Slashdot Mirror


The Universal Off Button

jcr13 writes "Wired news is running a story about TV-B-Gone, a new weapon in the fight against the pervasiveness of television in our society. With this device, which takes the form of a keychain fob with a single button, you can turn off virtually any TV set. How does it work? By rolling through all known IR power-off codes, one by one, trying codes from the most popular brands first. Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions. Unfortunately, the TV-B-Gone website seems to have already been swamped by the Wired coverage, so we cannot order these just yet. In the mean time, those of you with DIY proclivities may want to think about wiring one of these up yourself using a PIC chip or other micro-controller." An anonymous reader adds links to mentions at CNET, TV station KESQ and Ananova.

1,169 comments

  1. Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I need a Universal On button remote... it'll be like a battle between good and evil, light and dark.

    1. Re:Now by NemosomeN · · Score: 5, Informative

      It sends a "power" signal. In essence, it is a universal on remote. I've never seen anything with a button that turns a tv off but not on (though I have [and own] a vcr that has an on-only button and a on-off button).

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    2. Re:Now by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I used to have one of those digital watches, that had a remote control built in that would control on/off/channel changing on tvs and functions on VCR's. You'd just point the watch at the unit..and cycle through the different codes manually. Once you locked on..the fun began.

      We had more fun one time in a bar...a bunch of us were in there drinking..barmaid came out and we asked that the channel on the main tv be turned to a game. She'd flip the remote...I'd flip the channel back with my watch...she go, I'd go...we'd go through this periodically...she couldn't figure out why the tv was acting so weird. At one point, we had her so confused, we actually got her to take the batteries out of the remote...and try it that way. "Magically" it worked properly..when she'd click a button, I'd do it from my watch.

      I don't think we'd all ever laughed so hard. In the end we tipped the poor girl so much money to make up for it...but, man, that was fun. I think we tipped her near $200 or so...it was worth it.

      But, always was useful...go into a bar...turn the volume how you like it...change the channel to what you want to watch. I need to find that damned thing, get some new batteries and see if it still works.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masking tape over the IR reciever anyone?

    4. Re:Now by Apiakun · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of prank kids used to use in my and undoubtedly countless other high schools. If a class was showing a film, someone would steal the tv remote after the first class, then pass it to someone in the second class, and so on. It took a while for the teacher to catch on to why the tv kept turning off. It's also a great way to ensure that you're not going to be watching any films in the near future...

    5. Re:Now by gnuLNX · · Score: 1, Funny

      "I think we tipped her near $200"

      Wow next time you need a waiter...look me up!

      --
      what?
    6. Re:Now by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hey, just simple clean fun in a bar. I forgot to mention at the time most all of us we either servers or bartenders ourselves. Whe showed her what we were doing at the end...and she got a good laugh out of it too.

      Sometimes simple fun is the best...lighten up and bit and let your sense of humor loose...

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Now by The+Spoonman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never seen anything with a button that turns a tv off but not on

      Most modern IR-controlled electronics have discrete On and Off signals, they're just generally not used. Some remotes, such as those from One-For-All support these discrete codes. They're very useful for setting up macros. For example, one of my macros is set to send "On to TV, Input 2 to TV, On to Amp, On to DVD" if I want to watch DVDs. If I used the generic "Power" button, I couldn't use this macro when I was already watching TV because it would turn off the TV and the amp, but turn on the DVD player. In a similar vein, I have a "System Off" macro that sends discrete off signals to every piece of equipment in my rack.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    8. Re:Now by tbase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, a good portion of A/V devices have what's called "discrete" on and off codes. Although not on the stock remote, when I got a Phillips Pronto and wanted to set up Macros for my home theatre, it became quickly apparent that I would need to be able to send an "on only" code, otherwise it would turn off a device that was already on. Same with "off"- If I'm watching the TV using the TV tuner, and the DSS receiver isn't on, I don't want it to turn the DSS on when I hit my "All Off" macro.

      Thankfully, it turns out that all my components bar one have discrete codes. It makes programming the remote for ease of use by non-geeks much easier. I just tell the wife and kid that if they hit "All Off" and the stereo is still on, hit it again.

      The article is vague in this respect, but in the closing paragraph it seems to indicate that the remote uses "Power" codes, not discrete "Off" codes.

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    9. Re:Now by IronChef · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did something similar in high school. We were suffering through some Shakespeare movie in the hated English teacher's class. The VCR in use was the same model as my girlfriend at the time owned. I had planned ahead and brought her remote with me. In the dark room it was trivial to make the VCR act up... pausing at random, that kind of thing.

      Mysteriously, the troubles would always clear up as soon as the teacher approached the VCR.

      By the end of the period she was fit to be tied.

      A silly prank, sure, but it still makes me laugh today to think about it. Unlike the waitress mentioned above, Mrs. Dunbridge never got a nice tip either!

    10. Re:Now by IgLou · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think this should have been modded as +1 Evil

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    11. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT, But..

      Don't ever use that Sybase CRAP advertised here. It doesn't support ANSI SQL, isn't particularly fast, and is generally crappy all round.

      Use Oracle, MySQL or PostgreSQL.

    12. Re:Now by bezbaq · · Score: 0

      The device will actually works as an "ON" switch as well, though it is for the "off" functionality that it is marketed.

    13. Re:Now by The+boojum · · Score: 1

      Bah! A real geek would have done it with an HP-48 calculator. /fond memories.

    14. Re:Now by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Interestingly, one of the kings of pranks and tech heroes, Steve Wozniak, used to annoy fellow students with a jammer device... and he invented a device very similar to that in the article, only it was built into a watch:
      I remember my first remote control watch. I could turn off TV's in stores and other places all the time, very discretely. My sons loved these.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:Now by Jeff321 · · Score: 1

      Alternate URL, although the bandwidth will probably die soon on this one too now that it's posted: http://www.megapathdsl.net/~mitch3/index.html

    16. Re:Now by Jeff321 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another alternate URL: http://cornfieldelectronics.com/

    17. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      good and evil, light and dark.

      You mean "good and evil, dark and light".

    18. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's also a great way to ensure that you're not going to be watching any films in the near future...

      You act like that's a GOOD thing! Man, film day was the best day for most classes. Consider:

      1) Lights down low, all the better for sleeping or at least getting away from the harsh fluorescents.
      2) A great passive activity that (if you're lucky) contains at least some music, or clever acting, or interesting/funny video.
      3) Takes up the whole class, and usually has a more interesting speaker than your regular teacher.

      The only drawback is that sometimes the teacher would have you take notes in order to answer a quiz at the end of the video. That was no fun at all.

      I'll never forget the time we had to watch Moonlighting's version of "The Taming of the Shrew" in English class...

    19. Re:Now by menscher · · Score: 4, Interesting
      A real geek would have done it with an HP-48 calculator.

      Been there, done that. Was useful in the dorms at college. When my roommate was playing his radio too loud, I'd just work out a calculation on my HP-48. White walls reflect the IR signal well, so I didn't even have to turn around to lower his volume a bit.

      Oh, and it was also helpful for controlling the TV in the lobby. Especially when there was something better on a different channel.

    20. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...and let your sense of humor loose"

      Man, I read that "lose" the first time. Guess I got conditioned to reading bad spelling on /.

    21. Re:Now by Nurgled · · Score: 3, Informative

      My TV has an off button which isn't a toggle. To turn it back on, you simply press a channel number.

    22. Re:Now by nartz · · Score: 1

      There are many palm-pilot programs out there. My friend and I had battles, his Palm III vs my Handspring Deluxe. With many you can select brand type or frequecy (whatever it is), or you can cycle through them all. I outranged him by almost 10 feet with my superior IR power. Though the teacher knew we were the nerds, and were immediately condemned by the smirks we held.

      All in good fun, of course (During Springer)

    23. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had to be sneaky with your calculator cos if you tried to touch his radio or the TV in the lobby you would have got your ass kicked.

    24. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the Taming. What about the Zeffirelli version of R&J? You know, the one that's technically kiddy porn because of the of (15-year-old!) Olivia Hussey?

    25. Re:Now by menscher · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nah. I learned how to deal with roommates. It's called learning to juggle. If you suck at juggling, but insist on attempting to juggle knives, your roommate will not be home much. (No, I'm not making this up.)

      Besides, it's fun when your roommate sees the volume knob rotating itself.

    26. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the waitress mentioned above, Mrs. Dunbridge never got a nice tip either!

      Ahh, so that was YOU. I'm going to have a talk with your father, young man.

      -Mrs. Dunbridge

    27. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle between good and evil!

      Do not solve a problem that isn't yours to solve. Look whats happening to the superpower that is trying to solve all worlds problems.

      Search for inner peace, you will be happier ;)

      Using technology to solve a problem created technology will not get your anywhere.

      On the other hand if there is a big business in selling this gadget, then by extension, there should be a big business in running a chain of quiet bars, restaraunts, airport lounges etc.

      A sound proof coffee anyone?

      http://half-in-jest.blogspot.com/

  2. Don't stop at just a power button by Patik · · Score: 5, Funny
    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to-- *MUTE*

    1. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1

      I agree. A universal 'mute' button would be a lot more useful.

    2. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I lust after a gadget that can disable those car stereos 'what got bump'.
      Actually, that problem could be corrected by an acoustic sensor/camera combination that would detect these idiots on the road and mail them a ticket.
      If they insist on flaunting their stupidity, they should pay dearly for the privilege.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by brunson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I want a picture of this "inventor" guy so I can snatch a magazine out of his hands at an airport or crank up a boombox next to his table at a restaurant, thus freeing him to sit in silence and think about his navel.

      Just another example of someone who knows what's good for me better than I do and feels the need to impose his beliefs on me.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    4. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      such a thing should also be possible on IR equiped, programable cell phones.

      h

    5. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Even better would be a remote operated gadget that could completely fry/burn/carbonize the entire sound system. As an added bonus, it should have the ability to remove the coffeee can ends from the exhaust pipes.

      Hit them where it hurts - in the wallet.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    6. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Mattintosh · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be much better just to hook those acoustic sensors (along with a motion sensor) up to remotely detonated mines. Place the mines as if they're manholes, notify everyone in the neighborhood to head for cover when they hear a "thump, thump, thump", and watch the 'tards fly.

      Now that's a noise ordnance! (Not the same as an ordinance, btw...)

    7. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by swordboy · · Score: 1

      And to think that the TVs will still be getting his attention because they'll be turning on and off continuously by the punk kid with the laser pointer.

      Now, TV manufacturers will just create a unique programming method for their remotes. What a pathetic waste of money.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    8. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and here i thought slashdot was all about "my car, my rules".

      "omg, they're gonna put a blackbox in my car? i have a god given right to drive however i want."

    9. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      yea I used to live on a street where such people would drive up and down with the bass cranked up so high, it would make all the parked cars alarms go off, leaving a chorus of high pitch noise in their wake.

      someone please massmarket HERF guns.

    10. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally think this would be very rude. If a place has a television on and I'm not wanting to watch it I wouldn't turn it off for everyone else. I would go somewhere else if it was really that big of a deal.

    11. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by kperson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ground is rough, but you don't require the whole planet to be covered in leather, you put on shoes. So when in the airport, use earplugs or your own audio source. And simply don't patronize restaurants that have an environment you don't enjoy (noise, smell, lighting, etc). It's quite arrogant to cram your wishes down the throat of everyone else, especially the OWNER of the TV and the establishment!

    12. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by seanmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean like this?

      It's in German, but if the google translation is correct, this device will the brothers many more subtly to the leather, once the elephant leaves the water. Which, of course, goes without saying.

    13. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hehehe...the Borla exhaust system of my car does this all the time. The engine note is so low it sets off alarms that are set too sensitive. It's not too loud...just very low.

      Amusing thing is...most of the cars I set of just don't look like a car with that much to protect...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by schemanista · · Score: 1

      I want acoustically-activated spike strips. About two and a half miles later, (b)asshat is driving on four flat tires.

      Either that, or some kind of narrow EMP which would fry all the (b)asshat's electronics, including his cell with its Justin Timberlake ring tone.

      --
      I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
    15. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by |/|/||| · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just another example of someone who knows what's good for me better than I do and feels the need to impose his beliefs on me.
      Wait a minute, I thought that was the problem that this is supposed to solve...

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    16. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Give this a try.

      -Peter

    17. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Even better would be a remote operated gadget that could completely fry/burn/carbonize the entire sound system.

      Wouldn't a quick Microwave burst aimed directly at the speakers do the trick?

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    18. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Seanasy · · Score: 1

      Please, add support for motorcycles with the ironic mufflers.

    19. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I lust after a gadget that can disable those car stereos 'what got bump'.

      With all of the modding stories I see on /. it surprises me that many /.ers dislike/make fun of people who mod their cars. It's been awhile since I put any large amounts of stereo equipment in someones car, but I always had a good time solving the custom problems that came up.

      It always amuses me to watch one sub-culture make fun of another.

    20. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just another example of someone who knows what's good for me better than I do and feels the need to impose his beliefs on me.

      Exactly, and as everyone knows that TV networks always have your well being in mind.

    21. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Kreebog · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thank you... this thing is going to be a horrible irritation :( The first person who turns off the TV on me while I'm trying to catch the weather at the airport is going to get punched in the face.

    22. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by slowhand · · Score: 0

      And from the "Jane, you ignorant slut" counterpoint department...
      I'd prefer a TV-B-ON button for those great G4-TV hours.%-)

      --
      Busy aligning my non-linear thoughts.
    23. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When my case mod wakes everyone up in a 3 mile radius of where it sits, then your comparison would be correct. Until that time, they're just a bunch of jerk kids waking me up at 2 am >;\

    24. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "I personally think this would be very rude. If a place has a television on and I'm not wanting to watch it I wouldn't turn it off for everyone else. I would go somewhere else if it was really that big of a deal."

      Fool! Stop bringing reality into this! </joke>

      Seriously, such things would only be used (by me) on TVs that are annoyances to everyone (like the stupid ones outside of exercise clubs) as opposed to asserting some sort of 'my preferences are better than yours' kind of attitude.

    25. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Just another example of someone who knows what's good for me better than I do and feels the need to impose his beliefs on me.

      But isn't that just what the guy is trying to avoid by turning off televisions? He wants to sit in a public place and not have the TV blairing at him the whole time.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    26. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      Not really, because the IR port on a mobile phone is designed for IrDA. You need to be able to toggle specific bit patterns to imitate remote controls.


      Incidentally, the remote central locking plips used for some Peugeot, Citroen, Renault and Rover cars uses a PIC12C08, with a minimum of external components. Well hackable...

    27. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or we could solve some social problems by blowing up the entire car, along with the person in it. Ever noticed that "ricers" are themselves very annoying obnoxious attention-seeking fucktards? Getting rid of them before they have a chance to reproduce would help society immensely.

    28. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Cipster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can I get one of those for my wife? I'd pay very well.

    29. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A paintball gun tends to get their attention. Personally I'd love to build a herf gun. I always wanted to lay into the car of one of those jackasses that would stop at the stoplight outside my apartment complex and crank up the bass. I swear I could see my alarm clock shaking. A herf gun would have made all the difference.

    30. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      It makes you want to be waiting around the next turn standing in the middle of the road with a 12-gauge in hand. "My music is louder than your's, punk. Dance, biatch."

    31. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by eqkivaro · · Score: 1

      what is an 'ironic' muffler?

    32. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      The real problem with those is that the IR LED isn't powerful enough, it's focused and of limited range.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    33. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Muad'Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Holy Moley! Do not make one of these! An 800W Magnetron into a splash-fed positive gain antenna? This may zap a stereo, but it'll harm people, too (especially the eyes). IF you do the math, 800W of 2450MHz RF into a 15 dBi antenna is 'safe' 47 feet from the antenna (in an uncontrolled environment). Even at 0 dBi (like in a sidelobe) the RF exposure exceeds the uncontrolled limit over 8 feet away.

      I would think a strong RF field in the audio range (somewhere around 8-15 KHz) would cause the stereo to self-destruct without harming people. An equivalent safe distance at 10KHz and a 0 dBi antenna requires a power level of 1.2 MW (!!!) Good luck getting 0 dBi of gain at 10 KHz.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    34. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with making fun of the actual mods themselves (ok, a rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car is an exception). I personally like some of the cars I've seen.

      What we (me at least) are annoyed about is that the vast majority of the folks who do the modding think that somehow by putting a rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car, adding a 6 billion watt stereo system, thin wheels, a tweaked engine chip and metallic paint makes them think that now they can go out and drive like the idiots we know them to be.

      As far as the whumping is concerned, you want to play your stereo as loud as you want, be my guest. Just don't do down a neighborhood street at 10 at night on weeknight. Go to some abandoned warehouse or drive to some out of the way place and crank it up.

      Don't think that by playing that crappy no rhythm 'music' that somehow you're 1337. You're not. You're just the typical wannabe who has no clue of what you're doing because 99.9% of the time you didn't even do the mods yourself. You paid someone to do it for you.

      As far as making fun of those type, yes I do. Especially in parking lots with speed bumps. While they have to creep over the bumps so they don't crumple their air dams on the front I'm driving around them and over the bump so the traffic jam they are creating doesn't get any larger. And no, I'm not the only one who drives around them.

      If they feel that whumping makes them important then I'm sure they won't mind me driving by their neighborhood at 7 in the morning with my death metal playing at similar levels.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    35. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      The device (car stereo) is not the thing causing the problem, it's the jackass using it at 2am. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. Noise ordinance laws usually have pretty hefty fines ($400-$500), and if it's as loud as you say as often as you say it shouldn't take very long for them to get caught.

      On a related note, they actually have a "no reving your motorcycle" law in the city I live near now. Cops love writing tickets to everyone on their choppers, heh.

    36. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      Black boxes are a problem beause they can be used to track you.

      Blowing out speakers is solving a public nuisance, if in an illegal and destructive fashion.

      Different things entirely.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    37. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Vr6dub · · Score: 1

      Sorry for being off subject but I have never seen a Harley or v8 car EVER get pulled over for noise violations nevermind the fact that some of these are 10 times louder than most import cars with their exhausts (which are a lot more annoying, but.....). Its automobile engine discrimination and I demand it be stopped!!!!! =)

    38. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm working on an exciting new way to make a huge shit in your yard. I hope you don't have a problem with my "modding" and my "freedom of personal expression".

    39. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speeding is a public nuisance to those who don't want to speed.

    40. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by mixmasterjake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might be valid to compare modded computers with, say, fancy tire rims. But, the souped-up audio systems impose themselves on everyone - even if you are nowhere near the car. Additionally, for some reason, it ususally seems to occur mostly at 2am.

      Not only that, but, as awesome as the music may sound inside the car, those of us on the outside only hear low-frequency rumble combined with the sound of the car frame shaking. I'm a musician and I love good, loud music. When I want to hear it, I go to a club or crank the stereo in my own home. But, waking up in the middle of the night to the sound of a car stereo system overloaded and distorted is just annoying.

      It's basically just an easy way for a muscle-neck jackass to proclaim "look how rude and annoying I am!" It's a power-trip because they have the ability to go around and create a big scene.

      --
      TODO: come up with a clever sig
    41. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      getting rear-ended at 88mph is more than a public nuisance. :)

    42. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      A loud one.

      But I can't help but agree with a shirt button I saw once..."Loud Pipes Save Lives"

    43. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are all thinking too complex, geeks. A simple alcohol bottle, old rag stuffed in neck, and a match. Light rag, toss at vehicle, and issue solved. Most importantly, don't forget to run.

    44. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But isn't that just what the guy is trying to avoid by turning off televisions? He wants to sit in a public place and not have the TV blairing at him the whole time.

      Try as I might, I can't think of a single public place that has a TV blaring in it. So what public places have a TV that would be affected by this device? The only public places I can think of a TV being are places with HUGE TV's that are controlled from a control room.

      Every other place I can think of that has a TV that would be affected by this is on private property. I believe you are confusing what constitutes a public place with being "out in public."

      If you don't like the TV's, then DON'T patronize those private properties. Simple as that. Switching off TV's that don't belong to you would probabaly be a misdemeanor in most places, if someone were to really push the issue.

    45. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are you, some kind of black hole that eats fun?

    46. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to turn her OFF?

      Lucky bastard!

    47. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So black boxes can be used to track you. Wow, we learn something new every day here on slashdot. Next time you have a car accident, be sure you're wearing your tin foil hat, cos the recording of your speed in the last 5 seconds, whether you hit the break or turned the wheels, can be used to track you. *Looking for black helicopters*

    48. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by meme_police · · Score: 1
      #1, That shit sounds like shit. #2, It's horribly offensive. Low frequency goes right through walls. At least when I play my car stereo loud it can barely be heard outside the car.

      I work at a TV station and every day at 5:15 some stupid ass thump thumper drives by and the whole newsroom shakes. And the street is 2 walls and 40 yards from the newsroom. During construction of our new news set (which is many walls away from the street and well soundproofed) all news was done from the newsroom and you could hear it on the newscasts.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

    49. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by karniv0re · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And you have to listen to it for how long? A minute at the longest stop light? If it bothers you, turn up your own stereo. That's what it's there for: To drown out annoying sounds of your brakes squeaking, engine dying, kids whining, and the rest of the outside world. I turn up my stereo's volume for that very reason. Honestly, what I find more annoying than someone else's music is motorcycles and trucks with the exhausts that have been purposely modified to rattle windows and set off car alarms. Those interrupt conversations and wake people up. Much more disrespectful than a loud car stereo. (For the record, I have not modified my car's stereo in any way.)

    50. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by pnutjam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or the guy that owns the bar will just cover the IR input with tape.

    51. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by prell · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that strong sound waves of low frequency would rarely wake you up, while less-strong sound waves of middle-to-high frequency would wake you up often. That is, I'd like to see whether a broken (or modified) muffler emitting a noise roughly equal in amplitude to a set of subwoofers emitting a 60Hz tone, would wake someone up more often than the speakers.

      I think most of the people who argue so vociferously on either side of this issue, are not really upset about the noise (or the right to be loud).

    52. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking of a "mute" button. If you're talking on/off, I'd think a turn ON button would be more appropriate.

    53. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by prell · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If this guy goes to a sports bar, and is upset about there being a TV, he should leave and go somewhere else. If a "somewhere else" without a TV doesn't exist, I guess one of his options is to be socially disruptive and quasi-radical, but he also has the option of opening up a bar that doesn't have TVs. Or go to a coffee shop.

    54. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Also on some PDAs. The iPaq comes with a universal remote control program called Nevo that lets you control virtually everything that has an IR remote, TVs, stereos DVD players, VCRs... and also projectors. I've had many a good time in class programming it to turn off the projector the professor is using and watching them try to figure whats going on :)

    55. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be a muffler that does more noise than no muffler.

    56. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Howski · · Score: 1

      Seriously, such things would only be used (by me) on TVs that are annoyances to everyone (like the stupid ones outside of exercise clubs) as opposed to asserting some sort of 'my preferences are better than yours' kind of attitude.

      Is anyone else but me failing to see the difference? You automatically assert a "'my preferences are better than yours' kind of attitude" when you make blanket statements like "TVs that are annoyances to everyone."

      These remote controls are only slightly better on the adolescent nuisance scale than a laser pointer that some dumb-ass kid brings to a movie theater.

      Howski

    57. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you should keep it to your self, so is the hid lights, but no 1 sais anything about those

    58. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      We don't need that. We just need to invest in hearing aid manufacturers and profit immensely off of them.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    59. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops won't deal with it, so I follow them home and piss in their gas tank.

      I used to shit on the cars, but I stopped because the modder usually can't tell the difference.

    60. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by zapp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agreed, completely. Knowing the route someone takes to work in order to analize traffic patterns is WAY worse than destroying private property because of a personal pet peeve.

      You know folks, if you hate these guys with the stereos so much, why don't you quit hiding behind technology and do what you want anyway - follow then until they park, and slash their tires. Or run them off the road.

      --
      no comment
    61. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by fermion · · Score: 1

      I lust after a gadget that can disable those cell phone ringers. Preferable, it would just destroy anything that longer that few second or was louder than a whisper.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    62. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      They never were in my city either until the a bunch of old rich people got together with the old rich mayor and wrote an ordinance specifically banning reving your motorcycle. They didn't even put an actual noise level on the ordinance. If you rev your bike downtown they will write you a ticket.

    63. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by zapp · · Score: 1

      I assume you are referring to Harleys with the chopped exhaust.

      While these are very annoying (don't get me wrong, I hate them), I recently found out why they do this:

      Most motorcycle accidents are because other drivers don't see the rider, and pull out infront of him, or change lanes into him, or rearend him, etc.

      The noisy muffler is actually just a way to be sure people around you don't squish you like a bug. If you can't be seen, then be heard, I guess.

      --
      no comment
    64. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      Or sit where he can't see the TV.

      My town recently has gone through a "revival." Meat-Market Dance (read: Dry Hump) clubs with pounding music have moved into the downtown, raising rents and creating an environment where you not only suffer cochlear damage, but may also get shot/stabbed/punched/run over/arrested/puked on. Or worse.

      Do I go down there and turn off their music? Fuck no. I sit in my living room and get blitzed on the Black while playing a quiet game of poker with my friends.

      Will I ever visit a club like that? Fuck no. I'll open my own. Where people can sit in comfy chairs talking and getting drunk while listening to music that they don't have to shout over. Like a coffee shop, but with booze instead of coffee, and cigars instead of pastries.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    65. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by EaterOfDog · · Score: 1

      All you need is an EMP to cook that sucker. Of course, you'll need a nuclear weapon and you'll kill every electronic device for a long, long way. But, the ends justify the means, right?

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    66. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coolest nick I've seen in a while.

    67. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by hippycow · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's the ticket. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the rider didn't get enough breast feeding as a baby. Who could possibly think that it is a desparate cry for attention?

    68. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Chazmati · · Score: 1

      Oh, so the loud pipes are a safety thing. Those Harley riders are just safety nuts, which is why you see so many with helmets on.

    69. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      A guy with a Civic where I work does this, and he's not even trying. I think he might have a Borla, too, but I'm not sure. I've heard very good things about those, but I'm not sure what I'm going to put on my Golf 4 just yet.

      It was kind of funny. He gunned his engine slightly to climb the ramp to the next level of the parking garage and two alarms started squealing.

      Of course, I was the only one who noticed.

    70. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by hippycow · · Score: 0
      The device (car stereo) is not the thing causing the problem, it's the jackass using it at 2am. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. Noise ordinance laws usually have pretty hefty fines ($400-$500), and if it's as loud as you say as often as you say it shouldn't take very long for them to get caught.

      Either you've never actually tried this, or you lucky enough to live in a very unusual place. I've tried calling the cops and their answer was "Go talk to them and see if you can get them to turn it down" and then after further discussion, they say they can get someone to come out in an hour or two. That really helps a bunch.

    71. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      Funny, I'm even more tempted to squish them because the loud noise is really fricking annoying. I'd like to see those idiots get tickets for being a nuisance. Isn't that why we have noise regulations?

      Then there's Daytona Bike Week. Arrrgggghhhh...

    72. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Best sig ever...

      ~S

    73. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by mzipay · · Score: 1

      i couldn't agree more.

      annoyed by the tv in the airport/bar? move to another seat. better yet, grow up.

      i've found myself in plenty of situations just as this guy describes. i'll ask politely for the volume to be turned down or the channel changed. if my request is granted, good for me. if not, oh well - i'm usually not the only person present, and my preferences do not trump everyone else's.

      let this guy ask politely and then deal with the outcome in a NON-childlike manner. otherwise, i might be prompted to childishly knock that fob from his hand and stomp on it.

    74. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by cornice · · Score: 1

      Sounds like something to focus on internally, not externally.

      Remember:

      "Your focus determines your reality."

    75. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Bloodlent · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that death metal is somehow superior to rap? While I hate both, I smell troll.

    76. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      ...and because pretty much no one can stop them. ever. some asshat rides past my home twice a day, and i can *feel* the rumble for a good 30 seconds or more before he passes my home. How his hearing can possibly still do him any good is beyond me. I hope he grows deaf soon and that someone gives him a warning he cant hear, resulting in his nuts being smashed with a hammer.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    77. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      The guy who is selling this thing is first class dick.

      You know, one of those "TV is EE-VIL, I don't watch it and nobody else should either" types.

      Somebody should shove one of his remotes up his ass and stomp him until the TV turns off...

    78. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by xtheunknown · · Score: 1

      Amen. Why do people think that just because THEY don't want to watch the television, NOBODY wants to. I travel alone a lot and I like to watch the airport televisions (which are usually tuned to CNN Headline News) to keep up on what's happening. These TVs aren't everywhere, so if you don't like it, go where there isn't one and let the rest of us watch.

      --

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    79. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by foobarb · · Score: 2, Funny

      This page at the microwave your boomer site is even funnier.

      But beware, the Thumpmobile Zapper is a dangerous beast. The full elephant details follow:

      "Now the moment comes, where the elephant leaves the water: Magnetron as to the remaining microwave furnace circuit attach before (use high voltage-firm cable - the Magnetron cooperates over 2000 V!) and SHORT switch on. In the case of correct adjustment the valuable transistors in the bass output stage of the victim will fuse within fractions of a second . In the case of not correct adjustment also engine electronics of the vehicle is destroyed. But you do not want that nevertheless, or? Effects on the brain of the driver are not to be feared after my experiences. But you do not let arrive it better on it, perhaps are with it nevertheless still vestiges of brain cells present: If the victim scharrt afterwards in the sand and shits into the yard, the adjustment was wrong or the dose too high."

    80. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by francisew · · Score: 2, Informative

      The plans on that site are obviously garbage. I agree it'd be really dumb to take apart a microwave oven, and point the Magnetron into a parabolic dish and spray stuff.

      These things can be built to avoid frequencies that living tissue absorbs. Hence, they can be 'relatively harmless' to innocent bystanders. They are extremely efficient at knocking out electronics though.

      Lots of places sell kits and plans. Not that I'd trust them, or build them, without fear of being shocked to death, beaten on by all the people who realize I have destroyed their property, and lighting whatever I plug it into on fire (impedence matching anyone?).

      Such as http://www.plans-kits.com/plans/plans.html

    81. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      EMP doesn't require a nuclear weapon (although that does generate one heck of an EMP as a byproduct of vaporising the neigbourhood!).

      http://www.plans-kits.com/plans/emp.html

    82. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i think you should keep it to your self, so is the hid lights, but no 1 sais anything about those"

      Wow. Is there some kind of award for the worst comment ever?

    83. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by steven94585 · · Score: 1

      What we need is a EMP gun. It kill any electronic device. Cell Phones, TV, thumping radios, boomboxes, you name it. Aim and fire, Zaaappppp! I know I'd buy that. Though it really shouldn't be that hard to make. Might be hard to limit the affected area.

    84. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A spoiler on a FWD car makes sense, if it's an actual spoiler (a device that's meant to cause turbulance in the air), and not a WING (a device meant to cause downforce).

      If it's a wing, yeah, that's stupid, except for perhaps some rare circumstance when the rear end might become the front end unless they had more rear-downforce. Like I said. Rare.

    85. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by JDevers · · Score: 1

      How about instead of buying an expensive exhaust system for a POS car, you save up and buy a REAL car? Civics, Golfs, etc don't get faster when they get louder, they just sound like buzzbombs...

    86. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't happen to be a smoker, would you?

    87. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait is right... What the poster is saying is basically this: If someone annoys you, annoy them more. The loudest one wins, I guess. Imagine a society like that, and you'll pray for deafness.

    88. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see those idiots get tickets for being a nuisance.

      I'd like to see drivers arrested for nearly killing guys on bikes.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    89. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by ShawnDoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One problem with that line of thinking. The noise from the pipes is being projected BEHIND the Harley. It will do nothing to alert someone in front of you not to pull our or change lanes.

    90. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Then there's Daytona Bike Week. Arrrgggghhhh...
      That's the cry of a man from Daytona if I ever heard it, I know I've said that many o'time.

      I think the whole loud pipes thing is bullshit esp. when you see them weaving in and out of traffic making three lanes where there are only two, etc. I lived there I saw it all. Then you have them fight to get helmet laws repealed in the state and some how they get it. If they were worried about protecting themselves you think the first thing you would do is protect your melon. F the bikers and their loud pipes.

      I am not a police office but I know there have to be laws for excessively loud pipes. Probably disturbing the peace or some crap like that. I'll ask my father.

      In closing the best time of my life was living in Virginia during bike week and knowing that I wouldn't have to deal with it again.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    91. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slash their tires? No, you should slash their subs. More expensive, and a bit more satisfying. It'll be weeks before they can save up enough of their allowance to buy new noisemaking equipment.

    92. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      Exactly. If some asshole comes into a sports bar where I am trying to watch a game with my buddies and turns off/mutes/changes the channel of the TV I am watching, we're going to issues of the let's take it outside variety.

      The only places I can think of that have TVs where the volume is occasionally turned up loud enough to be heard is bars and restaurants with bars. People often go to those bars to watch those TVs, so turning them off would entirely defeat the purpose. You want peace and quiet? Stay home or goto you local library.

    93. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EMP mine, and I'm there -- fry their $$$ overpowered vehicular nuisance generator, er car stereo.

      "thump, thump, thu-bzzt"

      No messy shrapnel or bits of bloody pulp, just electronics turned paperweight.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    94. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No pastries? Arrrgh! Damn you! I practically live to get drunk and eat doughnuts!

      Now, if you were to replace pastries with pasties (not those disgusting cornish sandwiches, you perverts!).... Well, you might just lure me in.

    95. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by serial+frame · · Score: 1

      Oh, so they can mod their hearing aids to thump bass, too?

      --

      -
      And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    96. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately most of the noise seems to be directed behind the biker, where it doesn't really do anything but annoy the heck out of everyone.

    97. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      If it bothers you, turn up your own stereo.

      It was perfectly QUIET before this person showed up. Your argument is stupid and you sir are an IDIOT. Think before you write. Maybe I'm not in my car. Maybe that car isn't the only one that passes by.

      Turn up your own stereo, what a lame ass idea that only makes the problem worse. Plus most exhaust systems get quieter when the vehicle is stoped, unlike car stereos which can be a lot louder than even a loud exhaust when a car is parked outside your bedroom window idling for minutes while the thoughtless driver is waiting for friends to come out and get picked up.

    98. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      My Golf is not a piece of shit, thank you very much. And I'm not necessarily trying to get a loud exhaust (I'm not) and I am not trying to drive fast like every riceboy out there (I'm not, I'm actually a very polite driver and I don't speed) and I love my Golf.

      Not everybody is trying to drive a zillion miles an hour, be incredibly noisy, or have a thumping bass stereo. There are people like me who want improvements over the factory equipment that don't fall into any of the above stereotypical categories. I'm one of them.

      Maybe you don't like VWs, but I love mine. It's just what I need and want, but it's obviously not what you need. Therefore, you can cram that attitude up your ass.

    99. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in German, but if the google translation is correct

      "The regular Umm Umm Umm Umm Umm increases slowly to a kakophonischen Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tschicki Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tss, under from the exerted Troeten of a aufgemotzten small car engine . The juvenile driver of the embarrassing vehicle heads for opposite park pallet, where he tends to meet with Gleichschwachgesinnten to the sommerabendlichen rattling comparison."

      Indeed, great translation.

    100. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by speaker4thedead · · Score: 1

      Sure! Then, once she turns the television off, your wife might be able to get your attention.

      --
      "My religion is to live --and die-- without regret." -- Milarepa
    101. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      I lived in De Land (20 minutes' drive to the west down Hwy 17-92) and I made a point of staying OUT of Daytona during that week. I made the mistake once of forgetting that it was bike week one weekend, driving down there to visit a store, and waiting 15 minutes (timed by the dash clock) for the motorcycles to thin out enough for me to turn onto the main road.

      My ex-father-in-law (adore him!) is a motorcyclist, but he's not a "biker". He always wears a helmet and makes a point to be careful and courteous when on the road, and he doesn't have loud pipes. If all of them were like him, there'd be no problem with them. Sadly, they're not.

      Not wearing a helmet's fine, hurt yourself if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to cry over you (or pay your ER bills) when you get hurt and a helmet could have helped you. There's a reason that bicyclists, motorcycle riders, rollerbladers, etc. are strongly hinted at to wear helmets. For their own good!

    102. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      So would I. My adored ex-father-in-law was run off the road and nearly killed once by an inattentive driver. His story of what happened makes me wonder how anybody with a valid license could be that idiotic and unaware of others around them, making me wonder if the guy was drunk at the time. Sadly, he was never caught so I don't know what happened.

      Fortunately, ex-FIL is fine and around to tell about it.

    103. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think most of the people who argue so vociferously on either side of this issue, are not really upset about the noise (or the right to be loud).

      So the main thing they're argueing about is the noise, but you somehow think that it's not about the noise? I'm afraid I'm not following you...

    104. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "an acoustic sensor/camera combination that would detect these idiots on the road and mail them a ticket."

      That doesn't go too far enough! This is why we have Metal Storm! Reduce those damned overgrown carts to chaffe!

    105. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by schmaltz · · Score: 1

      How about an EMP gun, generating a high-energy pulse across the FM radio spectrum?

      Booom-bada-bitty Booom-bada-bitty BOOM!

      --
      Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
    106. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah so you've taken one apart yourself then to verify that this is in fact what the black box does?

    107. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lmfao

      from further in teh translation:

      "Small tip: As mobile weapon against flat-sheared noise Emissionssuender a December duck water pistol worked satisfactorily, particularly since the classical running wart pilot always drives with lowered disk. A well cooled splash is particularly effective in the ear of the Mobilproleten . Then however a really potent automobile (see following picture) for the any escape before the Berzerker is recommended."

    108. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a mac and a degree in english don't you....

    109. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I Have a Theory About This: I've been thinking about this far too much, and I have no idea why, but clearly these folks aren't doing most of these things to make their cars faster, because a lot of the stuff you see them doing doesn't gain them speed or horsepower.

      I think they are doing it as a sort of courtship display. Like Bower birds (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bowerbird/amorous. html) They are displaying to the opposite sex that they have so much disposable income that they can spend it on frivolous things.

      It's like a giant rack of antlers. I mean, what fricking good does that do anyone? Well, basically, it looks cool, at least to the people that you are trying to impress.

      Obviously, these ricer dudes are not doing this for us.

    110. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "If it bothers you, turn up your own stereo. That's what it's there for: To drown out annoying sounds"

      If this is what radio means to you, then ClearChannel has already won.

    111. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As soon as you fucking cagers wake up and pay attention to those of us who share the road with you, we'll start worrying about your precious hearing.

      Don't like bike week? Move. Before you bitch "you try it", I happen to live in Sturgis, SD.

      Y'know, it's the attitude like you display here that is the real danger. When we're on our bikes, we're aware that at any moment, your dumb ass is likely to change lanes, slam on the brakes, or just 'not see me' and run me over. While you're on the phone, reading the paper, drinking your latte, fighting with the SO/kids/whatever.

      Christ. Loud pipes are the least of your issues on the road, I think.

      Rant off - sore spot smoothed over

    112. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Coming from a biker family, that's one reason often cited, but really it's because we like the sound of it. Up until Honda started in with their own heavy cruiser with a similar architecture, the Harley had a signature sound, and when you heard it, you knew what it was. Contrast this with the high-pitched noises that come from other (mostly foreign) bikes. I used to be able to hear my dad's bike when he was more than a half-mile away when he accelerated hard.

      I live near a freeway, and I still will run to the window when I hear a large group of bikes going by. The rumble of dozens (sometimes hundreds and occasionally even thousands) of bikes going by is comforting (and quite different from the rapid slap of a hard acceleration), especially in the larger cases, when the rides are often for charity.

      A lot of people have seen bikers as rebels. My own experience isn't that they're so much rebellious (though plenty of them have a streak of that, too) as independent. There's something about announcing their presence in spite of society's desire to quiet everything down that they find appealing. It's just the rest of society that finds it annoying.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    113. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      If you do not already have one, I would challenge you to put a moderately powered subwoofer in your vehicle for a period of 30 days. Properly installed and set up, you'll likely never be without one again.

      That being said, since you're so gung-ho to sabotage someone else's equipment, you could always go to the city council... many stereo shops and orgs will support "no bass" zones, and can be enforced. The cruise strip will have the boom, the res. areas can be more strictly limited.

    114. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, the loud pipes thing I can understand. They can be really annoying. But the helmet law is different. It's not about hearing or any bullshit like that, it's about my choice in the matter. If your under 18 and on a bike, by law you should have to wear a helmet. Over 18 and it should be your choice wether you want to splatter your brains across the road.

      Same thing with seatbelts. I resent the government deciding that I have to do something for my own personal safety. If it effects anyone else then I can understand it. Maybe we should allow skydiving or rock climbing because it is to dangerous. If your under 18, you have to wear one, if your over 18 it's your choice.

      Personally I would wear a helmet and my seatbelt if given the choice, but I don't think it should be legistlated. Besides, after the law was passed here it became apparent that it was just an additional revenue stream for the government.

    115. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      I would go somewhere else if it was really that big of a deal.

      I tried that, but they wouldn't take my plane to a gate without a TV.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    116. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod, I already wear a hearing aid!

      And you know what? I'm a hell of a lot more attentive than a lot of other motorists out there. I don't talk on the phone or anything else while in a car. I drive. I'm out there to drive for some other purpose or for fun and I follow the rules of the road and I look out for others around me, literally and figuratively.

      Yes, I know you were being generic and I'll admit there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but there have been times when a motorcyclist has cut me off, created his own "lane", weaved in and out of traffic, who knows what. People that do that give all motorcyclists a bad name. And while there's something to be said for modifying your vehicle to sound nice, there are times when I actually find myself distracted by the ridiculous excessive noise. Since I have bad hearing, if *I* think I'm in a situation where I think something is making excessive noise, then anyone with normal hearing will find it intolerable. I've been in those situations, where even ONE motorcycle is intolerably loud -- to ME. Fortunately, those seem to be in the minority by a fair bit; something that's THAT loud crosses over into nuisance-to-others territory.

      Again, it's not everybody that goes over the top with exhaust systems or stereos (I'm in this group) and those who do give everybody else a bad name.

      I know this is Slashdot, but accusatory attitudes and lumping all drivers into the "moron" category is just as bad as those people who lump all motorcyclists into the "asshole" category. I've got friends and (ex) relatives who are motorcyclists, which is part, but by far not all, of why I don't do that.

    117. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A well-placed axe blade should be able to short out or cut the power lines from the battery. I guess not too effective in this case, but it's something I fantasize about whenever somebody's car alarm decides to go off for a few hours. But then, in this case a well-placed axe blade should get you a new car that just needs a window replaced.

    118. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      Now that we have each others attention -

      Your comment (previous to mine) did indeed lump motorcyclists into a general category. I'm glad you realize there are 'bikers' (the morons) and motorcyclists, such as your friends and relatives.

      Those idiots you speak of on motorcycles? Yeah, we don't like 'em either. They do just what you're saying - create a bad name for all of us.

      Yeah, there are hella loud motorcycles. My friend rides a Road Star Warrior w/ open pipes - I can't stand to ride behind him. Yeah, he's too loud.

      Ricer cars, bikes, V8 cars, diesel pickups - there are tons of noise issues. Are noise ordinance laws the solution? Hard to say. There is a definite "status" among car and bike guys about your exhaust note - but you're right, it can get too extreme.

      Thanks for the good reply! :)

      Cheers!

    119. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Buran · · Score: 1

      Any time! And I'm sorry that you came away with an impression that I hadn't meant to leave. Glad it's cleared up.

      Idiots suck. :)

    120. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get one of those for my wife? I'd pay very well.

      Its called a divorce. Oh, you don't want to pay that much !!

    121. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are well versed in what first class dick is?

    122. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Naw. I'll just switch it off and watch your withdrawl twitch.

    123. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Because we want to destroy their stereo, not their car.

    124. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      I'd like Bikers to be allowed to not wear helmets, as long as they are registered organ donors.

    125. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of this thing. You can't tell who did it if they do it discreetly.

      So go mash up a bunch of your fellow sports bar troglodytes. The 'culprit' will probably find that amusing.

    126. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by norsk_hedensk · · Score: 1

      that, and noise violations are only 25 dollars for first time offenders around here. (new york)

    127. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it's illegal and crude, but a possible invasion of privacy is worse than an obvious nuisance. Not saying destroying them is the right thing to do, but I can understand people wanting to do it.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    128. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Erythros · · Score: 1

      Here is a clear example of your Bush-American mentality. We don't like the way they act, let's blow them up. All with the push of a button.
      Should we all walk around like mindless drones not making a sound, just going to work, doing our job, eat sleep and shit? While we are at it, Cigarrettes, Alcohol, Caffeine, Speakers of any size, etc should be entirely banned for the good of all man. Sorry we have offended you oh wise /.er. Sell your computer and live in a cave.

    129. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Yes! After all he's not only forcing you to buy his device, but forcing you to sign a contract saying that you will use it indiscriminately at every possible opportunity! You have no free will!

    130. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that problem could be corrected by an acoustic sensor/camera combination that would detect these idiots on the road and mail them a ticket

      We already have those. They're called cops.

    131. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Next time all the morons with Harleys leave the bar at 2AM and rip down my street, blowing the stop sign and not wearing helmets, I'll remember that they're only waking up my kid for their own safety. I call bullshit.

      Worried about your safety while riding? Do what I do. Watch other drivers like a freaking hawk. Be alert at a truly paranoid level. The only way to be safe on a bike is to ride as though you understand that other drivers may not see you. If that big-ass light on the front of your bike isn't helping them see you, loud pipes aren't going to either. In case you never noticed, the "protective blanket of sound" you are generating with your loud pipes is mostly behind you where it doesn't do you any bloody good. If you are going to rebut that you do ride paranoid and still think the pipes help protect you, then you don't ride paranoid enough because you're still hoping that some fool in a car will be paying attention to his five senses and notice you.

      In addition to the above, do loud pipes help you hear other vehicles on the road? No? How can that be? I thought your only concern was safety. Could it be something else?

      I have been riding for 11 years, and and I firmly believe that loud pipes are simply penis extensions.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    132. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time you hear the rumble coming, find a secluded spot with a view of the road. Have your scoped, long-barrel paintball gun ready and loaded with non-water-soluble paintballs.

    133. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Well then you simply weren't around the right place at the right time. I've been pulled over in both a 4 cylinder mustang and an 8 cylinder nova for having a "missing or malfunctioning exhaust system" (ie: too loud)

      In neither case was the cost of a new exhaust system less than the value of the car. :)

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    134. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DeputySpade · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm sorry, but when I can hear body pannels buzzing before I can hear the actual music I'm not thinking "cool custom mod" I'm thinking "idiot."

      There are very few examples of super loud stereos in cars that are:
      • Installed correctly
      • used appropriately
      • Installed in cars with a value greater than that of the equipment
      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    135. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny
      EMP mine, and I'm there -- fry their $$$ overpowered vehicular nuisance generator, er car stereo.
      Then you find out that they spent so much on the stereo that it runs on valves.
    136. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Should we all walk around like mindless drones not making a sound, just going to work, doing our job, eat sleep and shit?

      We? Um.... No. You? Yes.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    137. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      Why go through all that when a simple rock will do?

      --
    138. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that won't work if they're playing CDs...

    139. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by racerx509 · · Score: 1

      hmm, all of these annoying stereo systems seem to be the result of people who just don't know how to build and properly tune or modify their car. I'm a car guy and a computer guy, melding the two hobbies. My car sports a dell PC in the trunk, connected to a 1400w amp with 3 10" woofers, rated at 1000 watts. I keep my system around 60% volume most of the time, and while its loud enough to cause all 4 seats in my car to rumble as well as the rear view and side view mirrors, it does not intrude on other people's lives. its all about how you build your system. One word. Dynamat! People who build their systems to blast loud outside have no knowledge of how to build a proper system, as a person who has done a proper audio system can enjoy their bass fully inside the car, with a minumum of intrusion on those outside.

      As for spoilers, lowering, kits etc. I'm against those as well. I prefer sleepers. A lot of true performance enthusiasts rely upon turbocharging as a method of increasing power today, so *real* performance cars usually are not too noisy. The turbocharger sits directly upon the exhaust, and its spinning turbine does a great deal of muffling to the exhaust coming off the engine. Besides a faint whine and the occaisional blow-off of compressed air, most turbo cars are far quieter than you would think. Even running 3" open downpipe, my car is still quieter than my friends cobra mustang equipped with knock-off exhaust. Please, please, please don't confuse idiot tuners (ricers) with real car enthusiasts. Majority of those out there with the 120hp honda, loud stereo "blinging" rims, and 4ft wing wouldn't know how to install any real modifications to their vehicle anyway, as they've never been under the hood to do something more complex than an oil change.

      --
      13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
    140. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      Hrm. If you wear a helmet - and I assume you do, with the disdain you show for non-helmeted Harley riders - how well do you hear the other cars around you?

      No, loud pipes are not a 'safety blanket'. I never said so, and never intended for you to infer that in your wildest bend of mental gymnastics.

      Loud pipes are not just heard behind the bike. Yes, they're much louder at that point. No doubt about it.

      For your information, however, my bike has stock pipes on it. They're quiet. Yeah, Gold Wings and BMWs are quieter, but they're like sewing machines.

      Good for you on 11 years. I hope you ride at least three times that much in the rest of your life.

      I'm working on 23 years this year, and hope to ride until I physically can't. Then I'll get a trike!

    141. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      the Borla exhaust system of my car does this all the time. The engine note is so low it sets off alarms that are set too sensitive. It's not too loud...just very low. Amusing thing is...most of the cars I set of just don't look like a car with that much to protect...

      Heh. Reminds me of the twin scourges of the last neighborhood I lived in: crappy 10+ year old japanese cars with A) overloud exhaust systems, and B) owner-installed alarms with motion detectors set too sensitive. Every time one of those jackass bastards would start his crap-car up and drive away, ALL THE OTHER crap-cars would start squealing their alarms. That, and the chain-smoking indian family of eight* living below me drove me to move.

      * nothing against indians per se, but how long can you stand the smell of burnt, rancid ghee mixed with Marlboro Light smoke wafting in your windows 16 hours a day?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    142. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I'd like to see those idiots get tickets for being a nuisance.

      I'd like to see drivers arrested for nearly killing guys on bikes.

      I'd like to see both. I have a quarter pound of German stainless steel in my left leg from an jackass who turned left into me despite dual high-intensity high beam headlights.

      I've also had to put up with scores of yuppie jackasses parading up and down the street in front of my apartment on their 90 decibel phallus-by-proxy machines. There simply is no excuse for a bike that makes that much noise. It's not cool, it's just fucking obnoxious.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    143. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by sporktoast · · Score: 2, Funny

      Back when cable TV first came to Northern Virginia, the service was by Media General (now Cox), and the units were these resonably sophisticated things from Zenith. Among the usual buttons, they had one labeled "Parental Control". I don't know about anybody else, but I could never get it to work on Mom or Dad.

      --
      In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
    144. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the Doof-seeking missile.

    145. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Now I'm not one of those guys with a stereo that rattles house windows, but at what point did you become your parent's generation? Instead of bitching about that damn rock music and the hippies, now we're bitchin' about hip hoppers.

      It's a universal truth that the current generation will always irk the living shit out of the previous generation.

      And unless you are independently wealthy it's probably not a good idea to piss off the current generation who will probably be funding ur pill program when you're 60+.

      Let it go. You're not that important.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    146. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      People often go to those bars to watch those TVs, so turning them off would entirely defeat the purpose. You want peace and quiet? Stay home or goto you local library.

      Cuts both ways. Some people think bars are for drinking and would say "You want TV? Go home and sit on your couch".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    147. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      And when my health insurance premiums go up because morons like you require brain surgery to fix damage that could have been prevented with a helmet, that's also your choice, huh?

      Stop being so selfish. Just because it's you that gets hurt doesn't mean others aren't affected. Besides, think about your friends and family. I'm sure SOMEONE out there cares about you.

      -Z

    148. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by c00kiemonster · · Score: 1

      Hi Mate , yep its your choice but as someone who rides every day , car drivers/pedestrians/dog ect are idiots one day you will hit the ground ,8yrs no accident and then wham trust me you want your helmet , after i hit , drunk girl stepped out in front of me , i split my helmet in two pieces , i got up , no helmet if i was fortuante i would have died otherwise i would have spent teh erst of my life drinking thru a straw

    149. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by inf0rmer · · Score: 0

      Nah mate, you need one of these for your EX wife!

    150. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by turpie · · Score: 1

      Thats the way to go nice and simple.
      However a rock would be even easier, and with the advantage that you wouldn't get arrested.

    151. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      " noisy muffler is actually just a way to be sure people around you don't squish you like a bug"

      That should read "be sure people behind you don't squish you like a bug" of course, but then that wouldn't make any sense, just like the whole "noisy bike as a safety measure" argument itself doesn't make any sense.

      If bikers truly wanted to use sound to alert drivers of their presence, they would fit those "reverse alarms" that trucks have on to their bikes and have them go -beep- -beep- -beep- while they are out riding. ;-)

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    152. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Sciflyer · · Score: 1

      Your typical Ducati is a 'foreign' bike, certainly does not make any high-pitched noises ;) and sounds 1000 times better than a Harley ever could (and goes better too)

    153. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by loraksus · · Score: 1

      the mythbusters suggest using a bit of bleach in the gas tank. It is an oxidizer you know ;)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    154. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      Um ,just in case someone actually tries this, you could accidentally kill someone with a pacemaker, or damage equipment belonging to the innocent.

      So make sure you dont look obvious when you do it, OK?

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    155. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      What we (me at least) are annoyed about is that the vast majority of the folks who do the modding think that somehow by putting a rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car, adding a 6 billion watt stereo system, thin wheels, a tweaked engine chip and metallic paint makes them think that now they can go out and drive like the idiots we know them to be.

      Seriously man. You've got a point here. My Civic is completely stock and, but I still go out and drive like an idiot all the damn time. You don't need GT spoilers and a coffee can exhaust to do that. When will these kids learn that you can drive like an idiot in a stock car. Hell, they could even do it in their mom's minivan if they wanted!

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    156. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Aside from the relative rarity of Ducatis in the US, the two companies cater to completely different markets. Ducati generally goes for the rider who wants performance with a European style. Harley has its American styling and concentrates mostly on cruising bikes. Both companies have some cross-over, but their particular specialties are pretty clear.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    157. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by CyberKnet · · Score: 1

      When that low frequency on the street in front of my house (or the corner down the street!) is making things on my desk at the BACK of my house jump off, I really don't care whether you call it noise, ufo's or the fucking force.... It still gives me a headache, and I still want it GONE.

      High's, mids or lows, legal or not, I dont care. If it gets through four walls and is still enough to significantly bother me, something is wrong and something needs to be done.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    158. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by mixmasterjake · · Score: 1

      The difference is that your system was built to sound good. The dudes that cruise by my place could care less about good sound. They build their system specifically to be loud on the outside. It's a macho thing.

      --
      TODO: come up with a clever sig
    159. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      yeah, no worse than setting off an actual mine in the street ;-)

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    160. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear on a couple of points, first off, yes I do wear a helmet. You are correct that I mostly don't hear other cars around me just like I don't expect them to hear me over their car sterios (see other thread in this story about stupid car sterios.) With the exception of emergency vehicles with their sirens, sound is not meant to be a primary means of alerting other drivers to your presence. That's why your light is on all the time (or headlights on half the time in a car) while the horn has a momentary-on switch.

      Second, I don't have disdain for non-helmeted Harley riders. I have disdain for the idiots who rip past my house drunk and blowing stop signs with pipes loud enough to wake up my daughter who sleeps at the back of the house. The fact that these imbeciles also do not wear helmets just drives home the point that they do not have loud pipes as a safety precaution. They have loud pipes because they think it's cool that everyone can hear their bike. The whole notion that loud pipes play any noticeable part in motorcycle safety in any way is ridiculous to the extreme.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    161. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Duct tape?

    162. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hell, they could even do it in their mom's minivan if they wanted!

      Unfortunately, when they do this, the great god Darwin steps in, says "None of that now!" and puts an end to it with some rather fantastic rollovers.

      Then the "think of the children!" asshats roll out the lawsuits...

    163. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by operagost · · Score: 1
      You know folks, if you hate these guys with the stereos so much, why don't you quit hiding behind technology and do what you want anyway - follow then until they park, and slash their tires. Or run them off the road.
      Mommy won't let them go that far from home. And trying to run a guy off the road with a Segway is suicidal.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    164. Re:Don't stop at just a power button by operagost · · Score: 1
      HOW TO BUILD A RICER

      1991 Civic: $700

      Fart Pipe: $300

      18" wheels and tires (which stick out of the wheelwells): $1500

      Overpriced stereo: $1000

      Type "R", peeing Calvin, and a bunch of other stickers for upgrades you don't have: $100

      Being a proud ricer: PRICELESS

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. NFL by brjndr · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and women ruin Sundays for men across the nation.

    1. Re:NFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ruin?

    2. Re:NFL by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I could just see it, someone makes an auto-TV turn-off device that's sound activated. Everytime everyone cheers, the TV goes off or changes channels to the Home Shopping Network.

      -Aaron

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  4. I can see it now... by hollismb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This might be the next red laser pointer. Built with a good purpose, but annoying as hell for everyone else.

    1. Re:I can see it now... by jxyama · · Score: 2

      or cell phone's walkie talkie function. i'm sick of that nextel beep. it's annoying when used by a few. (or just in their commercials!!) i can't imagine how awful it would be with many more people using it.

    2. Re:I can see it now... by Patik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What good purpose does this device serve? If you don't own a particular TV, and it's not on your property, what right do you have to turn it off?

    3. Re:I can see it now... by Llama_STi · · Score: 0, Troll

      What right do they have to be polluting my vision with commercials?

    4. Re:I can see it now... by gnuLNX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Same reason all those damned red lights should be green when I get to them!

      --
      what?
    5. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's GANDHI.

    6. Re:I can see it now... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 0, Troll

      What good purpose does this device serve?

      It's like taking heroin away from a junkie.

      They might, you know, have an insightful conversation or read the news, read a book or think a little more.

      Then, maybe we'd wouldn't have have the problem where 32% of the American population believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9/11 attacks or other such bullshit.

    7. Re:I can see it now... by |/|/||| · · Score: 2, Funny
      As much as I would like it to be so, I suppose you don't have the right to turn off someone else's TV.

      Nevertheless, I'm happy to see such an invention. Right or not, if I can turn off tvs in my vicinity I'll do it. Think that's obnoxious? Not as obnoxious as a TV flashing in my face.

      One of these, a portable cell phone jammer, and a can of minivan repellent and I'm set.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    8. Re:I can see it now... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I agree. For once in a long time, I feel that this is a "My Rights" issue.

    9. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, doesn't the same thing apply with regards to spam filtering? It's not on your property, it's not your email server, so what write do you have to give it bad addresses/filter the email it sends you/etc, etc. I'm majorly antispam, but it seems to me that getting junk email and listening to junk from a blaring TV is about the same thing. You own neither TV nor the senders mail server, but you still take action to protect your personal space/inbox. I wish they had the same thing for the store address systems that are always blaring out bad music mixed with "THANK YOU FOR SHOPPING AT $store"/"SPECIAL OFFER!"/"WILL PETER REPORT TO THE TOY DEPARTMENT! RIGHT NOW! WE MEAN IT! PETER TO TOYS!" announcements. How does this make my shopping experience more enjoyable? It's like physical spam.

    10. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you agree. You'll understand then when I stick a bic pen in your eye, since you're obviously an obnoxious, self absorbed, immature, angst ridden, pretentious pansy and such people are a blight on my peaceful day-to-day existance.

    11. Re:I can see it now... by Tehrasha · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, this thing could be real fun inside a $home_electronics store. ie: BestBuy, CircuitCity, etc..

      -Years- ago, I remember a JVC projection screen TV that had a remote the size of paperback book. From across the store, you could change the channel on every JVC TV in their 'Wall of Television' display.

    12. Re:I can see it now... by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't be such a sensitive fucking pussy. If you are so riddled with ADD that you can't just ignore a TV when it is on then go get your self some ritalin.

    13. Re:I can see it now... by moofdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What good purpose does this device serve? If you don't own a particular TV, and it's not on your property, what right do you have to turn it off? I totaly agree with this. Guess what folks, you are not the only people in the world. Those TVs in Best Buys? Lets think for half a second why they might be on...people who want to buy a TV tend to want to see the quality of it before they purchase it.

      What about the TVs in Cafe's or airports or other random places? Maybe you have a friend to chat to, but what about that lonely person behind you sitting all alone? Maybe she would like to be distracted while she eats her lunch. Maybe the employee at the local video store would like to watch the TV since its slow that night and they don't have much else to do.

      The bottem line is, your not walking around the park and having MTV blaring at you. When you run into these tv's its because the owner of that establishment has decided that for one reason or another they want it there. Sure, you don't have to be subjected to the TV, but your recourse is to leave the establishment, not turn off the TV. Or talk to the manager about it. But you are not the only person that lives in the world, you will not find everything convienent.

      --
      Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
    14. Re:I can see it now... by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Gods, I loved that answer.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    15. Re:I can see it now... by deacon · · Score: 0, Troll
      What good purpose does this device serve? If you don't own a particular TV, and it's not on your property, what right do you have to turn it off?

      Think of it as a social service, like picking up litter, preventing pollution, defending old ladies from muggers, helping ducks cross the street.

      If you saw some beating a dog that was not yours, not on your property, would you say you have no right to interfere?

      The violent and reactive responses of the pro-tv people on this thread show that waaay too many people need to relax and get away from their tv.

    16. Re:I can see it now... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. Keeping spam out of your inbox is comparable to keeping audible advertisements out of your ears. I as an anti-spammer and mail admin can't keep a spammer from trying to send me their crap but I can not accept it when it gets to me. The same goes for audible advertisements in a public place (or on someone else's property). I can't stop the advertiser from sending me the sound waves of their advertisement but I don't have to accept them. I can stick my fingers in my ears and block them out. That's the correct analogy. Anti-spammers don't mess with someone else's property. Turning off someone else's TV is messing with someone else's property. That's not your right.

    17. Re:I can see it now... by cft_128 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      'm majorly antispam, but it seems to me that getting junk email and listening to junk from a blaring TV is about the same thing. You own neither TV nor the senders mail server, but you still take action to protect your personal space/inbox.

      Not a good analogy: you own your computer that you use to view the spam and where you install the anti-spam software. You do not own the TV, the property that the TV is on and you share the TV with others that like the 'spam'

      The anti-spam for TV would be blinders and ear plugs. The TV-B-Gone for spam would be a device that let anyone shutdown any SMTP server that was sending them mail they didn't want to receive, regardless of what it is and who else was using the server. Still, a TV-B-Gone would be fun, if not quite ethical.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    18. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you think you're more important than everyone else. People like this typically have some sort of deep rooted insecurity. It's people like you that give Americans a bad name. Go back to your trailer house, your fat unemployed wife, and 3 ratty kids. You have a pathetic life, and maybe you should contemplate ending it all. I hear wal-mart is having a sale on cheap 12-gauge shotguns.

      Here are some good reasons for doing so:

      1. Contrary to what women tell you, size does matter. They just feel bad for you. In reality they are telling all of their girlfriends how small yours is and how bad you are in bed. Just think 2 minutes of fun got you 3 kids, now that's efficiency.

      2. Your degree from that tech school? Employers laugh at that shit behind your back. You would have been better off not going to school. But we all understand, those commercials during Jerry Springer are fairly persuasive if your IQ is low enough.

      3. Deep down, you have fantasized about having sex with another man. Now, most people thing this is ok, but it's not. Because of your immense fear of being gay, and your fantasies, it makes you feel dirty. You will slip deeper and deeper into depression until you kill yourself anyway. Why not just spare yourself the pain and get it over with now?

      Those around you can't wait for you to go anyway. Maybe you could just ask and borrow one of their guns.

    19. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. antispammers regularly damage the propperty and/or business and/or freedom and/or rights of spammers and spam servers, as well as many many many inosent third parties (see almost any DNS blacklist, esp. sorbs; all filtering should be keyword/training based, but it never is). For a good example of what I'm talking about, see
      http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/index.ht m
      I don't see how anyone who has made use of this site (I regularly do, and I'm sure many other slashdoters also; it was posted here a while back) can come out against this universal off button.

    20. Re:I can see it now... by HalfStarted · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it isn't quite the same as spam filtering. When you filter a spam server based on black list you are preventing it from sending you spam... you are not turning it off which would prevent it from sending anyone else spam. Your email in box is on your system, or it is on a system that someone is providing for your use, it is (or should be) your right to allow or block mail from any source you choose.

      Obtrusive TV can come in one of 3 forms: A private TV in a private venue (a TV in a bar for example); A private TV in a public venue (a TV inside a store but pointed out the store window.) A public TV in a public venue (a bit more rare... an example would be TV monitors in subway stations/trains that show train schedule information and news.)

      In the following I will assume that in none of the cases you are the person that owns the TV, venue or is otherwise responsible for the TV or venue.

      1) Private/private: I am sorry, as much as you may not like it, it is no more your right to turn off the TV a bar or restaurant owner has chosen to play than it is to decide who he or she is allowed to have as customers or what items they should have on their menus. It is your right to choose to eat/drink/seek entertainment someplace else though. Just because you do not like it does not mean the proprietor of an establishment must choose to accommodate you. You can ask for it to be turned off and they will choose between your business and the business of the people that enjoy having the TV on.

      2) The Private/Public case is a little more consensus... but in my opinion should be considered in the same light as bills, billboards and placards. Taking it upon yourself to turn of any TV that bothers you is an unfair abridgment of the owners first amendment right. Just because you do not agree with the message or the media it is presented on does not give you the right to suppress it. Part of living in a free society is living with others that wish to enjoy their freedom as well and I am sorry but your "freedom from distracting television" is not as important as others freedom of expression.

      3) The Public/Public case (assuming that it truly is a public/public case): Being a public TV in a public place I would assume that some body acting on behalf of the public interest choose to operate a TV running specific programming. Now, just how is it your right as an individual to override this decision on behalf of everyone else because you do not agree with the message or the media? It is your right to complain to the public body responsible for the set and it's programming so they can weigh the requests for with the complaints against and reach a compromise.

      I just can not see how it can be your right to turn off a TV that you do not own, on property you do not own with out the owners/operators consent. I applaud the motivation, but the execution is flawed. People if it really bothers you make it known, let the manager of the bar or restaurant you are at know that you find TV a distraction and you will choose to go some place else if they insist on playing it... if there is a public TV in a public place you find objectionable submit a complaint to the governing body. Part of living in a society that cherishes freedom though is accepting that there are other views that must be considered and you just may have to live with a public TV in a public space because the majority wants it and unless we throw the right to freely express one's self out the window you will always have to live with the private TV projecting into a public space, live with it, it's part of being free.

      --


      Have you thought for yourself today?
    21. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One of these, a portable cell phone jammer, and a can of minivan repellent and I'm set.

      How about a can of SUV disintegrant? The new, improved kind that works on minivans and pickup trucks, too?

    22. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      "a device that let anyone shutdown any SMTP server that was sending them mail they didn't want to receive, regardless of what it is and who else was using the server."

      Oh, do you mean DNS blacklists, like the ones used by AOL, yahoo, and roadrunner? :-) Sure, it's not a complete server shutdown, but those providers make up a large enough portion of email addresses that it might as well be, if you count all the ISPs that contract with yahoo to provide email.

    23. Re:I can see it now... by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      What if other people LIKE watching TV? What if the owner of some establishment likes watching his own TV while he's not busy?

      In other words, what makes YOU so important? Why don't you go somewhere else if you don't like it - no one else seems to have a problem with it.

    24. Re:I can see it now... by wanerious · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Thanks, Mom.

      When I'm in the airport, sometimes I *like* to watch CNN to catch up on what's been happening while I sit for 6 hours between connections. I was stranded overnight in Atlanta, and let me tell you, I would have absolutely *gone off* on some sanctimonious jackass turning off the tv I was blearily watching to pass the time after sleeping on the floor the night before. I hope people like you carry around big signs to illustrate your pomposity, so I can clear out before being subjected to what you think I should be doing with my time.

    25. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To annoy the FUCK out of stuck up assholes like yourself. You are probably the kind of guy who drives around in a Harley with cutoff pipes or a honda civic with a $5000 stereo designed to say "fuck you" to the drivers and people around you. Well guess what, I'll be buying myself one of these devices and flipping the FUCK YOU right back at you, turning off your TV just when the best part of the game is going to happen. This thing is going to be a LOT of fun. I cannot wait to get one.

    26. Re:I can see it now... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      a portable cell phone jammer

      Are you going to beat the crap out of every pair people having a conversation near you too, or does the cell phone make it especially annoying to you? Do you really find it easier to tune it out when both sides of the conversation are there? You're either nosy, or you have some mental issue where your decision to be annoyed by people on a phone makes it impossible for you to treat them like any other person talking somewhere.

      I can understand being annoyed at ringers, or at people chattering away in places where conversation isn't usually permitted, but other than that you really need to grow up.

      Oh, and don't come whining when you get the snot beat out of you by a bunch of raving drunks when you go and push that button in a sports bar somewhere. You had it coming.

    27. Re:I can see it now... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      You might also ask, "What right do TV manufactures have to reserve part of the IR spectrum for their exclusive use?"

      OK, maybe I'm being silly.

    28. Re:I can see it now... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      But you are not the only person that lives in the world, you will not find everything convienent.

      This is precisely why I want to move to Mars.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    29. Re:I can see it now... by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      thanks

      --
      what?
    30. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best post in this entire thread.

    31. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely they'd just be THAT much more likely to give you the ass beating you so richly and obviously deserve.

      Guess what "Einstien"... A lot of people in this life are going to disagree with you, and based on what little I've been exposed to you, they'll fall squarely in the "smart people" category often enough.

    32. Re:I can see it now... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Right or not, if I can turn off tvs in my vicinity I'll do it. Think that's obnoxious?

      If you can't handle a TV being on and are incapable of either looking for or realizing that there are many places to go without TVs, I would say yes, that's incredibly obnoxious and offer that the issue isn't TVs, it's your incapability of dealing with their existence.

      One of these, a portable cell phone jammer, and a can of minivan repellent and I'm set.

      It's humorous that promoting that sort of intrustion by taking away people's abilities gets modded up. If you really have as much of a tolerance issue that you're making it out to be, move somewhere you won't be emotionally raped by phones and TVs.

      Really, is it THAT HARD to avoid TVs?

      Some of these comments' tunes would probably be different if this was about jamming 802.11 or something on that idea.

    33. Re:I can see it now... by HalfStarted · · Score: 1

      bah I hate my lack of spelling skills and evil spell checkers... paragraph 5

      2) The Private/Public case is a little more consensus

      should read

      2) The Private/Public case is a little more contentious

      --


      Have you thought for yourself today?
    34. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it shows that they're tired of jerks like you thinking that the Holy See has just been handed to them and they're speaking ex cathedra when talking about what they want others to do and believe.

      Yes that riles people up. It should, and every bit of ire it points at you is deserved without question.

    35. Re:I can see it now... by Buran · · Score: 1

      This is why I just happen to know a guy who can get borderline-too-powerful green pointers. ;) He actually owes me one for building him a website...

    36. Re:I can see it now... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      After all the stories lately about Best Buy's evil antics, maybe someone who got ripped off by them would like one of these devices so he can go around and screw with Best Buy's business...

      Of course, just turning the TVs off isn't going to hurt their bottom line much, so I don't see why anyone would bother.

      As for airports, I have to disagree with all the people calling this a private establishment. Most large airports are paid by taxpayer dollars, and are just as public as parks or any other government-owned land. If you want to participate in society, you need to use airports, just like you need to use public roads.

      However, it's usually been my experience in airports that the TVs aren't loud enough when I do want to listen to the news, because all the other people talking, and even worse, the intercom system, are so much louder. I wish they'd just mute the volume and turn on the closed-captioning so I can understand the announcer. Anyone annoyed by an airport TV must be there at some very odd hour when no one's there.

    37. Re:I can see it now... by isorox · · Score: 1

      It's a bugger turning all the plasmas on at work every night - 12 plasmas, 5 different makes. You have to juggle remotes, very annoying. A "press once" fob would be great.

      There-ya-go, good purpose.

    38. Re:I can see it now... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      There are devices to do that too.

      You can probably get one off E-bay.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    39. Re:I can see it now... by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Unless you can dress yourself properly and maintain proper hygene, why not stay out of public?

      I don't want to see your ugly stained shirt, and smell your stinky BO.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    40. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a flaw in your logic. You claim that turning off someone else's TV set violates their first ammendment rights. Hate to break this to you, however the first ammendment imposes restrictions only upon the government. It doesn't tell Jack Smack with one of these that they're unconstitutional for it.

      'course, by this logic, you could claim that emitting these messages is your artistic expression. It's 100% the same thing, sending a prerecorded message via optical means to an intended target.

    41. Re:I can see it now... by barkingcorndog · · Score: 1

      Okay, how about a good reason for this thing, other than the usual crap that is getting spouted around here.
      I go to a gym once in a while. There are many TVs there. Most people don't watch them and they even have signs saying 'Please turn this off when you're done'. Many times, I'll be working out in one area where someone was watching TV. They leave, forget to turn the damn thing off, and I either have to live with it or stop my workout and go across the room to turn it off. One of these would be great.

      Use responsibly!

      --
      "I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
    42. Re:I can see it now... by MQBS · · Score: 1
      ...bills, billboards and placards...I am sorry but your "freedom from distracting television" is not as important as others freedom of expression.


      Commercial speech != person expression. Let me give you an example. At a memorial, it's acceptable to leave flowers or a message, but it's unacceptable to post up advertising for your business just because you know that there will be a lot of people to see it. Corproations get away with it because we've given them rights as a person, and as a result they demand freedom of speech, even for commercial purposes.

      --
      The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
    43. Re:I can see it now... by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      Of course I'm exaggerating the level of annoyance that I have toward TVs in public places, but you have to admit that you're exaggerating the alternative view. My god! The TV is off! I'm dying, dying!

      I'll concede that I don't have any inherent right to turn off someone else's TV, but it's pretty clear that it's not really hurting anyone. People are going to get pissed if they're actually watching the TV, but nobody's going to be whipping out this gadget in that sort of a situation unless they're looking for an argument. I think in most situations it's pretty obvious whether turning off the TV would be acceptable. If all else fails, you can stand up and say, "Hey, is anybody watching this?"

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    44. Re:I can see it now... by HalfStarted · · Score: 1

      While you are correct in stating that the First Amendment specifically prohibits the governments suppression of free expression, it was included because the framers of the Constitution realized that in order for a society to be free its individuals must be able to openly express and discuss any idea.

      Your idea of freedom is "The government can not suppress speech but, me, a private citizen can" is missing the whole point. For clarity of my argument though, you are correct, I should have kept the discussion generic as to infringing on the right of expression and shouldn't have evoked the First Amendment.

      Further, freedoms are not always complete and absolute, in a free and civilized society many rights are contingent on there expression not infringing on the rights of others. This argument that it is my freedom and right of expression to emit a signal that just might happen to turn off a TV must not abridge my right to use a TV to express myself.

      Having my TV on does not interfere with your right to transmit this signal, but irresponsible expression of your right to this signal can interfere with my right to use a TV to convey a particular message or provide a service to my customers. It would not place any undue burden on you to transmit your signal in a way that will not interfere with my rights to using a TV as a means to convey a message.

      In reality the intention of emitting the signal is specifically to turn of the TV in question and the argument that TV owners/users are unjustly interfering with a right to emit the signal is just a lame excuse to gain some credibility for the argument.

      --


      Have you thought for yourself today?
    45. Re:I can see it now... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      but you have to admit that you're exaggerating the alternative view

      I don't think so. The alternative view is that it's not your TV, so you shouldn't be able to turn it off.

      but it's pretty clear that it's not really hurting anyone.

      Yeah, but that works both ways. I like being able to watch CNN or something if I have nothing else to do. It's not really hurting anyone to have a TV on, and if it is, don't be at that place.

      I think in most situations it's pretty obvious whether turning off the TV would be acceptable. If all else fails, you can stand up and say, "Hey, is anybody watching this?"

      Yes, but just turning TVs off at public places if people are watching them or if the owner of the TV doesn't want it off is an asshole thing to do (illegal in some situations?).

    46. Re:I can see it now... by HalfStarted · · Score: 1

      You are correct, commercial speech does not have the same extent of protection as free expression and as such laws and ordnances can be past that can greatly limit the venue of commercial speech while on the other hand it is much more difficult to pass a law that places limits on personal speech. This does not mean that you as an individual are allowed to tear down, block or prevent commercial speech that is not otherwise barred by law. Using the terms speech and expression interchangeably, In a free society all speech, commercial or private, should be afforded the greatest benefit of the doubt, in general errors should be committed on the grounds of being overly permissive, not as being overly oppressive. Thus, unless specifically barred all speech should be considered allowed. It is in the forming of the rules to allow or to bar specific forms of speech that the distinction between commercial and personal speech becomes important.

      Further societies operate as a cooperation of individuals. As such it is not the place of any individual or group of individuals to make decisions on behalf of the whole unless selected in some form by the whole to operate on their behalf.

      --


      Have you thought for yourself today?
    47. Re:I can see it now... by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. You're at a gym and you're complaining about walking all the way across the room to turn the damn thing off?

      Ask someone (who works in said gym) to turn it off for you - they have the resonsibility for balancing the needs of the "want to watchers" against the needs of the "don't want to watchers", not you.

      Does you're "use responsibly" mantra include asking anyone else in the area whether they might actually want to watch, or would you just turn it off and leave it to them to turn it back on again.

      Sorry, no dice.

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    48. Re:I can see it now... by Llama_STi · · Score: 1

      Yes, as foolish as it was. Honestly, who gives a corporation/company the right to put up ads anywhere they please? I have to look around at the ever-increasingly commercial world and shake my head. It doesn't have to come to this...

    49. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god, if I had to have a "right" to do everything I want, I'd never get shit done. [1] I'm not exactly racing out to buy one of these, but if somebody did, let them think the consequences and impacts on their surrounding humans through by themselves instead of making a blind appeal to authority.

      [1] Particularly underscored by living in a country where various laws and state established rights contradict various other state established rights. How disillusioning it is to actually read the law.

    50. Re:I can see it now... by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
      Leaving aside the fact that you're ranting for no reason at a perfectly polite poster...

      Do you really find it easier to tune it out when both sides of the conversation are there? You're either nosy, or you have some mental issue where your decision to be annoyed by people on a phone makes it impossible for you to treat them like any other person talking somewhere.

      He's not the only one then. For whatever reason, cell phone conversations are annoying to nearly everyone.

      I suspect it's at least in part because cell connections tend to be bad, so people on cell phones will be talking a lot louder than if the person were right next to them.

      --

      What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    51. Re:I can see it now... by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
      The alternative view is that it's not your TV, so you shouldn't be able to turn it off.

      The alternative to your alternative view is that if the owner is not there, and nobody is actually watching the TV, you have a right to take nondestructive actions like turning the thing off. You don't have the right to smash it, but that's a different matter.

      I mean, if you're in a bar, and you need more tables to accomodate a larger group, do you go "Oh, it's not my table, I don't have the right to move it"? No, you move it because it's not harming anything. You don't have the right to burn it for heat...

      Yes, but just turning TVs off at public places if people are watching them...

      Yes, but nothing. He just excluded that case. Would you not find it handy to have a remote, so that in a situation where nobody is watching a TV (you just asked, remember, because you are a polite and considerate person), and there is no remote nearby, and you would rather have it off because you want to read, or sleep, or have a conversation without a flickering screen just behind your friend's shoulder to distract you?

      --

      What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    52. Re:I can see it now... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      a perfectly polite poster...

      Who's so polite about turning off other people's TVs and jamming their cell phones?

    53. Re:I can see it now... by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Mom.

      When I'm in the airport, sometimes I *[DON'T] like* to watch CNN to catch up on what's been happening while I sit for 6 hours between connections. I was stranded overnight in [someplace], and let me tell you, I would have absolutely *gone off* on some sanctimonious jackass turning [ON] the tv I WASN'T blearily watching [as I tried to read my book/newspaper/sleep some more] to pass the time after sleeping on the floor the night before. I hope people like you carry around big signs to illustrate your pomposity, so I can clear out before being subjected to what you think I should be doing with my time.

      Can my one-sided self-centered opinion also be modded insightful please? Seems to work for everyone else.

    54. Re:I can see it now... by wanerious · · Score: 1

      That sounds clever, except the subtlety is that the device is supposed to work for TVs that are already on. I'll agree that one ought to politely ask those around before turning on a noisy TV in an otherwise quiet location.

    55. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That is NOT a good example, that is a BAD example. That site is nothing more than a handy web frontend for a Distributed Denial of Service attack. You admit to using it, then make BS statements like "antispammers regularly damage the propperty and/or business and/or freedom and/or rights of spammers and spam servers, as well as many many many inosent third parties..." (direct quote, too many [sic]s to fuck with).

      Blocklists are nothing more than a list. For whatever reason, someone is on the list (in some cases, it's spammers. In others, it's assholes who swing around cart00ney legal threats. In still others, it's geographic location) and the mail administrator can decide to use or NOT use those lists. Nowhere on the SORBS site, for example, do I see anything that says "filter using our lists or we'll shoot your wife, rape your dog, and tell the DHS that you're an Al-Quaeda sympathizer."

      Are you disconnected with reality, a spammer yourself, or just a fuckwit who thinks your rights trump those around you? (Note: Options are NOT mutually exclusive, as parent poster shows)

    56. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Don't know much about how a DNSbl works, do you? Those lists don't stop ANYONE from *sending* email. It stops the servers from RECIEVING email from those on the list. Since those servers have to be KNOWINGLY CONFIGURED to use those lists by the OWNERS/ADMINISTRATORS of the servers, your claim is completely false.

      If AOL(or anyone else) doesn't want to receive mail from you for whatever reason, tough cookies. It's their server.

    57. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a flame! If I were a spammer, why would I admit to using spam vampire? Can you please think for a minute before making stupid accusations; I'm not sure if it would help you any, but it couldn't do you any harm. Disconnected from reality? I find that amusing, coming as it does right before a signature that clearly shows how disconnected you yourself must be. You also seem to think that I am, for what ever reason, against blacklists. I choose not to use them personally because I find them inaccurate, but getting back on topic, I believe I have as much right to use one as to turn off a TV invading my personal space with it's noise. Yes, antispammers do damage servers. I never made *any* statements as to the correctness of this, and will not do so now. I was just making a handy comparison, even if I may have sounded slightly bitter (ever tried to get off a blacklist when it wasn't your fault the server is on in the first place? Thought not.). You seem to have lost the entire point of this thread in your need to franticly defend antispammers, even when no direct attack was made. Do you feel guilty about something?

      "a fuckwit who thinks your rights trump those around you?"
      Wah? Hold on. Are you against blacklists and spam vampire or for them? If for, you and I both could fall into that one; if against, you don't and maybe I do. But...can you please sort out some sort of unified position before posting? I realize this is /., but contradicting yourself in one post is low even for this forum. I mean, I think we all still have standards. We like to pretend, anyway.

    58. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's the customers email, not their's. If the mailman doesn't want to deliver you some of your mail, well, it's his truck, not yours. Even worse, if the post office doesn't want to accept any more mail from you, well, Tough cookies. It's their mailbox.

    59. Re:I can see it now... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      if the owner is not there, and nobody is actually watching the TV, you have a right to take nondestructive actions like turning the thing off

      I doubt anyone has a real problem with that nor was that even brought up because it should be common sense.

      Oh, it's not my table, I don't have the right to move it"? No, you move it because it's not harming anything.

      Noone is arguing that...

      Would you not find it handy to have a remote, so that in a situation where nobody is watching a TV (you just asked, remember, because you are a polite and considerate person), and there is no remote nearby, and you would rather have it off because you want to read, or sleep, or have a conversation without a flickering screen just behind your friend's shoulder to distract you?


      It would be convenient, but again the case in which the action of turning off the TV is not detrimental to anyone isn't what's being argued here. That's obvious.

    60. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The mail is a government agency, NOT a private business. Replace "Mail" with "UPS" or "FedEx" and surprise, it's still true. If their customers don't like it, there are other companies out there for them to pay instead.

    61. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Disconnected from reality? I find that amusing, coming as it does right before a signature that clearly shows how disconnected you yourself must be

      Irony is apparently lost on you. Duly noted.

      I believe I have as much right to use one as to turn off a TV invading my personal space with it's noise.

      You do not have "personal space" when you are on someone else's property.

      Yes, antispammers do damage servers.

      Blocking traffic and filtering email do not damage servers. Tell me again how antispammers damage servers.

      I never made *any* statements as to the correctness of this, and will not do so now.

      As a statement, it is unsupported by any evidence you've presented. SpamVampire is not an "antispammer" tool, it's stupid Script-kiddie bullshit.

      I was just making a handy comparison, even if I may have sounded slightly bitter

      Handy? Perhaps. Flawed? Entirely.

      (ever tried to get off a blacklist when it wasn't your fault the server is on in the first place? Thought not.)

      Actually, you're wrong again. A mailserver I was admin for ended up in SPEWS. I got it out.

      You seem to have lost the entire point of this thread in your need to franticly defend antispammers, even when no direct attack was made.

      I'm hardly frantic. However, an attack WAS made, or do you deny this statement: "antispammers regularly damage the propperty and/or business and/or freedom and/or rights of spammers and spam servers, as well as many many many inosent third parties"

      That IS a direct attack, and a bald-faced lie.

      Hold on. Are you against blacklists and spam vampire or for them?

      There IS no "blacklists AND spamvampire." The two are entirely different. I am FOR Blacklists, because they only effect my servers that *I* decide to put them on. To equate them with a DDOS attack (Which is what SpamVampire is) is disingenuous at best. By using a blacklist to block email from China to my domain, for example, I don't stop China from sending email to yahoo.

      I never contradicted myself. I contradicted your bullshit position that blacklists are a denial of service attack.

    62. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      The difference is that both those companies ship nearly anywhere from nearly anywhere, completely unlike the community takeovers done by companies like Rogers Communications, comcast, AOL broadband, Roadrunner, etc. Many (if not most) communities only have one broadband provider that gives them all the crap they'll take in order to save themselves money (like too harsh spam filtering, giving them an excuse to delete users email); if you live in a community that offers you 2 broadband providers, you should consider yourself extremely lucky.

    63. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      "You do not have "personal space" when you are on someone else's property."

      Huh! You learn something knew every day. I suppose, then, that it's okay for me to strip search, assault, and maybe even *rape* someone as long as they're on my property? I thought all those things were invading someone Else's personal space; but seeing as they don't have one, it must be okay.

      "However, an attack WAS made..."

      No. I was stating facts. This is far from attacking someone. It is about as much of an attack on antispammers as your statement "Irony is apparently lost on you. Duly noted." It's just stating a fact; I'm not even really clear on the meaning of the word Irony, so how can I claim you're attacking me? You're just stating a (correct) fact. You need to learn the difference between statement of fact and attack.

      "I am FOR Blacklists, because they only effect my servers that *I* decide to put them on."

      Ah. That, my friend, is wherein lies the entire substance of the disagreement. I never said (or maybe meant, I may have been unclear) blacklists are the same thing as a denial of service. However, they do approximately the same amount of harm, only in different ways and areas. The problem seems to be that you can only see "your server" and are completely unable to look at the bigger picture.

      Congratulations, by the way, on ignoring the several cheap shots I shouldn't have taken at you that I took anyway. I'm outclassed. Not wrong, just outclassed. :-)

    64. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Huh! You learn something knew every day. I suppose, then, that it's okay for me to strip search, assault, and maybe even *rape* someone as long as they're on my property? I thought all those things were invading someone Else's personal space; but seeing as they don't have one, it must be okay.

      No, those are invading someone else's BODY. "Personal space" is a stupid 90's touchy-feely concept. Equating being raped with having to listen to a TV that might be a bit too loud in a bar is a really REALLY thin straw to grasp at.

      No. I was stating facts. This is far from attacking someone...You need to learn the difference between statement of fact and attack.

      You offered no evidence that this is a "fact." Until you provide at least SOME support, it's an unsubstantiated attack.

      I never said (or maybe meant, I may have been unclear) blacklists are the same thing as a denial of service.

      You equated blacklists with SpamVampire. SpamVampire is a DDOS.

      However, they do approximately the same amount of harm, only in different ways and areas.

      You keep claiming this, but you have yet to point out how a blacklist harms a server. Since you chose to snip it out of your reply and not answer it, I'll repeat that a blacklist only keeps servers from sending mail to MY SERVER, it doesn't stop anyone from sending mail to servers that don't have anything to do with my network. Unless receiving a 550 error crashes your mail daemon, I fail to see how a blacklist harms the server.

      So I ask you again, to back up this claim with some evidence, or even some reasoning behind holding the OPINION that blacklists harm servers.

    65. Re:I can see it now... by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      When I said the same amount of harm but in different ways, I did not even mean that blacklists harm servers. Let me break it down for you:

      DDOS: This attack harms servers and websites directly, usually crashing them for a short period of time (until the attacks are filtered out), or for a much longer time on less friendly isps.

      Blacklists: blacklists delete or block important emails, sometimes without even bothering to notify the sender, and almost never notifying the intended receiver. This causes a permanent (until the blacklist is disabled) breakdown of communications. This can damage businesses, cause loss of important data (a server crash will cause the originator to resend usually several times until it gets through, a blacklist will in some cases just silently fail), serious losses of money on the part of both sender *and* receiver, can be a security risk (did you know road runner was blocking the department of homeland security for a long time?), and can cause other misunderstandings as well as breaking the fundamental concept/point behind email (no authority, anyone can send to anyone).

      So, like I say, the same *amount* of harm, just different ways.

    66. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      SMTP was never designed to be a reliable protocol. Anyone whose business RELIES on email has made a very poor business decision. However, most modern blacklists work during the SMTP transaction and return a 55x error (permanent failure) to the sending MTA. This in turn generates a message to the sender (ever mistype an email address and get a message from MAILER-DAEMON or the like? That's the kind) and DOES notify him/her that the message didn't get through. I agree with you that silently "dropping messages on the floor" (that is, not generating a 55x message) is a poor practice. However, that's NOT the fault of the blacklist. That's the fault of the administrator who configured the MTA to behave in that fashion.

      In other words, all of the concerns you listed are indeed valid. However, they are the result of human error, not using a blocklist. The buisness exec who decided that email is central to large transactions of money, the server administrator who chose to drop packets rather than send 55x failures, etc... Prime examples of Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be appropriately explained by stupidity.")

      I also have to disagree with what you call the "fundamental concept/point behind email." There is no CENTRAL authority, as each property owner can determine for him/herself what he doesn't want to receive, and from whom. Email was never designed under the 'ideal' of removing private property rights.

    67. Re:I can see it now... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That I have to agree with, but I'm personally not willing to aquiesce[0] private property rights because of government-sponsored monopolies like phone and cable. That's two wrongs trying to make a right.

      [0] Yes, I know I slaughtered that spelling. It's 6am, cut me some slack.

  5. toggle? by kyoorius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't the remote also turn on all the televisions which were originally off?

    1. Re:toggle? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many devices have a toggle IR code that will do as you say. However, most also include descrete codes that will always turn the device off, or leave it off if it already is off. Home theater buffs who purchase advanced remote controls that have macro capabilities use the descrete codes to program an "All Off" button for instance.

    2. Re:toggle? by Feanturi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the article indicates that it is a power toggle, not specifically an 'off' button. The device is to be appreciated for the 'off' function rather than the 'on' side of it. If it was intended to be used for turning TVs on, you'd obviously want more buttons to do channels and volume. So even though it toggles, having only the one button it makes more sense that you'd just be using it for switching them off.

    3. Re:toggle? by Sialagogue · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey could I hang this on a keychain?

      Wouldn't this be really good if it were IR?

      Maybe they should try the codes for the most popular brands first, then it would work better!

      --
      The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
    4. Re:toggle? by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Not if the owners are intelligent enough to *gasp* cover the IR receiver during business hours...

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    5. Re:toggle? by FreeTheFurniture! · · Score: 1

      True. What's really needed is a FOB which provides a substantial, localized (say 50 foot radius) EM burst. This would provide the desired 'off only' capability.

    6. Re:toggle? by slim · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't the remote also turn on all the televisions which were originally off?

      So if you don't fancy physically blocking the IR port, another defeating mechanism would be to have two identical TVs next to each other, one turned on, one turned off...

    7. Re:toggle? by The+Mgt · · Score: 1

      Woohoo!! Mayhem!! I want a high powered version of this mounted as a beacon on my car roof so I can cruise around the houses while all these godawful reality TV shows are on.
      I wonder what else it will turn off (or on)? For instance my Sony TV remote turns off my ancient Mac.

    8. Re:toggle? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Simple.

      One relay, one 9V battery, some wire.

      Wire the power of the relay coil through the relay NC contacts. If you apply power, the relay opens, which cuts off power to the relay. Of course, the spring closes the relay contact again, which applies power, which cuts off power.

      Now, the contacts of the relay will spark, as there is no snubbing diode. This is rich with all sorts of RF. And maybe adding a long wire as an antenna might belp.

      Of course, this will probably not affect any TV which uses cable, but should affect antennas.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    9. Re:toggle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And God have mercy on the old guy beside you, the one with a pacemaker.
      And the deaf kid nearby who just got an operation for cochlear implant.

    10. Re:toggle? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      A gheto version if this would be to take apart an existing remote control, and snip off the IR-LED. Instead, wire this to the base (or gate) of a transistor, which controls a chain of IR-LEDs powered from a separate source. Then, add a lens for focusing, and you have a remote-control-cannon. This would be capable of controlling a TV from a block away! The only problem is that you would have to program the remote to match the make/model of the TV being controlled.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    11. Re:toggle? by dcocos · · Score: 1

      I have two Sony universal remotes, different models. They both have a button that basically says "turn everything off", it is smart enough to only turn off the things that are on.

    12. Re:toggle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Keith Moon discovered, all you really need for a universal remote is a hotel window.....

    13. Re:toggle? by FreeTheFurniture! · · Score: 1
      Of course, this will probably not affect any TV which uses cable, but should affect antennas.

      I guess, until they invent a more powerful portable power supply, a twelve gauge shot to the power pole insulator will remain the most effective option.

    14. Re:toggle? by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      So, if you had a bar with a bunch of televisions, and a few patrons with these things, all thinking they're in control of the TVs... hilarity ensues.

    15. Re:toggle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way.

      Here's the plan:
      1. Sell large numbers of "off" transmitters to the TV opponents.
      2. Sell an equally large number of "on" transmitters to TV proponents. (this will require a slight modification of the OFF label on the original design)
      3. $$$

    16. Re:toggle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Conservatives: Kill murderers, save children.
      Liberals: Kill children, save murderers. "

      Ahem...
      NeoConservatives: Kill everyone, save oil.

    17. Re:toggle? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      that would sorta stop them from being able to switch channels at the request of a patron now wouldn't it?

      Maybe if the off button device becomes common place and *used* regularly, but otherwise most places want to be able to change the channel if more people want to watch a different game.


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    18. Re:toggle? by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      ... and also provide the not-so-desired 'off only' capability to the pace maker of the unfortunate fellow sitting next to you.

      --
      !hoD
    19. Re:toggle? by dogmasponge · · Score: 1

      Yes it seems that it would. I downloaded a program that makes my Palm pilot into a tv remote. You could modifty or write code to do this on them and not need to purchase and carry another device. Any programable ir transmitter would do.

  6. Free market, people by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants

    Then don't eat there. It's not your TV to turn off, and maybe other people want to watch it.

    1. Re:Free market, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah what kind of idiot can't ignore a television? Has the submitter time traveled to 2004 from the Dark Ages or something? That's like saying he can't ignore the sky. Goodness. Besides, what is the real point of this invention? It doesn't turn the TVs off permanently. If a TV goes out in a restaurant do you think the owner is going to freak out because he doesn't know how to turn it back on? Fuck.

    2. Re:Free market, people by finkployd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you trying to insinuate that the entire world shouldn't conform to my preferences? How un /. of you.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:Free market, people by Derkec · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding, next he'll tell me that it's wrong for me to try to uninstall cripple / emacs on other people's computers in an effort to bring vi glory to the world.

    4. Re:Free market, people by jayhawk88 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My thought exactly. All this device is is some elitist fucks ass waiting to be kicked.

    5. Re:Free market, people by Politburo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, I bet you think they deserve it, too.

    6. Re:Free market, people by brunson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, but I think you do.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    7. Re:Free market, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "uninstall cripple /"

      It sounds more like you're trying to bring dc glory to the world.

    8. Re:Free market, people by Moby+Cock · · Score: 2

      Here, Here. This gadget is for self-righteous and sanctimonious wankers. A TV is a sports bar, really kinda defines the whole atmosphere. And a TV over a bar in a restaurant is useful for the unfortunates who have to eat alone for whatever reason.

      But your point is bang-on. Instead of pissing off people in bars, restaurants or reparture lounges...Stay the fuck at home! You are not welcome.

    9. Re:Free market, people by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Anyone who wishes physical harm on another for such petty reasons has mental issues. I hope you, and the OP, get well in the future.

    10. Re:Free market, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a free market then I should be able to buy this device as I please. If it annoys you to see the TV turn off then maybe you should go somewhere else where they don't have TV's that can be shut off with an IR remote. Fucking communist.

    11. Re:Free market, people by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      next he'll tell me that it's wrong for me to try to uninstall cripple / emacs on other people's computers in an effort to bring vi glory to the world.

      It's true, uninstalling emacs is the only way to get any sane person to use vi.

      (sorry, you asked for it) :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Free market, people by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm actually fairly editor agnostic, but it seemed like a mandatory slashdot post.

      Kind of like saying, "I for one welcome our new TV controlling overlords." or something about soviet russia turning us off.

    13. Re:Free market, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, maybe everyone in the room wants it off, but assumes that there must be one person in the room who wants it on.

      And why does one person who wants it on, veto a group who wants it off?

  7. Suicidal by enforcer999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want to die a quick death, try using this gizmo at an Oklahoma sports bar during an OU Sooners football game. You will not live long.

    1. Re:Suicidal by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Well the gizmo's instructions have to state that such uses are not permitted or they face lawsuits. People are going to do that anyway and somebody's going to get hurt. The days of the ubuquitous laser pointer are back :/

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:Suicidal by stecoop · · Score: 1

      lawsuits - interesting that the lawsuit aspect was brought up. I don't know of any law that would prohibit the use of these. Let me site some examples: A radar jammer is illegal because it is regulated by the FCC and jammers don't accept interference and jammers produce interference; Yet Laser jammers are legal because lasers are regulated by the FDA - as such no interference law is applicable; still some states choose to make the laser jammer illegal. Therefore, a new law would have to be drawn at the state level to make these IR devices not legal.

      What other laws would apply to the usage of IR devices?

    3. Re:Suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell gives sports bar owners the right to public performance of a work copyrighted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association?

      I mean, sure, the law gives you the right to performance in your own home--for now--but we're talking about a public venue!

      I know that if I were the copyright holder, I would have no trouble hiring my own thugs^H^H^H^H^Hattorneys to shut these people down!

    4. Re:Suicidal by bennomatic · · Score: 1
      Doesn't need anything explicit. Just public nuisance stuff, and it doesn't even need to be a criminal lawsuit. If someone turns off the tube right before the final home run of game seven, I'm sure that some sheister lawyer could figure out a way that the people who were there at the sports bar just to see it could sue that person.

      Of course, it's likely that person would have already "paid"...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    5. Re:Suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you guy, just fuck you. Dont give them any ideas.

    6. Re:Suicidal by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      Because most legit bars get their feed from satellite or cable using a special business account that includes licensing fee's in the monthly cost's that specifically allows for this.

      And yes, broadcasters do employ people whose job it is to perform audits on bars to make sure their licensing is legit.

    7. Re:Suicidal by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind, most sports bars are only showing whats already being publicly broadcast ove rthe airwaves. They can turn on the tv and let anyone see that, however, if they made a video of it and replayed it later, then they would need the licensing angles covered

    8. Re:Suicidal by DrewCapu · · Score: 1

      Then he'll start singing:
      "Sooner born, Sooner bred, when I die I'll be Sooner dead."

      Oh btw, OU should get their own fight song. If memory serves me correctly that Boomer Sooner song is originally the Yale Boola.

      Go (Cal) Bears!
      (Yeah, UCLA stole our fight song too.)

    9. Re:Suicidal by skavj_binsk · · Score: 2, Funny
      If you want to die a quick death, try using this gizmo at an Oklahoma sports bar during an OU Sooners football game. You will not live long.

      On the plus side, at least it's a fast way OUT OF OKLAHOMA. Might be worth it.

    10. Re:Suicidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Purported threat], try using this gizmo at an [State] sports bar during an [College] [sport] game. [comment on perpetrator's longevity].

      After witnessing a few /minor/ soccer matches in the UK, I can definitely state that US sports fans are mild and kindhearted in comparison to their British counterparts. When the worst of the worst (e.g. Oakland Raiders fans) start glassing and knifing their counterparts on a regular basis, then maybe we'll be able to hold our cheeseburger-stuffed heads a little higher in the world of hooliganism.

      Until then, we'll just have to take cold comfort in the fact that we're basically decent human beings by comparison =p

    11. Re:Suicidal by enforcer999 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you have not seen OU Sooner fans. We are tame but fanatical. We do not fight or kill or maim. We just yell cuss words and things like "kill" "break" "maim" and stuff along those lines. I usually lose my voice somewhere along the way.

    12. Re:Suicidal by enforcer999 · · Score: 1
      Well Drew, considering that the term "Sooner" means someone that STEALS spots.... Need I say more?

      I once had a person ask me what Sooner means. I had to explain that they were the guys/gals that chose to go BEFORE the land rush in Oklahoma and basically cheated... what kind of name is this?

      However, my team does not cheat. What is in a name?

  8. Not swamped by Wired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    But by earlier Slashdot coverage this week. Repost.

  9. who gave you the right? by jxyama · · Score: 4, Insightful
    you might be annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports... but who's giving you the right to turn it off on behalf of everyone?

    if you are in a public place, you cannot turn that TV off as it's not solely yours. if you are in a private place not your own, you cannot turn that TV off as the TV is not yours.

    if you can't manage to turn off the TV in your own home, then you got other problems.

    1. Re:who gave you the right? by kmb · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's not the world's problem that you can't tune TV out. (I generally can, unless, well, my human companion is a total bore.) Just avoid restaurants with TVs or asked to be seated in an area away from one. For airports, you can generally find an area relatively far away from the TV. Most of these places probably put the TVs in in the first place because (some of) their customers requested them.

    2. Re:who gave you the right? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2
      you might be annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports... but who's giving you the right to turn it off on behalf of everyone?
      I guess I'd phrase it a little differently: who's restricting my right to produce some unregulated IR signals? If people want it on, they can duct tape over the IR window and use the buttons. I suspect the majority of people (as the inventor implied) don't care if the TV is on or off anyway. Should we hold a vote before turning it on (or off)?

      Anyway, it's only a matter of time before there's the "TV B On" for the tubeoholics. Then the "IR remote detectors" and "anti-IR radiation micromissles" and so forth.

      It's all good for the economy.

    3. Re:who gave you the right? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is slashdot -- we're supposed to know that the tool is not the problem.

      Many times in a former life, I was the only one at a remote gate at O'Hare airport, minimal staff, no other passengers, TV blaring away on "CNN Airport" or whatever. In this situation, it would be nice to be able to turn the thing off without distracting the staff from their real jobs.

      If there are other people, my posession of this device does not automatically oblige me to discourteously deprive them of their TV. It's a tool. It can be abused. Boo hoo. If that happens, punish the abusers.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    4. Re:who gave you the right? by Skater · · Score: 1

      My experience with airports is that the TVs are enclosed and the IR receivers aren't visible anyway, making this device useless for even that purpose.

      --RJ

    5. Re:who gave you the right? by egburr · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Who gave you the right to force TV (and most especially the noise from it) upon me in a public place? Stop the public dispersal of these and require headphones, preferably ones that make some attempt to send the noise inward only.

      Noise pollution is as bad as air pollution. People putting TVs up in every possible place are as bad as smokers. Some people like quiet; some people like to breathe.

      There are many places I go where I don't have a reasonable choice to avoid this. (I won't count restaurants in this, because there are so usually many choices available.)

      For example, my current dentist and the three I have had previously over the years all have TVs in their waiting rooms. I always make my appointments as early in the morning as possible and usually arrive to an empty waiting room, usually with the TV off. Inevitably, the next person to arrive just HAS to turn it on and crank up the volume without even checking to see if anyone cared. There is no place to get away from that noise in there.

      For another example, one shopping mall that I avoid whenever possible has large TVs every 50 feet or so hanging from the ceiling in the hallways. The noise from those is so loud, I can't hear my wife shouting right next to me. Well, I can hear her, I just can't understand what she is saying because of all the interference that she cannot overcome. I have never seen anyone showing any indication of paying attention to either the TVs or the noise from them.

      Finally, airports are the most annoying offenders I can think of. If you want to hear the boarding call for your flight, there is NO place you can go to get away from the overhead TVs blaring away at you. And, where the noise from the overhead TVs is weakest, that's wheere they place the group of loud pay-per-use individual TV seats. Trying to use a pay phone or cell phone in all that racket is about as bad as trying to use one on the side of a busy highway.

      A gas station I used to use almost exclusively recently lost my business when they installed ad-spewing TVs on each pump. I never go there anymore.

      I was recently called for jury duty. We were required to stay in one specific large room. Mounted near the ceiling at each corner of the room was a TV, just out of reach; all were on loud and all were on different channels. When I asked if ONE could be turned off, the response was that someone might want to watch it. Not that anyone WAS watching it, that someone MIGHT want to watch it.

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    6. Re:who gave you the right? by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      if you are in a public place, you cannot turn that TV off as it's not solely yours.

      So, does this mean that I can't use a door in a public place since it's not "completely mine"? Unless we're talking about a sports bar or a Radio Shack, TVs are generally not watched in public places.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    7. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your excuse for being a self centered Jackass is that it's legal?

      No one here is saying it's illegal. Just because you are too lazy to ask to have the TV shut off (if it's REALLY that bad) doesn't give you an excuse to go ahead and do it yourself.

