain View, too.

I don't recall seeing your name in rebuttal in the Palo Alto Online
Reader Comments which are often very l-o-n-g threads and often very
insightful as to what's going on behind the scenes in Palo Alto since
so much of the corruption occurs in locked rooms closed to the public
and AFAIK none of the commenters have ever been sued for libel or slander.

Thad
Thad Floryan
2014-09-16 10:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/
every time there's an article about either the city government's and/or
the council's shenanigans. Many reader comments are deleted and/or censored
by the Palo Alto Online staff and what's left is still very indicative of
total corruptness, incompetence, malfeasance and a residents-be-damned and
and residents-be-ignored attitude in Palo Alto.
[...]

A very quick glance at my archives turned up this article; if I
had more time I'd find a lot more attesting to the rampant corruption
in Palo Alto; be sure to read the long Reader Comments thread at the
end of this article:

Palo Alto may toss out City Council term limits
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=29866

Palo Alto City Councilman idiot Larry Klein is quoted in that article:

" Klein called term limits "basically undemocratic" and "insulting for
electorates," who always have the option of voting out an incumbent if
they don't like how he or she is performing."

The Federal and California governments have term limits for everything
except certain judicial appointments (e.g., US Supreme Court).

Thad
David Kaye
2014-09-16 21:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
The Federal and California governments have term limits for everything
except certain judicial appointments (e.g., US Supreme Court).
Term limits have given IMMENSE power to high-moneyed lobbyists. Why?
Because so many inexperienced green politicians win office and have no idea
about the lay of the land, so they depend on lobbyists to steer them. This
is especially true in the House of Representatives where some lobbyists call
the incoming freshmen House members "lambs".




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Thad Floryan
2014-09-16 22:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Thad Floryan
The Federal and California governments have term limits for everything
except certain judicial appointments (e.g., US Supreme Court).
Term limits have given IMMENSE power to high-moneyed lobbyists. Why?
Because so many inexperienced green politicians win office and have no idea
about the lay of the land, so they depend on lobbyists to steer them. This
is especially true in the House of Representatives where some lobbyists call
the incoming freshmen House members "lambs".
Hi David,

That's an interesting viewpoint that does seem credible. Thanks for sharing
it!

I can also see that without term limits the people's representatives become
so embedded within the circle of corruption it becomes a continuous fact of
life which deepens and worsens as time proceeds.

I'm sure the US' "Founding Fathers", as intelligent and insightful as they
were, simply did not foresee what has happened to the USA and its states.

As Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, stated:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely ."

Which is a testimony to the state of affairs today.

Thad
David Kaye
2014-09-17 08:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
I can also see that without term limits the people's representatives become
so embedded within the circle of corruption it becomes a continuous fact of
life which deepens and worsens as time proceeds.
On the other hand, longevity of such folks as Nancy Pelosi, Dianne
Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer as well as in the past, John Burton and Phil
Burton, have given California (especially northern California) a LOT of
benefit versus other states.

Remember that if it wasn't for Phil Burton's huge connections the Golden
Gate Recreation Area would have never happened. He did a LOT of lobbying of
other congress members to vote for this. Otherwise, the Presidio and most
of the Marin Headlands would be developed today.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Thad Floryan
2014-09-17 08:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Thad Floryan
I can also see that without term limits the people's representatives become
so embedded within the circle of corruption it becomes a continuous fact of
life which deepens and worsens as time proceeds.
On the other hand, longevity of such folks as Nancy Pelosi, Dianne
Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer as well as in the past, John Burton and Phil
Burton, have given California (especially northern California) a LOT of
benefit versus other states.
Remember that if it wasn't for Phil Burton's huge connections the Golden
Gate Recreation Area would have never happened. He did a LOT of lobbying of
other congress members to vote for this. Otherwise, the Presidio and most
of the Marin Headlands would be developed today.
Hi David,

Touché. :-)

Good points.

