Skip to main content

PostCode

Steve got a letter delivered from the UK to here in Aus with only a street name as an address.

It’s not international, but back when we were living down at the farm, I’ve had mail delivered which was posted to “Brooks 6326”, the latter being the postcode for Narrikup, the more-or-less shire which delivered our mail back then.

It turns out that there is one other Brooks property in their delivery area, but with nobody living on it at the time (they lived in Albany) all they were getting for the others was formally-addressed official letters, which made it easy to decide what the one word in addition to the postcode indicated.

Either way, I was impressed to get mail with a one-number address correctly delivered. I did hear, years ago, of a lass getting a letter delivered to “<name>, City Beach” delivered. Some postal pixie had also scrawled “try Australia” on this one. I guess Australia counts as WTF-land for mail?

Being postie for Mount Barker (WA) was interesting, as lots of streets had similar names (e.g. Osborne St crossed Ormond Rd) with inevitable results, & Mount Barker (SA) had some similar street names. I learned where to deliver mail with unit numbers on it — addressed to streets without units on them — & to have people on the outer limits of my round treat their mailboxes as RMBs, doing stuff like clipping on pieces of outbound mail for me to pick up as I passed.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have first hand evidence of an ISP's customer being asked to "mail it to support@isp-in-question.com.au.

An enveloped snail-mail letter was subsequently received addressed simply to -- you guessed it -- support@isp-in-question.com.au

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...