katster: (Default)
[personal profile] katster
This article was amusing.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=telecom18.127.7%40telecom-digest.org

Steve Wozniak and his quest for the perfect phone number...but it doesn't work out in *quite* the way you'd expect.

Date: 2002-03-26 07:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjdoyle.livejournal.com
It was a good article, but I had to wonder - wouldn't the "0" key be the lowest one on the keypad? And they'd've been as likely to dial 777-7777 and 999-9999 as well.

But it was still a cool article. :)

Date: 2002-03-26 07:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fearghaill.livejournal.com
yes, as many would have been likely to dial those other numbers, but they wouldn't have gotten anything. His is the only single-repeating phone number available in the U.S. . While any other xxx-xxxx number would result in nothing, the ones that pressed '8' seven times would get his number.

Re:

Date: 2002-03-26 08:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjdoyle.livejournal.com
Erm. Good point. I had forgotten about the exchange. But anyone dialing 000-000-0000 would still get the operator. :)

My comment was more that the kids weren't hitting the number because the 8 key was super-accessible or something. They'd really be as likely to hit any of the keys.

Date: 2002-03-27 12:25 pm (UTC)
kuangning: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kuangning
Actually, given the shape of the traditional telephones, and the fact that the phone was almost certain to be at a level little hands could barely reach, the keys at the bottom of the keypad are more accessible. And, if I recall correctly, the 8 sits right in the middle of its row... I'm quite willing to bet it is more likely to be the key the babies would press. :)

Re:

Date: 2002-03-27 12:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cjdoyle.livejournal.com
For some stupid reason I'm not willing to give this point up. :)

The bottom two rows of a standard telephone most likely look like this:

7 8 9
* 0 #

I'm thinking it'd be a lot more likely for the kid to hit 0 than 8.

But those babies are just out to get me, I tell ya!

Re:

Date: 2002-03-27 02:26 pm (UTC)
kuangning: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kuangning
True enough. And I guess there isn't any way to tell how many times it was one of the other keys that was pressed (a "how many times do the operators get calls from babies" report?) I still think, though, that 8 had to be one of the easiest keys, maybe even second only to 0... (splayed hand, middle finger has best reach, maybe curvature of the palm let them skip the 0?) I'm curious now, but I think that curiosity's doomed to go unsatisfied. :)

Note

My main blog is kept at retstak.org. I mirror posts to this Dreamwidth account, so feel free to read and comment either here or there.

November 2020

S M T W T F S
1234 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 15th, 2026 10:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios