On a side note, I wonder how we managed only a few years ago, when mobiles were not common as dirt:)
By staying at home. My girlfriend is originally from Eastern Europe. She used to stay at home during the "peak hours" in case any call would come. They had a list of doctors they'd call, if something happened so that atleast _one_ would be home to attend.
Besides, that's what progress is about isn't it? Each new technology brings with it it's own bunch of problems, idiots and radical opposition:-)
And oh, I'm sorry about the language in the original response, was just irritated (still am) at the general way the slashbot think responded, without bothering to think whether or not people would have a genuine need. Oh well.
Btw, this is probably a stupid question - but is Norwegian a Germanic language, too?
No, the way they worded it, it sounded more defensive than otherwise.
I understand what you mean and the unfortunate hypocrisy, but it did not sound like that - it sounded as though they were trying to protect themselves from sue-happy companies.
Consider this -
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
That sounds more like, if you make claims that are offending our business, we would not take it lightly. It definitely does not sound like they would have a sue-first think-later kinda attitude.
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.
If you sue us with your patents, we'll have to handle you accordingly.
Come on, that sounds quite benign. Looks to me like they're just trying to protect their interests.
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Well, that's a smart statement. Coming from a company like Novell, I'm sure that it would make other companies take notice.
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
Hmm, whom could the others be?/me thinks it could be IBM, especially considering that they both have a bone or two to pick with His Highness Darth McBride.
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant. We now have atleast two big players (other than RedHat) who are prepared to offer legal support to Opensource, which is a great thing indeed!
Novell has previously used its ownership of UNIX copyrights and patents to protect customers against similar threats to open source software made by others.
We are a corporation, and therefore cannot legally say FUCK YOU! to SCO. However, we'll put it in such sweet-coated words hoping that the idiots over at Utah get what we mean before we haul their asses to court.
If you had read my posts, which it looks like you haven't, you'd see that I've mentioned that several times that I _do_ keep my cellphone in vibrate mode. Please read the whole thread - I merely advocated not banning cellphones because I tend to be on call 24/7, and therefore would need hate it if it were jammed. Cellphones in theaters is a social problem - people like me who get calls all the time are quite polite about it and keep our cellphones in silent or vibrator modes - you'd not notice that we even get a call. It's the obnoxious ones that you need to take care of.
I've a life where I've my responsibilities. It affects me, so I talk about it.
You don't have the same problem? Great! Go ahead, enjoy your life.
But don't make it personal - my opinions are mine and yours are yours. If you don't like mine, fine.
But name calling (selfish bastard, jerk blah blah) just shows who's anti-social - someone who needs a cellphone for their work or someone who takes it so personally that they abuse anyone with an alternate opinion.
I do not expect you to understand my predicament, nor do I care. You'd continue calling me a pretentious twit while you exaggerate and talk me down.
*shrug*
Too bad. It's not the Slashdot crowd that makes those laws, and I'm glad it's that way.
Yeah, my job is imposing on my life. It does suck sometimes, but I've gotten used to it.
Hell, I gave up my favourite sport (rock climbing) because that would amount to me being out of touch for a long time.
Btw, I keep my cellphone in vibrator mode almost all the time, even when I'm outside (especially because I get so calls so often).
My point is merely that my job requires me to, and trust me, I'm quite considerate about the comforts of others. You would not even know that I've gotten a call, simply because I've just gotten used to handling it. And trust me, there are several such people out there who do not have a choice.
On the other hand, by banning cellphones you are restricting me from ever even visiting those places.
Placing social graces over the needs of the few is not something I approve of, maybe because it affects me personally.
My girlfriend's a doctor who gets emergency calls all the time. I get emergency calls all the time. We both keep our cellphones on vibrate everytime we are in a movie. But from what the Slashdot crowd seems to be suggesting, it's a cardinal sin to be having the cellphone in the first place. Ahmm.
Yeah, the way this thread has gone, I should stop expressing myself altogether -- Slashdot groupthink says that I should get a new job, get rid of my girlfriend and family, not have kids etc - just so that they can watch their movies in peace. Yay!
You know, those of us who genuinely need the cellphones aren't the ones who're obnoxious. We're the ones you never notice. The ones who are obnoxious will always be - they were the ones who played on their nintendos 10 years ago, talk on their cellphones today and will do something else tomorrow. In the process of banning cellphones, you are affecting people with genuine needs.
Idiots seem to crowd this place (that was a general statement, not directed at you:).
Well said, thank you. My girlfriend's a doctor too, and she gets emergency calls all the time. And I have a job that necessiates me to be on call all the time.
It's just sad that the crowd here does not even seem to understand the needs that some people may have, and somehow places their need to watch the movie undisturbed over all that.
When I see posts that say, "my dead relative will stay dead even after the movie" - it just strikes me that these very people who call those that need cellphones antisocial are so much more antisocial themselves.
Metlin, the funny thing is that you don't realise that that is exactly what you are doing.
And what exactly am I doing? Asking not to ban cellphones entirely because otherwise I would not be able to enjoy a movie? So that I could save my job?
When the vast majority disagree with you, that's not evidence that you are wrong, but it should give you a clue to think about the possibility that you may be.
Clearly, the vast majority do not have an idea of my problems, nor are they me. The kind who are in a situation similar to me would understand. Sadly, it seems that most of the Slashdot crowd (yourself included) have not been in a position where their job is on the line if they are not available.
You have a choice to behave in a way that doesn't annoy the majority of other people.
And what is that? Leave my job?
It's clear that you and people of your mindset aren't going to change, which is a very good reason why jammers are necessary and inevitable.
No, we're the kind who get by without anyone in the theater ever knowing that we got a call. The ones who're obnoxious are still going to be, with some new gadget or the other.
Your attitude disgusts me. That there are so many people like you who just are willing to be inconsiderate to the minority because you can enjoy your three hours like a compulsive obsessive maniac scares me.
Get out a little more often. Realize that you in a society. And learn to adjust and adapt.
You're trying to solve the social problem of obnoxious people with a technological solution, and in the process you're causing a great deal of harm to people who've genuine needs and who aren't the people who caused the problem in the first place.
What an absolutely selfish, inconsiderate and immature attitude.
There are other people who have thoughts other than you. You know? People? Things that form the society? For someone who keeps using the word anti-social, I think you'd know what that means.
Quite honestly, if I knew someone like you in real life, I'd be scared to meet you. Lest I offend thy holy self and you trash the shit out of me.
So you're asking me to change my job because people can watch movies undisturbed?:-)
That seems to be the consensus of the Slashdot crowd here. If it's that important you're either thinking too much of yourelf or you need to change your job.
I'm surprised that they don't realize how much deep their heads are stuck in their asses.
Regarding my job -- I'm not at liberty to disclose that here on a public forum, but suffice it to say that it is absolutely justified. And it's something that I do out of choice, and not something I would want to change because the whiney crowd at Slashdot thought so.
Apparently, their job hasn't been on the line because they were unavailable. Apparently, they've not had a family or a baby.
It's quite sad. I look at my posts, and I'm surprised at how people could think that they'd go to any lengths to have their enjoyment in a two hour movie, even if it meant someone losing their job. Eh, funny and sad.
People need to grow up and maybe if they got some real responsbility in life, they'd know. Just wait until this is modded down, too;-) Flamebait or Troll, one of the two, I bet.
The sad part is, the Slashdot response would be, get another job. Or it's your problem.
I say I need to be reached immediately, and the Slashdot crowd goes, "Oh he must be maintaining a server". Bzzt! Wrong! There are others who do have other jobs and other responsibilities. Where they do not have a choice. A _lot_ of other people. And guess what? We are the folks whom you do not notice in a theater, because we've learnt to get by silently. And you are affecting us because of the noisy few who're the actual noise-makers.
And besides, it's not a question of what you deserve. It's a question of what you have.
