The rest of personal attacks I'll ignore as I don't think add much to the discussion.
If I'd done just that, this entire sub-thread wouldn't exist. Perhaps there's a lesson in this for me.
I agree on "ethnic" and I think implying racial differences is racist, whether you're white or not.
I'll say it again because this is important. Racial differences do exist in some things (some medical conditions for instance). I admitted that in the matter under consideration, the differences, while showing some correlation with race are so unlikely to be caused by race (no doubt having more to do with culture and upbringing), that mentioning that correlation added nothing to the discussion. It was incorrect on my part, maybe even intellectually lazy. By any sane definition of the word, not racist. Words have specific meaning. Let's not use them arbitrarily.
If anything, my flippant remark about not being white was my worst mistake, because it appeared (incorrectly) to be an apology for racism.
Well, what you leave in "among other things" is, still, "Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination".
Quoting you again: "ethnic and racial differences are dramatic", where you did discriminate by race.
*Sigh*. Prejudice is the act of pre-judging a group (specifically in this case - a racial group) of a certain (usually negative) behavior or mannerism. Discrimination is the treatment (or any noun conveying action taken) of groups (or individuals belonging to certain groups) based on prejudice.
No matter how hard you wish it, simply stating that a specific behavior has been observed [from personal experience] to show large differences between different racial groups is neither prejudiced [empirical observations] nor discriminatory [there is no action or even the possibility of any action implied]. The statement (while valid as a summary of observations) may be useless, but it certainly isn't racist. In practice, the PC movement discourages such things merely because they have tended to lead to discrimination - understandable, but I have the right to refuse such preemptive high-handedness. If I ever happen to fall that way, I'll be sure to look you up so you can berate me soundly for being racist. Until then, get it right.
Sorry for the lack of precision and the excessively aggressive first reply, that stained an otherwise interesting dialogue.
Thanks. While the accusation did sting initially, I've spent all this time trying to explain why you are incorrect, not defending myself (it's an objective matter).
There is a book by Thomas Sowell (a renowned economist) called "Applied Economics" (a more scholarly version of Freakonomics in some respects). His chapter on 'the economics of discrimination' is very enlightening on this point. He spends several pages properly defining all his terms. In retrospect, I can see why he did that. In any case, it (and the book itself) is very enlightening - you might find it interesting. Most libraries should carry it.
Wrong again. Political correctness run amok. I weep for our future. Racism: definition. Racism is (among other things), believing that the race is responsible for the behavior. Correlation is not causation. I was pointing out a correlation. You will note that I mentioned ethnicity as another aspect (from what I've seen, it tends to be even more important).
It's demanding that something be done about it that might slip into racism. Besides, how do you know I'm not talking about my own race?
I think you mistake "racism" with "hating other races".
My mistake was falling for your accusatory tone and getting defensive. Shows how institutionalized this crap has become.
If you took the time to learn about other cultures,
You didn't speak of culture, you spoke of race. Had you replaced race by culture, I'd have agreed with you.
Sure I did. That's what "ethnicity" implies. Of course, hyper-sensitive language sanitizers like you seem to have mastered the art of selective text comprehension. I will admit though that I didn't think it through well enough and that since actual genetic differences (which is, as I now understand it, the only meaning of race) obviously aren't relevant in this matter, any correlations aren't really all that significant either. There should exist at least the possibility of causation before a correlation should be emphasized. Ethnicity would have fully covered the matter and, not unimportantly, saved me from this foolishness.
Sadly, while a perceived mistake (even on/.) is usually called out as such and I usually (I hope) concede and correct it, in this case, you read through a wall of text, saw the word 'racial' and puked a crude little accusation in quite a trollish manner. Excellent job.
If I hadn't stated the non-white disclaimer, there would have been a dozen trolls like this.
Because many people mistake racism with "white people's prejudices against black people".
Well, at least you don't make obvious mistake. There's hope yet (though not too much).
A final quibble and I'll shut up (I promise =D). In all the years I've been commuting by bus, public cell phone users (who respond to at least some extent to their uniformly negative portrayal popular media) have been a negligible source of annoyance compared to groups of people who have no such conditioning to tone it down (unless they had an exceptionally responsible set of parents).
As you wrote (and as tfa states), cell phone users are more annoying assuming the same volume level. Well, guess what? I've lived and commuted by bus/train in 3 large-ish cities (Portland, OR; Cleveland, OH and Oakland, CA [short commute to Berkeley]) and my experience has been uniformly similar in terms of final effective levels of annoyance.
Before I hit TL;DR levels of verbosity, I'll conclude by saying that in theory, tfa is correct. But in practice, I find that net decibel levels in any given bus trip are nearly always dominated by non-cell phone users (usually in groups), which renders tfa's logic valid but largely irrelevant.
ethnic and racial differences are dramatic (and no, I ain't white =p).
Don't worry. You don't need to be white to be racist.
Pointing out a fact isn't racist, kid. It's demanding that something be done about it that might slip into racism. Besides, how do you know I'm not talking about my own race?
If you took the time to learn about other cultures, you'll find that the differences in what voice levels are considered acceptable in public are indeed quite dramatic. Perhaps it's time to recalibrate your racism sensors, they're squawking like those irritating car alarms going off if a bird so much as poops on them.
Gawdhelpus. If I hadn't stated the non-white disclaimer, there would have been a dozen trolls like this.
Nope (I'd feel too self-conscious). At the most, I'd pick up an incoming call and tell them that I'd call back in a little while as I'm on the bus.
I don't smoke either and think the tobacco-rage and "sympathy for the poor addicted smokers who were lured into it by ebul big tobacco" is misguided. While it's naive to expect fairness and rationality from the world, it's merely civilized to think that fairness would be a nice thing.
I will state again that I actually do agree with your original post (the 30 people thing). I was simply pointing out that it seems to me that people are just picking on cell phone users just because they can, not necessarily because they are the main (or even a very large) problem in terms of loudness/annoyance. Besides the examples I've already given, how about the douchebags with the excessively powerful headphones that leak massive amounts of noise throughout the bus?
Just realized that if you're a checkout clerk or waiter or something like that, you don't have the option to just walk away as I wrote before. So, yes, in the wrong circumstances, the last one can be extraordinarily rude.
I'm sure everyone has horror stories about this but I particularly remember an odious specimen who was deeply engrossed in some business conversation on his phone and who reached the checkout counter in a Kohl's. Then he promptly threw (not kidding) a messy stack of coupons and his purchases at the poor checkout girl and simply kept on talking. What a glorious asshole.
Did you even bother to read the summary of this story before posting?
Yes.
Hearing half a conversation is far more distracting than hearing the whole conversation.
Did you even read the specific point that GP raised (that I even quoted) I was replying to?
Thus, two people can hold a conversation politely, for a person on a cell phone it is much harder. Particularly if they are completely oblivious to those around them.
[Emphasis mine]. But yes, feel free to compare the worst cell phone users with the best (most polite) conversers [sic, seems like a good word]. The fault was partly mine in this case. I merely picked up where I left off in another post where I described my experience riding a bus for over 5 years in Berkeley. The number of annoyingly loud cell phone users don't even come close (in real life) to the number of annoyingly loud couples or large groups who have apparently come to the conclusion (based on the luddite cell phone hate in the media) that as long as it's not on a cell phone, they have the license to be as loud and oblivious to others as they want.
Ah, yes. You did make a good point there and I agree. I'm afraid I've been posting to this thread on overdrive =D. Dunno why this issue raises my hackles so much *shrug*.
Not really. Actual laws are rarely based on banning dangerous things according to the severity of the risk. They start out being planned that way, but end up being passed only if banning a certain thing is convenient and socially acceptable.
Banning (and enforcing that ban) cell phones, alcohol and drugs (all while driving), idiotic passengers who don't know when to shut up, babies/kids unless there's at least one more responsible adult apart from the drive would dramatically (almost completely) cut down on traffic fatalities. Of these, only the first two are a part of law and that too weakly enforced (in the sense that enforcement is necessarily random or after an accident).
The last two will NEVER, EVER be a part of law simply because it's just not convenient. Risk management is not something that's used for things that are actually important.
