Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built
from discards headed to the dump.
One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string
"Off" commands for every TV made.
Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
about 50 ft.
Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
diabolical sense of humor.
Lew
"Neil Brooks" wrote
Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
do physical harm to them.
===========================
In a world where road rage exists, it is not a good idea to engage in any
kind of activity that could set somebody off. It is unbelievable to me all
these stories where some minor slight, comment or gesture quickly esculates
to serious injury or a death. I make a counscious effort to be as courteous
as possible out there in the world.
It is like my old martial arts instructor said. You never pick a fight with
anybody because you have no idea how skilled they are. In other words, they
could kick your ass. So you behave yourself.
"EXT" wrote:
> Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an
> Infra-Red code to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat,
> and the remote needs to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR
> beam. Secondly most cheap TVs do not have discrete off codes, it is
> the same code that turns the TV on -- it works as a toggle -- so if
> the TV is off it will turn it on, if it is on it will turn it off.
--------------------------------------------
I'm just the messenger, not the designer/builder.
BTW, there seems to be a commercially available unit which was posted
in a previous response.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote
>
> Personally I don't carry one very often--dropped my bike one time and
> landed
> on the phone--broke one of my ribs and the phone.
>
LOL That is funny.
Your "emergency" killed your "emergency communication device". Was it bad
luck or was it some kinda conspiracy?? LOL!
I suppose if your were one of those sue happy whack jobs, you would sue the
phone manufacturer because the cell phone not only "casued" the accident,
but broke your rib too.
That diabolical cell phone deserved to die. It didn't like you. LOL
I better stop now. I have some real work to do today.
"Leon" wrote:
> I am thinking the person using the jammer will be as big of a
> problem as the cell phone user. On the road he is certainly going
> to be watching the cell phone user to see if his jammer is working.
Naw, use the fuck'em approach.
Turn the jammer on the minute you start the car.
Jam everything around you and let God sort'em out.
Lew
"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can chug a beer before I walk out the door on my way to the store to
> pick up some milk and not be "impaired" by any measure of the law,
Not me. I'd have to pee before I got out of the driveway. That's
impaired - trust me...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> dhall987 wrote:
>
>> Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
>> slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
>> while I drive.
>
> It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable to
> pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.
>
> In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open container
> as long as it is not the driver's.
Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone laws
are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to catch the
perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain sight; never
mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a cellphone doesn't
prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer before
I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and not be
"impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly along the way
I'm in violation.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 1/2/2010 7:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Steve Turner"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I can chug a beer before I walk out the door on my way to the store to
>> pick up some milk and not be "impaired" by any measure of the law,
>
> Not me. I'd have to pee before I got out of the driveway. That's
> impaired - trust me...
LOL! No argument from me on that one. :-)
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:25:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
>>>>> and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
>>>>> And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
>>>>> streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
>>>> because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
>>>> safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
>>>> doesn't seem worth it....
>>>
>>> So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
>>> phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?
>>
>> No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison.
>
>I agree. But either "dhall987" was equating that behavior to my post on
>driving, or he was off on a tangent that had no point.
Clearly I was equating having to suck a hard candy to escape thirst
while driving or actually not being able to listen to the radio and
drive at the same time and defining that as a requirement for "driving
attentively" as being similar to deciding to force oneself to stay in
their home for 15 years in order to avoid normal dangers that do, in
fact, exist outside the home. I do not feel that I was on any tangent
or that I had no point. It seems to be the type of extremism that
keeps valid safety laws (like no texting while driving) from being
passed. Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
while I drive. I have a decent OEM stereo in my truck and actually
play it while I drive. I have even been known to eat a potato chip or
even a sandwich while driving down interstate. So yes, I do think that
taking an extreme position on absolutely no "distractions" (as you
have defined them) while drviing to be a mild to middling phobia.
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> dhall987 wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
>>> slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
>>> while I drive.
>>
>> It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable
>> to pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.
>>
>> In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open
>> container as long as it is not the driver's.
>
> Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone
> laws
> are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to
> catch the perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain
> sight; never mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a
> cellphone doesn't
> prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer
> before I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and
> not be "impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly
> along the way I'm in violation.
>
When I first moved to Texas years ago, it was an open container state; one
could drink while driving, you just couldn't drive while impaired. Having
come from Colorado, a state where that was against the law, I was initially
amazed. However, it didn't seem to be a major contributing factor to any
worse statistics than elsewhere. I know that they enacted an open container
law several years later. Not sure if it was driven by statistics or by
federal fiat threatening the loss of highway funds.
FWIW, I very seldom (less than one glass of wine every 6 months or more)
drink, can't stand even the smell of beer (it tastes like stale bread to
me), so I don't have a dog in this fight other than keeping those who are
really impaired off the road.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
dhall987 wrote:
> Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
> slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
> while I drive.
It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable to
pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.
In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open container
as long as it is not the driver's.
On 12/29/2009 6:39 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> BTW, hand held cell phone use is a secondary offense in WA. It's been in
> effect for some time now and I see no reduction in people driving with a
> phone to their ear. I suspect it'll be a primary offense in a year or
> two.
In a nation of scofflaw's, that still might not have the desired effect.
When you can break the little laws with impunity, broken bigger ones
follow suit.
I'm paying for "law enforcement", but there seems to be damned little
return on the money ... so what do we do now? We equip the cops like
military units, and they immediately go to looking for someone to
practice on with their new weapons and training.
Put 'em back to enforcing the little laws, like running stop signs,red
lights, and enforcing speed limits and you'll begin to put the culture
back on the track of "laws being for protection of the people".
Basically .... Yeah, this law applies to YOU!
(not you personally, Larry)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
>
> It's not the cell phone per se, that people are arguing that is
> important, it's the perception that another right is being outlawed
> that many people find hard to swallow.
Ya gotta be smart about it though. Historically, tyranny has always
started with the excuse of protecting the people.
I always liked the sentiment behind this verse:
"The law is for protection of the people,
rules are rules and any fool can see,
we don't need no hairy headed hippies
scaring decent folks like you and me,
no siree!
Apologies to Kris ... :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:02 -0500, upscale wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
>
> It's not the cell phone per se, that people are arguing that is
> important, it's the perception that another right is being outlawed that
> many people find hard to swallow.
The US courts have held that legally, driving is not a right but a
privilege. As such, the states may place any restrictions they deem
necessary on drivers.
Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an
accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset
about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a
call, pull over and stop.
BTW, hand held cell phone use is a secondary offense in WA. It's been in
effect for some time now and I see no reduction in people driving with a
phone to their ear. I suspect it'll be a primary offense in a year or
two.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Tim Douglass" wrote:
> Funny thing is that on a long drive you are probably more attentive
> and less accident-prone if you have some snacks and a slurp of
> coffee
> or something while you are driving.
--------------------------------------------
My dad was an over the road driver back in the 50s.
Can not remember the number of times he advised me:
"Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."
"Cuts down on the "Bennies", No-Doz, and the ammonia vials on a long
trip," were his words.
I still practice the above.
Lew
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:39:10 -0500, dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote:
>Clearly I was equating having to suck a hard candy to escape thirst
>while driving or actually not being able to listen to the radio and
>drive at the same time and defining that as a requirement for "driving
>attentively" as being similar to deciding to force oneself to stay in
>their home for 15 years in order to avoid normal dangers that do, in
>fact, exist outside the home. I do not feel that I was on any tangent
>or that I had no point. It seems to be the type of extremism that
>keeps valid safety laws (like no texting while driving) from being
>passed. Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
>slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
>while I drive. I have a decent OEM stereo in my truck and actually
>play it while I drive. I have even been known to eat a potato chip or
>even a sandwich while driving down interstate. So yes, I do think that
>taking an extreme position on absolutely no "distractions" (as you
>have defined them) while drviing to be a mild to middling phobia.
Funny thing is that on a long drive you are probably more attentive
and less accident-prone if you have some snacks and a slurp of coffee
or something while you are driving. Except in dense traffic areas
driving does not engage anything like a majority of your cognitive
functions, so the mind tends to wander. I am much more attentive in
light, open-road travel if I am talking to someone than if I am just
watching the dotted lines go by.
It's not as simple as everyone wants to make it....
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Definition of a teenager: God's punishment for enjoying sex.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> My dad was an over the road
> driver back in the 50s.
>
> Can not remember the number of times he advised me:
>
> "Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
> use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."
At my age, 100 miles between piss stops is too far!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>OK, how about this one. If you are driving a motor vehicle and hit someone,
>then if you were engaging in distracting behavior you can be charged with
>attempted murder, and if you kill someone while engaging in distracting
>behavior you can be charged with murder in the first degree? How about with
>a specific provision that it is assumed until proven otherwise that you
>could have avoided the collision if you had not been distracted?
Works for me.
>Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
That's the 2nd best question all year. ("Why O?" is first.)
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> BTW, hand held cell phone use is a secondary offense in WA. It's been in
> effect for some time now and I see no reduction in people driving with a
> phone to their ear. I suspect it'll be a primary offense in a year or
> two.
Yes, you are probably right. It was the same with seat belt laws. A
secondary offense at first that was upgraded to a primary in time.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:37:07 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 8:31 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> > I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
>> > levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
>> > the better.
>>
>> > Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
>> > accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
>>
>> No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
>> end up like Europe.
>
>Luckily, a Great Deal has changed since then.
Or unluckily, a New Deal.
"Steve Turner" wrote:
>
> Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is
> impaired to the point that of it being a DUI? Some drivers can deal
> with the multitasking WAY better than others.
Many states including California have outlawed the use of cell phones
while driving.
More will follow.
As someone who has made a living for many years by effectively
communicating with others, I find it impossible to effectively
communicate while trying to multitask
Lew
"Swingman" wrote:
> A recent change, or did you leave an important fact out?
> It is "handheld" use that was prohibited by CA law. Motorists 18 and
> over may use a hands-free" device.
Doesn't seem to make any difference witness the fact that Maria got a
cell phone ticket.
> That "more will follow" is why I own a bluetooth headset and use it
> in the car ... and for the very reason that sensible law was
> enacted.
You are kidding yourself if you think you can hold a meaningful
conversation while driving and not sacrifice the amount of attention
required for safe driving.
> AAMOF, my city, West University Place, TX, is one of the first
> municipalities to ban all cell phone use in school zones and texting
> while driving.
In the SFWIW category, back in the mid '60s, The City Of Brooklyn, OH,
a burb of Cleveland, was the first city to enact seat belt legislation
requiring that they be worn while driving in Brooklyn.
Thirty years later, Brooklyn was again the first city in the USA to
ban the use of Cell phones while driving in Brooklyn.
Don't know about now, but back then, Brooklyn was a very well run city
and a neat place to live.
Lew
"Swingman" wrote:
> You brought the CA law in to this, dude ... are you telling me that
> the great state of CA would pass a law based on incomplete/faulty
> research??
Merely stated that CA had enacted cell phone legislation, and that
they had some company since they weren't the only state with
legislation on their respective books.
Lew
On 2009-12-28, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, the huge spike in cell phone related traffic accidents we've seen
> in the last several years is all the result of people calling loved ones
> on their death beds or giving instructions on how to diffuse a ticking
> time bomb and not people texting or making convenience calls for no
> other reason than impatience.
Yeah, that's the same thing.
nb
On Dec 27, 8:49=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.
>
> > How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?
>
> > They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making
> > love, etc.
>
> In CT, they outlawed "any distraction" so it includes all of those things=
.
> A little common sense on the driver's side goes a long way.
Was it Voltaire who said, "Common sense is not so common?"
Indeed.
On Dec 27, 11:54=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:16 pm, Steve Turner<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
> >>> <[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:
>
> >>>> Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call ou=
r wives in
> >>>> light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be bann=
ed from
> >>>> doing so.
>
> >>> IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
>
> >>> In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
> >>> time:
>
> >>> When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
> >>> you've lost the debate.
>
> >>> Bravo!!!
>
> >> Oh, you're a real sharp tack.
>
> > Hm.
>
> > No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
> > since ... you just did it (again?) :-)
>
> Do you know how to read? =A0
Exceptionally well. Thank you!
>You certainly seem able to snip things that don't
> play into your "argument"...
Your argument.
I was interested in a discussion.
Carry on.
On Dec 26, 4:00=A0pm, Limey Lurker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
> > places where it would be inappropriate.
>
> I would very much like to know how you achieve this.
> Would it work between vehicles; could I use it to prevent
> the driver of a passing car using his cell phone.(using a cell phone,
> whilst
> driving, is illegal in the UK)
Jammers are available.
In fact, for the States, the UK is our primary source.
But ... think about it: if you think the cell-phone-using driver is
distracted while they're mindlessly chatting away, then just imagine
their reaction when their call suddenly drops.
I think you make a horrid situation worse.
Movies? Restaurants? Elevators? For environments like that, I'd
LOVE to have one ;-)
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
>those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to
>communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't
>recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
for discussion.
I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
regular drivers is what should be targeted.
I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all
instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you
refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for
everybody, no matter who you are?
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2:37Â pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 1:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
... snip
>> We've all seen cases of people doing stupid things on the road that we
>> perceive to be a direct result of "distractions", cellphone use included.
>> Â However, I've also seen *countless* cases of people using cellphones
>> that were driving courteously and responsibly, signaling their
>> intentions, and obeying all the laws of the road. Â This counts for
>> nothing? Â Where are the statistics that reflect _this_ mysterious
>> phenomenon? Â Unless a "moving violation" (as defined by existing laws)
>> has occurred, what exactly is the problem? Â We're looking at making it
>> illegal for drivers to be affected by a certain type of distraction that
>> *might* cause a real infraction to occur, while pretending that no other
>> types of distractions exists. Â How about we focus on catching drivers
>> *actually committing* moving violations, and punishing them accordingly?
>> I wouldn't be adverse to additional levels of punishment if it turns out
>> the infraction was committed because of "impairments" such as cellphone
>> use (or getting a BJ, or air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but
>> unless an infraction has actually occurred, this is just another
>> "feel-good" law.
>>
... snip
> Then there is the allocation of law enforcement resources. When a cop
> is giving you a ticket for using your cell-phone, how many idiots
> blast by his ass at 2 times the speed limit? They just diluted the
> cop:violations ratio. If you keep adding violations, you have to keep
> adding cops. Adding cops is good for the economy as do-nut shops are
> the new cornerstone of our expanding economy.
>
> It really legitimizes that old phrase: "Don't you have some criminals
> to catch?"
Wow, I actually agree with Robatoy on something. [back at ya' :-) ]
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Dec 29, 9:30=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
Because ... in general ... the "you people" to whom you refer place a
tremendous amount of significance on what they perceive to be their
"rights," but virtually ignore any semblance of what reasonable people
would call "responsibilities."
On Dec 28, 2:37=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 1:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
> >> those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptio=
ns" to
> >> communicate with their central office or co-workers? =A0Two-way radios=
? =A0I don't
> >> recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
>
> > Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
> > doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
> > for discussion.
>
> > I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
> > truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
> > by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
> > regular drivers is what should be targeted.
>
> Why should anything be "targeted"? =A0How about we enforce the existing l=
aws on
> the books rather than making up new ones?
>
> > I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
> > lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
> > time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
> > talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all
> > instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you
> > refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for
> > everybody, no matter who you are?
>
> We've all seen cases of people doing stupid things on the road that we pe=
rceive
> to be a direct result of "distractions", cellphone use included. =A0Howev=
er, I've
> also seen *countless* cases of people using cellphones that were driving
> courteously and responsibly, signaling their intentions, and obeying all =
the
> laws of the road. =A0This counts for nothing? =A0Where are the statistics=
that
> reflect _this_ mysterious phenomenon? =A0Unless a "moving violation" (as =
defined
> by existing laws) has occurred, what exactly is the problem? =A0We're loo=
king at
> making it illegal for drivers to be affected by a certain type of distrac=
tion
> that *might* cause a real infraction to occur, while pretending that no o=
ther
> types of distractions exists. =A0How about we focus on catching drivers *=
actually
> committing* moving violations, and punishing them accordingly? =A0I would=
n't be
> adverse to additional levels of punishment if it turns out the infraction=
was
> committed because of "impairments" such as cellphone use (or getting a BJ=
, or
> air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has actu=
ally
> occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
>
> --
> See Nad. =A0See Nad go. =A0Go Nad!
> To reply, eat the taco.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Then there is the allocation of law enforcement resources. When a cop
is giving you a ticket for using your cell-phone, how many idiots
blast by his ass at 2 times the speed limit? They just diluted the
cop:violations ratio. If you keep adding violations, you have to keep
adding cops. Adding cops is good for the economy as do-nut shops are
the new cornerstone of our expanding economy.
It really legitimizes that old phrase: "Don't you have some criminals
to catch?"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
>>those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions"
>>to
>>communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I
>>don't
>>recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
>
> Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
> doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
> for discussion.
>
> I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
> truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
> by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
> regular drivers is what should be targeted.
>
> I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
> lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
> time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
> talking on the cell phone?
Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.
On 12/28/2009 1:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
>> those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to
>> communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't
>> recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
>
> Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
> doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently up
> for discussion.
>
> I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
> truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
> by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use by
> regular drivers is what should be targeted.
Why should anything be "targeted"? How about we enforce the existing laws on
the books rather than making up new ones?
> I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
> lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the same
> time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
> talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all
> instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you
> refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for
> everybody, no matter who you are?
We've all seen cases of people doing stupid things on the road that we perceive
to be a direct result of "distractions", cellphone use included. However, I've
also seen *countless* cases of people using cellphones that were driving
courteously and responsibly, signaling their intentions, and obeying all the
laws of the road. This counts for nothing? Where are the statistics that
reflect _this_ mysterious phenomenon? Unless a "moving violation" (as defined
by existing laws) has occurred, what exactly is the problem? We're looking at
making it illegal for drivers to be affected by a certain type of distraction
that *might* cause a real infraction to occur, while pretending that no other
types of distractions exists. How about we focus on catching drivers *actually
committing* moving violations, and punishing them accordingly? I wouldn't be
adverse to additional levels of punishment if it turns out the infraction was
committed because of "impairments" such as cellphone use (or getting a BJ, or
air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has actually
occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 12/28/2009 2:17 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> Then there is the allocation of law enforcement resources. When a cop
> is giving you a ticket for using your cell-phone, how many idiots
> blast by his ass at 2 times the speed limit? They just diluted the
> cop:violations ratio. If you keep adding violations, you have to keep
> adding cops. Adding cops is good for the economy as do-nut shops are
> the new cornerstone of our expanding economy.
>
> It really legitimizes that old phrase: "Don't you have some criminals
> to catch?"
Perzactly.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> ... snip
> Then there is the allocation of law enforcement resources. When a cop
> is giving you a ticket for using your cell-phone, how many idiots
> blast by his ass at 2 times the speed limit? They just diluted the
> cop:violations ratio. If you keep adding violations, you have to keep
> adding cops. Adding cops is good for the economy as do-nut shops are
> the new cornerstone of our expanding economy.
>
> It really legitimizes that old phrase: "Don't you have some criminals
> to catch?"
However the revenue:cop ratio goes up as the increased number of
possible violations means less idle time per cop.
Oh, wait! The official position is that the laws are not for generating
revenue.
Never mind.
Art
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 1:26 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:45:57 -0600, Steve Turner
>>> those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of
>>> "contraptions" to communicate with their central office or
>>> co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't recall this issue ever coming
>>> up with CB radios.
>>
>> Just because trucker's two way radios are currently in the news
>> doesn't mean that they're safe. It just means they're not currently
>> up for discussion.
>>
>> I think even you'll admit that cell phones on the road out number
>> truckers two way radios by a very large margin. Cars outnumber trucks
>> by a large margin. To me anyway, it makes sense that cell phone use
>> by regular drivers is what should be targeted.
>
> Why should anything be "targeted"? How about we enforce the existing
> laws on
> the books rather than making up new ones?
>
>> I don't see too many truckers applying their make up or putting on
>> lipstick while holding a mirror and cell phone and driving at the
>> same time. Or perhaps reading stock market results while driving and
>> talking on the cell phone? Cars and cell phones? I've seen all
>> instances a number of times and I don't even have a car. How can you
>> refute that cell phones are not a distraction... a distraction for
>> everybody, no matter who you are?
>
> We've all seen cases of people doing stupid things on the road that
> we perceive
> to be a direct result of "distractions", cellphone use included.
> However, I've
> also seen *countless* cases of people using cellphones that were
> driving
> courteously and responsibly, signaling their intentions, and obeying
> all the
> laws of the road. This counts for nothing? Where are the statistics
> that
> reflect _this_ mysterious phenomenon? Unless a "moving violation"
> (as defined
> by existing laws) has occurred, what exactly is the problem? We're
> looking at
> making it illegal for drivers to be affected by a certain type of
> distraction
> that *might* cause a real infraction to occur,
No, we're looking at making it illegal for drivers to do something that
might cause a real DEATH to occur. You're focussed on "infractions", not on
_dangers_. If a kid runs out in front of you and you hit him no
"infraction" has occurred, but maybe if you hadn't been nattering on your
cell phone at the time you'd have noticed the ball that rolled out into the
street in front of you and started braking on the basis that where a ball
goes a kid often follows.
> while pretending that
> no other
> types of distractions exists. How about we focus on catching drivers
> *actually
> committing* moving violations, and punishing them accordingly? I
> wouldn't be
> adverse to additional levels of punishment if it turns out the
> infraction was
> committed because of "impairments" such as cellphone use (or getting
> a BJ, or
> air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has
> actually
> occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
OK, how about this one. If you are driving a motor vehicle and hit someone,
then if you were engaging in distracting behavior you can be charged with
attempted murder, and if you kill someone while engaging in distracting
behavior you can be charged with murder in the first degree? How about with
a specific provision that it is assumed until proven otherwise that you
could have avoided the collision if you had not been distracted?
Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:30 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
>
> Because ... in general ... the "you people" to whom you refer place a
> tremendous amount of significance on what they perceive to be their
> "rights," but virtually ignore any semblance of what reasonable people
> would call "responsibilities."
I think it's something more fundamental than that--I see people walking
around the supermarket with phones glued to their ear and people texting in
movie theaters. I suspect that they just plain don't like being alone with
themselves or something.
In article <[email protected]>, Martin
H. Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.
>
> How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?
>
> They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making love, etc.
>
> A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
> help right now.
>
> I think wildcat cell phone killing can be cause for serious charges
> by those who got cut off or blanked out.
I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
the better.
Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:35:28 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
>during that time?
Best guess from me would be volunteers. I have heard of a number of
instances where Canadian natives volunteered for US service since
Canada was not actively involved in a war or 'police' action.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
> > levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
> > the better.
> >
> > Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
> > accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
>
> No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
> end up like Europe.
Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.
In article <[email protected]>, Ed
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> > They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.
> >
> > How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?
> >
> > They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making
> > love, etc.
>
> In CT, they outlawed "any distraction" so it includes all of those things.
> A little common sense on the driver's side goes a long way.
In a few days here in Saskabush, it will be illegal to drive while
talking on a phone without a hands free.
Funny, we have this statute about "driving without due care and
attention" that never gets enforced.
Yup. More laws. Much needed.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.
>
> Yep, the British did indeed ... wars are like that, win a few, lose a
> few. But damn, were they happy to see us when it really counted in 1917
> and 1941.
Yeah, but we Canucks were there before you, both times.
In WWII you knew you had to come in, but your congress was comprised of
chickenshits afraid of the Nazi sympathizers in your voting population.
Your own president had to result to surreptitious support of what WE
were ACTIVELY doing because he was afraid of the public backlash.
Unable to to actually tell the American people what he actually
believed and was doing.
So don't be TOO proud of yourselves.
We were there for you in Korea and Vietnam, too, BTW.
On Dec 27, 10:27=A0pm, Steve Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wiv=
es in
> light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned fr=
om
> doing so.
IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
time:
When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
you've lost the debate.
Bravo!!!
On Dec 27, 6:43=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Turner wrote:
>
> > =A0Some drivers can deal
> > with the multitasking WAY better than others.
>
> True.
>
> >I can handle it just
> > fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and
> > the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the
> > person on the other end of the phone gets what's left.
>
> That statement alone proves you wrong. =A0Read what you wrote.
>
> =A0However, some
>
> > (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a
> > normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do
> > you propose that we handle that? =A0Should we "scientifically" block
> > all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? =A0Unless the
> > activity is *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to
> > commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with
> > their activities?
>
> There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the
> phone. Really, there is. =A0Talking to a passenger, you are more likely t=
o
> stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention
> compared to talking on the phone.
The corollary to that is that -- since the passenger is watching the
"same movie" as you are -- most passengers know when they need to
STFU, too ;-)
> Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. =A0I do =
it
> myself. =A0The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends =
on
> many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc.
> In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far
> different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give
> detailed technical support to a customer.
Thank you for yet another important distinction that ... seems beyond
the grasp of oh-so-many people.
> In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while
> driving and talking. =A0Where do you draw the line?
I've lost one friend to it, already (though it did nothing to affect
my view on the subject. I already knew it was a disaster waiting to
happen ... in so many contexts). My 100k person town lost about three
KIDS because of cell-phone-wielding drivers ... in 2009, alone.
I know where _I_ would draw the line ;-)
On Dec 28, 2:30=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
.
>
> I was interested in a discussion.
No you're not. You're being a dick.
"EXT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an Infra-Red code
> to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat, and the remote needs
> to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR beam. Secondly most cheap
> TVs do not have discrete off codes, it is the same code that turns the TV
> on -- it works as a toggle -- so if the TV is off it will turn it on, if
> it is on it will turn it off.
>
>
>
Agreed - and on top of that, the code is unique to brands of TV. One only
needs to look at the user guide for a universal remote to see that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Dec 27, 10:42=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
> > I am thinking the person using the jammer will be as big of a
> > problem as the cell phone user. =A0On the road he is certainly going
> > to be watching the cell phone user to see if his jammer is working.
>
> Naw, use the fuck'em approach.
>
> Turn the jammer on the minute you start the car.
>
> Jam everything around you and let God sort'em out.
>
> Lew
LOL!
Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
do physical harm to them.
Lovely.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:01:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing these
> almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet. It's not
> that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from being idiots
> and causing a danger to others in society.
That idea has a certain appeal, but I hope the cop pulls them over
first :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:02 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:30:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>Why is talking on the phone so damned important to you people anyway?
>
>It's not the cell phone per se, that people are arguing that is
>important, it's the perception that another right is being outlawed
>that many people find hard to swallow.
Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing
these almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet.
It's not that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from
being idiots and causing a danger to others in society.
Cops could choose to shoot either the phone or the idiot. ;)
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built from
> discards headed to the dump.
>
> One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>
> Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
> switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string "Off"
> commands for every TV made.
>
> Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
> wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in about
> 50 ft.
>
> Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
> diabolical sense of humor.
>
> Lew
>
Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an Infra-Red code
to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat, and the remote needs
to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR beam. Secondly most cheap TVs
do not have discrete off codes, it is the same code that turns the TV on --
it works as a toggle -- so if the TV is off it will turn it on, if it is on
it will turn it off.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built from
>>> discards headed to the dump.
>>>
>>> One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>>>
>>> Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
>>> switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string "Off"
>>> commands for every TV made.
>>>
>>> Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>>> wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
>>> about
>>> 50 ft.
>>>
>>> Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
>>> diabolical sense of humor.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an Infra-Red code
>>to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat, and the remote needs
>>to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR beam. Secondly most cheap
>>TVs
>>do not have discrete off codes, it is the same code that turns the TV
>>on --
>>it works as a toggle -- so if the TV is off it will turn it on, if it is
>>on
>>it will turn it off.
>
> All of the new DVRs use an RF signal, so this is more plausible than
> you think.
Some do, some don't. At the present time they all accept an IR signal as RF
signals cannot be learned by Universal Remotes. Most better Universal
Remotes can send RF signals to a Black Box next to the equipment which then
in turn forwards an IR signal directly to each piece of equipment's IR
receiver.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:96501069-92f7-4110-b680-a45d3deffebf@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 8:31 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
> > levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
> > the better.
>
> > Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
> > accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
>
> No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
> end up like Europe.
Luckily, a Great Deal has changed since then.
***************************************************************************************
Luckily????
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
> help right now.
>
The infamous long stretch of the imagination. How did we ever survive
without them? I've been a cell phone user since shortly after they hit the
market, so I'm not anti-cell phone, but this kind of reasoning is very much
like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
all supportable.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Larry Blanchard" wrote:
> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
> How
> did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
> Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in
> some
> cases?
Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
> did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
> Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
> cases?
Slower.
Before the telegraph cables were laid across the Atlantic, how did
governments communicate between Europe and North America?
Slower.
Cell phones and email just allow us to share information faster.
As for the "cell phones while driving" sub thread, we have the "fine
and points" law going into effect here Jan 1. Personally, I'd rather
have the right to mount high energy lasers or surface to surface
missiles in my vehicle and simple take out most of the assholes on the
road, but the courts here seem to not want to deal with grey areas like
"driving without due care and attention" so our lawmakers are having to
give the cops specific, non-negotiable offence to deal with the
dipshits on the road.
Here the joke is "young woman on a cell phone in a Sunfire", except is
ISN'T a joke.
The bonus is that they're most of who I see in the ditch when we get a
bit of blowing snow and icy roads.
I still want my lasers...
In article <[email protected]>, Ed
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> > Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
> >> How did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the
> >> Panama Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones
> >> in some cases?
> >
>
> The dam was ahead of schedule and under budget. The Empire State Building
> was built faster than any other tall building of its day. Maybe that was
> because they were not interrupted by the damned phone.
>
> Faster communication does not mean better communication.
I'm not sure why you attributed anything in your reply to me as I typed
none of it.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > I still want my lasers...
>
> I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
> mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
> drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).
I'll accept that as an interim measure.
;-)
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:14:49 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> > I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
>>> > upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
>>> > the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
>>> > every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
>>> > into a construction project.
>>>
I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
cases?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:33:13 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Dec 29, 11:20 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>> > Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
>> > that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>>
>> > I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
>> > upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
>> > the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
>> > every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
>> > into a construction project.
>>
>> > In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
>> > become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to
>> > supervise and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen
>> > to be standing.
>>
>> > My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the
>> > instancy of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency
>> > and the ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a
>> > better built project.
>>
>> > You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>> > during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>> > hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>
>> > Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
>>
>> If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
>> basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
>> any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
>> would be your primary responsibility.
>>
>> Just an observation.
>>
>> Lew
>
>I can't speak for Swing, but my calls are usually about 20-30 seconds
>unless I am doing a pitch for my product.
Yeah, on a jobsite, lots of the calls are yes/no decisions or supplier
updates. I don't have anywhere near the production levels you two
carry, and I'm very happy for that, but I, too, get calls from the
lumber yard updating delivery schedule, return calls from clients
about a pending time schedule, etc.
As to Swingy, we don't see him in the pictures of his jobsites, so
he's likely behind the camera and Crackberry more often than not.
That's a fulltime job until he springs for a project manager. Can you
say "Cha CHING!"?
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
>> How did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the
>> Panama Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones
>> in some cases?
>
The dam was ahead of schedule and under budget. The Empire State Building
was built faster than any other tall building of its day. Maybe that was
because they were not interrupted by the damned phone.
Faster communication does not mean better communication.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> I still want my lasers...
I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).
Of course, there'd have to be a fine for "indiscriminate paintballing" to
control the wackos :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>> Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
>>> How did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the
>>> Panama Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones
>>> in some cases?
>>
>
>> Slower
> The dam was ahead of schedule and under budget. The Empire State
> Building was built faster than any other tall building of its day.
> Maybe that was because they were not interrupted by the damned phone.
>
> Faster communication does not mean better communication.
Now corrected. You made the comment about slower communication that I
inadvertently clipped. My reply is to that comment. Cell phones do not
necessarily speed a project.
On 12/30/2009 11:34 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Now corrected. You made the comment about slower communication that I
> inadvertently clipped. My reply is to that comment. Cell phones do not
> necessarily speed a project.
Tools do not make a project ... it is the craftsman's use of the tools
that do.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
> places where it would be inappropriate.
I would very much like to know how you achieve this.
Would it work between vehicles; could I use it to prevent
the driver of a passing car using his cell phone.(using a cell phone,
whilst
driving, is illegal in the UK)
On Dec 27, 6:59=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?
Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-)
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:50:12 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
>> help right now.
>>
>
>The infamous long stretch of the imagination. How did we ever survive
>without them? I've been a cell phone user since shortly after they hit the
>market, so I'm not anti-cell phone, but this kind of reasoning is very much
>like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
>inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
>all supportable.
Yeah, people who are actively driving are not saving anyone's life at
the time, are they?
"IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!" is another fave of mine.
--
"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things
that money can buy." --Tom Clancy
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:50:28 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 6:43 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Steve Turner wrote:
>>
>> > Some drivers can deal
>> > with the multitasking WAY better than others.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> >I can handle it just
>> > fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and
>> > the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the
>> > person on the other end of the phone gets what's left.
>>
>> That statement alone proves you wrong. Read what you wrote.
>>
>> However, some
>>
>> > (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a
>> > normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do
>> > you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block
>> > all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the
>> > activity is *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to
>> > commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with
>> > their activities?
>>
>> There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the
>> phone. Really, there is. Talking to a passenger, you are more likely to
>> stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention
>> compared to talking on the phone.
>
>The corollary to that is that -- since the passenger is watching the
>"same movie" as you are -- most passengers know when they need to
>STFU, too ;-)
There is also a lot of nonverbal communication going on when it's
in-person that isn't possible over the phone. This likely reduces the
concentration needed to get an idea across as well as indicating when
to STFU.
>> Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. I do it
>> myself. The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends on
>> many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc.
>> In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far
>> different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give
>> detailed technical support to a customer.
>
>Thank you for yet another important distinction that ... seems beyond
>the grasp of oh-so-many people.
SWMBO gets mad at me for cutting her off when she calls and I'm
driving. OTOH, she gets pissed when others are yakking on phones when
she's driving. Go figure.
>> In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while
>> driving and talking. Where do you draw the line?
>
>I've lost one friend to it, already (though it did nothing to affect
>my view on the subject. I already knew it was a disaster waiting to
>happen ... in so many contexts). My 100k person town lost about three
>KIDS because of cell-phone-wielding drivers ... in 2009, alone.
>
>I know where _I_ would draw the line ;-)
Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:50:12 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
>>> help right now.
>>>
>>
>>The infamous long stretch of the imagination. How did we ever survive
>>without them? I've been a cell phone user since shortly after they hit
>>the
>>market, so I'm not anti-cell phone, but this kind of reasoning is very
>>much
>>like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
>>inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
>>all supportable.
>
> Yeah, people who are actively driving are not saving anyone's life at
> the time, are they?
>
> "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!" is another fave of mine.
That's the Last Resort. Anyone who starts with that hasn't got a leg to
stand on and Knows it.
On Dec 27, 11:16=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
> > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our =
wives in
> >> light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned=
from
> >> doing so.
>
> > IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
>
> > In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
> > time:
>
> > When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
> > you've lost the debate.
>
> > Bravo!!!
>
> Oh, you're a real sharp tack.
Hm.
No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
since ... you just did it (again?) :-)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> A recent change, or did you leave an important fact out?
>
>> It is "handheld" use that was prohibited by CA law. Motorists 18 and
>> over may use a hands-free" device.
>
> Doesn't seem to make any difference witness the fact that Maria got a
> cell phone ticket.
>
>> That "more will follow" is why I own a bluetooth headset and use it
>> in the car ... and for the very reason that sensible law was
>> enacted.
>
> You are kidding yourself if you think you can hold a meaningful
> conversation while driving and not sacrifice the amount of attention
> required for safe driving.
>
>> AAMOF, my city, West University Place, TX, is one of the first
>> municipalities to ban all cell phone use in school zones and texting
>> while driving.
You brought the CA law in to this, dude ... are you telling me that the
great state of CA would pass a law based on incomplete/faulty research??
Do tell ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 27, 6:46=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected].=
com>, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And OhByTheWay: as a former bartender, I'm *quite certain* that I can
> >drive perfectly fine ... WAY over the legal limit.
>
> Most other drunks are, too. They're quite certainly perfectly wrong.
>
>
>
> >But I'm perfectly fine with obeying the law because:
>
> >a) I'm probably wrong about that, and
>
> Yep. You are. Friend of mine with a PhD in toxicology participated in a s=
tudy,
> when he was in grad school, sponsored by the university's toxicology
> department and the State Police. They set up a road course with traffic c=
ones
> in a parking lot, and served alcohol to the volunteers while the officers
> measured their BAC with breathalyzers and the uni tox dept confirmed the
> measurements by analyzing blood samples. The volunteers would then attemp=
t to
> drive through the course.... He said that at 0.03 BAC he thought he proba=
bly
> wasn't safe to drive, at 0.05 he was sure he was NOT -- and at 0.10 he wa=
s
> quite sure that he WAS safe, but the video proved otherwise. :-)
>
> That's really the danger of alcohol: it destroys the judgement. The more =
you
> drink, the less able you are to tell if you've had too much.
You've just reinforced my point. Thank you :-)
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:03:45 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Limey Lurker wrote:
>>> No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
>>> places where it would be inappropriate.
>>
>>
>> I would very much like to know how you achieve this.
>> Would it work between vehicles; could I use it to prevent
>> the driver of a passing car using his cell phone.(using a cell phone,
>> whilst driving, is illegal in the UK)
>
>That depends - how loud can you sing?
Or how many years you want to bunk with Bubba.
On Dec 27, 8:31=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
> > levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
> > the better.
>
> > Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
> > accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
>
> No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
> end up like Europe.
Luckily, a Great Deal has changed since then.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> I welcome new regulation on what we can and cannot do, enforced by all
> levels of government. The sooner we become like the UK, or Vancouver,
> the better.
>
> Welcome to our Bureaucrat Overlords! Stop me from thinking or having to
> accept responsibility for my actions! Make ME a victim TOO!
No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't
end up like Europe.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No kidding ... our forefathers came here _specifically_ so we wouldn't end
> up like Europe.
Worked for a while but we're catching up fast.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.
>
> Yep, the British did indeed ... wars are like that, win a few, lose a few.
> But damn, were they happy to see us when it really counted in 1917 and
> 1941.
Ask the Brits about that. Most will tell you that it was them that pulled
our asses out of the fire.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> do physical harm to them.
>
> Lovely.
Just keep firmly on mind that your self-appointed vigilantism extends no
further than the end of your nose ...
Now, just what is it that you contribute to this forum besides warm,
fuzzy bullshit like the above?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
> inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
> all supportable.
Are you really that thick?
I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. I now carry a
pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it.
nb
notbob wrote:
> uOn 2009-12-28, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>> The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
>>> further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.
>> Careful there nutjob, you're way out of your league with that kind of
>> online threat ... reconsider, very carefully, those words.
> I make no threat. <snip>
That's much better, nutbob ... keep in mind it's there for future
reference in case you forget yourself again with further irrational
behavior.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2009-12-28, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> .....further irrational behavior.
Oh, you mean like your not-so-couched threat to visit great physical
harm on those who offend. Momma notbob never raised such a foolish
child, whackman.
nb
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Neil Brooks" wrote
>
> Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> do physical harm to them.
> ===========================
>
> In a world where road rage exists, it is not a good idea to engage in any
> kind of activity that could set somebody off. It is unbelievable to me
> all these stories where some minor slight, comment or gesture quickly
> esculates to serious injury or a death. I make a counscious effort to be
> as courteous as possible out there in the world.
>
> It is like my old martial arts instructor said. You never pick a fight
> with anybody because you have no idea how skilled they are. In other
> words, they could kick your ass. So you behave yourself.
My instructor stated it this way...."never underestimate your opponent." The
true martial artist is skilled at avoiding a fight but always prepared if
the avoidance is itself unavoidable.
>
>
>
On 2009-12-27, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now, just what is it that you contribute to this forum besides warm,
> fuzzy bullshit like the above?
The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.
nb
They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.
How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?
They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making love, etc.
A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing
help right now.
I think wildcat cell phone killing can be cause for serious charges
by those who got cut off or blanked out.
Martin [ who was saved due to a cell phone in his pocket in the shop]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Steve Turner" wrote:
>> Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is
>> impaired to the point that of it being a DUI? Some drivers can deal
>> with the multitasking WAY better than others.
>
> Many states including California have outlawed the use of cell phones
> while driving.
>
> More will follow.
>
> As someone who has made a living for many years by effectively
> communicating with others, I find it impossible to effectively
> communicate while trying to multitask
>
> Lew
>
>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>
>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>
>> <sniff>
>>
>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>
>I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
>phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".
Lois doesn't think that of Perry.
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
dhall987 wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>>
>>> <sniff>
>>>
>>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>>
>> I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
>> the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
>> get in here".
>
> God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
> scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
> to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a day no
matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell phones during
work hours because they are becoming a distraction.
On Dec 31, 9:06=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> God save us, but do I pity the daily life of office drones ...
>
Tried it. Failed miserably. Those poor cubicloids don't realize that
they're just going to go from one box to another.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>
>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>
>> <sniff>
>>
>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>
>I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
>phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".
God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> dhall987 wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>>>
>>>> <sniff>
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
>>> the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
>>> get in here".
>>
>> God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
>> scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
>> to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
>
> I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
> day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
> phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.
Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.
On 12/31/2009 3:20 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
>>>> the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
>>>> get in here".
>>>
>>> God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
>>> scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
>>> to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
>>
>> I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
>> day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
>> phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.
>
> Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
> he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
> work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
> place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
> progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
> programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
> and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
> business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
> day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.
God save us, but do I pity the daily life of office drones ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 12/27/2009 11:55 AM, EXT wrote:
>
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built
>>>> from
>>>> discards headed to the dump.
>>>>
>>>> One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>>>>
>>>> Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
>>>> switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string "Off"
>>>> commands for every TV made.
>>>>
>>>> Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>>>> wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
>>>> about
>>>> 50 ft.
>>>>
>>>> Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
>>>> diabolical sense of humor.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>> Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an Infra-Red
>>> code
>>> to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat, and the remote
>>> needs
>>> to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR beam. Secondly most
>>> cheap TVs
>>> do not have discrete off codes, it is the same code that turns the TV
>>> on --
>>> it works as a toggle -- so if the TV is off it will turn it on, if it
>>> is on
>>> it will turn it off.
>>
>> All of the new DVRs use an RF signal, so this is more plausible than
>> you think.
>
> Some do, some don't. At the present time they all accept an IR signal as
> RF signals cannot be learned by Universal Remotes. Most better Universal
> Remotes can send RF signals to a Black Box next to the equipment which
> then in turn forwards an IR signal directly to each piece of equipment's
> IR receiver.
The DirecTV DVR remote is programmable to use either RF or IR to the
DVR. It is also programmable in IR for your TV, DVD, HT audio, etc.
It's a fairly decent universal remote.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, ours didn't. AND they burned down your White House.
>> Yep, the British did indeed ... wars are like that, win a few, lose a
>> few. But damn, were they happy to see us when it really counted in 1917
>> and 1941.
>
> Yeah, but we Canucks were there before you, both times.
> In WWII you knew you had to come in, but your congress was comprised of
> chickenshits afraid of the Nazi sympathizers in your voting population.
>
> Your own president had to result to surreptitious support of what WE
> were ACTIVELY doing because he was afraid of the public backlash.
> Unable to to actually tell the American people what he actually
> believed and was doing.
>
> So don't be TOO proud of yourselves.
>
> We were there for you in Korea and Vietnam, too, BTW.
A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a shit
who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.
And BTW, our congress has always been comprised of chicken shits ...
it's a prerequisite.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 28, 8:50=A0am, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
> > inconvenience...". =A0Both are built upon an emotional statement, and n=
ot at
> > all supportable.