I'm not aiming this at you in particular, but the last thing I need is the Slashdot crowd telling me that I need to get a new job, a new life, a new family and what not - just so that they can enjoy their movies. You know, it's not always that simple.
And the way my comments have been modded up and down, I realize how little actual responsibility most people here have. They've apparently not had toddlers to be taken care of, or had their jobs on the line if they did not answer that phone-call.
If they did, they'd know what I was talking about. Oh well, kids.
IBM's factoring operation was a very specific deed - it's not really a quantum computer as much as a customized quantum operation for a very specific task.
I meant something where you give an input, process it, store it and retrieve it -- entirely using quantum operations.
That is a challenging.
And IBM's task and this are two entirely different things, in terms of what they mean and what they've accomplished.
Several reasons - it's heavy, easier to be made neutral and easier to be trapped in a wave dipole trap (that's what they seem to be using). In a standing wave dipole trap, the first factor especially plays an important role in sustaining stability.
Plus, they've a discernible signature even in a spatially modulated environment and that helps.
But it's not the scale that matters, it's the fact that it has been done. The problem with any QC related operation is the inherent difficulty -- in terms of having redundancy, storage, observation and retrieval.
That's why you keep hearing these things about quantum entanglement for 5 qubits and registers and the like. It's not the scale, it's the fact that people have been able to do them.
The problem is that a lot of things are THEORETICALLY possible in QC, but have not been practically achievable. Often times, people find that although it is theoretically possible, it's not realizeable due to some problem or the other. And then, further studies would prove that there are variables that people hadn't considered.
So, this would mean that we can store observed states -- in some way that can be copied and retrieved -- which is a big leap.
Upon further observation, it was known to have a probability of 1;)
On a serious note, this is awesome. With a 5 qubit entanglement and this, we might be able to build a primitive functional Quantum Computer, for the first time.
The team is now working to create a quantum gate in which two or more qubits of the register will interact in a controlled way.
Amazing. The beginnings of a first QC. We've memory, redundancy, processing capabilities and a lot more.
Now the only problem that remains is a suitable and reliable means of error correction - which is the biggest problem thus far in QC:-(
See, banning something just because the majority do not like something is stupid and more anti-social than anything that I suggested.
It's not the question of how many people would be taking up calls. Guess what, statistics show that where I live (Atlanta), Blacks commit more crimes than people of other races. And not too many blacks attend this particular pub that I frequent. But let's not let any other Black attend the club either, he's more likely to commit a crime than not.
Sounds good? That's how your comments come across to me. I have a need, and just because there are fools out there who misuse their cellphones does not mean you rule out MY legitimate need. It may not be important to YOU, but it sure as hell is important to me.
By saying that because the majority does not receive calls on cellphones and find it annoying, and therefore you'd ban cellphones altogether is STUPID and more anti-social than anything I suggested. You're effectively telling me not to go to movies so that you can have a good time.
Why can't people learn to fucking accept that there may be others with different needs? Is that so hard?
It's funny, Slashdot groupthink amuses me. Essentially, the theater is infringing upon my personal rights. Sure, there'll be a stream of idiots who'll ramble on that if I do not like it, I do not go to the theater. Well, that's defeatist because then all theaters will have the same thing - minority voices are simply drowned.
Well, my point was merely that people have different needs. Telling people to switch off cellphones is one thing, but banning them by jamming them is another altogether.
I mean, if a cellphone distubs people, then so do babies and people munching on their popcorns and sipping on their cokes. Why don't we ban them, too? And ofcourse, going to the restrooms in the middle of the movies, too.
If cellphones were banned at their workplace, people would make a hue and a cry about it. And come up with reasons. Even if it meant that their cellphones beeping would disturb those around them. Hell, my work is what pays for my living. It's definitely a lot more important than some entertainment. But no. There would be hell broken loose.
Ah, the hypocritic Slashdot groupthink.
Where their right to do something is touted, but not at the expense of their entertainment.
Go ahead, brand everyone who has any need that does not match yours as being anti-social. My attitude is not anti-social - it is simply need-based.
Denying cellphone reception because a few idiots can't bother switching off their cellphones is ridiculous. Hey, most people in this country don't like alchohol, so let's get rid of alchohol altogether. Those who like alchohol can go to another country.
I still vehemently oppose it. Go ahead, ban cellphones. While you are at it, since you don't like being disturbed, why don't you ban babies too? They seem to cry and make noises too. And if you have a nature's call, just don't let people use the restroom. Because I'm sure it bothers you so much.
Guess what? Those idiots munching on their popcorns and sipping that coke make a whole lot more of noise than any number of cellphone annoyances. So why don't we ban food and drink too? I mean, if they wanted all that, they could rent a DVD and watch it.
I called the AC retarded, not you. And if you happen to be the one who responded anonymously, that comment _was_ retarded.
I would MUCH rather have an idiot having his cellphone beep than losing MY cellphone reception altogether.
Get IT?
I keep my cellphone silent - but I would also LIKE to receive calls. If you jammed my cellphone, I would not have to put up with any interruptions, but cannot receive ANY calls.
It's okay, your IQ is higher than those of my shoelaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, which is what sucks.
:)
:-)
On a side note, I wonder how we managed only a few years ago, when mobiles were not common as dirt
By staying at home. My girlfriend is originally from Eastern Europe. She used to stay at home during the "peak hours" in case any call would come. They had a list of doctors they'd call, if something happened so that atleast _one_ would be home to attend.
Besides, that's what progress is about isn't it? Each new technology brings with it it's own bunch of problems, idiots and radical opposition
And oh, I'm sorry about the language in the original response, was just irritated (still am) at the general way the slashbot think responded, without bothering to think whether or not people would have a genuine need. Oh well.
Btw, this is probably a stupid question - but is Norwegian a Germanic language, too?
No, the way they worded it, it sounded more defensive than otherwise.
I understand what you mean and the unfortunate hypocrisy, but it did not sound like that - it sounded as though they were trying to protect themselves from sue-happy companies.
Consider this -
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
That sounds more like, if you make claims that are offending our business, we would not take it lightly. It definitely does not sound like they would have a sue-first think-later kinda attitude.
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.
If you sue us with your patents, we'll have to handle you accordingly.
Come on, that sounds quite benign. Looks to me like they're just trying to protect their interests.
From Novell's website (emphasis _not_ mine) --
/me thinks it could be IBM, especially considering that they both have a bone or two to pick with His Highness Darth McBride.
:-)
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Well, that's a smart statement. Coming from a company like Novell, I'm sure that it would make other companies take notice.
Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.
Hmm, whom could the others be?
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant. We now have atleast two big players (other than RedHat) who are prepared to offer legal support to Opensource, which is a great thing indeed!
Novell has previously used its ownership of UNIX copyrights and patents to protect customers against similar threats to open source software made by others.
We are a corporation, and therefore cannot legally say FUCK YOU! to SCO. However, we'll put it in such sweet-coated words hoping that the idiots over at Utah get what we mean before we haul their asses to court.
Yay! for Opensource
If you had read my posts, which it looks like you haven't, you'd see that I've mentioned that several times that I _do_ keep my cellphone in vibrate mode. Please read the whole thread - I merely advocated not banning cellphones because I tend to be on call 24/7, and therefore would need hate it if it were jammed. Cellphones in theaters is a social problem - people like me who get calls all the time are quite polite about it and keep our cellphones in silent or vibrator modes - you'd not notice that we even get a call. It's the obnoxious ones that you need to take care of.
Dude, what's your problem?
I've a life where I've my responsibilities. It affects me, so I talk about it.
You don't have the same problem? Great! Go ahead, enjoy your life.
But don't make it personal - my opinions are mine and yours are yours. If you don't like mine, fine.
But name calling (selfish bastard, jerk blah blah) just shows who's anti-social - someone who needs a cellphone for their work or someone who takes it so personally that they abuse anyone with an alternate opinion.
I do not expect you to understand my predicament, nor do I care. You'd continue calling me a pretentious twit while you exaggerate and talk me down.
*shrug*
Too bad. It's not the Slashdot crowd that makes those laws, and I'm glad it's that way.
Yeah, my job is imposing on my life. It does suck sometimes, but I've gotten used to it.
Hell, I gave up my favourite sport (rock climbing) because that would amount to me being out of touch for a long time.
Btw, I keep my cellphone in vibrator mode almost all the time, even when I'm outside (especially because I get so calls so often).
My point is merely that my job requires me to, and trust me, I'm quite considerate about the comforts of others. You would not even know that I've gotten a call, simply because I've just gotten used to handling it. And trust me, there are several such people out there who do not have a choice.
On the other hand, by banning cellphones you are restricting me from ever even visiting those places.
Placing social graces over the needs of the few is not something I approve of, maybe because it affects me personally.
Well, not a big deal to many.
:).
My girlfriend's a doctor who gets emergency calls all the time. I get emergency calls all the time. We both keep our cellphones on vibrate everytime we are in a movie. But from what the Slashdot crowd seems to be suggesting, it's a cardinal sin to be having the cellphone in the first place. Ahmm.
Yeah, the way this thread has gone, I should stop expressing myself altogether -- Slashdot groupthink says that I should get a new job, get rid of my girlfriend and family, not have kids etc - just so that they can watch their movies in peace. Yay!
You know, those of us who genuinely need the cellphones aren't the ones who're obnoxious. We're the ones you never notice. The ones who are obnoxious will always be - they were the ones who played on their nintendos 10 years ago, talk on their cellphones today and will do something else tomorrow. In the process of banning cellphones, you are affecting people with genuine needs.
Idiots seem to crowd this place (that was a general statement, not directed at you
Well said, thank you. My girlfriend's a doctor too, and she gets emergency calls all the time. And I have a job that necessiates me to be on call all the time.
It's just sad that the crowd here does not even seem to understand the needs that some people may have, and somehow places their need to watch the movie undisturbed over all that.
When I see posts that say, "my dead relative will stay dead even after the movie" - it just strikes me that these very people who call those that need cellphones antisocial are so much more antisocial themselves.
Metlin, the funny thing is that you don't realise that that is exactly what you are doing.
And what exactly am I doing? Asking not to ban cellphones entirely because otherwise I would not be able to enjoy a movie? So that I could save my job?
When the vast majority disagree with you, that's not evidence that you are wrong, but it should give you a clue to think about the possibility that you may be.
Clearly, the vast majority do not have an idea of my problems, nor are they me. The kind who are in a situation similar to me would understand. Sadly, it seems that most of the Slashdot crowd (yourself included) have not been in a position where their job is on the line if they are not available.
You have a choice to behave in a way that doesn't annoy the majority of other people.
And what is that? Leave my job?
It's clear that you and people of your mindset aren't going to change, which is a very good reason why jammers are necessary and inevitable.
No, we're the kind who get by without anyone in the theater ever knowing that we got a call. The ones who're obnoxious are still going to be, with some new gadget or the other.
Your attitude disgusts me. That there are so many people like you who just are willing to be inconsiderate to the minority because you can enjoy your three hours like a compulsive obsessive maniac scares me.
Get out a little more often. Realize that you in a society. And learn to adjust and adapt.
You're trying to solve the social problem of obnoxious people with a technological solution, and in the process you're causing a great deal of harm to people who've genuine needs and who aren't the people who caused the problem in the first place.
What an absolutely selfish, inconsiderate and immature attitude.
There are other people who have thoughts other than you. You know? People? Things that form the society? For someone who keeps using the word anti-social, I think you'd know what that means.
Quite honestly, if I knew someone like you in real life, I'd be scared to meet you. Lest I offend thy holy self and you trash the shit out of me.
So you're asking me to change my job because people can watch movies undisturbed? :-)
;-) Flamebait or Troll, one of the two, I bet.
That seems to be the consensus of the Slashdot crowd here. If it's that important you're either thinking too much of yourelf or you need to change your job.
I'm surprised that they don't realize how much deep their heads are stuck in their asses.
Regarding my job -- I'm not at liberty to disclose that here on a public forum, but suffice it to say that it is absolutely justified. And it's something that I do out of choice, and not something I would want to change because the whiney crowd at Slashdot thought so.
Apparently, their job hasn't been on the line because they were unavailable. Apparently, they've not had a family or a baby.
It's quite sad. I look at my posts, and I'm surprised at how people could think that they'd go to any lengths to have their enjoyment in a two hour movie, even if it meant someone losing their job. Eh, funny and sad.
People need to grow up and maybe if they got some real responsbility in life, they'd know. Just wait until this is modded down, too
Well, a lot of people.
The sad part is, the Slashdot response would be, get another job. Or it's your problem.
I say I need to be reached immediately, and the Slashdot crowd goes, "Oh he must be maintaining a server". Bzzt! Wrong! There are others who do have other jobs and other responsibilities. Where they do not have a choice. A _lot_ of other people. And guess what? We are the folks whom you do not notice in a theater, because we've learnt to get by silently. And you are affecting us because of the noisy few who're the actual noise-makers.
And besides, it's not a question of what you deserve. It's a question of what you have.
I'm not aiming this at you in particular, but the last thing I need is the Slashdot crowd telling me that I need to get a new job, a new life, a new family and what not - just so that they can enjoy their movies. You know, it's not always that simple.
And the way my comments have been modded up and down, I realize how little actual responsibility most people here have. They've apparently not had toddlers to be taken care of, or had their jobs on the line if they did not answer that phone-call.
If they did, they'd know what I was talking about. Oh well, kids.
Do you have an e-mail address I could contact you at?
So, we're what 10 - 20 years away from a QC that both gives you your answer and blue screens at the same time?
Atleast.
I would say maybe 50. It's not enough if you can get a system to do something - you need to make it reliable and scaleable.
We're still tackling the very basic problems in QC, and have a very very long way to go. Error correction is still a very big problem.
Some people, such as Alexei Kitaev, have done some pioneering work but it's still in its infancy. A long long way to go.
Well, I meant in a classical sense.
IBM's factoring operation was a very specific deed - it's not really a quantum computer as much as a customized quantum operation for a very specific task.
I meant something where you give an input, process it, store it and retrieve it -- entirely using quantum operations.
That is a challenging.
And IBM's task and this are two entirely different things, in terms of what they mean and what they've accomplished.
Several reasons - it's heavy, easier to be made neutral and easier to be trapped in a wave dipole trap (that's what they seem to be using). In a standing wave dipole trap, the first factor especially plays an important role in sustaining stability.
Plus, they've a discernible signature even in a spatially modulated environment and that helps.
Very small scale.
But it's not the scale that matters, it's the fact that it has been done. The problem with any QC related operation is the inherent difficulty -- in terms of having redundancy, storage, observation and retrieval.
That's why you keep hearing these things about quantum entanglement for 5 qubits and registers and the like. It's not the scale, it's the fact that people have been able to do them.
The problem is that a lot of things are THEORETICALLY possible in QC, but have not been practically achievable. Often times, people find that although it is theoretically possible, it's not realizeable due to some problem or the other. And then, further studies would prove that there are variables that people hadn't considered.
So, this would mean that we can store observed states -- in some way that can be copied and retrieved -- which is a big leap.
Actually, there was uncertainty.
;)
:-(
Upon further observation, it was known to have a probability of 1
On a serious note, this is awesome. With a 5 qubit entanglement and this, we might be able to build a primitive functional Quantum Computer, for the first time.
The team is now working to create a quantum gate in which two or more qubits of the register will interact in a controlled way.
Amazing. The beginnings of a first QC. We've memory, redundancy, processing capabilities and a lot more.
Now the only problem that remains is a suitable and reliable means of error correction - which is the biggest problem thus far in QC
No theoretically it doesn't matter if your cell phone is on, but never rings - if that was the case you wouldn't want reception, though.
That is the case. There *is* something called a vibrator alert, you know? In which case, I would need reception
Basically, no matter what you're going to jam my cellphone. Even if it means I've a legitimate reason, and a non-intrusive way of taking calls.
Eh, and people here rant on about freedom of speech and rights and stuff like that.
Yeah, so all it's only a matter of time before all theaters would have jammers.
Which would effectively prevent me from going to any except at the cost of my work.
Uhh, silent mode does not mean you do not notice an incoming call. Ever used a cellphone?
There are such things as vibrator and visual alerts.
Slashdot - where expressing one's opinions is a flamebait. Yay!
Moderators on crack - read what he said - he was clarifying his post, not baiting someone.
What's with you and anti-social anyway?
See, banning something just because the majority do not like something is stupid and more anti-social than anything that I suggested.
It's not the question of how many people would be taking up calls. Guess what, statistics show that where I live (Atlanta), Blacks commit more crimes than people of other races. And not too many blacks attend this particular pub that I frequent. But let's not let any other Black attend the club either, he's more likely to commit a crime than not.
Sounds good? That's how your comments come across to me. I have a need, and just because there are fools out there who misuse their cellphones does not mean you rule out MY legitimate need. It may not be important to YOU, but it sure as hell is important to me.
By saying that because the majority does not receive calls on cellphones and find it annoying, and therefore you'd ban cellphones altogether is STUPID and more anti-social than anything I suggested. You're effectively telling me not to go to movies so that you can have a good time.
Why can't people learn to fucking accept that there may be others with different needs? Is that so hard?
It's funny, Slashdot groupthink amuses me. Essentially, the theater is infringing upon my personal rights. Sure, there'll be a stream of idiots who'll ramble on that if I do not like it, I do not go to the theater. Well, that's defeatist because then all theaters will have the same thing - minority voices are simply drowned.
Well, my point was merely that people have different needs. Telling people to switch off cellphones is one thing, but banning them by jamming them is another altogether.
I mean, if a cellphone distubs people, then so do babies and people munching on their popcorns and sipping on their cokes. Why don't we ban them, too? And ofcourse, going to the restrooms in the middle of the movies, too.
If cellphones were banned at their workplace, people would make a hue and a cry about it. And come up with reasons. Even if it meant that their cellphones beeping would disturb those around them. Hell, my work is what pays for my living. It's definitely a lot more important than some entertainment. But no. There would be hell broken loose.
Ah, the hypocritic Slashdot groupthink.
Where their right to do something is touted, but not at the expense of their entertainment.
Go ahead, brand everyone who has any need that does not match yours as being anti-social. My attitude is not anti-social - it is simply need-based.
Denying cellphone reception because a few idiots can't bother switching off their cellphones is ridiculous. Hey, most people in this country don't like alchohol, so let's get rid of alchohol altogether. Those who like alchohol can go to another country.
I still vehemently oppose it. Go ahead, ban cellphones. While you are at it, since you don't like being disturbed, why don't you ban babies too? They seem to cry and make noises too. And if you have a nature's call, just don't let people use the restroom. Because I'm sure it bothers you so much.
Guess what? Those idiots munching on their popcorns and sipping that coke make a whole lot more of noise than any number of cellphone annoyances. So why don't we ban food and drink too? I mean, if they wanted all that, they could rent a DVD and watch it.
I called the AC retarded, not you. And if you happen to be the one who responded anonymously, that comment _was_ retarded.
Sheesh, okay, here I go ONCE again.
I would MUCH rather have an idiot having his cellphone beep than losing MY cellphone reception altogether.
Get IT?
I keep my cellphone silent - but I would also LIKE to receive calls. If you jammed my cellphone, I would not have to put up with any interruptions, but cannot receive ANY calls.
It's okay, your IQ is higher than those of my shoelaces.