Re: CHAT: postcodes

Padraic Brown scripsit:

> Also, the area code system doesn't place similar codes
> next to each other the way our zip codes are done.
Indeed, it systematically did the opposite as long as possible.
For example, 212 was New York (it is now Manhattan only) and
213, Los Angeles.  Furthermore, the largest cities were assigned
to the lower digits (reckoning 0 as the *highest* rather than
the lowest digit, in accordance with the behavior of dial-pulse
telephones).

> The old system of telephone exchanges was neat. The
> first two letters of your telephone number represented
> a name, which was the exchange name.
Since 0 and 1 were not assigned to any letters, they traditionally
(until 1995) didn't appear at the beginning of a telephone number;
therefore all area codes until that date were of the form N0X or N1X,
where N = 2-9 and X = 0-9.

The worst continuing annoyance of the U.S. phone system is that
to call any given number, one must dial either a 7-digit number or 1 followed
by a 10-digit number, and if one works the other doesn't.  Why
give us an annoying "You do not need to dial 1 + area code to reah
that number" recording instead of just connecting the call?
(This is not true of mobiles, however.)

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      jcowan@reutershealth.com
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

Replies