You make the unfortunate mistake of assuming that most conversations that are not cell phone conversations are also polite conversations. I've ridden the same bus-line for the past five years and I can state categorically that that is simply not the case. I would say that less than half the conversations I'm forced to overhear are polite convos in the sense that you define them.
This is what I love about the whole cell phone rage. Compare the worst of the cell phone offenders (dangers while driving, annoyance in public places, etc.) with the absolute best in normal conversers (usually the top 10% in terms of civilized behavior). Oh gee, I wonder who's going to win *grumble*.
I agree. I have that problem with what you folks call Ebonics. I can just get glimpses of what they're talking about (in a full bore conversation that I'm overhearing mind you) but the full meaning eludes me. Full disclosure - I'm from India and my idea of English comes with a distinctly British flavor. I always found it amusing when black folks asked me to repeat myself because my accent was hard to understand (back when I first arrived here).
But who says your personal preferences outweigh those of another?
It's not a one to one trade off. It's more like one person enjoying the phone call, 30 people being annoyed by it. It's just plain rude.
Any idiot who talks loudly on a bus or a train is annoying. Cell phone users (who talk loudly) are merely a small subset of loud talkers and I find it fascinating that people who wouldn't think twice about having a conversation with their friends in a crowded place get so high and mighty when it comes to bashing cell users. I think the difference is that the cell phone is a specific object that can be demonized. It's a lot easier and more socially acceptable to tell someone to put away their cell phone than to tell someone to shut the fuck up because they are talking too loudly. It's simply a matter of taking out your impotent rage on a helpless piece of machinery because human beings are annoying as all hell.
but trying to fill in the missing part of the conversation from scratch. I couldn't give two shits about what he is going to say next, except when I'm on a train and someone answers a call the next thing they invariably say is "I'm on the twain!@!!"
*orders parts for GSM/3G jammer*
Tell me about it. I'll go one step further. Replace the nitrogen in the air (in public transport vehicles) with helium. That way, people will think twice before having conversations at all. Ah, blissful peace and quiet. As I've said before, assholes who talk loudly in public places are just as bad (tfa notwithstanding) as cell phone users.
True, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were not the case. Of course, that study would never be accepted unless it gave the answer most people want so I doubt anyone would take it up.
* They're usually talking louder than everyone else.
A big box of BULLSHIT. That is all.
* They're not looking where they're walking.
True. But I've never seen that hurt anyone. I agree it's a possible hazard though but it's the same thing with cell phones in cars. I've never denied that it's a hazard. I've just had no respect for that lobby because they routinely DENY that other things (kids/babies in cars with only 1 adult in the car, chatty passengers, food/drink) can be EQUALLY deadly.
* They're constantly shouting "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
As annoying as any non-cell phone user (and there are usually more of those in places like buses - from my experience) who talks loudly. Cell phones don't do much to make a douchebag any douchier. You can see this from their actions before and after the call if they have other people around that they can talk to.
* They're unable to talk to you because they're distracted by another conversation
Again, see above. If it's that big a deal, walk away. Hardly the worst thing you can have done to you.
Indeed. Same thing with the sulky teens with headphones you see everywhere. Oldies complain about that all the time but forget the 80's with douchebags carrying fucking boomboxes everywhere with noise blaring out. Hooray for technology I say. If I see kids playing music on their phones (in the bus for example) without earphones, I have to consciously restrain myself from grabbing it from the stupid little shit and throwing it out the window (no, I could never do it but saying it is very cathartic).
Since anecdotal gibberish passes for research these days (talking about tfa, not you), here's mine. I've ridden the same bus-line for the past 5 years in Berkeley - mixture of work commuters, high school kids and university kids. Done that pretty much most times of the day (unpredictable work hours) so I think I have a rather detailed sampling of the commuter crowds.
The one thing I've always found is that people in groups (3+) are BY FAR the single most annoying loud talkers EVER. Couples tend to be quieter (not all ethnicities but most). Pre-college kids are the absolute worst in terms of noise pollutants. What's worse is that they frequently play music - sorry, animal noises - on their phones for the group without headphones. College kids are just as bad because everyone appears to find safety in numbers when it comes to shouting their point out loud - again, ethnic and racial differences are dramatic (and no, I ain't white =p).
I would rank loud cell phone talkers probably 3rd or 4th in order of annoyance. The reasoning in tfa might be valid for most, but halfalogues haven't really bothered me in the past few years. Probably because I've heard so many full dialogues on the bus and now KNOW that most people really converse about stupid, uninteresting shit and can pretty much fill in the other sides of the convos without giving it much thought. So, tfa might be right, but intelligent human beings tend to adapt to frequently prevailing conditions. People who use public transport only once in a blue moon would find it the hardest I guess.
For me, the single most annoying thing that I have never adapted to is the Berkeley bum smell clinging to every bus and is probably the one reason I would accept without reservation for someone to waste money on gas and parking spaces. The "smelly car" episode in Seinfeld always resonated with me. *Cough* moving on.
It always amazes me that people who are having conversations in public places (not too quietly either in that you can hear everything quite clearly) actually have the gall to look dirty at people talking on cell phones just as (if not less) loudly than they are. For me (once you've adapted to ignore things), it is simply a matter of decibel level. I argue only from experience, not plausibility. br>
And for the record, I don't have cell phone convos on the bus, even though I usually travel alone. It's far too noisy to have a civilized convo. I figure if I'm not gonna have any peace and quiet, I might as well have the noise that I choose blasting in my ear instead of the mundane drivel that assails my ears everyday. The people who invented earphones and portable mp3 players should be given Nobel peace prizes because I am positive that they have prevented several noise-related homicides over the years =D.
In parting, I will only say that tfa being right just means that most people are nosy busybodies at heart who don't have the decency to ignore private conversations. Oh, is that too uncharitable an interpretation? Let me know when people sober up and lower their idiotic cellphone rage (that I half-suspect is a reactionary luddite thing for people of a certain age and an acquired issue for most youngsters who've heard one too many jokes and sitcom plots based on it) and I'll be sure to retract it. It's like fat people - an easy and socially acceptable thing to ridicule.
Copyright violation is a civil matter. The copyright holder has to sue, not the government (which it would if it was a criminal matter - is it? I'm not sure).
The simplest solution is to somehow get porn producers within the MPAA umbrella. Charge customs officers a licensing fee for being able to search travelers' porn stashes. Better yet, sue them for piracy for viewing legitimate users' porn. It would be worth it just to see the clash of the giant douchebags. Does opposing douchebaggery cancel out and leave the world a happy place?
The speed and location of the computer is not an intrinsic quality. The speed of your brain and your education are.
So? This is business. Not a Miss America pageant. It's the difference between a boxing match (don't put a horseshoe in your glove) and war. You take any advantage you can get because it's not a frakking game, neither is it a middle school math exam where calculators aren't allowed (I hope - coz' that would be rather stupid). Should we do the same for sports? No technology allowed in planning or analyzing your opponents' tactics. Only intrinsic qualities allowed. Should we ban Google from putting out so many wonderful apps in the marketplace? It's not fair to the rest of the competition that big companies have so much more cutting-edge tech. Why don't we cap the computing resources that IT companies are allowed so that everyone can compete on a level playing field?
Long line of examples aside, it bemuses me each time to see the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic abilities being made - it's a (trivially) valid distinction, but ultimately an irrelevant one when you notice that we're talking about a competitive marketplace where technology is very much an aspect that is competed with. It is an investment that the smart companies make by hiring quants and sinking money into supercomputers. The goal is to make money and enrich themselves and their shareholders, not play some abstract game to decide who's "better".
Because without them, the market would be even more volatile? (the trades being a bet that the market will revert to some short-term mean)
More volatile? Sounds insane. An explanation seems called for here.
Because free individuals should be able to act in any way that does not involve fraud or force?
So, if the stock exchanges decide to impose a minimum time between trades (in the manner of AC postings on/.), that would be their right as individuals, correct? If not, the traders can always chip in to create their own administrative body for overseeing trades.
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of personal attacks I'll ignore as I don't think add much to the discussion.
If I'd done just that, this entire sub-thread wouldn't exist. Perhaps there's a lesson in this for me.
I agree on "ethnic" and I think implying racial differences is racist, whether you're white or not.
I'll say it again because this is important. Racial differences do exist in some things (some medical conditions for instance). I admitted that in the matter under consideration, the differences, while showing some correlation with race are so unlikely to be caused by race (no doubt having more to do with culture and upbringing), that mentioning that correlation added nothing to the discussion. It was incorrect on my part, maybe even intellectually lazy. By any sane definition of the word, not racist. Words have specific meaning. Let's not use them arbitrarily.
If anything, my flippant remark about not being white was my worst mistake, because it appeared (incorrectly) to be an apology for racism.
Well, what you leave in "among other things" is, still, "Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination". Quoting you again: "ethnic and racial differences are dramatic", where you did discriminate by race.
*Sigh*. Prejudice is the act of pre-judging a group (specifically in this case - a racial group) of a certain (usually negative) behavior or mannerism. Discrimination is the treatment (or any noun conveying action taken) of groups (or individuals belonging to certain groups) based on prejudice.
No matter how hard you wish it, simply stating that a specific behavior has been observed [from personal experience] to show large differences between different racial groups is neither prejudiced [empirical observations] nor discriminatory [there is no action or even the possibility of any action implied]. The statement (while valid as a summary of observations) may be useless, but it certainly isn't racist. In practice, the PC movement discourages such things merely because they have tended to lead to discrimination - understandable, but I have the right to refuse such preemptive high-handedness. If I ever happen to fall that way, I'll be sure to look you up so you can berate me soundly for being racist. Until then, get it right.
Sorry for the lack of precision and the excessively aggressive first reply, that stained an otherwise interesting dialogue.
Thanks. While the accusation did sting initially, I've spent all this time trying to explain why you are incorrect, not defending myself (it's an objective matter).
There is a book by Thomas Sowell (a renowned economist) called "Applied Economics" (a more scholarly version of Freakonomics in some respects). His chapter on 'the economics of discrimination' is very enlightening on this point. He spends several pages properly defining all his terms. In retrospect, I can see why he did that. In any case, it (and the book itself) is very enlightening - you might find it interesting. Most libraries should carry it.
Pointing out a fact isn't racist, kid.
Pointing out a behaviour difference, by race, is.
Wrong again. Political correctness run amok. I weep for our future. Racism: definition. Racism is (among other things), believing that the race is responsible for the behavior. Correlation is not causation. I was pointing out a correlation. You will note that I mentioned ethnicity as another aspect (from what I've seen, it tends to be even more important).
It's demanding that something be done about it that might slip into racism. Besides, how do you know I'm not talking about my own race?
I think you mistake "racism" with "hating other races".
My mistake was falling for your accusatory tone and getting defensive. Shows how institutionalized this crap has become.
If you took the time to learn about other cultures,
You didn't speak of culture, you spoke of race. Had you replaced race by culture, I'd have agreed with you.
Sure I did. That's what "ethnicity" implies. Of course, hyper-sensitive language sanitizers like you seem to have mastered the art of selective text comprehension. I will admit though that I didn't think it through well enough and that since actual genetic differences (which is, as I now understand it, the only meaning of race) obviously aren't relevant in this matter, any correlations aren't really all that significant either. There should exist at least the possibility of causation before a correlation should be emphasized. Ethnicity would have fully covered the matter and, not unimportantly, saved me from this foolishness.
Sadly, while a perceived mistake (even on /.) is usually called out as such and I usually (I hope) concede and correct it, in this case, you read through a wall of text, saw the word 'racial' and puked a crude little accusation in quite a trollish manner. Excellent job.
If I hadn't stated the non-white disclaimer, there would have been a dozen trolls like this.
Because many people mistake racism with "white people's prejudices against black people".
Well, at least you don't make obvious mistake. There's hope yet (though not too much).
Fair enough. I take your point.
A final quibble and I'll shut up (I promise =D). In all the years I've been commuting by bus, public cell phone users (who respond to at least some extent to their uniformly negative portrayal popular media) have been a negligible source of annoyance compared to groups of people who have no such conditioning to tone it down (unless they had an exceptionally responsible set of parents).
