That could be explained by the fact that fortune cookies are a purely American food, invented in California. Not sure about chop suey but I'd suspect it's the same thing.
It's a place made accessible to the public, and as such, the property owner's say is constrained to some degree. See, for instance, Marsh v. Alabama, particularly noting Justice Black's conclusion that "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
I'll let the fact that you and I are both not lawyers excuse the fact that you're citing a court case from 1946. In addition to it being extremely old, it was effectively limited to applying only to private property that assumed all characteristics of a municipality by HUDGENS v. NLRB (1976). That case denied that picketers have the right to enter a shopping center against the owners' wishes. If the First Amendment doesn't restrict the owner of a shopping center (a very public place) from kicking people out, then nothing forces the owner of a theater to protect your right to relax (or whatever).
The laws are made based on the outcomes of discussion like these. They did not fall down to earth from heaven. Someone has to sit down and decide which is more important: my right to reasonable quiet or your right to use a phone.
Actually, they might as well fall down to earth from heaven. They are based on the philosophies of judges and politicians. There's nothing special about laws that makes them any more objective or true than any other opinions or philosophies. Sure, laws are made based on outcomes of discussions like this one, but at the end it all comes down to whether some law is consistent with the Constitution, an old piece of paper written based on the completely subjective philosophies of long-dead people.
So unless we can appy this to some framework (i.e. assuming your rights are defined by the law), I'm not interested in the argument. Besides, you'd never get past my egoism:)
I think the right to quiet trumps, because your single phone disturbs multiple people, and because you're the one who wants to do something creating the need for conflict resolution, so it's more reasonable that you step outside to do it. You may think differently, but if you can't make a convincing case then it doesn't matter much.
Who's to say that the "rightness" of an action is determined by how many people are annoyed by it? You're arguing that whenever an action causes creates "the need for conflict resolution", the actor should stop? I don't call that a convincing case at all, and anyone could come up with plenty of examples in which an action created "the need for conflict resolution" and yet isn't wrong.
Or another approach: At the end of the day, there is some outcome which leaves society the best off in the net. You can assume a logarithmic increase in social cost per person as the outcome diverges farther and farther from their preferred outcome, then sample the population to figure out what they'd prefer and then figure out how your numbers add up. I don't have any scientific data, but I brought this topic up with my friends this evening, and 7 out of 8 (including me) felt that jammers in cinemas would be a great idea.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you arguing that if most people think something is a good idea, then it should be instated? Lots of Southerners thought slavery was a good idea.. maybe even most... (don't bother arguing against that fact, I offer it simply as an example of a case in which many people might think something is a good idea but it still isn't). Sounds like Utilitarianism to me, which I think is completely evil... so by spouting it, you've already earned by contempt:)
But his is how arguments based purely on opinions go. They're useless.
Sorry, if I went and sat next to someone and started yelling in their ear - or even trying to disrupt a conversation between two other people by talking loudly through them - I could certainly be cited for it.
You're absolutely wrong. We're talking about private property here, which is what I think you're missing. Legally, you don't have the right to a quiet environment or an undisturbed conversation if the owners of the property don't grant you that right. That's the reason I brought up the rollercoaster and the concert. In my opinion you're right that they are not "places where it is reasonable to expect quiet" and theaters are... but that's up to the discression of the theater. What do you have to say about the hypothetical theater where everyone's allowed to scream at the top of their lungs? Do you think you have the right to forcibly cover their mouths with duct tape? In my opinion, the jammer amounts to the same thing.
our argument is no more than a reiteration of the present illegality of cellphone jammers in the US, which everyone already takes as a given, and is therefore entirely uninteresting
You're right that there's a difference between the legality of it and whether someone has the right to it. I'm using the legality because talking about what one has the right to do ignoring the law is a completely philosophical question, and we all know how arguments about questions like those go. You're basing your argument that you have the right to jam this person's cell phone on the fact that in your opinion, a theater is a place where it should be completely quiet. How do you expect anyone to argue with this opinion? Someone else might argue that it's completely reasonable to talk on a cell phone if it's not too loud. You'd disagree, but it would be a completely subjective opinion! That kind of reasoning leads to people (presumably less peaceful to you) saying things like "Well if he jams my cellphone, I have a right to take his jammer and beat him with it." How do you argue something like this with no basis?
Are you arguing on the basis of morality? I have been in too many arguments where morality is in question, they're never resolved.
So what's your basis?
P.S. Sorry if I was insulting or inflammatory in earlier posts.
You don't seem to be paying attention. A person has the right to do anything (within the law) that THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DEEM THAT PERSON MAY DO.
If you're in a theater that allows people to yell at the top of their lungs, then those people have the right to yell at the top of their lungs.
In point of fact I do have the right to reasonable tranquility; that's why we have laws about disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct and so on.
Of course you have the right to reasonable tranquility... when you're on YOUR PROPERTY or on public property. Do you have the right to keep people from screaming on a rollercoaster because it hurts your ears? Do you have the right to tell the people at a concert to STFU so you can be more tranquil? NO.
I don't see that their right to yack supersedes my right to relax. If you can convince me that it does, excellent.
Their right to yack does not supercede your right to relax. But in attempting to exercise your right to relax, you are ILLEGALLY infringing upon their rights. If you sat next to the yacker and talked loudly to your neighbor, infringing on their right to yack, there would be nothing wrong with that. Because, although you're "infringing on their rights", you would be WITHIN THE RULES OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
Sorry about the caps, but I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again without anyone listening. Think about it. They're following the rules. You're not (in using the jammer). It's as simple as that.
Okay let's examine what you're attempting to argue (in an Anonymous Cowardly sort of way).
The parent poster said: I have had cellphones with work, and was glad to get rid of them when I did. I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.
Presumably he lost his job, got another job, or his job changed its policies and no longer required him to carry his cell phone.. so he got rid of it.
I argue that his logic (getting rid of the cell phone so he wouldn't be on an "electronic leash") is flawed, because he's only on an electronic leash if he makes it that way.
Then you jump in with your witty post and tell us: Dude. It's called a *JOB*.
Please try to follow along next time before jumping in and posting. I really need to stop displaying Score:0 posts.
Only one company runs a train from New York to DC. Likewise there may or may not be another cinema showing the movie I want to see, or another restaurant that serves food as good as what I want to eat.
So what? If that's your only choice, and you don't like how that company runs stuff, then you're SOL. There right to a quiet train is not inalienable, and the fact that you can't find a train/theater/whatever that meets your critera doesn't give you the right to illegally force that train/theater/whatever to meet your criteria.
You're making the assumption that businesses out there are obligated to give you a comfortable experience, and if that business doesn't then you're perfectly happy illegally treading on other people's rights.
Guess what? People have the right to have annoying ringers and speak annoyingly on their cell phones if the owner of the property they're on at the time doesn't have rules against it or doesn't enforce them. You do not have the right to take away other peoples' rights just because the only train in town doesn't meet your expectations.
One important key to functioning successfully in a social environment is respecting other people, and you have the right to be annoyed. But another important key is respecting other people's rights, recognizing that your desires are not rights, and learning to live with the fact that not everyone in the world has the same desires you do and not every business in the world is obligated to tailor their services to you.
Like I said a few times before, if you don't like it then leave!! Only train in town? Sorry about your luck.
The only thing worse than someone who feels they need to make their argument by strewing childish insults is an Anonymous Coward who does so:)
Your insults don't carry much weight, so maybe you'd be kind enough to explain (this time using a legitimate login, coward) why my arguments are so worthless and inflammatory?
Now, if one own's a cell phone, there must be somebody that will call them. If you suggest owning a cell phone, and keeping it off all the time, then you are even stupider than I originally thought
When did I come close to implying that? Talk about putting up a straw-man.
So this means that the cell phone is another means for interruption no matter who it is that is doing the interrupting, and how nice they are. For me, this is a real disadvantage, and fuck you to tell me otherwise.
If you don't want to be interrupted by a cell phone, then simply don't carry one. There are very few people who are forced to carry a cell phone, and even less 19 year olds who are. So tell us, are you a very young doctor or something?
You've completely missed my entire argument. I'm not arguing that you, or anyone else, should have a cell phone. What the hell do I care if anyone else has a cell phone? I was arguing that the parent's reason for criticizing a cell phone (the fact that they're on an electronic leash if they do) is flawed. You're only on a leash if you put yourself on a leash.
I don't know why I bothered to reply to an anonymous coward who makes his arguments using insults, but I won't again. So if you reply to this, have some balls and do it with a login so everyone can see who it is that can't control himself on an internet forum.
Most theaters I've been too have signs like "Please turn off your cell phones...". Hardly a strict rule, more like a polite request. But assuming that it is a strict rule...