However, one could argue that ability, capability, honesty, and talent are better
criteria for those government servants wishing to manage the country's business
via committee chairmanships moreso than simple longevity in office as ia sadly
the far-too-common situation today. Another case for term limits. :-)

There are folks in Congress now that should be removed due to apparent senility and
the inability to make sound judgments based on good, NOT common, sense. And there
are a lot of state and local governments with similar incompetents in office.

Our country's present VP, Biden, is a case in point. Look what he says in this
video interview and see for yourself that what he says is 100% wrong because he
doesn't understand elementary-school-level physics and the facts of life regarding
body mass and the effects of inertia.

WARNING -- do NOT have food or drink at the keyboard while watching this and, yes,
it's a political statement and this illustration of Biden's ineptitude is obvious:



runtime 1:59

:-)

Thad
d***@97.usenet.us.com
2014-09-17 19:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Because so many inexperienced green politicians win office and have no idea
I see the green idiots, although I hadn't pondered this particular reason
for it being any worse than the fact that none of them know anything.

I also see career politicians just shuffling from one high state office
to another. Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, all elected term
limit offices, same guy, moving out of the way of the term limits.

Name recognition gets people elected. It doesn't seem to matter of there
are any qualifications or not, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood
leaping to mind.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
David Kaye
2014-09-17 23:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@97.usenet.us.com
I see the green idiots, although I hadn't pondered this particular reason
for it being any worse than the fact that none of them know anything.
Well, look at it this way: House seats turn over every 2 years, so there
are always a boatload of newcomers coming in. If they're inexperienced then
they're like deer caught in the headlights.

It's your first day in the House. Some guy in an expensive suit comes up to
you after your orientation and takes you and a bunch of other folks out to
lunch. Gosh, suddenly a celebrity, rubbing shoulders with other celebrities
and rich people. Oh, maybe they don't pitch anything. But a few days later
the nice guy in the expensive suit runs up to you in the hallway and starts
talking about his farm bill, something you know nothing about because you
come from a district that doesn't have any farms. Well, he seems nice
enough and when a vote comes up you vote for his farm bill. That's the way
it works.

A seasoned politician sees these guys coming and either refuses them or
negotiates with them to get the best deal for his/her own district. "Okay,
if I vote for your farm bill, what will you do to help provide meals for
poor kids in my district?"

It's funny that term limits came about to silence Willie Brown, and yet,
Willie was one of the most effective legislators and negotiators in the
history of California. Even though he never held a federal office he was
considered the 3rd most important person in government after the president
and speaker of the house. We owe everything from environmental laws to
equal rights for GBLT people to Willie Brown. What a lot of people never
knew was how good a mediator he was. He could bring any two sides together
who were at war, find common ground, and settle disputes.

We'd have no water in Northern California today if it weren't for Willie
negotiating with Southern California interests who tried to divert most of
the Sacramento River down to LA. Yeah, they get some of the water, but not
all of it. If not for Willie they would have gotten ALL of it because SoCal
has more votes in the Assembly.
Post by d***@97.usenet.us.com
Name recognition gets people elected. It doesn't seem to matter of there
are any qualifications or not, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood
leaping to mind.
Well, that's not the fault of the politicians, is it? It's the fault of the
people who vote for these guys over and over again. But is it their fault,
either? If someone has had a good couple years wouldn't they be inclined to
vote the politician back into office?




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Thad Floryan
2014-09-16 11:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thad Floryan
Hi David,
That would be true for every city except Palo Alto whose
city council is a bunch of know-nothing wackos who approve
20-story buildings flanking housing and 1000s of other
insane projects including annually raising their salaries
and pension plans by large amounts without any feedback
permitted from the over-taxed citizens of Palo Alto.
What the hell are you talking about? Name a single 20-story building
located in Palo Alto. The tallest building in Palo Alto is a 15-story
building built in 1965, almost 50 years ago!
[...]
OK, I erred, the final plan for 27 University Avenue is not 20 stories
but reduced to just over 100 feet which is still w-a-y too tall for
that location and was reduced due to citizens' reactions/response:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/30/27-university-ave-project-revised-to-reflect-height-concerns/

Note in my just-prior reply citing this article:

Palo Alto may toss out City Council term limits
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=29866

the Reader Comments cite massive corruption and "special interests"
(and the city government and the city council should be doing some
serious jail time) and there are many references to 27 University Ave.