As you wrote (and as tfa states), cell phone users are more annoying assuming the same volume level. Well, guess what? I've lived and commuted by bus/train in 3 large-ish cities (Portland, OR; Cleveland, OH and Oakland, CA [short commute to Berkeley]) and my experience has been uniformly similar in terms of final effective levels of annoyance.
Before I hit TL;DR levels of verbosity, I'll conclude by saying that in theory, tfa is correct. But in practice, I find that net decibel levels in any given bus trip are nearly always dominated by non-cell phone users (usually in groups), which renders tfa's logic valid but largely irrelevant.
ethnic and racial differences are dramatic (and no, I ain't white =p).
Don't worry. You don't need to be white to be racist.
Pointing out a fact isn't racist, kid. It's demanding that something be done about it that might slip into racism. Besides, how do you know I'm not talking about my own race?
If you took the time to learn about other cultures, you'll find that the differences in what voice levels are considered acceptable in public are indeed quite dramatic. Perhaps it's time to recalibrate your racism sensors, they're squawking like those irritating car alarms going off if a bird so much as poops on them.
Gawdhelpus. If I hadn't stated the non-white disclaimer, there would have been a dozen trolls like this.
Do you use your phone on public transport?
Nope (I'd feel too self-conscious). At the most, I'd pick up an incoming call and tell them that I'd call back in a little while as I'm on the bus.
I don't smoke either and think the tobacco-rage and "sympathy for the poor addicted smokers who were lured into it by ebul big tobacco" is misguided. While it's naive to expect fairness and rationality from the world, it's merely civilized to think that fairness would be a nice thing.
I will state again that I actually do agree with your original post (the 30 people thing). I was simply pointing out that it seems to me that people are just picking on cell phone users just because they can, not necessarily because they are the main (or even a very large) problem in terms of loudness/annoyance. Besides the examples I've already given, how about the douchebags with the excessively powerful headphones that leak massive amounts of noise throughout the bus?
Just realized that if you're a checkout clerk or waiter or something like that, you don't have the option to just walk away as I wrote before. So, yes, in the wrong circumstances, the last one can be extraordinarily rude.
I'm sure everyone has horror stories about this but I particularly remember an odious specimen who was deeply engrossed in some business conversation on his phone and who reached the checkout counter in a Kohl's. Then he promptly threw (not kidding) a messy stack of coupons and his purchases at the poor checkout girl and simply kept on talking. What a glorious asshole.
Did you even bother to read the summary of this story before posting?
Yes.
Hearing half a conversation is far more distracting than hearing the whole conversation.
Did you even read the specific point that GP raised (that I even quoted) I was replying to?
Thus, two people can hold a conversation politely, for a person on a cell phone it is much harder. Particularly if they are completely oblivious to those around them.
[Emphasis mine]. But yes, feel free to compare the worst cell phone users with the best (most polite) conversers [sic, seems like a good word]. The fault was partly mine in this case. I merely picked up where I left off in another post where I described my experience riding a bus for over 5 years in Berkeley. The number of annoyingly loud cell phone users don't even come close (in real life) to the number of annoyingly loud couples or large groups who have apparently come to the conclusion (based on the luddite cell phone hate in the media) that as long as it's not on a cell phone, they have the license to be as loud and oblivious to others as they want.
Ah, yes. You did make a good point there and I agree. I'm afraid I've been posting to this thread on overdrive =D. Dunno why this issue raises my hackles so much *shrug*.
Not really. Actual laws are rarely based on banning dangerous things according to the severity of the risk. They start out being planned that way, but end up being passed only if banning a certain thing is convenient and socially acceptable.
Banning (and enforcing that ban) cell phones, alcohol and drugs (all while driving), idiotic passengers who don't know when to shut up, babies/kids unless there's at least one more responsible adult apart from the drive would dramatically (almost completely) cut down on traffic fatalities. Of these, only the first two are a part of law and that too weakly enforced (in the sense that enforcement is necessarily random or after an accident).
The last two will NEVER, EVER be a part of law simply because it's just not convenient. Risk management is not something that's used for things that are actually important.
You make the unfortunate mistake of assuming that most conversations that are not cell phone conversations are also polite conversations. I've ridden the same bus-line for the past five years and I can state categorically that that is simply not the case. I would say that less than half the conversations I'm forced to overhear are polite convos in the sense that you define them.
This is what I love about the whole cell phone rage. Compare the worst of the cell phone offenders (dangers while driving, annoyance in public places, etc.) with the absolute best in normal conversers (usually the top 10% in terms of civilized behavior). Oh gee, I wonder who's going to win *grumble*.
I agree. I have that problem with what you folks call Ebonics. I can just get glimpses of what they're talking about (in a full bore conversation that I'm overhearing mind you) but the full meaning eludes me. Full disclosure - I'm from India and my idea of English comes with a distinctly British flavor. I always found it amusing when black folks asked me to repeat myself because my accent was hard to understand (back when I first arrived here).
It's not a one to one trade off. It's more like one person enjoying the phone call, 30 people being annoyed by it. It's just plain rude.
Any idiot who talks loudly on a bus or a train is annoying. Cell phone users (who talk loudly) are merely a small subset of loud talkers and I find it fascinating that people who wouldn't think twice about having a conversation with their friends in a crowded place get so high and mighty when it comes to bashing cell users. I think the difference is that the cell phone is a specific object that can be demonized. It's a lot easier and more socially acceptable to tell someone to put away their cell phone than to tell someone to shut the fuck up because they are talking too loudly. It's simply a matter of taking out your impotent rage on a helpless piece of machinery because human beings are annoying as all hell.
So you don't mind hearing 1/4th of the conversation? Fascinating.
but trying to fill in the missing part of the conversation from scratch. I couldn't give two shits about what he is going to say next, except when I'm on a train and someone answers a call the next thing they invariably say is "I'm on the twain!@!!" *orders parts for GSM/3G jammer*
Tell me about it. I'll go one step further. Replace the nitrogen in the air (in public transport vehicles) with helium. That way, people will think twice before having conversations at all. Ah, blissful peace and quiet. As I've said before, assholes who talk loudly in public places are just as bad (tfa notwithstanding) as cell phone users.
True, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were not the case. Of course, that study would never be accepted unless it gave the answer most people want so I doubt anyone would take it up.
* They're usually talking louder than everyone else.
A big box of BULLSHIT. That is all.
* They're not looking where they're walking.
True. But I've never seen that hurt anyone. I agree it's a possible hazard though but it's the same thing with cell phones in cars. I've never denied that it's a hazard. I've just had no respect for that lobby because they routinely DENY that other things (kids/babies in cars with only 1 adult in the car, chatty passengers, food/drink) can be EQUALLY deadly.
* They're constantly shouting "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
As annoying as any non-cell phone user (and there are usually more of those in places like buses - from my experience) who talks loudly. Cell phones don't do much to make a douchebag any douchier. You can see this from their actions before and after the call if they have other people around that they can talk to.
* They're unable to talk to you because they're distracted by another conversation
Again, see above. If it's that big a deal, walk away. Hardly the worst thing you can have done to you.
Indeed. Same thing with the sulky teens with headphones you see everywhere. Oldies complain about that all the time but forget the 80's with douchebags carrying fucking boomboxes everywhere with noise blaring out. Hooray for technology I say. If I see kids playing music on their phones (in the bus for example) without earphones, I have to consciously restrain myself from grabbing it from the stupid little shit and throwing it out the window (no, I could never do it but saying it is very cathartic).
Since anecdotal gibberish passes for research these days (talking about tfa, not you), here's mine. I've ridden the same bus-line for the past 5 years in Berkeley - mixture of work commuters, high school kids and university kids. Done that pretty much most times of the day (unpredictable work hours) so I think I have a rather detailed sampling of the commuter crowds.
The one thing I've always found is that people in groups (3+) are BY FAR the single most annoying loud talkers EVER. Couples tend to be quieter (not all ethnicities but most). Pre-college kids are the absolute worst in terms of noise pollutants. What's worse is that they frequently play music - sorry, animal noises - on their phones for the group without headphones. College kids are just as bad because everyone appears to find safety in numbers when it comes to shouting their point out loud - again, ethnic and racial differences are dramatic (and no, I ain't white =p).
I would rank loud cell phone talkers probably 3rd or 4th in order of annoyance. The reasoning in tfa might be valid for most, but halfalogues haven't really bothered me in the past few years. Probably because I've heard so many full dialogues on the bus and now KNOW that most people really converse about stupid, uninteresting shit and can pretty much fill in the other sides of the convos without giving it much thought. So, tfa might be right, but intelligent human beings tend to adapt to frequently prevailing conditions. People who use public transport only once in a blue moon would find it the hardest I guess.
For me, the single most annoying thing that I have never adapted to is the Berkeley bum smell clinging to every bus and is probably the one reason I would accept without reservation for someone to waste money on gas and parking spaces. The "smelly car" episode in Seinfeld always resonated with me. *Cough* moving on.
It always amazes me that people who are having conversations in public places (not too quietly either in that you can hear everything quite clearly) actually have the gall to look dirty at people talking on cell phones just as (if not less) loudly than they are. For me (once you've adapted to ignore things), it is simply a matter of decibel level. I argue only from experience, not plausibility.
br> And for the record, I don't have cell phone convos on the bus, even though I usually travel alone. It's far too noisy to have a civilized convo. I figure if I'm not gonna have any peace and quiet, I might as well have the noise that I choose blasting in my ear instead of the mundane drivel that assails my ears everyday. The people who invented earphones and portable mp3 players should be given Nobel peace prizes because I am positive that they have prevented several noise-related homicides over the years =D.
In parting, I will only say that tfa being right just means that most people are nosy busybodies at heart who don't have the decency to ignore private conversations. Oh, is that too uncharitable an interpretation? Let me know when people sober up and lower their idiotic cellphone rage (that I half-suspect is a reactionary luddite thing for people of a certain age and an acquired issue for most youngsters who've heard one too many jokes and sitcom plots based on it) and I'll be sure to retract it. It's like fat people - an easy and socially acceptable thing to ridicule.
For some reason, this is the first thing that popped into my mind. So sorry ...
Can we send you our prudes? You can give them jobs in the anti-porn bureaucracy. Since when did Australia become so tight-assed?
Copyright violation is a civil matter. The copyright holder has to sue, not the government (which it would if it was a criminal matter - is it? I'm not sure).
What can they do if they find it?
I dunno. Download it?
The simplest solution is to somehow get porn producers within the MPAA umbrella. Charge customs officers a licensing fee for being able to search travelers' porn stashes. Better yet, sue them for piracy for viewing legitimate users' porn. It would be worth it just to see the clash of the giant douchebags. Does opposing douchebaggery cancel out and leave the world a happy place?
The speed and location of the computer is not an intrinsic quality. The speed of your brain and your education are.
So? This is business. Not a Miss America pageant. It's the difference between a boxing match (don't put a horseshoe in your glove) and war. You take any advantage you can get because it's not a frakking game, neither is it a middle school math exam where calculators aren't allowed (I hope - coz' that would be rather stupid). Should we do the same for sports? No technology allowed in planning or analyzing your opponents' tactics. Only intrinsic qualities allowed. Should we ban Google from putting out so many wonderful apps in the marketplace? It's not fair to the rest of the competition that big companies have so much more cutting-edge tech. Why don't we cap the computing resources that IT companies are allowed so that everyone can compete on a level playing field?
Long line of examples aside, it bemuses me each time to see the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic abilities being made - it's a (trivially) valid distinction, but ultimately an irrelevant one when you notice that we're talking about a competitive marketplace where technology is very much an aspect that is competed with. It is an investment that the smart companies make by hiring quants and sinking money into supercomputers. The goal is to make money and enrich themselves and their shareholders, not play some abstract game to decide who's "better".
No pressure at all. It's an ecological niche in the business world that had to be filled by someone - and it was.
Because without them, the market would be even more volatile? (the trades being a bet that the market will revert to some short-term mean)
More volatile? Sounds insane. An explanation seems called for here.
Because free individuals should be able to act in any way that does not involve fraud or force?
So, if the stock exchanges decide to impose a minimum time between trades (in the manner of AC postings on /.), that would be their right as individuals, correct? If not, the traders can always chip in to create their own administrative body for overseeing trades.