No, that's also wrong. It may be what it seems like to a non-lawyer like you, but look at Roe vs Wade and the patriot act -- it actually means everyone has the right to an abortion.:)
For fucks sake, a mere decade ago it could take days for someone to find out about a family death. Most people I know didn't even have telephone answer machines. If being out of contact with the rest of the world for a mere 2 hours is too much for you then how the hell do you sleep at night? What do you do when you go swimming, play football, attend meetings? Oh, of course - you'll be one of the cunts that thinks it's acceptable to answer your mobile phone in meetings, disrupting the people around you. Because of course, family members die so fucking often compared to the other 8000 calls you receive.
I put my phone on silent or vibrate, actually, when I bring it at all. (The solutions I alluded to above.) Nor do I get that many calls... but I'm touched, really. You think I'm so popular? Ah, well, I wouldn't like it if I were.
A mere decade ago, eh... ah, the good old days, before -- just to clear things up, are you talking about back when things were better before cellphones, the internet, email, or all of the above? Whichever flavor of luddite you are, time marches on. Throwing shoes into the works didn't work then and it won't work now. A jamming signal is very different from a shoe, the goal is the same: to break that technology you hate.
A wire mesh *can* be (actively) "shut off" if you put a cell network extender at an appropriate place inside it, with a coax cable going to an antenna outside. These cost less than $1000 -- not a very significant expense when building a theater.
If the risks implicit in putting a Faraday cage inside a theater are as significant as you suggest, their insurer should insist on such a measure being in place (and automatically enabled whenever the lights are up). If their insurer chooses not to enforce such a rule, then the risks are presumably not in fact so significant.
I see! That way, during any disaster or accident, there would be no interruption in communications.
Assuming any hypothetical rescue teams used cell phones and not radio.
And assuming that disaster or didn't involve a loss of power.
But you have a point, really: they're not obligated by law or insurance companies to do such a thing... although they are forbidden by law to use the jamming equipment. Weather that makes it right -- well, let's just hope you're the one on the short end of that stick in any situations where it comes up, since you are so eager to make such a sacrifice.
Is a rule which allows 3,000 peoples' enjoyment to be disrupted (not to mention the employees who need to handle refund requests from disgruntled customers and lost revenue from tthe same) for every one individual's genuinely high-priority message delivery reasonable? I think that there's a strong argument to the contrary:
I disagree.
Oh, I see where you're coming from -- rule utilitarianism with formulas... but I feel differently. I cannot put the enjoyment of a movie -- not for a thousand -- on the same level as a death in a family where one could not talk to or see one's loved one that final time.
Especially not when it is frankly unneeded. Jamming the radio waves is against the law, and with *very* good reasons. Making wireless communications not work should be as well, when there isn't a good reason (and this does not qualify). If there were an accident and rescue personel would save a few dozen extra lives if they were able to communicate wirelessly, then again, I feel that is a "decent" tradeoff -- I do not even think there should be a question. You can't shut a wire mesh off.
Anyway, the owner of an establishment is able to set and enforce rules. Throwing people out who use cellphones works and has none of the above risks. If you feel that strongly that having to enforce rules is such a burden for the theater staff, then a better proposal would be to make it a requirement that phones honor some form of "do not ring" setting. Sure, people will get around it... but they're getting around things now, and you end up again at "enforce it".
Would your presence have prevented his death? If not, your nonpresence is just another of life's unfortunate circumstance (same as if you'd been unavailable due to travel, a dead phone battery, or any other reason), not a tragedy in and of itself.
Perhaps to you this is a trivial thing when compared with what is truly important: you being able to watch the latest movie and enjoy your popcorn in peace -- but I suspect his priorities are rather different.
People a hundred years had no expectation of continual, interrupted connectivity, and even today it is enjoyed only by a limited subset of the world's population; I find it hard to treat such connectivity as a necessary element of the human condition.
Copper wire in the walls and jamming isn't really "a necessary element of the human condition" either, you know.
Cell phones are far from the only way to be rude in public. Speaking up and taking action when others are being disruptive is a much more time-tested and effective tactic against these situations than wire mesh and pocket jammers.
Why do people keep supporting these F---s? Stop feeding their legal tirades; stop buying their music, stop copying their music. The last thing you want to do is make their music more popular. Support indie bands instead, put your money where your mouth is and hopefully that will help create a new music-based economy that isn't so draconian.
I do all that, and I know people who do all that. All the RIAA does is blame piracy for the results.
Given the direction of the bias most of the "studies" into P2p file sharing go in, isn't it refreshing anyway?
Frankly, though, I think we all know they're right. Look at Baen Books and their webscriptions.net; they *were* able to determine causation, and when they put books online for free as "loss leaders" for their for-sale ebooks, it gave a huge boost to those books as well as later ones in the series.
(They're almost evil in how wonderful they are; lately, Eric Flint's been posting snippits from upcoming books on his blog... I can't think of a better way to make me want to buy them, and sure enough, I've preordered.)
I thought Theo de Raadt said that BSD-licensed code couldn't be relicensed, as doing so breaks copyright law.
Even if that's not what the license says (I always thought BSD was the non-viral one?), given that OpenBSD's founder claims it is, I'd be careful before trying any of that were I in your shoes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's also wrong. It may be what it seems like to a non-lawyer like you, but look at Roe vs Wade and the patriot act -- it actually means everyone has the right to an abortion. :)
Still? I used to use Bugmenot, but then they started blocking all the sites I tried to get logins for.
A mere decade ago, eh... ah, the good old days, before -- just to clear things up, are you talking about back when things were better before cellphones, the internet, email, or all of the above? Whichever flavor of luddite you are, time marches on. Throwing shoes into the works didn't work then and it won't work now. A jamming signal is very different from a shoe, the goal is the same: to break that technology you hate.
Bad luck with that.
Assuming any hypothetical rescue teams used cell phones and not radio.
And assuming that disaster or didn't involve a loss of power.
But you have a point, really: they're not obligated by law or insurance companies to do such a thing... although they are forbidden by law to use the jamming equipment. Weather that makes it right -- well, let's just hope you're the one on the short end of that stick in any situations where it comes up, since you are so eager to make such a sacrifice.
Given the direction of the bias most of the "studies" into P2p file sharing go in, isn't it refreshing anyway? Frankly, though, I think we all know they're right. Look at Baen Books and their webscriptions.net; they *were* able to determine causation, and when they put books online for free as "loss leaders" for their for-sale ebooks, it gave a huge boost to those books as well as later ones in the series. (They're almost evil in how wonderful they are; lately, Eric Flint's been posting snippits from upcoming books on his blog... I can't think of a better way to make me want to buy them, and sure enough, I've preordered.)
I thought Theo de Raadt said that BSD-licensed code couldn't be relicensed, as doing so breaks copyright law. Even if that's not what the license says (I always thought BSD was the non-viral one?), given that OpenBSD's founder claims it is, I'd be careful before trying any of that were I in your shoes.
.... oops, thanks. Yeah, I copy and pasted it from the article... ehehe... obvious I didn't go there, eh?
I personally think the University in question should recommend a virus-free system, designed and tested to be very secure... that they wrote.
(Any number of non-windows OSes would fit, but the *BSD family just fits so well here.)