    8. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The owner of the door implicitly gives customers/patrons/visitors permission to use it (provided it gives access to an area they allow those individuals to go).

      The owner of a TV set does *not* implicitly give them permission to control the TV. Similarly, the owner of the door does not give individuals permission to take the door of its hinges, install a "peep hole", or replace the locks.

    9. Re:who gave you the right? by moofdaddy · · Score: 1

      Using the door is askin to watching the tv dumbass. Other people are still able to go through it (or watch it).

      Locking the door would be the equivilent to turning off the TV. Do you think you should be allowed to lock the door?

      --
      Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
    10. Re:who gave you the right? by deacon · · Score: 1
      Um, if I am in a public place, by what right is that TV on, as it is not solely the property of people who want it on?

      Or do just the wants and "rights" of the TV addicts count?

    11. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My religion prohibits TV. I wonder if I could sue them for forcing me to watch something against my religion.

      Well not TV per say. Educational TV is fine. The mindless stream of sex, drugs, fights, and violence is not allowed. This covers just about everything, including most of the news. There are some educational things out there, or so I'm told. I know discovery and the history channel do not qualify, despite what others tell me.

    12. Re:who gave you the right? by Paladin144 · · Score: 1
      You're clearly a curmudgeon, but I agree with you. It is quite a bit like smoking - I feel that the noise and light pollution caused by TV is probably harmful to me in some way because I oftentimes feel physically ill when a gigantic TV is assaulting me with obnoxious commercials at ear-shattering volumes. It's feels like torture to me, and I get a nauseous feeling just above my stomach. I'm sure no one would ever commission a study on this (at least not in America - land of people who are addicted to the boob-tube like it was crack-cocaine), but I'd be willing to bet there are negative physiological and psychological side effects from even second-hand TV consumption (i.e. being in the same room with a functioning TV).

      Of course, this device isn't perfect since the TV can be turned on again quite easily. I think a manufacturer called Smith & Wesson makes a more complete solution.

    13. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like your problem is with your hearing, not the TVs. if everything were so loud, then people would complain and the employees would turn the noise down. obviously most people don't mind enough to make a stink about it. it must just be you, the public TVs i've been around are usually too quiet to hear above the racket caused by people talking, etc.

    14. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Trying to use a pay phone or cell phone in all that racket is about as bad as trying to use one on the side of a busy highway.


      So the racket you create yakking on your cell phone is OK, but the TV is not?

    15. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, where did he even say that the tool was the problem? It's normal not RTFA, but it is pretty scary if you don't even read the post you are replying to. You, and the person who posted this article, are assholes. If you are annoyed by a TV, don't go to that place, or in the case of an airport, go sit somewhere not near the tv. Don't take it on yourself to turn something off that doesn't belong to you. An actually, in this case, the tool is the problem because it is specifically designed to turn off TVs that you don't own. It's like car garage remote that will try all the channels to open a garage. Why else would you use that unless to open someone else's garage? It will be great fun for every juvenile asshole to have one of these and piss people off by turning off tvs. If you would buy one just for the reason that you want to turn off tvs at airports when you are all alone, then you are a moron. How often is that going to happen anyways? The fact is that there is such a limited use of this product that it will only be good for assholes. The ones that like to piss other people off and the ones that think that the world should be the way want it and the hell with everyone else.

    16. Re:who gave you the right? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Summary: WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH

      Take the $50 you would have spent on this device and invest in a decent pair of noise-cancelling headphones instead. There's no reason your desire not to listen to TV ought to trump the desires of those who DO wish to listen.

    17. Re:who gave you the right? by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

      Inevitably, the next person to arrive just HAS to turn it on and crank up the volume without even checking to see if anyone cared.

      So your solution is to be just as much of an asshole and turn the TV off without asking them? How about being polite and working on a compromise of some sort?

      The noise from those is so loud, I can't hear my wife shouting right next to me.

      Then don't ever go to that mall. What's there that you absolutely can't live without?

      I have never seen anyone showing any indication of paying attention to either the TVs or the noise from them.

      Perhaps they've learned to just ignore them, rather than getting all hot and bothered.

      A gas station I used to use almost exclusively recently lost my business when they installed ad-spewing TVs on each pump. I never go there anymore.

      Good. You stopped patronizing a private establishment whose practices you don't agree with.

      The jury duty situation sucks, and it's probably the most legitimate complaint. The airport is also somewhat valid, but I find it hard to use phones in there regardless of televisions. Malls and airports are loud simply because there are thousands of people all in one place, and while TVs add to it, they're by no means the sole cause of the noise.

      Further, malls, dentists, gas stations and so on are private establishments. You don't need to patronize them, or at least, not the ones that foist TV on you. If it's such a big sticking point for you, I'd think you could find one that suits your needs.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    18. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have traveled extensively for eleven years and spent a great deal of time alone eating dinner or relaxing in bars and resturants watching tv. How unbelievably arrogant to assume that because you cant pay attention the tv should be shut off. Why don't you pick places that don't have a tv or pick people that you actually find interesting to talk instead of being the "Ball Baby" and shutting off the tv.

    19. Re:who gave you the right? by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who knows jack shit about noise cancelling headphones.

      Hint: They won't do a damn thing to stop the TV. They're designed to block out a relatively steady background noise, like the noise of an aircraft engine. You can still hold a nice conversation with these things on.

    20. Re:who gave you the right? by jxyama · · Score: 1

      the problem is, it's not symmetrical. if you exercise your right to produce "some unregulated IR signals," then it infringes on others right to watch the TV. others watching TV will not infringe on your right to produce such signal. so the burden falls on you to not take such action since you will be affecting others, while the reverse is not true.

    21. Re:who gave you the right? by jxyama · · Score: 1
      >This is slashdot -- we're supposed to know that the tool is not the problem.

      i assume you are alluding to something about p2p software. the tool *is* the problem here. unlike p2p, this device has no obvious use in which you do not infringe on others.

      lost the remote to your TV? you should just get another remote because this gadget has only one function: to turn off. and if this device is used on any TV you don't own, then you've stepped out of your domain and now infringed on others.

      tools isn't always NOT the problem if it only has one use which is illegal/questionable/infringing.

    22. Re:who gave you the right? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      the problem is, it's not symmetrical. if you exercise your right to produce "some unregulated IR signals," then it infringes on others right to watch the TV. others watching TV will not infringe on your right to produce such signal. so the burden falls on you to not take such action since you will be affecting others, while the reverse is not true.
      Seems a little too symmetric to me. What about my right not to be subjected to the flood of photons and noise? Aren't they infringing my right to a relatively quiet and peaceful environment? Are you saying that the photons from the TV are somehow more privileged than those from the remote?

      Of course, I'm taking this position because my theory is that there are three hours of good TV every week (the same as in 1960), but of course that means that there is a 99.982% chance a TV turned on at random is showing complete dreck (estimate based on 100 24-hour channels). My empirical sampling of television in public places hasn't disproved my theory yet. What the real "right" and "wrong" of the issue is is likely to require legislation.

    23. Re:who gave you the right? by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Locking the door would be the equivilent to turning off the TV.

      Unlocking the door would be the equivalent of turning off the TV. A door that's locked causes inconveniences to some, as a TV that's on would.

      Using the door is askin to watching the tv dumbass.

      I wasn't aware that there are people named "Using the door" and a thing called a "tv dumbass". Thanks for telling me about these.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    24. Re:who gave you the right? by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      So once again the people who want to listen have more rights than the person who doesn't. It's circular theory: where do your rights begin and mind stop; or vice verse? What ever happened to common sense and courtesy? That's what this whole issue boils down to: courtesy. If I'm in an obviously loud social environment then I have no expectation that the majority will (or should) "tone things down". However, in an environment of expected peace I see and hear nothing but cell phones, TVs and children screaming I have a legitimate complaint. Once again; it boils down to common courtesy and I've certainly seen less of it in the US since everyone has discovered their "rights" and is eager to sue at the drop of a hat. It really has nothing to do with legal or ethical responsibility (Lord knows we excel in THOSE areas) rather than trying to deal with a society who believes that their rights are more important than yours. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    25. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the right of those responsible for the maintenance of said public place to install a TV in said public place. If you feel that they should have no such right, as it is a public place, this should be taken up with said maintainers.

    26. Re:who gave you the right? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think you're totally off base.

      Suppose I only like to watch one channel, so I always leave my TV on it. This device would be perfect, if it would let me put away my remote, and control my system with a single button.

      I just wish it would have volume control.

      Just because you don't see a legitimate use for it does not mean it is not a legitimate device.

      It may be less than ideal to use it instead of buying a new remote under circumstances. But just because the device isn't the PERFECT SOLUTION, does not mean that is not legitimate for that purpose.

    27. Re:who gave you the right? by jxyama · · Score: 1
      >I think you're totally off base.

      am i? so just to turn off the hypothetical one-channel TV, you'd buy this and wait up to a minute for it to work?

      i don't think i'm totally off base. any device, given enough thought, will have some convoluted use where it's legitimate. i am not going to claim there are tools out there that has absolutely no legitimate use whatsoever. (maybe i did, and in such a case, i have to retract that statement since i didn't mean to come off like that.) let's be reasonable here. there are tools out there that are considered illegal - hash? cocaine? - those have legal uses too, i'm sure. while i can see your point of view, i wish my point of view wouldn't be dismissed solely based on a very convoluted hypothetical case.

    28. Re:who gave you the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is slashdot -- we're supposed to know that the tool is not the problem."

      As in, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

  10. Boo hoo for you... by Sc00ter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions. "

    So because you don't have the ability to focus on a person sitting right in front of you and/or you can't go to a different establishment that meets your needs. Those of us that go to such places because we want to watch the TV there have to suffer. Not to mention that I'm sure it annoyes the owner of the establishment because he obviously wants them there.

    1. Re:Boo hoo for you... by vhold · · Score: 1

      Then you'll just have to buy the product too and use it as TV-B-On and have IR wars.

      I like the idea of TVs going off all over the place, from a kind of very mild anarchist perspective... But I'm going to have to agree, if you -really- can't handle the TVs so much that you think you have the right to turn them all off, then I also have the right for me not to handle that smug look on your face, allowing me to turn that off too, with a blunt object.

    2. Re:Boo hoo for you... by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am guessing the murder rate would skyrocket if everyone didn't have the TV on to numb them into a senseless torpor.

    3. Re:Boo hoo for you... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Wait... I thought it was TV that was causing people to kill other people because of all the violence and no sex...

      Aaaarrggg! I'm confused... getting angry... must kill something ...

      Come bask in the glow of TV's warm, glowing glow...

      urge to kill falling... falling... gone.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  11. If it becomes a big problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New TVs will just use encryption of some sort for issuing commands.

  12. one downside... by discontinuity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since TV remotes work on IR, this gadget would require a clean line of sight to the TV IR receiver...

    1. Re:one downside... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      And there to be no other heat-sources in the room. Damn my PS2 DVD remote is unreliable!

  13. TV-B-On by vhold · · Score: 1

    The article does mention it at the very bottom.. but just as a reminder, this product is also TV-B-On

  14. cover the ir hole by i_should_be_working · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when me and my roomates are arguing about what to watch on tv, the least lazy of us just goes up to the tv, turns it to the channel they want, and put a book in front of the ir port thingy. then, unless we want to get up too, we're forced to watch.

    this could be done here as well to circumvent any tv haters

    1. Re:cover the ir hole by brunson · · Score: 1

      LMFAO. I watched many a terrible show in college because I was too lazy to get up and change the channel that my roomate put it on.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    2. Re:cover the ir hole by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I will have to keep this in mind for a practical joke.

      I am thoroughly convinced that if I put some tape over the IR port of the TV, my roomates would never figure it out, and if I left it on too long, would swap out the TV, or even shop for a new one.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  15. Awesome! by Shoeler · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all we need is the salesman-be-gone, the policeman-be-gone, and the nagging-mother-in-law-be-gone. ^_^

    1. Re:Awesome! by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that. They have a device that does all of those things.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Awesome! by Uncrase · · Score: 1

      That's called a shotgun ;-)

  16. Re:One would hope... by naeger · · Score: 2, Informative

    are pacemakers really powered off by infra-red remote controls???

  17. Wow by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sheer fucking arrogance of this leaves me almost at a loss for words...

    Almost.

    What business is it of yours to tamper with things that don't belong to you? Other people might want to watch, and it sounds like the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV. Television is merely a conduit of information; there is nothing inherently evil about it.

    And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places.

    The Wired article talks about "anti-TV activists". For fuck's sake, people...

    1. Re:Wow by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      How long until one of these things gets hooked up to a bigger power supply, gets 'modded' to run in continuous search mode, and then amplified to continuously turn off any TV in a 20 mile radius? I can't wait! ROFL.

      You had it right about the "anti-TV activists" though. Cripes!

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that a TV with a working IR receiver should not be made use off. Put some black tape on it if you don't want the TV to receive signals.

    3. Re:Wow by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wouldn't worry about it too much. This thing's about as easy to defeat as a copy-protected CD.

      Just put electrical tape over the IR sensor. Problem solved. Carry on.

    4. Re:Wow by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "How long until one of these things gets hooked up to a bigger power supply, gets 'modded' to run in continuous search mode, and then amplified to continuously turn off any TV in a 20 mile radius? I can't wait! ROFL."

      I have a feeling that this would be a lost cause, as most tv remotes work by IR, which is a line-of-sight technology. So unless you can make the super powered remote point or reflect toward the front of everyone's television, it would be an exercuse in futility.

    5. Re:Wow by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It is IR, line of sight. You can make it as powerful as you want, it isn't going to work that way.

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Wow by Decameron81 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that a TV with a working IR receiver should not be made use off. Put some black tape on it if you don't want the TV to receive signals.


      Oh sure. I bet the owner of the bar really wanted customers to come by with their own remote controllers. After all he didn't put black tape right?

      And hey, since he put the salt on the table without any kind of chain attaching it to the table he probably wanted you to take it home when you're finished. How sweet!
      --
      diegoT
    7. Re:Wow by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      What business is it of yours to tamper with things that don't belong to you? Other people might want to watch...Television is merely a conduit of information; there is nothing inherently evil about it.

      I don't watch TV at home. Ever. I have broadband cable but no cable TV. My TV does not get reception without a powered antenna. I watch movies and play games on it.

      When I go out, it is very entertaining and novel to watch TV because I don't do it at home. There's a couple shows that I go down to the restaurant/bar to watch with other people. I totally agree with your statement about one needing to control their own actions and not others. However, I don't think "America's Next Top Model" is a conduit of information. ;-)

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No. Just because there is a working IR port on the TV doesn't mean that it's open to public use. Your position shows an utter lack of respect for others and their property. If you don't like the TV there, go somewhere else. If you don't like what's on, ask the owner to change it. You have no right to tamper with it. Learn a little about boundaries and respect for others.

    9. Re:Wow by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      amplified to continuously turn off any TV in a 20 mile radius? I can't wait! ROFL.

      ooo, even the ones that aren't in its line of sight? even the ones that it's *gasp* not pointed at? WUAUAWAWAWOWOWOWOW

      --
      -mkb
    10. Re:Wow by iamacat · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, watching TV everywhere is like being high on pot - you can not fully concentrate on anything else. If you get hooked and walk all over the place with a joint, and force everyone around to breeze your fumes and get stoned as well, maybe people who want their brains back will put a stop to it, even if they are the minority.

      As for finding another, quieter place, such a thing usually doesn't exist. What, you want people who need to talk or concentrate on something to find another airport?

    11. Re:Wow by Unkle · · Score: 1
      Aside from the line-of-sight thing, there also would be the side effect that it would not just turn the TVs off. It would turn the ones that are already off on. That would be friggin hillarious.

      Too bad it wouldn't work.

      --
      Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places."


      Actually no. If I'm waiting my turn at the doctors office, I am free to read the magazines that are not mine. I can also NOT read them. TVs in similar places are often there for the customers. It's not that it's wrong to change channels or turn it off because it's not your TV. It's wrong because it's rude to ignore the wishes of other people who may be watching. And just how wrong is it if you're the only one there?

    13. Re:Wow by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      Hell sometimes I have trouble concentrating on TVs in airports. You know, it is hard sometimes since TVs usually are on mute and there's a lot of people passing by and talking and airplanes landing and those mini-cars moving around...

      --
      diegoT
    14. Re:Wow by Noginbump · · Score: 0
      As for finding another, quieter place, such a thing usually doesn't exist. What, you want people who need to talk or concentrate on something to find another airport?


      No, I want people at an airport to fly somewhere else. Not hang out with friends, shine my shoes, sell me books, sing me songs, ask for spare change, or give me a sermon.

      If people need to talk or concentrate on something, then by all means either speak loud enough to be heard over the TV or go to their local library. Yeah, that place everyone pays for, but nobody hardly uses.

      I get the impression that the parent poster doens't have friends that are more interesting than what is on TV.
      --
      He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions. -- The Sphinx, Mystery Men
    15. Re:Wow by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

      The fact that the TV is on doesn't stop you from not watching it.

      In any case you shouldn't turn off a tv that's not yours without asking before for permission to do so. If you are alone I see nothing wrong with you turning it off, but I still think you need to ask. Maybe the doctor actually wants it on in case someone else comes in.

      --
      diegoT
    16. Re:Wow by karnal · · Score: 1

      Well, watching TV everywhere is like being high on pot

      Actually, reading slashdot comments for me is like being high as a kite. I should probably get back to work now....

      --
      Karnal
    17. Re:Wow by egburr · · Score: 1, Troll
      The sheer fucking arrogance of this

      The sheer fucking arrogance of smokers and stereo blasters and overly loud public TVs leaves me almost at a loss for words...

      Other people might want to watch

      Other people might want some peace and quiet. Portable TVs and headphones are common enough that the people who just HAVE to have their TV addiction satisfied should be able to do so without disturbing everyone around them. The percentage of people actually paying attention to those TVs is very small; what gives them the right to overrule the vast majority of people there, other than some stupid social standard that TV is GOD?

      the submitter has a problem with controlling his own actions if he can't talk with his "human companions" in the proximity of a TV

      A *LOT* of people have trouble focusing on things with a TV around. The quick movements of the TV attracts the eyes involuntarily. The noise of the TV is often so loud that you CAN'T understand what someone next to you is saying.

      it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places

      It's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to force everyone to watch and hear what only a very few people are interested in, especially in areas where they do not have a reasonable alternate choice, such as waiting rooms almost everywhere, public walkways, the hallways of shopping malls, etc. (Notice I did not include restaurants in the list; those are so common there is almost always a reasonable alternate place to go.)

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Informative?" Did anyone think about the comment?

      It's Funny, folks...

    19. Re:Wow by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places."

      It should also be considered a form trespass and I think could and should be prosecuted.

      Which does not mean that the device itself should be outlawed... outlaw actions, not existence.

    20. Re:Wow by moofdaddy · · Score: 1

      A lot of doctors like the noice that a TV creates. Remember, doctor's offices are places for people to be able to discuss their problems openly. A little bit of noice polution makes it a lot harder for others to hear.

      That is why you will notice a lot of little noice generators around doctor's offices. But a TV is far more effective.

      --
      Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
    21. Re:Wow by deacon · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that all of us are obligated to submit to the blaring nonsense, paid for by commercials, which spews from TVs that have been attached, like barnacles, all over the public landscape.

      The violence of your reply makes it clear that you and your TV have a closer relationship than you do with people.

      I suggest you turn it off and get out more.

    22. Re:Wow by moofdaddy · · Score: 1

      First of all, I have to say, anyone who signs their posts is a real jackass. You sound like a 50 year old guy who is just bitching because things are not as pure as they were when you were a kid. Get a Grip and turn the fucking hearing aid down, thats why the TV is so loud.

      Alright, enough Ad Hominem attacks. Time to actually respond to what you said.

      First of all, guess what, most TVs are not really that loud. I would say that 80% are muted to begin with and the rest are low. You will find the occasional TV that is turned up too high, but suprise, there is a less assine way to deal with that too...get off your ass and turn the volume down, or ask someone who works there if they would mind turning down the volume.

      If you have a problem your recourse is to complain to the managment, not to take matters into your hands. Because as public of a place as you'd like think it is, those TVs are still owned by someone else and probably watched by more people then you think they are.

      In a doctors office, maybe someone isn't actively watching it, but they are listening to it. Maybe its helping take their mind off of whatever they are afraid of. Maybe they are really sick and can't cocentrate enough to read a magazine so they just slouch in the chair, close their eyes and listen to whatever is happening on the TV. As far as the minority outweighing the majority your probably wrong on that one too. If you did a blind poll of those in the room, odds are that TV is staying on. People are just afriad to speak up.

      If you don't like it then you can go some place else. Only 1 of my doctors have a TV in their waiting room. Find a new doctor or complain to your doctor about it. It is the owners right to put them on their property, it is your right not to shop or go there.

      --
      Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
    23. Re:Wow by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure why people get distracted so much by the TV. Especially considering that all of the anti-TV people are particularly disinterested in it. Why would you pay so much of your valuable attention to something you despise?

    24. Re:Wow by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all about turning a buck. Do the people who are making this really care how rude it is to turn off someone else's TV? Hell no... these people would probably throw throw their own mother in the trunk, drive her down to the river and toss her in if they could make a few bucks off of it.

      This is the same mentality of those people who mass-marketed laser pointers to kids... yes, the same ones that you aren't supposed to stare directly into, but you know that every kids who gets one, the first thing he's going to do is shine it in his friends' eyes.

    25. Re:Wow by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      ...except that most of the features on a lot of TV's sold today are only accessible through the remote. Blocking the IR port may mean that you are limited to Channel Up/Down, Volume Up/Down, and Power.

    26. Re:Wow by NilObject · · Score: 1

      The sheer fucking stupidity of this leaves me almost at a loss for words...

      Almost.

      What business is it of yours to shove your persistent commercials into eyes and minds that don't belong to you? Other people might want to breathe and think freely, and it sounds like the poster has a problem with figuring out that our urban spaces have become polluted with non-stop consumer messages that indiscriminately pelt young and old, male and female, black and white, with constant forced messages on how they're supposed to live (by buying our shit, of course!). Television was merely a conduit of information; now it has become an annoying and frustratingly intrusive bringer of conformity.

      And it's the height of arrogance and bourgeoise elitism to think that people who are concerned about visual and audio pollution in their daily lives and think that they actually have a RIGHT to clarity of life are "elitists".

      The parent post talks about "intellectual elitism". For fuck's sake, people...

      Blatant parody aside, what does it take? What's too intrusive? I'm assuming the parent post author would have no problem sitting at his table in a resturant screaming "BUY BUY BUY! FORD AT&T DELL MICROSOFT ZOLOFT PEPSI! BUY BUY BUY!" while flashing my logo-tattooed ass in his face. Of course not. And if he told me to leave him alone, that would make him (horror of horrors) an INTELLECTUAL ELITIST!

      RUN FOR THE HILLS KIDS!

      *sigh*

    27. Re:Wow by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      While I personally agree with everything that you said, the fact that remains that you do not and SHOULD NOT have the right to manipulate property that isn't yours. If we were talking about some sort of law being passed or something, then the merits of TV's harm on society might be a factor.

      However, this is just a (not even technically interesting) device designed for people who don't feel they should be annoyed by other people's rights. That's bullshit, and to me, that's where the conversation ends.

      What if someone designed a remote that turned all TVs on because they actually LIKE TV?

      This isn't about TVs or smoking or whatever you mentioned, it's about fucking with other people's stuff.

    28. Re:Wow by slim-t · · Score: 1
      ...except that most of the features on a lot of TV's sold today are only accessible through the remote. Blocking the IR port may mean that you are limited to Channel Up/Down, Volume Up/Down, and Power.

      My thoughts exactly, plus the biggest advantage of the remote is that it can be used remotely. A lot of TVs in public places can not even be reached without a ladder.

      If this comes into widespread use, TVs and remotes will start to feature some sort of method to only allow authorized remotes to work.

    29. Re:Wow by egburr · · Score: 1
      First of all, I have to say, anyone who signs their posts is a real jackass. You sound like a 50 year old guy who is just bitching because things are not as pure as they were when you were a kid. Get a Grip and turn the fucking hearing aid down, thats why the TV is so loud.

      I believe in what I say and see no need to hide behine anonymity. I notice you didn't go the "anonymous coward" path either. Takes one to know one, I guess.

      You're way off on my age. Don't quit your day job; you'll never make it as an age guesser at the circus.

      Things are about the same as when I was a kid. I didn't like painfully loud music then, and I still don't. The main difference between then and now is that a lot more places go for the "easy" distraction of TVs or loud music to keep people quiet and oblivious to everything else around them. It is harder to avoid such places.

      Finally, maybe you should get a hearing aid if your hearing is so bad. My hearing is just fine without one.

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    30. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, and many of the respondents to your little tirade, desperately need to get a sense of proportion. I mean really, with all the problems in the world, with all the bad people in the world, this is what you choose to use profanity over?

      Do all of us a favor and get some psychiatric help, friend. As it stands, I'm afraid of you.

    31. Re:Wow by iamacat · · Score: 1

      I doubt you like spam much, yet isn't it an obsticle to concentrating on meaningful e-mail?

    32. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little sand in your vagina?

  18. Re:One would hope... by Nos. · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't think many pacemakers are IR based.

  19. Now all we need is a ... by iago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Universal Cell Phone off button.

    Whoever creates a small consumer-oriented cell phone signal jammer should win the Nobel Prize.

    --
    Worst Sig Ever
    1. Re:Now all we need is a ... by 3-22 · · Score: 0

      True.. But jamming cellular phones is illegal in North America at least.

    2. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Shoeler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for the fact that it's Illegal, I agree with ya. ;)

    3. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Kenja · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No. What we need is a self centered prick remote fibrillator to turn off all these people that think they have a right to tell other people how to live their lives.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:Now all we need is a ... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need to turn them off. How about just forcing them to silent/vibrate mode and turning the receiver volume all the way up so that people don't feel inclined to scream into them. I have a long train ride each day and nothing is worse than digital Fur Elise at ear-shattering volume wrenching you out of a caffeine withdrawal snooze.

    5. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

      you know what's funny? every time I am in the traffic, when I see a moron driving and talking in the cell phone, I stand at their side honking the uber-compressed-aid-boat-horn that I had installed... thats much better than signal jamming :)

      cheers

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    6. Re:Now all we need is a ... by thejaded1 · · Score: 1

      looks like it has already been done.

      http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

      --
      :wq
    7. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1

      Made all the more funny by your sig...

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    8. Re:Now all we need is a ... by brunson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you're not a jackass at all.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    9. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Shky · · Score: 3, Funny

      And we need devices to shut people up who talk too loud, or get rid of the fat people that sit beside you on the bus, or people who have coughing fits, or people who don't turn away when they sneeze. We need devices that will shut off the engines of airplanes overheard, because those things are just way too loud. I think we need a device that will get rid of any minor annoyance, then we'll all be happy, right..?

      Who's with me? I sincerely hope nobody..

      --
      CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
    10. Re:Now all we need is a ... by iago · · Score: 3, Funny

      No idea that this comment would get marked 5 Insightful. 70/30 Insightful/Funny. I meant it as a joke. I like this comment the best thus far, so I'll respond to it. I know its illegal to jam cell signals. And thats probably a good idear, but anyone who answers their phone in a movie theater deserves a swift punch in the nads.

      Anyways, here's what I do. I figure that my space is my space so I just join in on a conversation when someone is being overly obnoxious on a phone in a public place.

      Obnoxious Cell phone luser: "Oh my God, Neve, I can't believe he did that to you, did you tell Aurora, Skylar, and Hunter about this?"

      Me: "Yes, I did and after that he went and gave my hamster the clap."

      This typically makes them stop.

      My name is iago. And I wholeheartedly endorse this message. My dog is also a slut.

      --
      Worst Sig Ever
    11. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey whats wrong with being a jackass??? its fun as hell!
      besides, morons driving and talking on the phone at the same time should be shot on sight... its safer for everyone.

    12. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Hey now, I just sugjest turning off the TV. I'm not going around enforcing my opinions on others.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    13. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

      well I don't care much about cells in movie theaters and such, simply because I don't go to the movies anymore :). Cells, kids yelling, people talking, crowded theaters, that eventually got to me and I just quit and watch DVDs at home now...
      But uncle-fuckers driving and talking on the phone annoy the hell out of me... I can tell if a sucker is on the phone even without getting on his side, olny by the way he drives, crosses lanes, totally fucking distracted... argh.

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    14. Re:Now all we need is a ... by b0nezzz · · Score: 1

      Apparently the technology is already available, and in use in certan locations. Cnn wrote an article about it today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/cellphone jammers.ap/index.html

    15. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that it's Illegal, I agree with ya. ;)

      The FCC reg says it's illegal to block or jam the SIGNAL going to a cell phone. If you turn off the phone, it still has the ability to receive the signal, you're doing nothing to interfere with that. You did prevent the phone from responding to that signal... but that's not prohibited by the law, is it?

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    16. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Whoever creates a small consumer-oriented cell phone signal jammer should win the Nobel Prize.

      That would be wonderful! And when the patient my wife did surgery on early that day develops complications, and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to reach her cell phone, and eventually goes to the ER where other doctors discover a rare but life-threatening condition, I have to ask: do you want to be a co-defendant, or is your lawyer good enough that the patient and my wife can both sue you directly?

      Or how 'bout this: your unlicensed RF transmitter just nailed a guy's pacemaker. Fortunately, in most states you'll only get manslaughter so you should be out of prison within a decade or so.

      Man, do people around here ever think through the consequences of their actions beyond "OMGLOL! THAT IS TEH 1EE7!!1!!!1"?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    17. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The flaw is that you are taking up the same arrogant stance as the people who created this device. IT IS NOT YOUR DAMN RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT USE. We have laws that determine it.

      If you are really so incapable of using words to get people to turn their cellphone off, then I think there are more serious problems. And please don't assume I'm talking about jammers and such in theaters and the like, thats a whole nother can of worms.

      People do things that annoy other people, it does NOT give you the right to enforce your view on them.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    18. Re:Now all we need is a ... by duranaki · · Score: 1

      Who's with me? I sincerely hope nobody..
      I am! Sorry to dash your hopes.

    19. Re:Now all we need is a ... by espenss · · Score: 1

      Search the internet for terms like "EMP" and "gun". Add some extra watts, and maybe you can stop that annoying traffic outside your house as well.

      --
      -- ess
    20. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Milican · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think that is a good idea. I need to install one of those right by my mirrors pointing out toward your head. I think I'll have them play Fur Elise, or maybe another popular ringtone like "Oops I Did It Again".... LOL

      JOhn

    21. Re:Now all we need is a ... by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Who here is talking about "rights?" Of course I don't have the right to turn off a TV I don't own. The point is, THAT I CAN.

      --
      I don't get it.
    22. Re:Now all we need is a ... by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      Cattle prod... nuff said.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    23. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Shoeler · · Score: 1

      See now - he did imply he meant to turn the phone off, but I read his post as meaning to "disable" via jamming, rather than somehow cycling the power of the device. :)

    24. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now thats what annoys me. If I am in a public place my phone is always on vibrate. This doesn't disturb anyone and silently lets me know if I have a call or a message or alarm. Then I can look at phone and if needed go somewhere to answer the call.

      With a jammer in place I wouldn't have an option at all even though I am being polite and not using loud ringtones nor talking loudly in front of everyone.

      I imagine a lot of us use mobile phones for mobile email which is totally silent when the device is muted.
      sigh...

    25. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be our right... But we often make it government policy to enforce our views onto others.

    26. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACTUALLY on my property, I do.

      I typically enforce many special "laws" that I decide upon right away on my property. if your blasting your stereo at 3 am, I'll enlist the local police to also help enforce my views.

      I suggest you get a grip as to reality..

      those with more money than you get to opress you at will and as they see fit.

    27. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IT IS NOT YOUR DAMN RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT USE.


      Then listen to your own advice. I am going to be first in line to pick up one of these beauties, and I will be using it at every bar, restaurant and airport that has a TV that can be shut off remotely. Don't like it? Go to a bar or restaurant or airport that has TV's that cannot be shut off this way. You have no right to stop me.

    28. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implied? He said "Universal Cell Phone off button". I would say it was pretty clear what he meant.

    29. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead you go around forcing the sound of your ringer and you talking on others? That sounds a lot about the smokers complaining about their "right" to smoke wherever they want. It totally ignores my right to breathe (which I am pretty sure trumps all other rights).

    30. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      I always love that stance. It is not your right to not want to be annoyed by the people annoying you. So by this logic if they are annoying you first there is nothing you can do. Except maybe cover your ears, close your eyes and hum a song???? I mean seriously both of the Extremist views are the problem. The problem is there is no middle ground. I don't want to watch TV. You do. Well the answer is. I can turn off the TV and you can go find another. Or I can leave. Well???? Whats the answer?

    31. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like your wife is going to have her hands full with a malpractice suit herself and won't have time to worry about suing you. She must be a pretty sad doctor if the ER docs find something that she couldn't.

    32. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are really so incapable of using words to get people to turn their cellphone off, then I think there are more serious problems.

      Have you ever actually gotten anybody to turn off their cell phone? Unless you are an extraordinarily threatening looking person chances are the person is just going to give you a look and keep on talking. Luckily I sometimes have that axe-murdered look so it works for me but that isn't going to work for everybody.

    33. Re:Now all we need is a ... by iago · · Score: 1

      There are actually two flaws in my original statement.

      The first flaw is exactly what you articulated above. I must applaud your abilities to augment your point using capitalization. You have swayed me to your side. You have changed my mind on this issue now, I'm petitioning the slash crew to include an 'retraction' button on the next revision of slash. Or maybe I can post a little white flag of surrender next to my nick in a given thread. Cliff, are you getting this?

      Thank you Lord Dweomer for your insight.

      Oh yeah, there's another flaw in my argument.

      The second flaw is that I actually posted a joke in a slash forum expecting a normal response. Instead some karma whoring nutjob decided to take things way too seriously and posted some taking it the point far more seriously than I originally intended.

      (This is a joke, its funny. Okay, at least its a little funny. Well, at least I think its funny.)

      Cheers LW,
      Don

      --
      Worst Sig Ever
    34. Re:Now all we need is a ... by google · · Score: 1
      IT IS NOT YOUR DAMN RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT USE.

      Cravenly, he reaches for the remote, his hands shaking with desire... How bad he needs this hour of Television...

      Seriously people, it's TV. Cut back (but maybe not too much at once).

      --
      "Thank you. Please spellcheck your genitalia references though. :) - Mike D."
    35. Re:Now all we need is a ... by I7D · · Score: 1

      There already is a remote for these problems. I think they can be found here.

      --
      Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
    36. Re:Now all we need is a ... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "And we need devices to shut people up who talk too loud, or get rid of the fat people that sit beside you on the bus"

      And your third wish?

      "WHEATON, Maryland (AP) -- A pregnant woman said she was handcuffed by transit police and forced to lie on her stomach during an arrest that began with her talking too loudly on her cell phone."

    37. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep. first thing that came to mind, for me, was getting my a55 into trouble, back in high-school electronics for building a tunable broad-spectrum white-noise generator -- basically a RF jammer. instructor's bi**hing didn't really impress me, 'till he brought up things like federal law, &c.
      this thing [the key-fob, not the hypothetical cell-phone jammer] works with IR, though -- i think that that avoids the FCC issue

    38. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I knew it was a joke. I apologize if that post seemed targeted at you, but it was more of a general response to that kind of statement since I'd seen it popping up a bunch, and just chose your post to comment on.

      As for the caps, I normally don't use bad netiquette like that, but the arrogance of the idea got to me enough to make me post like that.

      Apologies again for the miscommunication.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    39. Re:Now all we need is a ... by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem, as articulate and intelligent of a speaker you may be, and as brilliant your arguement, there is ALWAYS an asshole who will not listen to reason, that's life, I've come to realize this of late, as I'm working in a call center, (I'm only 18 :P) doing tech support, people will call up, and demand we help them, no matter how clearly we explain that either an issue is out of warranty, in the case of spyware, or virii, or in some cases that the customer is out of warranty entirely, some people still get angry or just flat out arrogant and ignorant, and demand you support them, at a call center we can just hang up on them, which our supervizors have authorized us to do if a person is being unreasonable, unfortuantly, face to face, you cant just disconnect from whoever's being an asshole, it's a truth, a fact of life, some people are just ignorant, some people are jerks, some people are unreasonable. while it may not be our right to decide what someone can and cant do, if for example, I am the only person to feel this way, then those who feel it's fine to walk over other peoples rights will bend me over the table, (so to speak... I hope), it's one thing to respect others rights, it's another to stand up for your own, some people need to be told to shut up. if their rights are infringing on your rights, then you need to let them know, if they are unreasonable, you need to do something about it, letting ignorance and arrogance win is a path to failure of the human race in general.

    40. Re:Now all we need is a ... by iago · · Score: 1

      Again LW, Cheers :)

      --
      Worst Sig Ever
  20. Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by mind21_98 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you like being able to turn off any TV you'd like, you'll like TV Turn-off Week. It's going to be held from April 25-May 1, 2005. Personally, the Internet's replaced TV for me; even though there is a TV here I don't really watch it now.

    1. Re:Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it funny that they always select the week before the May Sweeps to be TV turn-off week. Many TV shows put up reruns that week because they're spending that week preparing for their May Sweeps episodes...

      It'd be a much louder message to try to depress the ratings during a sweeps period.

    2. Re:Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by Kombat · · Score: 1

      the Internet's replaced TV for me;

      People say that, but has anyone who's not single said it? I admit it, I still watch TV. Why? Because I can watch TV with my wife. I can't really "Internet" with my wife. TV is something we can do together, and talk during the show or the commercials. Do you actually talk to anyone in the same room while you're on the Internet? Don't you find that when you try to talk to someone who's on the Internet, that they actually respond negatively, and would rather be left alone?

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    3. Re:Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      I'd like that better if it wasn't during baseball season.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    4. Re:Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with this comment.

      Back when I was in college, I almost never watched TV. During my first two years, I didn't even own a TV, although I did make time to watch "X-files" once a week at a campus restaurant while eating dinner. I spent most of my time doing other things (usually involving class or computers, even though the WWW didn't exist then).

      During the times I've been single and working, I also haven't watched much TV. Maybe a little while eating, and that's about it. Again, I spent most of my time doing other things, usually involving computers.

      Now that I have a live-in girlfriend, I find myself watching a lot more TV (and especially movies). Surfing the net just isn't something you do much with other people.

    5. Re:Don't forget TV Turn-Off Week by sbeitzel · · Score: 1

      I haven't owned a TV that was hooked up to an antenna since 1987.

      I am married and have two kids. None of us watches TV.

      And you know the best thing about it? Getting stuff done around the house instead of vegetating on the couch.

      --
      Oh, go on, check out my job.
  21. Normal Remote by substatica · · Score: 1

    I hope you all know TV's have "ON" buttons and normal "REMOTES" which folks can use to battle against this new technology......

  22. Great by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 0

    What a pretentious, self righteous bastard. Turning off TVs in public places is like jamming other people's cell phones and GPS navigation systems. How would you like it if someone did this in a 911 call center? Wouldn't be so funny as fifty screens worth of emergency calls all flipped off. Turning off TV's at a store which sells televisions is probably great for their business right, it's not like your meddling with their private property. So now one person in an airport can impose their viewpoint on the other 100, and we're cheering for this in a democratic nation. Hello? There's a precedent for this technology, the infrared transmitters which emulate ambulances to switch lights green. They were almost instantly made illegal for private sale.

    Here's to history.

    --
    If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
  23. Range and Spread? by Jimmy+The+Leper · · Score: 1

    What sort of range and spread do these have? If I were to get one I would want it with decent range (maybe 20 metres) but also with full spread. So that it would only take one button press to turn off all the TVs wihtin the range. I could imagine causing havoc at the local electronic store's TV wall could be fun.

    --
    -You're only as clean as your towel.
    1. Re:Range and Spread? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      I could imagine causing havoc at the local electronic store's TV wall could be fun.

      Yeah fun! Until they find out it's you.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
  24. Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by geekee · · Score: 5, Funny

    in a crowded bar. You'll make some new friends with this gizmo.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by sleepnmojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even more in prison

    2. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      um... you forgot to end your post with "GO SOX!"

      There, took care of that for ya. ;)

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    3. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Heheh. So true. Seems like every email I've gotten for the last week had that tacked on the end.

      Uh, go sox?

    4. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Maniakes · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Go Yanks!

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    5. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Boo Yankees, Sox have done everything to earn the win. They deserve to go down in the books as the first team to come back 0-3 for the series and win it all. Afterall, game 4 (or 5) broke the Yankee record that they never lost back-to-back extra inning games. The Red Sox deserve a win on many different levels.

    6. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have certainly earned respect. But, all the Redsox have really gained is the extra distinction of being the first team to lose in game 7 after having come back from an 0-3 start.

      Sox will lose tonight, and their heartbreak will be double than if they had simply forfeited game 4.

    7. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Sound pretty sure about the Yankee's, too sure methinks because you can't see the future.

      The heartbreak won't be double at all, at least not to fans. If they lose, they would have come from behind and made it to game 7 and the better team won. That's a hell of a better outcome than forfeiting game 4. It's all a matter of perspective.

    8. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was more thinking the ICU and sucking your food through a straw...but hey ;-)

    9. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by bernz · · Score: 1
      This got modded up? Filth. The Yankees are store-bought filth.


      Go Sox. Go Sox for the good of this country and humanity.


      I'll be watching this game in a bar near Fenway tonight and I would still like to occasionally turn off the TVs just for shits and giggles. I don't see the device as malicious so much as it is fun.

    10. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baseball, and sport in general, is the preoccupation of degenerates.

    11. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Baseball, and sport in general, is the preoccupation of degenerates.

      ACs on slashdot, and posting anonymously in general, is the preocupation of pussies.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    12. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better a pussy than the sort of shit-for-brains semi-literate fucktard that takes pleasure in watching others perform feats of strength or whatever the hell the sport in question requires.

      I repeat: sport is the pursuit of degenerates. It is nothing but entertainment for those too stupid to apply their intellect. It is a diversion of mental effort. You're like Orwell's proles, focusing attention on the utterly meaningless lottery - placing bets, absorbing yourselves in the endless stream of discussion and debate, keeping up to date on the statuses of players and teams, obsessing over meaningless statistics. Every day in your average newscast, we have an entire section dedicated to FAKE NEWS - sport. It makes up half the newspaper. Inconsequential information based on the outcome of irrelevant games.

      All this preoccupation with nonsense serves to distract you and make you easier to control. Yeah America, forget about the world around you. Watch these overpaid thick-necked morons hit a ball around. Yeah, look at the pretty colors. Look! Fucking morons.

      It's drama based on collectively induced emotional responses - elation when your team wins, the sense of disappointment when your team loses. Up and down on the emotional rollercoaster - oh, the excitement! How great it is to be part of the herd!

      Watch men hit each other in football! Watch them fight each other in hockey! We're like ancient romans cheering at public displays of the grotesque. What ho?! Your brave warriors have interrupted the game to fight each other! It's a small step above flinging our shit at each other in public.

      To add the final insult, you're all being played like fiddles for the profit of a few old rich guys. They give you opiate, you give back billions of dollars. You are all fucking tools. Fuck sport. And fuck you.

    13. Re:Try it out during the final Sox-Yankees game by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Oh, poor baby. Sounds like someone just didn't make the cut in teeball as a kid and is rather oversensitive about it. In all this (still posting as AC) dipshit's rant there is not one suggestion of alternate activites or events that would fulfill his over-blown ego's desire for constant intellectual stimulation.

      Got news for you pal, not everyone likes watching chess. And what of this rage against sport in general? Since even before man figured out how how to hurl rocks he's had an innate desire to compete, driven by instinct and survival. Throughout history sport has provided not just amusement but taught skills, helped warriors hone their craft, and yes, acted as a diversion from a sometimes otherwise mundane or painful life. Is there no value in joy? Is there nothing worthy to be found in relaxing oneself through, god forbid, non-productive indulgement from time to time? If you like we can find and discuss studies that demonstrate people with lower stress who are happy are more productive. I would argue that if you enjoy sports, playing or watching, and that makes your life better than how is it injurious?

      Perhaps you only rail against those who make watching sports their life? I concede that there are many people who really need to do more with their time than follow dozens of teams and spew statistics like it was their job. But as with any pursuit there are always those who overindulge, yet this does not invalidate the entire field. There are scientists who have ruined their marriages because they devoted all their time to their studies and not enough time to family. There are people who have spent their entire lives becoming chess masters, to the exclusion of all other things, and though their passtime is perhaps more amenable to your idea of intellectual advancement, it is still reprehensible to focus on it to that degree.

      Is it competition you loathe? It would be very hard, if not impossible, for you to prove that competition is inherently evil. Without even getting into the argument of evolution as an eternal competition, the simple fact is competition in all aspects of life has driven man and all of mankind's achievements throughout history.

      And finally it comes down to not everyone likes the same things. I like baseball but not basketball. I like sailing but not country music. Just because you hate sports, for whatever reason, hardly means there is no value in it and anyone who does enjoy sports is some kind of sloth or mendicant.

      I would also point out, more to your point about Orwellian control and "fake news", (trust me, there are a lot more lies and half-truths about important political events in an evening's news to worry about than whether bruins scores really matter globally) that sports have been around long before our society, and long before the author of 1984 was even a wink in his great-grandfather's eye. The immersion provided at this point in history is higher, certainly, but that is true of all things. You can immerse yourself to an unhealthly degree in just about anything from porn to classical music, to hardware overclocking, to painting these days, thanks to the internet and electronic media in general.

      Your closed view of the world serves only two purposes as I see it: (1) to artificially elevate yourself above others you feel are somehow inferior to you, despite their backgrounds, and (2) to infuriate yourself over something that is not a real problem. Poor misguided warrior, you are jousting windmills. Go fight the biased presidential debate committe, or get just as pissed off at people who promote hate, bias, or arbitrary morality laws. But please, if you're so elevated above your common man intellectually, if your vision is so much clearer than the blinded proletariat around you, find something more worthwhile to get so vehement about, and by all means apply that energy to fixing the problem, but sports is not a problem. And even if it were, it is so far down on the list of priorities as to be considered benign for the time being.

      Now, as to your claiming I am a semi-literate shit-for-brains fucktard I will point you to my above paragraphs, and the fact that I am a robotics engineer for automated chemistry systems. And also a Red Sox fan. Gee, guess that blows your theory all to hell.

      Go Sox!

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  25. It isn't yours by hazzey · · Score: 1

    If the TV isn't yours, then deal with it. Also, if you have problems holding a conversation while one is nearby, then maybe the TV isn't the problem. Try to actually focus on NOT paying attention, or leave. Simple solutions that don't require money or interfering with other people.

    1. Re:It isn't yours by hb253 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Several people have said this, but the reality is one of the uses for human vision is self-preservation. Our vision is very good at detecting movement (say, from a predator), even in peripheral vision. A TV with flashing images is distracting no matter how you try to ignore it - it's simply an adaptation.

      I don't agree that someone should go out and turn off TV's willy-nilly, but I can understand the poster when he says it's distracting.

      And honestly, does anybody REALLY watch TV when they go to a restaurant? Is the volume ever loud enough to hear anything anyway? Doesn't watching TV as you eat with friends/family reach the same level of rudeness as talking on a cellphone rather than talking with your dining companions?

      Sports bars don't count, people go there specifically to watch games and be around other sports nuts.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    2. Re:It isn't yours by mikeswi · · Score: 1

      - And honestly, does anybody REALLY watch TV when they go to a restaurant?

      Yes

      - Is the volume ever loud enough to hear anything anyway?

      Yes

      - Doesn't watching TV as you eat with friends/family reach the same level of rudeness as talking on a cellphone rather than talking with your dining companions?

      I'm baffled. Are you really questioning whether someone quietly watching a television is as rude as some idiot jabbering on a cellphone into a restaurant? If this really is something you're unsure of, the answer is no.

    3. Re:It isn't yours by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Well, we all filter life through our experiences.

      Personally, I have never seen someone actually watching TV in a restaurant. The TV's are on for "atmosphere." As I said, bars are a different story. TV's in the bar area of a restaurant are fine with me.

      You didn't read closely. I said, if you're out with friends at a restaurant (not a bar) it's just as rude to ignore them and watch TV as it is to ignore them and talk on your cellphone.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
  26. Time for some drive-bys by suso · · Score: 1

    I'm going to have to fill up the tank and get me one of these things and drive through the coves of rural america.

  27. All of us was ADD and AADD.......ooh, a shiny! by numbski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, I TRY to pay attention to my friends, familiy, WIFE, when I'm in a public place with a television. I really do.

    It doesn't matter how horrendous the show that's on is either. If it's there, I zone in on it.

    Finally, an escape!

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:All of us was ADD and AADD.......ooh, a shiny! by anagama · · Score: 1
      • It doesn't matter how horrendous the show that's on is either. If it's there, I zone in on it.
      I gave up TV watching in 1992 and I also have this problem now. There is something mezmerizing about television that is hard to ignore - even if it is something completely uninteresting (as 99.999% of it is - watch the rest on DVD when it comes out).

      I've read a couple posts above in which people intimate that a person who gets sucked into TV has a concentration problem. I think that's backwards. I know I'm personally able to focus extremely intently - in fact I like doing that, gives me a sort of buz.

      My theory is that people who are hooked on background "noise" never fully concentrate. They're floating from one thing to another without giving any single subject their full attention. Call it "multi-tasking" or whatever, but quality requires attention to detail and distractions inhibit attention.

      But then, I like thinking. I like concentrating. I find it annoying that everywhere I go, someone or something is trying to distract me. At least when I'm home or in my office, the mindless worthless noise of the world is absent (unless I seek it out - gratuitous slashdot slam).
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:All of us was ADD and AADD.......ooh, a shiny! by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat - I turn off the TV when I have to talk to someone, as it seriously screws with my head to do otherwise. Even commercials. And yes, it really sucks in public places.

    3. Re:All of us was ADD and AADD.......ooh, a shiny! by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      That reminds me....

      Q: How many people with ADD does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: LET'S GO FLY KITES!

  28. Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    911 centers probably aren't filled with television sets, and if they are, you're in trouble.

  29. Website-B-Gone by ayn0r · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, the TV-B-Gone website seems to have already been swamped by the Wired coverage ...

    Yeah, so let's help them out by posting the URL on /.

  30. Bad idea. by rasteri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I disapprove of this concept - if you don't like the fact that wherever you are has a TV, go somewhere else. Just because you find it annoying doesn't mean you have the right to turn it off. It's similar to walking into a pub and demanding that everyone stop smoking because you are a non-smoker.

    1. Re:Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, not really, if I walk in to a restraunt and you're smoking I'm going to walk right up to the manager and say, I don't fancy dying of lung cancer caused by passive smoking, either enforce a no-smoking policy or I'm eating elsewhere. In a year to 18 months here in the UK I'll be walking up to said smoker and saying smoking is banned in public places, put it out or I'll stick it up your arse.

      Why should the the pursuit of others negativley impact on my health, they have a choice but it's no more important than my choice not to be a passive smoker, but that's going way OT.

    2. Re:Bad idea. by narf · · Score: 1

      Welcome to California!

    3. Re:Bad idea. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Hmm, not really, if I walk in to a restraunt and you're smoking I'm going to walk right up to the manager and say, I don't fancy dying of lung cancer caused by passive smoking, either enforce a no-smoking policy or I'm eating elsewhere."

      I actually agree with you. Keep the laws and govt. out of the issue. Let the free market decide about smoking. If a restaurant/bar makes more money allowing smokers in...they'll keep doing it. You as a non-smoker, have the right to go somewhere else. If this hurts the business they will have no smoking policies.

      I'm a former smoker...if I go to a bar, I expect there'll be someone smoking in there. If it starts to bother me, I'll leave. Plain and simple. So, yes...use the power of your dollar to change things like this. Leave legislation out of it...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Bad idea. by Schwartzboy · · Score: 1

      FYI, this has been done in some counties in Maryland and throughout Ireland as I understand it...I seem to remember hearing that the Irish smoking ban was repealed not long after it was introduced, but I can't back that up with anything I can find in print.

      Of course, I don't think anyone bothered to actually walk into said pubs...it was more of a "sit in office, issue edict, threaten pubs with fines" sort of thing. Immediately after the ban took effect in parts of Maryland, I remember the Washington Post running an article of two that talked about how it was killing business in the bars in those areas.

      For the record, I'm not a huge fan of this sort of meddling, by individuals or Big Brother. Unfortunately such entities rarely, if ever, consult me before implementing these brilliant plans.

      --
      "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
    5. Re:Bad idea. by slim · · Score: 1

      Hmm, not really, if I walk in to a restraunt and you're smoking I'm going to walk right up to the manager and say, I don't fancy dying of lung cancer caused by passive smoking, either enforce a no-smoking policy or I'm eating elsewhere.

      That's perfect, as long as you're polite about it. You're providing the manager with the information he needs to adapt to the market. (a true Keynesian free market relies on perfect information among other things).

      Do make good of your threat and frequent somewhere with a no-smoking area.

      In a year to 18 months here in the UK I'll be walking up to said smoker and saying smoking is banned in public places, put it out or I'll stick it up your arse.

      I'm a non-smoker, but I really hope that doesn't coma about. You're being pretty optimistic about the speed government works too, since we were promised saner opening hours 4 years ago...

      I believe this is something the market can decide, and I believe there are better ways to get people off cigarettes (nearly wrote "fags" there, but anticipated americans misunderstanding me). Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in 1930s USA. It's not working for narcotics anywhere. It won't work for cigarettes.

    6. Re:Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's similar to walking into a pub and demanding that everyone stop smoking because you are a non-smoker.

      Not all that similar. At least a TV doesn't infuse your clothes and hair with the repulsive odor of an old ash tray.

    7. Re:Bad idea. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Actually, Florida collectively did this. It worked pretty well.

    8. Re:Bad idea. by isorox · · Score: 1

      a pub and demanding that everyone stop smoking because you are a non-smoker.

      You mean like in Ireland, or (I believe) New York, where the government-de-jour tells private bar owners what (legal activities) they can and cant allow on their premises?

      I'm all for banning smoking in public places like parks or sidewalks, but a in a private bar, it's up to the bar owner.

    9. Re:Bad idea. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      It's similar to walking into a pub and demanding that everyone stop smoking because you are a non-smoker.

      No, you just get the legislature to do that for you.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  31. but can it be used to turn off by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    tv's that are being used as monitors, say with flight info, traffic reports etc.
    OR, if you have a really strong death wish, turn off the Red Sox/ Yankees game at you local bar?
    better hide that little sucker in IR-transparent hiding place and keep you cellphone handy with 1-button 911 service programmed into it if you are going around turning off tvs that other people are watching. I was always warned not to get between a dog and its dinner but I think that goes for humans and there TV's too.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    1. Re:but can it be used to turn off by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Most flight info monitors are placed in a housing such that all but the screen is covered. I think they may also be computer monitors, but I am not sure.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
  32. Sign me up! by What'sInAName · · Score: 0


    I would definitely buy one of these. The TVs I would target are the ones you run across in random public spaces spewing adverts. Yeah, I should just ignore it, other people want to watch it, blah blah blah. Well fark em, they can always turn it back on if they really want to watch it that bad.

    1. Re:Sign me up! by What'sInAName · · Score: 1


      Let me reply to my own post, just to show what a complete farking hypocrite I am. If, on the other hand, someone were to use this to turn off the Sox Yankees game on me, they would be in a world of pain.

      Go Sox!

    2. Re:Sign me up! by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Like in Auckland airport! The cafe there has a TV turned on LOUD, and in new zealand they just have three channels, of of which in the mornings broadcast only advertisements, continuously. I reckon it is a government plan to force people to go outside and exercise instead of watching TV, but it can be annoying if you are waiting for a plane and trying to read a magazine.

    3. Re:Sign me up! by datGSguy · · Score: 1
      Obviously a proud owner of Think-For-Yourself-Begone (tm)

      --
      Arachninecronymphocranialpheliaphobiacs Anonymous
    4. Re:Sign me up! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "...If, on the other hand, someone were to use this to turn off the Sox Yankees game on me, they would be in a world of pain....Go Sox!"

      You should thank that person for saving you from being disappointed :)

    5. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, at least you're honest. And actually, that's what this is all about. You (and anyone else that buys it) would use the device when it benefitted you and you would not use it when it benefitted you regardless of how it helped or hurt anyone else in the vacinity. A huge number of people think this way. Of course, that's why we have near constant on-going war the world over :(

      In the end, it has to be argued that this device really should not exist, and that the "inventor" and all users are morally bankrupt.

      Welcome to the human race!

  33. He was on ATC yestderday... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NPR's All Things Considered had a segment on this device yesterday.

  34. Turning off others' tvs is not a good idea by winkydink · · Score: 0

    ...and nerds wonder why they get the stuffing beat out of them.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  35. Re:One would hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do normal tv remotes interfere with pacemakers? One would also hope that pacemakers don't have 'off' switches ;-)

  36. Just like a concealed universal remote... by JazMuadDib · · Score: 1

    in Future Shop: endless amounts of fun while watching poor salespeople try to figure out why their equipment is going haywire and disturbing their sales pitches!

    1. Re:Just like a concealed universal remote... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Back in school I remember someone had a watch with a built in universal remote and learned the code for most TVs they would use in class. So when avideo was being shown, all of a sudden it would switch to a soap or something in the middle of class.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  37. During the Playoffs by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just as the ball gets hit and everyone goes nuts, so you don't see the outcome. Revenge of the nerds indeed. hopefully this is small enough so you don't get caught

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:During the Playoffs by vhold · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is kinda pedantic, but for what it's worth, the article said it takes around a minute for it to transmit all the codes in it's little database, so it's unlikely you'll be able to get the totally desired timing effect to -really- piss everybody off. Also it seems like it'd be pretty hard to use this thing discretely if you have to point it at a TV for half a minute on average.

    2. Re:During the Playoffs by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      Revenge of the nerds is the employment of math geeks to find all random sports statistics imaginable. Every game is the longest, shortest, or first in a long itme of something.

      --
      -mkb
    3. Re:During the Playoffs by mobiux · · Score: 1

      If your sitting close enough to the tv, you should be able to easily hide it in your hand.

      And i can see any interuption messing with people.
      Like the whole A-rod, first base interference thing last night.

    4. Re:During the Playoffs by alonsoac · · Score: 1

      the most popular tv brand codes are tried first, son on avaerage it would take much less than half minute. Plus if you can see that the tv brand is one of the first one tried you know it will work right away.

    5. Re:During the Playoffs by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

      Then it would just be Nerd season. Strange thing happens to the game, immediately pound anyone wearing taped glasses and and smelling of cheetos. not a good idea ;)

    6. Re:During the Playoffs by superstick58 · · Score: 1

      Some of us "nerds" would be just as pissed off at missing the big play of the game. How about I use it to turn of some anime just as the bad guy is about to be sliced in half after 30min. of set up time?

    7. Re:During the Playoffs by Lusa · · Score: 1

      Having not read the article I feel I am qualified to comment. I doubt this would work on all TV's. My tv requires the power off signal to be sent several times (and no its not dead batteries :) to prevent accidentally turning it off. I'm sure there are other tv models out there that are the same.

    8. Re:During the Playoffs by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 1

      Revenge of the nerds indeed! The original post referred to the NFL, or National *Football* League. Football is a sport where the ball is not hit, as mentioned in the parent, so much as it is tossed and carried.

      Haven't much watched anything other than Battlebots, eh?

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    9. Re:During the Playoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it did say it does the most popular ones first. So if 90% of the market is dominated by three or four brands, then the avarage time might be only 5 seconds.

  38. The nerve of some people... by VE3ECM · · Score: 2, Informative
    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions.


    Uh, excuse me... who the hell do you think you are that you can walk into someone's place of business, and switch off a piece of property that isn't yours?

    Bottom line: if you're unhappy with the noise levels of TV's where you frequent... ask them nicely to turn it down. You'd be surprised how far a simple 'please' goes these days. A fact that eludes far too many people these days.

    And if that doesn't work: go somewhere else. No one's forcing you to visit their place of business. Talk with your money.

  39. Car stereo variant. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    I always wanted to build a car-stereo variant which would set the tuner to my FM transmitter, put the volume up all the way and blast "It's raining men" through their F-ing inconsiderate boom cars.

    1. Re:Car stereo variant. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Which will work real well what with most of them playing CDs...

    2. Re:Car stereo variant. by Skater · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of torn on this. I know exactly who you're talking about - and they annoy me as well. But I recently got a 12" subwoofer installed in my car. I'm careful to keep it turned down in town, but there are times when I wonder if they can hear/feel the thump from it even though it isn't that loud (and I have a slight hearing loss, unrelated to listening to music, which means I have the volume slightly higher than an average person would).

      I know you're talking about the sociopaths that think they're proving some point or whatever. But I worry that I might be doing the same thing (not as badly, but still audible) without realizing it... it's really hard to judge how loud the music really is.

      When I got the subwoofer, I turned the volume up to about as loud as I'd want to listen to it at a traffic light with the windows up, then I got out of the car and walked around it to see how it sounded. It wasn't bad at all: no one more than a foot or two from the car would be able to hear it, so I made a note of that volume setting and keep it below that in town. But, not all CDs are recorded the same - some are quiet, some are loud, and some have much stronger bass, and I might not always be compensating well for the variance.

      --RJ

    3. Re:Car stereo variant. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Better yet, build an FCC part 15 FM transmitter with a highly directional antenna, aim it at the noisy offender's car, guess the frequency (most likely that of one of the hip-hop stations), and say "This car is publicly performing a copyrighted work. The FBI would like to remind you that copyright infringement is a crime."

    4. Re:Car stereo variant. by cubicleman · · Score: 1

      It seems so many drivers with loud stereos lack any tact or comprehension of how obnoxious they are to those around them... I'm pretty careful to keep my stereo down when I have the sunroof open/windows down or at night when I pull into my neighborhood (quiet suburban street)... I don't do stupid things either like rev the engine, squeal the tires, etc..

    5. Re:Car stereo variant. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I just mean the sociopaths. Hacking around with car stereos is fun, and getting a nice sound out of one is also a lot of fun, but some people tweak their subs so that they feel the maximum vibration possible, thinking that high bass doesn't hurt their hearing. They're after the rumble, not the booming, and they don't care how many windows they shake in the process.

      To give you an idea of the scope... If a boom car following a fire engine passes my house, as long as there aren't any sirens, it won't be the fire engine I hear... the huge engine of the pumper truck barelling down the street full speed will be completely drowned out by the bass of the sociopath.

      The engine and performance mods are just as bad... if I drove down the street with my horn stuck, I'd be arrested, but if I had a stereo blasting obsenities, that'd be o.k.

      If I removed my muffler and drove down the street, I'd be arrested. Now if I tweaked my car to make as much noise as possible, that'd be o.k.

      I think the police don't see this kind of thing as enough of a problem. IMHO, it should be part of emissions testing and traffic laws. In many places you're not allowed to wear headphones in a car, but you are allowed to play a stereo so loud you couldn't hear an emergency vehicle if it were hammering on its horn behind you... for that matter, you might just think you've got some real kick'n bass when they start ramming your car out of the way.

    6. Re:Car stereo variant. by Skater · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I completely understand - I live on the 15th floor of my building, and I occasionally hear cars going by out front (and I'm NOT close to the road) with bass thumping or nasty exhausts. It's amazing.

      It's a thin line - I consider myself an auto enthusiast, and many of my friends put a lot of modifications on their cars. Most of them are NOT doing it to be loud; they do it because they want more power and a different sound (not necessarily louder, just different). Some people put huge "coffee can" mufflers on their cars that do nothing for performance but change the sound - I, and most of my friends, absolutely hate those. Personally, I'd rather my exhaust be totally silent so that I could better hear my music. I like listening to the engine run, too (not the exhaust, the engine).

      Technically, it is illegal to play the radio so loud that you can't hear sirens - if nothing else, it's disturbing the peace, but some areas have "noise pollution" laws that cover it more specifically. I doubt you'd get stopped for having headphones on, though, just like I've never seen someone stopped for playing loud music.

      --RJ

    7. Re:Car stereo variant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: your sig...

      Sadly, it *is* throwing your vote away.

      Indisputable fact: somewhere around 40-55% of votes will be Republican.

      In an election this close, splitting the rest between Democrats and others may in fact lead to four more years under the tyranny of Bush. I wish it weren't so, but it is, and so I can't take chances voting for third parties.

      In the absence of any third party that will split the right wing vote by a proportional amount, I simply don't have a choice.

      Please explain why you think this isn't the case...

  40. Is Washington Watching? by ralphart · · Score: 1

    How long before the Department of Homeland Security classifies this as a "terrorist" device? Weapons of Mass Distractioon!

    1. Re:Is Washington Watching? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Why? It would be more like Weapon of Mass Attention.
      Because if someone uses it, you are now longer forced to keep your mind on some fucking blaring box in the corner...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  41. thats kind of offensive by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Informative

    A small portion of people cannot tune out background noise such as television, but the disruption caused by random outages will disturb the people who DO tune it out. The brain filters out patterns; when patterns change, we notice them. We don't notice the water dripping, but we do when it stops; some of us cannot fall asleep unless there's a stream of white noise such as a fan or waterfall outside. Then there's the issue that people might actually be watching the darned thing in the first place! If I owned a public place, the first time I realized someone was turning off my TVs, I'd just cover the sensors with tape, and make everyone watch whatever I feel like instead, causing more annoyance.

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  42. Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them,

    You've got to be kidding me. Whenever I see TVs in places like that, they're always too small, too far away, and too quiet to keep my attention even when I want to watch them.

    If you can't pay attention to a real human right in front of you because of a TV somewhere in the distance, maybe the television isn't the real source of the problem.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      No, not a neurological disorder, just a different set of priorities in the visual perception system. Some people just can't pull their attention away from bright moving objects. It makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, for motion to grab your attention immediately and strongly. It's how we used to get food.

    2. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by Freedom+Bug · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those who can't pay attention to a real human right in front of me.

      I finally figured out why. I grew up on a farm without a TV. Even the radio usually wasn't turned on unless somebody was actually listening to it: it wasn't just background noise.

      I completely lack the ability to ignore the TV in a bar or restaurant, no matter how cute my date is. I ordered several of these units, and I'm going to use them.

      And if it ends in fisticuffs, so be it. I lost many of the fights I was involved in during my "formative years", but that was against farmboys and working men. City punks are a different story...

      Bryan

    3. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The human visual system is very sensitive to movement. TV screens constantly flicker at 25Hz (or more these days), which triggers our movement sensitivity. It is constantly distracting because we've evolved to be distracted by movement, back in the days when movement might be something trying to kill us.

      However, I don't have this problem: I don't go to the kind of restaurants or bars that have TV sets. A TV set is a good indicator that the restaurant or bar serves the ..errr... less discriminating consumer.

    4. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by froody · · Score: 1

      It's similar for me. When growing up, the TV would only be on if I (or we) were actually watching it. If I wasn't watching TV I wouldn't be in the living room.
      Then we moved to the US, where people use the TVs seemingly for background noise, and I have a really hard time tuning them out. My fiancee knows that if she wants to talk to me, the TV needs to be off. In bars/restaurants, I make a point to sit facing away from any TVs that might be on.

      Tim

    5. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by Catiline · · Score: 1
      A TV set is a good indicator that the restaurant or bar serves the ..errr... less discriminating consumer.
      What, you mean like a McDonalds or Burger King?
    6. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I do.

      I sometimes get together with some friends for dinner and drinks at a local restaurant, which has a few TVs around the bar. Whenever I sit facing the TV, I am sometimes drawn to it, even though it is usually displaying sports (which I don't even watch on my own television). It's not that the volume is too loud/quiet, or that the TV is on the wrong station, or even the fact that the TV is *ON* that bothers me.... It's the fact that it has about 5 inches of vertical foldover that really drives me nuts. I *KNOW* I can fix it if I could just get up there with a screwdriver....

    7. Re:Do you have some sort of neurological disorder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He/she may not.

      Imagery sells. Music and TV's placed are placed in inappropriate settings to de-sensitize and disorienate the consumer/punter, or to subliminaly suggest they need to (buy)something or linger a bit longer.

      TV Addiction is real. Advertising agencys like it when people say it does not affect them. Business's that put TV's out do so for a positive cash return. The channel format and volume, the removal of chairs - so you can't really listen to it, are all planned.

  43. Ehh by The-Bus · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm too lazy to read the article. Is there a link to video of it somewhere so I know what it does? Anyone?

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Ehh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm too lazy to read the article. Is there a link to video of it somewhere so I know what it does? Anyone?

      I was watching a video about it, but then my TV mysteriously shut off...

  44. A.D.D. by sharkb8 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Instead of ruining the experience for everyone else, why not just try reigning in that raging ADD before someone invents the Retard-Be-Gone

    1. Re:A.D.D. by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      why not just try reigning in that raging ADD

      RTFA, that's exactly what this device does.

      *ducks*

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  45. Now all we need... by Frennzy · · Score: 1

    ...is a 'Geek-B-Dead' device to use on the asshat who thinks it's funny to use this at a sports bar right at that critical moment during an important play.

    1. Re:Now all we need... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ooooh, thanks for the idea! I'll have to find a sports bar once my device arrives (I ordered one yesterday morning).

    2. Re:Now all we need... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiousity, are you proud of being a dick? Seriously, I don't get all these people who are eager to piss off as many people around them as possible.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:Now all we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They let 12 year olds into bars now?

    4. Re:Now all we need... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Only drunken sports fans and Canadians.

      Hey, everybody needs a hobby!

    5. Re:Now all we need... by symbolic · · Score: 3, Insightful


      is a universal OFF button for car stereos. They are FAR more annoying, and entail FAR more of an encroachment on the rights of others. The icing on the cake would be a universal Self-Destruct button- because that's probably what it would take for the little queens that drive these cars to get the message.

      As far as the TV goes, I remember working out at the local gym - there was this gaggle of women that would often show up at the same time. If the TV was off, one of them would make sure to turn it on. If it was on, one of them would make sure to turn up the volume. If that wasn't enough, they'd spend their workout practically yelling back and forth across the room above the noise from the TV. Oh how I would have loved something like this.

    6. Re:Now all we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we are dreaming, why not a button that turns them all the way up? The speakers would blow, and I predict that soon stereo chivalry would prevail.

    7. Re:Now all we need... by Bastian · · Score: 1

      You mean like a HERF gun?

      Also good for shutting off cell phones or the car itself.

  46. Just turn the captions on and sound off. by VidEdit · · Score: 1

    Rather than getting your ass kicked by irate tv watchers, you'd be better off with a remote that could mute the sound and turn on the captions. That is really the best way for TV to be shown in public places so people can still watch tv but it doesn't disturb others.

    --
  47. Article submitter... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...needs to get a fucking life. Or, maybe he just needs to get punched in the face a few times. Either action would probably yield positive results.

  48. Psychological Perspective by GopherDylan · · Score: 1
    One would have to use some caution with this device because unwanted consequence could occur.

    In some cases, such as the article states, the person may simply blink and walk away, but in other cases the person could become quite upset and violent.

    In a class I am currently taking we talked about an organisms reaction to the removal of a stimulus they are conditioned to. In this case, the TV show would be the stimulus and response is the dazed, relaxed feeling they might be having. If this is removed, you will see what is sometimes called an "extinction burst." In these cases, dependent on the situation, the person may turn the TV back on and over successive trails become irritate and irrational about the TV turning off.

    A great way to see this in practice is to take the batteries out of a remote. Leave them there for the next person to find. You should notice that when it doesn't work the first time, they might start pushing the button harder, maybe hit the remote, and so on. They do all this long before checking on the batteries.

    I'm not saying this is totally applicable in all situations, but it might be something to consider.

  49. Elvis... by benasselstine · · Score: 1

    Elvis used a slightly different method for turning off his TVs... KaPow!

    --
    My other car is a slashdot UID.
  50. Game On! by SkyWalk423 · · Score: 1

    Let the infra-red warfare begin!

  51. Arms race? by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

    So then the TV manufacturers develop a TV which can be locked in the ON position through the setup menu. Then the keychain maker modifies the keychain to work around this. Then the TV manufacturers add a password. Then the keychain manufacturer adds a dictionary attack feature. Then the TV maker gives each remote a key unique to a given TV. Then universal remotes won't work anymore and everyone will be pissed off because they have to order replacement remotes from the factory and the keychains will be worthless.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:Arms race? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Or else put a piece of cardboard in from of the TV IR receiver . . .

      Sometimes the simple answer is the most effective.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  52. No, one would hope... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that people don't think that they have some God-given right to control other people's hardware.

    If there's a TV playing in someone else's bar, restaurant or whatever, what gives you the right to turn it off? If you don't like the TV being on you're always free to take your business elsewhere.

    Some people might politely ask the owner to turn down the volume, switch it off, etc if it really bothered them. This gadget is a cowardly way of avoiding possible disappointment and foisting your opinion on someone else. Score one for mannerless morons.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:No, one would hope... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      I wanted to bother to reply : But thanks for saying all i wanted to say ;)

      Ohwait, little to add ; Same as the people who use these little gadgets to f*ck up other people's mobile phones ; Not that -I- own a mobile phone (i'm one of the sole survivors left) ; but it's one of the most cowardly ways to just get someone to turn off/speak less loud on their phone.

    2. Re:No, one would hope... by PriceIke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Roger that .. agree with all the above. Just because you don't like what's on the tube when you're out in public doesn't give you the right to adjust it in any way. Someone else in the room may be VERY interested in it.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    3. Re:No, one would hope... by fwitness · · Score: 1

      I just joined the ranks of the cell-phoned, sadly. And I miss being snobbish about it. Anyway, a cel-jammer device would still be useful. No, it's not my right to control your usage of your stuff, but if I had to tell every idiot that screaming about how your man left you into a cell phone or driving like and idiot while gesticulating wildly, I 'd go mad. Oh wait, I just did.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    4. Re:No, one would hope... by fakeplasticusername · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like what you said, but wanted to add. The rant on the website said something that struck a nerve with me. It said something that I have heard applied to numerous other examples and I think pepole of slashdot might agree with how I feel on this.

      Their little blurb repeated over and over again their self-righteous reason for this little device: Providing a more meaningful life for those that are watching TV. They seem to believe that people watching TV are wasting their lives away in front of the TV when they could be out walking in the park or chatting in a coffee bar or some other "real" activity. I would say, if you like to do these things to occupy your time; great, i won't get in your way, but don't try to fix my life because i would rather play a video game or watch a DVD or watch the news or whatever. I'm glad you found something meaningful in your life, but don't think that your sense of meaning is universal, and don't force me to repent about my personal choices that i find fulfilling and I wouldn't want to give up.

      This is more of the same "I know what is best for you" mentality that i think is the biggest problem with my country. I'm sick to death of people telling me that my escapist pleasure of playing a video game is less valid then their escapist pleasure of watching a sports game, or going to get drunk, or getting high, or whatever. My choices make me happy, otherwise, I wouldn't be doing them.

      *Exhale*

    5. Re:No, one would hope... by SidV · · Score: 1

      I agree with both you and Wiak. I ever find someonee using a cell phone jammer I'm going to follow them home and cut the phone wire to their house. Because them spreading their ignorance bothers me. AS to turning off TV's in public places. If theres no legal means to get at them, theres always clue-by-fours.

    6. Re:No, one would hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit. like in a big hospital where they put the f'n thing so high you cant get at it and there's no one in the waiting room to ask anyway... only other solution be a brick.

    7. Re:No, one would hope... by ALT064 · · Score: 1

      It's a narcissist's tool indeed.

      The ability to manipulate a device like a public television to do your own bidding from a darkened booth when there are a roomful of others already watching it is just a bit self-centered. However, this may be the only type of control a person who purchases such a device like this may get in life. Someone might think them self quite crafty for purchasing a device someone else engineered for the ability to point it and push a button until a public TV turns off, giggling like a schoolgirl under his/her breath at the commotion it causes. These same people probably wonder why they don't get laid too.

      --
      @
  53. For those who like their TV... by iapetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've created a device to counter this anti-social and selfish TV-deactivator. And what's more, it's easier and cheaper to construct. Just curl the fingers of your right hand into a tight roll, tucking the tips in towards the palm, and use this device to strike a sharp blow to the arrogant fool who thinks he has the right to mess with your expensive consumer hardware.

    Patent is, of course, pending, but I'll be offering a free license for use in this sort of situation.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    1. Re:For those who like their TV... by PositiveG · · Score: 1

      Hmm, here's another, black electrical tape over said TV's IR receiver.

    2. Re:For those who like their TV... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".

      I see no Elrond here.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:For those who like their TV... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Please don't sue me, but I made a copy of your device for my own use with my left hand.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    4. Re:For those who like their TV... by PositiveG · · Score: 1

      Prior art, supposedly some guy name Cain beat you to it (pardon the pun).

    5. Re:For those who like their TV... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      I've got something even better: a procedure they can get for free. Simply place hand in front of face, curl into fist and run forward as fast as possible. No more TV. Hell, no more anything for that matter (and it'll help you go to sleep!)

    6. Re:For those who like their TV... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those of us using this device will use an awesome tool known as the "calling the police on your ass". Once we have your arrogant, violant ass safely behind bars, we will then proceed back to peacefully turning off idiot boxes wherever they appear. Suck on that, dumbass.

    7. Re:For those who like their TV... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      > Patent is, of course, pending

      Oh yeah? Well I just filed a patent for using the same process, but over the Internet.

      I'll make millions!

    8. Re:For those who like their TV... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I just filed a patent for using the same process, but over the Internet.

      I'll make millions!


      Come now, Mr. Bezos. You know how well that's worked out in the past...

    9. Re:For those who like their TV... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another TV addict shows how violent they get when confronted with the possiblity of having their TV taken away from them. Pathetic.

  54. Interesting idea, but wrong code is being sent by Chairboy · · Score: 1

    Something that I would find much more useful is a button that cycles through all the 'Closed Captioning' activation codes.

    So many TVs in public have the volume low (which is good) but have closed captioning turned off (which is bad). There's no way to actually get coherent information from most programming this way. If you're in a loud bar or restaurant, having the volume up would be intrusive for those who choose not to watch TV. But if you activate the closed captioning, then anyone who chooses to watch will at least be able to understand what they're seeing instead of just watching the 'pretty pictures'.

    I'm reminded of the slashdot poster who, on the day the sample return capsule crashed without deploying a parachute, turned on the TV with the sound off and the saw what appeared to be a flying saucer half buried in the desert with the words 'BREAKING NEWS' flashing across the bottom.

    1. Re:Interesting idea, but wrong code is being sent by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of the slashdot poster who, on the day the sample return capsule crashed without deploying a parachute, turned on the TV with the sound off and the saw what appeared to be a flying saucer half buried in the desert with the words 'BREAKING NEWS' flashing across the bottom.

      ROFL! That comment made me spit my drink all over my desk. Great!

    2. Re:Interesting idea, but wrong code is being sent by Buran · · Score: 1

      I depend on closed captions to watch TV at all, being hearing-impaired, but fortunately the documentaries I love are mostly captioned. It is fantastic to be able to watch TV while out if I choose to -- I made a point of complimenting a local pizzeria for running the captions on their sets and keeping the sound off so that the sets were ignorable.

  55. As Bugs would say... by iii_rjm · · Score: 1

    What a maroon

  56. So what? by Sephiro444 · · Score: 1

    Annoying or not, should an individual have the right to turn off a public television that the other people nearby have an equal right to?

    This smacks terribly of the problems presented by personal cell phone jammers -- I'm all in favor of common courtesy, but how far should someone be permitted to go to enforce their own personal comfort?

    As in both of these cases, should it extend into potentially infringing on the personal comfort of others? How many others? If you can block one person's cell phone signal with a jammer, can you turn off a high mounted TV set in an airport that dozens of people might be watching, because you don't feel like moving?

    I should think not!

  57. The main problem with this... by W2k · · Score: 1

    ...is that it still uses IR, which means it needs line of sight. Of course, there's no way around that, since very few TV sets uses something other than IR for communicating with their remotes. The problem is that you have to point it at the TV set to use it.

    Still pretty darn nifty though. I might get one when the site becomes accessible again.

    On a sidenote, someone should combine this with a cellphone jammer, an electric stun gun, and a reusable light EMP grenade, and we'd have the ultimate peace-and-quiet device.

    --
    Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    1. Re:The main problem with this... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Getting the shit kicked out of you by those around you who do not appreciate you being an arrogant prick does not equate to peace and quiet by my standards.

      Finkployd

  58. Why the hardware? Palm, etc... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are so many IR-capable palm devices out there that if the guy making it really wanted to have an impact on the world, all he'd need to do is develop a software app and offer it for free. Anyone? Anyone?

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  59. Re:The death will come via.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like we didn't finish the job the first time. See you soon!

  60. Use a universal remote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and just run through the settings. One of them will probably shut off the TV. The submitter just has to be patient enough to hit the remote power button that many times.

    Though the attention span of the submitter is the real problem here.

  61. Don't forget .... by binaryDigit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Troll-be-gone
    FP-be-gone
    In-Soviet-Russia-be-gone
    Microsoft-anything-sucks-open-source-everything-ro cks-be-gone
    Cowboy-Neal-be-gone

    1. Re:Don't forget .... by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Funny

      These devices exist already ...in Japan!

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    2. Re:Don't forget .... by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Note that we apparently don't have to wait long for BSD to be gone.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    3. Re:Don't forget .... by arubis · · Score: 1

      Bitch-be-gone? (Warning: 25MB video)

    4. Re:Don't forget .... by igny · · Score: 1

      I clearly see government's conspiracy.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Don't forget .... by jinieren · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new be-gone overlords.

    6. Re:Don't forget .... by chochos · · Score: 1

      You forgot to imagine-a-Beowulf-cluster-of-those...-be-gone

  62. RTFA by VE3ECM · · Score: 1

    RTFA!
    The article covers that on the very last paragraph!

  63. Heh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a large broadcasting corporation. I can hardly wait to try one of these out at work (there are TVs everywhere.)

  64. Another Form of DoS by XLawyer · · Score: 1

    Well, yes, that sounds awfully neat . . . Except that many people in a bar may want the TV on, especially if they're watchin the game. And that may be why the owner turned the thing on in the first place.

    Can you imagine the reaction if someone used one of these things in the ninth inning of game seven in the Yankees-Red Sox series? Is this likely to appeal to the same kind of loser who runs DoS attacks for kicks?

    If there's something annoying on and no one else seems interested in it, why not just ask the bartender or manager to turn off the set or change the channel? I know from personal experience that that's often a viable strategy.

    You don't have to like sports or, for that matter, Oprah or infomercials. But does that really entitle you to piss in someone else's sandbox?

  65. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make excellent public computer displays...??

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every 911 call center I've seen has your standard, cheap computer monitors.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every 911 call center I've ever seen had wall-sized holographic displays. Every single last one of them. So there. As I haven't ever seen one, that statement is completely true. There's no appeal to Logos here. Move along.

  66. The most annoying variant of this by gsasha · · Score: 1

    Would be a device to actually turn UP and DOWN the volume of a TV.
    Back at the university, we had SGI workstations with a volume control applet that could be redirected by X to another display. Some guys just discovered digital music back then (it wasn't even MP3), and were constantly playing it.
    So the solution was to abruptly jump the volume up and down, much to the bewilderment of the person affected. It was very hard to keep a straight face when he was looking at me... but after several such intrusions, the music was finally stopped.

    1. Re:The most annoying variant of this by vhold · · Score: 1

      That'd actually be the more effective variant from some kind of anti-TV activist standpoint. If TVs were just randomly all put to max volume all over the place, they could damage themselves and would -require- their IR ports be blocked, making them more inconvenient for everybody, and overall less likely to even be used in the first place.

  67. Just what Guy Montag needed by pcraven · · Score: 1

    This is just what Guy Montag needed to silence Denham's Dentifrice.

  68. not for long, it won't. by jstave · · Score: 1

    I think these things will be effective exactly until they get popular. Then either bits of masking tape will be put over the IR receivers of public TVs or someone will create remote/IR pairs that are somehow specific to one another (like some sort of ID encoded in the IR signal). The harder part will be retrofitting existing TVs with such an ID-based remote (harder, but hardly impossible).

  69. Yes it does! by mib711 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You didn't RTFA, did you?

  70. Cycle through signals? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that risk something like this happening?. Or perhaps the neighbor's garage door bouncing around. Or somebody's pacemaker making them do the Funky Monkey.

  71. Discrete on/off codes... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're pretty rare. I have at most one device at home that MIGHT support discrete on/off codes (my old Sharp XG-E660U LCD projector), but I'm not sure since I don't have the remote, and attempting to use remote definitions for other Sharp projectors gets minimal functionality at most.

    With your typical consumer-grade TV sets, the only power code is a toggle. So this device is as likely to turn TVs ON as it is to turn them off.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm envisioning playing Bingo at one of those large store displays with all the different TV's in a big grid.

    2. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken. Most major and minor brands have discrete codes for at least power. Check out the remotecentral.com files section. The remotes that ship with the devices don't have physical buttons for them, and they're generally undocumented, but they usually do exist.

    3. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by vondo · · Score: 1

      You can't just go by what is on the device remote. My TV remote has a single "Power" button, but it also understands discrete codes. Also, from my own experience, the quality of the equipment doesn't necessarily correlate with having or not having discreet codes.

    4. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All RCA gear responds to a discrete OFF code.

    5. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As any tv-watching geek should know, infrared is line-of-sight. So what if there are multiple TVs, if only one TV is on, just cup your hand over the transmitter so that the only possible destination the signal could go to is the TV you are aiming at.

    6. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      See, actually, this is the real issue I saw with this device.

      Anyone who has ever programmed a "univeral" remote knows that, for many manufacturers, there are multiple codes. The best part is, many of those codes may work partially for a TV in question, ie: one may work fine, except the channel up/down doesn't work, another may have a dodgy mute signal, but otherwise work fine, and one my only support the power toggle...get the picture?

      What you're going to have is a system that probably goes through each brand and code combination in order. This will probably result in several valid "toggle" commands intermixed with invalid ones, because the remote has no idea when it's found a working code. So, you'll probably get a funky response where the TV turns itself on and off several times, and eventually comes to rest on the last valid toggle.

      The trick will be disabling the remote BEFORE it toggles the TV back on again...but at one minute to attempt the entire database, you'd have to be aweful fast.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    7. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by MacBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Virtually all TVs (and other popular devices like VCRs, DVD players, etc.) have discrete on/off codes. The original remote sure doesn't have the corresponding buttons, but that does not prevent the device from responding to the code if it receives it. The only device that I own that doesn't have the capability to use discrete on/off is my Panasonic VCR.

    8. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by AEton · · Score: 1

      To summarize the last three rounds of posting

      1) Discrete on/off codes (hereafter "X") exist. Lots of things have X! For example, some people take advantage of X. (+4 insightful)
      2) X doesn't happen much. I know of one X. (+4 interesting)
      3) Actually, X does happen. I only know of one thing without X. (+4 informative)

      Gosh - insightful, interesting, and informative, all based on "what I know" and "what I've seen" and unsupported claim. Let me try this.

      You're wrong! Actually, most TV's made in the last year don't have discrete on/off codes. You see, recent US government regulations prohibit the purchase of devices with "Easter Eggs" - undocumented features - which is why Windows XP was shipped without such Easter Eggs. This is a problem because TV manuals are printed to be as short and simple as possible, and they certainly don't include all the undocumented IR signals a remote might be able to use.

      So to avoid having to make "consumer" and "military" models of their electronics, many manufacturers (Panasonic was in fact the first) have removed many features such as "discrete on/off" from their lower-end devices, which frequently generate military requisition for various reasons. (Break rooms and field offices tend to find the greatest use.)

      I myself have bought five TV's in the past year (long story), and only one - a top-end 50" plasma HDTV - still supported discrete on/off. (And it was even mentioned in the manual!) You get what you pay for these days.

      So, to answer the very original poster (#0)'s question, my other four newly purchased TV's would all be turned on by this device.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    9. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Pinballs have them and thay are made in the usa.

    10. Re:Discrete on/off codes... by MacBoy · · Score: 1

      "Unsupported Claim"?
      I used dicrete codes with my remote every single day. One button turns on my TV and Receiver (if they aren't on already), and switches their inputs to the appropriate corresponding to the button I just pushed (using another set of discrete codes not used by the OEM remotes). Another button turns the system off. Pushing the off button doesn't toggle anything on and off. The codes are discrete. How's that for an usupported claim?

      p.s. the TV is 6 months old.

  72. Now THERE's a serious deterrant ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "unless we want to get up too, we're --forced-- to watch"

    My God, what oppressive coercion! You actually make each other stand up to change the channel? The horror, the horror!

    You guys need to lay off the bong.

  73. Best Buy B gone.... by Uncrase · · Score: 1

    Best Buy Big Stack of TV's B gone!! I'd love to see THAT in action.

  74. Let the pretentious wars begin by finkployd · · Score: 1

    Looks like the Jonathan Greens of the world (many of which seem to frequent slashdot) finally have a weapon to fight back.

    Finkployd

  75. Freedom for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I'm not touching other people's property to use this; I'm merely throwing out ir frequencies. It's their fault if the TV turns off.

    1. Re:Freedom for all by Rev+Wally · · Score: 1
      Hey, I'm not touching your property. I'm just refreshing a page on your server over and over. Not my fault it crashed.

      Its about the intent.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
  76. Uh.. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one imagining my neighbors TV's shutting off one-by-one until it finds my TV's frequency? In an apartment this could be entertaining!

    1. Re:Uh.. by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Just how badly built is your apartment?

      The holes in the wall required to allow the IR signal through would be much more worrying than the effect on TVs.

    2. Re:Uh.. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      This is true...for some reason I wasn't "thinking" IR. I'll shut up now. :)

  77. silly article by Tuffsnake · · Score: 0

    "...the conversations that I should be having with my human companions."

    Human companions? That's something avg \.ers don't need to worry about :P What's more, 1/2 this crowd would be going out with this as the sole purpose as opposed to people who are going out already having this to use :P:P

  78. How about a Button to Turn Off People by syntap · · Score: 3, Funny

    And their cell phones. And not as noisy as a machine gun.

  79. Universal "Off" or Universal "On"? by slars · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute - this thing will turn devices off, and ONLY off? The Off button on most remotes is simply a "toggle power status" feature, not an explicit "off" feature.

    You pull out your clicker, and turn off the Simpsons, and the dude in the booth next to you clicks it back on. Seems like a waste of money to me!

    1. Re:Universal "Off" or Universal "On"? by aderusha · · Score: 1

      it looks like it only sends the "toggle" commands, not just the discreet "off" command (which most modern sets support), which would also let you turn on sets too.

  80. Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there anything duct tape can't do?

    1. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transmit light?

    2. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Funny
      Is there anything duct tape can't do?
      Duct tape can't mount a full-sized ATX case on your wall and keep it there for very long.

      Trust me on this one.
      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    3. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      It can't patch holes in Windows.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    4. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw... You just didn't use enough duct tape. I'm sure if you placed the case on the wall then wallpapered the whole wall + case with tape, it'd stick.

    5. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by greed · · Score: 1
      It's absolute crap for sealing ducts, actually.

      Within months at worst, a year or few at best, it's going to be peeling off.

      Get the adhesive-foil tape for your ducts, and use "duct tape" for all your emergency repairs--which is what it was really made for.

    6. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Would "Find me a girlfriend" be stretching the lonely-geek joke too far?

    7. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by atomicdragon · · Score: 1

      Remove the network/phone cable, and put a piece of duct tape over the port. That should patch most of the holes in Windows. If you want to get all of them, repeat the same procedure, but with the power cord.

    8. Re:Duct Tape over the receiver.... by vondo · · Score: 1
      I did this in college. We had an annoying guy who would bring his own remote to the TV lounge and channel surf during commercials of ST:TNG. (Ok we were geeks, but we all wanted to watch it, and not miss any of it.) One night there was black electrical tape over the receiver. You couldn't see it from a few feet away, so he looked like a fool trying to see if the batteries were dead. A few days later the tape disappeared (surprise), but soon after that, the TV was opened with a screw driver and the remote sensor was disconnected.

      I have no idea how that happened. :-)

  81. This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by scotay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions.

    No technology will ever substitute for lack of an internal moral compass (and by moral I include my atheist self - this is not a religious argument). You are in TOTAL control of what you perceive and your reaction to what you perceive. America (I assume the author is a member of the growing American victim class) has become a bunch of spineless victims that can't live in a world unless it caters to their total lack of impulse control. From the drug war, to the growing food war, to all the "for the children" arguments, this type of thinking is scary, and gives cause for more government control of every aspect of our lives. We need to grow some balls and stop playing the victim at EVERY opportunity.

    1. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this...too many frickin' vitims around! Take responsibility for yourselves and have respect already!

      OT:
      Not to pick a nit or anything...but if you define religion as a person's worldview (which I do) then technically atheism is a religion...but I know what you were trying to say.

      Out of curiosity...from where do atheists get their moral compass? I am a Christian and mine comes from God (just so you know where I am coming from). I'm not trying to pick a fight...I am genuinely curious and interested in your answer.

      B

    2. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not trying to pick a fight either, but how do you distinguish what comes from God and what from man? I am also genuinely curious and interested in your answer.

    3. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by deacon · · Score: 1
      You are in TOTAL control of what you perceive and your reaction to what you perceive. America (I assume the author is a member of the growing American victim class) has become a bunch of spineless victims that can't live in a world unless it caters to their total lack of impulse control.

      That sounds fair.

      Mind telling me where you work? I want to come by your office with a dead carp, and periodically slap you in the face with it. If you complain or react, I'll point out that you are a spineless victim that can't live in a world unless it caters to your total lack of impulse control.

      Looking forward to your reply!

    4. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by wcdw · · Score: 1

      If it isn't a religous argument, it's about _ETHICS_, nor _MORALS_. Same thing, different motivations.

      http:www.theboyz.biz

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    5. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Remarkable that such new-age bullshit could be modded 'insightful.' We can, over time, learn to change the way that we perceive events, but our control is nowhere near total. I am also annoyed by airport televisions--not so much by the fact that they exist but by their inescapability. If it were simply a matter of deciding that "oh, I won't let this annoy me," I'd obviously do that. But I'm not Lt. Cmdr. Data...

    6. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I posed that very position to a philosophy professor in college, and he said that Philosophy makes no such distinction between those terms.

    7. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      How is this device part of a victim mentality? If I'm annoyed by a television, and, consulting my moral compass, determine that it is acceptable for me to turn the thing off (for example, no one else is watching it), than this device allows me to take responsibility for my own happiness and act.

      Now for the OT part, which is really what interested me in your post:

      I would define a religion as a world view that includes some form of supernatural entity; but that's really just semantics. The definition that interest me is your definition of the word "God". Most "beleivers" I have asked about this are unable or unwilling to provide a definition, which makes any discussion of whether God exists pretty pointless. So if you can tell me what "God" means, I'll tell you if I'm an Atheist. (if you care)

      A moral compass is really not that hard to come by. Just ask yourself if what you are doing would seem OK to you if someone else were doing it. So, "Is it OK to steal? Well, gee, I'd be sad if someone stole from me..."

      Certainly some people either do not have or fail to heed this moral compass, but I think they are just as capable of ignoring what they think God wants, or deciding God wants them to act in ways that you or I would deem immoral.

      You say you get your morals from God. Which would seem to imply you have no morals of your own. I don't actually beleive that's the case. I'll assume (since I don't know you) that you are a good person. I don't think God has any more to do with it than Santa Claus. You choose to ascribe your goodness to something outside yourself, which, so far, is your business. But it frightens me. Because when it stops being exclusively your business is when our moral compasses are called upon to make some public decision, and we find that they disagree. At that point I'll be saying "I think X" and you'll be saying "God says Y". Which I think makes a poor basis for discussion, and hampers both your ability to consider alternative views, and my interest in hearing why you think Y.

      Hopefully I haven't just pissed you off yet, as that is not my intention. I too am genuinely interested in this question. I mention this now because the next paragraph is probably the most likely to piss you off. So once again, that's really not my intent.

      So I say I get my moral compass by thinking about things and making my own decisions, for which I take personal responsibility, and which have no more authority than the considered decisions of anyone else. You say your moral compass comes from God, which I take to imply that you do not take responsibility for its dictates, it is objectively right, and any position disagreeing with it is wrong. Sorry, but I find that arrogant and frightening.

    8. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      You are in TOTAL control of what you perceive and your reaction to what you perceive.

      Tell me that again next time you are in pain.


      -Colin

    9. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The self willed creation of a system of values is the highest act. To use reason, deliberation, logic, compassion and all that you are to bring into existence one's own morality and valuation is what defines us as humans.

      The compass is my own. I have even magnetized the poles. The judges robe and hangman's noose is my own and for me only. The sword I may draw for vengeance, or protection, or a war for values answers to my hand only.

      Do not cast your eyes to the heavens and the otherworldly, look instead down upon the earth, because it is hard to climb tall mountains without looking at your feet.

    10. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Um, I think you're missing the point. It's not New Age bullshit. "Control" doesn't mean using your mind waves to block out the evil photons from the TV. "Control" can mean learning to tune out the TV (I don't find this too hard most of the time), but it can also mean:
      • Asking the proprietor of the bar/restaurant to turn off the TV
      • Asking the proprietor to turn down the volume
      • Choosing another bar/restaurant
      If you're not willing to do any of the above because you're either too lazy or too incapable of normal interactions with other human beings, then the problem is you, not the TV. Not only can you not keep yourself from looking at the TV, but you're also incapable of doing anything about the problem (except, perhaps, sneakily turning off the TV with your little gadget while nobody is looking). You need to work on getting some control -- and probably some other things, if you ask me.
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    11. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Not to pick nits or anything, but technically using the Magic Off Switch would put you in the role of the agressor, wouldn't it?

      I'm still buying one, though :)

    12. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Tripster · · Score: 1

      What worries me about those who say they get their morals or worldview from "God" is just how did he deliver them? Voices inside ones head certainly are not proof of a God, indeed many folks have been locked up due to such voices.

      I am more agnostic than athiest myself, on the fence so to speak. I don't believe there is any God like being who watches our every move and expects us to act in any certain way. I do see a possibility that our universe is a creation by some entity though, but I am also not convinced of that.

      Why are people so willing to lie to their kids about the Santa Clause stuff until a certain age then come clean with them? Yet they aren't able to see that the whole God thing is largely the same type of belief system, it is based on "faith" with nothing there to back up that faith other than what they think in their heads. In essence then, if someone believes the Devil did it all then aren't they just as correct?

      No doubt life is a strange occurrence and I doubt we will ever know just how/why the universe came into being, but that doesn't mean we need to continue using ancient supernatural stories as the basis of what some think happened.

      I do feel that many need religion as a way of comforting themselves that they believe there is something else after this short existence they get to enjoy, it is quite hard for some to accept that it is simply lights out when you die. There really is no evidence saying anything else, I look at it like "I had no idea of time/existence before I was born, I likely will have none once I die either".

      If I'm lucky enough some of the materials that make up me will end up in some future being.

    13. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly a relevant comparison; TVs aren't walking into this guys workplace or home and forcing their glowing images upon him.

      And slapping someone in the face with a dead carp is a crime (assault).

      Stop trolling.

    14. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that's a completely sound analogy...

      Gee, I really wonder why you're a foe of a friend.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    15. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean next time I am in pain and take a pain killer for it? You SURELY see the difference between a "solution" that affects only the "victim" and one that affects every person in the vacinity, right? RIGHT?

    16. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      >How is this device part of a victim mentality? If I'm annoyed by a television, and, consulting my moral compass, determine that it is acceptable for me to turn the thing off (for example, no one else is watching it), than this device allows me to take responsibility for my own happiness and act.

      I was just agreeing there are too many people willing to be victims...nothing to do with the device itself really.

      >I would define a religion as a world view that includes some form of supernatural entity; but that's really just semantics. The definition that interest me is your definition of the word "God". Most "beleivers" I have asked about this are unable or unwilling to provide a definition, which makes any discussion of whether God exists pretty pointless. So if you can tell me what "God" means, I'll tell you if I'm an Atheist. (if you care)

      I'm not sure what you mean by "what 'God' means"...God is an eternal being that created this universe. Please elaborate so I may respond as you desire.

      >A moral compass is really not that hard to come by. Just ask yourself if what you are doing would seem OK to you if someone else were doing it. So, "Is it OK to steal? Well, gee, I'd be sad if someone stole from me..."

      While this may work great for you and others with respect for themselves and their own property...what about someone who doesn't care about their stuff? It's morally right for them to steal? At this point "morality" doesn't really mean much since it's different for everyone.

      >You say you get your morals from God. Which would seem to imply you have no morals of your own. I don't actually beleive that's the case. I'll assume (since I don't know you) that you are a good person. I don't think God has any more to do with it than Santa Claus. You choose to ascribe your goodness to something outside yourself, which, so far, is your business. But it frightens me. Because when it stops being exclusively your business is when our moral compasses are called upon to make some public decision, and we find that they disagree. At that point I'll be saying "I think X" and you'll be saying "God says Y". Which I think makes a poor basis for discussion, and hampers both your ability to consider alternative views, and my interest in hearing why you think Y.

      When I say I get my morals from God I mean I choose to subscribe to His version of morality. I believe we all have a basic understanding of right and wrong inside of us. I believe that basic understanding was put there by God.

      I have no goodness. Fallen human nature is evil. This is documented over and over in the Bible. All of us posses this fallen human nature. Even after becoming a Christian I am still subject to it.

      I am open to alternate views...but I measure them against God's word to see what to do. Hasn't failed me yet.

      >Hopefully I haven't just pissed you off yet, as that is not my intention. I too am genuinely interested in this question. I mention this now because the next paragraph is probably the most likely to piss you off. So once again, that's really not my intent.

      Nope! :)

      >So I say I get my moral compass by thinking about things and making my own decisions, for which I take personal responsibility, and which have no more authority than the considered decisions of anyone else. You say your moral compass comes from God, which I take to imply that you do not take responsibility for its dictates, it is objectively right, and any position disagreeing with it is wrong. Sorry, but I find that arrogant and frightening.

      I have my own moral compass. Each of us do. I try to line mine up with what God says it should be as much as I humanly can. I take responsibility for my decisions.

      I'm just saying you have to measure morals by something outside yourself or they are meaningless. You seem to have touched on this a bit (unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say) when you said "which have no more authority than the considered decisions of anyone else".

      Man can't dictate to themselves because there there is no absolute right and wrong. Moral relativism will fail every time due to the nature of humans to do evil.

      B

    17. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      "God is an eternal being that created this universe"

      Pretty good definition as far as it goes. So far I'm:
      A) a strong agnostic; I don't see how it could even possible to determine if such a being exists; Occams Razor would say it's unlikely, but certainty is clearly impossible.
      B) a firm apatheist; I can't imagine why I should care if such a being exists.
      Now, I could be wrong, but I imagine your idea of God goes into a lot more specifics than the definition above. If you add some of those to the definition, you'll probably push me over into disbelief. But I have yet to hear any definition of GOd that convinces me I should care.

      "All of us posses this fallen human nature"

      Speak for yourself.

      "I'm just saying you have to measure morals by something outside yourself or they are meaningless"

      If you beleive that, then yes, they are meaningless.

      "Man can't dictate to themselves because there there is no absolute right and wrong."

      I'd say there is no absolute right and wrong. Perhaps it would be nice if there were, but that doesn't make it so. It is certainly in the nature of some humans to do what I would classify as evil. But I don't beleive it is in my nature, nor that of most people. Your apparent belief that the natural tendency of humans is to do evil strikes me as pretty pessimistic. In my experiance and opinion, most people are pretty nice folks. Not that I'm just a happy go lucky optimist; in my experience most people are pretty nice, but also pretty stupid. They want to do good, but they take other (sometimes bad) peoples word on things without ever thinking about it way too often.

    18. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      "I don't see how it could even possible to determine if such a being exists"

      I guess I would fall on the other side of this. I don't see how it's possible God DOESN'T exist. Everything I've looked at and read about shows design and "authorship". The universe by itself degenerates into choas. Everything degrades...not improves...yet there is order and systems...design. That doesn't occur naturally IMO.

      "Occams Razor would say it's unlikely, but certainty is clearly impossible"

      Actually Occam's Razor would lean towards there being a creator because that is the simplest answer to how we got here in the first place. (IMO unless I don't understand the meaning of Occam's Razor).

      "Speak for yourself"

      I say this because humans were made perfect from the beginning and blew it because we went against God's command to stay way from that fruit! The whole Garden of Eden thing. Man allowed sin into our existance and we have been paying for it ever since.

      "If you beleive that, then yes, they are meaningless"

      I think you just agreed with me...but I'm not sure. :) How can morals have any meaning unless they come from outside of us?

      "I'd say there is no absolute right and wrong. Perhaps it would be nice if there were, but that doesn't make it so"

      There has to be absolute right and wrong...absolute truth...otherwise nothing means anything in the way of morals, period.

      "Your apparent belief that the natural tendency of humans is to do evil strikes me as pretty pessimistic"

      There are examples in history of civilizations that have grown mighty and fallen because they went into moral decay. Babylon and Rome are perfect examples. This decay came because humans are basically evil...the fallen nature I mentioned. These civs grew great because folks got together and worked towards a goal. The goal was necessitated out of need of these humans and superceeded the natural tendancy to do evil. Once all was built and they started to get fat and sassy and sit back then these natural tendancies had room to take root. The United States is headed in that very direction IMO.

      "In my experiance and opinion, most people are pretty nice folks"

      I agree...but my contention is most people are reared to be this way by their parents. These parents were reared in a time when morals were in a much lower state of moral decay than when their kids were born. Same with the parent's parents. Just because we have a fallen nature doesn't mean we are slaves to it. It's effects can be overcome. Still...at the base of us all is evil...look at kids...no one teaches them to lie, cheat, steal and be mean...they are born that way. We as parents (I don't know if you are a parent but I am) must teach them not to be OVER AND OVER (experience talking there! :p ) until finally they understand how to act. They must be trained to act differently than what their natural instinct is to do.

      I don't know when this thread will become archived...so if you want to continue this via e-mail you can reach me at slashdot (@) jcsmp3s (.) com or just post here...whichever you prefer.

    19. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      "There has to be absolute right and wrong...absolute truth...otherwise nothing means anything in the way of morals, period."

      I don't necessarily with your apparent assumption that the considered opinion of a thinking human, or even the consensus opinion of a lot of them is without value. But lets assume for the moment that morals only have value if they come from something beyond humans. You thus conclude that they must come from something beyond humans, but your only reason for concluding that morals do have value is that they come from something beyond humans. It's entirely circular. Based on your premises, I don't see any reason it can't be the case that morals in fact do not come from beyond humans, and thus do not have any real value.

      "Still...at the base of us all is evil...look at kids...no one teaches them to lie, cheat, steal and be mean...they are born that way"

      Wow. I don't know what to say to that without implying your kids are some sort of twisted freaks. My kids, and all the others I've known, have absolutely no initial instinct to be mean. Up through age 6 or so they want nothing so much as for absolutely everyone to like them. Sometime between 5 and 10 they start worrying that people like someone else more than them, and mean behaviors arrise. But all the really seriously mean kids I've known were absolutely taught to be mean, by there (IMO) lousy parents.

      As for lying, cheating, and stealing: all depend on human constructs, and are perfect examples of why I don't think it is possible for morals to come from beyond humans or for children to be evil. Let's take stealing. My very young daughter will "steal" my watch. I don't really care, because I think she's cute and I know where she puts it. But she'd be equally willing to walk off with the watch of some stranger who quite correctly consider it stealing. Would she do this because she is bad? No. She does it because she does not understand the concept of property. In her veiw, there's all this stuff around, and if some of it catches her fancy she carries it around for a bit. The idea that a watch is mine even when I'm not wearing it is hard for her to get her mind around, and I don't blame her. So here's my question: Say someone steals my car. I'd say that was wrong, and I assume you'd agree. But you'd say that God says it's wrong. Why? Did God grant me ownership of that car? Clearly not. I can't imagine why God would recognize my moral right to claim things as my own and hold them away from my fellow humans. Property strikes me as an entirely human concept (not even shared by all humans). Stealing is only relevant in reference to property. "Stealing is wrong" in an opinion of (quite a lot of) humans, built on quite a complex system of human constructions.

    20. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      "The universe by itself degenerates into choas"

      On a sufficiently large or long term scale, certainly.

      "yet there is order and systems"
      It is perfectly possible for localized order to arise in systems who's global entropy is increasing. Besides, why does order require a designer, but chaos not require any motivator? Have you considered becoming a Discordian? Hail Eris.

      While I disagree, you seem to be arguing that order implies design and lack of order implies lack of design. So since "The universe by itself degenerates into choas", it was not designed?

      I'm sure you'll disagree with the above for some reason, so let me jump to my main question: What would imply that God does not exist? What peice of evidence could we collect that would support the existence of God if it turned out one way, but refute God's existence if it turned out the other way?

      It appears to me that there is no possible evidence that could disprove the statement "God created the universe". Whatever you find, you can just say, yes, that's how God designed it. In religion, the fact that this and related statements can not be disproved in any possible world is taken as showing that the statement is true. In formal logic, there is a different term for non-tautalogical statements that cannot be disproved in any possible world: that term is "meaningless".

      I'll sadly agree that the US is showing far too many signs of parralleling the Roman experience. But are you really asserting that Rome fell because they became less moral? That their rise was due to the fine morals they evidenced by conquering and enslaving their neighbors?
      Actually, I think a lot of the success of Rome was atributable to the fact that once they conquered you and enslaved a bunch of you, they demanded some tribute, but mostly left you alone to handle local government yourself. In particular, provincials were free to practice their own religion; their was no significant attempt to impose the Roaman Gods, and whatever morals they implied. When they eventually tried to force their religion on others, they had steadily more problems, culminating when that religion became Christianity and they really stepped up the effort to impose it on others.
      So yeah, I see some pretty good parralels to the growing attempts of Evangelical Christians in the US to impose their values on everyone else. Which makes sense if you think those values come from on high. So it becomes important to me whether they realize they're just making stuff up like the rest of us. Which really pisses me off, because, as an Apatheist, I don't care, and I don't want to have to.

    21. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      "It's entirely circular"

      Can you show me how relative moral standards have value and meaning for anyone other than the person who possesses them? As I stated before...we each do have our own morals...I guess I should have said the moral standard (i.e. absolutes) have to come from something outside of us. Nothing circular about it.

      "Wow. I don't know what to say to that without implying your kids are some sort of twisted freaks"

      Had you said that I wouldn't have been offended. :) What I meant by "mean" is played out in selfishness. My oldest is 5, middle is 3 and youngest is 16 months. The two older ones are "mean" to each other by being selfish. I don't mean they try to hurt each other or kill each other...just that they think of themselves only. To think of others (and, thus, be a "good person") is to think of others first. If you are only thinking of yourself then you don't care if something belongs to someone else. If you want it you take it (penalty of the law not withstanding). It takes training (by the parents) to teach kids to think of others before they think of themselves. That's what I meant by mean. My 16 month old is pretty oblivious to all of that but is just recently starting to get mad when something is taken from him.

      Jesus did the ultimate selfless act when He died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. He didn't have to do it...He chose to because He knew that greater good would come out of it...to give us the opportunity to reconnect with God our Father.

      "Say someone steals my car. I'd say that was wrong, and I assume you'd agree. But you'd say that God says it's wrong."

      Actually we (God and myself) say it's wrong. I assume you are familiar with the Ten Commandments...one of them being "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Clearly there would have to be the concept of ownership in order to have such a command. In Biblical terms God owns everything since he was the original creator of all. He didn't build your car...but He created the material used by humans to create it. In the Old Testament section of the Bible he gives land to the Israelites that was occupied by other people. He told them to go take it. I can give many other examples where God acknowledges ownership but I think you get the point.

      Just to clarify my previous posts a bit...when I say morals come from outside of us I mean the moral standard, by which all human morals are to be measured against, comes from outside of us. Without this absolute standard human morals are meaningless. Sorry to confuse this with my choice of words.

    22. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      "why does order require a designer"

      The same reason I can't write a random bit generator and come up with a superior OS than what is available on the market. It just doesn't happen.

      "chaos not require any motivator"

      Not sure what you mean unfortunately. Chaos is what happens in the absense of order. It's what makes order possible I guess you could say...just like good cannot exist unless there is evil.

      "What would imply that God does not exist?"

      I haven't found anything yet that suggests to me that God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I never will...but I doubt it will ever happen. Is that because of how I was reared by my parents? Some would say so...and I would have to agree to a certain extent, but I believe we all know instinctively whether we want to admit it or not.

      If God didn't exist we there wouldn't be anything around to debate about nor anyone to debate in the first place.

      There are two authors I know of that were "devout atheists" or "agnostics" that set out to prove, in their respective fields of study, that God does not exist. During their long and, to them, exhaustive searches, they both came to the conclusion there HAS to be a God. Hugh Ross and Josh McDowell. Search for them on Amazon.com to see what I mean...I am sure the snippets you can read on Amazon will give you a good idea of where they are coming from. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and I'm not sure what line of work Josh McDowell is in.

      "are you really asserting that Rome fell because they became less moral?"

      I do believe that played a large part in it, yes. They lost respect for life...just like what is happening around the world and in the US with abortion and euthanasia.

      "provincials were free to practice their own religion; their was no significant attempt to impose the Roaman Gods, and whatever morals they implied"

      The political climate and world domination of Rome at that time really played a key role in the ability of Christianity to spread like it did.

      "I see some pretty good parralels to the growing attempts of Evangelical Christians in the US to impose their values on everyone else."

      Christians are pretty tolerant of other's beliefs. We can be radical in the attempt to spread our beliefs to others...and there are those that embarrass me to no end because they are off the reservation. Lots of groups and individuals call themselves Christians that aren't. They give the rest of us bad reps.

      "So it becomes important to me whether they realize they're just making stuff up like the rest of us."

      I can assure you that I am not making this stuff up. I firmly believe everything I'm telling you now. I don't want to control anyone or tell them what to do. As a Christian my role is to share my beliefs when asked (as you did) and love others to as best I can. Emulate Jesus Christ is what we are called to do. Very tough assignment.

      I'll leave you with this. Good exists as does evil. Evil rules this world because we allowed it in way back in the day. God is good. He sent Jesus to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins so we could build a relationship with Him. That is the sole purpose for which all humans were created...to have a relationship with God.

      You have my e-mail address...if you ever want to ask more questions I will be happy to answer them as best I can. Check out those authors. I think you will be intruiged by their words.

      You are either with God or you are against God...there is no neutral ground. You have to choose...and not choosing is a choice to be against God. It's the default for us unfortunately. Being a Christian isn't bondage...it's freedom.

    23. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      "I haven't found anything yet that suggests to me that God doesn't exist."

      You completely miss the point. I'm not asking what you've found. I'm asking what you could possibly find. There is nothing. I'm rabidly uninterested in reading your authors who tried to prove anything about God's existence one way or another. If nothing can disprove Gods existence, nothing can prove it either.

      "They lost respect for life...just like what is happening around the world and in the US with abortion and euthanasia." ...
      "Christians are pretty tolerant of other's beliefs."

      Really? So you're no doubt tolerant of my beleif that if I wish to end my life, that's my business. And if a doctor helps me to do that in as painless a way as possible, you'd be tolerant of that?

      "You are either with God or you are against God"

      You are either with the Tooth Fairy or you are against the Tooth Fairy ...there is no neutral ground. You have to choose...and not choosing is a choice to be against the Tooth Fairy.

      If you think I'm doing something wrong, let me know, and we'll talk about it. Keep you invisible superhero out of it please. Because my invisble superhero can kick the ass of your invisible superhero.

    24. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by beanlover · · Score: 1

      I think I can see why people in the past have been unwilling to discuss this issue with you. You suggest to me that my beliefs cause me to have a closed mind. From your last response it sounds like your mind is the one that's closed.

      Mocking me and my beliefs won't get you anywhere. If you want to have a normal, adult conversation you know where to find me. Speaking to me in a condesending tone just because you don't believe what I am saying is childish.

      I haven't done anything but tell you of my beliefs of the topics we have been discussing. I have not insulted or belittled you because you don't share the same view I do. I find the fact you have resorted to the type of response you last offered insulting.

      You have my e-mail address if you are truly interested in discussing anything along these lines in further detail. If you are going to offer more of the same then don't bother because I've had enough of it.

      BTW, those authors you so quickly disregarded started out with the same type of beliefs you seem to espouse now...which is why I thought you may be interested in what they had to say. Do with the information what you wish. It's your choice.

      Peace,

      B

    25. Re:This is the height of pathetic victim mentality by 2short · · Score: 1

      I honestly have no less respect for your beleifs than I have for anyone elses, or than I expect anyone to have for mine. My main idea with the tooth-fairy bit was to try to illustrate how your beliefs appear to one who doesn't share them. If I started telling you we should make laws based on what the Tooth Fairy tells me, I somehow doubt you would treat my beliefs with respect. My real point is that it shouldn't matter if I have any respect for your beliefs, or you for mine. I don't care what you believe. But if you derive morals from those beliefs that you claim are superior to my morals, and try to force them on me, well, I'm going to care.

      Well, OK, I admit I was mocking a bit. I was upset, and it was the least confrontational response I could manage. But if you're already offended, I suppose their is no harm in explaining: (except that in talking about it, I'm undoubtably going to get really seriously pissed off)

      It was the euthanasia bit that got to me. This is an issue that has some personal resonance for me, to put it mildly. A little more than ten years ago, my mother died of cancer. At one point she told me that if she had a button she could push, and just not wake up again, she'd say her goodbyes to us, curl up in my fathers arms and be gone. It was a nice fantasy. The reality was she lived for several months after that. The last couple of months she was on so many pain killers she wasn't very coherent. The last couple weeks, all her concious time was mostly spent screaming. Her pain killer dosage couldn't be increased because it might kill her, which would be illegal.

      So. You're all upset because I implied your beleifs were silly. Let's be perfectly serious: When someone decides the terms on which they want to live, or end, their life, if you think you have the right to get in the way of that decision because your beleifs are more important than theirs, you are not the least bit silly. Rather, you are an evil, evil bastard. You say God exists and he agrees with you on this? Well maybe you're right, and he is an evil bastard too. But since other people claim God thinks other things, and the things you are claiming to have special uniquely correct knowledge of are, get this, UNKNOWABLE, I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're wrong, because I don't want to live in a universe created by an evil bastard.

      Well, I assume that wraps up the question of whether we're going to continue this conversation. In any case, emailing you would require me revealing my email address, and giving you any more contact information seems unwise. After all, I'm pretty sure I've pissed you off by now, and you've already made clear your beleif that God has given you the right to decide who lives and who dies.

      Peace? So long your beleifs would force others who wish to die to live in pain, I don't consider that Peace. So you'll get none from me until you and your god Fuck Off and leave the rest of us alone.

  82. product suggestion by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

    If the off/on codes change, make this into a USB keychain device that can be easily updated with *all* the codes.

  83. Reminds me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of the good old days when the first Palm Pilots came out with the software to record and transmit your own IR signals.

    Walk up to the window of a store with a set of TVs, mute all of them, turn the volume up full, unmute... and walk off quickly as the place explodes.

  84. I'll second that! by bennomatic · · Score: 1
    When I'm working out at the gym, treadmilling away with my iPod on to drown out the overwhelming hip-pop soundtrack that defines the 24 hour fitness experience, there are six TVs in line of site. Typically, the three showing sports have the subtitles turned on, but the three showing news or "other" (oprah &c) do not.

    When asked to fix it, the employees invariably say that the person who handles that is off that day. If I could fix it myself with such a device (or program for my treo, which has IR capabilities) I'd be glad to do it.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  85. Hurray for Peace and Quiet by Clarencex · · Score: 1

    I just bought one and I intend to use it every chance I get. I am sick of pervasive mindless TV garble everywhere I go. All you folks who believe you have a god given right to watch tv at every moment of your life please buy a nice little portable tv and carry it around with you. And don't forget the earphones.

    1. Re:Hurray for Peace and Quiet by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      Then why do you patronize places that have TV sets? If you don't like television, either ask to have it turned off, leave the place, or find something else to do (such as headphones and/or a book, or maybe even your companion). What makes you think you have the right to control someone else's property, in *their* establishment? How would you like someone to trojan your computer and use it for sending spam/viruses/etc without your permission?

      FWIW: I watch about 5 hours of TV a week (excluding sporting events), & I don't have a problem with tuning out TV in public places (most places I go have the sound off & captions on anyway).

  86. To all bar owners and airport administrators... by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1
    There is a solution to this impending threat!

    Simply locate the IR receiver, apply, and walk away.

  87. DMCA by leerpm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In related news, Sony will soon announce that all new TV models will use an encrypted signal to communicate between the remote and the box. Any third-party devices that attempt to imitate such remotes will be considered violations of the DMCA and thus be illegal to possess or manufacture.

    .. And thus begins the demise of the universal remote.

    1. Re:DMCA by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      DMCA and thus be illegal to possess or manufacture.

      Just illegal to distribute to others.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:DMCA by jpetts · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but the garage door has already been shut on this possibility.

      Basically, a company called Chamberlain was suing another company called Skylink for building a "universal" door opener that operated with Chamberlain's products. Chamberlain cited the DMCA, but the case was thrown out on appeal.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    3. Re:DMCA by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Not to rain on your DMCA rant but...

      IR is so totally hackable. You'd just make the "Universal Remote" record the IR strobe sequences for each button and then play them back. And that technique works even if they make a different remote for each individual television.

    4. Re:DMCA by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      But it wouldnt work if they decided to use some sort of time-sensitive code or use a system where the tv sends out a signal and the remote calculates the signal to send from that.... and what if Sony (or someone else) decided to use bluetooth for remotes?

    5. Re:DMCA by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      IR is so totally hackable. You'd just make the "Universal Remote" record the IR strobe sequences for each button and then play them back. And that technique works even if they make a different remote for each individual television.

      That assumes that two way communication is not enabled with the remote, like the rolling codes that car alarms use. Two way communication would actually be handy, think about PVRs sending state information to the remote so it can reconfigure its buttons or be an auxiliary display.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  88. Yikes by kendralynn · · Score: 1

    And so the uproar begins...

    Women will have their purses searched before entering sports bars. Men will be patted down before entering salons or spas.

    This device opens a whole new area of possible mischief.

    --
    Caution: These comments may or may not reflect the actual opinion of the author.
  89. Finally by piznut · · Score: 1

    This will be great for the food court at the local mall. They have 2 giant plasma monitors up on the walls playing the Republican News Network (foxnews) all damn day. Im not gonna pretend that all cable news doesnt have a conservative bias, but that channel is just over the top.

  90. Takes over a minute to work by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I read about this yesterday and got to visit their site before it was swamped.

    The product of course contains hundreds of codes to turn off (or on) hundreds of different television models. Because of this it literally takes a over a minute to transmit each code one after the other. They have listed the most predominate models first so should typically take less time, however a person could still have to aim this device at a TV for up to 69 seconds before it turns off.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  91. Wow, what kind of asshole would use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're reading this and thinking of using this in a public place - I hope to god I'm there so I can punch you in your arrogant face.
    It is not your place, or right, to censor what information is being broadcast in a public place. The first person who abuses this in front of me will have a lot of explaining to do, in a pretty short amount of time, because it won't take me long to connect my knuckles with their face.

    (I'm really not generally a violent person, but this would definitely tip that scale. Arrogant self-involved censoring fucks.)

    PS - And yes, before anyone tries to argue one of the words in this post that you may disagree with - disabling a broadcast of information others are viewing IS censorship.

    1. Re:Wow, what kind of asshole would use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you as so much as try to harm me or my family, I will give you the beating of a life time and probably leave you with injuries that you will never fully recover from. I am 6'2", 300 pounds and pretty bulked up muscle wise.

      I don't give a damn about what you societal wiseasses think about values but when you try to harm me or my family, you will pay dearly, and perhaps with your own life for doing so.

      Don't even try me, fuckface.

  92. The answer would seem obovious by ebuck · · Score: 1

    Instead of imposing your ideals on others without their permission / acceptance, why not try patronizing places that don't have annoying TVs blaring all over the place.

    It's not like TV free places are hard to find, but if you disagree with the environment, vote with you wallet instead of trying to run someone else's business.

    It won't solve all the airport problems, but I can usually find a place out of Tube range.

    Also, I can image a number of "circumvention" devices that would render this device pratically useless in a location that has frequent problems with the TV suddenly turning off. Like masking tape.

  93. All this means is... by Sir+Osis · · Score: 1

    Companies will start having to make their TV's (and other equipment's) remotes work on some sort of specialized and user-configurable encrypted code (like garage door openers). Neat-o! Dip switches in my TV remote! The universal remote will be quite difficult if not impossible to configure when this happens.

  94. TV's always a turn-off! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    We don't even own one. We're hardly flat-Earthers; we have plenty of stereos and computers at home. Just no TV. problem solved (at home, anyway).

    My pet peeve isn't the TVs in restaurants, it's the people who have to have a TV on wherever they are. You go to visit, and they try to visit an dwatch TV 9or channel flip) all at once, the whole time.

    Then they come to our house, and really get wigged out!

  95. I want one by Cowardly+Anonym · · Score: 1


    I'm sick and tired of having TV shoved in my face almost everywhere these days. I go to the dentist and there's a TV hanging over the chair. (At least they don't mind turning it off when I ask.) I get into an elevator and there's a TV in there. I go to an amusement park and there are TVs all over the place, all cranked up LOUD so people can hear them over the noise of the rides. Our local transit system is planning to put TVs into the subway trains. And on airplanes, the 90-minute movie has morphed into non-stop video "entertainment" for almost the entire flight.


    The proliferation of TVs in public spaces annoys me to no end. When I'm trying to pass the time while waiting in line, I'd rather just zone out and stare unfocussedly into the middle distance. This is almost impossible to do with a TV flashing and blaring nearby. Having a civilized conversation with a friend under such circumstances is similarly difficult.


    I. DON'T. WANT. TO. WATCH. TV. I'm hoping that in a few years, people will view all these TV sets as a nuisance, in the same the way they view loud cellphone users now.


    --
    Yqy...K ecp'v dgnkgxg aqw cevwcnna vqqm vjg vkog vq vtcpuncvg oa uki. Kh aqw vjkpm vjku ku tkfkewnqwu, tgcf oa dkq.
  96. Universal off button for webservers by djward · · Score: 1

    Slashdot!

  97. I Had One of These by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact it was seriously a lot of fun having it. Mostly for gags, but there was this one time I was in a restaurant and a show came on that I absolutely hated, namely The Bachelor. And the volume was on increadably loud. So I grab the unit and turn the television off. What I didn't know was that the ir beam had reflected off the mirror, onto the street and into somebody's eye, and back into a hospital where a doctor was performing heart surgery. Long story short, I'm being sued for Gross Negligance and Attempted Murder all thanks to this device, since the beam ended up shutting off the moniter the doctor was working on. Eventually, the hospital placed a piece of tape over the ir recievers to prevent it from happening again. I know i learned my lesson.

  98. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be a new product by the same people who design horrible noise-making toys for kids.

  99. tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont most TV have a single on/off toggle. Wouldnt this turn on as many TV's as it would turn off?

  100. never owned a TV in my live by EphemeralPhart · · Score: 0

    and never will, am I great or what !
    now all I need is a /.-B-Gone button and my total snubing of the mainstream baby bird concensus will be complete !

    MUHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

  101. Selfish PIGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not have a TV at home, nor do I watch TV at home. If I want to watch a football game I go to the bar. Otherwise, I find TV pretty annoying.

    But what right do I have to mess with someone elses property at an airport, restaurant, bar (say if it's got Gilligan;s Island on instead of the game), etc?

    It's this attitude that, "it's bad, it annoys me, it's YOUR fault" that's really the problem. If TV annoys you, go to a differnt bar or sit someplace else at the airport.

    Well I tell you what. If I see YOU use one of these devices to turn off the TV in the middle of the game whle I'm watching it at the bar, I'm gonna take it from you and stuff it where the sun never shines (unless your're gotse and then it goes up you nose).

    BE WARNED A$$H0LE

  102. Truly universal... by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2, Funny

    The truly universal "off button" is that big 100-amp (or more) main breaker. I guarantee it'll work. Hehe.

    Seriously though ... in order to avoid incurring the wrath of the society zombies among you who actually want to watch the megacrap that is today's television programming, I would suggest that this device should be subtly embedded in a baseball cap or something, and set to transmit every minute or so. That way you can turn televisions off just by looking at them, while your "alibi hand" is firmly grasping your "alibi beer" or something. :)

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  103. The site is ... by coconutstudio · · Score: 1

    Now it has become Website-B-Gone.
    Thanks ./

    http://www.zeia.com/

  104. Speakerphone! by humuhumunukunukuapu' · · Score: 1
    How bout a goddamned stop talking on your fucking speakerphone while i am in line right next to you in Boston Chicken trying to figure out what i want to order not listen to pookie tell you how much he wants you to get home so you can do a little sumpin sumpin you fucking fat pig rude inconsiderate moron! button

    i want one of those. i guess grabbing the phone and smashing it would work too, but i don't like getting beaten up.

    --
    i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
  105. Expected TV Manufacturer Response: by jgabby · · Score: 1

    Manufacturers will include an option to disable the remote control function of the TV, thus allowing mission critical sets to be immune to such a device. As an added bonus, they could make it so that only the Power functionality is disabled, still allowing the channel and volume to be controlled.

    In the meantime, expect sports bars to be putting little bits of duct tape over the remote sensor :)

  106. Re:Bad idea. Bad analogy by ebuck · · Score: 1

    I know that the programming on most channels is very bad these days, but come on...

    Do you really expect to die from it?

  107. Secondhand brain damage by six11 · · Score: 1

    Again, it comes down to 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'.

    All of the 5-rated comments that I see at this point are of the "How dare they" mindset. Of course, this remote will probably be abused by the immature 13-20 year old camp, and probably be more of an nuisance than the red laser pointer was. Many people are saying things like "Don't like TV while you eat? Don't go to that restaurant!"

    Consider this analogy: replace "TV" with "secondhand smoke". It's pretty widely known that secondhand smoke is bad for you, and that has been codified by laws and ordinances in various jurisdictions. It's also widely believed (but I don't know about sociological research) that TV is also bad for you, and if you don't want to be subjected to it, you shouldn't have to be.

    It used to be that secondhand smoke was just something that people accepted as being a consequence of living in modern society. Fortunately, many areas have wised up and enacted laws that restrict smoking. This has worked to such a point that in many communities (such as my own, in Boulder, Colorado) you can go for weeks without being accosted by secondhand smoke. This makes for a much healthier life.

    If it turns out that ubiquitous TVs are unhealthy (reducing your attention span, increasing lonliness, decreasing your ability to think critically about things such as who to vote for president) it makes sense that their presence should be curbed. I don't believe this remote control is really the most mature way of addressing the problem, but it does certainly indicate that the problem is very real and that many people would like to do something about it.

    Is it possible that when I go to a restaurant in a few years, rather than asking "smoking or non" they will ask "TV or non"?

  108. Can already do this with a TiVo remote by Arcady13 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The remote control that came with my DirecTV DVR (TiVo powered) can run through all the TV power codes to help you find the code for your TV set.

    (Instructions: Hold the DTV button and TV power button together for 5 seconds, then enter 0999. To search the codes press the channel up button, wait 2 or 3 seconds, and repeat until the TV turns off.)

    It's probably not as discreet as this thing, but it is something you could have been doing for quite a while now.

    1. Re:Can already do this with a TiVo remote by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      This is the first thing I thought of. Any All Touch remote (given out by many cable companies) has a code search feature that allows you to find your code. It just so happens that these code search features work by paging through code sets and sending the power on/off toggle, expecting you to lock in the code when your TV goes off (or on).

      So, yeah, youre right. People could have been getting their asses kicked all along.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
  109. Say... does it turn ON any television too? by khrtt · · Score: 1

    I mean, there is just one ON/OFF button on the remote?

  110. also on ATC last night by grover · · Score: 1

    There was also an interview with the inventor of this gadget on the All Things Considered radio program last night. I want one :)

  111. How about Max Volume? by TrentL · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hit a button, and the TV's suddenly ramp up their volume to the max. THAT'S a hack.

    1. Re:How about Max Volume? by itomato · · Score: 1

      I agree, and it amplifies the absurdity of the situation.

      The 3Ware guy made a thing that just removes it from view, and quite likely ticks off people who don't take kindly to people making changes that they don't see the logic in.

      It's not up to me to attempt to remove TV from the public mind, but to draw more attention to the nastiness of it all would be divine.

      Press a button and: scan for FOX news, The Christ-a-thon channel, or HSN & crank volume to Max.

    2. Re:How about Max Volume? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Christ-a-thon channel

      I like that. I always refer to it as the God Needs Your Money Channel. Real religious folks can't take those channels seriously, can they? I've gone as far as to program my TV to skip them when scrolling by just so I won't have to wear out my channel buttons skipping over them myself. :-)

    3. Re:How about Max Volume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, real religious people seldom do. Speaking as one who ALSO has programmed it out of his TV.

    4. Re:How about Max Volume? by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      Monty Python was going to do this in an episode by decided against it. There theory was this: Slowly decrese the volume of the broadcast during the whole show. So eventually people have their volumes max and can barely hear it. Then turn theirs back to normal/louder than normal and scare the hell outta everyone. They just figured destroying thousands of fans TV's was not a good idea.

  112. Screw TV, I want cell phone-be-gone. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I simply want to kill all cell phones in restaurants and theaters. That has gotten VERY old.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that it is illegal to interfere with cell phones.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Screw TV, I want cell phone-be-gone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I simply want WindBourne-B-Gone. Because fags who bitch about cell phones have gotten VERY VERY old.

  113. Re think this by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not have the balls to walk up and turn off a TV that other people are watching in a public place, perhaps you shouldn't turn it off at all. Either stand up for what you believe in (no matter how arrogant), or just learn to live with other people and their preferences. Don't be a coward.

    1. Re:Re think this by halbritt · · Score: 1

      I occasionally shop at one of the popular retail outlets that sells linens and kitchen supplies. Given the fact that I like to cook, I'm quite keen on checking out kitchen gadgets. Unfortunately, at most of these places, they have many televisions blasting adverts for "Ronco Transmogrifiers" and other useless bullshit. My solution to this annoying problem is to walk up to the televisions and turn them off. Eventually, they disabled the power buttons on these devices, so I've since started to unplug them. I get nasty looks from the employees, but nobody ever says anything. As soon as this website is back up, I'll be purchasing one of these, and using it frequently.

      However, I'm not under the mistaken impression that I have any inherent right to be free from television in a public place. What I do have is the balls and the wherewithal to act on things that annoy me. As for those people that are annoyed by the absence of television, I could care less what they think.

    2. Re:Re think this by Knara · · Score: 1
      I wonder how long it will take for some employee to tell you, "Unplug our TV's again and we'll have you escorted out of the building. If you return, you'll be charged for trespassing."

      That's what I would do, anyway. No doubt the stores have contractual arrangements with the product distributors/marketers that oblige them to run the ads in a certain fashion and in a certain location.

      Cocky assholes like yourself need a little whipping now and then to keep you in line. There's always going to be more customers. Any spine possessing manager should have you out on your ear.

    3. Re:Re think this by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
      Sorry dude, people who determine their worth as a person by their ability to punch people are obsolete. Obviously no one has the right to turn off someone else's TV. I don't support this particular technology--but I *DO* support the idea that violence is made worthless. If you can't see who is fumbling with the keychain in their pocket, you can't punch 'em. As Colt famously advertized "God made men, but TV-B-Gone made them equal." There's all these people here who are so pissed off--like "oh man wtf if i c u use this i'm gonna KICK YOUR BUTT!!!!!! i'm so mad". Folks, this isn't Junior High. These aren't caveman days. Physical strength no longer translates into social status. You know what DOES translate into social status? Having enough brains to tape up the infrared receiver of the television if this bothers you.

      This device is pure vandalism. But it's mostly harmless vandalism (unless you get caught by the caveman--the prepare to be harmed, nerd!) and it targets something that every decent person knows in their heart is terrible--television.

    4. Re:Re think this by khallow · · Score: 1
      Cocky assholes like yourself need a little whipping now and then to keep you in line. There's always going to be more customers. Any spine possessing manager should have you out on your ear.

      Any spine possessing manager wouldn't have this problem. I don't see anything wrong either with a customer unplugging annoying TVs or getting escorted out the door for doing so. But a store manager should think twice before they alienate a customer who comes in on a regular basis. Especially, when they perform such a valuable community service each time they come in.

    5. Re:Re think this by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It is interesting that you projected the concept of physical violence onto what I had said. Nowhere did I mention that these people should be punched or that fighting should settle it. I only said that if you are going to make a stand regarding TVs in public, then you should make a stand. Accept the looks, the possible comments, arguments, social ostracism that could result from your stand. Don't take the cowardly way out and just annoy people anonymously.
      I am a bit amused that you complete invented the "caveman", physical violance", "might makes right" style arguments and then attributed them to me. I was not thinking (or saying) that at all.

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Re think this by finkployd · · Score: 1

      News flash: not everyone considers this a valuable public service. I'd venture to guess most people don't.

      Finkployd

    7. Re:Re think this by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll keep that in mind if I decide to stand up in front of a room full of finkployds, but in the real world that's what's likely to happen if you just stand up in front of a crowd pissing them off. It's possibly a disingenuous ploy--you may not intend to physically threaten someone, but you know someone else will. What the heck else could cowardly mean--afraid of social ostracism in a crowd of likely strangers?

    8. Re:Re think this by nzhavok · · Score: 1

      That was a straw-man argument

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    9. Re:Re think this by halbritt · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it will take for some employee to tell you, "Unplug our TV's again and we'll have you escorted out of the building. If you return, you'll be charged for trespassing."

      They won't, they're sheep, scared sheep.

      Cocky assholes like yourself need a little whipping now and then to keep you in line. There's always going to be more customers. Any spine possessing manager should have you out on your ear.

      How do you think I became a cocky asshole to begin with? I'm big, mean, aggressive, and I like to bite. People don't fuck with me, which gives me the freedom to do things like power off televisions whenever the hell I like. Also, here's a newsflash sparky, there are no spine-possession[sic] managers at giant corporate retail outlets. Whine all you like, I'll still be able to power off televisions with impunity.

    10. Re:Re think this by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      See response to other reply.

    11. Re:Re think this by khallow · · Score: 1
      News flash: not everyone considers this a valuable public service. I'd venture to guess most people don't.

      Hmmm, that would be strange if that were true. Still it's a strange world.

  114. Unexpected consequences by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    While your little toy was scanning through the codes for Panaphonic and Sorny, it hit the code for my satellite receiver's "One-Touch(tm) Pay-Per-View Ordering". This turned the channel on the TV in my family restaurant to "Hot Latex Vixens In Heat", billed me $39.95, and caused my clientele to sue me for sexual harassment (because hey, this is America, and there's bound to be a trial lawyer or two around at any given moment).

    How long did it take the doctor to extract your remote control from your ass, where I implanted it with a work boot four hours ago? Do they expect a complete recovery? Did they find your teeth?

    Seriously, this seems like a hideously bad idea. If you knew that it would only enrage people by shutting off their electronics, then that would be one thing. However, being responsible for a whole range of unexpected results because you thought it'd be funny to make a TGI Friday's slightly quieter is a whole different animal.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  115. Actually, TV-Be-Gone IS Free Market by TrentL · · Score: 1

    Are you saying a person shouldn't be able to emit certain radio waves in certain situations? That sounds like a pretty un-libertarian POV to me.

    1. Re:Actually, TV-Be-Gone IS Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that you should ALWAYS be allowed to send ANY signal you want ANYWHERE? Thanks, I'll remember your site in my DDoS attacks. Dumbass.

    2. Re:Actually, TV-Be-Gone IS Free Market by Moby+Cock · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is what is being said. The restriction is like the one we have on people *emitting* little bundles of lead in certain situations. The results must be considered here.

    3. Re:Actually, TV-Be-Gone IS Free Market by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Are you saying a person should be able to emit certain gasses in certain situations? Like, after eating burritos, in an elevator, perhaps?

      Actually, it's quite libertarian to tell someone to eat somewhere else if they don't like the way the private establishment is being run.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Actually, TV-Be-Gone IS Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's quite libertarian, merely un-anarchistic.

  116. What does legal have to do with it? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    lawsuits - interesting that the lawsuit aspect was brought up. I don't know of any law that would prohibit the use of these.

    You do realize this statements are unrelated. There's no law against serving really hot coffee, but McD's got sued for that. I be willing to bet that most lawsuits aren't based on the commission of a particular crime, but instead on injury of some kind caused by someone's actions or negligence.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:What does legal have to do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of the lawsuit was that there IS a law regulating how hot a drink served to a customer can be.

    2. Re:What does legal have to do with it? by cduffy · · Score: 1
      Nope.

      There's a legal principal that if you harm someone else, or behave negligently such that someone comes to harm on your behalf and you could reasonably foresee them coming to harm, you're liable.

      There doesn't need to be a law regarding the specific way you harmed them, or the specific form of negligence involved.


      It's been a few years since I actually studied tort law, and I am not and have never been a lawyer, so this is very much not legal advice and probably not perfectly accurate either -- but the generalities are close.

  117. On concentration by meganthom · · Score: 1

    I would not consider myself "hooked" on background noise, but I do find that I am a much more productive worker when I have some instrumental music (generally jazz or classical) in the background. It definitely helps me concentrate. Why? Because when there is a little noise, you don't notice things like creaky floors, people walking through the halls, cars on the streets, and all the other intermittent noises we are subjected to and can't avoid every day. A little music not only filters out this noise, but it helps me set a rhythm. So while I do generally find anything with voices distracting, I think it's awfully unfair to accuse the rest of us of never "fully" concentrating.

    --
    Live free or die
    1. Re:On concentration by anagama · · Score: 1

      So while I do generally find anything with voices distracting, I think it's awfully unfair to accuse the rest of us of never "fully" concentrating.

      Actually, that is a good point and I think I used too broad of a brush when I wrote what I did earlier. I was really thinking more of TV type noise. I have friends who have the TV on constantly when I go to their places and conversation is difficult - I get sucked in or they are constantly flipping channels. I sense my distraction but I think they don't sense theirs. Anyway, please consider my overly broad characterization hereby narrowed. ;-)

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  118. Program this into a PocketPC or Palm PDA by Crazen · · Score: 1

    No need to buy seperate hardware, now just need to find a resource that lists all the IR codes.

    1. Re:Program this into a PocketPC or Palm PDA by p5150ll · · Score: 1

      This would be awesome. I want that now. Do you know of any software that might be able to do that?

  119. Just Great!! by sapgau · · Score: 1

    When I'm trying to kill some time at the airport, here comes some jerk and keeps turning the tv off!!!!

    >:-(

  120. Where is this placed? by writermike · · Score: 1

    Where is this thing? Is it in orbit? Is it near-Earth, pointing at it? Does it turn off ALL TVs in the universe?

    Perhaps presidential candidates can use it when opponents run ads or programs.

    I'd like to see a Universal Orgasm Button. That'd be SWEET.

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  121. OT Remote story... by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back when I was 18 and worked at RadioShack in the mall, there was a TV store across the way. This place had like 50 TVs running, most on mute, all day long. They went off at night.

    My manager liked to take one of our universal remotes, and after hours turn the volume WAAAAAAAY up, then turn off the TV. He did this to all that his universal remote would reach.

    The poor TV store manager (who was a friend of my manager) would come in, hit the 'on' button on HIS special remote and get blasted out the front door...

    Fun with consumer electronics :)

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:OT Remote story... by DrewCapu · · Score: 2, Funny

      I did the same thing back in junior high school. I noticed that the tv our class often got was the same exact model I had at home. My ploy was two-step. First I'd change the channel to something really far from channel 3. The TV itself only had Power / Channel Up & Down / Volumne Up & Down controls so if you put it somewhere in the 40s, they'd have a ton of channels to go through to get back to 3. The next step was to do a combination of channel up/volume up/channel down/volume up to my heart's delight and then switch it off. If you did it right the volume would go up, but you wouldn't hear it... Until it was first turned on again :)

      Of course I did it while the teacher was occupied with another student.

      I was always curious which class got the tv next :D

  122. Re:Why the hardware? Palm, etc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because not everyone has a Palm, or carries it around everywhere? Because the IR-transmitters on PDAs suck?

  123. I predict many TV-B-Gone returns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from people who got their asses kicked for using this.

  124. Target Market by ebuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people (submitter perhaps withstanding) really wouldn't use this outside of perhaps their home.

    This smacks of a novelty item / gag gift, I mean you won't take it to your bar, because if you really wanted that TV off, you'd ask the manager or leave. Only the most die hard axxholes would consider acting out the scenario presented, and few of those would have the stomach to do it twice, or make a regular occurance out of it.

    Let's face it, we already know who would abuse this device, they're the same ones that are yelling at the manager / barkeep all the time, but don't have the common sense to stop coming to their "favorite resturant / bar".

    A piece of tape will solve the TV problems, and then they'll be back to ridiculous statements of infringement of their personal space / hearing when visiting a public place.

  125. Does Anyone Here Think This is a Good Idea?? by SmokeyDP · · Score: 1

    Anyone who goes into a bar and starts turning off the TV because they dont want to hear it is just simply an asshole. If you dont want to deal with the TV then dont go to a place that has them.

    They make it sound like everywhere you go has a TV now. The only places I have been to that have TVs are places that have a bar. And the TV is usually around the damn bar.

    If you go somewhere and the tv is distracting you from the people you are with then i am sure there are a hundred other things that will distract you also.

    I can't wait till I hear about some assclown who catches a beat down when he turns off a playoff game at a sports bar.

  126. Soon to be countered by the TV-b-gone-b-gone by Jtheletter · · Score: 1

    Which is a piece of electrical tape covering the IR receiver so nitwits who can't ignore TV can't turn mine off!

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  127. Universal Garage Door Opener by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Coming soon ;)

  128. You can do this with.. by Paralizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your iPod or PDA. Slashdot had a story on it a while back here http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/07/27/1528218.s html?tid=176&tid=137&tid=159&tid=218.

  129. My hovercraft is full of eels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, no wait - I think that's "Belgian".

    1. Re:My hovercraft is full of eels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Hungarian.

      ~Dennis Moore~

  130. Fun time counter measure by vhold · · Score: 1

    Hook up any standard camcorder that also records in IR frequency pointing away from the TV with a wide angle lens. Rig it to some kind of IR controlled video selector switch so that when it receives any 'off' from this thing's database it switches to a 10 second delayed buffered feed from itself. The person using this device would appear to anybody watching the TV as having a blinking light aimed almost directly at the camera.

    Ok.. thats kinda expensive.. I suppoes a piece of ducttape would suffice.

  131. United States Postal Service??? by bstadil · · Score: 1
    Just because you find it annoying doesn't mean you have the right to turn it off.

    What about PostOffices in Dallas Texas. While standing in line they show Fox TV with all the Pro Bush stuff. The Postmasters position is that it's a free country and USPS can do as they please.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  132. Like cell-phone jammers? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Though currently banned in the USA, they are ppoping in churches and theaters in other countries fed up with the rudeness of audiences.

  133. Same with cells by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

    Something similar happens when I hear a cell-phone ringing. I just take it out of the owner's pocket, throw it to the floor and start jumping on it until it doesn't wanna ring anymore.

    I wonder why they say I am a childish bastard though.

    --
    diegoT
  134. Waste of money... by Zerbey · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't think I've ever been in a public place with a TV on in the background and it bother me so much I want to turn it off. I avoid places that have loud music/TV's anyway. Much less antisocial than pissing off a bunch of people :)

    Now, if they could invent a zapper that would kill the cell phone of the idiots who think they can drive and use one at the same time I'd be happy.

  135. So... by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    ...how long until we can get one that works on people?

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:So... by russint · · Score: 1

      They're called guns

      --
      ^^
    2. Re:So... by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Hmm, if you use it twice, does it turn the sound back on, like a remote?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  136. I can turn off all the TV in the restaurant by cheshire_cat88 · · Score: 1

    Great idea! I can program my palmPC inferad control to turn off all the TV around me. That won't be too hard.

  137. the guy who submitted this article by MinusBlindfold · · Score: 1

    probably didn't get enough hugs from his/her parents. If you can't pay attention to a human in front of you at a restaurant or whatever.. you most likely have ADD... i suggest you get some ritalin and put away your little script kiddie remote control.

  138. I do this all the time by suedehed · · Score: 1

    with my ipaq and NEVO. It's more fun to mess with peoples heads by changing channels, and turning it off and on. I did it in the ER waiting room last week, while I was waiting to get stitches. Ok, maybe I'm cruel. but I had fun while I sat there for 3 hours.

  139. Discrete IR codes by norminator · · Score: 1

    It's actually usually just the high-end TVs that have discrete IR codes. The "home theater buffs" that have the $500 Pronto remote controls or the $100,000 Crestron Home Automation system will normally have a much higher-end TV than what they'll have at the airport or the laundromat, thus, they have the Discrete On/Off codes.

    1. Re:Discrete IR codes by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      My $500 Sony Wega has discrete codes...and it's definitely not high end. My wife's college $75 Daewoo TV had discrete codes, and it's definitely not high end. My satellite receiver has discrete codes...

  140. Untill someone can't call 911. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be required equipment for the kidnappers of the world.

  141. Legal?!? by fawlty154 · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I'm curious what right this guy has to think he can just turn any TV off that he finds annoying. If he's in a public place and a TV is being a nuissance, find somewhere else to sit. However, if the idea behind this is just to be annoying, then I'm all for it.

  142. Palm Pilots, Anyone? by Ballresin · · Score: 1

    I was doing this years ago with my old Handspring Visor Deluxe (8MB... woohoo!) using some kind of remote control "learning" program. Basically... you held the palm's IR sensor near the remote's sensor, tell the palm to record the button press... and then hit the button on the remote. I had a script on my palm to go through many different remote patterns and even timed it so I could walk away from the TV and piss off grandpa without being in the blast radius.

    Good times....

    --
    I got nothin'.
  143. Like cellphone jammers by cpghost · · Score: 1

    That's exactly like cellphone jammers. Illegal, but incredibly useful anyway.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  144. NO PROBLEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to invent a little unit that you stick on the TV's IR receiver. It will itself have an IR receiver, but this one will only respond to commands from my proprietary remote, which will be converted into more standard commands and then passed on to the TV's IR receiver.

    Once all of the bar owners get fed up with people turning off their TVs, I'm going to be rich. RICH I TELL YOU!

    Lucky for me, the /. crowd is an honest bunch, and would never steal my idea.

  145. Oh... by Malicious · · Score: 1

    And here I was thinking that someone had developed a device which would turn off all my devices when I left the room. Too often I have to pick up mulitple remotes, or spend all afternoon programming them when the batteries fall out. If someone just made one button which would simotaneously turn ON all my devices (TV, Receiver, Digital Receiver, etc...) and then could turn them all off again... bonus!

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  146. Better yet by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Steal his iPod. Tell him it's for his own good.

    --
    If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
    1. Re:Better yet by macdaddy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Nice sig.

    2. Re:Better yet by spoonyfork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.

      Nice sig.

      Isn't it? Just one thing... whether CmdrTaco uses his keyboard correctly or incorrectly no one profits from death.

      (flame on)
      --
      Speak truth to power.
    3. Re:Better yet by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Just one thing... whether CmdrTaco uses his keyboard correctly or incorrectly no one profits from death.

      Just a sec. I'm trying to decipher the meaning of your comment. I think I've got it. Morticians benefit from death. So do the grave diggers, casket makers, headstone carvers, flower shops, and all the industries that support those entities with raw materials.

      Oh, I suppose what you are really insinuating is that firearm manufacturers profit from death. Well no, they really don't. It is impossible for a firearm to kill a person. A firearm doesn't have the intellectual awareness to know when to operate a safety and trigger in sucession or for that matter the physical ability to perform either task. If a firearm can't actually fire itself then a firearm can't kill a person. That makes sense. So if a firearm can't kill someone who can? Obviously it must be an entity with the intelligence to operate both the firearm's safety(^Hies) and trigger, unless of course the firearm is a true single action in which case the entity would also have to know how to operate the hammer. That level of intelligence is the bare minimum required to operate the firearm. Then there's the physical requirements. The entity not only has to know how to operate the many facets of a firearm but it also has to posess the physical ability to operate the firearm. Now we've narrowed it down significantly. It has to have a certain level of intelligence, posess the physical features necessary to operate a firearm, and the coordination to put both skills together. Well, that rules out fish. It doesn't entirely rule out birds but for the sake of this discussion lets just say it does. That leaves us with mammals. Interesting. Well the various members of the the suborder Anthropoid could pull it off, albeit with a lot of practice and training. Lets ignore them for a moment too. That pretty much leaves us with humans. Humans... Interesting. So the only way a firearm can kill a human is at the hands of another human. No that's painting a clearer picture. Well wait a second. I, a human, can easily kill a person with any number of tools. My neighbor is in his backyard right now build a small addition around his hot tub. I could go over there, take his hammer from him, and procede to beat him to death with it. The hammer wouldn't be killing him though; I would. I could hop in my car and drive 1/2 block to the nearest school and take off driving through a playground full of kids. My car wouldn't be killing those children; I would be. I could use an infinite number of tools to cause blunt-force trauma to any number of humans, causing their death. I could order a defibrillator off of the 'Net and have it over-nighted to my house. Then I could take it to my local shopping mall shock unsuspecting early X-mas shoppers with it, causing cardiac arrest in my victims and their untimely death. Wait a second. Isn't the defibrillator designed to save lives. Yes, it is. It's just a tool though. I can use it to kill people too. Looking around my computer desk I have counted over 4 dozen items that could be lethal if used with such intent. That's within arm's reach, keeping my ass in my seat, and ignoring any firearms and ammunition within reach. That count of 4 dozen includes a plastic prescription bottle of amoxicillin and a salt shaker. I could kill someone with either of them.

      So, boys and girls, what have learned today? *as I'm removing my cardigan sweater and replacing it with a suit jacket, and removing my comfortable house shoes and replacing them with loafers (cowboy boots for me instead)* We've learned that firearms really don't kill people. People kill people. We've also learned that anything can be turned into a weapon for killing people. Now everyone sing along...

      It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
      A beautiful day for a neighbor,
      Would you be mine?
      Could you be mine?

      It's a neighborly day in this beautywood,
      A neighbo

  147. ThinkGeek's by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    ThinkGeek's remote watch

    I don't work for them, but I figured I'd add that info since no one mentionned it specifically yet.

    I suppose the downside of it is that you have to carry the sheet of manufacturers codes with you...

    (psst Slashdot editors with infinite mod points, this is free advertising!)

  148. School anyone? by satoshi1 · · Score: 1

    This would be absolutely AWESOME at school! There are TVs all over the place and turning them off would annoy the staff sooo much! haha, I can see it now

  149. does it work for suzy? by jwind · · Score: 1

    If only i could get one of these for my girlfriend ;)

  150. Uber slashdotting. by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    At first, I thought this guy was just an obnoxious jerk trying to impose his hatred for television on everyone around him. But then I realized something with this line:

    Unfortunately, the TV-B-Gone website seems to have already been swamped by the Wired coverage

    He's actually trying to *prevent* its release. He's making an attempt to either get the website yanked by his provider by way of a DDOS, or to keep it out of service long enough to get them to give up. Undoubtedly, he'll post the link to k5 after this.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  151. Shh... don't tell my girlfriend by Foamy · · Score: 1

    If she gets ahold of this thing, I'm doomed.

    Doomed I tell you.

  152. "TV-Bgone"-bgone Device by dark-br · · Score: 1


    It's called ductape! Just aply over the IR port and voila! For 1.99 at the nearest wallmart.

  153. Jamming Cell Phone signals ... by reidhoch · · Score: 1

    is illegal in the United States.

    1. Re:Jamming Cell Phone signals ... by jridley · · Score: 1

      So is speeding.

  154. Two words ... by SalesEngineer · · Score: 1

    ... duct tape! A piece of duct tape over the IR receiver will stop these devices from doing bad things to TVs. I think bar owners everywhere will be stragetically placing grey tape on their TV after football fans beat the &^%$ out of the geek with this on their keychain.

  155. Maybe you should read up about libertarian views.. by bluprint · · Score: 1

    No libertarian worth his salt would tell you that you should be able to emit {insert substance/energy/whatever here} any time and anywhere you want.

    Where could you have possibly gotten that idea?

    --
    A modern day witchhunt.
  156. Totally in agreement by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

    The product website is back up, spent a few minutes purusing it. No place to put up comments directly, and no "contact us" type email address.

    The arrogance (or perhaps I should put it down to sheer stupidity instead as per the axiom) of these people is amazing. All the links to anti-TV establishments (many of whom must be glued to the tube since their website are staler than week old cold pizza) full of rants (but no ability to engage in discourse) about "TV is bad, and we know what's good for you".

    It's my brain, and someone else's property - you have no rights to either, so leave the TV alone.

    Presumably, the owner of the TV has assumed (or been requested) to provide a service by having a TV there. Customer's therefore expect said service to be provided, and would be well within their "range of expected/understood reactions" to beat the tar out of some elitist snob who saw fit to deprive them of their enjoyment of said service.

    To the poster who claimed "don't blame the tool, punish the abuser" --- I would liken this to hacking facilitation tools. It's sole purpose is to be abused by inflicting someone's narrow views (in secret so they don't have to face scrutiny for their actions) on another group.

    And the spurious claim regarding "when I'm alone in the airport I'd love to be able to turn off the TV without disturbing the staff"? You think the staff won't react to the TV going off without explanation? You've just interupted their productivity while they come and investigate why the TV went off in the first place. Or interupted their productivity when someone else comes along to ask them to have it turned on. Sorry, I'm not buying.

    It's a tool who sole purpose is abuse, and to try and cloak it with a veneer of goodness and light is misguided or disingenius.

    Likening public area TV to second-hand smoke? C'mon people ....

    --
    Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
    "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
  157. Amusing by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here we have an incredibly insecure electronics device. It listens on a common EM frequency band and willingly turns itself off whenever a sequence of simple codes is received. When someone finally exploits this gaping security hole, aren't we supposed to blame the people who made the security hole? After all, problems in Windows are Microsoft's fault. Why is this the fault of the device's creator, and not the fault of the TV manufacturers?

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    1. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I GIEV YUO 5 MANBABIES GOOD FAG~

      Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

    2. Re:Amusing by Arkaein · · Score: 1

      Probably because it's not a security hole. This does not allow remote exploits, no ones, lives, passwords, SSN or credit card numbers can be compromised by this.

      Second, we've as a society had remote controls in the mainstream for at least 20 years and never had any significant problems with abuse. Unlike computer security, which although has only recently become widely discussed in the mainstream (within the last 5 years) has been a known issue for computer and software developers for much longer, and where much more is at stake.

      Summary: no ones ever had problems with TV remotes before, while Microsoft has written crappy software for long after other software developers knew they had to do better.