I have 100s of articles from the PaloAltoOnline over the years citing
so much similar corruption, malfeasance, and illegalities on the parts
of both the Palo Alto city government and its city council cohorts that
the courts could be tied up for centuries litigating all the issues.

Thad
Peter Lawrence
2014-09-16 16:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thad Floryan
Hi David,
That would be true for every city except Palo Alto whose
city council is a bunch of know-nothing wackos who approve
20-story buildings flanking housing and 1000s of other
insane projects including annually raising their salaries
and pension plans by large amounts without any feedback
permitted from the over-taxed citizens of Palo Alto.
What the hell are you talking about? Name a single 20-story building
located in Palo Alto. The tallest building in Palo Alto is a 15-story
building built in 1965, almost 50 years ago!
[...]
OK, I erred, the final plan for 27 University Avenue is not 20 stories
but reduced to just over 100 feet which is still w-a-y too tall for
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/30/27-university-ave-project-revised-to-reflect-height-concerns/
Palo Alto may toss out City Council term limits
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=29866
the Reader Comments cite massive corruption and "special interests"
(and the city government and the city council should be doing some
serious jail time) and there are many references to 27 University Ave.
I have 100s of articles from the PaloAltoOnline over the years citing
so much similar corruption, malfeasance, and illegalities on the parts
of both the Palo Alto city government and its city council cohorts that
the courts could be tied up for centuries litigating all the issues.
Thad
Oh please, your going the by public comments made by the nutjobs who
participate on PaloAltoOnline website? Those people are crazier than most
who still participate on Usenet. You're acting a little bit nutty yourself
in regards to your comments about the Palo Alto City Council.

Note that the 20-story building slated for 27 University was nixed and is no
longer on the table. That whole development has been shelved for the time
being. And my point is simply that the Palo Alto City Council isn't corrupt
(and supporting the elimination of term limits doesn't mean that a
politician is corrupt either, BTW).

I'm not saying that they're competent and do their job well, because they
don't. And I will reiterate that a number of the city staff are corrupt and
try to push through sweetheart deals for the developers in exchange for
future employment by the developers. But the Council itself is just
incompetent and at times naive. But none of them have gained financially on
any of the ill-advised development plans they have foolishly approved.


- Peter
Thad Floryan
2014-09-16 21:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Lawrence
Post by Thad Floryan
[...]
OK, I erred, the final plan for 27 University Avenue is not 20 stories
but reduced to just over 100 feet which is still w-a-y too tall for
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/11/30/27-university-ave-project-revised-to-reflect-height-concerns/
[...]
I actually did NOT err, it's just that I didn't have anything in my
archives about the originally proposed structure at 200 ft (20 stories)
to cite as a reference. The citizens' howls and yells forced a cutback
to 150 ft (15 stories) and per the above Stanford Daily article it was
again cut back to 100 ft (10 stories).
Post by Peter Lawrence
[...]
Oh please, your going the by public comments made by the nutjobs who
participate on PaloAltoOnline website? Those people are crazier than
most who still participate on Usenet. You're acting a little bit nutty
yourself in regards to your comments about the Palo Alto City Council.
You're wrong. The idiot concilman Larry Klein who wrote (as I cited
earlier in this thread):

" Klein called term limits "basically undemocratic" and "insulting for
electorates," who always have the option of voting out an incumbent if
they don't like how he or she is performing."

Investigation by one of the commenting readers discovered the reason Klein
wants to remove the term limits is to permit him to illegally remain in office
longer so he will receive an illegal pension for remaining on the council for
longer than the law permits. This is jusr one of 1000s (yes, THOUSANDS) of
[potential] criminal acts perpetrated on Palo Alto by both its city offices
and its city council.

You should remove your blinders and look around (assuming you live in Palo
Alto). I frankly don't care about Palo Alto except when it concerns my best
friend;s family who lives there in the Barron Park neighborhood. I read the
Palo Alto Online mostly for entertainment but there's generally more verifiable
information in its Reader Comments section than one sees in the article(s).

Deal with it.
Post by Peter Lawrence
Note that the 20-story building slated for 27 University was nixed and
is no longer on the table. That whole development has been shelved for
the time being. And my point is simply that the Palo Alto City Council
isn't corrupt (and supporting the elimination of term limits doesn't
mean that a politician is corrupt either, BTW).
I wasn't aware that also the remaining proposal for just 10 stories was
also shelved. Point being, the city council itself wasted a tremendous
amount of its own time on this issue which suckered Palo Alto residents
into wasting their time protesting the effort. Palo Alto's city council
has mush for brains and is not dealing with a full deck. I'm unimpressed
also with Los Altos', Mountain View's, Sunnyvale's, and Santa Clara's
city governments and city councils for much the same reasons.
Post by Peter Lawrence
I'm not saying that they're competent and do their job well, because
they don't. And I will reiterate that a number of the city staff are
corrupt and try to push through sweetheart deals for the developers in
exchange for future employment by the developers. But the Council
itself is just incompetent and at times naive. But none of them have
gained financially on any of the ill-advised development plans they have
foolishly approved.
You're so wrong on that [certain members of Palo Alto's city government
and city council not having gained]. Reader Comments on 100s of articles
describe the under-the-counter deals and more and no one has yet been sued
for libel or slander which means the truth has been revealed in the Reader
Comments. Klein's scam scheme to illegally make him eligible for a pension
for his time on the city council is just the tip of the iceberg. BTW, though
not a salary, the Palo Alto city council members do receive an unspecified
stipend so it's not like they're performing their dastardly deeds for free.

Palo Alto residents need to learn to bend over and grab their ankles -- it's
coming in hard. Most [if not all] cities and California itself are so
corrupt there isn't enough jail space for all the miscreants should anyone
have the guts, monies and time to arrest, try, convict, and punish all the
wrongdoers.

Thad
Peter Lawrence
2014-09-17 22:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
BTW, though
not a salary, the Palo Alto city council members do receive an unspecified
stipend so it's not like they're performing their dastardly deeds for free.
I never stated that, in fact I had already stated (in my first post on this
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Peter Lawrence
Nor do Palo Alto council members draw a salary, let alone a pension. They
do get, currently, a monthly stipend of $600. Wow!
If you can't remember what I recently wrote, there is no point for me to
continue discussing this topic further. I really don't want to have to
repeat myself, pointing out the obvious.


- Peter
Bhairitu
2014-09-13 19:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
They were going to put in a tower disguised as a fir tree. The neighbors
were in an uproar but I think the city council was going to approve but it
was scuttled by the attempted AT&T takeover.
Cities almost always side with the cell companies. The objections are
usually from the bogus "radiation" wackos. Since city councils are used to
hearing from wackos on every topic imaginable, they usually ignore them.
I had Verizon at the time so didn't care about a tower and if I had I
would have asked neighbors at the council meeting for a show of hands of
those with wifi routers in their home.
Keith Keller
2014-09-11 20:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I need wifi up at the house because cellular reception is poor.
So turn it on at home, and turn it off when you leave. Android has a
bunch of widgets for this purpose if you don't want to hunt down in
system settings.

--keith
--
kkeller-***@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Bhairitu
2014-09-12 18:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Keith Keller
I need wifi up at the house because cellular reception is poor.
So turn it on at home, and turn it off when you leave. Android has a
bunch of widgets for this purpose if you don't want to hunt down in
system settings.
--keith
Why bother? The only time there is a problem is when I'm at Starbucks
and that only started recently.
Loading...