executive telephone

Our Numbered Days: The Evolution of the Area Code

In the mid-20th century, in response to the United States’ rapidly expanding telephone network, executives at Bell System introduced a new way of dialing the phone. Until then, for the most part, it was human operators—mostly women—who had directed calls to their destinations.

Dialing systems had reflected this reliance on the vocal cord. Phone numbers weren’t numbers; they were alphanumeric addresses, named after phone exchanges that encompassed particular geographic areas. The Elizabeth Taylor movie Butterfield 8 gets its name from that system: The Butterfield exchange served the tony establishments of Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, should you care to call them, could be reached with a request for “Murray Hill 5-9975." 

That system evolved, slowly. In 1955, AT&T—after it researched ways to minimize misunderstandings when it came to spoken phone directions—distributed a list of recommended exchange names featuring standardized abbreviations. (Butterfield 8 would have become, under that system, BU-8; Murray Hill 5-9975 reduced to, simply, MU 5-9975.) But engineers at Bell had been conducting their own research into the scalability of the name-and-number system. They had ambitions to expand the national phone network; their own research had concluded, among other things, that the country could not supply enough working women to meet its growing demand for human operators. Automation, the company concluded, would be the future of telephony. And "All-Number Calling"—no names, anymore, just digits—would be the way to get there.

Read more. [Image: Library of Congress]

bonesofglory  asked:

a girl I know who was once deeply spiritual has converted to Christianity and her entire demeanor/aura has changed into something a little bit nasty. her new profound faith in Christ has steered her to believe something which I found hysterical: she mentioned the new age spirituality is the sly/conniving/disguised works of Satan. I was wondering if you could just address that. I'm simply innocently curious is all. btw, your blog is so rejuvenating! I hope all is well yogi :)

I’m skeptical of Satanizing anything, whether that be your friend criticizing new age spirituality or you finding someone’s faith in Christ to be hysterical.

To me, it is rather evident that Jesus was a realized human who brought profound spiritual teachings to his time and place. However, every quote attributed to Jesus in which Satan is mentioned seems like a hack job rewrite compared to his other attributed sayings.

The Bible itself is like a poorly executed game of telephone played across the centuries. To take the Bible as literal truth is like taking the movie ‘Troy’ to be historically accurate. 

I don’t think Satan was an actual original teaching of Jesus and if it were then it is a metaphorical teaching meant for the minds of that time period rather than a statement of fact that necessitates belief and dogma. 

To my eye, the institutionalized religions descended from Jesus’ lineage do little else besides parade around the corpse of a book. It may be best for those of sincere heart to take Jesus as their master, themselves as Jesus’ disciples, and to follow his advice by allowing “the dead to bury the dead.”

The Christ has not gone anywhere so why take a book filled with dead words over his living presence? 

Once the divine is known directly without words, the question and confliction regarding different paths is no more.

Namaste :)