Slashdot Mirror
Cell-Phone Wars
Makarand writes "According to this article in the Houston Chronicle people
fed up with cell phone chatter have declared
war against cell phones.
They are arming themselves with detectors, jammers and other gizmos to defend privacy,
security, sanity and blissful silence. Although jamming cell phones is not
legal in the US, pocket-sized jammers are available online and even on
eBay. Cell-phone jammers typically work by disrupting
the communication between handsets and cellular towers
by flooding an area with interference
or selectively blocking signals by broadcasting on frequencies
used by these phones. The FCC
has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones
and has never taken action against anyone for that violation."
The 'Safe Haven' system by Iceberg is not a camera phone jammer.
It's basically a feature that needs to be built into the phone. When it receives a certain signal it disables the camera. Iceberg claim it could be used for laptops and PDA's but neglect to mention that disabling the technology would be trivial for any determined pervert.
The complaints over camera phones are pretty idiotic anyway. The determined pervert could just use a tiny camera if they really wanted to take photo's anywhere.
I'm not paying Nokia et al to integrate technology that selectively disables my phone. It reminds me the recent debacle about printers with built in mechanisms to defeat currency copying. I'd rather Nokia and HP spent their time working on useful new features than trying to nursemaid me.
If you are worried about someone taking your photo in the locker room, that is your problem.
The act of jamming a cell phone is illegal no matter where you are, even on your own property. Simply put, it's transmitting on a licensed frequency without a license to do so.
Cell phone companies hold the licenses to any frequency being used for cell phones, and that license extends to their subscribers for using the service only. If you're jamming, you don't have permission to transmit on that frequency, and that's where the FCC can come down on you.
It's about respect for your fellow person...starting with the one in front of you!!! I can understand the shopkeeper who deals with this 50 times a day. people come to your shop and you can't give good service because they interrupt your transaction with them for the phone....and OFTEN have the nerve to get mad at YOU "because you're taking too long!" Not to mention disrupting other customers patiently standing in line with loud disagreements, or lack of attention to what's going on around them. It's a menace!!!
That said, jamming or blocking phones isn't the answer, it just makes people ruder! Cell phones have spread the general problem of computers to the masses...computers have allowed businesses to micromanage and interrupt business plans on moment's notice...cell phones allow thoses same types of people to deal with everything NOW...instead of budgeting their time and attention to allow their responsibilites to be properly performed...And THAT is the bigger problem with "instant everything"!!
The main tool to fight this would be better voicemail/sms messages...allowing people to be notified of messages, but keep the phone off until they can give proper attention, those tools are available, but still don't work that well for every minute use. Businesses with "quiet, private places" for phone conversations would help too...they wiped out most phone booths about 10 years ago and didn't replace the "space" to make communications in.
The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive. The 2 minutes it takes to get outside the jamming range or find a land line phone may be 2 minutes more than someone has.
The good news is that they're putting automatic defibrilators in airports and malls, which are saving lives everyday.
-B
Absolutely not. CPR keeps blood moving in the body in a forced way, very dissimiliar to the heart's natural movement. CPR aims to keep that person revivable by spreading oxygenated blood around the body - it has an approaching zero chance of actually reviving someone. For someone experiencing a cardiac arrest, the most important action that can be taken is early defib. The parent is correct - these AED devices are going everywhere and they are so easy to use that an average 8 year old can successfully use them if need be. True story - I have seen someone defibed who was without a pulse for around 5 minutes, within 20 seconds he was talking and fully aware. AEDs are that effective. I have NEVER seen anyone regain their pulse after CPR - it simply does not happen.
I don't know about US networks, but in the GSM network, emergency calls (112) have to get through even if you are on a different network, or haven't paid your subscription.
AFAIK, US is the same - in fact there are charities that will collect old, in-active, cell phones for use as portable 911 (our emergency number) phones.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
How did this get modded +5 Informative?
AEDs are not a magic bullet. AEDs are only effective for two *specific* types of cardiac arrest: v-tach and v-fib. They are not definitely NOT a substitute for CPR. While you may have witnessed a miracle case, recussitation usually requires drugs and constant airflow in addition to shocks.
It is *essential* to keep the oxygenated blood moving to the brain to prevent tissue death (via CPR), until the paramedics arrive. As the grandparent poster said, The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive.