 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2005Block Cell Phones In Theaters?
One group wants to do this - theater owners. http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051217-074635-6362r The FCC almost certainly will never allow this. Of course, the theaters could do it without FCC permission, passively, by covering theater walls with wire mesh (underneath a suitable decorative facade, of course) so that _no_ radio or TV signals penetrate. Of course, if the place catches fire, the police and fire 2-way radios won't work to any outside radios either. What to do about this? I talk to people that cite people blabbing on cell phones as one reason they don't come to the theater. Is it the real reason, or is it a case of "Any excuse is a good excuse" for something they don't want to do any more anyway, for some other reason like price. Its been a long time since anyone actually bothered me by _talking_ on a cell phone, but they do bother me quite regularly by opening it up and creating a distracting light from its display. I can ignore it, but would rather that this doesn't happen. People blabbing to _each other_ are a _much_ bigger distraction for me, but the theaters _will_ throw these people out if you report it. Dave Head Please ignore this - it was accidentally posted to the wrong group. Dave Head >One group wants to do this - theater owners. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Dave Head > up and creating a distracting light from its display. I can ignore > it, but would rather that this doesn't happen. Are theatres still showing 30 minutes of advertisements before the movie? I cannot believe people tolerate this. I will not go to a theatre as long as this continues. I have no doubt theatres will soon inject "intermission" ads into movies to suck even more money from the heard. >> up and creating a distracting light from its display. I can ignore >> it, but would rather that this doesn't happen. > >Are theatres still showing 30 minutes of advertisements before the movie? Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call "the 20", before the previews start. Don't wanna see 'em? Come to the theater exactly at the time it says on the ads - then you'll get to see the start of the 16 minutes of previews. >I cannot believe people tolerate this. I will not go to a theatre as long >as this continues. Here, they're avoidable. OTOH, they're _better_ than a blank screen before the previews start, as the ads are often fairly clever. >I have no doubt theatres will soon inject "intermission" ads into movies to >suck even more money from the heard. That would be the point where _I_ would say bye to the theaters. Interrupted entertainment is why I mostly don't watch the commercial TV any more. Any sort of story being told on the tube, when interrupted, is less of an enjoyment. So, I can tune to Fox News or Headline News and let it blab, 'cuz the interruptions aren't that big of a deal - the things before and after the commericals are not really connected like the plot of a story is. Dave Head > Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call > "the 20", before the previews start. They even have a cutesy name for them? Golly, how nice. > Here, they're avoidable. OTOH, they're _better_ than a blank screen > before the previews start, as the ads are often fairly clever. It's the damn "previews" which I'm speaking of in regards to advertisements. So now they're showing advertisements before advertisements??? People are turning to class A sheep. Eff theatres. > > Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call > > "the 20", before the previews start. > > They even have a cutesy name for them? Golly, how nice. Yep, that's true. "The Twenty" is the name of the pre-movie trailers/pre-movie advertising programming done by the Regal Cinemas entity (Regal, Edwards, United Artists). [snip...] > > > Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call > > > "the 20", before the previews start. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [snip...] More accurately, for those theaters that may not show trailers, "The Twenty" would be run before the actual movie. For those theaters that do show trailers, "The Twenty" would be shown before the trailers. Either way, getting there before the movie start time either gets "The Twenty" or "The Twenty" plus trailers--before the movie actually begins. >> > Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call >> > "the 20", before the previews start. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >trailers/pre-movie advertising programming done by the Regal Cinemas entity >(Regal, Edwards, United Artists). And "The Twenty" has commercials in it, despite the entire thing being a commercial.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Ours shows 20 minutes of various stuff, mostly ads, that they call >> "the 20", before the previews start. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >People are turning to class A sheep. Eff theatres. If you think you can avoid the ads by waiting until the movie comes out on DVD, think again. Some discs - 2 Fast, 2 Furious is one example - show advertisements the moment you pop the disc into the player... AND LOCK OUT ALL THE CONTROL BUTTONS SO THAT YOU CANNOT SKIP PAST THE CRAP. Of course, one could argue that the entire 2 Fast, 2 Furious disc is crap, but that's beside the point. The arrogance of Hollywood knows no bounds. Makes me glad that programs like DVDShrink exist. For those who don't know, DVDShrink is a program that will allow you to decrypt and re-author DVDs and REMOVE obnoxious "features" such as advertisements, button lockouts, and region codes. > If you think you can avoid the ads by waiting until the movie comes > out on DVD, think again. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > re-author DVDs and REMOVE obnoxious "features" such as advertisements, > button lockouts, and region codes. That's really sickening, but I take a simpler approach to avoid watching those ads on DVDs. I simply change the channel and watch the news for a few minutes after I hit "play" or I leave the room to prepare a snack or do something else for a few minutes. >> If you think you can avoid the ads by waiting until the movie comes >> out on DVD, think again. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >few minutes after I hit "play" or I leave the room to prepare a snack or >do something else for a few minutes. I suppose that works, but I find it highly offensive when these arrogant a.sholes pollute the movie I paid for with their advertising bullshit. Maybe if DVDs were free then unskippable ads would be acceptable; however, all I want to do when I encounter a disc like this is make a decrypted copy available on the Internet somewhere. > I suppose that works, but I find it highly offensive when these > arrogant a.sholes pollute the movie I paid for with their advertising > bullshit. Maybe if DVDs were free then unskippable ads would be > acceptable; however, all I want to do when I encounter a disc like > this is make a decrypted copy available on the Internet somewhere. If you watch DVDs on your computer, I recommend using Media Player Classic. You can right click and go directly to the title menu bypassing any of the ads or copyright notices. >If you think you can avoid the ads by waiting until the movie comes >out on DVD, think again. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >could argue that the entire 2 Fast, 2 Furious disc is crap, but that's >beside the point. The arrogance of Hollywood knows no bounds. You do know that if you insert the disk, and immediately hit stop on either the player or the remote, and keep doing so until the load operation is complete, it will then allow you to hit the menu key and you will have effectively missed the bullshit. Of course it is still a major f.cking annoyance. >You do know that if you insert the disk, and immediately hit stop on >either the player or the remote, and keep doing so until the load >operation is complete, it will then allow you to hit the menu key and >you will have effectively missed the bullshit. Of course it is still >a major f.cking annoyance. Hmm... Never thought of that! Thanks for the tip - I'll try it tonight! > >If you think you can avoid the ads by waiting until the movie comes > >out on DVD, think again. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you will have effectively missed the bullshit. Of course it is still > a major f.cking annoyance. I'd accidentally done this before, but never realized what I was doing. I'll start doing it more, thanks dude. =) Dave >Are theatres still showing 30 minutes of advertisements before the movie? Yes. >I cannot believe people tolerate this. I will not go to a theatre as long >as this continues. I just go later. "Did you miss the ENTIRE Twenty? If not, try to make it to the theatre a little later next time". >I have no doubt theatres will soon inject "intermission" ads into movies to >suck even more money from the heard. When that happens, I'll bring extra pitchforks and torches for the rest of the mob. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > I just go later. "Did you miss the ENTIRE Twenty? If not, try to > make it to the theatre a little later next time". Y'all can have your "The Twenty"; I'm not playing their game. My DVR skips commercials so I don't see them at home; I damn sure am not about to go pay to see some. What disgusted me more were the sheeple stuffing their faces with $10 popcorn and excitedly watching these things instead of yelling "turn this crap off and start the movie!" >>I just go later. "Did you miss the ENTIRE Twenty? If not, try to >>make it to the theatre a little later next time". > Y'all can have your "The Twenty"; I'm not playing their game. My DVR skips > commercials so I don't see them at home; Why bother with that. Not only do I use internet for browsing, but I also use it as a substitute for cable/satellite. Download what you want, watch, and delete. It's that simple. As for the theater, I haven't gone there since the Revenge of Sith premiered. > I damn sure am not about to go pay to see some. And I don't see the need to pay for cable and/or satellite subscription fees when most of the channels I get are pretty much crap. >>>I just go later. "Did you miss the ENTIRE Twenty? If not, try to >>>make it to the theatre a little later next time". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >also use it as a substitute for cable/satellite. Download what you >want, watch, and delete. It's that simple. Really? Where can I download the season finale of Survivor? Or this morning's edition of the KTLA Morning News (which is pretty much the only TV show I watch with any regularity)? Really, it's not that simple at all. > >Why bother with that. Not only do I use internet for browsing, but I > >also use it as a substitute for cable/satellite. Download what you > >want, watch, and delete. It's that simple. > Really? Where can I download the season finale of Survivor? I'd say there's a good chance one of the binary groups has a copy of it. > Or this morning's edition of the KTLA Morning News That probably won't be found. I just read the news off of websites like cnn's, bbc's, google's etc. But I know you can get a copy of the Daily Show's broadcast every night it comes on. > Really, it's not that simple at all. Really, it is. If you only watch two shows, then why pay what ever you pay per month for the remaining channels that you don't watch regularly, if at all? If cable and satellite companies would allow me to choose the individual channels I receive, at a reasonable price (no, I don't want TBN and yes I do want Boom without having to pay extra), then I'd be much more likely to subscribe. For now, I just don't waste money on cable or satellite. > Really, it is. If you only watch two shows, then why pay what ever > you pay per month for the remaining channels that you don't watch > regularly, if at all? Do you get unlimited newsgroup download bandwidth for free? If so, which newsfeed it it? > Do you get unlimited newsgroup download bandwidth for free? If so, which > newsfeed it it? My ISP's. Even so, most for pay newsfeeds are cheaper than even the most basic cable or satallite package on a per month basis. >Really, it is. If you only watch two shows, then why pay what ever you >pay per month for the remaining channels that you don't watch >regularly, if at all? I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I haven't subscribed to any form of pay television for almost 3 years now. I watch KTLA the old-fashioned way: over-the-air with a pair of rabbit ears. > >Really, it is. If you only watch two shows, then why pay what ever you > >pay per month for the remaining channels that you don't watch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > form of pay television for almost 3 years now. I watch KTLA the > old-fashioned way: over-the-air with a pair of rabbit ears. I'm surprised anyone else doesn't have cable or directv. I get the Simpsons and Arrested Development, what more do I want? Dave >> >Really, it is. If you only watch two shows, then why pay what ever you >> >pay per month for the remaining channels that you don't watch [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dave I haven't had cable for many years.Strictly over-the-air. My apt.complex sold out their "community antenna" system to a cable company,which provided very poor service and few channels.Then TWC took it over,replumbed the community,and charge high prices. Of course,when TV goes 100% digital,I expect to have no TV at all,being at the hairy edge of reception now. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > I'm surprised anyone else doesn't have cable or directv. I get the > Simpsons and Arrested Development, what more do I want? Is it possible to get a cable or satellite channel line up that only includes Fox? I rest my case. > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Dave Head Last movie I went to,a guy's CP rang loud enough for everyone in the theater to hear it,in an action flick. It was an annoyance. Of course,he did answer it and yak briefly. The ring was the biggest annoyance. such people should be ejected from the theater,not allowed back in for that showing. there's no reason they can't get up,go to the lobby,and answer it there.(vibrate mode) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>One group wants to do this - theater owners. >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > there's no reason they can't get up,go to the lobby,and answer it > there.(vibrate mode) Or not answer it at all but call the person back after the movie. Ulf >One group wants to do this - theater owners. > >http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051217-074635-6362r I am having difficulty seeing the relation to driving, unless they only ban them when The Fast and the Furious is playing. >>One group wants to do this - theater owners. >> >>http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051217-074635-6362r > >I am having difficulty seeing the relation to driving <Subject line edited> 'Zat better? ;) >>>One group wants to do this - theater owners. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >'Zat better? ;) Nah. But who cares what I think anyhow!!! >>One group wants to do this - theater owners. >> >>http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051217-074635-6362r > > I am having difficulty seeing the relation to driving, unless they > only ban them when The Fast and the Furious is playing. For that matter, I am having difficulty seeing the relation "The Fast and the Furious" has to driving... Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >>>One group wants to do this - theater owners. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >For that matter, I am having difficulty seeing the relation "The Fast >and the Furious" has to driving... Wasn't it a movie about driving? At least that would be something one could argue is on topic. As I said, though, who cares what I think about this. > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dave Head The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do you think cell signals disappear the moment you walk in the hospital front door. Actually I think it is unfortunately necessary since some people are rude enough to not turn their cell phones and blackberries off during a movie. > > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > rude enough to not turn their cell phones and blackberries off during a > movie. These things may be available, but they are absolutely illegal to use within the USA. If the cell signal goes away in a hospital ER, its likely because of the shielding created by the "concrete and steel" construction of the building itself. Dave Head > > > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > the shielding created by the "concrete and steel" construction of the > building itself. There are three regional hospitals within 30 miles that I've been to more than once as a visitor. Full length glass windows that are easily 12 feet high are not eliminating the signal. When you walk through the glass doors the signal is gone within 3 feet. It's being phased out by something. The concrete and steel construction has an effect, but it isn't consistent. My 12 story large office building made of concrete and steel allows cell reception in it's center, with no windows visible. >> > > One group wants to do this - theater owners. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >and steel allows cell reception in it's center, with no windows >visible. Interesting. If they're jamming, they are playing with fire. The FCC _will_ go after them and the fines _start_ at $10,000. Dave Head > >> > > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > If they're jamming, they are playing with fire. The FCC _will_ go after them > and the fines _start_ at $10,000. Since it is fairly common practice I have to think there is an exception for hospitals. >> >> > > One group wants to do this - theater owners. >> >> > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >Since it is fairly common practice I have to think there is an >exception for hospitals. Trust me, there are _no_ exceptions - not even for the military within our borders. The FCC has a real "thing" for this law. Dave Head ><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dave Head While I'm not familiar with US hospitals or US law, I'd imagine that mobile phone signals interfering with hospital equipment could be life threatening to some patients. Surely this would be grounds for an exception of some sort? The last time I was in a hospital was 6 years ago, and I bought my first mobile phone 5 years ago, so I don't know what the go is with mobile phone reception in Australian hospitals. >><snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >threatening to some patients. Surely this would be grounds for an >exception of some sort? If the medical equipment were interfered with by a 0.4 watt signal from a cell phone, then it would have to be really badly designed medical equipment. Plus, jamming the receiver of the cell phone won't stop the transmitter from _trying_ to talk to the tower, which means it could _still_ interfere with the badly designed medical equipment. Dave Head >The last time I was in a hospital was 6 years ago, and I bought my first >mobile phone 5 years ago, so I don't know what the go is with mobile >phone reception in Australian hospitals. >> Trust me, there are _no_ exceptions - not even for the military within our >> borders. The FCC has a real "thing" for this law. >While I'm not familiar with US hospitals or US law, I'd imagine that >mobile phone signals interfering with hospital equipment could be life >threatening to some patients. Surely this would be grounds for an >exception of some sort? Let me type louder for you. CELL PHONES DO NOT f.cking INTERFERE WITH ANY f.cking THING. Is that clearer now? I realize the next statement is a waste of time, but, on the off chance that you have an IQ greater than 3... Cell phones receive radio signals. Those signals are present whether someone is using a phone or not. Turning off a cell phone only stops that phone from broadcasting, it does not stop all the signals that the CP tower is broadcasting. See above point for clarification. > Let me type louder for you. CELL PHONES DO NOT f.cking INTERFERE WITH > ANY f.cking THING. Is that clearer now? In my experience, every mobile/cell phone I have used or used by friends or family members have caused interference to some degree with any nearby radio and television of any brand. Australian standards state that all speed cameras must be able to detect radio any interference, including that caused by mobile phones, and automatically shut down until the interference is gone so as not to cause wrong readings. My local blood bank has signs up requesting that all mobile phones be turned off as they interfere with the expensive medical equipment there. Now what am I going to believe, professional medical opinion, professional government opinion and my own experiences with mobile phones causing interference with lots of electrical devices? Or should I listen to the rantings of a foul mouthed idiot who apparently thinks he's king sh.t? > I realize the next statement is a waste of time, but, on the off > chance that you have an IQ greater than 3... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that phone from broadcasting, it does not stop all the signals that > the CP tower is broadcasting. See above point for clarification. >While I'm not familiar with US hospitals or US law, I'd imagine that >mobile phone signals interfering with hospital equipment could be life >threatening to some patients. Surely this would be grounds for an >exception of some sort? If the phone signals interfere with hospital equipment (and they don't), a jammer would interfere more. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> If they're jamming, they are playing with fire. The FCC _will_ go after them >> and the fines _start_ at $10,000. > >Since it is fairly common practice I have to think there is an >exception for hospitals. IT IS NOT A COMMON PRACTICE. Just because you say it is so does not make it true. > Interesting. > > If they're jamming, they are playing with fire. The FCC _will_ go > after them and the fines _start_ at $10,000. I can't imagine why a hospital would *not* want a common form of communications used by physicians to work either. >> Interesting. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I can't imagine why a hospital would *not* want a common form of >communications used by physicians to work either. They do, and even supply hospital employed physicians with phones. >>These things may be available, but they are absolutely illegal to use >>within the USA. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and steel allows cell reception in it's center, with no windows > visible. I currently work as a contractor in my area's largest medical center, and the only time I lose a signal inside any of the buildings is when I'm on an elevator and the doors close. Even three levels underground, I still get a decent cell signal. Maybe there just isn't a tower near enough to provide good coverage? Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) Garth Almgren, <nospam@v6stang.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:24:14 -0800: > Maybe there just isn't a tower near enough to provide good coverage? Couple that with alot of interference from the equipment they use in hospitals... >Couple that with alot of interference from the equipment they use in >hospitals... Actually, most of the wireless equipment used in hospitals operates in the protected WMTS (Wireless Medical Telemetry Service) band, 608 - 614MHz. They operate in this band precisely because it is protected from things such as nearby TV stations, pager towers, cell towers, and other forms of interference. It's virtually guaranteed that none of it is going to interfere with your cellular phone (and vice-versa). >>Couple that with alot of interference from the equipment they use in >>hospitals... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It's virtually guaranteed that none of it is going to interfere with >your cellular phone (and vice-versa). I beg to disagree. Hospitals also use a lot of wireless network equipment. A large amount of ancillary equipment uses this in addition to the traditional PC. I believe you are talking about durable medical equipment that does not support communication on a typical TCP/IP network, of which I have little or no knowledge. The aforementioned part I do know of is very typical today, and I would bet that pretty much all medical equipment will be network capable in the next few years. >>>Couple that with alot of interference from the equipment they use in >>>hospitals... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I beg to disagree. Hospitals also use a lot of wireless network >equipment. WiFi won't interfere with your cell phone, either. ;) >>>>Couple that with alot of interference from the equipment they use in >>>>hospitals... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >WiFi won't interfere with your cell phone, either. ;) Duh, let me, um duh, clarify my horribly formed response. I beg to differ that most of the equipment operates in WMTS. I believe most operates on standard wireless, depending on what it is. >I beg to differ that most of the equipment operates in WMTS. Whatever you say. ;) >I believe most operates on standard wireless, depending on what it is. "Standard wireless" can be sniffed and/or jammed by anyone with an off-the-shelf access point. Hospitals with critical care patients don't want their patients not being monitored because Jimmy down the block has a WiFi AP operating on the same channel - the lawsuits can get REALLY expensive. This is why hospitals use ECG monitoring equipment that operates in the WMTS band almost exclusively. Some hospitals won't even allow ANY WiFi equipment to be operated out of paranoid fears of interference problems. >>I beg to differ that most of the equipment operates in WMTS. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >hospitals won't even allow ANY WiFi equipment to be operated out of >paranoid fears of interference problems. Not all of them shy away from wireless. I would like to know more about this, as it is COMPLETELY contrary to what I see every day. Maybe California is different than Illinois. >Not all of them shy away from wireless. I would like to know more >about this, as it is COMPLETELY contrary to what I see every day. >Maybe California is different than Illinois. The hospitals I (used to) deal with are all over the country. rally2xs@att.net wrote: > These things may be available, but they are absolutely illegal to use > within the USA. Who cares? This is Bush and Cheney's America, where the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper", spying on Americans is legal by fiat, and torture is OK as long as it's only perpetrated on people we know are bad guys. If I were a theatre or restaurant owner, I'd buy, install and hide a cellphone jammer and not flap my mouth about having done so. If Biff and Muffy and their little offspring Chipper can't receive or make celphone calls during dinner or the movie, that's just too damn bad for Biff, Muffy and Chipper. Well, it'll be the cable TV guy that misses an important call while at ur restaurant, gets suspicious, fires up his spectum analyzer and figures out whats going on. Then he'll turn ur a.s in to the FCC, and, like I said, the fines start at $10,000. Dave Head > Well, it'll be the cable TV guy that misses an important call while at > ur restaurant, gets suspicious, fires up his spectum analyzer and > figures out whats going on. Then he'll turn ur a.s in to the FCC, and, > like I said, the fines start at $10,000. > > Dave Head Considering you would have to use broadband noise to jam cellphones(the entire band),I wonder if a SA would show much,especially to a "cable TV guy". Most are lucky they know how to use a cable meter. And how's is the "cable guy" going to know if the restaurant is not in a dead zone,or has passive shielding? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net The jammer is going to emit some power across the broadband spectrum that is the cell phone band, which the spectrum analyzer is going to pick up. The "cable guy" is, admittedly, going to be their chief technician, not just an installer. Or, it could be a 2-way radio tech - same principle, although it's unknown whether he'll have a spectrum analyzer available. And the cell phone tower technician that is sent out to find out why their tower is not working everywhere its supposed to will have a spectrum analyzer, for sure. Any number of RF savvy people are definitely going to know that there's enough power being emitted to swamp the cell phone receiver, and that's all they have to report to the FCC, who have some pretty sharp engineers of their own that will come down and figure out some things for themselves. Dave Head >> Well, it'll be the cable TV guy that misses an important call while at >> ur restaurant, gets suspicious, fires up his spectum analyzer and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >entire band),I wonder if a SA would show much,especially to a "cable TV >guy". A broadband noise source shows up very well in a spectrum analyser. >Most are lucky they know how to use a cable meter. Maybe he's the guy who checks the cable system for RF leaks. >And how's is the "cable guy" going to know if the restaurant is not in a >dead zone,or has passive shielding? His SA will tell him so. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > rally2xs@att.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is "just a goddamn piece of paper", spying on Americans is legal by > fiat, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml About how Clinton eavesdropped on MILLIONS of domestic US communications. > and torture Some people have odd definitions of "torture". > is OK as long as it's only perpetrated on people we > know are bad guys. If I were a theatre or restaurant owner, I'd buy, > install and hide a cellphone jammer and not flap my mouth about having > done so. If Biff and Muffy and their little offspring Chipper can't > receive or make celphone calls during dinner or the movie, that's just > too damn bad for Biff, Muffy and Chipper. Just paint the walls with aluminized paint,and apply metallized tinted film to the windows. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >rally2xs@att.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >torture is OK as long as it's only perpetrated on people we know are bad >guys. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And clinton managed to replace a large percentage of reputable judges with far left judges who are making more and more wacky decisions. Previous liberals have appointed judges who have shaped law in this country, rather than interpret it. So enough of the whining about Bush. >If Biff and >Muffy and their little offspring Chipper can't receive or make celphone >calls during dinner or the movie, that's just too damn bad for Biff, Muffy >and Chipper. On that I agree, so why not legalize the use of such devices in certain types of businesses, like theaters. >> > The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and >> > are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >and steel allows cell reception in it's center, with no windows >visible. Your cell phone doesn't work, so it must be a conspiracy. >There are three regional hospitals within 30 miles that I've been to >more than once as a visitor. Full length glass windows that are easily >12 feet high are not eliminating the signal. They are if they are coated with a metallized film. Of course, the MRI, CT, and other electronic equipment likely has an effect as well. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and > are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rude enough to not turn their cell phones and blackberries off during a > movie. Cell phone signals can also interfere with machinery that the hospital uses to monitor as well as administer medication and/or ventilation to patients. > > The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and > > are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > uses to monitor as well as administer medication and/or ventilation to > patients. That's a load of bull. When I was in the hospital, I used my cell phone a lot. Being the nice guy I am, I talked the hospital staff into dropping their silly requirement for me. I had my own room, so its not like I was bothering me. Even when I was in the ER, I had no problem using my cell phone while I was hooked up to any manner of monitoring equipment and I am still here to tell you about it. >> > The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and >> > are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >using my cell phone while I was hooked up to any manner of monitoring >equipment and I am still here to tell you about it. He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. > He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They > DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. I take it you weren't done showing your a.s in the other recent thread, eh? http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#32 "idiot musolem" indeed. >> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They >> DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. > >I take it you weren't done showing your a.s in the other recent thread, eh? > >http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#32 Which says there's no problem. You were saying? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. >>> They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which says there's no problem. You were saying? "Radiofrequency energy (RF) from wireless phones can interact with some electronic devices." You were saying? >>>> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. >>>> They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You were saying? Try reading the ENTIRE entry. It's just a few short paragraphs. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. >>>>> They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Try reading the ENTIRE entry. It's just a few short paragraphs. Try reading the entire thread. DTJ made the claim "[cell phones] DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment", to which this refutes. What you are going on about I have no idea, the article surely doesn't say "there is no problem". >>>> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. >>>> They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You were saying? You are a person who knows a bastard. Now, by your rules I can quote that to say you are a bastard. >> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They >> DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. > >I take it you weren't done showing your a.s in the other recent thread, eh? > >http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#32 Useless. An FAQ from the FDA is not something anyone would consider authoritative. Notice how in spite of its claims, no data was offered. But I guess some people believe anything they see on the Internet. >>> He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. >>> They DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > offered. But I guess some people believe anything they see on the > Internet. Here's more; it wasn't hard to find... http://www.mrsci.com/Radiobiology/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health.php According to two extensive studies carried out in 2004, one at Massachusetts General Hospital, and another in Australia: "Cellular phones placed in close proximity to some commercially available intensive care ventilators can cause malfunctions, including irrecoverable cessation of ventilation. This is most likely to occur if the cellular phone is <30 cm from the device and ringing. Based on our data and the available literature, we believe it is reasonably safe to permit the use of cellular phones in the intensive care unit, as long as they are kept > or =3 feet from all medical devices. The current electromagnetic compatibility standards for mechanical ventilators are inadequate to prevent malfunction." and "Clinically relevant electromagnetic interference (EMI) secondary to mobile phones potentially endangering patients occurred in 45 of 479 devices tested at 900 MHz and 14 of 457 devices tested at 1800 MHz. However, in the largest studies, the prevalence of clinically relevant EMI was low. Most clinically relevant EMI occurred when mobile phones were used within 1 m of medical equipment. >>> Cell phone signals can also interfere with machinery that the hospital >>> uses to monitor as well as administer medication and/or ventilation to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They >DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the plane is at the gate. The same rabid paranoia is present in many hospitals - they are SCARED SHITLESS that somebody's cell phone will jam their patient monitoring systems and someone will die while they are not being monitored. > They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the > FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the > plane is at the gate. Aircraft operation of cellphones is prohibited because airborne cell phones can capture a disproportionate number of towers, plus the network is not necessarily architected to hand off 500+mph exchanges. >> They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the >> FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >can capture a disproportionate number of towers, plus the network is not >necessarily architected to hand off 500+mph exchanges. That's not the reason. The FAA doesn't give a hang about how many cell towers the phone might grab. Its the radio frequency (RF) signal interference that is the potential problem, There are a lot of wires carrying signals that are running along the length of the plane. These are not shielded, as shielding is heavy, or at least heavier than no shielding. Therefore, these wires can act like antennas and pick up RF interference. Also, some RF can or could also be picked up by the actual antennas of navigation equipment. Any or all of these potential RF interference points might be adversely affected by the presence of any RF signal. That's why not just cell phones, but _many_ electronic devices are banned. You can't listen to a radio on board, either, because of the very low power local oscillators present in superhetrodyne receivers, which almost all modern receivers are. These oscillators generate RF signals just like a transmitter, even if they are very low power. The real problem, of course, is the possible interference with the navigation, communications, and instrument landing systems. If any of these don't work as they should, the plane's operation could be adversely affected. The only sane course of action is to ban all use of the kinds of electronic equipment that might interfere with these systems. I'm actually surprised that laptop computers are allowed. Dave Head >>> They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the >>> FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That's not the reason. The FAA doesn't give a hang about how many cell towers >the phone might grab. That's right. And they don't forbid use of cell phones during the flight. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They >>DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. > > They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the > FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the > plane is at the gate. Heh: http://tinypic.com/ix8agx.jpg Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >>>He's an idiot musolem with absolutely no clue about technology. They >>>DO NOT interfere at all with any equipment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Heh: http://tinypic.com/ix8agx.jpg ROTFLMAO > They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the > FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the > plane is at the gate. The same rabid paranoia is present in many > hospitals - they are SCARED SHITLESS that somebody's cell phone will > jam their patient monitoring systems and someone will die while they > are not being monitored. Tort-o-phobia strikes again, it seems ... >They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the >FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the >plane is at the gate. Nope. The relevant regulation is an _FCC_ reg. The FAA actually leaves it up to the airlines. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Scott en Aztlán, <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:14:11 -0800: > They don't interfere with the systems on an airplane, either, but the > FAA still tells everyone to turn their cell phones off unless the > plane is at the gate. Last time I flew anywhere, the crew on all the planes said that so long as the plane was on the ground and off the runway, cellphone use was OK. It nice to beable to make calls while taxiing to the gate and get that done while others are in a mad scramble to get off the plane. Curiosity: What would our resident troll call that: CPF (cell phone flying), CPT (cell phone taxiing), or CPSOAA (cell phone sitting on an airplane)? >Scott en Aztlán, <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> was motivated to say >this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:14:11 -0800: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Last time I flew anywhere, the crew on all the planes said that so long >as the plane was on the ground and off the runway, cellphone use was OK. On more than one occasion I have heard cellphones ringing elsewhere in the cabin while the plane was in flight. I'm living proof that the line they feed you about cellphones interfering with the plane's electronics is 99.999% bullshit. The observation that a cellphone in the air will "see" multiple cell towers is a valid one, but no airline actually cites this as the reason they are making you turn your cell phone off. >>Scott en Aztlán, <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> was motivated to say >>this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:14:11 -0800: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >line they feed you about cellphones interfering with the plane's >electronics is 99.999% bullshit. Yeah, it is... except for the .001% where it does. You wanna be on that plane, hmmmm???? >The observation that a cellphone in >the air will "see" multiple cell towers is a valid one, No, its not. Cell tower antennas are constructed so as to see cell phones on the ground. IOW, the antennas do not radiate well nor receive well in the "up" direction. It is very conceivable that you might have problems acquiring any sort of signal at any significant altitude. This was confirmed for me as I watched some scofflaw try to make a phone call on approach to the airport. She couldn't get a call initiated, though she tried and tried, _until_ the final phases of the landing when we started getting close to the ground. Dave Head >but no airline >actually cites this as the reason they are making you turn your cell >phone off. Dave Head, <rally2xs@att.net> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:43:11 GMT: > Yeah, it is... except for the .001% where it does. > You wanna be on that plane, hmmmm???? I'd be more concerned about the wing(s) falling off, the landing gear screwing up or the pilot missing 1/2 of a snow covered runway... Scott en Aztlán, <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:25:03 -0800: > On more than one occasion I have heard cellphones ringing elsewhere in > the cabin while the plane was in flight. I'm living proof that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actually cites this as the reason they are making you turn your cell > phone off. Because they don't want to cite the real reason for the cellphone ban. How much is the per minute charge for one of those GTE Airphones (or what ever they call them now)?? >> The observation that a cellphone in >> the air will "see" multiple cell towers is a valid one, but no airline [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >How much is the per minute charge for one of those GTE Airphones (or >what ever they call them now)?? Luckily the true solution is on the horizon. I believe they are already experiemnting with "microcells" inside the plane to which all the on-board cell phones would link (that in itself will be a trick, as they'll need one micro-cell for AMPS, one for GSM, one for TDMA, and one for CDMA) and which, in turn, would be linked to the ground in a manner similar to the way current airphones are linked. This lets people use their phones during the flight without screwing up the cellular system on the ground. I suspect we'd have seen these introduced already if the airlines could figure out a good way to charge us $5/minute to use the service... > >> The observation that a cellphone in > >> the air will "see" multiple cell towers is a valid one, but no airline [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > could figure out a good way to charge us $5/minute to use the > service... I assumed everyone on here was aware of: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/09/technology/personaltech/cellphones_inflight/ Second half of the article discusses the Qualcomm demo. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html Dave >electronics is 99.999% bullshit. The observation that a cellphone in >the air will "see" multiple cell towers is a valid one, but no airline >actually cites this as the reason they are making you turn your cell >phone off. USAir cites "Federal regulations". Which is true; they don't specify the agency. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and >are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do >you think cell signals disappear the moment you walk in the hospital >front door. Wrong. It is illegal to block cell phone transmissions in the US. Although you can buy the technology, it is illegal, and possession of it would not be a good idea. I believe it is covered under ITAR. Further, hospitals do not block anything except in X-Ray, where the shielding has more of an effect then intended. I do not believe there is a single hospital today that does not RELY on the same technology in cell phones to run their equipment. If there is, I sure as hell wouldn't step foot in it. All the signs about not using your CP because it interferes with the equipment is a lie, although one I support as it tends to keep a small number of a.sholes from using CPs in places that should be at least somewhat free from the annoyance. >All the signs about not using your CP because it interferes with the >equipment is a lie, although one I support as it tends to keep a small >number of a.sholes from using CPs in places that should be at least >somewhat free from the annoyance. I thought the signs were there to allow the hospitals to continue to charge an obnoxiously large daily fee to patients with a phone in their rooms. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and > are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do > you think cell signals disappear the moment you walk in the hospital > front door. They do? I was just in a hospital a few hours ago visiting a friend and my cell phone showed a full signal before I switched it off. When I was rushed to the ER of a different hospital, I was literally on my cell phone telling my friends and loved ones where I was as I was treated. The ER staff just told me to not talk too loudly, but other than that, they said nothing about my cell phone. In fact, I know the CIO of a large health system that operates several hospitals in a major urban area and he told me that he plans to get rid of that cell phone ban in his hospitals because a lot of patients want to use them to stay in touch with family members. > Actually I think it is unfortunately necessary since some people are > rude enough to not turn their cell phones and blackberries off during a > movie. I agree. Hell, theaters should be made of the same material the building where I work is made of. In my office, my cell phone is a paperweight and I have service through a provider that scores high marks with customers. >The technology is already available and in use. Cell signals can and >are electronically blocked - you can buy the device on the net. Why do >you think cell signals disappear the moment you walk in the hospital >front door. They likely don't. If they do, it's not because they use a cell blocker. A hospital is the last place you're going to see such an item used, because of the liability issues if it interferes with medical equipment. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > One group wants to do this - theater owners. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dave Head Cell phones should be banned period. They are a distraction to others everywhere and on the highways they are a positive menace. Dave Head, <rally2xs@att.net> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:38:28 GMT: > I talk to people that cite people blabbing on cell > phones as one reason they don't come to the theater. > Is it the real reason, or is it a case of "Any excuse > is a good excuse" for something they don't want to > do any more anyway, for some other reason like price. The main reason I stay out of theatres is the blatent price gouging they do once you get into the theater at the concession stand. That and that (IMO) most movies are either trailer trash garbage or leftist propaganda. Idiots on cellphones is usually not a consideration since I'm not in he theater anyways. For the few and far between movie worth my time, there is always PPV or DVD. -- "Take for example when you go to the movies these days, you know. They try to sell you this jumbo drink, 8 extra ounces of watered down cherry coke for an extra 25 cents. I don't want it..." --Jimmy Buffett >Dave Head, <rally2xs@att.net> was motivated to say this in >rec.autos.driving on Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:38:28 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I'm not in he theater anyways. For the few and far between movie worth >my time, there is always PPV or DVD. Hmmm... leftist propaganda I think I'd notice. The last big leftist propaganda that I recall was the blatant bashing of the NRA and therefore the 2nd Amen |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message