You're right that they are breaking the rules posted by the theater. But guess what? The theater isn't doing anything about it. If I post a sign in my living room saying "Don't put your feet on my furniture", and someone does, it's still my choice whether or not to kick that person out. If someone else in my house says: "He has no right to put his feet on your furniture, I'm blocking him from doing so" I would tell that person: "I choose when and how to enforce rules on my property, if you don't like it get out."
So the burden is not on them to stay home from the movies. The burden is on the theater to actually enforce their rules. And if you don't like how that theater enforces the rules, you're welcome to leave and never return. You'd probably even get your money back by telling a manager that you're movie-watching experience was ruined by a violation of their posted rules. I find most theaters are usually pretty good about that.
I can understand these arguments, and even agree with some of them. The majority of people in the world (or atleast here in the United States) are complete idiots who have no regard for anyone else's feelings, privacy, or comfort. And while cell phones aren't a bad thing in-and-of themselves, they make it possible for all the idiots out there to more easily annoy others.
But the fact is that cell phones aren't going to go away, whether you like it or not. Carrying around a jammer isn't going to address the larger problem at all, it will simply stop one rude person from using his/her cell phone at that particular time. And while you're blocking that one rude person, you might be simultaneously blocking another person's conversation, who might be using that cell phone responsibly (in the lobby of a theater, say) or even in some kind of emergency. That doesn't sound very responsible to me, and just as selfish as the assholes who don't know how to use their cellphones responsibly.
Another point regarding being annoyed in a restaurant/theater/train is one I made in another post in this thread: if you are in a restaurant/theater/train that doesn't effectively prevent people from using their cell phones inappropriately, that's your fault. It's the businesses choice to allow/disallow such behavior, and it's your choice whether or not to patronize that business.
I was replying specifically about the elevator. But as far as the movie goes... it's the movie theatre's choice to allow or disallow people talking on cell phones during the movie, and whether to enforce it. And it's your choice to patronize a theater that makes those choices.
If you don't like the way a theater runs things, here's a little tip: don't go to that theater. You're 100% wrong that it is your right to see the movie without "the ubiquitous rude bastard in the baack yelling to his buddy in East Bumfuck, Mississippi..." Where exactly is this right enumerated or even remotely hinted at?
Seems to me your beef is with the theaters. It's not your right to illegally block communication to someone if that communication is allowed by the owners of the property.
Not terrible arguments, but I still maintain you're putting yourself in that situation. Tell your wife and friends: "Look... I don't feel like answering my phone all the time, and I don't always have it on me anyway. Leave a message."
I know when I call someone's cell phone and they don't answer, I assume they don't have it on them or they're in an area where they don't get service.
Did someone actually call this trash insightful???
The cell phone users aren't considering your rights,. What rights are they violating, exactly? I don't recall the Right to no cell-phone talking. If you're antisocial enough to expect someone to not talk to other people when in an elevator, you should probably stay at home.
I will use my psychic mind reading powers to say that you must be atleast 35.
How come every generation of old people feels the need to criticize every new technology that comes around by mis-characterizing it?
I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere
If you put yourself in a situation where you're "on an electronic leash", then that's your fault. Do you realize that you don't have to answer a cell phone whenever it rings? It's pretty nifty technology, you have to press a button to answer it.
If you say that the advantages of having a cell phone aren't worth it for you, that's fine. But the only real disadvantage is how much it costs and having to carry it in your pocket. The whole leash thing simply tells me something about your relationship with the would-be leash-holder.
I imagine some older folks didn't like the telephone when it came out - I refuse to be on a leash when I'm at home, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.
If you think anything could ever deter conspiracy theorists, you're dead wrong. Most don't do it because they are actually worried about these alleged conspiracies, they do it because they find it fun!
Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it just means they'd be prone to append any ad hoc theory to the conspiracy theory to explain away any possible contradictions.
So just don't argue with people about untestable theories (i.e. stop arguing whether or not god exists).
I hereby declare the first nickname for this input device: "tits".
"Are you using a normal old mouse, or tits?"
"If your tits aren't working, try checking the connection to your computer."
Re:This isn't in your requested genre...
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 1
And Ayn Rand is supposed to give him a nice philosophical framework?
Make up your own mind about whether Ayn Rand is even worth reading, but surely he should start with some more respected philosophy before jumping into her.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to pat yourself on the back.
That could be explained by the fact that fortune cookies are a purely American food, invented in California. Not sure about chop suey but I'd suspect it's the same thing.
It's a place made accessible to the public, and as such, the property owner's say is constrained to some degree. See, for instance, Marsh v. Alabama, particularly noting Justice Black's conclusion that "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
:)
:)
I'll let the fact that you and I are both not lawyers excuse the fact that you're citing a court case from 1946. In addition to it being extremely old, it was effectively limited to applying only to private property that assumed all characteristics of a municipality by HUDGENS v. NLRB (1976). That case denied that picketers have the right to enter a shopping center against the owners' wishes. If the First Amendment doesn't restrict the owner of a shopping center (a very public place) from kicking people out, then nothing forces the owner of a theater to protect your right to relax (or whatever).
The laws are made based on the outcomes of discussion like these. They did not fall down to earth from heaven. Someone has to sit down and decide which is more important: my right to reasonable quiet or your right to use a phone.
Actually, they might as well fall down to earth from heaven. They are based on the philosophies of judges and politicians. There's nothing special about laws that makes them any more objective or true than any other opinions or philosophies. Sure, laws are made based on outcomes of discussions like this one, but at the end it all comes down to whether some law is consistent with the Constitution, an old piece of paper written based on the completely subjective philosophies of long-dead people.
So unless we can appy this to some framework (i.e. assuming your rights are defined by the law), I'm not interested in the argument. Besides, you'd never get past my egoism
I think the right to quiet trumps, because your single phone disturbs multiple people, and because you're the one who wants to do something creating the need for conflict resolution, so it's more reasonable that you step outside to do it. You may think differently, but if you can't make a convincing case then it doesn't matter much.
Who's to say that the "rightness" of an action is determined by how many people are annoyed by it? You're arguing that whenever an action causes creates "the need for conflict resolution", the actor should stop? I don't call that a convincing case at all, and anyone could come up with plenty of examples in which an action created "the need for conflict resolution" and yet isn't wrong.
Or another approach: At the end of the day, there is some outcome which leaves society the best off in the net. You can assume a logarithmic increase in social cost per person as the outcome diverges farther and farther from their preferred outcome, then sample the population to figure out what they'd prefer and then figure out how your numbers add up. I don't have any scientific data, but I brought this topic up with my friends this evening, and 7 out of 8 (including me) felt that jammers in cinemas would be a great idea.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you arguing that if most people think something is a good idea, then it should be instated? Lots of Southerners thought slavery was a good idea.. maybe even most... (don't bother arguing against that fact, I offer it simply as an example of a case in which many people might think something is a good idea but it still isn't). Sounds like Utilitarianism to me, which I think is completely evil... so by spouting it, you've already earned by contempt
But his is how arguments based purely on opinions go. They're useless.
Sorry, if I went and sat next to someone and started yelling in their ear - or even trying to disrupt a conversation between two other people by talking loudly through them - I could certainly be cited for it.
You're absolutely wrong. We're talking about private property here, which is what I think you're missing. Legally, you don't have the right to a quiet environment or an undisturbed conversation if the owners of the property don't grant you that right. That's the reason I brought up the rollercoaster and the concert. In my opinion you're right that they are not "places where it is reasonable to expect quiet" and theaters are... but that's up to the discression of the theater. What do you have to say about the hypothetical theater where everyone's allowed to scream at the top of their lungs? Do you think you have the right to forcibly cover their mouths with duct tape? In my opinion, the jammer amounts to the same thing.
our argument is no more than a reiteration of the present illegality of cellphone jammers in the US, which everyone already takes as a given, and is therefore entirely uninteresting
You're right that there's a difference between the legality of it and whether someone has the right to it. I'm using the legality because talking about what one has the right to do ignoring the law is a completely philosophical question, and we all know how arguments about questions like those go. You're basing your argument that you have the right to jam this person's cell phone on the fact that in your opinion, a theater is a place where it should be completely quiet. How do you expect anyone to argue with this opinion? Someone else might argue that it's completely reasonable to talk on a cell phone if it's not too loud. You'd disagree, but it would be a completely subjective opinion! That kind of reasoning leads to people (presumably less peaceful to you) saying things like "Well if he jams my cellphone, I have a right to take his jammer and beat him with it." How do you argue something like this with no basis?
Are you arguing on the basis of morality? I have been in too many arguments where morality is in question, they're never resolved.
So what's your basis?
P.S. Sorry if I was insulting or inflammatory in earlier posts.
You don't seem to be paying attention. A person has the right to do anything (within the law) that THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DEEM THAT PERSON MAY DO.
If you're in a theater that allows people to yell at the top of their lungs, then those people have the right to yell at the top of their lungs.
In point of fact I do have the right to reasonable tranquility; that's why we have laws about disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct and so on.
Of course you have the right to reasonable tranquility... when you're on YOUR PROPERTY or on public property. Do you have the right to keep people from screaming on a rollercoaster because it hurts your ears? Do you have the right to tell the people at a concert to STFU so you can be more tranquil? NO.
I don't see that their right to yack supersedes my right to relax. If you can convince me that it does, excellent.
Their right to yack does not supercede your right to relax. But in attempting to exercise your right to relax, you are ILLEGALLY infringing upon their rights. If you sat next to the yacker and talked loudly to your neighbor, infringing on their right to yack, there would be nothing wrong with that. Because, although you're "infringing on their rights", you would be WITHIN THE RULES OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
Sorry about the caps, but I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again without anyone listening. Think about it. They're following the rules. You're not (in using the jammer). It's as simple as that.
Okay let's examine what you're attempting to argue (in an Anonymous Cowardly sort of way).
The parent poster said:
I have had cellphones with work, and was glad to get rid of them when I did. I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.
Presumably he lost his job, got another job, or his job changed its policies and no longer required him to carry his cell phone.. so he got rid of it.
I argue that his logic (getting rid of the cell phone so he wouldn't be on an "electronic leash") is flawed, because he's only on an electronic leash if he makes it that way.
Then you jump in with your witty post and tell us: Dude. It's called a *JOB*.
Please try to follow along next time before jumping in and posting. I really need to stop displaying Score:0 posts.
Only one company runs a train from New York to DC.
Likewise there may or may not be another cinema showing the movie I want to see, or another restaurant that serves food as good as what I want to eat.
So what? If that's your only choice, and you don't like how that company runs stuff, then you're SOL. There right to a quiet train is not inalienable, and the fact that you can't find a train/theater/whatever that meets your critera doesn't give you the right to illegally force that train/theater/whatever to meet your criteria.
You're making the assumption that businesses out there are obligated to give you a comfortable experience, and if that business doesn't then you're perfectly happy illegally treading on other people's rights.
Guess what? People have the right to have annoying ringers and speak annoyingly on their cell phones if the owner of the property they're on at the time doesn't have rules against it or doesn't enforce them. You do not have the right to take away other peoples' rights just because the only train in town doesn't meet your expectations.
One important key to functioning successfully in a social environment is respecting other people, and you have the right to be annoyed. But another important key is respecting other people's rights, recognizing that your desires are not rights, and learning to live with the fact that not everyone in the world has the same desires you do and not every business in the world is obligated to tailor their services to you.
Like I said a few times before, if you don't like it then leave!! Only train in town? Sorry about your luck.
The only thing worse than someone who feels they need to make their argument by strewing childish insults is an Anonymous Coward who does so :)
Your insults don't carry much weight, so maybe you'd be kind enough to explain (this time using a legitimate login, coward) why my arguments are so worthless and inflammatory?
Now, if one own's a cell phone, there must be somebody that will call them. If you suggest owning a cell phone, and keeping it off all the time, then you are even stupider than I originally thought
When did I come close to implying that? Talk about putting up a straw-man.
So this means that the cell phone is another means for interruption no matter who it is that is doing the interrupting, and how nice they are. For me, this is a real disadvantage, and fuck you to tell me otherwise.
If you don't want to be interrupted by a cell phone, then simply don't carry one. There are very few people who are forced to carry a cell phone, and even less 19 year olds who are. So tell us, are you a very young doctor or something?
You've completely missed my entire argument. I'm not arguing that you, or anyone else, should have a cell phone. What the hell do I care if anyone else has a cell phone? I was arguing that the parent's reason for criticizing a cell phone (the fact that they're on an electronic leash if they do) is flawed. You're only on a leash if you put yourself on a leash.
I don't know why I bothered to reply to an anonymous coward who makes his arguments using insults, but I won't again. So if you reply to this, have some balls and do it with a login so everyone can see who it is that can't control himself on an internet forum.
Most theaters I've been too have signs like "Please turn off your cell phones...". Hardly a strict rule, more like a polite request. But assuming that it is a strict rule...
You're right that they are breaking the rules posted by the theater. But guess what? The theater isn't doing anything about it. If I post a sign in my living room saying "Don't put your feet on my furniture", and someone does, it's still my choice whether or not to kick that person out. If someone else in my house says: "He has no right to put his feet on your furniture, I'm blocking him from doing so" I would tell that person: "I choose when and how to enforce rules on my property, if you don't like it get out."
So the burden is not on them to stay home from the movies. The burden is on the theater to actually enforce their rules. And if you don't like how that theater enforces the rules, you're welcome to leave and never return. You'd probably even get your money back by telling a manager that you're movie-watching experience was ruined by a violation of their posted rules. I find most theaters are usually pretty good about that.
I can understand these arguments, and even agree with some of them. The majority of people in the world (or atleast here in the United States) are complete idiots who have no regard for anyone else's feelings, privacy, or comfort. And while cell phones aren't a bad thing in-and-of themselves, they make it possible for all the idiots out there to more easily annoy others.
But the fact is that cell phones aren't going to go away, whether you like it or not. Carrying around a jammer isn't going to address the larger problem at all, it will simply stop one rude person from using his/her cell phone at that particular time. And while you're blocking that one rude person, you might be simultaneously blocking another person's conversation, who might be using that cell phone responsibly (in the lobby of a theater, say) or even in some kind of emergency. That doesn't sound very responsible to me, and just as selfish as the assholes who don't know how to use their cellphones responsibly.
Another point regarding being annoyed in a restaurant/theater/train is one I made in another post in this thread: if you are in a restaurant/theater/train that doesn't effectively prevent people from using their cell phones inappropriately, that's your fault. It's the businesses choice to allow/disallow such behavior, and it's your choice whether or not to patronize that business.
Curry chicken from a chinese place? :)
Odd
I was replying specifically about the elevator. But as far as the movie goes... it's the movie theatre's choice to allow or disallow people talking on cell phones during the movie, and whether to enforce it. And it's your choice to patronize a theater that makes those choices.
If you don't like the way a theater runs things, here's a little tip: don't go to that theater. You're 100% wrong that it is your right to see the movie without "the ubiquitous rude bastard in the baack yelling to his buddy in East Bumfuck, Mississippi..." Where exactly is this right enumerated or even remotely hinted at?
Seems to me your beef is with the theaters. It's not your right to illegally block communication to someone if that communication is allowed by the owners of the property.
Not terrible arguments, but I still maintain you're putting yourself in that situation. Tell your wife and friends:
"Look... I don't feel like answering my phone all the time, and I don't always have it on me anyway. Leave a message."
I know when I call someone's cell phone and they don't answer, I assume they don't have it on them or they're in an area where they don't get service.
Did someone actually call this trash insightful???
The cell phone users aren't considering your rights,. What rights are they violating, exactly? I don't recall the Right to no cell-phone talking. If you're antisocial enough to expect someone to not talk to other people when in an elevator, you should probably stay at home.
I will use my psychic mind reading powers to say that you must be atleast 35.
How come every generation of old people feels the need to criticize every new technology that comes around by mis-characterizing it?
I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere
If you put yourself in a situation where you're "on an electronic leash", then that's your fault. Do you realize that you don't have to answer a cell phone whenever it rings? It's pretty nifty technology, you have to press a button to answer it.
If you say that the advantages of having a cell phone aren't worth it for you, that's fine. But the only real disadvantage is how much it costs and having to carry it in your pocket. The whole leash thing simply tells me something about your relationship with the would-be leash-holder.
I imagine some older folks didn't like the telephone when it came out - I refuse to be on a leash when I'm at home, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.
Don't PS2s and Xboxs already have this feature in place? And you don't even need the gameboy cartridge!
If you think anything could ever deter conspiracy theorists, you're dead wrong. Most don't do it because they are actually worried about these alleged conspiracies, they do it because they find it fun!
Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it just means they'd be prone to append any ad hoc theory to the conspiracy theory to explain away any possible contradictions.
So just don't argue with people about untestable theories (i.e. stop arguing whether or not god exists).
I hereby declare the first nickname for this input device: "tits".
"Are you using a normal old mouse, or tits?"
"If your tits aren't working, try checking the connection to your computer."
And Ayn Rand is supposed to give him a nice philosophical framework?
Make up your own mind about whether Ayn Rand is even worth reading, but surely he should start with some more respected philosophy before jumping into her.
I second the motion for Cryptonomicon. I've only just started it, but it's really good so far!