Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Jamming on the Rise
netbuzz writes "It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone either, as the number of inconsiderate dolts who yammer away oblivious to the disruptions their yapping is causing those around them continues to rise. Pocket-sized cell jammers are becoming a hot item, while proprietors of restaurants and the like look to defend themselves as well. Yes it's illegal, but given that the rudeness is pretty close to criminal as well, it's unlikely to stop any time soon."
Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic. And then nasty court battles... the "blockers" will deserve it. You don't silence rude cell phone people by cutting off the cell phone universe. You don't stop obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate.
There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative. Personally, I do think cell phones are way overused and a general nuisance, certainly the way they're used today. But I'm coming out with guns blazing the day I can't get emergency help for me or someone who needs it because some gutless wonder is using one of these devices and my cell phone is rendered more useless than it already is.
From the article, one of the makers of a jamming device offers up this weak rationalization:
Back to my example of bad and dangerous drivers... yes, there's a "collective right" to "control" bad behavior, but you wouldn't blockade the interstates in the interest of "control". Similarly, to unilaterally disable all cell phones is ludicrous.
In pre-response to:
I do propose at some point the ubiquitous rude behavior on cell phones dictates some solution. I hope sooner rather than later. Jamming.... is not the solution.
What I find a little strange is how some people consider someone talking on a cell phone in a restaurant automatically rude, even if they're speaking at a normal volume. If someone's in a conversation at another table, is it really that bad if the other participant in the conversation isn't actually in the restaurant?
No, the rudeness is not criminal. A cell phone jammer takes away a person's right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot. Rudeness is a person exercising their right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot.
In addition to the public safety issues, there are purely engineering ones. We are on a path to where the background noise level caused by multitudes of transmitters is going to render much of the radio spectrum useless. Plus with devices that have not gone through Type Acceptance, who knows what garbage is coming out of their antenna?
These could inadvertently trigger a terrorist attack too. It's not too hard to imagine a bomb controlled by a signal, and if that signal is cut off the bomb explodes. This would be a fail-safe switch for the bomber and the bomb, in case the terrorist is killed, the bomb goes off. There are IED's in Iraq that work like that right now. These jammers could kill innocent people, and are properly illegal.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
I really don't know much about cell / PCS
Is there some way these things could be made to not block a special frequency or pagers. Doctors and emergency workers on call need to be able to be reached at dinner and in movie theaters. Everyone else can shut up.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
That setup will kill the battery way to fast to be useful.
So when will we have a "spoiled rampaging kids" jammer?
The ambulance isn't coming, skippy.
You'll just lay on the floor breathless, your life slipping away as a crowd stands around you in increased frustration as they're calls to 911 won't get through.
The coroner will find the jammer in your pocket later, when he inventories your possessions before tagging your toe and zipping up the bag.
And all because you didn't have the stones to just ask people to please turn off their phones so you could hear better.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Instead of reading a *summary* of a New York Times article, here it is.
That article mentions high-powered jammers and specifically one restaurant owner who paid $1000 to install one so he could keep his employees working instead of gabbing on their cell phone.
It may be illegal in the USA to actively jam cell-phone signals, but as far as I know, there's no law prohibiting someone from passively jamming signals; see: Faraday Cage:
Mobile phones and radios may have no reception inside elevators or similar structures. Some traditional architectural materials act as Faraday shields in practice. These include plaster with metal lath, and rebar reinforced concrete. These affect the use of cordless phones and wireless networks inside buildings and houses.Hmmm, I wonder if aluminum siding would be effective?
A jammer does not need to be on all the time to work. Just turn it on when someone is being annoying. They loose signal. try again, loose signal. They go outside thinking they are not getting enough bars. Problem solved.
Not to mention society seemed to get along just fine before the invention of the cell phone. Landlines work for 911 as well, you know. And if it's a pay phone you don't even need money...
Criminal? That's an hyperbole. Here's a use of the word that's not: preventing access to emergency services because it affords you a little convenience is, literally, criminal.
Besides, while I can see the harm of a cellphone ring during a live theatrical performance, such as a play or an opera, it's merely an annoyance during a movie. And as far as restaurants are concerned, well, it's not like asking the offending patron to STFU is going to stop the globe from spinning. And sysadmins, doctors and other "on-call" professions have a right to eat, don't they?
Most importantly, this little subsection: SEC. 333. [47 U.C.S. 333] WILLFUL OR MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE.
No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference
to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
Act or operated by the United States Government. So to answer your question: No, these devices are not FCC approved and they will not be approved unless the FCC and the US government change this section.
The original generic sig.
You don't stop obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate.
There are always smug fuckers in the passing lane, doing slightly under the limit all the time, with absolutely no consideration to the lines of cars behind them, or the mayhem it causes as they all try to pass in the center or right lanes.
Some are clueless, others actually think they're saving the day by enforcing the limit, and a few honestly believe that 60mph is fast-as-hell because it feels like it in their Prius.
I can't stand the baby-vigilanteism in its many forms.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I spend a lot of time on public transportation. A couple of years ago when cell phones were still new and people were learning how to use them, the problem of loud talkers was really annoying. However, I have noticd that the problem seems to be taking care of itself as people learn that they don't have to yell to be heard on their cell phones. They use of the phones has increased, but people are using them much more sensibly and keeping their voices down. Radical solutions like jamming the phones are becoming much less attractive.
.. we have them on trains and some ignorant youth or an arrogant traveller just has to talk LOUDLY in the QUIET WAGGON. It is then I turn on my jammer. It is much safer than having a "confrontation" by "talking" to them. Simeple, quiet, faceless and it works.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
All jamming cell phone signals does is annoy customers, and cause potentially dangerous situations in case of an emergency. That is exactly why it is illegal. Remember that emergency responders might need to use phones, too. Also, many public radio systems in the US broadcast somewhere in the 800MHz range if I recall correctly. You certainly wouldn't want to jam those. Although the cell phone jamming devices might not be intending on jamming those, I somehow doubt that these devices are being made with much consideration of other nearby frequencies given the fact that they are illegal in the first place and there is obviously no regulatory approval on these.
Besides, I don't see that many people being overly rude with their phones. Sure, some people talk loudly and have loud/annoying ring tones. But I just don't see that much of it (and when I do, they are the same ones that talk loudly to the person sitting across the table from them). What bothers me more is when people bring their kids and they cry, scream (the high pitched ones are especially annoying), and in the case of restaurants, make a mess. Then, they just either ignore the kid or think it is "cute". That behavior is far more rude and distracting than anyone I have seen using a mobile phone.
Fortunately, there is 100% cell coverage by all carriers everywhere.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
unless it's plugged into a wall, or is powered by solar... there are lots of possibilities other then just sitting on the side of the road dumb...
It's not just illegal, it's totally unethical. My wife and I both carry cellphones - I'm a sysadmin and she's a surgeon and we're both on call basically 24/7. And yet, you'd never know that we have them, because we mute them when appropriate and never start conversations when we shouldn't. Instead, we'll either step outside quickly to answer them or let it roll to voicemail so we don't kill ourselves and others as we dive over rows of seats and then respond ASAP. Cell phone jammers punish the jackasses in theaters that we all love to hate, but they also punish the majority of users who are quiet and responsible.
Imagine that you or your mom or your kid has a problem with their recent surgery and is desperately trying to reach their doctor who went to a movie, but some smug asshole with a jammer is blocking the call. Kinda puts it in a different light, huh?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Is something that can override cell phone preferences and force them into silent mode. Preferably into Silent & No Vibrate. That way people can still make calls, but nobody knows if they receive them. I find that incoming calls are the ones that end up being found incosiderate. People generally know not to make calls when they're in places like restaurants, theatres, cinemas, etc.
Also, I remember reading about it on I think the BBC, but if restaurants could bring back the phone booths, that would be awesome. If this were to happen, then I would really love to see some sort of jamming system that ONLY allows notification of incoming calls and messages, but doesn't let you actually call or receive calls (receiving SMS's isn't that big of an issue.) Then, if people wanted to make calls or receive calls, they have to go to the phone booths.
I also seem to think that if the jammers were limited to just the building or the unit in a building (if it's in a mall), then it would be perfectly legal as long as there was some sort of reasonable notification before customers enter the unit/building (such as a sign next to/on the front door.)
Reminds me a bit of those little fans for blowing smokers' pollution back in their faces.
Perhaps restaurants need to evolve to having 'no cellphone areas'.
jamming cellphones is ridiculous. it's about as useful as throwing a spammer in prison for 50 years. it doesn't do anything to impact the practice.
i STILL have yet to be intruded upon so heinously (in fact not at all i can remember) by someone on a phone either at a restaurant, movie, play, etc that makes me think this is at all a rational response (i live in a metro area of 2.2 million. so it's not like i'm in the sticks where no one has a phone).
i rotate on call shift with the other IT guys. granted i won't goto a movie or something that would be boned by the intrusion, but i won't stop myself from going to a nice restaurant because of it and expect that i'll be reachable.
if this were a story about DRM everyone would be crying that the MAFIAA is "screwing over the responsible ones because of the bad acts of the few". if i'm on my phone at the store, i get off before standing in line, don't do it at the bank, don't do it at movies, if i'm at a restaurant i'll quickly goto a better place and call back.
there was another poster who got it right, establishments need to make it known to patrons if they allow phone use and enforce it. not pull some underhanded sneaky bullshit. that will piss customers off more.
No sig for you!!
Or they could just call 911 from a landline in the restaurant, which would work perfectly fine.
Actually, it's more likely that cell phone jammers will save lives since many of the IEDs are actually detonated by cell phone calls.
New bumper stickers / Republican debate points:
"Cell Phone Jammers Save Lives",
"Win the War on Terror! Jam Cell Phones",
"Love your Country; Jam a Cell Phone!",
"Terrorists Use Cell Phones",
"Unjammed Cell Phones Sink Ships"
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Yes, they have a right to eat. But they don't have a mandatory requirement to do it in public. They don't have to annoy the living daylight out of the rest of the population that tries to enjoy a nice meal.
If you're on call or want to babble incessantly on your mobile, eat at home or a fast-food restaurant. If you're in a nice restaurant then turn your mobile off and SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP!
For all you know some 10 year old kid has a bad heart and has to keep his cell phone on 24/7 for that all important "Get to hospital NOW" call.
Quick! Outlaw tunnels and buildings too thick to allow cell phone signals!
But seriously... It is kind of silly to think that someone can rely on a cell phone 24/7 for emergency issues. As an anecdotally statement, there are parts of the building I work in that are complete dead zones depend on which direction I face. Maybe they used too much concrete or my service provider just blows, but I have a hunch that if there is an emergency I should use a land line.
If I go driving in the backwoods of New Jersey my cell phone doesn't even get a good roaming signal. (Though the nice thing about the Turnpikes is that New Jersey does have emergency phones ever so often)
Anyways... If cell phone use is critical for life and death situations then you should probaly invest in a satellite phone or a ham radio which of course still won't work in a tunnel.
Simply wasting police time with hunting these down is not going to solve any real problem other than to waste tax money. It would be better spent making cell phones more reliable.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
the problem is, you can't selectively block cell phones with these jammers. The jammers work by flooding the frequency with noise. Any real traffic on the frequency is drowned out by the noise....thereby preventing the call from going through. It's all cell phones get blocked, or none of them do. There are no exceptions able to be made.
Also, you are forgetting the case where someone needs to make a legitimate exception who might not have the special "doctor's clearance". Some woman's husband is having a heart attack, or someone gets stuck in the elevator in a building and has a severe asthma attack.
There are a 1001 VERY good reasons to not block cell phone signals and blocking them only serves for the peace and quiet of individuals. Any one of those 1001 reasons would be reason enough to ban the blocking devices.
As soon as any business sets up one of these jammers, it's now just become a ticking time bomb for some emergency to happen and someone isn't going to be able to call for help. When that time bomb goes off, the business is going to get sued.
Although, it shouldn't take long for these devices to end a quick death...minutes after the first multi-million dollar judgement against the business is handed down, which shouldn't take more than a couple months, the insurance companies will ban them outright, and that will be the end of it.
Throw out a loud obnoxious bozo yelling into his cell like you'd throw out that loud obnoxious drunk guy. There's not much of a difference.
If you're in a restaurant and have a heart attack, surely someone will call 911 thru the landline. i.e. don't pay the tab until you are confident enough to walk into cell phone coverage if you're so concerned :)
People can learn to live without cell phones. Filtering against those who don't know it yet won't be as profitable and simple blocking is much less offensive than telling the customer to STFU.
echo 'cat sig | sh' > sig
You're right! I also heard that cell phone jammers emit electromagnetic RADIATION, which in addition to killing 10 year old boys with bad hearts, can also CUT YOU IN HALF or GIVE YOU CANCER or even BLIND YOU! One time someone jammed my cell phone signal, and my ice cream went all melty.
I'm afraid to ask if you honestly believe what you wrote....
For crying out load, grow up!
I hate to see the U.S. beeing so naive, gullible and completely lost about mobile phones, rambling about issues, ten years after the rest of the world.
People will use mobile phones. Everyone. And use them wherever and whenever they need to. And they will berk about uninteresting things. At restaurants, on buses, in cinemas, at funerals, in hospitals. Whatever.
Accept it. Grow up. Move along.
What, the fire alarms have all been replaced with "in case of emergency, use your cell" signs or something??
You can't take the sky from me...
Hmmm, I wonder if aluminum siding would be effective?
I live in a house that has aluminum siding. I also live immediately next door to a Verizon cell tower.
My personal GSM AT&T phone gets such a bad signal in the house, that I usually have to position the phone in some special and random way so that it gets a signal. I then use a bluetooth headset, because holding the phone to my ear means that I can't see the signal meter, which usually drops to zero as soon as I do this.
My Verizon Treo phone from work gets full signal at all times in the house. In fact, the signal is so strong, that the phone reports more bars than it actually has.
I'm curious to see if aluminum siding will block certain signals, and not others. I don't know much about the RF properties of aluminum.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
There are no 'norms' for behavior while on the phone. I see guys at urinals, talking to various people. I always mention, loudly, do you know this guy's calling you while peeing?
1) they have both hands busy, and therefore can't fight
2) if they do, they'll soil themselves
3) they have to immediately explain their actions to the called party.
People are terribly self-centered, and you'll never get around them. It's like the kilowatt jam speakers in people's car trunks, and how they'll rattle the dishes in an neighborhood. They can't hear the sound of my paintball gun over the tops of it-- and I'm sure of this. I hate to waste rounds, but the cars sure do look psychedelic when they pass thru my 'hood.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
> For all you know some 10 year old kid has a bad heart and has to keep his cell phone on 24/7 for that all important "Get to hospital NOW" call.
Yeah, that happens all the time, doesn't it.
What about in certain areas - cinema, restaurant, concert hall. If there are signs alerting people that there's a jammer in use in a confined, private area, and you're made aware of the fact, do you have a problem with that. I'd be prepared to exclude poor little Timmy if it meant I could watch a film in the same way I did 15 or so years ago.
Cellphones are WAY overused in today's society. There should be a "No Phone" sign on the door of every establishment right by the ones concerning smoking and guns. Or better yet, replace the "no guns" sign with "no phones"! The only people complaining about not being able to wander around aimlessly while carrying on some insipid "conversation" are yuppies. I can only hope that the stock market goes further down the hill and they all get crushed under the ridiculous mortgages that they had to have for their "holier than thou" SUVs and ranch houses!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I would have to say that a very valid statement can be applied to both sides of this argument: "Your rights end where mine begin".
From the cell phone users perspective: I have the right to use my cellphone for critical situations and needs.
From the cell phone jammers perspective: I have the right to not be forced to listen to your conversation.
Somewhere in the middle there is a gray area where both parties must be respectful of one another.
You can't take the sky from me...
Here in Chicago, downtown, there's a great sandwich shop called Perry's Deli. They have signs: no pagers, no cell phones (if you need to use them while eating, maybe you should be eating at a more upscale restaurant, the sign says). If they see someone using it, they turn on a LOUD, *VERY* ANNOYING alarm, annoying everyone in the place, until the offender either stops, or goes outside.
And I still want all cellphone usage by drivers treated exactly like DUI, since the accident stats are the same for drunks and cellphone users.
mark "could you drive any better if I shoved it where the sun
don't shine?"
No, you choose to be on call. Big difference. You are not that important, really, you're not.
I applaud you for using your phone sensibly. You might be one of the good guys. But still, if I ever find you in the seat next to me (or more generally, within arms reach) in a movie theater and your phone rings you are out of a phone.
I don't buy your argument about the kid that desperately tries to contact you. Let them contact the hospital, there are other qualified people there. You are not the center of the universe. Deal with it.
Faraday Cages take some planning to build. They are tougher than they look. My cell phone works in elevators, and they are almost 100% covered in steel. For a restaurant, you need to get all the windows covered with a metal mesh, then all the remaining walls, the ceiling, the floor, and the doors. In the kitchen, things get really complicated, because you have large access doors and air vents.
The easiest way for a restaurant or a commercial establishment to build a Faraday cage would be to employ an RF engineer at the initial stages of construction. A concrete structure with steel reinforcing would probably be the easiest structure to attempt. The required RF mesh could be incorporated into the existing steel and concrete reinforcements with minimum building code issues. The heating and air conditioning ducts could be grounded. I think the military has a product to handle the windows, and if they don't, you could ground standard steel window mesh. The hardest points to protect would be the doors. A standard entry way with two sets of doors (like what is used in most commercial buildings) might work, if the doors can be easily shielded and grounded.
I hate * hate * the a-holes who text, leave their ringers on, and sometimes even answer their phones during movies. They ruin the experience for everyone.
That said - as a few others have pointed out - there are other (far better) ways to deal with the problem.
One way to deal with the few annoying people who do this stuff is simply to shame them. Another is just to ask them politely (and, if that doesn't sway them, complain to the theater manager).
Ignoring the safety issues, it's just a rude/pussy/jackass move to take the law into your own hands and jam everyone just because you don't have the balls (or the EI) to properly deal with the people who are actually causing the problem.
And risk getting shot/stabbed/beaten?
No thanks. Gimme a discrete jammer every time. Hopefully they'll become so common that people will accept the futility of yelling into their phones in a public place and keep it down.
The situation I'd like to get to is where people talk into their phones at an acceptable, conversational, level. If some a**hole starts yelling, then one or more people will turn on their jammers. Everyone's cellphone dies that the considerate users take it out on the shouter.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Instead of blocking cell signals, just go up to the dolt and politely ask them to step outside to continue their conversation, or to keep it toned down a bit. That is how you handle anyone who is rude in any way.
Mixing powdered iron into the paint used on the walls will greatly decrease RF signal strength across much of the spectrum, but it provides no way for selective blocking, and the key ingredient (powdered iron) is rather expensive.
As for "the right to be a loudmouthed annoyance wherever you want" (noted by another poster), most of the examples cited were owners of private establishments using such jammers. A fancy restaurant can deny you entry for any number of reasons including not dressing cool enough, and nobody noted talked of blocking cellphone signals on the street just because they don't like cell phones.
Come to think of it, my phones barely get a signal when I'm sitting in front of the computer. Restaurants could just install a headless mini-ITX on the underside of each table, and leave it running a fancy 3-D screensaver....
~
There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative.
Precisely. The owner of Sound Bytes in Somerville is famous for booting people with cell phones. You can have one on you, but if you talk in the place and he sees it, you're in trouble.
Conversation that was repeated to me:
"Blah blah yak yak blah blah"
"HEY! You a doctor?" "Uh...no." "You a fireman?" "No."
"THEN DON'T TALK ON YOUR FUCKING PHONE IN MY RESTAURANT." The kid was actually told to take a hike.
Post a sign on the premises, perhaps the matre'd can remind people when he/she sits them, and then enforce it.
Please help metamoderate.
I prefer the Larry David Jamming method, as illustrated here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXp1R1RPNU
To build a hypothesis on geek stereotypes, I'd say that there are 10 types of people in the world: those who use a cell phone to convey information and those who use a cell phone to talk. They are not necessarily the same thing. The first type make their call, convey their information, and hang up. The second type use phones to fill up time or as an enjoyable diversion from day to day activities. If I'm alone, I may take a magazine to lunch and read. The second type may take their cell phone to talk. The problem is that my reading a magazine doesn't interfere with someone's talking on a cell phone, but the converse is not necessarily true.
I'm trying to avoid value judgments here. Its basically the difference between introverts and extroverts or salespeople and tech types. It's two different cultures that happen to occupy the same land. It's a classic example of the tech types coming up with a technical "solution" to a cultural "problem".
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
...you'll be dead before long, anyway. Unreliable communication is no way to stave off natural selection.
If you don't want a cell phone active in your establishment, what you want is not a jammer, which is illegal, but a detector...
http://www.cellbusters.com/product_info.php?products_id=28
Of course, then you have to be willing to forgo the miscreant's business by ordering anybody with an active cell phone outside. When I first researched this issue about six years ago, I found precisely nobody -- not restaurants, not the pharmacy, not even a freakin' movie theater -- would be willing to install a detector and order people off the property. The only places I know of that use detectors is hospitals, because some cells put out signals that interfere with things like an EEG.
Reply to poorly modded post...(see parent)
Why not build one into the phones themselves
(onward to the tri-corder side of things!)
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
The rationalization isn't weak though. It is explicitly aimed at private businesses, and it is spot on. No, you don't blockade an interstate to stop bad drivers, but a private parking garage owner is well within his rights to say... deny entry to all ferrari's, because his statistics show these cars are more likely to cause damage, or be a source of lawsuits for his garage. We're talking PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS, not public thoroughfares...
Oh, I have wished for one of those every time my students put on a concert. A good quarter of the parents sit there on the phone and talk while the students are performing. I've had parents get in arguments with each other when one can't hear his/her kid sing because the other is sitting there running his/her mouth on the phone. Honestly, turn the damn thing off for five minutes or go out in the hall. Nobody else wants to hear your conversation. Whenever I go to a concert I've paid money for a ticket, I certainly haven't paid money to listen to someone yammer away on the phone.
of the conversation.
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3643477.stm
Yes.
I do to.
On Slashdot you say?
Wow that's
Yes I agree.
i wish i could stop
I've never used, or even seen one of these things, though if they're ever made legal I would definitely be picking one up. I have, however, asked a few people who were being overly obnoxious on their cells to please keep it down, now it is only anecdotal evidence, but so is your evidence that people will oblige, but of the 4 times I've done that only once did the person actually apologize and start being less obnoxious. One person ignored me completely, not even turning to acknowledge me (I can't rule out that they were unable to hear me over their conversation, but I tried a couple of times and they never even looked around) and the other 2 just gave me funny looks and then went right back to their conversations, one getting a little louder after I asked.
There are many decent people in the world who would apologize profusely if you informed them that they were being annoying. Few of these people are the ones likely to be the worst annoyances as they're self conscious of how much they're annoying others already. The truly annoying people, the ones who are loud enough to get me to overcome my desire not to make a fuss out of things tend to be the ones who either think their conversation is more important than whatever others think of them or that everyone wants to hear what they're talking about. Those type of people don't respond well to be asked to keep it down, and in cases where I'm stuck with those kind of people I'd love to have one of these Jammers so I could get some work done. One person on a cellphone being obnoxious is enough to distract me enough that I can't get anything done until they stop talking and if I could force them to stop I would, after trying the polite route of course.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
FYI, what you're talking about is a "fail deadly" system. However, the potential designs for such a device are myriad -- why get all paranoid about a cell phone jammer?
Potentials include handheld circuits that trigger when the circuit is broken (spring loaded button that opens the circuit when not depressed), for airplanes, pressure sensors that trigger the device if the pressure increases (obviously must be set after take off, though just having it trigger when the pressure decreases is simpler -- I think the Unabomber used these), light sensors that trigger when it gets dark (after you're dead, the cops investigate, head out and turn off the lights, bomb cleverly hidden in the wall by the light switch) -- any reasonably intelligent person could think of a million ways to make a trigger. Get a few wires, a stick of butter from the fridge, and some kind of weight -- now you have a fuse.
People need to quit being frightened of everything -- there is nothing in the world that can't be used in a dangerous manner and going nuts banning everything dangerous is thus futile. If people are truly interested in personal safety, and would be willing to exercise some intellectual honesty with themselves, they'd give up the biggest risk to life and limb over anything else in the world -- the car.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Just a few days ago I was at a nice restaurant and I got a call from a friend's daycare -- their son was going into anaphylactic shock, they couldn't get through to the parents, and I was the backup emergency person.
Of course, to a random bystander, I probably looked like some idiot taking a call in a nice restaurant, talking loudly, then running around and bugging the waitstaff for a pen and paper.
If someone had jammed that call, I would have stabbed them with my salad fork.
Does your significant other love shoes?
Ha. Ha. Apparently you're not immune to 'smug fuck' yourself. I regularly (well, offpeak), cruise along at 75mph on I-5 between Seattle and Tacoma in my Prius and it doesn't feel fast-as-hell. In fact, going to visit my wife's family, going along I-84, usually earns me an admonition from my wife when I have cruise control set at 85mph+ in said same Prius.
Postscript: yes, I am aware that I pointed out that some people like to follow the law, whilst I also admitted I speed.
The only hot-button missing from your tirade is "think of the children". OK, I'll admit I'm in my mid 50's. Back in the early/mid 1980's, I remember 2 new trends in phones...
1) the rise of telemarketing (answering machines were non-existant for the average consumer)
2) instead of phones being hard-wired into the wall, you could actually get the now-familiar phone-jack
There was all sorts of yelling and screaming and apocalyptic predictions about the thousands of people who would die because they had disconnected their phones from the wall socket, and wouldn't get the warning phone call that their house was on fire, or some natural disaster (flood/fire/whatever) was coming their way. Guess what, it didn't happen.
One incident I do remember is when my employer was short-staffed in one office. In addition to someone being on vacation, and someone else on a long training course, another employee in a rotating shift position got pregnant, and was unable to continue, especially with the shiftwork. Because I had done the same job a few years earlier, I got pulled off my regular duties, got a 1-week refresher course by the shift supervisor, then went on rotating shifts by myself for a month.
The morning after my first graveyard shift, I got home around 8:00 AM, and was not exactly 100% lucid. I undressed and crashed into bed... only to be awakened 3 times in the next hour and a half by telemarketing assholes. Fortunately, I had a condo with the "new" phone jacks, and disconnected it from the wall. If the phone had been hard-wired, so help me, I would've "disconnected" it "the hard way".
Similarly, I don't think that society is going to callapse if cellphones become unreliable. Unlike you young whippersnappers, I remember the ers BC... Before Cellphones. Civilization survived thousands of years without cellphones, and can do so again.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
A similar point can be made from something I have issues with.
I live in New Hampshire, USA and some of you may know that this is a motorcycle state where there are 10s of thousands of motorcycles riding around in the warm weather.
It is unfortunate for me that half of these motorcycles are extremely loud on purpose. The louder the bike, the cooler the rider I suppose. The problem with this is that there are plenty of times where bikers ride in packs. So you will have 10 or 20 in a pack riding past you on the street completely drowning out any sound. Your voice, your phone and even invading your music player. The only thing you can hear is the awful throaty rumblings of a 120+ db of the 'hogs'.
Of course it is not just me in this society so although I take extreme issue with this noise pollution. I deal with it on the outside. But it is also unfortunate that this same decibel level invades my home when they drive by. Windows and doors closed, still any sound gets drowned out. And believe me the tv is one thing, but when I am in my own home on the phone and a motorcycle rides by and keeps me from hearing my conversation I feel my rights are being taken away from me.
I posed a question to a stranger at the parking lot which serves both our Post Office and state run liquor store. The question was along the lines of 'how you could in good conscience ride around knowing that you are intruding on peoples rights?' His answer was very interesting. (paraphrasing) "It is my right to have my bike as loud as I want.".
Of course my thoughts went to where is my right to not have to listen to it? Does one right supersede the other?
I guess my point (if I have one) here is that FCC regulations aside, we as a society need to do what is best for society and not the individual.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
It's the FCC's job to prevent radio interference. As nearly as I can tell, they haven't taken this seriously for decades, but it's still their job.
Ham radio operators always used to be told that the FCC had enforcement trucks with triangulating equipment that would locate sources of interference, and that if you didn't keep your signal clean the jackbooted FCC thugs would be rolling up to your door.
I don't know how true this ever was, but interference is becoming an increasing problem. If the FCC needs some enforcement resources to take care of it, they should ask for them and get them. The free market is fine up to a point, but we still need cops and traffic signals.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Or just turn places like theatres into giant Faraday cages and put up prominent notices to that effect. I don't believe the FCC forbids passive means of shielding signals from entering or leaving. The last time I went to a movie some asshole got four or five calls and I basically had to threaten to turn the thing into a suppository before they turned it off.
Shielded restaurants and theatres would gain more than they lose. I'd go to such places preferentially because I can eat and be entertained in peace. Yes, assholes may be a minority but it only takes one to ruin an experience for a multitude.
So to answer your question: No, these devices are not FCC approved and they will not be approved unless the FCC and the US government change this section.
Or unless you are the government in which case you can buy them here.
www.antennasystems.com
The truth shall set you free!
Supposing instead they "jam" cell phones passively using a thin wire mesh on the wall. That would be completely legal. Should they get sued then simply because your cell phone doesn't work when there is an emergency and you could not walk the 10 metres to the wired phone which the premises will presumably have?
If so, other than a fine for illegally blocking the signal actively, why should they be sued?
Actively blocking the signal means you annoy and endanger cell phone callers even outside your establishment.
Cellphone conversations are very different from ambient conversations.
It's easier to filter out ambient conversations because you can hear all of the dialog. With cellphone conversations, however, you hear only one side. Your brain then works to fill in the missing dialog. Because your brain is working harder, cellphone conversations are more intrusive and annoying.
I suggest that you spend a fair amount of time in Japan, where public cellphone conversations are frowned upon (especially in trains). After coming back to the U.S., you'll realize how annoying cellphone chatters really are.
In light of the potential privacy issues raised by swarming cellphone CCTV's. How we now now that mobile phones can be remotely eavesdropped upon, even without needing their owners to switch them on. How the FBI now has web apps where they can zero in on your location and whereabouts, activating every phone in your area, and overlaying your position on moving maps with the ability to also click on nearby CCTV cameras (unable to find the damn story, it was on /. just a few months ago). Etc., I would not be surprised if privacy-minded slashdotters were not searching en masse for where they can buy these jammers.
As a Slashdotter you're a member of a dangerous segment of the population, you are the bane of corporations and governments, you put blocked information into the wild and instantly expose it to millions of techies, you likely know how to do technical stuff and know more about your legal rights than the average person, you are exposed to many posts discussing in-depth weapons or the chemistry of explosives, biological weapons, etc. You're also likely critical of the government and tend to be pro-privacy or have libertarian leanings. Even if you don't actually post anything, you're still associating - there are fewer than six degrees of separation between you and any number of individuals with specialized knowledge about 'dangerous' things.
Gawd, I love slashdot...if it dies then that's one more nail in the coffin of freedom, liberty and justice. Another reason to fight the commercialization of this site.
...with smoking. And yet for some reason people feel that they need to force the government to step in and enforce such rules en masse, instead of letting individual businesses decide for themselves...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Those cell jammers also jam emergency use devices used by police and firefighters.
Having those things in a business could easily cost a firefighter his life
and no amount of lawsuits will bring back some poor child's father because
some restaurant owner wanted to block cell phones.
I simply refuse to believe that the appropriate way to deal with with a few assholes is to put chicken-wire in your walls.
It's much simpler than that. If you own a theater or a restaurant and don't want your customers answering their phones, just make it a policy and enforce it.
If you're a customer and it bothers you when people answer their phones, you shouldn't even really have to deal with it - complain to the manager and demand your money back or tell them that as long as that sort of thing is permitted, they've lost your business. It shouldn't take many people doing that at your local theater before they decide it's good business to make it their policy and to enforce it.
A directional jammer, possibly one that automatically adjusts its direction to bounce off a wall or something similar, thereby disrupting signals without revealing the location of the jammer? (Note: I have no idea how viable this would be. I am not a ... whatever one would have to be to understand how this would work).
Everything is subjective.
I would have bought a jammer long ago had Amtrak not established quiet cars where cell phone usage is forbidden (hell, even load talking is taboo).
> If you're in a public place, you're going to be surrounded by the sounds of people
> talking. I don't understand how hearing a person talking on a cell phone is any more
> disruptive than hearing them talk to the person next to them.
Talking in an ordinary conversational voice, either to someone across the table, or to a cellphone is not a problem. *YELLING AT THE TOP OF YOUR FUCKING VOICE* is a problem. Apparently, cellphones don't provide audible feedback of your voice, so some people *YELL AT THE TOP OF THEIR VOICE* when talking on a cell.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
by incorporating Faraday cages into movie theaters, restaurants and buses, and posting conspicuous signs informing patrons that their devices will not function in these locations.
Naturally, there are cell phone jammers for sale on ebay. (item #230187882339). From the UK only $179.
Your state may vary, but it's legal to go up to 15MPH over the limit while passing someone where I live.
If you're going under the limit in the passing lane you can be pulled over by the troopers. If you want to enforce the speed laws, become a police officer. Else, GTFO of the way and let me deal with the consequences of my choice of speed.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
A couple of approached with construction materials might be carbon fibers embedded in concrete for both strength and RF attenuation, or drywall with carbon fibers embedded in the gypsum (though that may impact the fire-proofing ability of drywall).
Anyway, the passive approach is much less likely to lead to legal problems than the active jammer approach, though businesses employing the passive approach would be welll advised to make sure patrons know about the RF blocking.
Take them outside, with the smokers. You're just as annoying as they are. I have a cell, but I'm not rude enough to stand in a store yapping away on the damn thing. If I need to make a call, I'll go outside. If I get a call, it's on vibrate, and I'll answer it on my way outside.
Sure, it might be slightly inconvenient to me at times, but at least it's not rude to others.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
...
3. PROFIT!
it's all there ...
.22 caliber gun disguised as cell phone
Mobile Phone Gun -
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Good luck finding one. That's part of the problem. At least in my state (MN), you're lucky if you can even find a payphone anymore. If you do find one, the odds it works are nearly 0 as well. Cellphones, at least around here, == death of the payphone.
In that case, you would want to set up jammers over the entire city that emit short bursts of jamming at random intervals. That would signifiganly reduce the effectiveness of the IEDs because then the people setting them up could no longer control when they would detonate.
have you ever politely asked somebody to keep it down...you'll find that most people when treated with a little respect will gladly oblige, and apologize.
Not been my experience at all. I've politely asked someone to take their cell phone conversation outside (after the third call in a 5 minutes span) in a movie theater and this guy threw a drink on me and stormed out (I later got an apology from the managers and free movie for that one).
Once a bus in a city I was unfamiliar with stops and was trying to ask someone a question and this teen-aged girl was yammering away so loud I couldn't hear anything the guy I was asking for help was saying. As the teenager took her hand off the pole to flip me off after asked her if she could tone it down for a second, the bus slowed down and she fell on her ass (won't ever forget that one).
My favorite was when I was on a plane and the flight attendant was telling this lady to please shut down her cell phone as they were going to close the doors and back away from the gate, the lady kept one waving her hands and the three flight attendents walked over and stared at her until she put her phone away. After they flight attendants went to sit down, the lady pulls out her cell phone again and instead of getting up again, the flight attendant gets on the speaker and tells everyone to stare at the woman in seat 16D... Took her another minute to shut up, which was then followed by a round of applause in the cabin. Sadly, that's the world I live in...
I don't have a jammer myself, but if I had one of these things, I'm sure there would be times that I wouldn't regret using it at all
While I can understand your frustration in those situations, the person who you grabbed the phone from has all sorts of rights to press criminal and civil charges against you. The legally correct way is to complain to the management of the establishment you are patronizing and telling them they will lose your business if nothing is done about it. Remember, you chose to be there as well.The world doesn't revolve around you either.
Won't someone think of the socially awkward scrapers!
How's a jammer going to kill hundreds of people?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
What happened to telling annoying and distracting people to just get the fuck out? This cell phone jamming business reminds me an awful lot of the kind of childish social antics that go on in high school. If you don't want customers using phones, then tell them and enforce it. Don't try to play both sides and do it behind their backs, not only are you doing nothing to improve the situation outside your little bubble, but you're also causing a host of problems that have been brought up elsewhere. Outside of people bitching on Slashdot I've never been in a situation where the distraction of a cell phone couldn't be fixed with a little social interaction, but it's usually not even worth that much.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
While I utter dislike people who are total boors when using a cellphone, you should all remember that there are many small communities and many small businesses that where people who make themselves on call for emergencies do so by using a cell phone. These are peeple whom the 40 hour work week is a fantasy, and getting up in the middle of the night means no sleep that day. There are a lot of epople like that. In no specific order, these people include, but are not exclusive to: - volunteer firefighters; - plumbers; - tow truck operators; - medical personel on call, including doctors; - emergency repair contractors, including 24 hour glass & window repair; - funeral directors & coroner's service; The list goes on. Point is, for these people the only way to get away from the phone and have an evening with your family is to use your cell phone. But then these are the people who more often than not put the cell phone on "vibrate" and will answer discretely whenever possible. Just remember, the next time you have a sewer back up at 9:00 PM and your basement is flooded with 2-3 feet of sewage, and you need somebody there NOW to fix it, how would you feel if you could not get your plumber because the restaurant he or she is in has a cell phone jammer? I don't know the answer, but for a small percentage of the population, cell phones are essential. What happened before cell phones- pager and expensive mobile phones.
I don't understand this argument at all. There are circumstances under which I would be incredibly angry if someone was trying to reach me about something vital (like a life-or-death situation, one of my loved ones in danger, or something like that) and could not because of some asshole like you.
My father had cancer, and while he had cancer I was always on call, always available to hear any news about it whatsoever. During the final days it was all I could do not to just sit silently staring at my phone, waiting for news. I was polite, though. If I was in a theatre and an important call came through (on silent, mind you) I would leave the theatre and immediately call back. I know I am not the average case here but I'm also not extraordinary. Lots and lots and lots of people out there are smart and polite people who know how to responsibly use a cell phone. Don't block us out just because of the ignorant masses that just don't get it.
And you know what? You're living in 2007 now, so if you hear someone's cell phone go off then TOUGH F*CKING COOKIES. You can approach them politely and ask that they put their phone on silent or go outside, and if they're reasonable they'll understand that they're being a jerk and correct their behaviour (most people will have this reaction). If you don't have the guts to go walking up to someone and tell them that they're being annoying, then you should just sit and deal with it.
Well, I figure if you're a 10 year old with a bad heart you won't know that your chest hurts, so you need someone who is nowhere near you to tell you that you don't feel well and should get to the hospital.
Wait, what?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Even if you think that it's OK to jam cell phones, how do you deal with the problem that the jammer is not selective? There are other radio services, including police and fire, that use frequencies in the same bands as those used by cell phones. Personally, I hope that the FCC drops a 10-ton ACME wrecking ball on anyone who operates a jammer in the USA.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I do understand the general concern that jamming might reduce access to emergency services. However, the emotional pitch of some of the anti-jamming posts is quite shrill. No one is using any real data to make the 911 access argument, they are only envisioning worst-case "what if" situations and then appealing to our emotion (an argumentative fallacy). Keep in mind general 911 service via cell phones is a (very) recent thing. People did fine before that using landlines -- and landlines at businesses where jamming might take place are still ubiquitous. The real issue is the _expectation_ of mobile services and _active_, _covert_ blocking of those services (PASSIVE blockign of services from poor coverage etc. is different). This is what is really bugging people -- and rightly so. Spontaneous (covert) jamming is currently illegal and should probably stay that way for about a dozen reasons (also note, for similar reasons, I can't set up a radio station broadcasting above a certain power level anywhere I want either). Nevertheless, if jamming is made legal (I do think some places can make an argument that cell phone's should be off limits), the jammers should be required to clearly post that jamming is taking place and direct users to the nearest jam-free zone.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
Buy an MP3 player and some headphones and shut the fuck up. This would be cheaper and more legal than a cellphone jammer, and would prevent you from deciding how other people should act in public. There are plenty of repressive countries in the world that you might feel more comfortable in, btw.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Yeah, too bad they tore up those emergency call boxes and nobody knows basic life saving technique.
Wait, hold on. They DIDN'T tear up the emergency call boxes? And they teach kids what to do if someone is choking in grade school? Well, crap. Looks like you're a fucking moron.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
"or someone gets stuck in the elevator in a building and has a severe asthma attack."
Yeah, because elevators don't have phones in them to.. wait, they DO?
And you forget that businesses have these new things called "land lines" that allow calls to be made even when your cell phone gets no service! It's revolutionary.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I was really hoping that this was a story about the jamming of cellphones into various orifi of their rude users was on the rise. Oh, wait, that would never happen because the cell carriers have everyone already jam packed full of things in said orifices. That said, it all kind of makes sense now. We pay to be abused by the carriers and in turn passively share that abuse with those around us. Man, why do telco's hate humanity so?
Actively blocking the signal means you annoy and endanger cell phone callers even outside your establishment.
(and why does Slashdot not allow editing of posts, like any site since 1998?)
What I would like to see is some form of opt-in "jamming". For example, when I go to a movie theatre, I might sometimes forget to turn off my cell phone. But if there is a device in the theatre that tells your cell phone: you are now in a theatre, then I can tell my cell phone to go to vibrate mode whenever I am in that zone. I.e. the theatre tells you where you are, and it is your responsibility to act on that information accordingly. I should then be able to change my outgoing message, so I'm still available: "Hi you have reached the phone of Joe. I am currently in a movie theatre, and will look like a fool if I answer the phone now, but in case of a real emergency, please press 1, and my phone will ring. Otherwise, please leave a voice mail or text message." I think something like this would greatly help the problem, because currently the caller has no idea that he might be putting the callee in a socially unacceptable position at the time that the call is being placed.
Same argument as many other innocuous item which can be used to enable crime. Like crowbar for example. Why do you think crowbar can still be sold without liability ? For a simple reason. You cannot say/predict all the usage an item will be put to by somebody. You say whatever safe usage is, then this is over. At least in any sane country it is so.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
While I am in-favor of killing the signal of loud-talking idiots in restaurants, there are legitimate reasons not to block cell coverage. I recently worked on a project that lets a paramedic crew send EKG data to an E.R. via a cellular connection. If paramedics were treating a patient lying on the floor of a restaurant and they wanted to transmit EKG data back to the docs at the E.R., hopefully the restaurant patrons with "jammers" would turn the jammers off. Yes, it's a special case and I acknowledge that somehow we did manage to get along back in the "olden days" when paramedics had to cart your ass to the hospital before the docs could see your EKG.
Having somebody NOT speaking through a cell phone but to another persons, except that another person in one group never answer, and in another group answer with a completely unrelated conversation. If the study cited in the BBC article is spot on, then both those should trigger the same level of annoyance.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I used to have the cubicle next to Speakerphone Man. This guy not only used his speakerphone all the time, he took his voice mail on it, and *answered* his voice mail on it. If I didn't have good headphones and an MP3 player on my laptop, I wouldn't have survived. In fact when I had to reinstall my laptop one day I almost didn't survive... YOU try remembering your settings when Speakerphone Man is bawling in your ear. I'm still scarred from the experience.
I have observed, both watching others and observing myself, that when people are on the phone (not just a cell, but any phone), they tend to take themselves out of the current environment: basically zone out and connect with the person they are conversing with. A passenger or anyone in the current environment remains part of the current environment. You feel no need to maintain the conversation when something untoward happens because the passenger can observe the same things you do. When you are on the phone, you are trying to maintain a separate existence shared with the other person.
Pay attention to your own responses in the two circumstances and I claim you will quickly notice the difference.
Most often seen reply: "But I need it for emergency... I'm a Sysadmin/Nurse/Surgeon/Firefighter".
Yes, you are right.
Yes, your use is justified.
And you make up 0.01% of what we're talking about here.
I commute to work just 30 minutes each way. At least once a week there's some idiot on the train with a cellphone conversation so loud and/or obnoxious that I'd like to hit him with something hard. At least once a day there's someone with a ringtone that was certainly carefully engineered after extensive studies as to what the most nerve-wrecking sound imagineable is and at what precise volume (maximum) you have to play it to cause inner-ear bleedings. At least twice as often there are less irritating but still obnoxious and anti-social cases that scream "I'd piss in your front yard and shit in your doorway, too".
And as far as I get the contents, it has not once not ever been something important that couldn't have waited until the asshole got home.
If cell phone jammers were legal, I'd buy one tomorrow.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And how can I make it direct the jamming signal, so I can point it at drivers with phones pressed to their faces? I've never seen anyone who is a better driver when holding a phone to their face.
I want the jamming to sound to them like a wild screech of noisy feedback.
Who's got my Christmas present?
--
make install -not war
Here's my questions to the /. audience... When you go anywhere, are you expecting 100% of the time to get a cell phone signal?
-Drive into a parking garage, no signal.
-Go down into the basement, no signal.
-Drive through a tunnel, no signal.
There's plenty others but you get the point...
So why should you expect to get "4 bars" 100% of the time?
You shouldn't. If you want 100% guaranteed signals, sit by a landline.
I know we've got some self-righteous people here, "I'm a sysadmin, my linux servers can never go down..." "I'm a brain surgeon..." I don't care WHO or WHAT you are as you try to justify your need to have Beethoven's 5th or Snoop's 2nd play at max volume.
Look at the smokers. They need to smoke, so they go outside every hour. You want to check your voicemail, blackberry, pager, go outside every hour and check. If it's going to kill you, or another person for you to be 100% unreachable for a period of time, then don't go to these places where you are unavailable.
What would you do if you were in a movie theater, sports arena in which the walls were of sufficient thickness/material that you couldn't get a signal? Would you sue the owner of the arena/theater? Doubt it. You'd probably blame your wireless carrier for not putting a tower INSIDE the arena/theater.
What about when you fly? If you are so self-important that you can never miss calls, then when you fly from SF to NY and it takes 6hrs, you probably tell someone, "Hey, I'm going to be unavailable for 6hrs on Tuesday, don't page me."
Lastly, if you're a sysadmin, and you have a process in which "If we don't reach Bob in 5minutes, our whole business will die. Go create a procedure, whereby your IT group isn't "One car wreck away from a disaster." Go create backups, alternative people to help etc...
Belly ache all you want, but smokers aren't allowed to smoke in movie theaters because it's unhealthy to me. Go ahead and use you cell phone in the theater and you'll find out how unhealthy it is to you.
The talking on the phone I can deal with, by talking to the rude talker. Sometimes I take the other half of their conversation, or just act like they're talking to me, other times I just tell them to stop talking, or just yell "WHAT? WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" They almost always shut up and/or leave.
What really needs automated jamming is ringing. Phones should be required to accept a signal that switches them from ringing to vibrating. Then movie theaters, public transit vehicles, and other places where the public is forced to share a space with some people too rude to keep to themselves. Buzzing won't interfere wih their functioning, it won't privately infringe on the public airwaves except to send the signal.
The damn phones should be shipped to vibrate by default anyway, with a ringtone an explicit option, and a single puttonpress to switch between the modes.
--
make install -not war
Are you sure that applies to 4-lane highways? It makes sense for a 2-lane road, where you want to get out of the left lane ASAP, but for highways, it just seems like a license to speed.
Let's say there's a TICKING TIME BOMB waiting to go off. And you've got a terrorist on the phone, who knows where the TICKING TIME BOMB is and he's watching a movie in a crowded theater. Now do you let hundreds of people die, because you want everyone to enjoy the movie? NO, you force him to talk on the phone, and MAKE him tell you where the bomb is. Anyone in the theater who uses a cellphone jammer is either a Democrat (who refuses to believe that we're at War) or another terrorist in on the plot.
I do wonder what the fuss is all about. I don't live in the States, but up here in Canada cell phone is not a problem. The only place I've seen with a "turn off your cell phones" sign is a movie theatre, and I haven't been annoyed by a cell phone in a restaurant in a LONG time. I do recall when cell phones were just becoming popular, that we had some growing pains, as people established new social expectations for their usage. IMHO we're past that point, and the overwhelming majority of people respect the new "rules".
Hate to break it to you, but there's no guarantee that your cell phone will work. Anywhere.
Furthermore, if someone's jamming on a train because of some idiots you can be pretty sure that person will switch off if the guy next to him has a heart attack. If you're in a resturant they have these people call "staff" and those "staff" have acess to a "land line".
The range of most portable, hand-held jammers is small enough that it would be very difficult to be in range to jam but far enough not to notice an emergency.
Besides, i wouldn't jam the 911 calls. I'd jam then "OH MY GOD, DID YOU HEAR WHAT BECKY DID WITH THAT GUY LAST WEEKEND? YEAH, WE'RE GOING OUT TONIGHT AGAIN. YEAH, SAME BAR. I HOPE THAT CREEPY GUYS ISN'T THERE THIS TIME. YOU KNOW, THE ONE WITH THE...." at 5AM when everyone else on the train is trying to sleep.
Oh, and i have another way to silence these people. Just say 'Excuse me, You're so inconsiderate and rude that I hope you get AIDS and die'. For some reason that always seems to silence them...at least for a few moments.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Another big problem these "phones" now cause is during live concerts and other theatrical events. People point their cameraphones at the stage, from inside the darkened audience. The lights from the preview screen are bright and very distracting. Then there are the people taking flash pictures inside a big room, of a stage lit with hundreds of kilowatts, who sparkle the audience with intermittent, impotent, but annoying flashes.
We can jam these phones' audio with radio that doesn't distract because we can't see that frequency. What can we do to squelch these annoying little lights, wielded by legions of selfish ignoramuses?
--
make install -not war
But the point remains that in a busy theater you'll often end up with at least one person who needs the manager solution. And you run into one or two people who just honestly forget about it, despite the 10 or so "Please turn off your cell phone" messages. Purses or those with a bunch of pockets can make it take a while to find and silence the phone, if it's that person's inclination to do so. It's particularly bad in a theater because now you have to find a manager which may take several minutes while the guy is yammering and the brave soul who went to get the manager is missing his movie, the company of the people he came with, etc. And it's sometimes a pain, even with a manager, to get the person out of the theater. I'm all for having chicken wired theaters - maybe not all of them in a multiplex - that are clearly marked as such. If you're somebody on call, you go to the ones that aren't chicken wired. If you've forgotten your cellphone, it doesn't inconvenience a couple hundred people who've all payed for the privilege of watching a movie on a big screen with good sound and no interruptions.
The same goes for other environs. Some coffee shops or restaurants will end up advertising their access to cell services the way they do wifi now, and others will advertise that not only do they not allow them, but that they won't even work in the store. It then offers a choice to those who don't want to deal with cell phones, and their multiple annoying ring tones, and it gives those who *have to have* a cell phone on them, for whatever reason foreknowledge that their phone won't work in the establishment.
Of course, if you put up enough cages it may make the already spotty cell networks more spotty, so this may not be the most practical of solutions, but I have no problem with the idea of making certain establishments cell free as long as they're clearly marked. Unfortunately for all considerate cell users and patrons who aren't using the cell phone it only takes one inconsiderate user to sour an evening for dozens if not hundreds of other people. And for those who are belligerent personalities, the use of a cell phone, similar to trolls on forums, seem to make them more belligerent, not less so. Having an option of just not dealing with them at all would be a relief. It's not a cop out or a weak willed solution, it's a statement that one knows without reservation that he won't have to deal with the cell phones at all.
As for jammers, they're typically illegal because they violate FCC rules on transmission in frequencies owned ("leased") by the cell phone service providers. It has nothing to do with a right to eat or ability to call 911. That's why shielding your theater to block cell phone signals is perfectly legal.
For those of us who do need cell phones on a critical basis, we do avoid tunnels, basements and other dead zones. You watch the bars on your phone and you memorize if you have to local places to avoid. Yes, this does mean there are places you simply cannot go, even if it means missing work, family events, and so forth.
The only other choice is to stay beside a land line 24/7.
I'm confused... The terrorist is in the theater? Where's the bomb? Is the bomb also in the theater? The theater is crowded therefor it is possible that the terrorist enjoys popular movies. Or, maybe, it is opening weekend? Is it that Vince Vaughn movie about elves and Santa Claus? In any case, perhaps the terrorist is a movie buff. If he's really into movies he might be the kind of person who always turns off his cell phone before entering a movie; especially a crowded one. Just because he's a terrorist doesn't mean he's also rude.
However, perhaps he is a rude terrorist. You claim that you can MAKE him talk on the phone and tell you where the bomb is. Why did he take your call? Does he have a custom ringtone for your calls so he knows it's you? An even better question: why do you have this terrorist's cell phone number and why does he have a custom ringtone for you? Are you, MillionthMonkey, a terrorist? Are you on his Friends and Family network? I'm really disappointed in you. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting in Iraq and you've got terrorist on your Friends and Family network! You are a disgrace to this country!
Why don't you get off of your prayer rug and realize that the American people are not your enemy, Abdul, I mean, MillionthMonkey. We believe in Live and Let Live and the Pursuit of Happiness. Also, don't blow up our Vince Vaughn Christmas movies! When Bill O'Reilly talked about the War on Christmas this is not what he meant. In fact, though I haven't checked recently, I think that Bill O'Reilly is often opposed to terrorist acts!
So, for the sake of Vince Vaughn, Bill O'Reilly, and Christmas movies everywhere I implore you, MillionthMonkey, to talk to your terrorist friends and convince them to not wind up their ticking time bombs. Give Peace a Chance!
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
However, when DRIVERS (ab)use their cell phones and stop paying attention to the road, well now they're putting everyone else's life around them at risk. They increase traffic congestion, slow other peoples' arrivals at their destination, increase other's fuel consumption, and contribute to other drivers' stress. (I'm sure there are other adverse side-effects; fill in your own blanks here.)
I would love to have a cell jammer for the highway, to get those drivers off their phones and have them start paying attention to driving their two-ton, 70 MPH, air-conditioned sledge hammers.
Does nobody challenge this ridiculous statement?
Exactly where on this planet is it illegal?
Who enforces this law?
What are the prescribed penalties?
How many have been arrested, convicted and punished?
...omphaloskepsis often...
I noticed the paying customer viewpoint wasn't in any of the comments.
Stop being so damn oversensitive, any parent with a couple of brats are many times worse than anyone on a cell phone.
Instead of the knee-jerk Total Denial reaction, why not analyse the problem?
Problem: loudmouth
Possible solution: something like a time-delayed feedback gizmo a unit that can pick up the noise (poor-quality microphone) and then feed it back to the source (poor-quality speaker) with a half-second delay (cheap circuit).
Result: loudmouth can't hear self think, and gets really annoyed with you.
Problem solved. (Get really for new problem.)
There are better ways to deal with the issue.
100% agreed here. The best way to deal with the issue is to actually address and *deal* with the issue. First of all it means a visible policy against the phones, or at least disturbing of others, much the same as hospitals or theatres do. The second means enforcing it. A few cases:
A few weeks ago I was in the hospital, and was please to see that most people when entering the emergency area would pop out their phones and then turn them off or at least silence them. Various people also foraged outside periodically to turn on their phones and call home, etc. One woman happily ignored the signage, and then proceeded to yack loudly on her phone, sharing her loud conversation with an emergency room full of patients (to add to this, her loud talking and cellphone giggling didn't seem to indicate any need to be in emerg, but that's a different story). I finally got tired of it and when she finished one conversation of many, asked her to kindly turn off her phone. Instantly she became defensive, with the "why should I" attitude, at which point I pointed out that the "no cell phone zone" sign she had likely noticed but happily ignored. While she glared at me for various intervals during the rest of my wait, her phone stayed off, and others seemed happier with this.
The second was in a movie theatre, with some girl a few rows up popping open her phone to send text-messages. At least the sound was off, but you'd be surprised at how bright the glare is (and yes, like any winking light in a dark room, very obvious and distracting). After text-message #3 I asked her to turn it off and she managed to do so with undue fuss (or at least if she gave me a look, it was then too dark to see). Personally I would have been happy enough if she'd done her texting with her phone under a jacket or whatever so that others couldn't see, but most people who both paying to see an overpriced movie actually take the time to watch it rather than texting.
The last, not cellular related, but similar in concept, was the local "Superstore" gas bar. The three stalls nearest the pay-booth are labeled as "cars only", but continually suffered from a plague of trucks, SUV's, and other vehicles with large or dual gas tanks. I have fond memories of one gentleman who happily to me to f*** myself after I pointed our his large dual-tanked truck was in the car lane, and he compounded his politeness by giving me the finger as he drove away. the gas bar itself did nothing for about the last two years, but in the last month has added a larger "no trucks" sign that people do seem to pay attention to. My take has always been that refusing service to those in the appropriate stalls would have worked nicely (if they're not supposed to be there, why turn on the pump for them), or even better to have wordage on the signs that say those who are using the wrong pump would be charged 7c/L extra. Profit for the gas company, and a good method for dissuading rude pump-hogs.
So the point of all this? Policies are great, but they do jack-shit if they are not acted upon or at least pointed out to those who violate them (and then, if further ignored, they definitely do need to be acted upon). Theatres and hospitals have been known to have security which deals with those violating the 'no phone' rule, whereas the gas station had been known to do nothing about it. As such, an unenforced policy is really about as effective as none at all.
While I have in some instances (grocery store line-up, etc) half turned because it seemed somebody was addressing me (pointed at me, talking, and with a headset), it takes about .5 seconds to acknowledge that the aren't, and - if the conversation is of regular volume - ignore it.
With a restaurant, it's not a problem. Why? Well probably because there's no need for me to be tuning in to the conversations of those around me, cellular or otherwise. If they're at normal volume, and the person isn't directly positioned to address me, it's pretty obvious that they're not talking to me, and I've never found a reason to assume otherwise.
This of course doesn't apply to those that speak at a conversational level that would put a stadium PA system to shame, but that's a different story, and one that should be address by either the restaurant, or perhaps a brave individual who is willing to point out the rudeness of such things on the hopeful assumption that the disruptive party will cease the conversation - or reduce their volume level - without becoming confrontational.
Yes, it does take away those privileges. It also takes away the privilege to talk at a normal, non-disruptive volume level, or to polite excuse onself as a non-audible buzzer warns of impending (and possibly important) calls. Perhaps you'd prefer that those who have such calls stick themselves in solitary from the rest of us, but I'd just be happy if the various locations dealt efficiently and directly with the individuals that were actually disruptive.
Clubbing somebody over the head with a hefty rock also takes away their right (by which I assume means, in actuality, ability) to be rude and disruptive, but as much as we'd like to do so in some cases it also takes away a lot more than that, and as such is not deemed acceptable. By the same system, laws are in place that make much of this jamming activity likewise illegal, and thus it is also not acceptable.
Lets be clear here. To me jamming is perfectly acceptable, however for the same reason that jamming is illegal is the same reasons cell phone jammers are becoming more popular. Abuse.
Many people don't think it's bad behavior when they pick up their cell phone at a restaurant. Sure, there are some exceptions but make it quick and if it's not walk away from the table.
So how is there possibly a balance between what is acceptable and what is not? So first lets define what most of these "small jammers" do without getting too technical.
First, the typical jammer people are starting to use is about the size of wallet. It creates interference up to around 25 feet. Some of the stronger ones go as far as 150 feet. This is not that much space and is why they are so hard to detect.
However, its very easy to "abuse" this by simply increasing the power input. It's a direct relation. The more power the wider the blocking signal. Sometimes it's not abuse, it's incorrect setup, lack of knowledge that affect things. Also, sometimes your signal can be amplified. There was a case in NC a few years back where some guy used one in his car and for some reason a repeater in the area picked up and you can imagine the hell happened then.
That's the primary reason for people NOT to use them. So what can we do? The first step is to set guidelines on jammers that ARE acceptable and make them available to stationary businesses. Require a license for them so that the user knows the rules.
Second, only allow the newer type of jammers (well not knew but the new trend happening with jammers), which are intermittent and detector/jammers. Intermittent go off randomly every minute just long enough to terminate the call. These have mixed effects. the GOOD ones are the Detector/Jammers. They detect a signal and on a preset time being a jamming signal. So if it detects a cell phone on a certain frequency for longer than 15 seconds a jamming begins for 30 seconds then turns off.
