The theatres have a few rude and selfish people. If they were "full of" then majority rules and no one would be bothered. Exaggerated statements do not help you argument. I consider it selfish to not allow someone to leave a theatre to answer a phone call or text.
That's no reason to compromise with them.
There is no reason to compromise with someone who insists on talking/texting/gaming in a theatre. There is a reason to compromise with people who need to be in contact while on call. There was one post from a person who carries an emergency services phone. If there is a building fire and the displaces residents need food, shelter, etc the emergency phone gets called. It does not happen very often but when it does it is important. I would like to find a way for him to go to a theatre and still be on call. Allowing phones on vibrate will accommodate that with minimal disruption.
I have read the other messages under the story. Can you find many that have issues with people leaving the theatre to answer calls/texts? I looked and could not find any. The issue is talking/texting/game playing in the theatre not leaving and returning.
By your standard anyone who is on call can not go to a movie theatre. That is why they invented vibrate mode. Perhaps you need to learn to compromise a bit.
Strange how you can accuse me of "lack of empathy" but when I accuse you of the same thing it is defensiveness. Why is it defensiveness in my case but not yours? How about you read you own posts before accusing others. Again, everyone does not think like you which is why I try to find a compromise. The position of "My way or the highway" is very egocentric.
And this time it's by CHOICE of the rude people that do it.
It is also the choice of entitled people to make a big deal about a minor distraction.
There is a huge difference between people having cellular phone conversations/texting and people leaving a theatre to take a call. By lumping both together you show lack of empathy.
At the end of that line of reasoning is saying victims of robbery are being selfish for complaining about it.
That is like equating overfilling a gas can and the Exon Valdeze spill. They are orders of magnitude different. If you can not deal with a few people leaving a theatre then you have a problem.
Just stop arguing the toss with me, and consider your behaviour. You're not always right. Sometimes you do things without thinking them through. And this is one of those cases.
There is an old saying "when you point fingers at someone else there are three pointing back at you". Everything in that last statement could be applied to you as well. I have thought it through completely and I do not see a few people leaving a theatre for a few minutes as a major distraction.
There are two option to deal with rude people in theatres; kick them out or make radio frequencies unavailable in theatres. I prefer the former you prefer the latter.
I think you are exaggerating the "constant stream of people leaving and returning". The people I am talking about are very few in number and don't get important calls very often.
I'm sorry, but that's just you are more important than other people.
I do not see a few extra people leaving the theatre for a few minutes as a major distraction. I bet if you talked to a few other people they would say the same thing. You have no evidence to the contrary. It seems that your desire for a completly undisturbed theatre experience override other people's desires. It seems that you think you are more important than other people. That is why I talk about compromise, allow phones to be on in the theatre and require use to be outside the theatre. It is not perfect but accommodates everyone.
We ask that you turn off your cell phones or other devices during the show. If you must answer a call or send a text, please do so in the lobby. Cell phone use or texting in the auditorium will result in you being asked to leave without a refund.
Notice they say "answer a call".
Even Drafthouse, who is cited in one of the linked articles, does not say to turn off your cellular phone;
We have a zero-tolerance policy towards talking and texting during the movie. If you talk or text, you will receive one warning. If it happens again, you will be kicked out without a refund.
Notice that they do not even ask one to turn off the phone. All they require is not talking or texting during the movie.
They think their own behaviour is justifiable, even though it's against the rules and against civil standards in a theatre, just as you do.
Is it against "civil standards in a theatre" to go out of the theatre for a few minutes and then return? People do it all the time to go to the restroom. Whether it is nature's call or a buzzing phone makes no difference to me.
It's a lack of empathy, and you share it.
You also have a "lack of empathy" for people who are on call. I see the minimal disturbance of a few people having to leave a theatre to pick up a shift as a minor inconvenience compared to never allowing shift workers to go to the movies.
Yes, the jammer solution would require a change in the law.
That will never happen as jammer signals will interfere with nearby radios.
So to overcompensate for rude people you will let people die. Excellent compromise.
I think you are exaggerating the "constant stream of people leaving and returning". The people I am talking about are very few in number and don't get important calls very often. I doubt very much if one would get more than 5 people leaving and returning during a film. The main issue is people talking and texting during the movie not coming and going.
If you read most theatre policies they ask you to turn off your cell phones and say to leave the theatre if you must use your phone. Turning off you phone is not a requirement.
I'd have respect for your hypothetical if it wasn't constructed specifically to enable you personally to continue to be rude to your fellow theatregoers by breaking the rules regarding phone calls.
That is an excellent assumption and way off base. I usually turn my phone off at theatres as I do not need to be contacted. I also know that there are others who do need to be contacted while in a theatre and see a benefit in allowing it to happen. Everyone is not like you. Just because you don't need radio contact while in a theatre does not mean that others don't. It is not all about you.
By the way, please preview your posts as multiple quotes can cause issues.
The crux of the issue is that we can either kick out the few idiots who abuse their cell phone privileges or we can remove the privilege from everyone. As someone who has an issue with penalizing people who did nothing wrong I prefer the former.
Absolutely. And minimising them is the reason why the "vibrate on, leave if there's a telephone call" plan is unacceptable.
Your line of acceptability is not the only line. My line considers leaving to answer a call to be acceptable.
And is available just outside the theatre.
So the unconscious patient has to me moved from the theatre so the ECG can transmit back to the hospital and the EMTs can talk to the doctors? I am talking about the EMT communicating with the hospital while tending a patient.
Or in the case of a jammer could be switched off.
Jammers are illegal in the US as their influence can not be contained in a building. Faraday cages can not be turned off.
The company I work for just bought 2 Windows 8 laptops because they were not sold with windows 7. The first thing I did was install Windows 7 on them. In the sales statistics they are seen as Windows 8 machines when in reality they are being used as Windows 7 machines.
I never said it was a good thing; just that the report of hacking a drone was, in all probability, false and a political ploy.
I doubt very much if we will ever get passenger airliners without pilots on board. Even in the test they just moved the pilot from the aircraft to the land. Recon drones are different in that they can be made much smaller and more efficient without a pilot on board. In a passenger aircraft the weight of the aircrew and instruments does not add much to the weight of the aircraft and that is compensated for by the added safety of an on-board pilot.
Lets allow people's phone to vibrate in movie theaters because of on-call shift workers that might lose a shift to the next person in line.
FTFY Whether or not they leave the theatre before they answer the phone or text is another question. Cutting off all phones due to a few idiots is not the answer. Another issue is that if someone has a medical emergency in the theatre EMS radios would not work and EMTs would lose communication with the hospitals.
The point is, that by commenting on Slashdot you are making money for Slashdot for no monetary compensation. You are donating your time to Slashdot who is a for profit business. That is not so different than donating one's time to Google.
I doubt volunteers want to give the IP of their work to Google so that they can monetize it.
You just spent your time to write a comment on Slashdot. That comment could be considered IP. Slashdot then monetizes it through advertising revenue. Did you get paid by Slashdot? You just gave your IP to Slashdot so they can monetize it.
The reason people will do it is that it is a way of recording the things they saw in much greater detail than ever before so they can show it to their friends. The fact that millions of other people can also see it is just a bonus.
That is an unsubstantiated claim by Iran. It is equally as possible that there was a glitch in the system and the drone auto landed. If Iran had the ability to capture drones electronically there would be a lot of drones being captured. It is an attempt by Iran to embarrass the US and it worked pretty well.
By the way, please check you link before posting Here is the correct one.
Considering that about 7% of the US population is in the 17 to 24 age range they can have a significant effect on elections that are won or lost by a few percentage points.
The issue is that the target has no way of proving the threat is not credible and may react as if it is. Many extortion plots have no actual way of being carried out but they work because it is possible for them to work. For example, I could see someone going into a hotel room with some other than the spouse, assume sex was going on and threaten the person with showing the spouse sex tapes. I have no sex tapes but the person does not know that because it is possible that they exist. The threat is the issue not whether or not the person making the threat can carry it out.
That's judging by a person's ability to make decisions where they have to weigh future benefits against immediate benefits.
I guess by that logic the voting age should be 24. Long term benefits vs short term benefits are a very important factor in deciding who to vote for. That is the problem with magic numbers. Yes the brain might not be fully developed before 24 but it does not switch from no ability weigh future benefits against immediate benefits to complete ability to weigh future benefits against immediate benefits. It is a transition and that ability should be well enough developed in an 18 year to understand that a threat against a school is not a good thing. It comes down to this, the brain does not need to be completely developed to be responsible for one's actions.
Texas law [onecle.com] does calls all threats a "terroristic threat". They differentiate the severity by the class of penalty type ranging from Class B misdemeanor to felony of the third degree. Since the threat was against a school which could be considered a "place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury" it would be a third degree felony punishable by 2-10 years [onecle.com]. I bet that this statute has been on the books for decades and has nothing to do with the recent terrorism problems.
I just noticed something that makes it definitely a Commerce Clause issue. Basically some one out of state can not sell a new car to some one in state. That is easily restraint of interstate trade. I wonder if there is any other product restrained that way.
Blue laws say that no one can do certain things on certain days. What dealership laws say is that one must have a dealership relationship with the manufacturer to sell new vehicles. The difference being that blue laws effect everyone while dealership laws only effect non-dealer sellers. It is very different and probably does fall under the Commerce Clause.
To clarify, the person registered to the plate is liable for anything the vehicle attached to the plate does unless the plate, possibly with attached vehicle, is reported stolen.
The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times.
The law does not state what spectrum the plate has to be legible in. The prosecutor just has to prove the plate is not legible in IR and the statute may be broken. Such fine points would come out in court.
Slashdot Mirror
The theatres are full of rude and selfish people.
The theatres have a few rude and selfish people. If they were "full of" then majority rules and no one would be bothered. Exaggerated statements do not help you argument.
I consider it selfish to not allow someone to leave a theatre to answer a phone call or text.
That's no reason to compromise with them.
There is no reason to compromise with someone who insists on talking/texting/gaming in a theatre. There is a reason to compromise with people who need to be in contact while on call. There was one post from a person who carries an emergency services phone. If there is a building fire and the displaces residents need food, shelter, etc the emergency phone gets called. It does not happen very often but when it does it is important. I would like to find a way for him to go to a theatre and still be on call. Allowing phones on vibrate will accommodate that with minimal disruption.
I have read the other messages under the story. Can you find many that have issues with people leaving the theatre to answer calls/texts? I looked and could not find any. The issue is talking/texting/game playing in the theatre not leaving and returning.
By your standard anyone who is on call can not go to a movie theatre. That is why they invented vibrate mode. Perhaps you need to learn to compromise a bit.
Strange how you can accuse me of "lack of empathy" but when I accuse you of the same thing it is defensiveness. Why is it defensiveness in my case but not yours? How about you read you own posts before accusing others. Again, everyone does not think like you which is why I try to find a compromise. The position of "My way or the highway" is very egocentric.
And this time it's by CHOICE of the rude people that do it.
It is also the choice of entitled people to make a big deal about a minor distraction.
There is a huge difference between people having cellular phone conversations/texting and people leaving a theatre to take a call. By lumping both together you show lack of empathy.
At the end of that line of reasoning is saying victims of robbery are being selfish for complaining about it.
That is like equating overfilling a gas can and the Exon Valdeze spill. They are orders of magnitude different. If you can not deal with a few people leaving a theatre then you have a problem.
Just stop arguing the toss with me, and consider your behaviour. You're not always right. Sometimes you do things without thinking them through. And this is one of those cases.
There is an old saying "when you point fingers at someone else there are three pointing back at you". Everything in that last statement could be applied to you as well. I have thought it through completely and I do not see a few people leaving a theatre for a few minutes as a major distraction.
There are two option to deal with rude people in theatres; kick them out or make radio frequencies unavailable in theatres. I prefer the former you prefer the latter.
I think you are exaggerating the "constant stream of people leaving and returning". The people I am talking about are very few in number and don't get important calls very often.
I'm sorry, but that's just you are more important than other people.
I do not see a few extra people leaving the theatre for a few minutes as a major distraction. I bet if you talked to a few other people they would say the same thing. You have no evidence to the contrary. It seems that your desire for a completly undisturbed theatre experience override other people's desires. It seems that you think you are more important than other people. That is why I talk about compromise, allow phones to be on in the theatre and require use to be outside the theatre. It is not perfect but accommodates everyone.
Here is the policy from Granite Cinema;
We ask that you turn off your cell phones or other devices during the show. If you must answer a call or send a text, please do so in the lobby. Cell phone use or texting in the auditorium will result in you being asked to leave without a refund.
Notice they say "answer a call".
Even Drafthouse, who is cited in one of the linked articles, does not say to turn off your cellular phone;
We have a zero-tolerance policy towards talking and texting during the movie. If you talk or text, you will receive one warning. If it happens again, you will be kicked out without a refund.
Notice that they do not even ask one to turn off the phone. All they require is not talking or texting during the movie.
They think their own behaviour is justifiable, even though it's against the rules and against civil standards in a theatre, just as you do.
Is it against "civil standards in a theatre" to go out of the theatre for a few minutes and then return? People do it all the time to go to the restroom. Whether it is nature's call or a buzzing phone makes no difference to me.
It's a lack of empathy, and you share it.
You also have a "lack of empathy" for people who are on call. I see the minimal disturbance of a few people having to leave a theatre to pick up a shift as a minor inconvenience compared to never allowing shift workers to go to the movies.
Yes, the jammer solution would require a change in the law.
That will never happen as jammer signals will interfere with nearby radios.
It is not a big difference considering the small number of people who would download and use the raw data without going through StreetView.
So to overcompensate for rude people you will let people die. Excellent compromise.
I think you are exaggerating the "constant stream of people leaving and returning". The people I am talking about are very few in number and don't get important calls very often. I doubt very much if one would get more than 5 people leaving and returning during a film. The main issue is people talking and texting during the movie not coming and going.
If you read most theatre policies they ask you to turn off your cell phones and say to leave the theatre if you must use your phone. Turning off you phone is not a requirement.
I'd have respect for your hypothetical if it wasn't constructed specifically to enable you personally to continue to be rude to your fellow theatregoers by breaking the rules regarding phone calls.
That is an excellent assumption and way off base. I usually turn my phone off at theatres as I do not need to be contacted. I also know that there are others who do need to be contacted while in a theatre and see a benefit in allowing it to happen. Everyone is not like you. Just because you don't need radio contact while in a theatre does not mean that others don't. It is not all about you.
By the way, please preview your posts as multiple quotes can cause issues.
The crux of the issue is that we can either kick out the few idiots who abuse their cell phone privileges or we can remove the privilege from everyone. As someone who has an issue with penalizing people who did nothing wrong I prefer the former.
Absolutely. And minimising them is the reason why the "vibrate on, leave if there's a telephone call" plan is unacceptable.
Your line of acceptability is not the only line. My line considers leaving to answer a call to be acceptable.
And is available just outside the theatre.
So the unconscious patient has to me moved from the theatre so the ECG can transmit back to the hospital and the EMTs can talk to the doctors? I am talking about the EMT communicating with the hospital while tending a patient.
Or in the case of a jammer could be switched off.
Jammers are illegal in the US as their influence can not be contained in a building. Faraday cages can not be turned off.
Both phones vibrating and people leaving the cinema are also distractions.
Getting up to go to the washroom is also distraction. The idea is to minimize distraction not eliminate them.
There was a time before mobile phones
A Faraday cage that will block cell phone coverage will also block most other radios as well. Radio coverage is a necessity for EMS.
The company I work for just bought 2 Windows 8 laptops because they were not sold with windows 7. The first thing I did was install Windows 7 on them. In the sales statistics they are seen as Windows 8 machines when in reality they are being used as Windows 7 machines.
I never said it was a good thing; just that the report of hacking a drone was, in all probability, false and a political ploy.
I doubt very much if we will ever get passenger airliners without pilots on board. Even in the test they just moved the pilot from the aircraft to the land. Recon drones are different in that they can be made much smaller and more efficient without a pilot on board. In a passenger aircraft the weight of the aircrew and instruments does not add much to the weight of the aircraft and that is compensated for by the added safety of an on-board pilot.
Lets allow people's phone to vibrate in movie theaters because of on-call shift workers that might lose a shift to the next person in line.
FTFY
Whether or not they leave the theatre before they answer the phone or text is another question. Cutting off all phones due to a few idiots is not the answer. Another issue is that if someone has a medical emergency in the theatre EMS radios would not work and EMTs would lose communication with the hospitals.
There are also on-call shift workers. If the boss can not contact them they lose the shift and the boss calls the next in line.
Which is why, as in the test, there will most probably be a human pilot on board for just such an emergency.
The point is, that by commenting on Slashdot you are making money for Slashdot for no monetary compensation. You are donating your time to Slashdot who is a for profit business. That is not so different than donating one's time to Google.
I doubt volunteers want to give the IP of their work to Google so that they can monetize it.
You just spent your time to write a comment on Slashdot. That comment could be considered IP. Slashdot then monetizes it through advertising revenue. Did you get paid by Slashdot? You just gave your IP to Slashdot so they can monetize it.
The reason people will do it is that it is a way of recording the things they saw in much greater detail than ever before so they can show it to their friends. The fact that millions of other people can also see it is just a bonus.
That is an unsubstantiated claim by Iran. It is equally as possible that there was a glitch in the system and the drone auto landed. If Iran had the ability to capture drones electronically there would be a lot of drones being captured. It is an attempt by Iran to embarrass the US and it worked pretty well.
By the way, please check you link before posting Here is the correct one.
Considering that about 7% of the US population is in the 17 to 24 age range they can have a significant effect on elections that are won or lost by a few percentage points.
Look at section a(5) of the Texas Law. A school would probably fall in that category.
The issue is that the target has no way of proving the threat is not credible and may react as if it is. Many extortion plots have no actual way of being carried out but they work because it is possible for them to work. For example, I could see someone going into a hotel room with some other than the spouse, assume sex was going on and threaten the person with showing the spouse sex tapes. I have no sex tapes but the person does not know that because it is possible that they exist. The threat is the issue not whether or not the person making the threat can carry it out.
That's judging by a person's ability to make decisions where they have to weigh future benefits against immediate benefits.
I guess by that logic the voting age should be 24. Long term benefits vs short term benefits are a very important factor in deciding who to vote for. That is the problem with magic numbers. Yes the brain might not be fully developed before 24 but it does not switch from no ability weigh future benefits against immediate benefits to complete ability to weigh future benefits against immediate benefits. It is a transition and that ability should be well enough developed in an 18 year to understand that a threat against a school is not a good thing. It comes down to this, the brain does not need to be completely developed to be responsible for one's actions.
Texas law [onecle.com] does calls all threats a "terroristic threat". They differentiate the severity by the class of penalty type ranging from Class B misdemeanor to felony of the third degree. Since the threat was against a school which could be considered a "place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury" it would be a third degree felony punishable by 2-10 years [onecle.com]. I bet that this statute has been on the books for decades and has nothing to do with the recent terrorism problems.
I just noticed something that makes it definitely a Commerce Clause issue. Basically some one out of state can not sell a new car to some one in state. That is easily restraint of interstate trade. I wonder if there is any other product restrained that way.
Blue laws say that no one can do certain things on certain days. What dealership laws say is that one must have a dealership relationship with the manufacturer to sell new vehicles. The difference being that blue laws effect everyone while dealership laws only effect non-dealer sellers. It is very different and probably does fall under the Commerce Clause.
To clarify, the person registered to the plate is liable for anything the vehicle attached to the plate does unless the plate, possibly with attached vehicle, is reported stolen.
The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times.
The law does not state what spectrum the plate has to be legible in. The prosecutor just has to prove the plate is not legible in IR and the statute may be broken. Such fine points would come out in court.