    3. Re:Amusing by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Um, it is a security hole. It allows a third party to control your hardware. Just because it isn't often exploited, and has few disastrous consequences when it is, doesn't make it any less of a security hole - it just makes it an unimportant one.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first point maybe has some validity, but not the second. Imagine it's 1988. We've had computer networks for 20 years and no one's ever had problems with them before. All of a sudden the Morris Worm comes along. Are you saying we shouldn't have started cleaning up Unix software after 1988?

    5. Re:Amusing by evilviper · · Score: 1

      This is NOT a security hole... It's more of a DoS attack.

      The real issue is people using home TV sets in a public setting. It would be the same as having a vanillaa Windows 98 install on a public computer.

      The real problem is the person that decided to use an unsecured (TV) system in a public environment, without taking ANY steps to secure it.

      TVs are incredibly easy to secure, too. All it takes is a piece of electrical tape, or any other physical object to physically block the remote sensor.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  158. I'd be tempted to mod this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and replace the IR LED with an IR laser pointer LED, for even more range.

  159. I in fact do by tepples · · Score: 1

    I have a diagnosed neurological disorder, you insensitive clod!

  160. What an Asshole by gelfling · · Score: 1

    To force his holier than thou TeeVee is duh debul shit on the rest of us. Well fuck him and I hope someone makes a "Kill You" button real soon.

  161. Vandalism by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you go around turning off others TV's just because 'it annoys me' then you are nothing better than a common vandal and are committing a crime.

    If the TV in a restaurant bothers you, DON'T GO TO THAT DAMNED RESTAURANT.. problem solved. The world doesn't revolve around your sorry ass.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Vandalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not vandalism (look up the word, asshat).

      This device would be hilarious. I'd never get enough entertainment out of watching people like you get all pissy and whiny becuase someone turned off the TV.

    2. Re:Vandalism by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Try it around my house and you will get a broken face.

      Its NOT cute. Its NOT about the dammed TV, ( which personally I could care less about as I hate TV ) its about a person causing problems with others property. ( and potentially effecting business, since the poster was specially talking about restaurant entertainment )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Vandalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ( and potentially effecting business, since the poster was specially talking about restaurant entertainment )

      If such a device could effect (tr.v) business, I expect that you would find these things mailed to you by every restaurant owner in the country. However, they do affect (tr.v) businesses negatively (or at least have a marginally negative effect (n) ).
    4. Re:Vandalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys sure get upset about someone turning off a goddamned TV. If you're in America, stop being a pussy and get off your ass or grab your own remote and go turn it back on.

      Its a fucking REMOTE CONTROL. Not gun control. Not abortion. Not even communism. Its a little 15 dollar toy, and you buffoons all have your pink undies in a bind because someone might be amused that they can turn off and confuse people.

      "OMG! Someone switched the TV off, and now we'll never know if Ross is gonna kiss Rachel!!"

    5. Re:Vandalism by liposuction · · Score: 1

      Funny. That's the same logic I would have LOVED to have seen applied to the smoking hysteria in N.Y.C.

      Leave it up to the owner whether or not they want a TV or smoking.

      --
      "Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
    6. Re:Vandalism by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      If the TV in a restaurant bothers you, DON'T GO TO THAT DAMNED RESTAURANT.. problem solved. The world doesn't revolve around your sorry ass.

      It does, actually. I'm at the center of my world. If you are not at the center of yours, you need to see a shrink. The problem is when people forget we are ALL at the center of the world, in our own mind, and try to act as if other people aren't centers of the world themselves.

    7. Re:Vandalism by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Try it around my house and you will get a broken face.

      personally I could care less about as I hate TV

      Hmm.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  162. Works for the volume control too by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Many years ago, when I was a student, we went out one night with my flatmate's learning remote and turned up the volume on all the TVs in a shop window. Next night, we did it again. By the fourth night of this, all the price tickets were very carefully arranged over the IR sensors...

    1. Re:Works for the volume control too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was awfully nice of them. I would have carefully arranged it so a guy with a taser was standing nearby in plainclothes... try turning it up now 8itch

  163. You're missing an important distinction: by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone around them. What computer modders do in the privacy of their own mother's basement does not interfere with other people's lives.

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    1. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Buran · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I mod my car, but I don't mod it in such a way that it's a problem to anyone else on the road. No thumping stereo (I'm hearing-impaired anyway), no excessive neon (that's tasteless anyway). just stylish stuff. And while I've just gotten started, any extra "go" I add (exhaust, cam, intake, etc) will be matched with some extra "stop" (upgraded brakes) which a lot of people overlook.

      There's a difference between doing something that actively bothers others and something that doesn't.

    2. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What computer modders do in the privacy of their own mother's basement does not interfere with other people's lives.

      ...and it especially does not interfere with lives of people of the opposite sex.

    3. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Many modders leave out shielding, and that plays havoc with amateur radio and other kinds of transmissions.

    4. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thumping stereo (I'm hearing-impaired anyway)I thought that was why they turn their music up so loud; they're so deaf from years of blasting music that they can't hear it otherwise.

    5. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      I replied to you at another point in this thread regarding motorcycles.

      You mention you'll be doing an exhaust mod to your car... I quote you from earlier: "Isn't that why we have noise ordinance laws?"

      Many of the little rice cars have louder exhaust than my V-Twin motorcycle which you seem to have such an issue with.

      I will, however, credit your attention to brake upgrades, which many of you ricer boys do seem to forget about.

    6. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the fuck would you want to mod a golf? So you don't have to flinstone it?

    7. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Buran · · Score: 1

      I left you a comment over in the other thread.

      However, it should be kept in mind that not all exhaust systems are annoyingly loud and seem to be designed just to make the maximum amount of noise. A couple of people in my local VW club have installed exhausts that actually aren't all that loud; they sound different, but aren't creating offensive noise levels and in fact are very quiet unless driven in such a way that they can be heard -- but the stock exhaust system is audible in the same circumstances anyway. This is what I am looking at doing.

      Their main purpose is to flow a little better and restrict the engine a little less. The car I've got has a relatively small engine compared to some of the optional ones that were offered. I chose to get the less expensive, more reliable, cheaper to own and operate engine with the knowledge that it'll never be a racer (I don't aim to drive fast anyway; as I said in my other post, I believe in being courteous to others on the road in any case, and there's more to driving than just being fast) but there are things that can be done to make it drive a bit better and reach a bit more of its potential. If I wanted to get a loud exhaust just to make noise, could I? Sure. But that's not what I'm planning. I do know exactly the kind of moron you're thinking of, though, and the fart-can exhausts annoy me just as much as they do you.

      I'm also a she. :) Surprise! A female car buff! Sadly, you are right in this thread and the other one: far too many people ignore the basic safety rules of the road and what it means to exercise restraint and not bother others with anything you do, including noise. It's depressing how often perfectly normal people become inconsiderate jerks once they touch something that has wheels and an engine.

    8. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      What if I connected six 800 watt subwoofers to my CPU and started blasting my music from that?

    9. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then they are breaking the law. There are regulations for a reason.

    10. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by powerlinekid · · Score: 1

      Then you are an idiot.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    11. Re:You're missing an important distinction: by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      Simply pointing out that basement modders can disturb the peace too.

  164. No, it isn't your choice to make. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know where they get off thinking this is a legitimate (not discussing its legality, but its benefit to society) device.

    You can see below what the "inventor" thinks of it. Where does he get off saying who should and should not watch TV? I watch lots of educational programming and while most of it ISN'T educational people still watch it--FOR THE ENJOYMENT. Watching a drama on TV is cheaper than doing many things outside.

    If you think life is anything more than an illusion to the time you die then you are wrong. I'm not trying to sound depressed but he has no right to hold his morals over others and say what is a "worthy" life and what isn't.

    Now, would I buy one? Sure just to be an anarchist with it. But don't pretend for a second that it's somehow the greater good and you will "save" souls with it.

    Sanders Li's paper plate held nothing but a crumpled napkin. His meal finished, he lingered. His unblinking eyes gazed at Sex and the City on a 15-inch color TV over the counter at Nizario's Pizza on 18th Street in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood Sunday evening.

    In the middle of a scene, the TV turned off.

    For 10 seconds, Li kept looking, waiting, not blinking through his glasses. At last, he left his stool, trashed his plate and emerged into the cool autumn night.

    Leaving, he passed 48-year-old Mitch Altman, who was twiddling a matte-black plastic fob on his key chain. Altman's blue and purple hair reflected the pizza shop's neon, and he was smiling excitedly.

    "We just saved him several minutes of his life," he said.

  165. Are you being insensitive? by tepples · · Score: 1

    why not just try reigning in that raging ADD

    And how would you suggest doing that?

  166. overreact much? by v1talsw3rv3 · · Score: 1

    The number of posts that state matter-of-factly that use of a device of this nature will result in it's operator suffering anything from a mild pummeling to a quick and painful death is pretty ridiculous. Even eye for an eye justice wouldn't prescribe an ass-beating for simply turning off a television set. I suppose it's a testament to the depth to which TV's role in society has penetrated. If you find yourself maddened to the point of physical violence over someone switching a television off in your close proximity, perhaps you should look into some anger management classes.

  167. Great translation quote by AgentPhunk · · Score: 2, Funny
    Here's a quick blurb from the google-translated version of the aforementioned site. Gotta love the mix of english, german, and onomatapeia.

    They made it straight with Pilsette and Ziggies on your Terasse comfortably, disturbed themselves in the afternoon there the peace of the late by dull/musty rumbling and Grummeln: The regular Umm Umm Umm Umm Umm increases slowly to a kakophonischen Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tschicki Umm Tss Umm Tss Umm Tss, under from the exerted Troeten of a aufgemotzten small car engine

    1. Re:Great translation quote by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Funny



      *AARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!*

      Funny, I always have that reaction to Vogon Poetry.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  168. Not my fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having
    "

    Don't punish us because you can't get your ADD under control. Just don't look. Pay attention to what you're doing. How hard is that?

  169. RCA and GE by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've never seen anything with a button that turns a tv off but not on

    Remote controls supplied with RCA and GE televisions and VCRs will often have a separate button for "on", which also selects the device for further button presses, and "off".

  170. Ahh, the digital watch/remote control :) by celerityfm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember when these first came out-- kids in my school were using them to turn on/off the televisions in the classroom at inopportune times.

    I can only imagine what kind of trouble kids will get into with one of THESE in their hands :) It takes no skill, just point and shoot!

    Here's one of those watches for your personal enjoyment :)

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    1. Re:Ahh, the digital watch/remote control :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We actually had one of my teachers convinced there was a ghost in the room because of one of these one day! And the "over-emotional" girl in the class was freaking out. It was great.

    2. Re:Ahh, the digital watch/remote control :) by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      I used to bring remote controls into class and mess with the TV's all the time.

      You see, at my school we had this thing called "Channel One". It was this "newscast" put on by teenagers (complete with advertising) that was beamed into the school every day via satellite and we were all FORCED to watch it. Apparently the school had some deal with Channel One, wherein they got all those free TV's in exchange for showing the newscast. I never understood what the point was, for the TV's were never used for anything BUT Channel One, but I digress.

      Anyway, I didn't have a watch; it was a full-sized remote control hidden in my huge bookbag. I'd turn the TV off in the middle of the newscast and the teacher would have to get up to turn it back on. Eventually I came into class one day to find a piece of black tape over the TV's IR sensor. Drat, foiled!

      It was fun to fight that irritating captive-audience bit of commercialism, though. Luckily as the school year progressed, the teacher got less strict about watching the newscast and let the class catch up on homework or whatever during that time; actively watching it became optional...

      -Z

  171. TV is not the problem...you are by Zed2K · · Score: 1

    "Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions."

    How is that the televisions fault that you don't have enough self control to ignore the tv and concentrate on those around you?

    A device like this cannot be legal and has to be pretty close to being called vandelism.

    1. Re:TV is not the problem...you are by Laplace · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. TV flickers. Fire flickers. TV and fire flicker at about the same rate. For some reasons humans are genetically predisposed to be drawn to looking at fire. Although I doubt that it is intentional, TV appeals to the animal nature of humans as much as it does the intellectual side.

      --
      The middle mind speaks!
    2. Re:TV is not the problem...you are by Knara · · Score: 1

      Please. It's a small measure of self-control to ignore something that "flickers". Now, if it was overwhelmingly bright, you might be on to something.

  172. Some Clies can do this too... plus more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Sony Clie and have gotten much use out of its built in universal remote feature. If you know the brand of the television you wish to deflate, then you're set.

    Often in resturaunts I can act busy, and oblivious to the changing channels while forcing education on the public by switching from "the big game" to CSPAN or CNN, or simply turning it down, or off if I am particularly annoyed.

    Seriously, the best feature of any PDA on the market, EVER!!

  173. Cultural differences... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    I saw the news in a german forum first, and about 90% were like cool idea.
    Here, about 3/4 are crying like little babies who get their teeth-rotting candy taken away...
    Are all those prejudice about braindeath couch-potatos true in the end?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  174. Fancy new security device invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Restaurants have begun hardening their television sets against intruders with universal remotes and "universal off buttons", utilizing a hardware-based solution involving a substrate of polymer materials applied to the sensor device to act as a signal interruption mechanism. The solution, known as "tape" requires minimal training pre and post-deployment, is reversible, and widely available from technology distributors such as Ace hardware, Office Max, and Walgreens.

  175. PC IR? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of anything like this for a PC IR device? I have a serial infrared controller and it would be quite handy if I could somehow scan codes coming from my remote and use them to control devices in my living room, etc.

    So far the LIRC pages/tips have done nothing but give me a headache... it seems that it might work for networking but how about just general IR interaction?

  176. Heres a suggestion by AviLazar · · Score: 1, Troll

    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions
    Sit with your back to the TV. There are many people who go to bars and restaurants in hopes of watching a game in a public setting, or just enjoying the distraction. It is not a patrons right to turn off the TV that they do not own. If you do not like it you can complain to management, if management says "no" to your request, then you can leave. If you are that bored that the TV is bothering you, find a friend who can keep your attention ---personally a gorgeous bruenette would keep my attention over any TV set.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  177. Personally... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    ...I am annoyed with people who turn off TVs that I am watching simply because they have attention span problems. What you do at home is up to you, but in airports and restaurants consider that there are many others present who may not appreciate you flipping the TV off because you a) have a short attention span, b) think it's funny, c) are making a socio-political statement that I think is puddle deep.

    Also accept that I sound irate because I spend too many days in TGI Friday's "listening" to some windbag (usually my boss) take credit for my work, or my co-workers work, and getting the big fat bonus we deserved. My only salvation is that I can occasionally get in my 6:30-7:30 "Simpsons" viewing in. I, for one, am perfectly capable of ignoring one source of spurious and useless input in favor of another of my choosing.

  178. Fifteen bucks well spent ... by Dark$ide · · Score: 1

    ... if annoying TVs bothered me more than they do, I'd reckon this was $14.99 +shipping well spent.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  179. In the future... by DevNova · · Score: 1

    we've been shown that televisions won't have "off" buttons.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089568/

  180. I dare somebody to take that thing... by Bun · · Score: 1

    ...into a sports bar tonight in Boston.

    Nerd suicide.

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  181. I want one of these by metamatic · · Score: 1

    I want one of these, for a single reason: airports that insist on playing fucking CNN at me, whether I like it or not.

    As people say, if a restaurant or bar wants to have a TV, I'm quite free to go somewhere else--and I do. However, if I'm flying via some random airport, I have no choice about the fact that I have to wait an hour for my plane at that airport.

    Some airports have areas far enough away from the blaring CNN, and I go there. Others don't, and for those airports I'd find a TV-B-Gone very handy.

    And yes, I've tried asking them to turn off the TVs. They won't. I've even written to the airports requesting that they get rid of CNN. No response. I'm guessing they're paid to subject us to it.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:I want one of these by bmetzler · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      And yes, I've tried asking them to turn off the TVs. They won't. I've even written to the airports requesting that they get rid of CNN. No response.

      I bet there's a 100 other people waiting for an airplane where ever you are. Why should they not get to see CNN just because you seem to have a personal vendetta against it? I know that I would be pretty unhappy if I had to sit there without CNN just because you, out of dozens of people wanted it turned off. What makes you more important then everyone else?

      -Brent
    2. Re:I want one of these by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd like to listen to Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" while I wait for the plane. Should I take a boom box along and do that? Surely nobody would object?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    3. Re:I want one of these by peccary · · Score: 1

      Frequently, there are NOT 100 other people waiting for an airplane where ever I am. In some airports, I've gone looking for a quiet corner away from everyone to make a few phone calls, or do some paperwork. I can always find a deserted gate -- no travelers, no staff, no nobody. But there's always that verdammt TV running a LOUD loop of the same crap over and over. And yeah, I have the balls to stand up and turn it off, except it's 12 feet off the ground and I'm not Michael Jordan.

      What right does the airport have to impose that on me? They're not truly private property, they're only "technically semi-private autonomous authorities" for political reasons, but they're publically funded, built, and partially staffed by political appointees.

    4. Re:I want one of these by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      Hi Brent. Since you won't let me post in your JEs, I've decided to follow you around Slashdot and post replies to your replies even if they are offtopic instead. Check out the link in my SIG. It's a picture of a Bush supporter attacking a Kerry supporter. This is a much more common occurrence than your reality distortion field is allowing you to admit to yourself. The Neocons have a much darker side to them than good American liberals do. Just a bit of truth to brighten your day. Hope you don't mind. Too bad about you taking away that one JE that had the picture of you doing something very questionable to that young man. I think that must have been one of the better Slashdot stupid trolls I've ever seen. Oh well... a little birdie told me it might come back again. :)

  182. A fun experiment by russint · · Score: 1

    Plant one of those in best buy pointing at the tv department. See what happens.

    --
    ^^
  183. I like it... by copperheadclgp · · Score: 1

    ... if only for its anarchist and anti-establishment value. Call me an asshole, but imagine how much fun you could have with this in a Best Buy, or a Tweeter, or places like that. Chaos!!! I wouldn't go so far as to bring it to a sports bar though. That IS nasty and I wouldn't stoop that low. But I could see the value in other places.

  184. More legislation? lets do this properly.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet when the first person will be charged under the governments new emergency law that will cover this? It did give me a fiendishly good idea though.. how about instead of an IR key-fob, an RF key-fob? It would somehow need to get the right frequency (local oscillator detection?) and then would simply transmit a single frame, which could be downloaded by usb onto it. You then walk into an unsuitable place and stick the goats.cx pic on the TV and act shocked like everyone else... It would also have the added benefit of making someone turn it off for you!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  185. whatever floats your boat... by rdewalt · · Score: 1

    Quite simply, I don't patronize any place that slaps a TV in every corner. If I'm eating out, its with my wife, or with her and some friends. Hell, I didn't know until the other day that the local "Ruby Tuesdays" had an assortment of TV's until I looked up.

    Blessedly, their staff keep the captions on, and the sounds to mute.

    However, in my Handspring, I keep the most wonderful springboard module. The Omniremote. And in it, several buttons with the "Mute" functions for several different brands of TV. I'm not an asshole who will turn off the local sports game, but it has come in handy when being the only couple in the "patio" section, to turn down the mood-killing sports channel.

    I won't buy this device, even if its $5. If it had a -MUTE- function, I would perhaps. While "Mute" is in some cases a lesser evil. I've found that really, I've not -NEEDED- to use the one I already have.

    I preferr patronizing restraunts that don't shove television at me, to prevent me from needing to be social with my wife and friends.

  186. Virus like object to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you support this item, how would you feel if there were a device to change the web page you are viewing to something more palatable? Or if not a device, how about some code to shutdown your machine because someone is offended by "all the violence" in your DOOM3?

  187. Another great translation by mypalmike · · Score: 3, Funny

    "If the victim scharrt afterwards in the sand and shits into the yard, the adjustment was wrong or the dose too high."

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
  188. Counter-countermeasures by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1
    Just put electrical tape over the IR sensor. Problem solved.

    But then some idiot will market the "TV-B-Broke" (a fist-sized rock) that
    permanently disables the TV in less than 3 seconds, and doesn't even need batteries.

    ("Danger! Irate bar patrons may also use this device as a 'Face-B-Broke'")

    --
    >;k
  189. SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by Kombat · · Score: 1

    Let the free market decide about smoking. If a restaurant/bar makes more money allowing smokers in...they'll keep doing it. You as a non-smoker, have the right to go somewhere else. If this hurts the business they will have no smoking policies.

    I almost agree with you. Yes, it's true that capitalism would dictate that the restaurant should be free to decide whether or not to permit smoking, and the customers can choose whether or not to patronize said restaurant. However, there is one important group of people being ignored here: the restaurant employees. They don't get a choice. They are forced to breathe the smokey air and subject themselves to lung cancer, and in this day and age, in civilized countries, that's a form of employee abuse.

    "They can choose not to work there" you will say, and while that's true, that's not a valid point. That exact same argument can be used to defend sexual harassment at the work place. After all, if a woman isn't comfortable at a construction site, with a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals ogling her, whistling cat-calls, and shouting obscene, suggestive remarks at her, she can quit and work somewhere else, right?

    For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees. Everyone has a right to a safe and healthy workplace, and in those cases where the very nature of the job is dangerous (miners, astronauts, etc.), they have a right to safety standards and equipment. If employees at smoking-restaurants could wear respirators, then I wouldn't have a problem. But the employers won't let them. "Turns off the customers," they say.

    I welcome smoking bans. Thankfully, I live in a city (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) progressive enough to recognize that the food service industry is not exempt from the same workplace safety laws and standards that apply to every single other industry. I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    1. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees.

      I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.

      I don't entirely disagree with you about employees being exposed to smoke, except that I know some waitresses and bartenders and *NOT ONE* of them has ever complained about smoke in bars. In fact, most of the bartenders in my city smoke while they're on the job. Your second statement covers both the group complaining about smoking (non-smoking patrons) and their *actual* reasoning (can't handle cigarette smoke). I think you're using the employees as an excuse to sound more reasonable.

    2. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by Kombat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know some waitresses and bartenders and *NOT ONE* of them has ever complained about smoke in bars.

      Here's one in my own city. Heather Cross, a waitress in Ottawa for 40 years, never smoked a day in her life, was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer due to second-hand smoke from her workplace.

      It's 2004, for crying out loud! We know tobacco smoke causes cancer. Why are we still making excuses for it? Why are we still permitting it to be forced on people just trying to do their job? In 1000 years, society will look back on this point in history and ask, "What in the hell were they thinking? They knew it was bad, why did everyone still tolerate it? Why did people still smoke?"

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    3. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by eLamer · · Score: 1

      I think when someone applies for a job at an establishment that allows smoking, they should be warned of the risks involved, sign a waiver exempting the owner, etc. Just like when you go for a job in a coal mine you know it's not healthy, but if you are ok with it, take the job. I wouldn't mind working in a smokey bar.

    4. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by VocabularyNazi · · Score: 0

      I used to do restaurant work. AND I smoke, you insensitive clod !

      And I am not going to be treated like I am some high schooler and smoke outside in the rain, sleet, snow, heat, etc. don't wanna smell like smoke? don't go there. simple as that.

      yes, they are a health hazard. so is drinking alcohol. yes, they are a pollutant. so is that vehicle you drive to and from that restaurant filled with "nasty, smoking patrons". get over it.

      smoking is not yet outlawed by the goverment, and, therefore, i still retain the right to make decisions of what substances, whether harmful or beneficial, i put into my body. i am not forcing you, nor anyone else around me to take up the habit by screaming at them "YOU NEED TO BE SMOKING!". i'll give up smoking just as soon as you militant anti-smoking tards give up driving your petrol-burning vehicles, stop wearing colognes and perfumes that affect my allergies, and give up your control issues of thinking that everyone should share your values.

      fucking stay at home if it bothers you that much.

      --
      I will not be using Plan 9 in the creation of weapons of mass destruction to be used by nations other than the US.
    5. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by dcam · · Score: 1

      NSW, one of Australia's states, is just implementing legislation to make smoking illegal in pubs and clubs (places that serve alcohol). The main reason given is the health of those working in the industry. Victoria is going to follow suite.

      I'm not sure whether you can smoke in resturants and cafes, I think it is also illegal right now. Doesn't worry me as a non-smoker, but I can understand it would be annoying for smokers.

      --
      meh
    6. Re:SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD! by Kombat · · Score: 1

      yes, they are a health hazard. so is drinking alcohol.

      No one ever got cancer from "second-hand alcohol."

      so is that vehicle you drive

      You don't drive vehicles indoors, where the air can't circulate.

      don't wanna smell like smoke? don't go there.

      If you'd read my post, you'd know that I agree with that sentiment, as it applies to patrons. However, when you look at it from the employees' point of view, it's a whole new ballgame. Employees have a right to a safe workplace. We have laws that say so. Every other industry has to protect their employees from harmful pollutants, or provide equipment that provides protection. Except the food service industry. Well, that's not fair. I for one and glad that the playing field is finally being leveled, and rights that have long been extended to everyone else are finally being given to waitresses and bartenders.

      Did you really think this was just about the patrons?

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  190. Spin offs by drfreejon · · Score: 0

    I'm waitin' for the People-B-Gone.

    --
    http://www.lipservicemusic.com
  191. How dare you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electrical tape? This is Yet Another Use for duct tape!

  192. Second hand disinformation is yucky, too. by itomato · · Score: 1

    Imagine for one second the similarities in the two:

    People who smoke in public voluntarily consume poisonous chemicals that pollute the air in their vicinity. The unwelcome side-effect of consuming/filtering/avoiding the smoke against your will is felt mainly in the nose and lungs.

    People who watch television in public voluntarily consume poisonous audio/visual content that also pollutes the air in their vicinity. The unwelcome side-effect of consuming/filtering/avoiding the sight/sound against your will is felt mainly in the ears and eyes.

    Just as smokers have the right to consume tobacco in public, non-smokers have the right to consume the public air *without* the contamination of cig-smoke. You may not dislike the effects of television any more than you do second-hand smoke, but there are people who discern the difference and prefer to exist without it.

    If there's a ciggy smoldering in an ashtray, smoking away, I put it out. If there's a TV smoldering away at the laundrymat, I'd like to put it out, too.

  193. Unfortunately... by StarKruzr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the point of this device is that you AREN'T free to take your business elsewhere because televisions in every kind of public place and private establishment have become ubiquitous.

    It does seem to be a manifestation of the typical geek "we have the technological power, so we don't have to explain ourselves to you plebians" arrogance, though.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course you're free to take your business elsewhere: nobody's forcing you to be in a bar that has a TV on.

      And so what if TV's are in every bar? Does that give you the right to demand a TV-less bar? How about if we're talking about men with tattoos instead of TVs? Do you have a right to walk into a bar and it not have anyone with a tattoo in it?

      Or what if the only bar that has no TV is on the other side of town? Does not wanting to make the trip there and back give you an excuse to be an asshole and turn off the TV in the bar down your street even when the owner and the majority of the patrons want it on?

      Jeez, the sheer gall of expecting to get things your way all the time is just incredible. Either learn to accept that living in a democracy means that sometimes things don't go your own way or go start a dictatorship.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      Or he could open his own TV-less bar of course . . .

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  194. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't go to the fucking airport then...
    With your attitude you probably don't have any friends/family to go see anyways.

    Stay inside your mom's basement (or yours) your entire life and you won't have to worry about all the stuff you complain about.

    Loser.

  195. I know nothing! Nnnnnothing! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I love the Google translation! It reads like it was written by Sgt Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes".

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  196. Or just use your PDA. by Westech · · Score: 1

    "In the mean time, those of you with DIY proclivities may want to think about wiring one of these up yourself using a PIC chip or other micro-controller."

    Or by writing a program to get your PDA with Ir capabilities to do the same thing.

  197. Evolution by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

    I thought we'd evolved from Off to Stand By, Input Ready is soon to come!

    --
    Music is everybody's possession.
    It's only publishers who think that people own it.
    Fuck Beta
    ~John Lenno
  198. The ability to do this... by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    is one of the reasons I just ordered one of these. My shipment gets here today! w00t!

    --

    +++ATH0
  199. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you trolling? Your crackpot theories are laughable.

    You don't own the airport. You don't own the restaurant. You own your nose. Now, taking these simple facts into account, analyze your half-witted rablings above and reassess.

  200. He...He...Hee...HERF Gun. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
    Stops TVs, Thumpmobiles, Watches, Pacemakers...


    Gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, too.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:He...He...Hee...HERF Gun. by Lurkingrue · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stops TVs, Thumpmobiles, Watches, Pacemakers...

      I somehow doubt there's many pacemaker-users who'd be the "target audience" of this item...

    2. Re:He...He...Hee...HERF Gun. by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  201. Agggghhhh...I know you mean.. by cubicleman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm standing outside my mailbox yesterday and this punk-ass in a Hyundai rolls up with hip hop blaring out loudly, with his crappy cheap speakers overwhelmed by the bass... I'd love to have had an Uzi or Ak then and there and wiped him out..

    1. Re:Agggghhhh...I know you mean.. by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      I happen to like my Hyundai

    2. Re:Agggghhhh...I know you mean.. by cubicleman · · Score: 1

      Just kidding... I'm not a violent guy...but morons with really loud stereos do tick me off..

    3. Re:Agggghhhh...I know you mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, this could be a good GTA mod.

  202. Gizmodo by serene.geek · · Score: 1

    See also this post at Gizmodo on the same thing, slightly different take on it though.

    --
    ---------- It tingles because it's working.
  203. Ethics vs. Morality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't absolutely positive about the exact definitions, and have previously made a similar distinction earlier in life, so I looked them up in the dictionary. Looking at the definition of morals I don't see the terms "religion", "faith", or even "belief". In fact when I look up ethics, I find a definition that references morals. No, they aren't the same, but their distinction has to do with the difference beween principle and application, not religion and secularism.

    However, it looks to me that the grandparent's use was indeed incorrect and the overall posting pretty naive and uninspired anyway (see the reply to the grandparent about creative carp abuse to see why it's bunk). But the distinction outlined does not appear to be consistent with reality.

  204. You sound like the victim here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wah wah wah

  205. Or maybe... by LilMikey · · Score: 1

    You just ask the f'n place to turn off the TV you self-centered dolt. If a place has a TV in it it's probably because people like it. I doubt any place is trying to annoy or drive people nuts for shits and giggles... they at least percieve people enjoying the televisions. If that perception is wrong, fix it by asking them to turn it off!

    Tell you what... let me turn off all of the street lights cause they shine in my window at night.

    --
    LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
  206. Just released TV-B-Gone Firewall by macz · · Score: 1

    It's called ELECTRICAL TAPE.

    --
    ...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
  207. Re:I'll push your buttons. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV.

    What gives you the idea that you have a right to peace and quiet when you're in a place of public accomodation? That's simply ludicrous.

    Don't like going to restaurants that have TVs blaring in the corner? Try going somewhere classier than a sports bar for once. You don't have the right to decide what everyone else is or isn't allowed to watch while they eat.

  208. Re:I'll push your buttons. by NitroWolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Don't believe me? Come on over some day and I'll punch you in the nose. You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV. I'm sick of it and I'll be getting one of these devices so that I can contemplate whatever I like while you go into some kind of broadcast stupidity withdrawal.

    WTH? Are you that stupid, or are you trolling? The airport certainly DOES have the right to bombard you with ads, if they so choose. Don't like it? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT. You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you. Don't believe me? Come over to my house and try to turn off the TV and I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity.

    I'm sick of people like you, who think their way is the right way. I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?

  209. Next Release: Traffic Lights! by SilverThorn · · Score: 1

    Lets see... Today: TV Sets. Tomarrow: Traffic Lights!

    Yea, we could do the old thing of an Chrome Box, but actually getting that box working to work was truely unrealistic.

    -- M

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
  210. Before TV remotes used Infrared by Prototerm · · Score: 1
    When I was a kid, TVs used ultra-sonics for remote control, not IR. I soon discovered that I could change the TV channel from another room by making a "kissing" sound with my lips.

    I'd wait until my uncle came home from a drinking binge, and watch tv. Every time he sat down, I'd change the channel on him. He never had a clue, just kept cursing the television.

    This new gizmo isn't nearly as much fun, IMHO.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  211. The thing that drives me nuts in restuarants.. by cubicleman · · Score: 1

    1) cellphones (turn them off or put them on vibrate 2) loud people 3) noisy children---parents, take your monsters to McDonalds, not a classy white tablecloth establishment

  212. Look at me! I can make noise! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish the cops in most towns actually did something about it. The problem is that most police depts. don't have the pricey decibel meters they need to see if legally a violation has taken place. The other problem is what do you do about the a-holes who ride modified Harleys (or cars with "boomer" exhausts) and just pass through town occasionally. You may get it every day but it isn't the same people necessarily. The only way to fight that is with automated ticketing cameras or noise traps.

    There really is no excuse for massive car stereos on the road anyway. They obviously are there to be inflicted on bystanders since they are far louder than anyone could possibly need in the car. I've had my stomach thudded in closed concrete buildings from passing cars with these stereos. If most of the owners can't use them responsibly then they need to be taken off the road.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  213. You don't have to watch by GQuon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember the lame excuse that TV companies/Hollywood put out whenever they make something offensive? I never thought I would reguritate it and actually mean it: You don't have to watch!
    I know that the effect of a TV screen may seem hypnothic to you, but other people are actually able to ignore it.
    And you could ask the staff to turn it off.

    If I happen to sit in a waiting room at the DMV, you know where I have no alternative but to go to get my driver's license, and take particular offence at your misproportioned face, am I then allowed to put a big brown paper bag over your head? By your standard, I am. (Not touching your nose.)

    On the flipside, I wouldn't agree to a ban to paper bags, since they have a legitimate use besides hiding your CRT-tanned face. There could be a use for them for an airport that wants to save electrcity and have several different makes of TV. Give the security guard one of these and let him shut down those advertising-emmitting heaters on his first night round.

    what gives them the right to overrule the vast majority of people there, other than some stupid social standard that TV is GOD?
    Right of ownership, common law, US code, perhaps the FCC, any sane ethical standard.

    Duct tapes ready.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    1. Re:You don't have to watch by GQuon · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't agree to a ban to paper bags (...) Give the security guard one of these

      For those with little reading comprehension: I meant give the guard a universal off-switch (he could have a paper bag too, but whatever).
      My scenario is moot anyway, since TVs should be shut off with the main AC switch to really save power.

      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  214. INFORMATION???!! by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1
    Television is merely a conduit of information

    "Information"???
    • My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss
    • Amish in the City
    • The Swan
    • Nanny 911
    • Trading Spouses:Meet Your New Mommy
    This is the type of drivel people like the inventor of this gadget are talking about. This is not information. This is ridiculous, maddeningly stupid crap. Crap that literally makes you stupider just to look at it. And of course there are many situations where one had better not mess with the TV. No one's saying you have to use it if others are enjoying it. It's a tool with a proper use and improper uses, just like a computer.
  215. Flawed argument by siskbc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV

    Yes they do. It's their damned airport. Don't like it? Try another airport. Can't find one to accomodate your needs? Don't fly.

    I'm familiar with the classical "rights of man" argument you're making, but you're twisting it. You seem to believe that everyone, everywhere, in any place you could possibly go, is required to accomodate you to prevent you from being annoyed. Hate to tell you, but that is not the way the world works - nor should it. I'd certainly hate to live my life in a way that could never simply annoy anyone.

    In this specific instance, more people are entertained - or at least have their boredom reduced - by the TVs than people are annoyed by them, or else they wouldn't be there. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you *aren't* more important than other people.

    People in TV induced comas are known for their lack of situational awareness.

    Ah, the classic condescending "you watch TV so I'm smarter than you argument." Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of extremely intelligent people watch TV. And a lot of people of meager intelligence avoid TV because they think it makes them appear smarter. To paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda" - a movie, no less - an monkey can read Plato, he just won't understand it. Self-affected intellectual elitism shouldn't be confused for intelligence.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Flawed argument by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. It's their damned airport.

      Aren't most airports taxpayer funded?

    2. Re:Flawed argument by siskbc · · Score: 1
      Aren't most airports taxpayer funded?

      Some partially, not all. Doesn't change the fact that not voters don't get a veto over every governmental decision, anyway. "Their" can refer to the government.

      Hell, I'd say TV's in airports is a perfect example of democracy ("majority rules") in action.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    3. Re:Flawed argument by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes they do. It's their damned airport. Don't like it? Try another airport. Can't find one to accomodate your needs? Don't fly.

      Airports are not completely private businesses; usually, they have received and continue to receive lots of public support, both in money and in kind. They have received that with the understanding that they provide everybody with good service. They can't just decide to do things that keep away a significant fraction of their customers.

      Even if they were completely private businesses, there are still lots of things they cannot do. For example, even if you are the owner of a restaurant, you still may not be permitted to smoke on your premises during business hours.

    4. Re:Flawed argument by MQBS · · Score: 1

      It's their damned airport.

      Airports recieve public funding for construction and maintainence, at least in the US, and I'm willing to bet overseas as well. They should make an effort to at least try to serve the public good if they're using public money, and part of that is not blaring CNN 24 hours a day in airport terminals, as they do at Laguardia in New York. The counter assistants also do not have the power to turn them off. If people want the news, they should bring a radio with *them*. My feeling is, the default state of a public area should be silence, and everyone should be free to bring what they want in as long as it isnt distrubing anyone.

      People in TV induced comas are known for their lack of situational awareness.

      Ah, the classic condescending "you watch TV so I'm smarter than you argument."


      The effect of television watching on metabolic rate.(This dosen't seem to want to make a link, you can find it at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8424001&dopt=Abstract ) It goes down, way down. I've observed what the grandparent poster was talking about very often, by the way, even in very intelligent people: TV grabs your attention in ways that things in real life can't compete with. The light flickering into your eyes, especially with TV with fast cuts (like commercials or any modern station really) actually triggers the same physical response as moving leaves in a jungle would, causing in the long term desensitization to stimulus via prolonged "immediate" stress going unrelieved. The grandparent wasn't implying that TV watchers were stupid, he was talking literally about the coma-like state that people absorbed in a television show enter. In a public place, I'm not talking about in a bar or anything here, I think that that's beyond the bounds of good taste.

      --
      The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
    5. Re:Flawed argument by Kludge · · Score: 1

      So the government can put up loud large TVs in any public place? How about a set of giant bright blaring TVs on the sidewalk oriented toward your residence 24 hours/day? I'm sure you wouldn't do anything about that.

    6. Re:Flawed argument by siskbc · · Score: 1
      So the government can put up loud large TVs in any public place? How about a set of giant bright blaring TVs on the sidewalk oriented toward your residence 24 hours/day? I'm sure you wouldn't do anything about that.

      Lame-ass argument. A TV in an airport at a reasonable volume isn't comparable to a "bright, blaring" TV pointed at my house. And I've never seen an airport where TVs were ubiquitous - if you want to avoid one, do so. If you want to avoid noise of all kinds, an airport isn't the place for you. But historically, no, people don't have the right to fight the gov. with regard to what it does on public property. It's damned hard even for real problems.

      So, again, you're in favor of making a law that it's illegal to annoy anyone, anywhere, in public? Or that the goverment has such an obligation? Otherwise, where's the brightline? I mean think about this stuff, it's ridiculous. Government actions aren't subject to veto by each individual citizen.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    7. Re:Flawed argument by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Ah, the classic condescending "you watch TV so I'm smarter than you argument." Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of extremely intelligent people watch TV. And a lot of people of meager intelligence avoid TV because they think it makes them appear smarter.

      Ah, the classic condescending "you smoke cigarettes so I'm healthier than you argument." Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of extremely healthy people smoke cigarettes. And a lot of people of poor health avoid smoking because they think it makes them likely to live longer.

      Flawed indeed. If seeking out strong coffee and a bagel weren't of such high priority right now, I'd go off on a tangent about correlation and causality; but it is, so I won't.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  216. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice troll. I'd love to see you break my boom box into pieces. You internet tough guys are about the most pathetic fucking thing I have ever witnessed in my entire life. Your posturing is such a waste of effort - I've yet to meet anyone who's intimidated by words on their monitor. Nice try, though.

    Your opinions are vastly idiotic, but I'm pretty sure you're just making them up as you go anyway.

    Whoever modded you insightful should be shot.

  217. You are a sick man. I like you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Welcome to my Friends list.

    I think I'll try your cel phone technique some time.

    Sometimes I long for the days when cel phones were huge, expensive, battery gobblers, and the air time cost a fortune. Every damned kid didn't have one, nobody yacked on the phone in a restaurant, movie theatre, church (!!!), or while driving (should be a capital crime).

    Some people say that technology will always get cheaper (e.g. compare prices of 100GB drives today to 1GB drives 8 years ago), and this absolutely *has* to be a good thing. I beg to differ: cheaper technology brought us cel phones for everyone and their dog, it brought us CompUSSR selling PC's, and it got us AOL, too. Cheap technology isn't always a good thing, folks.

    -paul

  218. Re:Wow - Right back at you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you realize that your whole message can, with the replacements of a few choosen words, be read as it's direct opposite ?

    What right does anyone have to (continously) fill my ears with all kinds of garbage that have no meaning to me ?

    Mind you : it's mostly just the choice of one person to put their choice of sound and volume on all others.

    Hiding that choice behind lines like "I'm sure someone will like it" is the biggest brush-of tactick there is. If there really are people that want to listen, just let them come forward. If their number exeedes half of the total, that device should, by majority's choice, be turned on. Otherwise, it should stay off.

  219. TV isn't a right by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "What about the TVs in Cafe's or airports or other random places?"

    Funny, I don't remember anyone asking me in the airport, where I'm forced to wait, if I wanted to listen to the TV blasting. There are so many ways to get the news that having it force fed to me isn't necessary. The last thing I need to hear about after standing in line for security for an hour and having risked my life in the drive to get there is, for example, how some kids got horribly killed somewhere.

    They should do what I saw in a gym once, broadcast the sound portion over a radio frequency so people with radios could listen to it and those who didn't want to hear it weren't forced to. I assume if you can afford a plane ticket you can afford a cheap pocket radio and headphones.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:TV isn't a right by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't remember anyone asking me in the airport, where I'm forced to wait, if I wanted to listen to the TV blasting.

      You're missing the point. It's not your property, and you have no control over it, therefore your opinion doesn't matter.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:TV isn't a right by cornjones · · Score: 1

      Having spent a good deal of time in airports around the world lately, I was generally happy to see teh tv's, I wish they were louder in many places. But even teh times when I didn't want to watch, there was no problem going to teh other side of the waiting area where there was no tv or tv noise (that could be heard over teh general din of the airport) If you don't like them, go to another part of the room.

    3. Re:TV isn't a right by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. If I HAVE to be there then my opinion DOES matter. I'm not talking about someone's business, airports are public places. Just because it isn't my property doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want. I guess you'd no problem with someone shooting a gun off into the air all day nextdoor to you. After all, it isn't your gun.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:TV isn't a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intentionally writing "teh" really doesn't work in this context. It's just not funny.

    5. Re:TV isn't a right by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Then don't sit in front of a TV or go places there are TVs if you're that sensitive about it. The fact remains that it's not your property and have no real say in it. Noone's forcing you to sit in front of a TV nor is anyone forcing you to go to that airport nor is anyone forcing you to fly in the first place.

      They should do what I saw in a gym once, broadcast the sound portion over a radio frequency so people with radios could listen to it and those who didn't want to hear it weren't forced to.

      The opposition would probably tell you that would be "forcing" them to have to buy headphones.

    6. Re:TV isn't a right by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      So then the solution would be to disable the gun, which isn't your property?

      Right.

    7. Re:TV isn't a right by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be there. Go to another airport or pick another method of travel.

      And regardless even if you did have to be there, your opinion still doesn't matter, as you don't own the property, and you are one out of tens of thousands who go through the airport every day and don't have a problem with it

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    8. Re:TV isn't a right by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      And by the way, if I lived someplace where shooting a gun off allday in your backyard was legal, i'd probably be out there with my neighbor doing it whenver i had time (So, no i wouldn't mind)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    9. Re:TV isn't a right by osobear · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...in the airport, where I'm forced to wait...

      No, you're really not. If the freakin' TVs are such a huge problem for you then don't go to the airport: don't fly! No one is forcing you to go to an airport.

      If you say that your employer is, then get a new job! If your friends do, get new friends! Yes, this is all way too extreme over a few TVs but if they bother you THAT MUCH then maybe drastic life changes are needed. Or maybe just see a therapist.

    10. Re:TV isn't a right by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      No one is forcing you to go to an airport.

      Sure... you can live like a hermit in a little shack in the mountains, plug both fingers in your ears, and say "nah nah nah nah nah nah". Never the less, this is considered by many to not be a viable solution. If we are talking a resturant, or a bar, i'd agree you have a choice to go elsewhere. But captive advertising, captive AV media, that's another ball of wax.

      I don't think this is at all extreme over a few TVs. In fact I have total empathy for people who experence information overload. Imagine having to listen to John Denver's Greatest Hits volume 2 over and over again while waiting for your bus/train/plane. Imagine if 5 people had big boomboxes all playing a diffrent song from John Denver's Greatest hits volume 2. Now imagine 20.
      "Lady are you crying...Think God I'm a Country boy...the things that you show us the story you tell". Would this not give you a headache, would this not cause you pain, would this not cause you to vomit? These people are not weirdos, nor in need for a therapist, but rather human beings. If you think otherwise i'll stick you in a waiting room with John Denver's greatest hits volume 2.

      Chances are the people who take exception to this are being hit by so much audio video information that it's causing them distress. Why do you think they offer headphones on flights?

      To this end I would support the following solutions.

      1. CNN at airports with subtitles on.
      2. CNN at airports with the audio broadast over radio. Little vending machines that offer radios.
      3. An enclosed area with CNN that you could choose to go in to catch the news.

      For people like me, they can keep in touch with world events, weather, some really important things when traveling. For others, they don't have to put up with the crap I happen to be watching. This is exactly what one expects on a flight, and it's not unreasonable to expect this before a flight.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    11. Re:TV isn't a right by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      I assume if you can afford a plane ticket you can afford a cheap pocket radio and headphones.

      On the other hand, earplugs would be cheaper...

      Airports--among many other public areas--are often loud. Whether it's a television, or muzak, or jets taking off, or infants screaming, noisy distractions are a fact of life. You can't get an off button for all of them. Or should we advocate strangling any child that cries?*

      *Okay, maybe some of them deserve it.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    12. Re:TV isn't a right by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      It depends on where you live. In most of the United States, airports aren't public places like they used to be. Now they are the private property of the city/town/region's "port authority" or some similar semi-private group. It's one of the things that keeps the religious nuts out these days. They used to infest some airports by the dozens.

    13. Re:TV isn't a right by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't remember anyone asking me in the airport, where I'm forced to wait, if I wanted to listen to the TV blasting.

      You're not forced to wait. Simple solution: If it bothers you that much, don't fly. It's not your property. Tough nuts.

  220. TV Remote Control Watch by santos_douglas · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This reminds me of a product I thought was cool in a geeky sort of way, a TV Remote Control Watch like this Quemex. It lets you control volume and channel. I don't know if it's as universal as the device listed in TFA, but someone could easily devise one. It's sold to the super lazy couch potato who's doens't even want to reach to the coffee table for the remote, but I always thought it would be pretty cool to have on those rare occassions when you're stuck in a waiting room or something with a TV stuck on QVC or something.

    I surprised at the posters getting all upset about this type of device. Yes it would be rude to mess with people in a crowded place like a bar or whatever if its obvious they're watching it. But how is an open IR receiver any different from say an open WAP? It's their fault if they didn't think about the possibility of someone using it in a way they didn't envision.

    1. Re:TV Remote Control Watch by White+Roses · · Score: 1

      I have one. Bought it from ThinkGeek, ostensibly so that I'd always have a remote when I am travelling. Of course, now that most hotels use the OnCommand remotes to make the ordering of games and porn easier, it's useless for that. Now, I use it to frustrate my friends.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
  221. Where the hell did these "rights" come from? by Demon-Xanth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked, there was nothing in the Bill of Rights that said "We have the right to have silence in public and other people's private places."

    TVs in the airport? Maybe people want to know what the weather's going to be like at thier destination. Maybe that guy who just spent 4 hours staring at the back of a seat would like to watch a game for an hour before spending another 6 viewing the threadcount of a headrest.

    TV at your local restraunt? Noone forced you to be there, if you don't like it, ask to be moved away from it or go somewhere else.

    TVs in stores? It helps to actually see a fully warmed up picture when viewing a TV. Besides, doesn't a TV turned on seem much more appealing than one turned off? If you wanted to view a TV turned off wouldn't you just get a cabinet?

    Just as I don't have the right to take that cell phone and shove it up your arse, you don't have the right to turn off someone elses TVs.

    Oh, and malls, airports, and restraunts are NOT public property. If you want public property to dispense your own brand of vigelante justice, the BLM land is usually well marked on topo maps. Go there and tell the crickets to shut the hell up. They might care.

    -

    --
    If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
    1. Re:Where the hell did these "rights" come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as I don't have the right to take that cell phone and shove it up your arse, you don't have the right to turn off someone elses TVs.

      Dude, that's what you did to me on our last date. I was so embarassed sitting at dinner and you would call me and my phone would vibrate in my ass. I got so turned on I couldn't think straight.

    2. Re:Where the hell did these "rights" come from? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1
      When people start talking about "rights" instead of "ethics" it gets a lot harder to reach any sensible conclusion.

      I mean, if we start talking about "rights", couldn't someone argue that it's his First Amendment right to express himself by transmitting IR codes?

      But if you instead step back and think about practicality then it's easy to see that earplugs, ADD medication, and avoiding overreaction to pranks all make sense.

  222. Moo har har by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    That is SO ordered.

    Despatched in three days apparently. [WEG]

  223. Pervasive attitude. by nullvector · · Score: 1

    This seems to be a pervasive attitude here at slashdot: Where if you don't like something, you have the given right to change it to suit your preferences. Real-life isn't open source, where you can just walk into a restaraunt, bar, or airport and branch the environment to YOUR choosing. Maybe thats why so many of the nerds around here are single. If you really are bothered by things like TV, and music in public places, its as simple as not getting your butt out of your computer chair, and staying home.

  224. Re: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can an anonymous coward have a sig?

    Yes

    --
    Anonymous Coward, Absofrigginnowhere, Missisippi

  225. Small tip... by nandhp · · Score: 1

    As mobile weapon against flat-sheared noise Emissionssuender a December duck water pistol worked satisfactorily, particularly since the classical running wart pilot always drives with lowered disk. A well cooled splash is particularly effective in the ear of the Mobilproleten . Then however a really potent automobile (see following picture) for the any escape before the Berzerker is recommended.

    1. Re:Small tip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Berzerker

      my love for you is like a truck BERSERKER
      would you like some making fuck BERSERKER

  226. I agree completely by Damek · · Score: 1

    I agree with you 100%. TVs blaring in public spaces is one thing, TVs blaring in private establishments is quite another. And on that note, I oppose the smoking ban in NYC, yet I reserve the right to flick cigarettes out of people's mouths in the park. We share the space, and the responsibility for maintaining it for everyone. Smokers pollute like drunks taking a crap. If you smoke, think before you do it next time. Would you drop your pants and take a crap where you are? Then you probably shouldn't smoke there either.

    This message has been brought to you by PetPeeve Enterprises... /rant

    1. Re:I agree completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one thing to be upset by smoking in a closed space, but in a park? It's open air - yes, you can smell it, and it's not that pleasant, but come on... I'm not a smoker, but I can have some degree of tolerance for it... you don't have to like it, just /tolerate/ it. To put it simply: don't be such a whiner. You don't go around throwing a fit every time someone coughs or sneezes loudly, despite the fact that that too can be pretty annoying.

      I doubt you flick cigarettes out of peoples' mouths though, because roughly the second person you did that to would punch you right in the mouth.

    2. Re:I agree completely by Damek · · Score: 1

      Why do I have to tolerate it? I (and society) tolerate some pollution because it's a side effect of positive economic activity that benefits us all in one way or another.

      Coughing and sneezing are natural behaviors of the human body and I can fault no one for that.

      Smoking is purly a personal luxury, with no benefit to anyone but the smoker, and even then it merely perpetuates their addiction.

      No, I don't actually flick cigarettes out of people's mouths. But I do make it known that I find their habit as filthy as public defecation. It's not just whining at a minor annoyance; I think the fact that most people would think so is the real sign of something gone horribly wrong.

      Just because the habit has been tolerated for so long to such an extent that smokers expect to be allowed to do it anywhere they please does not make such behavior acceptible.

      Open air? If I can smell it, it's there. Or shall I just go ahead and pee in the public pool, it'll dissipate enough that people probably won't notice it.

      And don't get me started on all the cigarette butts on the streets of New York.

    3. Re:I agree completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an intolerant asshat.

    4. Re:I agree completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that it's a filthy and pretty much reprehensible habit. Everything you said makes sense. You don't *have* to tolerate it I suppose, but it wouldn't hurt. Yes, it's unpleasant, and it's being done without regard to the annoyance it causes you. But when you're outside, you can't argue that it's a health risk - it's just an annoyance. Part of life is dealing with annoyances. When someone cuts you off in traffic, let it slide. When someone's baby cries on the bus, just bear it. You know, just accept the fact that things bother you. I'm an irritable and tempermental person. Smokers, coughers, slow people, rude people, and especially crying babies sometimes make me want to kill. But I have to control myself, because that's what civilized people do. That's the idea of tolerance... you don't have to like it, but you have to understand that not everything is always going to happen the way you like it, and learn not to get too upset about it. Life will be a lot smoother once you do.

    5. Re:I agree completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoking in air I'm breathing is assault according the the law. Smokers need to get used to that fact.

  227. Springboard Universal IR by Akardam · · Score: 1

    I actually had one of these back when I had a Handspring. I initially bought it to eliminate the "remote clutter" of my various devices, but I mostly ended up doing something very similar to this - I would constantly turn off my brother's TV. Fun times :)

    Anyway, with this thing, you draw a button on the screen and make it "learn" any IR sequence. Too bad my Handspring is kaput, or otherwise I'd go have some fun with it.

  228. Re:I'll push your buttons. by kelnos · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV. I'm sick of it and I'll be getting one of these devices so that I can contemplate whatever I like while you go into some kind of broadcast stupidity withdrawal.
    I strongly disagree with this. Perhaps the airlines at the aiport offering lower fares because they're being paid to show advertising on TVs around the airport? I agree that random people sitting around don't have the right to be playing loud music, or their own loud TV, but the airport itself has _every_ right to play music, or have TVs on. They own the space, and they decide what goes on in it. If you don't like it, either complain, or use a different airport.

    The TV doesn't belong to you. Others may be watching it; what gives you the right to disturb that? If you're annoyed by it, try to find a place to sit such that it isn't a problem, or do the right thing and complain to someone at the information desk about it. Will it cause change? Well, probably not, because a random person complaining every now and again shouldn't cause change. If the vast majority of people are fine with the TVs on (in most of the airports i've been in, they usually have news broadcasts on, which I don't mind, and often like to watch), then they should stay on. Period. You have no right to impose your will on others in a public place, or a private place owned and operated by someone else.

    In my experience, I have no problem tuning out airport TVs in order to sit and read a book. If you can't handle that, perhaps that's your problem?

    Having said all that, I do agree that we in the U.S. watch way too much mindless TV. But pissing people off isn't the way to solve that problem. It's only a way to show how childish and immature you are.
    --
    Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  229. Re:Now all we need is .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I need is to integrate this into my cellphone so when I want to make a call all TV's in my vicinity turn off and I can hear. I am going to program one of these for my nokia's IR port!

  230. Airports and TVs by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd love to meet the person who felt that shoving TVs blaring CNN in every waiting area was a good idea.

    Maybe I'm crazy but I don't think that after driving through Mad Max like traffic to get there, standing in line for the boarding pass for an hour, standing in line for security for an hour, and then having to listen to a newscast describing a plane crash is that relaxing (yes, this actually happened to me in Logan airport). I felt like I was in that scene in "Airplane" where the inflight movie was a plane being test crashed.

    Flying is stressful enough without having a litany of the day's murders, war casualties, layoffs, etc being crammed into my ears.

    Well, I know what I want for Christmas now (and what I'll be giving a few people).

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  231. Easy to block by ThingOne · · Score: 1

    Just Block the IR port on the tv. No more interfering. You would have to manually change the channel or volume. But at least you wouldn't miss a the best part of the game

  232. morality aside, easy enough to combat by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

    little piece of electrical tape over infrared receiver will do ya fine. Get off yer ass and change the channel Ye Olde Fashioned Way.

    sloth jr

  233. Loud Pipes Save Lives by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

    In the world of stupid drivers, loud bikes are A-OK with me.

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    1. Re:Loud Pipes Save Lives by pudding7 · · Score: 1

      Loud pipes do not save lives. The people that spout this nonsense are the same people that believe the helmets are dangerous because they block your hearing. Nevermind that the wind rushing past at 70mph is pretty freaking loud.

      If there's a biker with "loud pipes" coming up behind you, you're not going to hear him until he's past you anyway. Idiots with screechingly loud pipes make all of us riders look bad.

  234. slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdotted :-D

  235. What a wonderful idea! by buxley · · Score: 1

    This is great! If I'm in a crowded restaurant, and I find the TV show they have blaring annoying, BLAMMO! off with the TV. Who cares if someone else is watching it? What *I* want is what matters, correct?

    Somehow, I see a market for "Universal ON" remotes in the unlikely event this thing catches on...

    -Buxley

  236. Re:I'll push your buttons. by soft_guy · · Score: 1, Troll

    Hey, dumb ass - I pay taxes to help build the freaking airport. Therefore, if I don't want to listen to the TV, I will turn it off.

    If you don't like it, come over to my house and I will beat you with a baseball bat while my wife turns the TV on and off!

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  237. Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back in the stone age (ie, early 80s) one of the electronics projects in our class was a "librarian annoyer" -- a small circuit that would run for a long time on a 9v battery and would periodically emit a shrill noise for a brief time and then go silent again. The idea was to put it in a hollowed out book in the library and the librarian would go nuts trying to find the source of the noise.

    Why not combine this concept with the TV turner-offer? A small device that would periodically emit all the OFF IR codes for TVs. Make it unobtrusive enough that it could be stuck someplace where it wouldn't be seen, or camouflaged as something that belonged on the wall (many places have rectangular thermostat sensors all over -- small metal rectangle with no controls).

    With the right power source and camouflage, you could really have some fun. It may also be interesting to not just send OFF codes, but to send random channel or input codes, mutes, volume up/down commands and so on.

    A single IR command might be simpler to implement, but it'd still be a blast.

    1. Re:Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Funny

      A friend of mine built a circuit that sounded exactly like a slow, periodic drip of water. Hidden near somebody's cubicle, it was almost impossible to find by ear, because of the long pause between drips. His victim hid a dead fish in his file cabinet, which was pretty effective revenge.

    2. Re:Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by drprotagonist · · Score: 1
      One fun device that we have been playing with at work is a wireless doorbell. You place the speaker near someone's computer (under desk or behind monitor.) You trigger the beep remotely with your wireless button and watch as the person goes insane trying to stop their computer from beeping.

      turn down volume... unplug speakers... shutdown computer... beat on computer with hammer...

    3. Re:Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What you really need is a remote-control-remote-control. That way you can control your hidden remote control remotely.

    4. Re:Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a small battery taped to a pcb with some wires and a timer hidden in an airport sounds like fun for everyone!

    5. Re:Librarian Annoyer becomes TV DoS device by swb · · Score: 1

      > Yes, a small battery taped to a pcb with some wires and a timer hidden in an airport sounds like fun for everyone!

      It won't work in most airports I've been in because the TVs are mounted in enclosed cases (often badged with CNN or something) and the IR ports aren't visible.

      It would work great in a lot of bars and restaurants, though. They usually have a really busy interior (lots of doodads on the walls) which makes for great IR annoyer concealment, and often mount their sets high on swingarms and need IR control.

  238. ObMaleChavanistPig.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there one for wives/girlfriends?

  239. That's how WOZ got started.. by icecow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's how WOZ of Apple got started :)

    He made a TV signal scrambler and tricked other people in the room into posing strange ways to get tv signal.

    Turned passive TV watching into an external social event.

    dumb maybe. couldn't resist writing it out

    --
    Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
  240. Re:Wow - Right back at you by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    Majority rules do not work in private establishments. The owner of the establishment decides what to do with his own property (provided his TV is not so loud that it damages your hearing, naturally).

    You sound like a communist.

  241. Like Philips URCs by mkro · · Score: 1

    The universal remote controls from Philips has an "autosearch" mode that does the same thing. Hold 1 and 3, press the power button, and it will start sending the standby pulses from every code in the remote, one by one. The idea is that when your tv turns off, the remote has sent the correct code, and you have to be fast and hit power again to lock the code to the remote. Of course, this does not work with the sets that do not use standard RC-signals (E.g. most newer B&Os), and I guess the same goes for this gadget.

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
  242. They already have this. by tommut · · Score: 1

    It's called 'go over to the TV and hit the Off button'. Why do you need a gizmo to do it? Is the TV too high? Stand on a chair and do it. You have nothing to hide, do you? The TV is annoying you! You're trying to eat dinner! You obviously think you're above everyone else already, so why not just blatantly shut it off in front of everyone instead of hiding behind an unneccessary device?

    1. Re:They already have this. by HikeFanatic · · Score: 0

      I guess these people have never heard of something called the AC power cord, either....

      Just pull the plug! How hard is that?

    2. Re:They already have this. by sachemcst · · Score: 1

      They also have a universal remote watch at ThinkGeek that does the same thing; or use it change the channel.

  243. The difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference is that computer people are smart.

    Modders are generally some grubby loser who works as a bagger at a supermarket, and drivers around with a huge spoiler for reasons that he can't readily explain.

    The car handles like shit, it has all the speed of a whale turd, it looks worse, and then idiots like you say "I dont see the difference"

    Yeah, because you're not very bright.

    1. Re:The difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The difference is that computer people are smart.

      Oh, there's PLENTY of kiddies that do useless shit to their computers that's right on par with ricing a car. Don't even try to pretend that being a "computer person" makes someone immune from doing stupid shit.

      Yeah, you're not very bright either.

  244. Oh come on! by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

    You're not serious are you?

    Lessee, I'm exposed to second hand smoke - my choices to protect myself are to "leave the location" or "stop breathing".

    I'm exposed to a public TV - my choices are "leave the location" or "turn my head away".

    yeah, I can totally see how they have the same impact...

    The right to putting out an abandoned smoldering cigarette (no arguement there) that's at your table or "in your space" cannot be equated with surrepticiously (bad spellers inc.) turning off a public TV.

    With the cigarette, you can be sure that you know the potential impact of your actions - it's abandoned, no one will care. Concerning the TV, will you exercise the same degree of compassion? Will you ask if anyone minds? No, you'll use the device to turn it off, and to hell with anyone who might have been watching.

    Even if you only used the device in a location where no one else was present (your abandoned laundreymat for example) will you remember to turn it back on when you leave? Or will you more likely leave it off, thus depriving the next person who comes along who might have WANTED some mind-numbing TV to take the edge off the mind-numbing tedium of hanging around waiting for their clothes to dry?

    --
    Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
    "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    1. Re:Oh come on! by SonOfThor · · Score: 1

      I didn't relize that Television was a RIGHT and not a priviledge.... I could have used this information back when I was 10 and all I wanted to do was watch some friggin TV and eat raw hotdogs all afternoon..

      Sheesh.

      I never thought I'd hear someone complain about taking away thier "RIGHT" to watch television until I had children of my own.

      Thanks /.

    2. Re:Oh come on! by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I didn't use the term "right" applied to television, that card was first played in this discussion by those arguing "I have a right to inflict my desire for silence on other people"

      Not in so many words of course, but that's their basic arguement -- "I'm more important than you"

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
  245. hehe by DeathByDuke · · Score: 1

    boy I'm going to have fun with one of these in my neighbourhood, pissing off everyone. hehe

  246. Of course you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've yet to meet anyone who's intimidated by words on their monitor. Nice try, though."

    Of course you're not intimidated. You mommy said when it comes to scary to come out of the basement and turn off the computer. Then it would all be okay.

  247. Speaking of Airports... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This tool could potentially be used to turn off the airports monitors/tv's displaying flight information - chaos and delay flights would quickly follow. But, I'm sure the airports have already taped over the receiving remote sensor, right? (I doubt it too).

  248. I just gotta say it... by Wolfger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The flames are shooting up all over this topic, and I don't have anything new to add, but I just have to say this:

    Anybody who thinks this invention is a good thing is an idiot.

  249. Re:I'll push your buttons. by NitroWolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So explain to me again why your specious "right" to turn the TV off supercedes my "right" to listen to it?

    Oh wait, it doesn't. Therefor, by your rules, it's a zero sum result, and thus the Airport is the decided factor on whether it's on or off. In either case, it's not YOU who has the "right" to decide whether it's on or off.

    Like it or not, the airport is private property, and thus you have NO rights to do what you please at the airport. Don't like it? Tough, you should have gotten out and voted against building the airport then.

    You say you did? But others didn't? Looks like the majority rules, and their collective rights to have the airport supercede your increasingly vanishing "rights" to do what you please. Thus, again, your individual "right" to turn the TV off is superceded by the collective right of everyone else to have it on. You lose again.

    Just give it up, there's no possible arguement you can bring forward that will making turning off a TV that doesn't belong to you morally and legally justifiable. You can spin it anyway you want, but you still look like an idiot for even trying to postulate such a ridiculous position.

  250. ADD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    >>no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me

    Next time remember to take your meds and If you turn off the game while I am watching it there will be trouble.

  251. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey dumbass-freaktard-goofball-moron-knob-jerk-assorte d-other-pejoratives!!!

    Beat yourself with a baseball bat.

    And the last airport I went to wasn't built with taxes, so if you tried it there, they'd string you up to an aircraft landing gear and drag you across the runway, and everyone there would cheer and whoop because of it. In fact, they'd declare a national holiday called "We Hate Your Ass Day", and there would be a really touching speech in the park by the President detailing why it was the greatest thing in the world that you were getting ripped up and how even from the very beginning, your own dog hated you. Then we'd all go out for pie and ice cream and you wouldn't be invited! HA HA!

    I really do hope you get one of these things, because I really do think we need another holiday. And National We Beat Your Ass Day is something I could really get behind at this point.

  252. Haha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy who submitted this story got totally owned. Nice job. I guess this proves that even Slashbots can have some common sense. Personally, I would beat the shit out of some little nerd who used this while I was watching something. Then, I would stuff his shit back in through his mouth so I could beat the shit out of him again.

  253. Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone arou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone around them.

    Ok loud cars can be annoying, unless you're talking about a good sounding performance exhaust on an engine with more than six cylinders, but how does a fast car impose itself on anyone? My car has a 275 HP V8 engine and can go faster than 140MPH, but in traffic you can't hear the engine at all due to a well designed exhaust system and a baffled intake. Is it imposing itself on you somehow?

  254. Re: Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously it is b/c if he doesn't feel he needs one, then no one else does either.

  255. The TV OWNS the room by Sir+Holo · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Unfortunately, in our society, the rule is that The TV owns the room.

    If I read the paper, I don't bother anyone. If I listen to my iPod, I don't bother anyone. Conversation, eating, etc.. But TV is different. If just ONE person in a crowded room wants to see the TV, then they can have it on. Loud. And you're a jerk if you turn it down/off. Doesn't matter if someone was sitting right in front of the "off" TV prior.

    And marketers exploit this, e.g. in airports, where you can't hide from the things.

    The rule needs to change.

  256. Do you do this with fire alarms too? by Soporific · · Score: 1

    Is any knob, switch or button your domain too, just waiting to be used? Why don't you run around all day ringing door bells and pulling fire alarms, they are there too right?

    Or maybe you could run up to bank teller window with a sign that says "This is a stickup" then when you get arrested just say that you were using the transparent properties of glass...

    ~S

  257. I do have such a disorder by tepp · · Score: 1

    I frequently suffer from sensory overload. Basically, the noise, the lights, the smells, some touches overwhelm my ability to process them and I end up with a terrible migrane, unable to handle any light or any noise. It's very painful.

    I can't walk into a Best Buy or a Costco. I can't distinguish between my husband talking next to me or the jabbering of a tv or a person echoing across the store, my mind tries to process both signals and give them equal priority. It's painful.

    I avoid those places. I try not to be placed near a TV at a restaurant - or just not go to restaurants with TVs. Some of my favourite hamburger joints do have TV's (red robin), but you can ask for a booth that's not facing it, and they don't play the sound. I don't do sports bars.

    Oddly enough, I can't handle the feeling of velvet. It just overloads my touch sense. I have been given velvet gifts that I promptly give to goodwill... I can't bear to put them on.

    There are nights when I beg my husband not to turn the TV on... or the radio... I can't stand the mindless jabber jabber.

    My ability to handle multiple signals depends on how tired I am. The more rest I've had, the more able I am to handle tvs, radios, random talking, noises... but if I am overtired, my world spirals into a mass of flashing pain, has my head tries to explode and I can't bear to stand up anymore.

    I'm not alone, many people suffer from this, or so my therapist tells me. ;) Anyway, I would not use such a device, because although the TV gives me pain, it could be some poor bored person's only form of entertainment. I just try to move myself into a quiet corner, if I'm travelling, I have noise cancelling headsets and I listen to the sound of the rain on cd sometimes, the white noise cancels out a lot of noise and calms me.

    --
    Tepp
    1. Re:I do have such a disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is your opinion of the remote device being discussed? Would you use one? Would you feel comfotable about making everyone else modify their behavior (WIthout their consent) because of your problem?

    2. Re:I do have such a disorder by tepp · · Score: 1

      As I said above, I wouldn't use the device, because it's not my place to force everyone to bend to my wishes. I deal with my problems by avoiding noisy places and using noise cancelling headsets when I am forced to deal with the airport.

      While the TV bothers me, it may be some bored person's only form of entertainment, especially if their plane has been delayed several hours, etc... I accept that when I leave the comfort of my own home, I am going to hear other people's noise.

      This device only adds to the general rudeness problem we have already, as it means you could have two people fighting with this device - one trying to turn the TV off, one trying to turn the TV on... neither of them speaking to each other, which could turn ugly.

      --
      Tepp
  258. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Botty · · Score: 1

    Hehe, lack of hubris.

    I think you meant your incredible hubris. I generally consider lack of hubris a good thing ;) Anyways I enjoy a good laugh. Thanks. Good post otherwise but now we're just feeding the troll.

  259. Re: Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is it imposing itself on you somehow?


    That depends. Is it going fast?

  260. Why Do the Rest of Us have to Suffer? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    So because you have absolutely no willpower or self-control, no one else is allowed to watch TV when you're in the room?

  261. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a fscking TV, moron! why don't you calm down, if someone turns it off, you'll more than likely be better off anyways. Television is 95+% BULLSHIT. If it's turned off, no problem! No loss there.

  262. Easy solution by narsiman · · Score: 1

    Put a black paper and a scotch tape in front of the IR hole on the TV if you are placing it in public.

    What I cant understand is this bunch of /.ers are the ones who blame M$ when microsoft puts out an insecure system - at the same time crediting the hackerer who finds the exploit.

    Blame the TV manufacturer or the airport authorities (the big guy)- as we always do :)

  263. Jackasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My conversations are distracted by the traffic outside this building. Should I go tear up the roads?

    Why don't you try getting your ADD under control rather than changing the world for others around you to compensate for your lack of focus?

  264. Forced? Who forced what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, I don't remember anyone asking me in the airport, where I'm forced to wait, if I wanted to listen to the TV blasting.

    Who forced you to wait? Who forced you to be there? Oh that's right, you chose to go to the airport. Why don't you take some responsibilities for those choices instead of whining? Moreover, how about you get a clue and realize that life is about getting along with all the other idiots out there and everyone isn't going to pander to your every whim. Get a life.

  265. Re:I'll push your buttons. by osobear · · Score: 1
    You internet tough guys

    Ahh, slashdot, the only "News for Nerds" forum you can post to while calling other people "internet tough guys."

  266. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wow, what a bunch of sanctimonious fuckwads. I don't think I've ever seen so much overmodded redundant holier-than-thou bullshit in one thread.

    This device looks like one heck of a lot of satisfaction in one small package. I'm getting me one and using it liberally, and you Slashdot nanny-wannabes can FOAD.

  267. The "Me" Button by Mulletproof · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions."

    Sooooo... That's the menatility that says it's use ok? Personally, I'm getting tired of this movement that insists it's OK to deprive people and business operating in public places to electronic convinences just because it annoys you. Keep in mind this is the mentality that gives somebodyelse the right to kick your ass because you're annoying them just for looking funny, let alone turning off the convinece they're paying for. I'll give you the fact that there are some places that those convinences shouldn't be used, but TVs? Everyplace there's a TV is at the discretion of the owners who most likely have them there because people appreciate them to some degree or another.

    Honestly, if you can't pay attention to your friends in competition with a TV, that's a problem an off button won't solve.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:The "Me" Button by bandy · · Score: 1
      I'm getting tired of this movement that insists it's OK to deprive people and business operating in public places to electronic convinences just because it annoys you.

      Well, boy-howdy, I guess you don't mind me shouting into my cell phone at the next table when you're on a date...

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    2. Re:The "Me" Button by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      You mean like most resteraunt where people a jabbering all over the place anyway??? Come on now. Don't get your panties in a bind just because they're talking into a box. Yammering to a friend, your date or a phone, there's no freakin' difference. Now if your yelling at your friend, date or cell phone, you've got a right to bitch. That's what you call an extenuating circumstance.

      Don't bitch just to bitch; we're talking about everyday normal use here.

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
  268. you're all owned by advertisers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How supposedly intelligent people could do anything but cheer a device that turns off the damned noise is hard to believe. The frustrating aspect of public TV, beyond the stupidity of the programming, is you can't mute or skip the commercials. I'm surprised the /. crowd has the patience for that crap.

    Clearly the advertisers have done a good job raising a generation of people who don't object to pointless, noisy nonsense.

  269. I don't get it? by Soporific · · Score: 1

    Why not just go press the power button and let everyone know your intentions instead of doing it surreptitiously? It seems to me that would be easy and then you could brawl and show everyone how tough you are instead of hiding behind a tiny IR transmitter.

    ~S

  270. Re:I'll push your buttons. by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

    Haha oops...

    I actually was starting to type "lack of humility," and somehow ended up with hubris in it's place instead.

  271. What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, those useless devices similar to computer monitors, right?

  272. Re: microwave boombox car zapper by hankwang · · Score: 1
    In case you didn't notice: the first line of the page tells you that it's a JOKE and that it won't work.

    Too bad. I guess that the metal of the car will shield the electronics. Apart from that, even with the dish antenna the power density won't be that high at some distance, though probably a bit higher than what the mobile phone lying next to the target will do.

  273. What about exhaust? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    My car exhaust would probably trigger any sort of acoustic sensor. It's not that loud but generally stereos aren't either, you're just annoyed at the fact that you can hear it with the cars windows rolled up, etc. whereas you would probably expect to hear the sound of exhaust.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  274. ...shut off the engines of airplanes overheard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Now that you mention it, why is it that small piston-engined airplanes have open, unmuffled exhausts? It seems like a two seater plane can drown out a 747 any day, and with much more annoying noise.

    I have to have a muffler on my car, why can't piston driven airplanes have them?

  275. It wasn't just Wired. by 955301 · · Score: 1


    NPR had an interview during yesterdays rush hour as well. So it's really no surprise the site augered into the ground.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  276. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you."

    Actually I believe that the FCC gives the RIGHT to broadcast the remote signalling that in effect would cause your TV to shut off to everyone in the public. If an airport decides to leave this "security hole" open it's up to the PUBLIC to decide what's on TV.

    It's a public broadcast signal just like 802.11 and your cb radio - anyone can use it. Completely legal.

    BTW threatening violence doesn't make a good argument, it just makes you sound like the Troll for defending the idiot box that you crave so much. TV isn't that important.

    People don't goto the airport for advertisements, and it's a public place.

  277. Simple Radiation exchange by EvilMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    If someone has the right to expose me to light and sound generated by their "television" instrument, then I darned well have the right to emit a small bit of light myself (which just happends to reside in the IR band). How their instrument responds is their own problem. (And I also have the right to emit a small magnetic flux that may by chance rearrange the mag stripe bits on my credit card to more closely resemble someone else's, but that's another story)

  278. "Top 5" product enhancement requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5) universal "mute"

    4) universal "volume UP"

    3) universal "channel UP/DOWN"

    2) universal VCR "one-touch record"

    1) universal cable "select pay-per-view event"

  279. I understand but, by marshmeli · · Score: 0

    what right do you have to turn off a TV in a private place becuase it is bothering you? Now we will have people who are watching a game at a bar and some jackass will turn it off and you will miss the play. If the TV bothers you so much go somewhere where there is no TV. Its a pratical joke item IMO, not something to help society and make peoples lives better.

    Plus this idea is old news, remember those watches by Casio that would do but allow to change channels and stuff?

    This just a smaller and easier item to use and is prob very cheap so will be more widespread than the watch...

    1. Re:I understand but, by narcc · · Score: 1

      Now a device to turn off all the TV's in the world, all at once, THAT's a device to help society and make peoples lives better.

  280. if a TV falls and no one's watching it.. by james_moriarty · · Score: 1

    Often, the TVs are on but no one's paying attention. What's worse is the responsible people with the 'official remotes' are no where to be found.

    The evening of 9/11, I grabbed a beer with a friend of mine.. we had a seat in a small alcove with a TV. He took the time to turn off the TV, after asking permission from the other occupants (of course). When the waitress returned.. she was so grateful. I think everyone was sick of CNN after 9/11.. she was outright nautious.

    1. Re:if a TV falls and no one's watching it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the RIGHT way to do it! ASK THE OWNERS OR THE PATRONS IF THEY WANT IT OFF!

      WTH is so hard about that?

      Secretly using a device to mysteriously disable the TV is plain rude, inconsiderate and cowardly.

    2. Re:if a TV falls and no one's watching it.. by james_moriarty · · Score: 1

      Silly me.. attempting to start a mature discussion on /. Bad poster! [self-slap].

      Just to clarify, we turned off the TV by pushing the 'off' button. No remote, not permission.. but lots of praise.

      "It is easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission."

    3. Re:if a TV falls and no one's watching it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. THE OWNER WAS NEVER ASKED FOR PERMISSION, ONLY THE OTHER PATRONS. What right do the patrons have to make that decision? Neither the patrons and the waitress are the owner, and ONLY THE OWNER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT (or an authorized representative like a manager).

  281. Mod parent Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, a good portion of A/V devices have what's called "discrete" on and off codes.

    Somebody already beat you to it.

  282. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by bryanp · · Score: 1

    The only way to fight that is with automated ticketing cameras or noise traps.

    I beg to disagree.

    I'm just sayin'.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  283. Re:I'll push your buttons. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    I just turned it off. What the hell are you gonna do? Nothing. That's what I thought.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  284. Here's the software for Palm... by argent · · Score: 1
  285. Omniremote and a selection of remotes... by argent · · Score: 1

    It's no difficulty to program Omniremote for the Palm Pilot with codes from each remote you run across as you wander up and down in the world. I've found it a really handy tool when there's an annoying TV just out of reach.

  286. (OT)Badnarik by tepples · · Score: 1

    four more years under the tyranny of Bush

    Kerry is no better.

    In the absence of any third party that will split the right wing vote by a proportional amount

    Badnarik runs on the Libertarian ticket. How do you claim that the Libertarian Party isn't exactly that third party?

    1. Re:(OT)Badnarik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerry *is* better. I know, two sides of the same coin, with more commonalities than differences. Both contributing to the maintenance of the status quo, doing little about the things that really matter, continuing the incursion by government into all aspects of our lives... neither of them are fiscal conservatives, neither of them truly believe in the free market, and the fact that they've climbed to the top of their respective oligarchical parties is indicative of their conformity and their complacence with everything wrong in the country...

      But Kerry isn't surrounded by religious conservatives and the cast and crew from the Project for a New American Century. With respect to foreign affairs, there are major differences between them. They're different on some token social issues that everyone seems to get riled up about, but I don't really care about that. One also has an attrocious track record on civil liberties, while the other at least pays lip service to them - what he does on that front remains to be seen.

      All I'm saying is that there are differences. Kerry isn't great, but four more years of Bush will bury this nation.

      I can't take chances.

      As for the libertarian party: it's ideals are right wing in the classical sense of the term, not in the American sense of it. For one thing, any party that respects the separation between church and state is a pretty major departure from the current "right wing" in the form of the Republicans. Basically, your party is not taking many votes from the Republicans. You have more in common with Democrats.

    2. Re:(OT)Badnarik by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I've seen what four years of Bush is like, and I don't want any more. I haven't seen anything to suggest that four years of Kerry will be worse. Sure, he's not my ideal candidate, but everything suggests he'll at least be better than Bush. Just getting Ashcroft out of power would be a major improvement.

      The American "right wing" is basically a bunch of religious fundamentalists combined with a bunch of corrupt corporate executives who want to eliminate the middle class so they can be richer. If you want tax breaks for the extremely wealthy (trickle-down economics), laws mandating fundamentalist Christianity, laws mandating a specific code of morals, and no representation for the majority of the population, then the Republicans are your party. If you want anything other than this, the Democrats are your choice by default, thanks to the de facto two-party system.

    3. Re:(OT)Badnarik by jjhall · · Score: 1

      The Libertarian Party is a third party, however it will split the vote with the Democratic Party, thereby giving the Republican Party a win. The previous poster meant another third (4th?) party that will split the vote with the Republican Party, to make it more even.

      The way I see splitting the vote, it doesn't really matter all that much. As others have said, the Replubricrats are two sides of the same coin, so we will end up with one of them anyway. If one candidate gets the vote split by a large enough margin, maybe it will send a message to the two parties that they need to reform.

    4. Re:(OT)Badnarik by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Huh? Most libertarians tend to Republicanism, although the Republicans have been moving away for libertarianism and the Democrats closer to it. (I'd say Clinton and Kerry are closer than Mondale and McGovern were, for example.) The libs will probably be outvoted again, however, by the Nader supporters, who would mostly vote Democrat if Nader were not there.

      There does seem to be a recognition among those who would support Nader, however, that doing so just makes a second Bush term even more likely.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  287. My TV from the early 70s has no remote, only knobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... you insensitive clod!

    But at least it has color. :)

  288. Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by IBitOBear · · Score: 4, Informative

    [Aside: I ma not a car kid, and don't advocate "thump thump thump" but...]

    A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car still makes sense, it possibley makse *more* sense. It *is* classically (mis)understood that the down-force provided by a spoiler is to improve traction of "the drive wheels" to improve power delivery and prevent high-speed power skids.

    In point of fact, the typical modern car, is effectively a marginal lifting body (look it up, the air passing over the car goes further/faster and so the air passing under the car generates some lift). The name "spoiler" come from the fact that the airfoil "spoils" that lift.

    In all front-engine cars the front doesn't need a spoiler because the engine weight is sufficent to the task of maintainting contact. The back end is left to kite around.

    In a front wheel drive car, that lift is still present, and even if those rear wheels are not doing anything to make the car go faster, they *are* important to keeping the car under control. If you don't beleive you need the back end to control your movements, I recommend having a rear tire seize-up on you some time. It can be _very_ enlightening... 8-)

    In fact, in a front wheel drive car, there is so _little_ weight in the back that the tendency to "lose the back end" while cornering at speed is rather increased. A rear spoiler combats that lack of weight and improves the manuverability of the speeding car.

    So don't laugh. The rear spoiler is actually slightly *more* important on a front wheel drive car.

    With a rear-wheel drive car it helps you accelerate when you are already going fast. With a front wheel drive car, it keeps you from experiencing a catstrophic loss of control at high speed.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by zaffir · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, in a front wheel drive car, there is so _little_ weight in the back that the tendency to "lose the back end" while cornering at speed is rather increased. A rear spoiler combats that lack of weight and improves the manuverability of the speeding car.

      Incorrect. The only time your rear end will break loose in a corner in a normal FWD car is if you are braking as you begin the turn, moving all weight from the rear wheels and loading up the front outside tire. If that happens you need driving lessons, not a spoiler. In a situation like that, you just get on the gas and you'll put a stop to your oversteer right-quick.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    2. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by pchan- · · Score: 2, Informative

      you're new to driving, aren't you?

      in a rear-wheel drive car (especially a powerful one), when you turn fast, your car tends to oversteer (towards losing the back end) when you step on the gas. the spoiler helps you with traction to the rear wheels to keep the back end in line.
      on a front-wheel drive car, the car understeers when you step on the gas. having the back end want to come out a little when you're turning would actually help you make faster turns! the spoiler reduces this tendency, effectively reducing your cornering ability. the larger size rear wheels that you mentioned add weight to the rear of the car, again making up for the oversteer tendencies. a spoiler will not accomplish this.

      there's nothing more funny than a civic with a giant wing on the back. it's a clear way to identify that the owner is, in fact, an idiot.

    3. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      there's nothing more funny than a civic with a giant wing on the back. it's a clear way to identify that the owner is, in fact, an idiot


      You are assuming the owner put the giant wing on in a misguided attempt to make his car perform better. It's possible that the owner doesn't care about performance, but rather just likes the way it looks.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car still makes sense, it possibley makse *more* sense.


      If BMW M5 or Audi RS6 don't need humungous wings, I fail to see why some ricer needs one in his econobox-Civic. So to comment on your post: those wings DO NOT make any sense! Formula 1-car might need one, but those ricers sure as hell don't NEED one! Their cars are not going to get even close to speeds where that wing would have any meaningful impact. And since those wings are just slapped on the car, it's questionable that do they provide any advantages at all, even at high speeds.

      If REAL performance-cars can manage just fine without humungous wings, why do those Civics need one?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    5. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by pmiller396 · · Score: 1

      jeez, okay, but can I still make fun of front wheel drive cars with snow tires in the back?

    6. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by Somegeek · · Score: 1
      Both of those cars are in street trim. When they go racing, you can be sure that they are properly equipped, including large spoilers.

      http://www.rfmsports.com/SWC/Photos/RS6_RB_3.JPG

      http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/m3gtr_4.jpg

      (Ok, it's an M3 - I couldn't find any evidence that anyone seriously races a modern M5 - which is kind of sad. But also consider that the new M5 has underbody aerodynamics and a rear diffuser to combat rear lift, so in essence it does have a rear wing, its just hidden underneath the car, not something that can be easily re-engineered onto a car.)

      On your other points, no one 'needs' anything other than maybe a pure utility vehicle. So as long as we are allowing people to choose their own vehicles, why not allow them to make their own choices in how to modify them as well? Does putting neon in a computer case make it run any faster? It's not a matter of need, or even of function, - it's individual taste, whether you or I like it or not.

      Also, I don't know what you consider 'high speed', but wings can be effective at as little as 60mph. I agree that most probably don't do anything, at any speed.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    7. Re:Reare Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Both of those cars are in street trim. When they go racing, you can be sure that they are properly equipped, including large spoilers.


      And those Civics with huge wings are not driven on racetracks, but on ordinary streets. So what's your point?

      why not allow them to make their own choices in how to modify them as well?


      Of course they are allowed to put those wings on their cars. Just like rest of us are allowed to comment on them. And I merely pointed out that the "Those wings make the cars handle better! They are needed!"-comments are utter bullshit. If BMW M5 doesn't need one, Honda Civic sure as hell doesn't need one!

      Does putting neon in a computer case make it run any faster?


      No. And people are free to do so. And other people are free to say that it looks stupid (and it does). So what's your point?

      Also, I don't know what you consider 'high speed', but wings can be effective at as little as 60mph.


      Yeah, they propably drag down the vehicle, reducing it's top-speed and acceleration while having neglible effect on it's handling.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  289. HP Programmable Calculator by hovermike · · Score: 1

    Nerd timewarp to 1992: Anyone still have the program source that allows you to turn your HP48 calculator into a remote control (Need to have the IR link port)? I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to modify that source to iterate through known codes...

  290. Once upon a time there was a geek who turned off.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time there was a geek who turned off all the TVs in a crowded bar.

    The End.

  291. Re:I'll push your buttons. by legirons · · Score: 1

    "You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you."

    Hmm, that reminds me of a theme from some sort of novel. A classic novel, I think. Can't remember the title though.

    Good Citizen. Listen to the televisions.

  292. Something you can do right now... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I certainly loathe televisions on in restaurants. They're becoming pervasive in mid-level restaurants; apparently as a society we're too stupid to have a peaceful dinner chatting without companions. I say this as a Tivo loving TV addict. I like TV, but can do without the constant bombardment (especially since the televisions in restaurants are usually showing crap I have no interest in). It's one thing for a sports bar to have televisions, another for a 10 table restaurant charging $15 a plate for dinner with only a token bar area to have 8 televisions.

    Thus, I'll admit a certain appeal to such a device.

    But I have to be honest, it's the wrong solution. The restaurant in question wants the television to be there. The real solution is to let the restaurant know that you like the restaurant, you like the food, but you don't like the televisions. Ask to have the ones in your line of sight turned off (especially if the screens in question are obviously unused. Do you really need 5 TVs on when there are only two tables of guests?). Suggest that you'd like the number of televisions reduced. Suggest having seating out of the line of sight of the screens.

    Regrettably much like smoking this is a situation where restaurants have incentive to cater to a sub-market. The larger market is willing to suffer something they dislike but the smaller market demands it. You can legislate smoking (especially given the health impacts on employees), but you'd be hard pressed to do so for televisions. Do what you can to encourage your local restaurants to reduce or remove the screens and patronise those that try to serve you.

    So even if it becomes available I resist buying such a device. Much like my dreamed of car-audio-disabler to turn off steroes in cars that go BOOM-BOOM-BOOM down my residential neighborhood at 3AM, vigilante justice is the wrong answer.

  293. Re:How about "LASER" Max Volume? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Mod it with a high-output IR laser diode, and pump up the volume for an entire apartment building by spraying the windows with on/max volume codes. At 3 am.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  294. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was a time when the lowest common denominator of social behaviour was to be unimposing on the people around you. You would be polite and courteous to those around you.

    Now the lowest common denominator of social behaviour is to be tolerant, no matter how horrible the people around you are. We all must tolerate them and not interfere with the activities of those around us. From screaming children, screaming adults, overwhelming perfumes, body odour, aggressive dogs, swearing, public harassment of hapless victims around them, loud stereos, late night parties, we must tolerate them.

    The result is that the greatest asshole reaps the greatest bennefit. The people who do not value peace and quiet are never for want. Those who do not like it, have to distance themselves from the greatest assholes, leaving public spaces full of the most horrible people immaginable.

    If somebody asked me to turn off a T.V. in a public place, I would be embarassed that I was disturbing them and I would turn it down or off right away. It's a public space after all, not my living room.

  295. Re:I'll push your buttons. by skavj_binsk · · Score: 1
    You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you. Don't believe me? Come over to my house and try to turn off the TV and I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity.

    Dear NitroWolf,

    I'm hereby forcing my will upon you by telling you that you are misusing the word "hubris." I also feel it's my duty to inform you that it's generally best to use words you know, so you don't seem like a fool while typing words in all caps and threatening people over the internet. Please don't beat me up with your baseball bat, you big tough internet pirate!

    Love, Skavj

  296. Perfect device... by stephanruby · · Score: 1
    This is the perfect device for someone who's afraid to ask the restaurant manager to turn off the TV or change the channel. Come on, you can admit, this is the real reason some of you think this device is cool.

    As to the airport excuse, it's pretty lame. I've been to most airports in the World and there was always a place I could sit where I didn't have to listen to their television. The only exception was a couple of subway lines in Tokyo, but that's not an airport, and those LCD screens didn't even have infrared receivers -- so they don't count. Anyway, if you do decide to keep this device on your person after you pass security, good luck explaining its function to the security checkpoint screener. I'm sure he'll understand, those people are very understanding...

  297. Not really by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    If the transmitter is powerful enough, the signal will bounce off of objects in the room quite readily.

    I routinely use the remote for my MythTV setup while pointed almost exactly AWAY from the IR sensor. (Specifically, pointed nearly straight upwards, bouncing off the ceiling before hitting the sensor on the desk in front of me.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  298. Worse than the Laser craze of the late 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to provide every asshole out there with yet another way to annoy people to no end. Somebody should come up with a device to jam this device.

    1. Re:Worse than the Laser craze of the late 90's by narcc · · Score: 1

      Then I'll just invent a device to jam the device thats jamming my device!

  299. Re:I'll push your buttons. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    The result is that the greatest asshole reaps the greatest bennefit. The people who do not value peace and quiet are never for want. Those who do not like it, have to distance themselves from the greatest assholes, leaving public spaces full of the most horrible people immaginable.

    amen, I say AMEN, brother. The only problem is, we are rapidly running out of peaceful places to go. I only venture forth from my cave when absolutely necessary: to go to work, pick the kids up from school, buy groceries. I don't go out for fun anymore, because I always have to share my fun with 50-10,000 other individuals who smoke, throw trash everywhere, scream and yell, pick fights, leave their cell-phones on, bring their dog that defecates all over the place, you name it, whether I'm at at the beach or the public library. The crowds have ruined everything.

  300. Oh man I hate speed bumps! by asoap · · Score: 1
    I will admit it. I drive an integra, and I lowered it using a set of TEIN basic coil overs. TEIN is a japanese company that only makes suspension pieces, and when you buy there product you buy a product that you know has been extensively tested and engineered. So basically what I'm saying is that I spent a lot of money to lower my car and now it handles amaizingly well.

    It makes the car a lot of fun, although you have to be carefull and choose where you want to have fun. Late at night, on non-busy roads. Or in areas where there will be a very little chance of a pedestrian walking on the street, and especially no blind corners.

    Anyway, I went on a tangent there. Speed bumps are designed to slow you down. If I drive over them at any high speed there is a chance that I can bottom out my car, and scrape the under carrage. So if they are designed to slow you down , and I have to go slow over them, I could care less about the people waiting behind me. I have every right to lower my car, so if they want to complain, complain to the ass that put the speed bump there. I'll complain with them.

    Personally I think all speed bumps should be removed. Anybody that drives around a school or shopping mall parking lot at a high speed is a moron, and should be heavily fined, along with the morons blasting the radio on rural streets at night. Also I think that dogs that are outside and bark all night should be simply killed, if they are repeat offenders.

    -Derek

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
    1. Re:Oh man I hate speed bumps! by Drew84 · · Score: 0

      Personally I think all speed bumps should be removed. Anybody that drives around a school or shopping mall parking lot at a high speed is a moron, and should be heavily fined, along with the morons blasting the radio on rural streets at night.

      Personally, I see nothing wrong with blasting the stereo on rural streets, its on the urban streets, like mine that i have the problem.
      Drew84

    2. Re:Oh man I hate speed bumps! by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Personally I think all speed bumps should be removed. Anybody that drives around a school or shopping mall parking lot at a high speed is a moron, and should be heavily fined, along with the morons blasting the radio on rural streets at night. Also I think that dogs that are outside and bark all night should be simply killed, if they are repeat offenders.

      That's all very smart and enlightened sounding, but misses a very important point. There _ARE_ morons in the world. Removing the speed bump won't make someone say "Hey... Driving fast here makes me a moron! I shouldn't do it." No... By definition, a moron does not know that (s)he is one. Therefore, if you remove the speed bump and don't force the morons (whom you just _KNOW_ are there) to slow down, you end up having little kids getting hurt. The speed bump isn't there for the benefit or ammusement of the driver, but for the safety of the pedestrian.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
  301. oh, wiring them up is fine by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    So long as you don't blast that music out in public where other people have to hear it. If you're wiring it up for fun, and only playing it at those volumes on large tracts of private land you own, then I'm all for it. But if you're playing it outside my goddamn apartment at 3am, I disapprove.

  302. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

    How did a PRIVATELY OWNED establishment suddenly become a public place? If your neighborhood park had some TVs going full bore you MIGHT have a valid point. If the OWNER of some place decides that (s)he wants to have TVs going in THEIR establishment, maybe you should ask them to turn it down/off. Maybe MOST of the clientel WANT it ON?

    Also, if it was a publiclt owned facility and the marjority of constiuents WANTED a TV being played there, and there wasn't any techinical reason that made it unfeasible, why should they have to accede to the demands of the vocal minority?

  303. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by Chapium · · Score: 0

    Instead of equiping people with decibalmeters, why not just do what our town does: If the cop can hear your car stereo from 15 yards away, you get ticketed. Quite simple actually.

  304. how so? by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm merely broadcasting RF signals. If the TV owner doesn't wish to accept "turn off" signals from any arbitrary passerby, he ought to have a TV that only accepts authorized signals. Since he accepts all signals, I assume he intends anyone with a remote to be able to control the TV!

  305. Oh man I hate dumbasses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could care less about the people waiting behind me. I have every right to lower my car, so if they want to complain, complain to the ass that put the speed bump there.

    No, I'll complain to the ass that modified his car so that it becomes incapable of navigating common traffic obstacles.

    Personally I think all speed bumps should be removed. Anybody that drives around a school or shopping mall parking lot at a high speed is a moron, and should be heavily fined

    Would that be before or after they drive over the top of somebody? Or, more realistically, would that be before or after they grind somebody into hamburger because their car is too low to actually drive over anything larger than a grain of sand?

    Yippee for you - you bought an overpriced Honda, spent more money making it less useful and somehow think that the inconvenience that you're causing to the rest of us is somebody else's fault. Catch a clue, Chester, it's all your fault. Lump yourself in with the morons and the asses that you complained about.

  306. but we do have those by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    There's laws against spam in some jurisdictions, and you can sue people, shutting down their SMTP servers.

    1. Re:but we do have those by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      There's laws against spam in some jurisdictions, and you can sue people, shutting down their SMTP servers.

      I know I will be waiting with baited breath for the court decision so I can use my TV-B-Gone to turn off the TV at the local pub.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  307. Re:I'll push your buttons. by GimmeFuel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I pay taxes to build prisons. Therefore, if I want to, I can go into the prison and set all the murderers and rapists free.

  308. Re:INFORMATION???!! Yes, it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    information: Any communication or representation of knowledge, such as facts, data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms.

    Just because you find it to be "maddeningly stupid crap" doesn't mean it's not information.

  309. Pushy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Wow, that's SOOOO cheeky... and SOOO unstoppable.

  310. OT: Re:This is the height of pathetic victim menta by jsebrech · · Score: 1

    I would define a religion as a world view that includes some form of supernatural entity; but that's really just semantics. The definition that interest me is your definition of the word "God". Most "beleivers" I have asked about this are unable or unwilling to provide a definition, which makes any discussion of whether God exists pretty pointless. So if you can tell me what "God" means, I'll tell you if I'm an Atheist. (if you care)

    religion:
    Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

    atheism:
    The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

    So, you're an atheist if you believe there is no God. Atheism is a belief, but not a religion, though one might classify it as a faith (as in "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.").

    Someone who truly does not believe in the existance or non-existance of a god is agnostic, as in "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

    And then you have the deists, those who believe in a God, but can't label any specifics, and believe that this God doesn't play an active role in the world anymore.

  311. Re:I'll push your buttons. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are so many posts saying the same thing --- "What gives you the right?" I'll just pick yours ;)

    First of all, you are correct. No one has "the right" to turn off someone else's T.V. set. Just like no one has "the right" to bring their dog to the park to take a shit and leave the mess, along with 50 other pet owners. But it happens all the same.

    No one gives inconsiderate cell-phone users "the right" to yap on it in the library where I'm reading a book. But it happens all the same.

    No one gives people "the right" to break bottles and leave shards of glass strewn all over the beach. But it happens all the same.

    Need I go on? This talk of "rights" is pointless. It's all about whose ox is being gored. I also am frustrated with the growing level of rudeness, noise, and inconsideration I encounter from hour to hour. If I can use some type of hidden device to, how shall I say it, "get even", then so be it. Sure I don't have "the right" --- but so what? If everyone else can have their "entertainment", then so can I.

    Incidentally, as regards your comment about what the vast majority are fine with --- the vast majority are probably fine with smoking marijuana and driving 90 m.p.h. on the highway. But just let the cops catch you doing it.

  312. Some people think I'm smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mom thought I was plenty smart when I was banging her last night. Although she does have a hairy back.

  313. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by rworne · · Score: 1

    Not to mention some of the people driving the insanely loud booming cars are wearing earplugs.

    Yup, I could not believe it when I first saw it either.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  314. Imposing beliefs by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    I want a picture of this "inventor" guy so I can snatch a magazine out of his hands at an airport or crank up a boombox next to his table at a restaurant, thus freeing him to sit in silence and think about his navel. Just another example of someone who knows what's good for me better than I do and feels the need to impose his beliefs on me.

    Wait a minute, I thought that was the problem that this is supposed to solve...

    Imposing one's beliefs upon others is the cause of--and solution to--all life's problems.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  315. The question is by StM.Rawder · · Score: 0

    Do you have a right to turn off a TV that is in a place that is not owned/managed by you whether public or private? No.

    Does a buisness/private airport/etc. owner have the right to place an entire wall of TV's blaring re-runs of the 700club continuously in his/her facility? Yes.

    Does a manager of a public utility/transportation/taxpayer_funded_thingy have the right to place an entire wall of TV's blaring cheap household cleaner ad's continuously in his/her facility? Yes.

    Personally I despise advertising in almost any form, as It is an emotional tool designed to disrupt the logic of the weak minded long enough to help them spend their money. Good thing for me I dont have to watch TV. I wont turn it off for you though; and I could turn it off, oh yes. Duct tape over the IR or different codes /power_bit would not stop me if I wished to turn off a public TV. But the point is I would not turn off the TV in my own house if you wanted to watch it, why would you turn off a TV that someone may be watching? r00d!

    --

    ---
    My sig was stolen - the insurance company replaced it with this one.
  316. 850+ comments ... by Simulant · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...of righteous indignation over televisions being turned off.

    We are well and truly fucked folks.

  317. What courtesy are you providing again? by twitter · · Score: 1
    I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me.

    Except when you tell me:

    DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT.

    I would avoid the airport if I thought it was really full of morons such as yourself. Thankfully, people like you who accept whatever is pushed on them are a minority.

    So you think you own the airport, eh? I suppose you think it's all fine and dandy to fill the airport with porn, if that's what you like. No thanks. I'll be one of those people turning those stupid TVs off till they decide to take them away and quit annoying people with them.

    Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?

    That's the female bow of submission, right?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  318. They really need to get the word out. by xjosh · · Score: 1

    I never knew that there was actually such a week on the calendar.

    Maybe they need a more effective way to reach people about this, like a TV commercial would be perfect.

  319. You need to visit the wrong airport to understand. by twitter · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you're annoyed by it, try to find a place to sit such that it isn't a problem ... If you can't [tune the TV out], perhaps that's your problem?

    There are some airports where there is no place to escape. The whole reason the TVs are there is because some marketing genius thought they had a "captive audience" and sold it to someone with more money than sense. Every single gate has two or three with the volume cranked so high that you can't hear actual airport announcements.

    It could be my problem, but now there's a way to remove the root cause, I could care less. I have no fear that those who really want to watch TV will not be disturbed when I wander across the way to an unused gate and kill the TV there. Chances are that they won't notice. TV is designed intentionally to disturb and grab your attention, it's obnoxious by design. This little button will get rid of one or two and make my life and that of others much better.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  320. Hey dumbass by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Most airports are owned by a city or municipality. *YOU* (as an individual) don't own shit.

    If you don't want the TV, then follow the proper procedures to have them removed from each and every airport in the country. Vote, petition, elect a new board -- whatever the mechanism is in your locale.

    Either way, since you don't own shit, you *don't* have the right to turn it off at your will.

  321. Re:Don't stop at just a power button.. Would that by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    blast in the ass be a...

    BLAST from the PASSED?

    DOH!@!!!#@#

    Imagine the ass-end of that car going end over end and the sub-woofs flying out the trunk. Talk about "CRY WOOF, Try not to HURry..."

    Imagine the nose end be 90-degree bent to the firewall..

    If only it were possible to (un)sympathetic(ally) detonate those cars from a few feet away... talk about a:

    "BOOM box" heheheh....

    Imagine a drive-in full of them, or a tow yard full of them, energized, rarin' and blarin' to go... How far could they be heard? Would they sound like a bad high school metal band? Would that "heavy metal" be "Death Metal"? Or, um, "Death Al-you-mini-uhm?" DOH!

    The ones I can't stand are those with that long, undulating, bwooombp, bwooombp, rolling their asses up like some freeze-frame/slo-mo death probe out of Six-Million Dollar Man. Fuckers... messin' with my heart beat.

    I am surprise the welds don't come loose from some of those cars. But, I like imports. And, don't forget, if "Rice burner" cars come from Asia, then American cars must be "barley burners" or something.

    Now, if only you can remotely adjust their sub-woof to interfere with the driver's heart rhythm (at a red light or when he/she/it's parked) while leaving the bwooombpf intact.. and then call the cops on them... If they live, they'll truly have a:

    "cardiac arrest" and a

    "heart attack"

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  322. Mod parent up by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

    He's dead on!

  323. Murder rate by tacokill · · Score: 1

    No, just add one. I think his ID was 81821. :-)

  324. Re:I'll push your buttons. by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's the part of the arguement I don't understand from all the people who are arguing the "this is a great idea!" side of the debate.

    Somehow their right to turn the TV off trumps my right to watch. Not on your life.

    Now, their right to "not watch"? That's different. They can exercise that right to their heart's content - as long as it doesn't interfere with mine. They can leave. They can close their eyes. They can turn their head. Any number of things ... but no, their arguements all boil down to something like "you can't tell me what to watch but I can tell you what you can't watch" ... as they hold their breath until they turn blue in the face and fall on the floor kicking and pounding their tiny little fists.

    The mind boggles at the logic.

    --
    Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
    "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
  325. Obligatory Futurama Quote Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Made all the more funny by your sig...

    It's a quote from Futurama episode,
    Bender Should Not Be Allowed On TV:

    Bender: Listen up, 'cause I've got a climactic speech! You, cameraman, keep the camera rolling. You, director, gimmie my motivation.
    Director: You're angry.
    Bender: Perfect. [He turns to the camera.] Viewers of the world, do smoking and drinking on TV really make me cool? Of course they do. [He blows some cigar smoke.] How 'bout committing crimes and violence? Again, the answer is "yes." But do we really want our kids exposed to that kind of trash on TV? I say absolutely not! [He accidentally fires Farnsworth's laser and a laser bolt flies over Farnsworth's head, narrowly missing him. Bender clears his throat in embarrassment.] Uh...on the other hand, most - perhaps all the blame rests with the parents. That's right you! [He points his firearms at the Fathers Against Rude Television (FART) mob and they gasp and duck.] And so I ask you this one question: Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?
    Hermes: (ashamed) We're just so busy.
    Bender: Well make time.
    Director: And...cut!
    [Calculon applauds.]
    [...]
    Hermes: Well, I'd say we all learned a valuable lesson about TV there.
    Cubert: What was it?
    Farnsworth: Uh...that we should all take TV a little less seriously. And more importantly, turn it off once in a while.
    Fry: Hear hear!
    Leela: Yeah!
    Bender: Damn right!
    Dwight: So, should we turn it off now?
    Farnsworth: Well, uh, that depends what's on.
    [Fry flicks through the channels with the remote.]
    Fry: Nothing good.
    Farnsworth: Ah let's just keep watching.
    [They all turn back to the screen and watch Everybody Loves Hypno-Toad.]

    (source)

  326. Re:I'll push your buttons. by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

    You're obviously one of the crowd the parent poster talks about.

    Here, I'll define it for you: A "Public Place", in this usage, constitutes a privately owned, yet accessible to the public establishment. Call them "restaurants", if that makes it easier for you.

    Unfortunately, it's people just like you and your ilk that have brought our society to the sickening state that exists today. No longer do we worry about how we're perceived by others, in order to be the least obtrusive and rude - some of you actively strive to inflict your habits, attitudes, and morals onto the rest of us.

    When Mommy and Daddy let the kids run amok, I have no qualms about giving my check to those parents. I didn't come here to see your children, hear your kids scream, or have to watch my elbows as they run around, or watch my feet as they climb under the table.

    When Mommy and Daddy and Preteen Daughter get into a screaming match, I'll politely ask them to either wait until they get home to finish, take the discussion outside, or they can also pay my check.

    I, for one, am sick and fucking tired of asshat, irresponsible, foolish overgrown children such as yourself that believe "My Personal Freedoms" extend to being a cockbag to everyone around you. Your freedoms end at the end of your nose. Mine begin at the end of mine. The space in between is for peaceful mingling, not for fools like you and your breed.

  327. Re:Why the hardware? Palm, etc... by jollespm · · Score: 1

    The Sony Clie PEG-T615C has a pretty good IR transmitter. By pretty good I mean sitting on the couch watching TV (10-15ft). It also came with Clie RMC which allowed you to set up many different devices and control pretty much all functionality. It also has many maufacturers settings coded in, sometimes just takes a bit of searching to find the right one.

    It won't do macros and it can't be programmed. All in all usefull, but won't take the place of any universal remote.

  328. Oh great by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    The laser pointer of the 21st century.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  329. Re:You need to visit the wrong airport to understa by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

    And the person who wants to be distracted by the TV to avoid thinking about his miserable life on the road, never seeing his family? When he arrives at said gate, and the TV is off, and he has no mechanism to turn it back on?

    Explain to me how his life is better again, please, I'm missing it.

    Oh wait, you don't care about him because your right to not have the TV on [which you admit is at some other gate that you're not even using] is somehow more important than his right to have it on?

    sociopath? No, that's not it.
    malaprope? No, that's not it either.
    What would be the appropriate word for someone who so obviously scorns and disdains their fellow man? ....

    --
    Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
    "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
  330. Doh! We did it again... by jedaustin · · Score: 1

    Sorry, this site is temporary unavailable.
    [ Daily Bandwidth Limit Exceeded ]
    PowWeb Hosting offers 5Gb of BandWidth a Day!

  331. Remote control & Football & competition by IDoNotGamble · · Score: 1

    This is perrfect to be in a bar on NFL Sunday, and turn off TV frequently to piss off the frunken dickheads football fans. Works even better if you own another bar down the street.

    --
    Give the man a fish and he owes you one fish, teach the man to fish and you have just lost your fishing monopoly.
  332. Re:Bad idea. Wrong idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're right. It's not similar at all. A TV is worse by far. It turns your brain into a pile of garbage. I used to watch loads of TV. I also used to want to kill myself. I stopped watching TV for some reason and voila, I no longer want to kill myself.
    Well, there are still times when I walk by some newsstand where it says "Big Brother-Linda has supersized her breasts, AGAIN", or when reading some of the comments in this thread, but on avarage I'm a very happy guy since I stopped watching TV.

  333. Re:How about "LASER" Max Volume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lasers don't make very good remotes.

    IR LEDs light up a wide area so you don't have to worry about aiming *directly* at the TV's IR sensor.

    Try hitting the sensor (finding it first) with a visible laser. You'll have to hold your hand steady while the code is transmitted (~200ms).

    Now try that with an IR laser that you can't see... you haven't got a chance of hitting it.

  334. I wake my Mac with it's one buttoned mouse! by j0kkk3l · · Score: 1

    I wake my Mac with it's one buttoned mouse! There you see! No more ranting about one button devices on slashdot. Peace.

  335. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Aldric · · Score: 1

    If you object to a restaurant owner having a TV on, perhaps you should simply go somewhere else that doesn;t have one. God I hate wankers like you - self rightous little pricks that believe everyone should pander to you.

  336. Hmm... by cayce · · Score: 1

    TV's normally use the same signal either to turn off or on. TV sets are capable of understanding more than one single set of codes (some TV even listen to almost all the codes belonging to its brand). If you cycle thru all the known codes for "ON/OFF" certainly you could send more than one "ON/OFF" signal to the TV set, therefore turning it OFF then ON.

    There's also hundreds of known codes, cycling thru all of them will certainly take long time. IR communications are certainly very slow.

    Now, using a microcontroller to create something like this is pretty easy. Check the one this guy designed: http://www.webelectricmagazine.com/99/2/uirr.htm

  337. we could wander in the garden of eden baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we could wander in the garden of eden baby
    we could anything tonight, maybe
    we could even touch the sky
    if we just get up on our feet and try
    we could wander in the garden of eden baby
    will you settle for the bull's run
    for the second best of fun
    for the fire of a handgun
    burns brighter than the sun
    any colour you like as long as it's black
    you have anything if you just give it back
    you could be a celebrity like me
    it won't change anything as you will see
    any colour you like as long as it's black

    - Brighter than the Sun
    - Tiamat

  338. Perfect! by MutantHamster · · Score: 1

    It's like a gun that kills TVs instead of people! Once again the day is saved by guns!

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
  339. Being annoying is fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of trying to justify the "rightness" of such a tool, why not revel in the fact that you can go around annoying people? If I were 10 years younger, I'd take one of these gadgets to a sports bar concealed in my clothes and shut the tv off just as an important play is concluded.

  340. Re:I'll push your buttons. by starling · · Score: 1

    Good point. A better invention would be a universal "mute and turn on subtitles" control.

  341. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by OnanTheBarbarian · · Score: 1

    Absolutely correct. It frustrates me that the police do nothing, but then they're under-funded and over-worked in this town and have more important things to do.

    They should just be able to hand out a small, 'nuisance' ticket that is far more trouble to fight than just pay. Blast your stereo, pay $10. Rinse, repeat, until your car gets repossessed.

  342. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by Goonie · · Score: 1

    Surely you're not taking the nuisance seriously enough. Wouldn't this be more proportionate to the annoyance caused? It worked for Michael Douglas in Falling Down...

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  343. For kicks by Hodgedog · · Score: 0

    Noones talking much about the 'fun' factor :) That why most people will buy it. Not because their personal bubble has been invaded. Its because theyll get a reaction.

  344. Doesn't matter... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    ...in Soviet Russia the TV turns you off!

  345. Hypothetical Situation by Nurgled · · Score: 1

    Imagine that I am watching television. (It doesn't happen often, but this is hypothetical.) You and a friend sit down next to me and have a conversation which distracts me from the television. Clearly, your conversation is going to bother me. Who is in the wrong here?

    1. Re:Hypothetical Situation by khallow · · Score: 1
      Imagine that I am watching television. (It doesn't happen often, but this is hypothetical.) You and a friend sit down next to me and have a conversation which distracts me from the television. Clearly, your conversation is going to bother me. Who is in the wrong here?

      Assuming no other circumstances, we are for interupting an existing activity. The prior author's point is that turning the TV on is one of the more disruptive activities one can do in a room of people and socially it's generally more permissable.

  346. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's a publicly-accessible privately-owned place. It is not a public place.

  347. I (obviously) disagree by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Informative

    Especially in street racing (which I don't do) any number of factors [porly crowned roads, inclined roads, surface irregularities, cross wind, moisture, botts-dots (the bumps installed in lane markers)] [and weight transfer for a down-shift can do as much to your composit vector as breaking] "threaten" traction. In a front wheel drive car there is nothing in the back end to mitigate any mistakes or environmental influences.

    If someone is stupid enough to drive their car near the limits on a public street, we _ALL_ need any edge they can manufacture. It goes without saying that these people need driving lessons, elsewise they wouldn't think to drive so fast and irresponsible. That is just as true for the people who _don't_ think they will break traction on... (hint hint hint...)

    I think *most* street mods are pretty dumb. Putting a spoiler on the back of a front-wheel drive car is far-and-away more useful than, say, putting spoked-rim low-profile tires on a Land Rover (there is one of these around here, looks like the thing is on bycicle tires... surreal... 8-); or "lowering" a four-by so that it will high-center on a speed bump or bottom-out on a driveway.

    The physics are simple, down-force equals stability. Flat undercarrage plus sloped roof equals lift. Spoiler useful at speed. Any car. Any design. Any powerplant. Heck, one of the reasons to "lift" the back end (the "it's faster because it's always going down hill" look) is to increase down-force and disrupt lift by creating a small low-pressure area under the chassis.

    This is physics, not technique. You know, "wind-tunnel 101". Good technique mitigates physics by understanding the limits and probable outcomes. But hedging the physics when possible isn't contraindicated by improved technique.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:I (obviously) disagree by aclarke · · Score: 1
      Hehe ... you'll love it if/when I get my 18-19" street rims for my '96 Discovery. My truck is lifted, beaten up and heavily off-roaded but my off-road tires make for a bit of a scary ride on the street. Not to mention being loud and gas-sucking. So a slightly larger set of rims and street tires would make sense.

      I do know exactly what you're saying though; just pointing myself out as the exception to the rule. I laugh at huge rims on SUVs as much as you do.

  348. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone else can have their "entertainment", then so can I.
    Then if I notice it and shoot you in the chest for my own "entertainment", you're okay with that, correct?

  349. Re:I'll push your buttons. by dubl-u · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of people like you, who think their way is the right way. I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?

    First off, I agree that if somebody is actually watching the TV, then turning it off is rude. I wouldn't do it. But a lot of times, TVs are just left on in public and semi-public spaces when nobody cares. Or even worse, when everybody present actively wants them off.

    And we are gradually realizing that television, although sometimes enjoyable, is not entirely benign. Scientific American published a fine article on the addictive potential of TV. It seems that TV, especially programs made with modern editing styles, trigger hardwired behavior to look at motion. It also appears to cause Attention Deficit Disorder in children. And everybody knows how distracting it can be, how it gets in the way of conversation.

    So to me, TV in public and semi-public spaces seems pretty analogous to smoking. Some people enjoy it, but the common mode of use means it bothers others. The big difference is that smoking requires an active smoker to do something every few minutes, whereas the TV runs until somebody actively turns it off.

    The question, then, is how to negotiate the use of common space. Everybody just wants to be let alone to do their thing, but some people feel that involves having a TV on, and others feel that involves having the TV off. Personally, I think the search for a simple, universal answer is a waste of time. As with smoking, I think the important thing is that people find an answer together, one that everybody can live with.

  350. Re:You need to visit the wrong airport to understa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TV is not the root cause. The people who set the volume too high or decided on the annoying programming are the root cause.

  351. Much more powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still think my EMP cannon is far supperior.

  352. What were _you_ reading? by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Where did I mention "larger size rear wheels"? What *are* you reading?

    I have yet to see rear wheels that are "enough larger" (heavy enough) to make up for the absence of a drive-shaft, rear differential, and rear axle.

    If you are on a nice track, or closed corse, and you aren't just some street-modded idiot, its fine to have a little rear-end slide-out helping you come around. Unfortunately these street modding idiots are driving around in real-world conditions with minimal training and they don't usually have the luxuary of knowing that they can freely slide their back end "just so" to help them get around a tight bend.

    In the real world, there are obsticals like, um, curbs and uneven pavement, debris on the shoulders, water, ice, oil deposits, mail boxes, children playing, soft shoulders, and regular people who are driving responsibly. All of these things can "complicate" evryone's day when a sloppy back-end comes a lolling on by.

    So a well-controlled slide-out will let you come around faster _IF_ you know what you are doing _AND_ you have the room. Meanwhile, a lack of down-force and an outside turn on a crowned road will lead you to visiting mister culvert-by-the-side-of-the-road more broad-sided than you may want.

    I used to live near just such a chump-trap.

    You also don't want to _see_ what happens when someone gets the benefit of your opportunity to "turn faster" when there is a one-inch seam at the edge of the pavement. It can be spectacular.

    Just as there are techniques for dealing with each kind of circumstance, there is good reason to want to stick the back end of a front wheel drive car right down to the road. Just because it's not the way *you* would do it doesn't mean its inappropriate to the experience the owner of the vehicle wants to produce.

    That winged civic is "no more an idiot" than any other modder. He's either done it for a reason or not, so he's not stupid or he is. It's not a A begets B certianty. It's just not the car *you* would want to take to *your* grave.

    Most of us wish you would all get a clue and stop making our roads any stupider than they already have to be.

    I get the same feeling seeing a spoiler on a front-wheel-drive street car that I get when I see a spoiler on a rear-wheel drive street car, or a super-charger: "Look, a Damn Fool with more Money than Brains."

    The FWD + spoiler or - spoiler debate is "vi vs emacs" for gear-heads... /sigh...

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:What were _you_ reading? by pchan- · · Score: 1

      wow, you took that much better than i thought. i was sure i was treading into flaimbait territory. i salute you.

      while i'm here, vi rules!

    2. Re:What were _you_ reading? by Sciflyer · · Score: 1

      Its all irrelevant anyway as unless our Civic driver takes 2nd-gear corners at like 100km/h that dumbass wing is making about as much downforce as my fingers on this keyboard.

      Im willing to bet most people would run out of driving talent long before their plastic addons actually achieve anything other than making them look like tryhards...

    3. Re:What were _you_ reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a spoiler can still be useful. Not to make your car look funny or to give you more downforce but to save fuel. Tests (unfortunately I don't have the references handy) have shown that some spoilers can reduce fuel usage by up to 6%, simply by the little improvement they give you in airflow. (Less turbulences behind the car = less being slowed down = less requirement for energy = less fuel usage)

  353. Re:I'll push your buttons. by CurbyKirby · · Score: 1

    I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity.

    In one sentence you threaten violence, call someone stupid, misspell stupidity, and misuse the term hubris. Your versatility is commendable. By the way, one who lacks hubris is characterized by humility and modesty.

    Doesn't it suck when you're insulting someone for stupidity and you make a mistke? =P

    --

    --
    "Extra Anus Kills Four-Legged Chick" -- Headline
  354. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Jerf · · Score: 1

    I pay taxes to build prisons. Therefore, if I want to, I can go into the prison and set all the murderers and rapists free.

    Actually, you do have that right, just one shared by the community. You can set criminals free by voting for people or policies that have that result.

    You can't do it unilaterally, but you can do it.

  355. right. by twitter · · Score: 1
    And the person who wants to be distracted by the TV to avoid thinking about his miserable life on the road, never seeing his family? When he arrives at said gate, and the TV is off, and he has no mechanism to turn it back on?

    Do you really think four hours of CNN will make anyone feel better? No, it's just repetitive, annoying bullshit. The person who has to listen to it the most is the one who wants it least.

    What would be the appropriate word for someone who so obviously scorns and disdains their fellow man?

    Troll?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:right. by kelnos · · Score: 1
      Do you really think four hours of CNN will make anyone feel better? No, it's just repetitive, annoying bullshit. The person who has to listen to it the most is the one who wants it least.
      that would be a value judgement, and a matter of personal taste. i personally have no desire to watch CNN for four hours, but you don't have the right to deny someone else the ability to do so if the TV's already on and that's what they want to do.
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  356. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like the airports have gotten there all on their own. What about airports/airlines that are heavily subsidized. Or with a government supported monopoly? Government land grants, development funding, tax breaks etc?
    These places are receiving lots of public funds to support themselves. It becomes less a company property and more a public space.

    Like scientific research for health drugs. Universities and researchers with public funding develop many initial and risky ideas, and when these ideas start to look like they are leading somewhere a drug company comes in, funds the rest of it and claims the entire right of production. And then spends as much again advertising it (in USA). And then they claim R&D is so expensive.

  357. Re:I'll push your buttons. by lew3004 · · Score: 1

    That is one of the most insightful posts I've read here; and I agree.

    --
    I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  358. You don't have the right to not be annoyed by siskbc · · Score: 1
    They can't just decide to do things that keep away a significant fraction of their customers.

    Agreed, in general, and if a TV was actually preventing someone from using the airport, that might stand. ADA rules come to mind. But simply annoying someone? Don't think so.

    Even if they were completely private businesses, there are still lots of things they cannot do. For example, even if you are the owner of a restaurant, you still may not be permitted to smoke on your premises during business hours.

    Sure, and I thought about that too. Difference is that TV's don't cause cancer (assuming you don't sleep next to one), emphysema, or many of the other maladies associated with smoking. Again, we're talking about something that's annoying, not dangerous.

    Let's reduce this to basic principals: are all public places prohibited from annoying all people who might enter them? I mean just consider that. It's ridiculous.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:You don't have the right to not be annoyed by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Let's reduce this to basic principals: are all public places prohibited from annoying all people who might enter them? I mean just consider that. It's ridiculous.

      Yes, let's. The basic principle that the parent post was trying to establish is that businesses can do what they want. I pointed out that no such principle exists: if someone makes a good case, a business like an airport can well be prohibited from blaring a TV at people.

      Obviously, nobody has yet made that case. But someone could. They could be because of ADA rules, or for many other reasons. People with ADD (attention deficit disorder), for example, are not just annoyed by television sets, they might come to harm because of them. Or we might start recognizing television for what it is: a dangerous drug that people should only be enjoying by themselves in the privacy of their own home, like smoking.

  359. anti-radar weapon by quenda · · Score: 1

    A magnetron focussed by satellite dish ...?

    Would one of these take out a Multanova speed-radar tax-machine? Safe to mount on my roof-rack?

  360. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by bryanp · · Score: 1

    Nah. Too flashy. Besides, I already own one like the one I linked to. It's a sweet shooter and the ammo's a lot cheaper than a LAW. ^_~

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  361. Re:I'll push your buttons. by kelnos · · Score: 1
    Need I go on? This talk of "rights" is pointless. It's all about whose ox is being gored. I also am frustrated with the growing level of rudeness, noise, and inconsideration I encounter from hour to hour. If I can use some type of hidden device to, how shall I say it, "get even", then so be it. Sure I don't have "the right" --- but so what? If everyone else can have their "entertainment", then so can I.
    so basically you're saying "if everyone else does annoying things, i deserve to be able to to get back at them." way to be a part of the problem, dude. how childish.
    Incidentally, as regards your comment about what the vast majority are fine with --- the vast majority are probably fine with smoking marijuana and driving 90 m.p.h. on the highway. But just let the cops catch you doing it.
    i never said we lived in a perfect society (hence my use of the word "should"). you advocate adding to the annoyances people face, which doesn't sound productive to me. at any rate, your two examples are unsupported by any evidence, and i wouldn't be surprised if the opposite were true. i'm fine with people smoking marijuana, but i'm not fine with just anybody driving 90 MPH on the highway. i've seen some good drivers doing it, and i've seen some bad ones (though arguably the speed isn't the problem, it's the lack of driver education).
    --
    Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  362. Wow, are YOU stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You internet tough guys are about the most pathetic fucking thing I have ever witnessed in my entire life.

    ...

    Whoever modded you insightful should be shot.

    Who are you, Captain Irony?!?
  363. Nobel Prize Now ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real candidate for the Nobel prize -
    Service to mankind and world peace
    Advancing science and education -

    Lets hope a gizmo for mobile phones that turns either them off, or puts them into silent mode comes along, optionally sets alarm to go off at 3am for bad cases.

  364. Sorry - you can't switch your wife off via IR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try being nice instead

  365. Re:You need to visit the wrong airport to understa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Chances are that they won't notice

    So what you're saying is that everyone at the airport except you is a retarded idiot who is unable to detect changes around them. Never mind the fact that they *might* be actually watching the TV, which you think is some evil construct design to annoy you and so should be eliminated. Right? So the TV is kind of like "Windoze" and "M$" to you, correct?

    That's grand - but I do think it's the other way around. Going through your posting history it's fairly obvious that you're just a sad, pompous antisocial humper with no tolerance towards those around you or anyone who doesn't happen to think exactly like you. I wonder how your family copes with you.

    What a waste of bandwidth and time.

    And no, I don't work for Microsoft, as you so intelligently claim about anyone who replies to you to point out how stupid your opinions are.

  366. NPR covered it on 19 Oct by CommandLineGuy · · Score: 1

    NPR already covered it.

    --
    [Of course it's client-server; it runs on a LAN]
  367. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    Another responder already said this, but since it was directed specifically at me, I'll add my bit...

    First off, if you don't like the fact that a "restaurant" owner has loud TVs, go elsewhere. If you have no qualms about asking someone else to pay for your meal because you were disturbed in a public place, I have no qualms about telling you to fuck off and go somewhere were everyone is quiet and reserved while they eat. I am sure Bush is having a fund raising dinner somewhere in your area.

    Second off, this discussion has NOTHING to do with cryng babies, arguing children, or what have you. I agree, that's generally rude and annoying. What we are talking about is a feature of the establishment that you don't like. Let's look at it like this, if you didn't like a places food, would you eat there? No, because it doesn't appeal to you. If you don't like TVs in restaurant, then see above.

    On a different analogy, if I think that people shouldn't drink alcohol in public because it makes them loud and obnoxious, should I be able to go into a bar and ask them to all stop drinking so I can enjoy my meal in peace? This is the same, a feature of the "public place" I am visiting is that they serve beer/wine/liquor/etc. and if I don't like that, I should go elsewhere, rather than bitch about it.

    I, for one, am sick and tired of people like YOU, who bitch and moan about things that OTHER people are ruining our society. We aren't talking about MY personal freedom, or YOUR's, we are talking about the proprietor of a private business being free to operate that business as they see fit. If they choose to have TVs playing in the establishment THEY OWN what makes you feel like you have a "Personal Freedom" to turn it off? The only "personal Freedom" of mine OR yours that enter into it is the one where we get to choose where to go. It's not like people are bringing TVs into places and making you listen to them.

    This is alot like smoking (albiet the effects on bystanders are much greater than smoking). In lots of places it is still legal to let people smoke in your restaurant/bar/whatever, however there's many, many places that DON'T allow it because there are enough people who prefer that sort of service to support a sub-class of 'non-smoking restaurants'. If there was more than a pissy, whiney, bitchy, spoiled, vocal minority of people who wanted TV free places to eat maybe someone could afford to open a TV free place for you to eat at. Maybe someone already has, and rather than bitch that I am eroding society because you CHOOSE to go to a place with a TV playing in it you could go eat there.

  368. Re: Loud/fast cars impose themselves on everyone a by SanGrail · · Score: 1

    Have you never lived in a city, or even crappy suburbs?

    I thought everyone was familiar with boy racers (30 years ago it was 'boy revvies'), with 'fast' cars (or crappy cars with deliberate holes in the muffler), and stupidly loud sound systems with bass that shakes everything around them even if you can't hear a word of of what it's playing, and revving up and down the street doing skids at @#$%#@ 2 in the morning.

    No?

    I guess you're just lucky then.

    Seeing as we have things like speed limits, and noise control, stupidly loud/fast cars aren't actually practical, but they're purchased by people who really just want to draw attention to themselves, go 'look at me', and get a nice little adrenaline boost at the expense of everyone else.

    As self declared driver of a fast car, maybe you aren't part of the problem, but I'm sure you're at least *familiar* with the mentality of many drivers like this.

    --
    ---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
  369. Hey... by ID000001 · · Score: 1

    Similar comment probably already been posted. But I like to point it out again. This gadget obviously intended as a semi joke. And perhaps actually carrying out a decent point. Don't think into it too much guys. :)

  370. See: Mobile Phone Jammers by gidds · · Score: 1
    Don't some of the same arguments apply to this as applied to mobile phone (cellphone) jamming devices in a recent story?

    If you don't like televisions being installed and turned on in places like reception areas, then do something constructive: complain to the management, for example. If enough people do this, then maybe they'll change their policy, and everyone will benefit. (And if not enough people do it, then maybe the majority prefer the TV, in which case you have arguably no right to deprive them.)

    Either way, using a 'jammer' like this may make you feel good, but it's likely to annoy people without achieving anything in the long term.

    Anyway, don't TVs have 'Off' switches these days?

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  371. Re:I'll push your buttons. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    Childish? Most of human behavior is childish --- from the kindergarten playground to the highest levels of academia, from the bedroom to the courtroom. Like it or not, it is a FUCK OR BE FUCKED world. Mountains of historical evidence support that statement.

    It is a given that most people are going to be screwed over by their neighbors, their government, their employers, and probably even some of their friends, lovers, and family. Moreover, 9 times out of 10, there ain't a goddamned mother fucking thing they can do about it. You see, that's the way the system is set up.

    So, if my choices are reduced to (1) eat shit, or (2) eat shit AND throw some back, I'll take the latter.

  372. Great for airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was at O'Hare recently looking up my flight on the departure monitors. Apparently they've now added a TV that does nothing but flash advertisements in a VERY BLARING fashion, to the point that it was hard to read the damn departure monitors.

    I was the only one standing there, so I turned it off, and felt like I did a public service by doing so. I've been trapped by too many blaring CNN Airport TVs to shed a tear for any of them getting turned off. Boo Hoo.

  373. Re:How about "LASER" Max Volume? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    If the beam is stong enough, spreading it a bit might help. (And attach a visible laser pointer to the side for aiming.)

    A trickier problem might be: how well does that IR frequency go through window glass?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  374. Re:I'll push your buttons. by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

    Actually, that was precisely the point I was making. It's becoming an environment where I *can't* do what you're suggesting. I do go 'somewhere else' when I can - unfortunately, it's people like you who assume since I'm not interested in overhearing their cell conversations, I must be a 'self righteous little prick'.

    You can buy me lunch anytime.

  375. Re:I'll push your buttons. by kelnos · · Score: 1

    damn, and i thought i was a die-hard cynic. really, if that's the way you think you have to look at the world, that's sad.

    --
    Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  376. Re:I'll push your buttons. by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

    Y'know, I had a real nice reply typed for this, and realized something: You're the kind of person that's always right, no matter what.

    I will say this, though: Fuck you and your presupposition of my social standing and political bent. You have no way of knowing, and your snide little political comment shines more light on the type of person you are. I'm sure your mother would be so proud if she knew the type of persona her offspring showed to the world at large. I'm sure when you go upstairs to her table for dinner, you're very polite to your mother, yes?

    Your post illustrates my point precisely. Thank you for continuing to be the LOUD ASSHAT that our society has learned to tolerate.

  377. Great now all we need is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cell phone B-Gone!

  378. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    Hahah. You're such a sad silly little man. You have to go attacking me personally when you realize that I am indeed, in this case, right.

    Just for the record, did I peg you correctly as a moral minority/religous right/Bush supporter type?

    Just face it, call me whatever names you want, and it doesn't make your position hold any more water. You want to impose your idea of what is right and polite on business ownwers and their customers because you CHOOSE to frequent places that have features/services that you dislike/disagree with.

    And you claim that I am the jackass?! I AGREED WITH YOU that loud PEOPLE and their CRYING BABIES are obnoxious and rude at 'public' places. That, however, has NOTHING TO DO with the subject at hand! You fail to make any comment on why I am wrong in this case. You just attack me at personal level, trying to make yourself feel superior. This reminds me very much of Hitler and the Jews! (There, I incurred Murphy's Law or whatever, by mentioning Hitler, so I lose, you win, take all the TVs out of EVERYWHERE in the whole world!!!!)

  379. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    How is this any different? So you're right not to here a TV in a public place is more important than an illiterate person's (or more likely someone too far away to read the captions) right to hear the program?

    The only option here is for you to ask the owner/manager to turn it done, or to simply not go places with services you don't like.

  380. Microprocessor design is overkill by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    You can program a serial EEPROM with all the codes, clock it with an oscillator, with the output driving an infrared LED (maybe through a transistor to give enough drive current). Have it power up once every few minutes, with cmos 555 timer and long r/c time constant. This thing could be squeezed onto probably a 1cm square PCB, and powered for hours or days by a couple of button cells. In quantity you can make each one cheap enough to leave in an innocuous place in your otherwise-favorite-restaurant-except-for-the-TV. It may take them hours or days to figure out they can put tape on the TV remote receiver sensor, and then hours more to find it on the front panel. Eventually, every restaurant will have masking or electrical tape over the remote sensor.

    The above text is for Entertainment Purposes Only, does not promote the making or use of any device, bla bla bla, etc. This text is not here just to cover my ass, please take it seriously. Your battery life may vary.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  381. Physics is not your friend my friend by irhtfp · · Score: 1
    I guess that might be true if you were riding your Harley at Mach 1 Sheesh, have you never heard a Harley coming down the street?

    Or maybe you were thinking the doppler shift would push the frequency above your threshhold of hearing...

    --
    I've made up my mind and now I've got to lie in it.
    1. Re:Physics is not your friend my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, maybe we have some crazy setup where exhaust is released BEHIND the bike instead of venting into the rider's face.

      Yes, sound projects all directions, but it's loudest from the rear. Cars do have some noise-shielding even with the windows down, so there really won't be much extra sound reaching the driver. If someone can't be bothered to look where they're going, they aren't going to hear either.

  382. Re:Someone better tell Audi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are incorrect.

    Case in point. The front wheel drive Audi TT. There was a major recall in Europe due to the lifting body aspects of the old shape.

    Various accidents occured due to instability at high speed. (Autobahn 200km/h+)

    This was primarially fixed by the addition of a small spoiler at the rear of the vehicle, and via the addition of an electronic stability system (utilising the ABS components).

    If you have never experienced rear end stability in a FWD vehicle, you have not been fast enough in a spolier less (or non-functional) car.

    As for spoilers helping RWD traction, this is a secondary effect, the primary effect (even in F1 and Indycar) is to provide stability to the vehicle at speed. Even on large spoiler areas they do very little below 100km/h. (Consider though, that a second gear (out of 7) corner in F1 is taken at upwards of 90km/h.)

  383. Re:How about "LASER" Max Volume? by irving47 · · Score: 1

    I've seen a site where a guy did that. Apparently, it worked pretty well. The beam divergence and unavoidable refraction makes it easy for the light to be seen by the IR sensor.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  384. How about not having the TV on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have stayed in many hostels and am frequently the first one up in the morning. The first thing that someone does when they come in is to turn on the tv. If I was there first and was watching a show, they wouldn't have thought about changing the channel. How about if my show is *no show*. What is the difference if I'm the first person and I choose to watch this show or no show. What is the difference? People seem to think that just because a tv is there, it has to be on and not having it on is not a viable option.

    Some might say that it is there to be used. Well, lots of things are there to be used but aren't used 24 hours a day. In the hostels, the oven was frequently turned off. In an airport, many people sit on the floor or stand and there are perfectly good chairs going unused.

    I like this remote turn-off. People impose their wills on each other all the time. This is nothing new.

  385. What a jerk. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Personally, I am terribly annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports: they grab my attention over and over, no matter how hard I try to ignore them, and they distract me from the conversations that I should be having with my human companions.

    I see, so because jcr13 has the attention span of a fscking gnat, that of course grants him the right to dick with other people? There are only two uses for this sort of thing. First, the standard prank (as the entire top thread shows. ;) ). Secondly, to be an asshole.

  386. Fox News Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What I'd like is one that will automatically change the channel from Fox News to somehting else - ANYTHING else.

    All these doctors office waiting rooms, bars, etc. with that crap on... drives me nuts.

  387. Universal Off Button? I have one of those! by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    Its usually in the form of a bad pickup line.. :P

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  388. Re:I'll push your buttons. by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    Turning off a television is a far cry from shooting someone with a firearm. It is fucking hilarious how serious some of these posts are. "If you turn off my T.V. I'm gonna Kiiiillll You!" or "I'm gonna whup yore asss!"

  389. Already happening... by darkvizier · · Score: 1

    Students at my university used to use their PDAs to change the channels and/or mute the collegeTV sets in the cafeteria, which they found to be annoying and disruptive. Eventually the school reaized they couldn't stop students from controlling the TVs with their wireless devices, and they simply removed them, as it was against the contract with collegeTV not to have them blaring in the ears of the students. Heaven forbid the target audience should get some advertisement-free peace and quiet time...

  390. Re:I'll push your buttons. by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
    Whoever modded you insightful should be shot.

    Intimidating. You Internet tough guy, you.

    --

    What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

  391. Oh lighten up by scruffyMark · · Score: 2, Interesting
    i personally have no desire to watch CNN for four hours, but you don't have the right to deny someone else the ability to do so if the TV's already on and that's what they want to do.

    OK, let's follow that. If you and I are in an airport terminal, the TV's on, neither of us wants to watch CNN for the next couple of hours, and there's nobody about, we don't have the right to turn the damn thing off, because we might be denying some hypothetical future passing sap the ability to watch drivel for hours to numb himself to the misery of his existence?

    At some point, you've got to have some balls, and make choices based on what you want. If you look around, and nobody's watching the TV, and it's annoying you, and nobody has a remote to turn the thing off, act. Be a man. Or a woman for that matter. Take action to make your own life more livable. If you turn out to be wrong, and someone you hadn't noticed gets upset because the TV went dark, then you can turn the frigging thing back on - a toggle can make two sorts of changes, you know.

    No, it's not my TV, and it's not my bar, or my airport (well, insofar as I pay taxes to support the municipally owned airport, it is actually mine). But I'm in it, and I will endeavour to make it more pleasant for myself, especially if there's no evidence that doing so will make it less pleasant for others.

    --

    What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    1. Re:Oh lighten up by kelnos · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about the case where you're by yourself. Sure, go ahead and turn the thing off. But if someone else comes by, sits down, and wonders why the TV's off, you should turn it back on, as you say. I could argue that some hypothetical person might come by, sit down, and not actually voice his annoyance with the fact that the TV has been turned off, but I'm sure you'd just say, "well then he doesn't deserve to watch it because he doesn't have the balls to speak up". Doing what you can to make your life more livable is all well and good, but doing so at the expense of others is one of the multitude of things that's wrong with our society today.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  392. Other Projects You All Might Find Interesting by steven94585 · · Score: 1

    Check this page out. I was looking to make a cell phone jammer.

    http://dafh.org/gbppr/mil/index.html

  393. Or you could be reasonable by scruffyMark · · Score: 1
    And politely ask the person to turn it back on again.

    I mean, I wouldn't turn off a TV that someone is obviously watching attentively. But I might just look around, not notice someone who's so slouched in a chair he looks asleep, but is actually watching the news, and turn off the TV.

    Now, doing this with no ill intention, I would not take particularly kindly to someone calling me a sanctimonious jackass nor going off on me, with or without asterisks, because I find a TV keeps me from reading or sleeping or whatever.

    Really, they should just put the TVs low enough so people can reach the power button, and turn it on or off according to what they want at the time, and not have to resort to carrying around silly gizmos.

    --

    What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    1. Re:Or you could be reasonable by wanerious · · Score: 1

      Reasonable people don't make me angry. As you say, you wouldn't turn off a tv that someone, or more to the point, that lots of someones happen to be watching in the name of helping them better themselves. No problem.

  394. High tech electronic countermeasure by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    A bit of black tape over the TV's IR sensor. I can make a fortune selling it to airports, TV shops, etc.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  395. Such violent reaction is symptomatic by thbb · · Score: 1

    first of all, the use of such a device is at worst rude, in no way can it cause harm to anyone. I'm surprised to see such hysteric reactions in this forum, whereas less begnin impolite behaviors such as jaywalking (which *is* dangerous and illegal), would not be considered worth a conversation. I doubt very much the use of such a device can be punished by any sort of law, as it infringes only on the elementary rules of politeness.

    Next, turning a TV off in a public space is akin to other civilized and innocuous public initiatives one may conduct, such as opening or closing a window in a bus or train to get less or more air, turning off the heater if it gets too hot or turning off the lights after leaving unused public restrooms: if you do it responsibly, you are to be thanked for it, if you do it without care for the rest of the attendance or without their agreement, you are just plain rude and deserve the insults that will probably come (specially turning off the lights in occupied restrooms).

    Now, the epidermic reactions to be observed here, the blindness so many display at the nuisance a TV turned on in a public space can produce, tells a lot about the conditioning that has been going on to make commercial TV the attention grabber it has become, responsible for attention deficit disorders, loss of contact with reality and the general numbness we see in the public spaces of the western world.

    In europe, we have a few non-commercial channels(I think about arte in France and Germany, for instance). These channels have of course smaller audiences than the commercial ones: their job is not to grab passive attention, but to inform or entertain their audience. Guess how are these channels mostly used: people turn to the channel when they've learned that there is something of potential interest to them, then turn it off when the program is finished. This is the responsible and normal use of a device when it is meant to entertain or inform you.

    Now see what happens when watching commercial TV, specially when in a tired or vulnerable state of mind: perpetual zapping without the strength to turn the damn thing off. This just shows you who pays for this thing to stay on and who benefits from it: not you, but the advertisers. We need advertisement and that's fine. But at least we need to be conscious that a TV turned on in a public space is not there for your personal pleasure, but for the advertiser's need to let you known about their products.

    Hence the need to shut it off politely when it's on and nobody objects to it. I'm gonna buy one of these.

  396. for anybody who wants to manufacture it.. by fliptout · · Score: 1

    Just reply to me, I'd be more than happy to build it :)

    Yes, I enjoy being an embedded systems consultant :)

    --
    A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
  397. Bad example by hesiod · · Score: 1

    What kind of an asshole do you have to be to go to a public place where people are watching TV and then turn it off because it distracts you? DON'T GO TO BW3'S YOU INCONSIDERATE BASTARD! Don't want TV on around you? Don't go to a place that has one, but don't fucking turn it off yourself. Christ, people get all high & mighty because they think not watching TV makes them on par with God himself and then they complain when other people do. YOU DON'T HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NEVER ENCOUNTER TV IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

    Fucking Cocks.

  398. Re:I'll push your buttons. by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

    For the record, no, you're not right. I'm actually a Libertarian, non-Bush supporting, 'personal responsibility', sort of guy. I think parents should take a much more active and disciplinarian role with their children, and I think more people should take care of their own problems instead of blaming everyone else. That being said...

    I don't care for the Hitler reference, to be honest - that was a cheap shot, even for you.

    OK. Let's look at this: My original comment to you was regarding the lack of consideration and civility that people have towards each other these days. You want to talk about TV's, we'll talk about TV's.

    If I go to a sports bar, a restaurant, or a venue that HAS televisions, I fully expect those TV's to be on and showing the game/the news/whatever. However, there are those (and you know them, too) who will reach up and turn the volume way the hell up so they can hear whatever's on. THAT is part of the problem I have. I didn't spell that out, so I can see where the confusion lies. So, I'll concede: "My Bad" on that point.

    Personal attacks: I think calling me a "Religious Right Bush Supporter" pretty much tops "Fuck you" as an insult, at least from where I sit. I will retract my "fuck you" if you never call me a Bush supporter again. Agreed?

    The tones of your comments towards me only helped to further the thought that you are, indeed, one of those who doesn't give a shit about the people around him/her, and that LOUD TV crap would be par for the course for you.

    I'll focus on what it is you want to focus on: Private businesses with televisions in their establishments have the right to operate those TVs in whatever way they see fit. I still feel, however, that if those TVs are bothering a SUBSTANTIAL amount of that day's patrons, then they should be turned down/off BY THE OWNERS. I don't agree with the random power button, except from a humor standpoint at the store.

    There, now nobody has to take their ball and go home.

  399. Re:Someone better tell Audi by zaffir · · Score: 1

    That problem had nothing to do with the car being FWD. In fact FWD vs. RWD vs. AWD means very little, if anything, when you're cruising on the highway. I never mentioned anything about stability at high speeds, only traction through a turn.

    --
    "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
  400. flamebait? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    Can someone please tell me why I was modded flamebait? I thought I asked a valid question?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  401. Re:I'll push your buttons. by starling · · Score: 1

    So you're right not to here a TV in a public place is more important than an illiterate person's[...]

    I suspect you have a vested interest in this ...

    Anyway, the point is that loud noises in a public place are a form of pollution - that's why there are laws against them. So yes, my right to not be bombarded by loud TVs/radios in a public place does take precedence.

  402. Re:INFORMATION???!! No, it's not. by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    > information: Any communication or representation of knowledge,

    I could question your sourceless definition, but I don't have to. Your definition supports my position.

    No knowledge is transmitted during an episode of "Trading Spouses." Care to tell me what you learned last time you watched the Fox network at all? I didn't think so.

    Perhaps you would do better if you defined information as "data." Technically speaking, I guess data is being transmitted from the network to your TV to cause it to display the footage of stupid white trash doing stupid things.

  403. Great usage! by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

    I'd *love* one of these.
    Not for turning off irritating TVs in restaurants and the like. If a restaurant has a TV, I'll leave, and won't come back.

    No, it's when I go shopping. Over here in Germany, for example, is a place called 'OBI', which sells tons of useful stuff for making other stuff. Tools, screws, wood, doors, lights, desks - you name it.
    I spend a lot of time there, thinking if I should buy a certain something. And - usually right next to me - is a small TV set showing an advertisement for a product. Which is 30 seconds long. And repeats ad infinitum the same advert.

    Drives me nuts, and usually causes me to leave without buying whatever I was looking at.
    So I'm forced to wear an MP3-player. But one of these things would bring blissful silence instead...

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  404. Just hit them with a fricken' "laser beam" by aclarke · · Score: 1

    I dunno, your comment didn't sound very "evil" to me. How can we be sure you are who you say you are?

  405. Re:I'll push your buttons. by RedBear · · Score: 1

    Your posturing is such a waste of effort - I've yet to meet anyone who's intimidated by words on their monitor.

    Whoever modded you insightful should be shot.


    I cannot be the only one that finds this very amusing.

  406. NOT INFORMATIVE, MODS by RedBear · · Score: 1

    The parent is incorrect. The device sends out "off" codes, it will not turn any TV on, ever. It does not "toggle" the on/off state, it ONLY TURNS TVs OFF.

    As others have pointed out a hundred times on this page already, most TV remotes have only one button that does toggle the on/off state of the TV, but built into the receiver on the TV are discrete codes for "on" and "off". This device only sends out the "off" codes for hundreds of different TVs. If it toggled the TV, why would they call it TV-B-Gone? They'd call it Fsck-with-the-TV-by-toggling-its-on-off-state.

    1. Re:NOT INFORMATIVE, MODS by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      The device sends out "off" codes, it will not turn any TV on, ever.

      Umm, did you happen to read the article, like all the way to the end? When they are told they better turn the TV back on, and they do, using the device. RTFA applies to the whole article, not just the first paragraph. Quoted from the very end of the Wired article, after having turned off a TV that a worker disagreed with:

      At Fenway Park, Derek Jeter warmed up to lead off the ninth. The TV-lover had an angry set in her jaw. And TV-B-Gone served its less-publicized purpose -- it also turns on any TV.

      As I already explained, even though it can turn the TV on, this is not its marketability, as it doesn't have enough buttons to do anything useful once the TV is on. But it has to be a toggle for maximum compatability with as many sets as possible, as that is a more commonly available command among makes and models. Anyhow that's why it's TV B Gone and not TV B Gone and Back in 60 Seconds...

      Especially since this story is a couple of days old now, how the hell did you get it wrong with that much time?

  407. 2003 Sneak Preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new year is almost upon us and I thought it might be a nice gift to the faithful readers of trolltalk to offer this sneak preview of upcoming movies, scheduled to be released in 2003. Enjoy!

    Vladman
    The story of a troubled man whose Momma was tormented by prank callers. The phoning episode leaves young Scott scarred for life and spawns a dark alter ego, "Vladman", who fights peaceful, quiet internet communities with his grossly obese superpowers and profound lack of intelligence. This film is a sure-fire hit, starring Roseanne Barr as "Momma" and Ernest Borgnine in the title role.

    Vlad Max
    This low budget action film comes from Australia. Food is scarce in a post-war society and a band of roving maniacs find a treasure-trove of food in the Lockwood family. Vlad escapes the pack of cannibals and swears revenge. With a blood-red bib and a giant salad fork, Vlad goes on a feeding rampage! Starring Marlon Brando in the title role.

    Jaws IV: The Attack of Vlad
    After defeating three shark attacks, the residents of Amity Island are besieged by a new behemoth from the deep. In this latest installment in the Jaws series, a giant, man-eating monstrosity rises from the depths to devour entire ships and then pollutes the shoreline with its massive feces. Who will be brave enough to stand up to this new threat?

    Vlad and Reza's Excellent Adventure
    In this comedic masterpiece, our heroes travel through time in a makeshift deep-freezer to sample culinary delights throughout the ages. But what will Vlad and Reza do once their mass exceeds the capacity of the freezer?? I won't tell, but you can bet it is hilarious!

    Enter The Whale
    An action-packed martial arts movie. You will be amazed at Vlad's special style of martial arts in this film. It's almost as if the attackers bounce right off of Vlad before he even moves. One criticism I have of this movie, however, is the makeup. Throughout the picture, Vlad appears flushed and excessively sweaty.

    That's it for now. Stay tuned for a special preview of a new CD where your favorite rabbis cover some of America's greatest pop hits!

  408. Ah yes... by BillX · · Score: 1

    As one of my blow-off electives in highschool I took a small engines course. It was mostly a fun, hands-on course, but at some point during the semester, the class was treated to an incredibly boring video on oil--production, refining, yadda yadda. Anyway, a clever individual somewhere in the middle of the room decided to make things more entertaining by causing the VCR to act up with one of those watch-remotes. Mr. G. put the video on, and a few minutes later, *click* it stops playing. He walks over to the A/V cart and restarts it, and within 30 seconds, it's begun randomly fast-forwarding itself. Etc.

    The perfect actor, Mr. G. would walk up to the cart with a puzzled look, declare "Gee, the VCR appears to be malfunctioning again..." and begin fiddling with the buttons. Ultimately he cut the video short, explaining that the VCR was obviously broken, and there weren't any more that weren't already checked out. Little snickers from all around the room, as this old engines teacher is eluded by all this new-fangled technology.

    All snickering stopped abruptly the next day: "Since we've been having so much trouble with these VCRs, I won't be showing the remainder of the video. Instead, to learn the material you'll all be writing a research paper..."

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  409. Re:Look at me! I can make noise! by BillX · · Score: 1

    In some areas the cops do little/nothing about loud car stereos, but in others noise ordinances are enforced vigilantly. Unfortunately, in some of the latter areas they're only enfored below about 160Hz. I appreciate that this enforcement keeps ghetto blasters from shaking me out of bed, but it seems kind of arbitrary and even discriminatory that the car stereo at n db @ 15 ft. gets ticketed with vigor, while the

    a) neighbor's car alarm ALWAYS blaring at 3am
    b) guy using a Folger's can and some chicken wire as a 'muffler'
    c) bullhorn-equipped van blaring anti-gay-marriage rhetoric
    d) band of unmuffled Harleys screaming through town
    e) all of the above

    spewing forth n*exp(n) db @ 15 ft. are untouchable.

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  410. Re:I'll push your buttons. by back_pages · · Score: 1
    You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you. Don't believe me? Come over to my house and try to turn off the TV and I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity. [...] I'm sick of people like you, who think their way is the right way. I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?

    I know I'm about to engage in an internet pissing contest, but since we're talking tough...

    I think this invention is a great idea, and I'm the type of guy who will show up, turn off your TV, and point out that I too have a baseball bat. While the, "Leave me alone or I'll punch you" attitude might work with lots of limp wristed liberals who want to tell you how to live, it doesn't work well with the bigger bully who trains 4 times per week to punch your teeth out.

    Just something to keep in mind. I like punching things and I don't like your television.

    And, again, I know this is an internet pissing match and really quite meaningless, but some folks won't "provide you with the same courtesy" not because they're sorry-sick high-minded liberals but because they don't give a fuck.

    Just a different angle on the same result, I guess.

  411. Fun with FWD cars... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    Yeah exactly...

    Put your e-brake on while you're driving around a sharp corner sometime... then you'll know what this guy is talking about.. :D

    Actually if you really wanna have some fun, go into a parking lot, stick those food trays (like from McDonald's for instance) under your rear wheels, put the e-brake on, and drive... result:

    http://nikita.hro.nl/slhsitev2/downloads/movies/tr aydrifiting/trays1a.mpeg
    http://nikita.hro.nl/slhsitev2/downloads/movies/tr aydrifiting/trays2s.mpeg

  412. Have any links to back up that claim of ... by losycompresion · · Score: 1

    descrete codes. It does sound interesting and a great way to avoid many problems. I've setup remotes with macros before. But I have never seen any that had the type of descrete on/off signals. links to products/ usage???

    1. Re:Have any links to back up that claim of ... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Sure. This site's prolly the best place to start. Good reviews of all kinds of remotes as well as detailed technical docs.

      http://www.remotecentral.com/

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
  413. Re:I'll push your buttons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, knowing that you're going to punch me in the nose, have the right not to go over to your house.

    You, knowing that they're going to "bomb" you "with adverts from some crappy tv," have the right not to go to the airport.

    You can't compare physical violence with annoying noise and images, anyway.

    Stop being such a self-righteous whiner.

  414. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

    Haha, nice dig. Clearly I am illiterate! (Although I did in my hurry to respond use the wrong form of 'here/hear' which is one of my pet peeves). If I went into the street outside your house and blasted my radio or TV I can see where you would have grounds to be upset. I am projecting my noise 'pollution' into your space. However, if we are meeting at a location that both of us choose to visit and neither of us own or have any sort of controlling interest in, why does your right automatically become more important than mine?

  415. Re:I'll push your buttons. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
    Well, we can be friends if you aren't going to vote for Bush.

    I was going to continue this, but it reminded me that arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, no matter who wins your all still retarted. (No offense meant to any Special Olympiads out there, just making a point). I think we can agree on the fact that crying kids, arguing families, loud cell phone users, people who take it apon themselves to adjust the volume, channel, settings of a TV in a "public" place are all farktards. I think we can also agree that if the management of a business chooses to have some sort of TV/radio playing and you don't like it, the burden is on you to NOT go there, rather to buy some gadget to turn it off for everyone.

    I also retract my comment about Religious Right Bush Supporters, it was only meant to make an example of a group of people who think they know what is best for everyone.

    The Hitler comment wasn't directed at you, I was just making a joke about the age old addage that all arguments eventually devolve untill someone mentions Nazi's, and that they automatically lose. :)

    WooWoo, anybody but Bush 2004, WooWoo!

  416. Re:I'll push your buttons. by starling · · Score: 1

    Couldn't resist the dig.

    It depends on the public space really, and to be honest I'm more in agreement with you than otherwise. I can see a use for such a gadget, but more by someone who's responsible for policing a public space. Say a park warden with a zapper which muted boom-boxes. In private hands it's more likely to be abused.

  417. Re:Rear Spoiler on Front Wheel Drive by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Sure... Snow tires on the back of a front wheel drive. Any truck with enough lift-kits to need a mounting ladder. A paint job that costs more than the chassis is worth. (Sadly stock) "Flare side" pickup trucks where the _manufacturer_ has thrown away several cubic feet of space to make it look like the wheel-wells stick out. Anybody commuting to their desk job in a duallie-axle turbo desil pickup. Anybody bragging about their mod, when you can still see the primer and the bondo. [A spoiler on *any* street car, my point was it wasn't a sign of "particular" stupidity on a front wheel drive car, you think your car is hot, keep it off the streets and take it to a track... 8-)]

    Actually go ahead and make fun of any "street modded" car, virtually all of that stuff is little more than the kind of mating display you see on the Discovery Channel.

    For instance I was talking to this guy at Quizno's. He was complaining about having to take the bus. He couldn't drive his car casually any more because he kept getting tickets for "display" (chirping his wheels). He'd actually installed a mod on his powertrain (I forget what it's called, a "torque limiter"? that doesn't sound right) that wouldn't let the transmission apply power to the wheels until the input torque was above a certian threshold.

    He couldn't do "stop-and-go" without a chirp every "go".

    On his street car.

    How smart is that?

    For all that the stupid exterior things are stupid, they are at least an honest display, an attempt to "look cool". The *really* stupid stuff is so often under the hood.

    So I secretly laugh hardest when people want to "lift their hood and show me their engine." It's like a line in bad gay porn... 8-)

    [ASIDE: I actually do undestand this sort of thing. I personally over-buy my computer stuff. But I am man enough to keep it to myself as a "secret shame." I don't feel the need to invite guys over to my house and "show them my tool." 8-)]

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press