<p>One last point- In many theraters they announce tht if your cellphone needs to stay on for an emergency, the will happily babysit it and come get you if such an emergency occurs. I think that is great!</p>
<p>^That’s exactly my point. There are always alternative options…and, like others have said, everyone did just fine 20 years ago without cell phones.</p>
<p>As for the whole “Taking away the rights of the many because of the mistakes of a few…”</p>
<p>Ever been to a public High School? This happens every single day. We can’t even have our cell phones visible at school because people can’t stop texting/talking during class. We can’t bring whole apples to school because kids use them to smoke. We can’t use certain bathrooms because kids go in them to ditch class/smoke. The list goes on and on. It’s nothing new. Does that make it right? No. But you’re all acting as if this is the first time it’s happened when it isn’t.</p>
<p>I also find it interesting that you’re not looking at the many positive uses this could have. I was just watching a movie a few nights ago where there was a woman who had a bomb strapped to her that was triggered by a cell phone, and the police used one of those devices to disable it. Now yes I realize that was a movie, but still…it’s always a possibility.</p>
<p>The thing with hospitals is an excellent point as well. There was a girl at my school who was pregnant and went into labor. While she was at the hospital she picked up her cell phone to call her mother, and they could no longer find the baby’s heartbeat. As soon as she hung up the phone, they found the heartbeat again.</p>
<p>If cell phones are that important to you, learn how to text. Texting doesn’t bother anyone; it’s silent and no one has to listen to your conversation. (I’ll admit, I’ve sent text messages during class more than once.) Better than having to listen to one side of a conversation any day, in my opinion.</p>
<p>cut the umbilical cord…</p>
<p>geeze…whatever did we do before these annoying cell phones??</p>
<p>doesn’;t matter what we did, they are here now, itsl ike asking what we did before cars </p>
<p>as for annoying, I find them wonderful- my Ds have freedom, and safety and my mother knows she can reach me any time- pretty important for someone older</p>
<p>as for volunteering to enter the theater- gee whiz people</p>
<p>I have been to numerous plays and operas and such and ONE time a cellphone went off, however people had to go to the bathroom, coughed and talked to each other more often </p>
<p>so we should just stop humans from attending the theater I guess</p>
<p>One of the most annoying things I find about cell phone users is the person who comes in to my shop right before closing, and they are on their cell phone. For 20 minutes. We can’t assist them with their purchase. We can’t close the registers. We can’t go get what they need. We’re stuck. Waiting for them to finish their “very important” call. It’s tempting to charge a per-minute fee while I watch the overtime clock rolling around!</p>
<p>If this device was available, I might use it.</p>
<p>Give it up CGM. You’re pulling at straws. The fact of the matter is; a cell phone is not some constitutional “Right” that is bound in writing. The fact is; cell phones have been around as a common use item for only about 15 years. As such, people have survived for thousands of years without them. The fact is; you have no consideration whatsoever for other people, and you are only thinking about yourself. The fact is; you’ve already demonstrated that you are looking at this strictly on an emotional level with no logic or ability to determine the pros or cons of such an item. You jumped all over 30 feet as being some very far distance; when in fact, it is only 10 paces.</p>
<p>The fact is; there are plenty of legitimate uses for such a device. It doesn’t matter if you agree or not. Just like I don’t agree that I should have to wear a helmet on my motorcycle. Luckily I live in a state that doesn’t require it. YET, I believe that there plenty of times where there is a use for a helmet. That is what this is all about. Too many people whining about “THEIR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS”. Like most people even know what those are. If people were considerate of others, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Unfortunately, they aren’t. There are a lot of self centered people out their. And they forget that their “RIGHTS AND FREEDOM” STOP where someone else’s STARTS. You DON’T have the freedom or right to purposely bother a person; distract them from watching a movie or concert. You DON’T have the right or freedom to tell a private business owner what they CAN or CAN’T do with their business. Just like many bars and restaurants VOLUNTARILY stopped allowing smoking in their establishments. Just because you might not smoke, why aren’t you complaining that they turned OFF SOMEONE’S LIGHTER. </p>
<p>You have the freedom to use your phone just like a doctor’s office has the freedom to NOT allow you to use your phone in their establishment. Why do you think what YOU WANT is more important that the 10 other people that you affect by rudely talking. Especially when 99.9999% of the time it’s not a matter of life or death.</p>
<p>Again, if people were considerate, and didn’t think that their “FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS” were somehow more important than everyone else’s, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry…is ‘gee whiz people’ an argument? I’m a bit baffled.</p>
<p>My son just watched a show where the criminal who was planning a home invasion used one of these devices to block service for the victims–first we had heard of them. </p>
<p>After son watched this show, he called and said he new what he wanted for Christmas–a cell signal blocker. Now he was kidding, but he did say it would be great if the library at his U. used one–he gets so tired of people talking on cell phones when others are trying to study.</p>
<p>I rarely ever go to the movie theatre–too cheap, just wait for the DVD. However, d. was home recently and wanted to see one and I went with her. I couldn’t enjoy the movie because it seemed like 1/4 of the audience was making or taking calls! My d. said that I should just ignore it, but I spent half my time craning my neck around looking for the offensive people.</p>
<p>Yes, I am very attached to my phone and depend on it for an elderly parent and of course the kids…but when in a restaurant, show, office, etc…I turn my ringer off and either text or leave the area to call back the caller.</p>
<p>“Likewise in a plane, assuming that these blockers didn’t carry similar (albeit miniscule) dangers.”</p>
<p>Guess the real reason why we are asked to turn the phones off on a plane? It has nothing to do with their interference with the plane navigational or other systems (there is none). Hint: it has something to do with cell phone companies and their towers ;)</p>
<p>^^^Glad to hear that the phones don’t cause technical problems with the plane. I am a fearful flyer to start with and I always wondered about that.</p>
<p>Huh. I always thought there was a very small danger of the cell phones interfering with flight signals.</p>
<p>I had been told by a pilot’s wife once that there could be some signal confusion, but I cant believe the cellphones and tower/pilot communication use the same band frequency. Wouldnt be logical. </p>
<p>Now, as for the people who would babysit a cellphone in the theater (and I meant live theater play-type theater, not movie theater) -it is a wonderful courtesy.</p>
<p>Not to hijack the thread, but Christcorp- your decision not to wear a motorcycle helmet has potential implications on others. I would consider your decision not to wear one selfish, just as you consider CGM’s cellphone jammer selfish. I work in head injury and if you end up with a severe head injury, assuming you survive, your financial and personal needs may well exceed your insurance coverage, which affects others around you- from family members to the taxpayers. I my state, anyone ticketed for a violation of the mottorcycle helmet law pays a fine that goes to a head injury fund fo un/underinsured head injury survivors. Wonderful arrangement, IMO. Please-- wear a helmet. OK, off my soapbox now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I second that suggestion. I value the lives of CC participants. My mother the operating room nurse made clear to me the value of wearing helmets when riding motorcycles. My state still doesn’t require them, but maybe someday logic will prevail in public policy on this issue.</p>
<p>Few things here. 1st; ONE reason for the “No cell phones on airplanes” (Which they have now actually started to relax that rule), is because they want you using their very expensive phones.</p>
<p>Next; without changing the topic; me not wearing a motorcycle helmet is completely LEGAL. As far as it affecting other people, EXCEPT for financial, no it doesn’t. As far as financial goes, it doesn’t affect anyone nearly as much as all the medical expenses we as tax payers pay towards a bunch of illegal aliens. But either way, where I live, it is totally legal to ride without a motorcycle helmet. But as you said; don’t hijack the topic. The reference to a motorcycle helmet was; "Even though I may not agree with the use, I am willing to admit that there are definitely some legitimate purposes for one. Unlike some people who because they don’t like a certain technology, believe therefor that there are no possible good uses for such a technology.</p>
<p>That, is the topic. That is the debate. Being open minded enough to see both sides of a topic. Being open enough to realize that a person’s “Rights and freedoms” are NOT absolute. That certain freedoms and rights must be compromised with other people’s freedoms and rights. And finally, that such a device, and this conversation in general, would be a moot point and have never existed if people were in general considerate of others. In the last 20+ years, it seems that people have lost their sense of consideration for the other person. Instead, many have become very selfish, self centered, and inconsiderate of others. They whine about their rights and freedoms, but they don’t care about other’s. Oh well. That’s why we have these conversations. So people can speak, and then the average person can see through the hypocrisy and realize exactly what that person thinks.</p>
<p>Just a suggestion-- speak, but don’t YELL. As for your freedoms-- as an attorney once said to me (talking about an elderly, but not incompetent client), we are all entitled to make bad decisions. My personal philosophy: be proud but don’t be stupid. It’s your head. Do with it as you wish. And as for the airline use of cellphonesphones-- I believe the restriction was way before the expensive onboard phones were available, if memory serves me. correctly.</p>
<p>I thought the expensive airplane phones went extinct just like the Dodo bird. I have not seen either recently. 
I was told that it is not the airlines that restrict yapping on the cell phones in flight, it is the cell companies. When you are on the ground, your call is predictably passed from one cell tower to another as you travel with the max speed of about 100 mph (which would be over the legal speed limit, but not unimaginable and preferrably you have your helmet on). When you are up in the sky, it is a totally different picture: thousands of callers rapidly changing positions with their cell phones communicating with more than one cell tower. This could lead to disruption of service for cell phones on the ground, which use only one tower at a time. A guy from a locally based cell company told me they are working on a solution to this problem: a “tower” which can be installed on planes. I’m not looking forward to that day!</p>
<p>Jamming devices work “only” within 30 feet? Not a big deal, right? Imagine such scenario: you happen to live in a condo with your cell phone being your only phone (I know a few such folks who have no reasons to pay for a landline) and you neighbor gets a device just because he does not like your face…</p>
<p>Why are you all debating this? It’s stupid. If you read the article, you would see that the use of it is currently illegal. So why are you debating it as though you are trying to change some ruling? The debate, was, are their practical uses for such a device? If there are, then there can be made some concessions for such things.</p>
<p>I don’t care about grandma’s health, your condo, needing to call 911, your “Rights” or freedoms. There’s too many people talking about all the reasons that such a device shouldn’t be used. Guess what? That’s not what this is about. Too many damn extremists. I knew a person that got killed in a car once. I think we should make all cars illegal. I knew a person who died falling off his roof trying to clean the leaves out of the gutter. We should make ladders against the law.</p>
<p>This isn’t about all the reasons you don’t like such a device. That is a never ending argument. It’s futile. It’s useless. Ham radios are legal, but their use is regulated. Cars, guns, and many other things are legal, but their uses are regulated. Why is it so difficult around here sometimes to have a normal practical debate without a bunch of people going off on tangents? Debating non compromising scenarios. Too many extremists. No wonder laws become so complicated and congress takes forever to get anything passed. The complication is very apparent right here. Why is it so difficult to debate the possible “Benefit” of such a device. Then, once people can agree that there are indeed possible scenarios in which such a device could be practical, then you can debate the method of deploying it so it doesn’t affect the Non-intended audience. If you can’t do that, then it’s not a debate or discussion. It’s a waste of time. Definitely time to move on to hopefully a more educated and open minded debate.</p>
<p>
Are you talking to yourself or others?? Some people are discussing, some people are attacking… (well, maybe ranting is a better word…)</p>
<p>Who exactly is being closed-minded? Who gets to decide what people wish to discuss on threads? Things that are legal are off limits? Theings that are legal never get banned? Good grief!</p>
<p>Hmm… the article the OP quotes is entitled "… Sweet but Illegal (not legal)…
and reading into the article, this thing is <em>not</em> legal
</p>
<p>is there something wrong with debating (discussing) something regardles of whether it is legal or illegal? I thought that was part of “freedom” :)</p>
<p>Before I get YELLED at for being confusing in my previous post, let me clarify. This gizmo, while currently illegal, may have some potential benefits in some cases. My point is that whether we discuss rights, freedoms and common courtesy (which should be shown in thread discussions too…), IMO it is perfectly ok to discuss opinions about it (or anything–say gun control or the death penalty) regardless of its legal status. Lets not iindividually, unilaterally decide what can or cannot, should or should not be discussed in a thread. Play nice.</p>