phones sigh

i wotever, sounds like your calls are actually going through voicemail. Take alook at the following and try the disable codes on your phone.

Here’s how it’s done:

To enable voicemail:
*61*101**30# Divert to 101 when unanswered after 30 seconds
*62*101# Divert to 101 when unreachable
*67*101# Divert to 101 when busy
*21*101# Divert all calls to 101

To disable voicemail:
#61# Cancel divert when unanswered
#62# Cancel divert when unreachable
#67# Cancel divert when busy
#002# Cancel all diverts

I spent many hours searching for this last night. This thread was the #1 result in Google searches for “Telstra Call Forward codes”, and many of the pages on the Telstra site which deal with call forwarding didn’t show up on Google until the 6th or 7th page. So I thought it would be best to post the actual forward codes in this thread to help anyone else in the future.

To summarize:

Turn on Call Forward: **code*(phone number to forward calls to, including area code)*10#
Turn off call Forward: ##code**10#
Check if forwarding is on: *#code#

Where: “code” is:
21 for “All calls”
61 for “No answer”
62 for “Unreachable”, ie “out of coverage”
67 for “Busy”

Specifically for “no answer”, you can set the duration your phone rings before it diverts using the the following:
**61*(phone number to forward calls to, including area code)**(number of seconds)#

This was compiled from the following Telstra pages (though I will point out that none of the pages mention the “unreachable” diversion – this oversight should be corrected):…

View solution in original post

Italian Story

C’era una Volta tre animale si trovano perduto nella bosca. C’erano un cangaru,un wombat u una rana verde dell’alberi.
“Il mio boomerang non ha ritornato” lamentarsi il cangaru con lacrime nel suoi occhi.
“Non fretta “ dice il wombat. “Comprero un nuovo quando torniamo a casa“
“Ma dov’e i nuoi casa“ urlo la piccola rana.”Non la vedo “

“Non ti fretta” dice il wombat ancora.” Stai placida”.
“di un piano”.
“Guarda questa collina davanti” ha detto.
“Cercheriamo di la.
Ma i alberi hanno bloccato il suo visione.
“Fammi aiutare”ha preghato il wombatche era scimmiando sul spalle del cangaru, ma i rami e fogli erano nella via.
La piccola rana ha salvuto il giornata.
Ha saltato nel capo del wombat e ha veduto il tetto rossa della loro casa lontano fa.

Il messagio e semplice quello.
Senta alla rana sempre.

Other endings are possible but hard to say.
We can see further standing on the shoulders of giants.
Three heads are better than one.
Things work out when everyone helps.
Can you make up a moral for this story as well?

Italian Story Corrected
C’erano una volta tre animali si trovavano perduti nel bosco. C’erano un cangaro, un wombat e una raganella verde.
“Il mio boomerang non è ritornato” lamentava il cangaro con lacrime agli occhi.
“Non c’è fretta “ disse il wombat. “Ne comprerò uno nuovo quando torniamo a casa“.
“Ma dov’è la nostra casa“ urlò la piccola rana. ”Non la vedo “
“Non c’è fretta” disse il wombat di nuovo.
”Stai calma”
“Ho un piano”.
“Guarda questa collina davanti” disse.
“Cercheriamo là
Ma gli alberi bloccavano la sua veduto.
“Aiutami” ha preghato il wombat che si era arrampicato sul spalle del cangaro, ma i rami e le foglie ostacolavano la veduta.
La piccola rana salvò la giornata.
È saltata sul capo del wombat e ha veduto il tetto rosso della loro casa lontana. “Andiamo”.
Il messagio è semplice.
Ascoltare sempre la raganella.
I cannot think of an Italian saying that would have the same meaning (Lelia)
Other endings are possible but hard to say.
We can see further standing on the shoulders of giants.
Three heads are better than one.
Things work out when everyone helps.
Can you make up a moral for this story as well?

Once upon a time there were three animals who found themselves lost in the woods. There were a kangaroo, a wombat and a green tree frog.
“My boomerang didn’t come back” complained the kangaroo with tears in it’s eyes.
“Don’t worry”” said the wombat, I will buy you a new one when we get back home.
“But where is our house?”cried the little frog. “I do not see it”.
“Dont worry” said the wombat again.”Stay calm. I have a plan”
“See that hill in front” he said.
We will search [from] there””.
But the trees blocked his view [blocked him from seeing it?].
Help me” he asked the wombat who climbed on the shoulders of the kangaroo, but the branches and leaves blocked the view.
The little frog saved the day.
He jumped on the head of the wombat and saw the red roof of their house far away.
The message is simple.
Always listen to the tree frog.
Don’t go into the woods without a back up frog.
Boomerangs do not always return.
Jump around a lot when you get into trouble.
Have a house that you can easily identify [Isle of Burano story.]
It wont surprise you that Burano is famous for seafood.
The most popular place to eat seafood in Burano is Trattoria al Gatto Nero on Via Giudecca 88.

Are you looking for Causation or Blame?

I get the point that there are
Events caused by Anthropogenic effects
Events caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change
and that the general effect of the latter will cause more harm than the more localised effect of the former.

Attribution of either is complicated leading to a moral and scientific issue.
Are you looking for Causation or Blame?
One is a scientific approach and one a moral approach.

One can of course do both, find a cause and find blame in the same event.
This is helped by using story line approaches as they incorporate a moral lesson in their very definition.
“given that an event has occurred, how might climate change have influenced this event?”

“The claim is that in trying to separate the human influence from the natural variability of weather, extreme event attribution creates a new nature-culture divide.”
People have looked for causation in weather for ever. A rare event, did something I did cause that weather effect? People have always wanted to attribute causation and blame their actions or lack of them to explain misfortunes and occasionally good luck.
Once you attribute Blame or Causation to human action you open a divide between those who want to believe [naturalists] and those who want to understand [culture/science].

“The problem here is that extreme event attribution typically tries to understand how the event might be different because of anthropogenic-driven climate change,”
Even here what you are saying is that extreme events are natural and that in your view human causation might make it worse.
I say worse because if human causation ever made things better you would not feel concerned to investigate it further.
Hence the problem of trying to prove that rare extreme events are ever capable of offering proof of climate warming.
“if we don’t distinguish between natural and anthropogenic influences, how do you then avoid people simply concluding that it’s natural, or using this to argue that it’s natural?”
Hence the crux of the matter, do we tell them a story line to emphasis how bad we believe it may be and only choose, always, the bad side of that story line for emphasis?
– Or do we tell them the truth.

There will be a number of consequences that will become self evident in time.
We cannot prove this conclusively now but believe it to be so.
We are working on improving our attribution to everyone’s satisfaction.
We are not looking to blame or shame anyone.


angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 6, 2020 at 11:35 pm
ATTP are we reading this the same way?

“The key results are that for long-timescales (many decades) internal variability contributes little to the total uncertainty (essentially, it averages out).”

I do not see this as the key finding, rather a statement of the parameters being put in.
By definition internal variability is defined as fluctuations around some predetermined real value.
As time goes by the fluctuations balance out and the true value is revealed shed of dross. In other words it must always reduce to zero

Atomsk’s Sanakan @AtomsksSanakan. May 27
“Update thread citing published studies, along with comments debunking Judith Curry’s cherry-picking in the service of ideologically-motivated denialism on hydroxychloroquine:“

Missing in action. Why?
Lancelet study Chloroquine Debunked
New England Journal of medicine. Debunked same author

Most of the studies you quote have been extremely hastily put together with pal not peer review and rushed into print.
They all have massive flaws consequent.
As they fall apart, one by one, will you guarantee to return here and issue a mea culpa for your mudslinging?

The fact that you’re still willfully ignoring the fact that previously reputable Journals have thrown science out the window is expected from a committed ideologue.

How to redeem a scrap of integrity, if you ever wanted.
Be more skeptical in the right way.
Put up lists of both sides.
Just for fun and fairness.
There are papers out there for hydroxychloroquine.
Give their references too.

As an aside, Atom, I was extremely unbelieving at first based on my medical training. Chloroquine was an antimalarial drug. And a cramp treatment.
Viruses and bacteria or parasites are extremely different and require different mechanisms of treatment.
The medications being for totally different reasons would normally never treat both types of life forms.
My rationale for non belief was based on science, what I had been taught up until that moment.

That changed when I learnt of the mechanisms of interfering with viral RNA reproduction in cells. Scientifically proven.
Are you aware of that?
Of course you are, petal.
Research dating back to 2004 or earlier as an antiviral.
Are you aware of that?
If not, why not?

Why knock the study of it as a helpful treatment when we have precious little else?
You show a great interest in scientific topics.
You certainly have a skeptical mind, with blinkers on.

If the drug does work you would have to thank Trump for helping promote it.
Guess your attitude is best summed up by better millions die than Trump gets any credit, even if vicarious ( He did not invent it though he might take credit).
What a great and commendable attitude, man. / credentials can be used.

Arctic Ice

I find the the trend in sea ice age over the last ten years or so a conceptually difficult metric.
Ine of the problems as I have mentioned before is that the less ice you have to start with the less the percentage of multi year ice appears to be in a good recovery year.
Counter intuitively this means that years with low percentage multi year ice are actually making good recoveries.
This might help explain the contradiction between a 10 year pause in ice volumes, sought of a recovery in a way from the previous high falls and a downwards trend in multi year ice for 10 years which also fits in with recovering, not diminishing ice in the Arctic?

In defense of Roger Pielke jun

I get the drift that the scenario itself is not the outcome
and that the scenario does not have to be real.
and that therefore, a scenario may not be a prediction, only a conditional prediction.

The problem is that you cannot usefully cleave [split] a scenario and a prediction in this way without losing the meaning of both words.

For your analogy I agree that one does not usually try to prove the precept is wrong to show that the outcome is wrong.
That is because a precept or scenario is not falsifiable, You determine the input.
If one uses a different input one would would have to put up a different output.
A scenario can only be a scenario if it is predicating [and hence predicting] a future outcome.

If the situation the scenario is attempting to mimic is shown by time to be different to the assumptions you used that is not a failure of the scenario.
Reality is a different scenario and you cannot falsify either by comparing the outcomes.

RP and I have never tried ” to claim a conditional projection failed, since they claim a predicted scenario didn’t occur.”
It is wrong to say that.
A more apt analogy would be that the child placed it’s hand on the hot stove and it did not burn.

In this case the fact that you claimed the stove was hot enough to burn the child’s hand is wrong.
You did not put enough wood in the fire [wrong assumptions] or did not light the match [check the starting conditions were as you said] or did not run it long enough [dodgy thermometers].

I do not mind people bagging my arguments but I do mind people bagging their opponents unjustly.
Fair enough with me, i make misunderstandings.
Roger Pielke is a true scientist, brought up in a scientific family and background and does not make basic misunderstandings of scenario’s and it is just plain wrong to say that he does.

“If there’s warming then I think you still need some kind of flux imbalance. My understanding is that quite soon after a perturbation (say, an increase in atmospheric CO2) the LW fluxes can return to balance, but the cloud feedback leads to an imbalance in the SW fluxes, which then dominates the subsequent warming.”
izen “The increase in surface temperature is a result in the greater thermalisation of OLR from the surface in the lower layers of the atmosphere, not in a imbalance in the energy flux for the whole system.”

“If there’s warming then I think you still need some kind of flux imbalance” This bit is very true but emphasises the problem raised by Izen.
If warming is occurring there must be a flux imbalance.
We see this every day when the sun comes up. The GHG concentration does not change **[much] but the atmosphere heats up and the radiating layer goes much further outward.
So some energy has been garnished from the sun and thermalised.

But what happens when the heat input stabilizes say just after midday[** more provisos].
For a short period of tome the energy in equals the energy out as everything is in balance.
Then the radiating layer contracts as the atmosphere cools.

Does the CO2 level affect this pattern? No [* more provisos].
What it does affect though is the amount of atmospheric thermalisation that day.
The atmosphere will be warmer with more CO2 in it.
Not in 100 years but at that lovely moment of equibrilation.
Which occurs every day, usually after midday, though it might occur several times around that time due to albedo cloud changes.

ATTP “quite soon after a perturbation (say, an increase in atmospheric CO2) the LW fluxes can return to balance,”
” but the cloud feedback leads to an imbalance in the SW fluxes, which then dominates the subsequent warming.”

Not sure of this. Feedbacks occur including clouds which is more part of the expected imbalance due to the change in incoming heat.
The SW fluxes can only be variable due to the variable albedo? They temporarily alter the actual heat input which is why you might have several moments of equilibrium usually after midday. The longterm feedback effect amplification is more due to increased GHG [water vapour] in the air raising the ECS not the SW effects.

What responsibility, Doc

Joshua says:
“At any rate – the point being to respect the uncertainty, until we have better data.”
Why start now?
It is a bit late.
Plus it is more than the data,
Every Pandemic presents something novel so past experience does not guide future results.
What was that story about the fellow with the lion on the loose.
Sometimes you have to respect the uncertainty,
Sometimes you have to run. April 28, 2020 at 3:31 am

Mal Adapted
What responsibility, Doc? What are your expectations of scientists? What do you expect from yourself, your family, your neighbors, your country? Just who is responsible for AGW?
IMO, your comment reveals how alien the culture of science is to you.

The line
” d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility,” came from Bete Noir, R.P. Who also said,
“As a consequence, the climate research community is presently off-track. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked.”

I added “Not to mention a vacuum of responsibility.”.
I fail to see the difference between what he is saying and what I appended, if something is used in a non plausible fashion it is being used irresponsibly.

Very difficult to answer questions about responsibility. It tends to get conflated with blame [responsibility for doing something wrong].
Do you want me to be responsible? I.e. Do things the way you want me to do them.
Do you want me to be responsible . I.e. the cause of AGW? [ or Collectively with skeptics or with humanity?].

I think you have asked a very important question epistemologically.
I do understand where you are coming from, a genuine care for the world.


In summary we have basically learned or revised the game in the best way.
By playing hands with other people, making mistakes and testing the rules.
It is a great card game, a little complicated by those darn Jacks or Bowers  and by those people who insist on trying Misere.

I hope we can get back up running in the near future.
We have had 30 people through who now know each other a little better. I would hope that some of you can contact others and have some games at home perhaps.

Today we are giving out some small prizes to those lucky people who first call and make 10 of a suit contract, a misere or a No trump bid at the 7 level. There will also be a prize for the person who first picks up a Joker and a bower in their suit contract.

In summary, be bold if you can. Give other people a chance and bid 6 spades in opening position if you have nothing to bid, at least your partner will not get carried away.
4 top cards eg AK, AK, with a joker to bid 6 No Trumps.
5 in a suit with a joker or bower and an outside ace to call a trump suit at the 6 level.
You cannot bid Misere after passing or if the 7 level has not been reached.

Today’s lesson was to be on “Finessing” or trapping an opponents king when you hold the A and Queen. You should lead another suit to partner asking for a lead back in the next suit up if they ever get in.

Lead a spade if you want a club lead, lead a cub for a diamond , a diamond for a heart and a heart for a spade.