These units are quite a bit more expensive and probably not a home project for most users. You can adjust the power settings, control the timings etc. Jammers are EXTREMELY easy to test on range and if you're spending the $800+ for this piece of equipment you can afford the $35 device from radioshack that will help you ensure that your jamming signal does not go outside of where it should.
However, notice that this trusts that the owner and user would use the equipment correctly. So while in a perfect world this would work... we aren't in a perfect world and there will always be jackasses who talk on cellphones at inappropriate times and assholes who run jamming equipment.
I could go into how i think drivers should have to test their multitasking level to see if they qualify for talking on a cell phone while the car is in motion, but that's a complex arguement there.
For now, like I did yesterday I start talking obnoxiously loud so that the person on the cell phone can't hear and make a scene. I have no shame when it comes to these type of people. The person yesterday actually told me "Could you please talk softer I can't hear". I responded "Sorry, I'm having bad reception because some asshole is talking on a cell phone while I'm trying to eat".
That's not a solution for everyone... but many people around me smirked and laughed. My girlfriend thought it was hysterical.
Lots of other situations:
Expectant fathers who may end up with the "baby is on the way" call. Parents who get a much deserved night out, but leave the cellular number with the sitter for emergencies. Those with a family member who may need sudden care (medical issues, dementia, etc). Those in a job that requires sudden response (including the professions mentioned in the parent).
If you think that these people should be blocked entirely from making responsible use of their phones, merely to convenience yourself against the a**holes that make irresponsible use of their phones, then that just puts you in a separate group of a**hole. I take care to not be disruptive of others with my own phone, and yes I find it very irritating when others don't act similarly considerate, but by the same token I'm not so bloody high-and-might as to inconvenience a whole room of one people in order to avoid inconveniencing myself in another. How many people who want cellphones blocked are the same types that just sit and bitch when a cellular user is being disruptive, instead of politely pointing it out (and yes, 9 of 10 times when I do so, the people is somewhat embarrassed but ceases the disruptive activity).
But natural and artificial caves provide excellent cell-phone blocking. One could locate a no-cellphone establishment in such an environment. Sure the view sucks, but a little paint . . .
I actually did work for a while in such a place (you insensitive clods), and while the total lack of sunlight was a major blow to the psyche, it was a cellphone-free paradise. Visitors would come in and just keep checking their phones while meeting with us, probably wondering the whole time why no one had called them yet. All the while, their batteries were draining at a much higher than usual rate, since the instruments kept looking for service with none to be found.
I am not a crackpot.
If people would just be marginally polite and turn off the audible ring then theaters wouldn't be so tempted to jam cellphones. It's not like it's that hard to put a phone on vibrate to see a movie. If a call (silently) comes in that's THAT important, the lobby is only a few seconds away.
If it's not important enough to go to thee lobby for, it's not important enough to answer at all.
When checking out at a store, the cashier and people behind you do not want to just wait around while you quack on about your new shoes, little Johhny's report card, what's going on, etc. The cashier is NOT the one being rude by trying to get you to at least have the courtesy to complete the transaction and get out of the way before you complete your conversation.
At first, perhaps.
After awhile though, people would just realize that if they answer their phones, they will be unceremoniously ejected with no refund, and they'll knock it off, without having to screw things up for people who need to stay in touch or who arrive 5 minutes before the previews and want to fire off a text while they're waiting.
As for the coffee shops and restaurants, I think that ship has sailed... and, frankly, I'm fine with that. My only complaint in those settings is that so many people refuse to talk at a conversational level. At best, I think there's just a small niche market for places
Of course, some new whizbang gadget could appear that negates the entire argument, or some law could be passed, or the entire human race could gain common sense--what I mean, however, is that as time goes on, people who were alive and socially active before widespread cell phone usage will be dying. Gradually, people will forget that people once got along without cellphones. Pretty soon, we might have a generation that's never seen a (working) payphone. This will, eventually, become another perennial nuisance like sneezes-openly-on-subway-sick-guy and pisses-on-the-seat-bathroom-guy(-or-gal); the arguments and appeals to older times, you'd think, would carry less weight over time.
Of course, for one reason or another, people probably won't be discussing this question eighty years from now, anyhow.
How is the inconsiderate person talking loudly on a cell phone worse than the inconsiderate person talking loudly to their friends? Maybe we don't need cell-phone jammers, just gags.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Not sure how easy that would be to implement, but I agree with your sentiment. I would allow 'ringing' if it was confined to the earpiece of a headset.It would be extremely unefficient to keep sysadmins on the premises 24/7 when there's an emergency only once in a while. By having people on call, and making use of modern technology (!), you can have 5 people available in a pinch when things go wrong once in a while, instead of just one sitting in a room and wasting his time.
But anyway, what it gets down to is that you don't seem to be smart enough to realize that some people actually have responsibilities, don't live in their mom's basement, and use their cellphones for something productive.
Movie theaters need to update the "no talking" message to "Turn OFF your phones. No Talking. No Texting. No Exceptions."
Most people have managed to figure out that ringing phones and talking is inconsiderate and attracts undue attention, but haven't yet managed to make the giant mental leap needed to figure out that an audience waving dozens of little flashlights around is equally distracting.
If you're in a theater and need to have a conversation--ANY CONVERSATION--then go outside. Or stay home.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
It's perfectly legal to turn your building into a Faraday cage, which would have the same effect of blocking cellphone signals. The legal point is not whether or not you have the right to prevent cellphones working in your building - you do, and can do so by building a Faraday cage. It's difficult to make a perfect one, and expensive, and ideally requires consideration at the planning stage (e.g. for a new cinema) but it's perfectly legal. Someone unable to make an emergency call on their cellphone would have no legal basis for a complaint - there are areas where cellphone coverage is naturally blocked, say by mountains, and anyone relying absolutely on cellphone coverage is a fool.
The specific legal issue is non-compliance with FCC rules on transmissions. The rules are quite clear, and if you're caught breaking them then you should expect to pay the penalty. Whether you agree with the rules is, of course, another matter...
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I watched one guy dump his phone into the urinal. He had to move the deodorant and guard to fetch it. He shook it off, looked at the display, and continued, the phone now held several inches from his face. I left.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Law enfarcement has to ask permission now to break the law? I thought they'd been doig that for ages?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"... let me deal with the consequences of my choice of speed."
If you were the only one that might ever have to deal with those consequences, then I'd say have at it. Family, friends, other passengers, pedestrians, and the occupants of any other vehicles that may be impacted by those consequences might feel otherwise.
But of course, such a thing would NEVER happen to you.
And your attitude simply reinforces the main issue behind the case in point: The idea that YOUR rights, wants, and needs trump anyone else's.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
YouTube video clip shows how it can be done without an electronic device. Just use yourself. [grin]
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I figure if technology is causing the problem it should solve it too. I'm not advocating the jammers or anything, but I reckon it would be good if there was some sort of official jammer that would not affect the phones of surgeons, etc. perhaps through a subscription service? That way, only people who actually needed it could make those calls.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
I used to work for company with its office in the CBD of Melbourne, when there was a small disaster at a substation that left about half the city without power, elevators jammed, etc. Guess what, that phone that was in the lift? It was wired in to the office PABX, that was running on a UPS with stuffed batteries, so those phones went dead. Kinda handy that mobile phones could be used? (Even though the mobile network shat itself straight away with "OMG is your power off too?" calls)
Yeah, yeah. Parents bitch about private establishments that don't allow children, smokers bitch about private establishments that don't allow smoking...
Now people who are on-call bitch about private establishments that don't allow cell phones...
I agree, there should be a sign, and blocking shouldn't occur without notice. But just because some people have jobs that suck their private life out of existence, it shouldn't mean the rest of us should have to make concessions.
[blockquote]Most often seen reply: "But I need it for emergency... I'm a Sysadmin/Nurse/Surgeon/Firefighter".
Yes, you are right.
Yes, your use is justified.
And you make up 0.01% of what we're talking about here.[/blockquote]
Most often seen reply regarding DRM
"But i need to bypass DRM for educational practice, for research, for time and space shiftng, to make copies so my kids dont destroy them"
regarding Iphone/game console lockdown DRM
"But i'm a power user and want to install/develop custom app X or homebrew Y"
Most often seen reply to overly abusive policies on sampling
"But, even though I make samples, the music is uniquely my own creation, just look at DJ Dangermouse, does his grey album resemble either of the sampled sources?"
Yes, you are right
Yes, your use is justified
And you make up 0.01% of what we're talking about here.
If you side with the minority against the tyranny of the majority in any of the situations I listed you are a hypocrite.
Anyone who would be a public disturbance on a cell phone would find some other way to be a public disturbance without one.
Case and point: an old woman who became a private joke in my family as "cake lady" walked onto a full flight with a cake, and started standing people up and making them move their bags all over the aircraft so she could have the perfect space in the overhead bin for her precious cake. No cell phone needed.. maybe we should jam cakes?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
is a system where cell phones can 'legally' be asked to switch to quiet mode.
Cinemas, meeting rooms, restaurants etc could have a little transmitter that announces itself. Would just need to be a very weak signal that wouldn't go through walls, if you have a big room, then just shove a few up in the ceiling tiles every few metres.
To go with this system you just need to have an extra option on your phone to give you, ring, silent and 'civil'.
Can't believe this would be a particularly hard system to setup.
Still nobody ever listens to my great ideas anyway (mainly as I'm too lazy to do much more than post here), but whilst I'm on a role. I hate that my ring is either too quiet, or too loud for the environment I'm in. Why the hell isn't there an option that uses say, oh I dunno the microphone on my phone to work out how loud it needs to ring to be heard? Actually maybe that's not perfect (it's probably quiet stuffed in my pocket) - I'll expand upon this idea, it also takes into account the loudness of it's own ring (ringer and microphone muffled in my pocket so rign gets louder until it reaches a certain threshold on the microphone).
Not around here. The troopers here are big fans of 'not using your turn signal' and 'not paying attention to that stop sign'. Of course, speeding is still on the list.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Numerous points have been made about emergencies. As a doctor, I would add the following:
Radio waves do not know their discrete boundaries -- I don't have too much of a problem with jamming on private property in theory, provided the business informs the consumer very well that the premises is jammed. Therefore, doctors, etc. can avoid this area when on call or need to be reached, and people can 'vote with their wallets'; in truth I would not be a patron of such a place. However, in practice jamming signals can creep elsewhere, to the neighboring restaurant / apartment / out on the street. This clearly can be very dangerous.
Numerous people have commented that you should not expect to receive cell phone signals everywhere. This is true, and also why physicians still carry low-tech pagers, which have much more of a signal range. In clinical practice, all reliable systems for emergencies have redundancy. For instance, an interventional cardiologist in the middle of the night may be paged for a patient with a heart attack. If the operator doesn't hear back from the doctor in 5 minutes, he pages again and tries another form of communication (cell phone, land line..) If still no response, a backup doctor may be paged (extremely rare). Ideally, this redundancy works across different modalities (e.g. not all cellphone / 900 MHz etc.)
For some reason, probably historical, most doctors consider cellphones unreliable, and pagers completely reliable. For good systems, there must be redundancy as above in all situations. A half year ago, I got a nasty email from another doctor saying that I didn't return a page; I thought the person was crazy and they hadn't paged me, or paged the wrong person (still not sure what happened), but again, had they a second / backup method of reaching me, it would not have been a big deal. My role was not critical in that situation, so nothing happened (also why we didn't have critical redundancy), but if this had been due to *intentional* uninformed jamming, appropriate action would be taken...
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
I've promised myself for years that now if I pay 10 of my hard-earned dollars to go to a movie and some bozo starts yammering away on his phone during the feature itself, I will grab the phone away from him and throw it to the other side of the theater. Yeah, that's a crime of some sort, I'm sure... but would a jury in the world convict you? And if they did, what would the punishment be? A new phone for the dirtbag? Taking me to court to actually get the money would cost more than the phone is worth.
I know it's not as fun as making a neat gizmo to do the job, and obviously it increases your chances of getting knifed by a teenage gangbanger exponentially, but as another comment said, jamming runs the risk of jamming a 911 call.
By listening to the douche say "nuthin, I'm just kickin it at the movies...", you ensure that the call is of a non-vital nature, and therefore rude as hell.
This aggression shall not stand, Dude!
"I always mention, loudly, do you know this guy's calling you while peeing?"
You conservative fool - what, actually, is wrong with using a cellphone on the lav? I've had (several) calls from my clients when either of us have been on the toilet. It's an efficient use of otherwise dead time.
Hah... that same road yesterday afternoon, I watched a trooper who was in the median strip, with a radar gun, just /watch/ a guy in a Mustang doing approximately NINETY in a sixty zone (four lane Interstate) fly by everyone. Didn't even bother.
I hope you're jesting.
Oh- what's that sound? It's just my urine splashing against the bowl. Have you not the most basic of manners?
That weird balloonish-noise? The fellow next to me just cut one, could you repeat that again; no, wait, it's the sound of a flush.
Good heavens, man.
There are a few things you don't do in the toilet. One of this is to not eat or drink something. Lots of germs around, not to mention the scents. Another is to hold your dingus in one hand, whilst talking on the phone with someone. Not sanitary or even polite by any stretch of the imagination.
Downtime? Egads-- are you that time pressured??? This isn't efficiency we're talking about, it's very basic manners and decorum. It has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism-- it's manners! Ask any female or the next three random people you meet, if it's ok to talk on the phone whilst piddling at a urinal. Stand back first. You'll be surprised, I'm guessing.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Like it or not, cell phones are a fact of modern life, and they don't really change anything. There's nothing fundamentally more rude about talking on cell phone than talking to another person who is in the room, and a lot of folks for one reason or another need to be reachable. Most of those folks will leave the area to deal with what they need to deal with, though it can be hard to do that without disrupting someone.
Cell Phone rudeness is basically a combination of a number of things.
None of these things are solved by blocking or faraday cages. Intolerant people will still be intolerant, rude people will still be rude, and the fact that most of us can't control our volume when talking on the phones is an issue to be looked at directly.
There is no such thing as _anybody_ who "needs their cell phone". So what if you're a surgeon? Not 20 years ago, surgeons did not have cell phones. All of a sudden, just because it's physically possible for them to be available 24/7, it should be that way? You can yap about "saving lives", but the fact of the matter is we get hurt. We die. If you're in a serious accident and a doctor is not available for you, tough luck. No other species of animal has access to healers that fix them up if they get injured. Sysadmins? What the fuck? That is not "needing a cell phone"! The only reason a sysadmin "needs a cell phone" is to protect corporate, capitalist interests. The same goes for any on-call job. Your cell phone is not a necessity. Food, water, and shelter are necessities. Everything else is a luxury that self-important humans have come to expect to be handed to them on a silver platter. The fact is, we've become so dependant on technology that we would be unable to live without it. Is it perverse of me to say I'd like to see North America permanently lose all electricity? I'm quite sure the majority of the population wouldn't survive the first year.
Yes I am a theatre-goer, and restaurant goer, and yes I enjoy the relaxing life. And yes, I've heard people on cell phones, and no it's not better than when they aren't on the phone. NO, I have no right to say that people shouldn't use phones. I can suffer through hearing them on a phone the same way I suffer through hearing them talk to a proximal companion.
Just because I can't evesdrop on the other half of the conversation doesn't give me the right to complain.
I have a phone too. And every time I go to a performance, or to a movie, someone somewhere somehow reminds me to turn off my phone. And there's no way in hell that's ever going to happen.
I will gladly silence my phone. It will remain on. I need to be reachable.
I am a heart-surgeon, and if your grandmother breaks her hip, you want the hospital to be able to call me into surgery.
I am a fire-fighter, and if your home bursts into flames, you want dispatch to be able to reach me.
I am a police officer, and if you discover an intruder, you want me to respond.
I am a server admin, and if your systems crash, you want me to be reachable to fix them.
I am an AA sponsor, and if you encounter a bad situation, you want to be able to reach me.
I am a parent, and if my child gets injured, I am the only one who can authorize surgery.
I am a loyal and reliable friend, and if you are in dire need of help, I am more reliable than your mother.
There are hundreds of people who may have the urgent or emergent need to reach me immediately. Whom do you call when you're hurt? Whom do you call when things go wrong? Do you live a life with absolutely no chance of problems?
When you do have a problem, how many people do expect expect to have to call before someone answers? Do you know which of your contacts are out enjoying life versus which ones are sitting at home by the phone?
I have no problem with a world where ringing phones during movies replaces being alone and injured. Stop worrying about what other people do.
So, join me. I avoid entering restaurants without phone service -- and tell them so. I avoid theatres and performance halls that do the same. And any time someone reminds the audience to turn off their phones, I stand up, adn ask politely that I have special permission to leave mine on (and silent), and I pick a profession from the list above at random.
hiding their jammers and using them with impugnity without any hope of accountability.
Cell phone users can be confronted; but jammers can't.
With God as my witness, I rarely use a cell phone when around other people (for privacy reasons), but I'd give anything to get my hands on one of those cowardly lurking jammers.
I'm up for some Old Testament style "let the dude with the fastest fists win" confrontation over that. In fact, I've told cell phoners to STFU in the theater more than once.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Oh if only there was a way to kill the music playing function on cell phones.
I can't tell you how many times I've sat on a train and there's some idiot
playing really crappy music out of the tiny speaker on his cell phone and
I wanted to murder him.
I don't mind people talking on cell phones, but playing music on them and annoying
the hell out of everyone else needs to be stopped, IMO.
Umm, actually, as I understand it, the biggest single category of customers of cellphone jammers are law enforcement officials.
I dunno, it doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Cellphone jamming is vigilante justice, and if you are asking if vigilante justice is ever justified, the answer is a categorical no.
Basically, the rules are simple. Its illegal. If you use a jammer, or even are caught in deliberate possession of one, you broke the law and you ought to be punished. You will be esstopped from using absolute tort immunity, performance of public duty, corporate shield or any other automatic defense if you possess those rights and attempt to assert those rights in court. If you have a legitimate reason for using a jammer, and are authorized to do so by proper authorization, the case will be dismissed. It is up to the judicial branch, and only the judicial branch, to determine the penalties for breaking a law.
If anyone is injured or harmed by your illegal act, you will face further charges and extended penalties and sentences, depending on the nature of the harm inflicted.
Comon slashdotters, you don't get to pick what laws you wish to obey, even if you are a law enforcement officer. Your only option is to campaign to get the law changed.
Now whether or not those laws should exist is another matter. Frankly, I am in favor of them. The benefit to the public afforded by a universally available communications network far outwieghs minor annoyances. There are already laws on the books (such as public nuisance, disturbing the peace and verbal assualt) to deal with such annoyances, all a jammer does is allow individuals to take the law into their own hands. That is never a wise decision.
If you have a problem with someone using a cellphone, contact someone whose has the authority and experience to deal with the problem legally. If the public places don't allow cellphone conversations, the managers have the legal right to ask the individual using the phone to cease and desist or leave, or summon the authorities if the cellphone user refuses the request. If those managers are unwilling to do so, and/or the use of a cellphone is not illegal at that place and time, then there has been no legal cause established and there is not legal justification for interfering in the communication.
What is so hard to understand about that?
If it rings, I'll pick it up whereever and either say call back later or walk outside, but it _must_ ring. If I found out it was being jammed, I'd pay £1 of the bill to avoid prosecution for non payment and not go back.
Get real!
Nobody before 1980 had a cellphone! Some! doctors had a pager. Life went on, the U.S sent people to the moon, and life expectancy was as high as it is now in the West. Oh no, now all the cellphone addict overweights have a lower life expectancy than those poor cellphone less shmucks from the past.
You seem obsessed with the US of A. Explain your troll in the light that inconsidered cell phone use is HATED in all other parts of the world as well. I know it may come as a shock, but america is NOT the world. Furthermore this exact same anti-cellphone hatred appears everywhere else. The companies mentioned in the Times article sell SOME of their products to US customers, they main dealings are however in their country of origin. England and India respectivly.
Your entire troll shotdown by a simple RTFA.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
My personal favourite was when a co-worker of mine was yammering on the phone with what seemed like (and later turned out to actually be) his wife while on a crowded elevator. I shouted at him "Wow, first time I've seen someone getting a blowjob while being on the phone".
You should've seen the look on his face after that...
If anything characterizes the 21st century, its our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people, said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights.
Or put more simply three people are involved here who think "ME ME ME". The caller, who couldn't wait to call, the answerer who couldn't wait to answer the call and the person being annoyed who thinks he has to the right to be undisturbed by other people.
First the caller, 99% of calls are unneeded and could easily have waited until a later time. People keep bringing up emergency calls, I am willing to bet my entire income for the rest of my life that if you measured all the calls that are of a real emergency nature (911 or even telling someone their wife is about to give birth) that would not even come to a whole percentage of mobile phone calls. You do NOT have to call that other person at night when you see them next day. You may want too, and technology has made it possible but their is NO NEED. Learn to understand the difference between NEED and DESIRE.
Then there is the person answering. YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT. The entire rest of the world does NOT have to be put on hold for your convenience. Sometimes you got to make choices what to do, and this means you can't be doing something else. Lets say you think you should answer the phone in a theather, should the actors do the same? Do you want your doctor to answers his wifes call while he is working on your hearth? So why do you NEED to answer that phone NOW. I think this is part of a larger social disfunction. Take MMO's you see people complain that they take large chunks of time, and that people get upset if you leave in the middle of a raid. Well yeah, but how many of you would walk out of the middle of a say a football game? If you are in any kind of a race, do you really expect all the others to stop because your phone is ringing? I think the mobile phone is just a symptom of the larger development that some people think, the world revolves around me (they are wrong, it revolves around me) and that everyone else should fit themselves to their need.
But finally there is also the person who is offended. There is NO law, NO right, to be undisturbed. Yes there are some laws that forbid certain disturbances, anti-honking laws for instance that dictate you can only use your car horn for alerting of impending danger, but talking in public is not among them. People are free to talk in public transport. You get people who get upset by headphones being too loud who complain that they can't hear themselves talking. Eh, your talking and the headphone are BOTH interfering with my peace and quiet. Unless we introduce a law to SHUT THE FUCK UP and produce NO noise whatsoever, public transport is NOT a place of peace and quiet. Your desire for peace and quiet is NOT a right. You are just as much an asshole for wanting everyone else to be silent as the person making a noise.
It is often said that human beings are social animals, so lets see some social animals shall we? Ooh, what a lot of fighting and squabiling in even small groups. We are NOT ants who really work together, we are a pack of monkeys who are constantly fighting over everything but without a leader who can just beat the crap out of anyone who really gets out of line.
Modern techonology just brings it out more. We also allowed the controlling elements of our society to become weak and feeble. We think we are mature adults who don't need a big brother watching us, while we behave as little spoiled brats.
A simple solution exists to this whole mobile phone dilemma. Since REAL emergency calls are so rare, it would have been very easy to put in as part of the system a protocol for dealing with them. In restricted areas you would broadcast a signal "emergency only". The caller would have to send the signal that it is an emer
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Besides 911, there are other reasons I'd be pissed off if I got jammed.
1.) Waiting in 1800- queues, like for help services, for countless hours at a time.
2.) Being a doctor and being called in for an emergency only to have your signal jammed.
3.) Having a loved one in a crisis situation (suicide attempt, armed robbery, small grease fire in the kitchen, car crash) and being able to talk them through it loudly and clearly.
Many times (restaraunts for example) you cannot leave; doing so may cause owners to assume your running out on a bill, etc...
No see, we don't need cellphone jammers or laws on where to talk. We need laws on knowing how to increase the volume on your phone while your in the middle of a call so you don't have to YELL TO BE HEARD. You should be able to talk at regular talking volume while your on a phone.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
>> As for rude phone users - funny, that's not too much of a problem over here in the UK
You must live in a much more considerate part of the UK than I do.
I regularly travel on business via train. Some of the local train operators have in place "quiet zones" where the use of mobile phones and noisy electronics is discouraged. Guess what, the coaches are still full of ignorant f*ckpigs who blather on into their devices indiscriminately.
As there isn't going to be any change in the behaviour of these fools I would be happy to carry a jammer and nuke any conversation carried out in such an environment. And for any UK businesses out there curious about this, I would definitely selectively patronise any establishments with publicised no-mobile policies.
On my way driving to work I see all the time people driving like idiots and when I get close, sure enough, they have a cell phone to their ear.
My co-worker gets 20 calls a day from family/friends on his cell. Whenever I go over to discuss business or even a "how was your weekend" conversation his cell phone inevitability goes off. I'm left standing there while he takes his call. Maybe I'm old fashined but I think it is so unbelievable rude to cut someone off mid-sentence to take a cell call.
The only reason I haven't ordered a blocker sooner is the cost. Now that I've order this one it looks like it may not work on all carriers here in the USA. I'll find out if it works on my co-workers cell as soon as it arrives. I'm turning it on each and every time I walk over to talk with him. If it doesn't work with his carrier, then I'm going to go suck up and pay for the $500 models that do work.
If fact, I may go ahead and buy the expensive model anyway. I'm going to become a traveling no-cell zone. When I'm driving, it's going on my dash. This is going to be my Christmas gift to myself. I've had it with rude people and I'm going to fix it.
All you cell phone attics complain all you want. You only sound like the smokers did when we forced them into private spaces to do their thing.
The establishment, hair salon, restaurant, whatever, still has phones. If there's an emergency it's better they call 911 on a land line anyway. Life will go on even if you temporarily loose coverage.
-[d]-
If we went to the cinema, we would give people the phone number to the cinema and incase of emergency and this all had to be planned in advanced. The cinema would be called, they'd send out someone into the cinema who'd yell your name to come and take the phone call or just yell the message.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Very good thank you for that , also for mor info for internet phone see that http://www.snurfsphone.com/
I'd like to meet the quiet and responsible cell phone users. I know they aren't the people driving next to me on the interstate.
I have to be connected on the Internet all the time and I use 3G (HSDPA) for this purpose on laptops and PDAs, even while I am walking or being at lectures. If a cellphone jamming device ruined my SSH sessions that would be VERY bad. Also, I want to be able to use my phone if there is a real need to do so. Putting aside the fact that I never go to the cinema or theatres, I would purposefully boycott any establishment that jammed phone signals. It worths pointing out as well that it would be possible for a person walking or living near a theatre to suffer from the jamming even if they never visit the theatre itself. Also, jamming kits are widely available to everyone, just like repeater kits. If a theatre can jam mobiles because it dislikes the noise, does that mean that I also have the right to carry a jammer with me and block all cell phone signals wherever I am just because I dislike the noise of nearby cellphone talkers? I don't think so. Someone could say that theatres own their building, in which case I would ask whether I would be right to install a jammer in my home or my garden, potentially disrupting the communications of neighbours and people who walk outside the garden. If theatres can lawfully block cellphone signals inside and potentially near their buildings, then I demand the same privilege for every citizen as well, we should all have the right to block whatever signal we dislike in our property. I don't think that's right, however, because cell phone signals is a communication resource and may be of extreme importance to some people, even though the majority use them simply for talking to boyfriends and girlfriends. It's not a good idea to purposefully disrupt communications.
Really, it is much more simple to simply pause the movie or the performance whenever someone is heard using a phone in a theatre. Then, everyone but teenage psychopath troublemakers would remember to use the silence mode or turn off the phone if their tiny brain learns in a Pavlovian dog way that "phone = no movie".
Scenario 2:
You'll be fine, skippy.
While you were lying on the floor breathless, you life slipping away from you as the crowd stands around you, while one or two go for help.. They find a landline phone outside the theatre room and places a call to the emergancy services, safe in the knowledge that the brickwork, surrounding buildings and other common forms of interference won't screw up the call that is trying to get through. The landline also informs the emergancy services of where everything is taking place, incase in the panic of 40 people all trying to ring the emergancy number some get the address wrong and mis information is given.
Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Thank you! That made my morning.
and i've seen lots of these elevators that simply have no phone in them. The box for the phone is there, but there is simply a wire inside with nothing attached to it.
If the theater's a faraday cage and the hospital can't reach the doctor who's trying to watch a movie, there are more doctors. Let the poor schmuck have two uninterrupted hours to watch the moviie for God's sake!
Kids today, I swear, people get dumber every day. OMFG NO PHONERZ! I CAN"T BE REACHED! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
mcgrew
PS- from the linked diary:Yeah, ask the dumb fucking dork to hold it down, that's really going to be effective.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This is how the borg begins, people. We invent a new tech we've never had before and suddenly its a necessary, irreplaceable part of life. The next step is bodymods that are necessary and irreplaceable.
We are going to teach ourselves to be frail and dependent blobs of flesh, requiring the crutch of technology and even letting technology make the decisions for us. Just wait till we hear the "It told me to do that" defense in court.
Bah! Baaaaaah.
"Try being assertive, it works even on problems that technology can't solve."
I agree entirely with your very reasonable response, the only question for me is that this is 2007: in many American cities, you have reasonable odds that the selfish dink you're talking to is willing to follow you into the parking lot and beat/shoot you for 'disrespecting' him. Is that a fair response to a reasonable request? Not hardly, I'm sure they'll sympathize with your wife at the hospital/your funeral.
I live comfortably in a small town, and wouldn't have a problem with this solution in my local theater because I probably either know that person, or we have mutual acquaintances. But in an urban theater? I can see the attractiveness of an entirely anonymous solution, even if that makes me feel like a coward admitting it.
-Styopa
It'll come in really handy when your girlfriend tries to call the cops about this van that's been following her around for two miles.
--
I'm not really a serial killer, I just play one on the net to make a point.
At least that way, the grammar nazis don't bug you as often.
Oh, and from the comment submission page:
In other words, don't whine about your failing to follow instructions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I disagree heartily with "matter of time", the first poster. By his logic, cell carriers would be liable if coverage does not extend into a restaurant. There is no right to use a cell phone, and many instances where their use or even possession is prohibited. Schools, medical offices, airplanes, court rooms, etc. If there's an emergency, then you just have to find the nearest landline, conveniently located at the maitre d's podium.
Getting into a confrontation with an inconsiderate, self-important slob is a great way to foment violence, and these days there is no telling where the violence will stop. Instead of arguing, just put an end to cell phone use and be done. Secrecy is necessary only because the practice is illegal, otherwise many venues would be proud to advertise they are cell phone free.
Whereas people in less degenerate societies are able to deal with these 'affronts' in stride, we can not. I blame our legal system that has grown like a cancer for 40 years now. Our legal system has more then anything else created a public that feels it is entitled to live a perfect harmonious life free from any 'nuisance'. And if something offends you can make money by suing. We are even suing God.
Sorry, but you've got things backwards. The legal system which has grown "like a cancer" is not a cause of problems in American society, it's an effect. The cause is poor behavior by Americans themselves.
Generally the american public feels they are entitled to never ever be offended / bothered / or belittled in any way. If someone should talk back to a character in the theaters, or be seen smoking within 50 feet of a nonsmoker, or have a plane fly over their well house and wake the baby up, the feel personally affronted.
Absolutely wrong. The American public, if you wish to generalize to that level, feels they are entitled to do anything they wish, and screw everyone else. Americans generally have very little consideration for other people, and hence make very poor neighbors. This is why a majority of my neighbors have dogs which they leave outside at all hours so they can bark for hours on end, and then get mad when I call the police and report a noise violation.
Who "talks back" to characters in theaters? That's just poor behavior. No one wants to hear someone else's commentary. In a "less degenerate" society as you put it, you simply wouldn't see this kind of thing because people are more considerate.
Planes flying over houses? In other countries, again, people are more intelligent and considerate, so if they don't want to hear planes flying over their houses, they simply don't move to a house in the flight path of an airport. Americans don't bother with this: they move right next to an Air Force airbase, then complain loudly when F-16s fly over their house.
All the suing you see in the legal system is an effect caused by the generally poor behavior of Americans. Yes, some of that suing is other assholes taking advantage of the system, but much of it is quite valid, and caused by someone being an ass when asked to stop their bad behavior, forcing the legal system to be the only remedy.
P.S. I love my country, but it is time we realize that our run has run out. All societies go through moments of glory, and then sink again into the dust.
I fully agree with this. America has/had many great features, but we've really screwed it up now, and I think it's just going to be downhill from here.
But you went and jammed my call anyway because some other idiot is being obnoxious with his phone.
Only if you just happen to be using your phone at the same moment that other idiot is being obnoxious with his phone. How often does that happen?
Remember, these jammers do not jam continuously. That would require too much power. They only have to operate for a few seconds to cut off someone's call, so they're operated only on an as-needed basis.
I'll ask the neighbour's cat, next time I see her, what she thinks of it.
I suspect that by "female", you mean "woman".
Well in my experience, women in my town only stop talking on the phone on very rare occasions. They are not the paragons of social elegance that you seem to take them for.
You know, it was a woman from NJ that invented the hands-free kit. Not so she could talk while driving, but so she could talk while peeing or putting on her make-up.
Beef
The troopers here are big fans of 'not using your turn signal'
Must not be Nevada. If they did that here, they'd have to ticket 90% of the drivers in the state!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
People awaiting transplants have a pager notify them, which is much more reliable.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Darn it, the article does not say where I can get one. I guess i will have to turn to Google!
Truthfully, I want like a directional jammer. Many people are considerate using the cell phone. At least around here. I just want to jam that one person who is talking to their friend on the phone while riding the train at the top of their voice. I mean, there are times I get emergancy calls and have to go to different area to be able to hear because that one dolt is yelling into their cell phone. Just give me like a little remote that I can point at the guy, turn on for a few seconds to make them loose signal, then put it up.
BTW, I am being sarcastic.
While ultimately the cause of failed formatting is me, it would be a fine convenience if Slashdot could upgrade its commenting system by six years or so. Maybe even eight years, so they can offer live previews, so that the bloody warning becomes redundant.
...off.
Phone or no phone.
A jammer that lets the ring and the caller id through, then clamps down after say two rings, that would be great.
No yapping. Emergency calls get through (when you see that the babysitter or hospital have called you can leave and return the call).
Somehow this would just piss prople off more.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
"Live preview"... sounds a little less than browser agnostic, to me.
What about the hardcore elite, who use text-only browsers?
It's bad enough I have these cookies leaving crumbs everywhere, now you want me to run javascript or some such?
--
The only problem with making things foolproof is that if you think you have, you're the fool.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Nope. Small Town, WI.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
My paint decoration is suitable payback for your annoyance and disturbance of MY peace. The fine is $225 in my 'hood. A car wash is $7.95. Pick one.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I understand the unceasing need for some to communicate. They never shutup, some.
Doing so while in the toilet is another problem altogether. It's just plainly nasty.
Worse, some people will drive a 5-speed, smoke, have a cup of coffee in one hand, and their phone pinned between shoulder and ear, trying to make a dicey high-speed orange light left turn.
For these, an alteration of the aphorism, 'God looks after drunks and little old ladies' needs an appendage.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
There are many, and I'm sure I'll miss some, but here's my short list:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I asked my girlfriend--she didn't have a problem with it. Nor do I see how being "sanitary" has anything to do with it.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from, and it's not something I'd do on a regular basis or anything, but on the 1-10 scale of assholishness don't even think it merits a "1", so long as you can conceal the sounds and/or your party doesn't have a problem with it. Annoying other people in a public restroom is another matter entirely, I admit.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The FCC's law trumps private property in this case. Jamming due to the laziness on your part will only bring pain and great expense. This isn't Kelo, and expect that should jammers become popular enough, bounties will be put and advertised to meet the challenge.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It only takes one person with a desire for quick cash. Those people are not in short supply, and would be well-protected against any form of retaliation(which would also have a potential for further payouts).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Slower than what? The speed limit on the highway I take to work is 55. To me, that means that traffic going 45 or 50 should be in the right lane. It does NOT mean that left lane traffic should go 70+.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Once, while I was taking a crap, I heard the guy in the next stall yakking on his cellphone. I just hope the guy he was talking to heard my flush when I was finished. :)
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Slower than the rest of the traffic. This means that if you're going to speed, you belong in the left lane. Also, if you're not going to speed, and other people are, you belong in the right lane.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
My father is in a nursing home and the home has started jamming cell phone signals so that residents and family members cannot call outside the facility to complain or seek medical assistance. If it can be used for things like movie theaters, it can be used like these people are using it. I'm headed over now to file an FCC complaint.
Just my 2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank