Posts: 548
Threads: 79
Joined: Mar 2004
A solution could be available. ;-)
Cell Phone Jammer
I won't be shelling out the cash for one of these myself. I have yet to be that annoyed. But I do enjoy knowing that I could enjoy a completely cell-phone conversation free movie or concert if I really wanted to do so.
"Last seen wandering vaguely, quite of her own accord"
Posts: 102
Threads: 9
Joined: Mar 2004
Man this would be cool to use when you get some idiot driving in the 'fast lane' going slower than everyone else because they are talking on their phone!
Pull up behind them, turn it on and viola, they maybe get off the side or the road or somethign when they make their call. Hmm, a cell-phone free bubble around my car going down the road, would be cool, thats for sure.
Thanks for the link. 
Posts: 32
Threads: 3
Joined: Apr 2004
I've been wanting to get one for years... the bus, restaurants... everywhere.
I'll probably get one as soon as I can afford it...
Posts: 818
Threads: 46
Joined: Mar 2004
Well I don't ever want to see a device like that in use. I have a son with serious medical problems that can be potentially life threatening. My wife has already gotten a few calls on her cell about a critical situation with my son.
I will be damned if I have to put my child's health, if not life, at risk so that you can have a restaurant visit that is cell phone free. I won't deny I am a very small minority, but what is a human life worth?
I agree that a solution is needed for the ignorant jerks that never stop talking on their cell phone. However, I feel that this solution needs to come on the legal level, or the restaurant owner level.
Posts: 53
Threads: 1
Joined: Mar 2004
Hi,
I find loud and annoying people to be an irritant. Should I then go out and get a taser to shut them up?
Freedom is based on giving others the same rights you want.
--Pete
"What I tell you three times is true." -- The Bellman
Posts: 548
Threads: 79
Joined: Mar 2004
Shutting down someone's cell phone in a public place is not quite the same as hitting them with a taser, is it?
I would agree that the potential for abuse of this product borders on the same abuse that cell phone operators inflict on the rest of us. But it most emphatically does not injure them physically.
Freedom is based on giving others the same rights you want.
I want the freedom to enjoy the movie that I paid for. I want the freedom to enjoy the concert I paid for. The cell phone user in those circumstances does not want the same freedoms as I do, and they are obviously willing to stomp on my freedom. Forcing them to conduct their conversations in the lobby is not going to infringe on their freedom, is it? After all, they can still have their conversation.
I couldn't care less if they sit beside me in a coffee shop and converse on their cell phone. I am fully accustomed to grocery shopping beside comparison shoppers who are discussing their purchases with the correspondent in the 'other' store. I can walk down the street encountering innumerable people who are either conversing on cell phones or rapt in their mp3 player and headphones. In none of those situations have I any reasonable expectation of 'peace and quiet'.
But I damn well want to enjoy the events I pay for without the intrusion of cell phones.
"Last seen wandering vaguely, quite of her own accord"
Posts: 53
Threads: 1
Joined: Mar 2004
Hi,
Shutting down someone's cell phone in a public place is not quite the same as hitting them with a taser, is it?
Isn't it? Either way, you are deciding for someone else what they should be doing, and enforcing that decision with force. I believe that under the communication laws of both Canada and the USA, the use of the device offered in your link is illegal. And so it should be. Giving inconsiderate jerks yet another means to express themselves is not a good idea. So, either with the jammer or with the taser, you are using an illegal means to enforce your will. The slight sting of the taser, after a bit of contemplation, seems like a small price (for the victim) to pay for disturbing your peace and quiet.
Sorry, but that method is both rude (and I don't know if two rudenesses make a politeness any more than two wrongs a right) and cowardly. If someone's use of a cell phone is disturbing you in a place where you have a legitimate right to complain, then complain directly to them.
The proper means is to solve the real problem is to get places like theaters, etc. to require that patrons do not use cell phones there. And kick them out if they do. Actually, it would be pretty easy for theaters to be set up so that there is no phone reception inside. I'll admit that I don't go to movies often. But I've never had a case where someone using a cellphone bothered my enjoyment. I've often had the case where a pair or group would not shut up. The problem isn't cell phones, the problem is jerks.
And the problem with that POS you posted a link to is that jerks will get their hands on it, and make the use of cell phones in places where there is no reason not to use them impossible. Already, riding a bus was mentioned. Unless I'm mistaken, it is OK for two people to yak while riding a bus, but apparently it is not OK for one person to talk into the cell phone.
About time to admit it. Most of the anti-cell phone feeling has little to do with inconvenience and everything to do with frustrated curiosity. When two people are conversing, it's easy to eavesdrop. When someone's on the cell phone, the half a conversation one hears is irritating because the mind wants to know more. It is exactly the same as the irritation felt when overhearing someone speaking in a language that one doesn't understand. It isn't that people are speaking that rubs us wrong, it's that we don't know what it is they are speaking of.
Yeah, the use of cell phones should be sufficient grounds to kick the user out of a movie, the theater, libraries, etc. And the use of a non-hands free cell phone should be banned to the driver in a moving vehicle (although, based on the drivers I've seen take both hands off the wheel to gesticulate, or turn ninety degrees in their seats to see the effect of their pronouncements, perhaps there should be a law banning drivers from talking at all.)
--Pete
"What I tell you three times is true." -- The Bellman
Posts: 102
Threads: 9
Joined: Mar 2004
Quote:Sorry, but that method is both rude (and I don't know if two rudenesses make a politeness any more than two wrongs a right) and cowardly. If someone's use of a cell phone is disturbing you in a place where you have a legitimate right to complain, then complain directly to them.
Hard to complain to someone when they are driving down the street or interstate highway blocking the flow of traffic, eh? Why should *I* have to accomidate someone else who isn't considerate enough to not turn their phone off when driving, pull off the shoulder of the road to make/finish a call or at the least obey the traffic laws and right-of-way driving 'rules'?
Same goes for theatre's or all sorts and concert hall's. There was a time, not to long ago, when there was no such portable communication device and people didn't seem to have a problem going to the places listed and being out of touch for the time required to watch the show, play or concert in question.
Quote:About time to admit it. Most of the anti-cell phone feeling has little to do with inconvenience and everything to do with frustrated curiosity. When two people are conversing, it's easy to eavesdrop. When someone's on the cell phone, the half a conversation one hears is irritating because the mind wants to know more. It is exactly the same as the irritation felt when overhearing someone speaking in a language that one doesn't understand. It isn't that people are speaking that rubs us wrong, it's that we don't know what it is they are speaking of.
Sorry but wrong. I could give a flying fig about what these people are talking about, the fact is they are being damn rude to everyone around them, period. I'd love for all car's to have these devices built in as long as there was a way to contact emergency personel as needed.
If your child, relative, etc is so sick that you must be available 100% of the time then I guess you'd need to stick close to home, or where ever the sick person is, after all how did people used to stay in touch before cell phones??? Cell phones are wonderful devices, but with most things, you have to have a little common courtesy when you use them, the problem is that courtesy isn't that 'common', sort of like 'sense' isn't that common.
Posts: 32
Threads: 3
Joined: Apr 2004
Let's keep this simple:
If everyone gave me the freedoms I wanted... no lets not go there. Society is all about restricting your own and other's freedoms to the point at which we can tolerate each other. When people step on my toes, let's say by using a cellphone at the cinema, or anywhere else where it impinges on me, should I have to take the risk of being knifed by a stranger (has happend to others) or simply being ignored by some moron who can't understand that other people have a different understanding of politeness (which Ozy quite correctly points out is not common). Nope, this gives me the opportunity to impose, rather than be imposed on. The central question being why should I respect other people's ideas if they cannot respect mine in return - am I inherently less valuable than someone else?
Again, for the beautiful American example it is. Is it ok for me to rob you? Of money? Peace of mind? Time? Are there any consequencial differences there? Thus according to the second ammendment (not that I'm one of those nuts), and most state laws, I can be armed to prevent harm to me... this is just another means.
Posts: 1,130
Threads: 64
Joined: Mar 2004
Intrigued by the idea of cell phone jammers, I roamed the net a little and found a rather interesting collection of gimmicks to say the least. It's just a catalogue page of . . . well . . . stuff that just strikes me as hysterically funny. ^_^
Enjoy.
*Dons suit*
*Slides on the obligatory shades*
*Cues Mission Impossible soundtrack before running out the door*
:laugh:
|
