Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Shutting Up Annoying Cellphones 152

Posted by CmdrTaco from the now-there's-a-good-idea dept.
NoWhere Man writes: "North Carolina-based BlueLinx, which produces consumer applications for short-range wireless systems, and" Hold on I gotta take this call.... " a telecommunications center at the University of Adelaide in Australia are developing a feature for mobile phones that interacts with Bluetooth shortwave radio-link systems in public places. The feature is designed to automatically silence cellphone ringing. Once inside the Bluetooth coverage area, cellphones with the "Q-Zone" feature will be silenced."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shutting Up Annoying Cellphones More

Shutting Up Annoying Cellphones

Comments Filter:

  • And I would buy this phone why? (Score:4)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:14PM (#949801) Journal
    Modern cellphones have a SILENT feature that works wonders. I guess some people can't be bothered to use such a thing, but I for one would prefer to control my own damn phone than submit to something like this. You know, personal responsibility and all that?

    sulli

  • Dude... it's not turning the phone off, it's just putting the ringer on MUTE.. or hella low.. You can still use the phone.. chill.

  • I can't wait till BlueLinx develops a chip to implant into my brain so I can block out Slashdot Troll posts about Natalie Portman...We wouldn't need a moderation system...

    Actually, I would like a Q-zone that blocks out genomics patents from the Patent Office Computers!! The best part is, there are no buttons, and doctors are allowed to overide it!! Q-zone sounds like the MacOS.

  • From the article:

    "If you are a doctor, you can override the Q-Zone feature on your cellphone," said Mary Beth Griffin, BlueLinx executive vice president.

    So basically, this only works if people dont set up their phones to exclude it. Wonderful. This will help out all of the fogetful people, who accidentally leave their phones on in movie theaters. Both of them.

    But for the other trolls who think that the next call is too important to miss, they will turn off the feature anyway.

    Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but whenever this comes about, I don't forsee it changing things too much.

  • Not Terribly Interesting (Score:4)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:19PM (#949805)
    The idea is not all that interesting, but I certainly don't see any problems with using it. If I'm a doctor or if I'm on call when a server goes down, I can over-ride the feature and still receive my call.

    At best, this is just a small feature to allow busy people who don't want to have to remember to turn their phones off when they enter a movie theater, to have it done automatically. Fine with me. This isn't going to prevent the annoying noise of cell-phones, unless people make the voluntary decision to do so.

    I don't really even find cell-phones that annoying, unless it's in certain circumstances such as theaters. And chances are that some dumbass is going to think that waiting for a call from his buddies downtown is just as important as the call for the doctor who has to rush to the hospital to save a car-accident victim's life.

    I'm not suggesting we should force anyone to turn their phones off or down, either. That's a bit stupid and big-brotherish, to me. It also could leave a lot of room for lawsuits and liability issues.

    This only serves to make life a tiny notch simpler for those who care to be responsible enough to keep their volume down or off in certain public places. The problem of those who could care less about making those 'sacrifices' will have to be dealt with via old-fashioned intolerance by people around them when their phones go off and they engage in annoying conversation while you're trying to enjoy a flick. That is, next time someone's phone rings in the middle of a movie and they don't immediately shut it off -- or worse, they answer it and start talking, the people around them should chastise them for it. It's better than enforcing some dumb law and the moron still has the choice of leaving the theater or staying there and being a prick, if he can put up with the resulting disapprovement of the other movie-goers.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • Apple Interface Designer Bruce Tognazzini suggested this [asktog.com] in a recent column.

    As one poster pointed out, a feature that involuntarily cripples your cellphone will be a tough sell.
  • invasion of privacy, yada yada.

    i think it's great. i can't even begin to count how many times my classes were interrupted by someones wonderful 8 bit rendition fo the fugue toccatta in dmol, played in rich one-tonal harmonies :P

  • Excellent! (Score:5)

    by The Night Watchman ( 170430 ) <smarotta.gmail@com> on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:21PM (#949808)
    I, for one, am seriously thrilled to no end by this bit of news. Now, if only children came with this feature...

    /* TNW */

  • I agree, I think this is the most ridiculous use of technology to control people's lives I've heard of in a long time...

  • My company is doing something like this too. (Score:5)

    by Shoeboy ( 16224 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:24PM (#949810) Homepage
    Seattle, WA Shoeboy Industries, a leading producer of homemade bongs, has announced plans to enter the wireless market in a big way.
    "Many people are bothered by individuals who use their cell phones in innapropriate places." announced Shoeboy. "Just yesterday I was taking a leak and the guy at the next urinal was on the phone with his wife. I'm sorry, but if a guy is going to say 'I love you honey' in a public restroom, I expect a blow job."
    Shoeboy Industries hopes to combat these annoying mobile phone users by introducing a technology called ActiveGlock.
    "ActiveGlock will provide a convienient point and click interface to silence those mobile users once and for all!" exclaims John Cheese, tech stock analyst for pointlesswasteoftime.com. "I'm very bullish on Shoeboy Industries stock right now. Shoeboy should be able to mow down the competition and shoot his way to the top of NASDAQ."
    A representative for the Disgrunted Postal Workers Association revealed that it's members had been evaluating ActiveGlock technology and hope to implement it "When those bastards least expect it."
    Others are less optimistic. "Technically it's murder," declares University of Utah law professor Dr. Rajeev Papshigali, "we wish it was justifiable homicide, but it isn't."
    Dr. Papshigali's warnings went unheeded on wall street where Shoeboy Industries closed at 2.25 for a gain of 2.24 points on the day.
    --Shoeboy

  • Re:Censorship (Score:4)

    by Monte ( 48723 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:24PM (#949811)
    Am I going to be the only person who realizes that this is censorship?

    Yes. Here's the clue: Censorship can only be done by the government.

    You don't like the fact that the theatre you paid to get in to blocks cell phones? Walk out.

  • So, wait... when M$ used their leverage to block all of E-Bay's auctions of M$ products, that wasn't censorship? When private corporations try to stifle you, what is that? Bad business practice?
  • Only Duff fills your "Q zone" with pure beer goodness. [snpp.com]

    Actually, the most irritating thing I find about wireless phones (come on folks, lots of them aren't technically CELL anymore) are those vanity rings. It's incredibly annoying to hear La Cucaracha, Fur Elise, Ode to Joy and any number of other songs blaring when someone has an incoming call. I realize that it makes things easier in crowds where there may be many people with wireless phones, but they could at least use a different ring instead of obnoxiously long and high pitched snippets from a song...

  • If they could only develop some piece of hardware (or software too) to silence or turn down loud car stereo's I'd be happy.

    Sorry, I don't want to hear Britney Spears at 3000 db at 2 am in the morning. Come to think of it, I just don't want to hear Britney Spears, period! :)

    Geoff
  • Hardly. The basis of this technology is to keep things in perspective. If I have to pay $9 a ticket to go to the movies, or $125 for a seat to a hockey game I don't want to have a million cellphones ringing the whole time. Same if you paid 20-30,000 for you kids wedding and people disrespect you by having thier cells ring the whole time. You can say this is censorship but I say its more an issue of forced politeness. It has become painfully obvious that no matter how many times people are asked to shut off thier phones for this and that they get irate and this could keep that from happening. With people becoming enraged for stupid shit like being asked to turn off thier cellphone why should anyone have to endanger themselves and ask you to turn off your phone when common decency should have told you to do so ahead of time. If a you are expecting a call that makes you so important that you have to have it no matter where you are well you should obviously not be in a place like a theater or arena where your 'important' call is going to inconvenience everyone else.
  • I can't count the number of times I've been driving to/from work and seen idjuts talking into their cellphones, weaving around, largely oblivious to their immediate (and dangerous) surroundings. So, assuming I were a complete and utter, is there some cheap litte bit o' nastiness that would "hang up"/crash/cancel/annoy all cell phones say, within a 25 foot radius?

    Not that I'd ever do anything like that. No.

    Just curious, ya understand.

  • Re:Not Terribly Interesting (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "I am a goat." -- Anonymous Coward

  • classrooms (Score:4)

    by emgeemg ( 182902 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:31PM (#949818) Homepage
    Hrm, I wonder if this feature was funded at all by university professors. :) At least at my school the number one annoyance for professors is probably the two or three times per class that someone's cellphone rings. It's like the professors are beaten into submission too. Most times they just shake their head in disgust and go on with the lecture. The funniest (and most annoying) incident was when a classmate of mine asked the professor a question. The professor started into answering it, then the student's cellphone went off. Now, most times they'll just quickly smack the thing off like an alarm clock on a monday morning. Not this guy! He proceeded to get up and go out into the hall and take the call! I dont think the professor actually believed what had just happened as all he did was chuckle and move on. Could have been worse though, at least he had the decency to leave the room. He could have taken it right from his desk. :)
  • Now I just need to get a mobile version of this so that when I go somewhere with someone their cellphone doesn't go off every 5 minutes.

    Better yet, get the 1 mile radius version installed in my car. I should get an insurance discount for this due to all the people around me guaranteed not to be distracted by ringing phones.

    Of course, someone is going to invent the Silencer Override, followed by the Silencer Override Override, etc, much like the "Caller-ID", "Caller-ID blocking" and "Caller-ID blocking auto-refusal" mess we've gotten ourselves into.
    --
  • Instead of installing equipment that only turns the volume down on ringers that have that feature, try one of these to turn them all down. Permanently.

    http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/10/0826258.shtm l [slashdot.org]
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331 772,00.html?chkpt=hpqs014 [zdnet.com]

    Mmmmmmm....HERF guns....

  • ...using cellphones while driving. Will public highways start setting up Q-zones?


    ---
    Zardoz has spoken!

  • phonebashing (Score:4)

    by Fist Prost ( 198535 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:35PM (#949822) Homepage
    Personally I find it much more fun to take care of annoying cellular user the Old Fashioned [phonebashing.com] way.

  • What will RJ Reynolds have to say? After all, Camel cigarettes have satisfied the T-Zone (that's T for Taste, and T for Throat) for half a century now.

    And, I can see the slogan now, as doctors can turn it off: "More Doctors Use Q-Zone than Any Other Phone!"

    sulli

  • No, it isn't censorship. They were protecting their patents and copyrights. What E-Bay was doing wasn't exactly illegal (rather, the people on E-Bay selling the M$ products) but it was a pretty bad loophole that was costing them (actually, just their marketting people more than likely) money for a product they worked years on to produce, which is where the patents come in.
  • So, wait... when M$ used their leverage to block all of E-Bay's auctions of M$ products, that wasn't censorship? ?

    Of course not! The fact that you know about it should point that out. Just because one stinking site (ebay) wimped out to Gawd-Amighty Microsoft does not censorship make. The fact that we are talking about it here, now, makes my point.

    Censorship is when you and a bunch of your friends gather around a street corner yelling "Bill Gates Sucks!" and the governing body shoots you all dead.

    See also Tiemenn Square (sp) in China. When you've been run over by a tank because of your views get back to me.
  • So, you're saying that if you walked into a movie theater and started screaming about how Natalie Portman should be the next president because aliens kidnapped you and told you so, then the movie theater should not have the right to throw you out if you don't quiet down? A movie theater is private property, which means they have the right to decide (within reason) what you can and can't say on those premises. Granted, most don't do anything unless someone complains (they wouldn't get any business if they did) but they can still do that. Free Speech applies to the government, public places and your own private property. If I purchase some ink, paper and a printing press, I (ideally) have the right to print anything I want. The alternative to a bluetooth type of system is to have people check their cell phones at the door.
  • In Australia, and (presumably) the US and the UK, having a mobile phone ring while in the cinema is considered *extremely* rude. However, when I was in Hong Kong last year, it seemed like this was perfectly acceptable behaviour. What differences in acceptable mobile phone etiquette have other Slashdot readers noticed from place to place?
  • I really shouldn't encourage you but that was pretty fuckin' funny.
    Why shouldn't you encourage me? The post was on topic, original and made a point, albeit in a non-traditional manner. When I posted stuff like that a year ago, I'd get 4's and 5's consistently. The last few months though, the moderation on /. has gotten really wierd. It's not uncommon to see > 8 moderation points spent on a single post. My personal best is 16. Don't know why this is. I don't think dude's like DonkPunch, cje and myself would have stuck with /. if it had been like this a year ago. Two years ago, there was no karma and it was even better. /. really is going downhill. Fortunately, I've still got 3 digit karma and should be able to keep my +1 for a long time.
    --Shoeboy
  • this is absolutely obsurd, cell phones are there for a reason, i for one would not like to be the person missing an emergency phone call, where possibly my child (if i had one) was in danger and i didnt get the phone call because i was in the friggin Q-zone so joe-shmo can not be annoyed. this is cencorship. If this goes in to effect do you have the option of Q-zone feature when you get the phone or will it be automatic for every phone? just my 2 cents

  • No where in the article did I see exactly what it does. It said that it silences the phone, but does that mean it makes it more quiet or that it shuts off the cell phone sound completely. There was a line in the article that implies the former, but just in case...

    I think it would be nice to make the "silencer" customizable by the organization Bluetooth is installed in. Say, for instance, the organization would rather turn it to buzz mode than have any sound at all, like a church where everything is really quite quiet. Plus, who couldn't use a little "buzz" to keep them alert at some services! ;-)

    Personally, I wouldn't mind some organization "buzzing" me while I'm busy. "Gets me all tingly inside!"

  • I think this is the most ridiculous use of technology to control people's lives I've heard of in a long time...

    (Assuming this is from the United States...)

    Might I suggest you take a long, hard look at your Social Security Number and just how many places that puts YOU in some database?
  • Sounds like another way for these already successful wireless communication companies to make more money (even off of organizations like churches.)

  • Tempest-proof Movie theaters (Score:3)

    by Alrescha ( 50745 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:48PM (#949833)
    I'd like to see all new movie multi-plexes built with a temptest-proof (ie: RF-proof) wire cage around every theater. If you *elect* to go in, you should be aware that your cell phone, your pager, and any other obnoxious and rude device you may have, just *won't work*.

    If you don't like it, I hope you choose not to patronize these places - I expect business will pick up as a result!

    A.
  • Perhaps this feature could be used to do things like change the phone to ring in vibrate mode, turn down the ringer volume, or something like that. Preferably, this would all be user-configurable, of course..
    --
    Ski-U-Mah!
    Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
  • Dude, once I had a prof whose phone rang in class. And then, he took the call. But it gets weirder. He's wearing a microphone, right? So we can hear his end of the conversation just fine. And it went something like this:

    "Is my refrigerator running? I'm not sure. Why would I need to catch it?
    No, I don't know what part of my body my 'trombone' is located in. Which toe would I need a towtruck for? What?"

    And then he hangs up and says "I'm not sure what that was about." True story! All I can figure is that he was trying to make class more interesting (it was a really boring numerical methods class...and this is a really boring professor). Still, it wierded me out. Woke me up, though.
  • (Disclaimer:I'm no expert on jamming radio communications.) Is it difficult to jam the mobile phone system in a local area? I imagine all you would have to do is disrupt communications between the phone and the tower such that the phone doesn't manage to get on the network. (In much that same way that you can kill arbitrary TCP connections on ethernet by injecting FINs) Hell, you wouldn't even have to transmit all the time. You could just detect a phone searching for a tower and jam it then to stop connection.

    The best part about this system is that it would be backwards compatible with older phones, doesn't require getting manufactures on board and losers can't override it.

    >;-)

    --
    Simon

  • Re:Still doesn't fix the main problem... (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:53PM (#949837)
    Until drinking, eating, holding and viewing a map, reading a book, shaving, putting on makeup, getting dressed, putting a tie on and other dangerous behavior is similarly fined, I don't see any excuse to punish those who use cellular phones while driving.

    The problem with cellular phones being used while driving is that they occupy not only your attention but your physical capacities. So do these other activities which people are frequently engaged in while on the freeway.

    I hate new laws. I hate throwing a law at every problem or question, but I don't see any way around this, since there is a direct connection between the behavior and the resulting accidents -- just like putting a 'WIDE LOAD' sign on the back of a long semi carrying a mobile home. Why is that sign there? Because carrying a house tends to make it a bit dangerous for the guy behind you!

    But how do you come up with a reasonable list of things that you can and cannot do while moving (note that I don't see a problem with snacking away or shaving in your car if you're in gridlock))?

    Shaving, putting on makeup, reading a book, getting dressed -- really bad thins to be doing while driving. They demonstrate absolutely horrible common sense on behalf of the driver. But drinking... It seems a little strong to say that I'm not allowed to have a few sips of my soda while I'm on the road. Should I have to pull over to the side of the road each time I get thirsty? Maybe not. Probably an acceptable thing to do, compared to unwrapping a big-mac and sinking your teeth into it, removing your concentration from the road.

    Cellular phones are fine, if you have a hands-free system. If you can call-up a number and have your system dial it and, further, have yor conversation, without physically having to removing your concentration or hands from the wheel, then great. And I think we're moving closer to this, as technology becomes available.

    You also have other issues, such as sleeping. Being extremely drowsey is a massive cause of accidents. In fact, it is generally accepted that if you've been awake for over sixteen or seventeen hours straight, you are operating at an impaired level similar to having a blood/alchohol mix of .05 percent. Almost a legal limite in many states.

    But driving while sleepy isn't illegal. We don't pull you over and ticket you if you're caught yawning.

    It's a difficult line to draw, but I think that for the attempt of safety, lines do need to be drawn. Where possible, alternatives need to be advanced and used. If you can do something in a safe manner while on the road, that's great -- cellphones with speakers and hands free operationg. If you can't do it safely -- trying to hold your phone, dial it, hold it between your ear and shoulder as you tilt your head sideways and converse and drive in this position -- then that's not so great. Should be an offense that can be fined. The same can then be applied to several other well-known hazards that drivers engage in routinely.

    People will dislike the changes and scream that they are having their rights invaded, but people need to realize that while it seems to them that they're just pitting their foot on a pedel and moving a little wheel to the left and right, they're actually still responsible for a piece of metal and fiberglass, several tons in size, rocketing down the freeway at seventy or more miles per hour.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • i for one would not like to be the person missing an emergency phone call, where possibly my child (if i had one) was in danger and i didnt get the phone call because i was in the friggin Q-zone so joe-shmo can not be annoyed

    Here's a radical idea, we used it back before there were cell-phones. If you're not completely comfortable with the situation your child is in, maybe you shouldn't leave it.

    Yeah, I know - that could impact your lifestyle. Bummer.

    Being a grown-up and having kids tends to do that.
  • Couldn't this protocol be used to assist in cellphone spoofing? It's already well understood that most cellphones are vulnerable to eaves-dropping in the absence of encryption. What about the following scenario:

    1) set up a transmitter to broadcast the "silence" command to my victim's area
    2) intercept incoming calls
    3) since the victim is not notified of the call, I open up on the channel and pretend to be him/her.

    This was one of the reasons our old friend the Denial of Service attack was invented oh so long ago.


    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • One word: EMP (well, it's not really a word, but...)

    I was sort of hoping to keep the local CPUs on line. Seeing as they run the tranny, engine, radio et al.
  • Just because you don't get shot, you aren't censored? Sounds like telling me that if I'm not eating a 48 oz steak, I'm not eating... Just because it's not extreme doesn't make it right...
  • They should have the right to throw me out. But they shouldn't have the right to gag me as I come in, just in case I decide to yell about Natalie Portman...

  • The user has to allow it. (Score:4)

    by Matt_Bennett ( 79107 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @05:01PM (#949843) Homepage Journal
    For this feature to work, the user is going to have to allow it. Once Bluetooth enabled phones come out, users are going to quickly learn that they should not automatically connect to any bluetooth enabled device- first of all, the local Bluetooth piconet (limited to 16 devices, I think) is going to go quickly to capacity. Of course bluetooth will quickly be adopted by spammers and their ilk, which will cause most people to quickly disable the automatic discovery and promiscuous communication.

    I have a feeling that the features that allow this sort of thing (stopping ringers) will not be automatically enabled (unless Microsoft dominates the technology). Would you be willing to share the contents of your PDA with anyone who walks by?

  • Could you imagine the joy of having designated areas where both cell phones don't ring AND babies don't cry????
  • There are a number of companies that now sell cell phone jamming devices. I've seen some models that a very compact and fit into a small area of your briefcase.

    Of course, these devices are only sold outside of the US and are completely illegal to operate in the US.

    The first commercial one that I'm aware of was developed in 1998, here is an article [techweb.com] about it.

  • This is not a troll.This was on topic and very funny.
  • Does anyone remember a Japanese device that was supposed to obliterate cellular phone conversations within a 25' radius? Or was I just dreaming? How about a site about making such a device?
  • The articles are pretty badly done, so I can see how it could be difficult to parse the details. However, after actually reading the articles...
    1. This feature can be turned off (at least for doctors)
    2. The phone still works; the ringer is just turned down
    3. Nothing gets "jammed", you can still send calls out.
    4. Nothing suggests that this feature will be "snuck in" to future phones. So if you don't want it, don't buy it.

    Basically this is just a way of automating something that people may want to do anyway. It's not for everyone, but not everyone has to use it.

    In conclusion, it's a good thing.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Jamming is easy, but easy to detect. The FCC would never allow such a device in the US. For any commercial RF device to be sold in the US, it has to have the blessing (not necessarily explicit) of the FCC, including the free-for-all that is the 2.4 GHz band. Even in the part 15 bands, the FCC does *not* allow intentional jamming.

    I believe that a cell phone interference device is in place in the Israeli Parlaiment to render the cellular phones of the legislators non-functional while in session. But such a device would never be approved for sale or use in the US.
  • Just because you don't get shot, you aren't censored? Sounds like telling me that if I'm not eating a 48 oz steak, I'm not eating... Just because it's not extreme doesn't make it right...

    We really are belaboring the obvious here, but what the heck, I'm bored. Here's the difference:

    If a theatre manager shoots you for using a cell phone, that's murder. Because we have laws about killing people, and where and when you're allowed to do it. They are answerable to a higher authority, the Government.

    If the government shoots you, it's because they felt like it. It's perfectly legal, because they write whatever laws they like. They answer to no higher authority than the people, and so far the people don't seem to have any problems with the Government blowing away folks in order to "Save the Children".

    Hope this helps.
  • I remember hearing that jamming devices were quite common in some areas in Japan. To avoid the constant ringing of phone in movies, among other places. It worked by jamming the control channel of phone, so no calls could be made or received.
  • ok so im guessing you stay with your kids 24 hours a day 7 days a week, never go to work, you home tutor them so they dont have to leave the house, and have all your food delivered to your house so you dont have to go shopping and you can shield them from the world. what about missing an emergency call about your wife being in the hospital or your father, there are thousands of calls you CANNOT AFFORD to miss, and i hope your not the person who ends up getting the short end of the stick because of this Q-Zone idea, or better yet i hope IM not the person who gets the short end of the stick.
  • Well, users can turn that feature off, right?

    Now, instead of ringing, phones are also able to vibrate.

    Which means users who don't want to disturb other people are already able to do so.

    Doesn't that turn that feature pointless?

  • Reality check...

    Instead of spending all that money on new technology and creating lawsuits, why not just put up a big yellow sign outside movie theaters, university classrooms & other un-cellphone friendly places (like my house, my car..) as a reminder:

    Turn your cellphone/pager on vibrate or off or you will be shot. Dead.

    Seems like a simpler, and more elegant solution to me. It's so logical it appears that no-one's thought of it yet. Then you don't have the hassle & expense of installing the bluetooth transmitters or whatever in the appropriate places. Let's stop getting gadget happy, you gadget freaks.. (myself included)

  • Censorship can only be done by the government.

    Censorship, enforced by anyone is still censorship.

    What if all theatres did this? Do I still have the freedom to choose not to go in? Yeah, you can claim I don't have to go in there. But no one had to buy computers with Windows installed either. What if Microsoft added something to Windows which (I'm stretching here) disallowed you from typing the word Linux? Would that be censorship?

    Any sufficiently large or powerful group restricting freedom of thought, speech or other form of expression is committing censorship.

    Disclaimer: I'm not claiming banning the use of cellphones is censorship - just that it doesn't have to be done by the government for it to be considered censorship

  • Why can't the up/down ringer volume buttons on the side on the phone go LOUDEST, LOUDER, LOUD, SOFT, ***SILENT***? Perhaps switching to light up ring or vibrate at the bottom of the volume range. But so long as nixing the ringer means navigating through menus, most people aren't gonna do it because let's face it, we dig through every menu even looking for secret menus just to see what's there. But Joe Marketroid has his "menus all set up" for him by the shop and never goes in there himself.
  • M$ could learn a lesson from these guys - an "off" button for visual basic scripting in outlook...
  • Strap one to your waist. and as you move no one is a 33 foot radius will bug you with their rigging phones....
  • To continue the OT thread...
    I've been with /. for about 3 years and the reactionary moderation is getting out of hand. I can easily get a post modded up just by toning down my post and removing most of the wit or humor, since someone gets offended otherwise and the post get modded down.

    I say we need to kick off everyone with user id > 10k and bring back MEEPT!

    Posted anonymously to preserve my precious karma for the great Troll Wars.

  • Modern cellphones have a SILENT feature that works wonders. I guess some people can't be bothered to use such a thing, but I for one would prefer to control my own damn phone than submit to something like this. You know, personal responsibility and all that?

    <highhorse>It's not only, that some people can't be bothered to switch their cellphone to vibrate instead of one of those annoying would-be musical-snippets-in-endless-loop, which can be "enjoyed" for minutes while they dig out their phone from the bottom of their heavily filled bag. After which you will be filled in on all kinds of details about their and others' private lives, which you're not interested in, but are unable not to overhear, since they are trying to speak louder than the person next to them on his or her cellphone. And all I want is to read my newspaper in peace, in the train en route to my job.

    I like music, as a matter of fact I like most of the original music those phone tunes were taken from. But that only makes them worse. And, besides music, I like silence a lot. A scarce commodity nowadays, if you leave your soundproofed home. It used to be walkmen, and cars with open windows (or not), with the stereo on $KILL_HUMAN_HEARING_SYSTEM_IF_NOT_THE_HUMAN_ITSELF . I think there's a good future in a device, that kills all stereo's and cellhpones in a, let's make is 500 meters or yards cubic, area. I promiss I'll stop smoking then, even if it's allowed, provided I find a cure for my need to.

    But at least this /. article and reaction lead to me putting in Rachmaninov's Pino cencerto Nr.2 and Nr4, so this contribution turned out much less heated than it otherwise would have. :-)<highhorse*gt;

    Stefan. Good musix might stop wars. So might a well placed silence.
    It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

  • My troll-sense is tingling, but what the hell.

    First, there's a "vibrate" function on most recent cell phones and damn near all pagers. What this means is that you can receive incoming calls without annoying those around you with the ubiquitous "beebeebeebeebeep" (or worse, the cutesy little songs some phones sing nowadays). Just set the damn phone/pager to "vibrate" if it bugs you that much.

    And second, no, nobody is able to watch their kids 24/7. And this may be a shock to you, but there are bazillions of parents with no cell phones and no pagers that manage to keep on top of what's up with their kids. How do you think your parents did it? How do you think your grandparents kept tabs on your parents? Think about that.

    P.S. "Absurd."
  • No, it isn't censorship. They were protecting their patents and copyrights.

    No, MS was enforcing an illegal clause in their software license which didn't allow one to sell the software.

  • One time a cell phone going off in class was apropos to the lecture - it was a networking class and the topic was wireless protocols.

  • Could you imagine the joy of having designated areas where both cell phones don't ring AND babies don't cry????

    You forgot: and where walkmen stop, and loudmouths shut up. And women said "Yes." when they mean "Yes."

    Stefan.
    It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

  • ok so im guessing you stay with your kids 24 hours a day 7 days a week,

    No, I'm someone who actually thought about it, and decided that (a) I don't like kids, and (b) the responsibility that comes with crotch-fruit (if you're more civilized than a baboon) isn't something I want to be stuck with.

    Wow. Being responsible for your actions. What a concept.

    what about missing an emergency call about your wife being in the hospital or your father,

    I'm not a doctor or an EMS specialist, so there's jack all I can do about it in the immediate sense. Call me NOW, call me 8 hours from now, it don't make a whole hell of a lot of difference to the body in the meatwagon when push comes to shove. Or do you figure you'll arrive at the hospital just in time to deliver the live-saving technique that will save your loved one? This ain't TV. This is Real Life. Has been for quite a while.

    there are thousands of calls you CANNOT AFFORD to miss

    Or, alternatively, you take your instant-access status just a tad too seriously.

    This may come as a shock, but civilization did manage to get along for one or two centuries before we even had cell phones.

    Cell phones are convenient. They are not a necessity.
  • Well, actualy, yes they could....but I doubt many people would want to go to that theater. Now, if they gagged only you, or say, only Democrats, that would be illegal. They could, however, have a dress code requiring a gag.
  • come on folks, lots of them aren't technically CELL anymore

    Why? Unless you are referring to cordless phones that people connect to their landlines, then yes, they very much are cellular. It doesn't make any sense not to be, it would be a huge step backwards.

    I do agree about the various "music" rings though. They are irritating... Even worse, some GSM phones let you send your own ringtones to the phone, and the alt.cellular.* newsgroups are full of people requesting ringtones of a particular song or movie/tv show theme...

  • like prisons and everything else, this sounds like a good idea except no one wants it to apply to *them.* do you think any self-important SOB is going to voluntarily make himself unavailable just because he's in a movie or something? no F'ing way. the fact that we are considering something like this is proof that it will fail. in other words, laws that try to regulate behaviour that should be taken care of by common courtesy will continue to, as they always have, universally fail. want a quiet movie experience? three words: D V D.
  • Now where's the Bluetooth device that shuts off people's pagers, turns off their PDA's, makes them drive reasonably, provides them a decent wardrobe, and slaps them in the face when I'm talking?

    Why only go cell phones. Let's go whole hog!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Perhaps it would also be possible for BlueLinx to implant a chip in the heads of people that clap in movie theaters that makes them burst into flames in a non-disruptive manner.

  • Another Idea (Score:3)

    by cot ( 87677 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @06:23PM (#949872)
    A handheld EMP generator might be more effective.

    Would work on ANY cell phone. As well as my neighbors blaring TV. Dangerous drivers with their fancy electronic ignition. The machine at the grocery store that claims my checks are bad. Those androids that the CIA has used to replace my family members.

    All kinds of useful things.
  • This might be an interesting idea if bluetooth were already in todays phones. However, this application alone certainly doesn't justify inserting bluetooth technology in phones. Bluetooth is reasonably complicated standard (1000+ pages for the core specification alone!), why on earth would you need all this when a simple RF transmitter would do? (ie, if receiving particular wavelength, mute phones.) No digital communication, piconets, etc needed!

    Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine idea, and when the bluetooth people have their way in a couple years, we'll all be living in a wirelessly connected world and have our phones muted in q-zones without giving it much of a thought.

  • >I think there's a good future in a device, that
    >kills all stereo's and cellhpones in a, let's make
    >is 500 meters or yards cubic, area. I promiss I'll
    >stop smoking then, even if it's allowed, provided
    >I find a cure for my need to.

    Well, I can't help ya with the stereos... but as for the cellphones, check out this article in this week's SF Weekly:

    http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-07-05/bayvie w2.html

    john
    Resistance is NOT futile!!!

    Haiku:
    I am not a drone.
    Remove the collective if

  • Yeah, I suppose -- "wireless" is as much a misnomer because there are wires in it. I suppose we'll never get rid of inaccurate/outdated terms like that and "DSL modem".

    Then again, there may be hope. Non-POTS phones have been renamed by marketers time and time again -- there was "car phone", which Motorola made inaccurate, then the "cellular phone", which was a pain to pronouce, so marketers shortened it to "cell phone" instead.

    There is some hope, though. Once the technology is even more widely adopted (probably in the next five years), it won't even matter anymore -- "phone" will be synonymous with "cell phone".

  • Let's see here

    First of all, it's not censorship. Grow up and stop complaining every time someone does something that means you can't run around being a jerk.

    Second, let's see my list of places I'd like to see this deployed:

    1. Discounts to Churches, Synagogs, Mosques and any other place held holy by a religion. There's just something tacky about bringing a cellphone to church. If you disrespect the religion so much as to bring in a cellphone or a beeper, then you shouldn't bother coming.
    2. I know everyone and their mother has mentioned this already, but movie theaters. I saw Phantom Menace twice before I knew how lousy it was because at the start of the film a woman answered her cellphone and talked right up to where Darth Maul gets cut in half! Her voice was so annoying, I didn't even HEAR Jar-Jar.
    3. Funeral homes. Never seen it myself, but you know there is some SOB who took a call during the eulogy.
    4. Weddings. The happiest day of a woman's life should not be punctuated by digital bells.

    That's just a partial list, but then I'm in favor of ridding the world of all the morons when I become the evil overlord of the world. (Click the link for my homepage to see the details.)




    Matthew Miller, [50megs.com]
  • I say we need to kick off everyone with user id > 10k and bring back MEEPT!

    heh, sometimes I feel the same way while writing up a post and how it feels like I'm being graded unfairly on a written essay exam by a committee that will never like me. I'd still be pursuing usenet news full time, but very interesting topics and good discussion lure me back here.

    MEEPT was a true rebel who fought the rigid adherance to a formal discussion with his zany prose. Such comic character was inevitable when the number of users reached a few thousand. Now we have magnitudes more than that and my mind can explode when trying to consider who we have here and what is appropriate.

    But humor is often appreciated, especially when falling off the chair ROFL style. Humor may be a sore subject, but it was pretty damn funny.
  • In an ideal world where people did what they were asked, then yes, this would be fine.

    We don't live in an ideal world.

    Sadly, the world if full of rude and stupid people who go 50 miles per hour in a school zone and speed past stopped school busses even when the big red STOP sign is sticking out of the side. Signs don't bother them or change their behavior.

    The fact that you proposed just putting up a sign leads me to suspect you're the kind of person who would see such a sign and think "Gee, I forgot to turn off my pager. I'll do that right now so I don't bother anyone." If there were more people like that, we wouldn't have people getting funding to build this technology.

    Of course, if there were more people who paid attention to signs, smoking would stop, no one would speed, no one would pirate M$ products, all forest fires would be the result of lightning and lava flows and that athletic baby boomer jock wouldn't park in the space reserved for the WWII war vet with a walker and a false leg.
    In short, there are too many jerks to just put up a sign.


    Matthew Miller, [50megs.com]

  • I hereby call on Slashdot's paranoid faithful to find a way that is a violation of someone's free speech. C'mon, I dare you! This is YOUR RIGHTS that are at stake here!

  • I suppose we'll never get rid of inaccurate/outdated terms like that and "DSL modem".

    The DSL interface box is a modem. The data is used to modulate one or more carriers.

  • But driving while sleepy isn't illegal. We don't pull you over and ticket you if you're caught yawning.

    Actually it *is* illegal in most areas to drive when you are not 'fully awake' (the legal terminology varies.) Granted, it's not enforced very much; I suspect because it would be so difficult to prove in court. People have a way of becoming fully awake when those flashing blue and red lights are behind you! You can't as easily become 'un-drunk' if pulled over.

  • Just what did people do before they had pagers and cell phones? The world didn't grind to a halt.
  • Studies have shown (sorry for the lack of links) that talking on a hands free cell phone while driving is just as risky as talking on a normal cell phone while driving. Think about it-- you only need 1 hand to steer the car anyway (or else 1 armed people couldn't get drivers licenses).

    The conclusions of these studies was that cell phones took away from the drivers' concentration, which slowed reaction time in the same way alcohol slows reaction time. And in the same way shaving in the car slows reaction time, I suppose...

    If you really need to both shave and drive but can't find time for both, why not just wake up 5 minutes earlier?

    -Ted

  • Erm, Bluetooth uses spread-spectrum in the microwave range, not the shortwave range. It's much shorter than shortwave.

    Short distance is perhaps what was meant?

  • The real problem is that you can't enforce politeness and etiquette through technology. Who knows -- the rude or self-absorbed types who currently receive calls in the middle of a movie or lecture might start making outgoing calls just to make sure nobody is trying to reach them. The areas just outside the theater or lecture hall will be as thick with cell phones as building entrances are with cigarette smoke.

    The building where I work has notoriously poor cell-phone coverage inside, so people tend to migrate to the windows, where my office is. Once I arrived in the morning to find a guy in my office on his cell phone who would not leave even after I made it clear that it was my office. Much like traffic engineering, improvements in technology like this may merely push the problem somewhere else.

  • Right, but if you required that people not have any mental distractions whatsoever, conversation with passengers, radios and children would be banned, too.
    ---
    seumas.com
  • Radios can be ignored. Children (and adults) can be aware of when the driver is concentrating on driving and will stop talking temporarily. Small children are always a problem, because they're too immature to understand that driving at 100 km/hr is not made any easier by a child's boredom or hunger.
  • Why introduce another, completely separate RF system to a device that already has one? The right way to do this is for spaces like theaters to have their own small cell site, which will handle calls from within the space, and for the cell switch to understand that incoming calls to such sites need special handling. What that special handling ought to be is a social issue, rather than a technical one, but Tog's guidance [asktog.com] sounds good.

    This will probably work better in the GSM part of the world, where there's usually only one major system. In the US, we have as many as six completely separate cell phone systems in some areas.

  • Window coating (Score:3)

    by BlueUnderwear ( 73957 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @10:32PM (#949899)
    Certain window coatings that are designed to block the sun's UV rays also have the unintended side effect of weakening the airwaves used by cellphones. Couldn't this be used to block cellphone usage in certain areas (operas, concerts, restaurants etc.)? Advantage: only the owner of the place can impose the restriction, rather than some random stranger who just happens to walk by and has a beef with cellphones. What's the matter about cellphone usage on a bus? It's a noisy place anyways. And what's the difference about learning about somebody's private life by overhearing a phone conversation, rather than by overhearing a conversation with their seat-neighbour?
  • and where is this "Government" entity?

    i grew up in america and i seem to remember "the government" was the people. and that's true here in europe in most countries.

    and since companies are also run by people, who would also be part of the government, then companies can censor people.

    so you're saying that the government - the people - can censor people, but companies - also the people - can't by definition censor people. but they're the same people. by definition. your argument makes no sense. it disproves itself.
  • It's not especially hard/b> to jam cell phones, but it is quite unlawful. If you get caught, the FCC (US) or DTI (UK) or whomever will cause you great pain.

    Like so many other things, this is best solved by society at large deciding "We're not gonna take it": The next time a phone rings in the theater, get everybody around the miscreant to shout "Is this a theater or a phone booth?" Keep yelling this as long as the jackass is in the theater. Eventually people will realize that rude behavior (phone in theater) will be met with rude behavior (people yelling at you).

    In addition, for folks talking on the phone while driving, go listen to this RealAudio Clip [cars.com] from Cartalk: it's of this moron yapping on his cellphone to a calling when he wrecks! It's a classic!
  • >And what point was that exactly?

    OK, technically you're right. The real problem is that teh technology in the article is redundant with the existing low-tech gunpowder solutions.

    If letting it ring *at all* in a restaurant or theater is part of the "intended use" of a cell phone, then possession of one of these devices should be a crime.

    OK, maybe something less lethal than a glock should be used to aprehend the perpetrator, but . . .

    I want these things *jammed* in public places. Restaraunts should have wheeled vats of battery acid, and waiters should seize ringing cellphones and drop them in--the rest of the patrons will cheer loudly . . .

  • >If you really need to both shave and drive but
    >can't find time for both, why not just wake up 5
    >minutes earlier?

    WOuldn't growing a beard be a more reasonable solution? Running a piece of sharp metal across your throat every morning before you're fully awake is hardly a rational act . . .

    :)

    hawk, the bearded
  • I stop and tell a tale on the first day of class about a law school friend's wedding. THis person's watch regularly went off in class, to the dismay of, well, everyone.

    At his wedding, his wife ordered the watch off, and hannded to me with instructions to grind it under my boot heel if it made a peep. This, I note, would have made me a hero at the school when we returned.

    ALas, the watch remained silent. SO I'm still waiting for my chance.

    Additionally, I"m checking with the administration on my new policy of summary confiscation or ejection (permanently) from my classroom.

    Prof. Hawk
  • Actually, I find that running a simple "Please turn off your cell phone" reminder 30 seconds before the movie works wonders. 99% of the people with their cellphones still on will say thank you and turn their phones silent (or off).
  • What's wrong with talking on a cell phone in a public place? As long as the user is speaking at an appropriate volume and using appropriate (ie. not vulgar) language, the only difference between a conversation over a cell phone and a conversation without a cell phone is that you only get to eavesdrop on half the cell phone conversation.

    If a person is speaking at an innappropriate volume, it's unnacceptable whether he is using a cellular phone or not. If he has to yell into his cellphone because it doesn't pick up his voice very well, the problem should to fix the cellular phone rather than disable it.

    And cellular phones should vibrate rather than ring.
  • I mean... cellular operates in a licensed band.. sure... but.. licensed how? At what power levels? A low-power jamming signal with an effective radius of say 10 meters or so should be completely legal.. and if it's in a private building, you could jam (or shield) any room or even the whole building, provided it didn't affect the otuside world. I believe these 'jammers' are used in Japan, mainly in theaters and conference rooms.

  • When there are calls you can't afford to miss, you don't go places where your phone doesn't work, or where it's too noisy to use the phone. How is this any different?

  • Generally companies do not force nifty new features upon people that a sizable portion doesn't like, simply because people will not buy them.

    These will almost certainly be optional features/settings on your phone. I mean, think about it.
  • Many seem to have a beef with people and their cell phone ringing at inappropriate moments (like a movie theater). Similar feelings are brought up by hearing a child screaming, and the parent doing nothing, or the parent screaming at their kid in a public area, because the child did something inappropriate. We get bothered by other inappropriate behavior we see (can anybody tell me why latino youths are always lifting their shirts, rubbing their bellies in a strange fashion - or why other (generally black, but I have seen white, asian and latino as well doing it, so it isn't a race issue) youths are always "touching" their groin area?), or at least we should.

    However, what do we do about it? We either ignore it, or we try to create technological solutions to the problem.

    The problem isn't technology folks - it's society.

    I can think of the one solution that would stop this distress, and in a hurry - if we all did it:

    We politely ask the person to stop. In other words, you should go up to them, say "Hi", and tell them that what they are doing (or not doing), is offensive to you, and ask them to please alter their behavior (please silence your phone, please don't touch yourself in public, please calm down). Doing so may bring curious responses (startlement is most common, embaressment follows - but in some situations, a punch might be thrown). However, if we all did this, whenever there was a problem, and weren't afraid to back up our fellow man - these issues would go away...

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Close