I'm just barely old enough to remember that my childhood telephone number was like that, something like "Barrymore 7-1234" where "Barrymore" indicated the first two numbers of the exchange. Long gone, that convention.
And I remember first discovering by experiment that all a rotary phone does is put a counted number of clicks onto the line - and that I could "dial" a number equally well by just tapping on the receiver to simulate the clicks. <tap><tap><tap> ... <tap><tap><tap><tap> ... <tap> ... <tap><tap><tap><tap><tap> ... <tap> ... <tap><tap><tap><tap> ... <tap><tap><tap><tap><tap><tap><tap><tap><tap> dialed 341-5149 just fine. I imagine that still works, though I haven't tried it. Backward compatibility still reigns, doesn't it? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* A lie goes half way round the world before the truth can get its pants on. -- Winston Churchill */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 14:44 Maybe my problem is hereditary! My mom in La Mirada, California still has a working rotary dial phone hanging on the wall. I believe it doesn't even belong to her - they probably add a few dollars to the bill for rent. Printed in the center of the dial is the phone number, "LA-1 xxxx" which I always knew as "Lawrence 1". She has a cell phone too, thanks to some pressure a few years back. --- On 2/28/2020 11:12 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: > Well, how about a rotary dial cell phone? > https://gizmodo.com/someone-built-a-distraction-free-cellphone-with-a-worki-1841636089 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