>
> Are you really that thick? =A0
>
> I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
> snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. =A0I now carry a
> pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
> Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it. =A0
>
> nb
Sounds like you wouldn't have been driving at the time, if you had
one.
No danger to others, then.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:20:47 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> dhall987 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>>>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>>>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <sniff>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
>>>> the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
>>>> get in here".
>>>
>>> God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
>>> scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
>>> to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
>>
>> I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
>> day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
>> phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.
>
>Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
>he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
>work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
>place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
>progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
>programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
>and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
>business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
>day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.
That's when you take a pad and pencil and note all the distractions,
daily. Hand it to him when he rails on you or the staff for not
getting things done.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:20:47 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> dhall987 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>>>>>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>>>>>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <sniff>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
>>>> the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
>>>> get in here".
>>>
>>> God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
>>> scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
>>> to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...
>>
>> I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
>> day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
>> phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.
>
>Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
>he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
>work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
>place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
>progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
>programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
>and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
>business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
>day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.
I don't think I've ever talked to my boss 12 times in one day. Once
is enough. ;-)
I had a similar situation a coupla decades ago. We were all way
behind on a new product so there were daily status meetings. When
asked by one retarded counter of beans why I was constantly behind I
told the dope that it was because I was constantly in meetings
explaining why I was behind. The result? Another daily meeting with
the third-line test manager. This one was *scheduled* for two hours,
of which my part was less than five minutes. Regardless, they wanted
me there for the entire meeting. I just didn't bother to go, so my
boss found someone else to make the muckymuck happy.
Now I work at a small company and in normal times we have two one-hour
meetings a week. One called my the engineering manager and one by the
director of technology. They cover the exact same topics. It's a
waste of at least one of the meetings but if that's what the owner
wants...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:47:12 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:14:49 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>> > I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
>>>> > upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
>>>> > the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
>>>> > every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
>>>> > into a construction project.
>>>>
>
>I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
>did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
>Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
>cases?
Yeah. I think I've used 200 minutes on my cell since I bought it 3
years ago, and a third of that was trying to erase text messages and
figure out the voice mail setup. It's an old Nokia candy bar. No
camera, no Internet, no touchscreen, no games, no nuttin'.
That's 5.55 minutes per MONTH. Beat that!
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Steve Turner" wrote:
>> Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is
>> impaired to the point that of it being a DUI? Some drivers can deal
>> with the multitasking WAY better than others.
>
> Many states including California have outlawed the use of cell phones
> while driving.
A recent change, or did you leave an important fact out?
It is "handheld" use that was prohibited by CA law. Motorists 18 and
over may use a hands-free" device.
> More will follow.
That "more will follow" is why I own a bluetooth headset and use it in
the car ... and for the very reason that sensible law was enacted.
AAMOF, my city, West University Place, TX, is one of the first
municipalities to ban all cell phone use in school zones and texting
while driving.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 27, 12:41=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> > irrationally violent people :-) =A0Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> > call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> > do physical harm to them.
>
> > Lovely.
>
> Just keep firmly on mind that your self-appointed vigilantism extends no
> further than the end of your nose ...
>
> Now, just what is it that you contribute to this forum besides warm,
> fuzzy bullshit like the above?
Is there a certain threshold that I'm obliged to meet, and ... are you
the Keeper Of That Threshold?
More details, please!
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.
>
> How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?
>
> They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making
> love, etc.
In CT, they outlawed "any distraction" so it includes all of those things.
A little common sense on the driver's side goes a long way.
On Dec 27, 12:43=A0pm, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" =A0wrote
>
> Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> irrationally violent people :-) =A0Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> do physical harm to them.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>
> In a world where road rage exists, it is not a good idea to engage in any
> kind of activity that could set somebody off. =A0It is unbelievable to me=
all
> these stories where some minor slight, comment or gesture quickly esculat=
es
> to serious injury or a death. =A0I make a counscious effort to be as cour=
teous
> as possible out there in the world.
>
> It is like my old martial arts instructor said. You never pick a fight wi=
th
> anybody because you have no idea how skilled they are. In other words, th=
ey
> could kick your ass. =A0So you behave yourself.
Totally agreed.
On Dec 27, 2:55=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "Neil Brooks" =A0wrote
>
> > Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> > irrationally violent people :-) =A0Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> > call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> > do physical harm to them.
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > In a world where road rage exists, it is not a good idea to engage in a=
ny
> > kind of activity that could set somebody off. =A0It is unbelievable to =
me all
> > these stories where some minor slight, comment or gesture quickly escul=
ates
> > to serious injury or a death. =A0I make a counscious effort to be as co=
urteous
> > as possible out there in the world.
>
> > It is like my old martial arts instructor said. You never pick a fight =
with
> > anybody because you have no idea how skilled they are. In other words, =
they
> > could kick your ass. =A0So you behave yourself.
>
> The best thing to do is to obey the law. Any self-righteous,
> self-appointed vigilante, including those advocating using illegal
> jamming devices, needs his ass kicked swiftly ... along with a jail
> sentence.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I still like the idea of jammin' the jammer up the jammer's ass.
*breaking into Marley's song* Jamminajamminajamminajammin
On Dec 28, 12:44=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2:30=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > I was interested in a discussion.
>
> No you're not. You're being a dick.
Ouch.
On Dec 27, 12:54=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is impaired t=
o the
> point that of it being a DUI? =A0Some drivers can deal with the multitask=
ing WAY
> better than others. =A0I can handle it just fine, thank you very much; my
> mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and the world around me continue to g=
et my
> undivided attention, while the person on the other end of the phone gets =
what's
> left. =A0However, some (most?) people can't even drive correctly when the=
y're
> carrying on a normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, =
so how
> do you propose that we handle that? =A0Should we "scientifically" block a=
ll
> interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? =A0Unless the activ=
ity is
> *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to commit infractions=
, why
> should there be any reason to interfere with their activities? =A0And why=
should
> *you* be the one to decide? =A0This should be the domain of law enforceme=
nt, not
> vigilantes. =A0Besides, how do you know that cellphone conversation you'r=
e
> jamming isn't somebody with a serious situation on their hands?
*I* didn't "decide" anything.
I referenced the conclusions of studies of the issue.
Go look into it. There are quite a few well-regarded studies that all
conclude exactly that.
And OhByTheWay: as a former bartender, I'm *quite certain* that I can
drive perfectly fine ... WAY over the legal limit.
But I'm perfectly fine with obeying the law because:
a) I'm probably wrong about that, and
b) I don't believe most other drivers are.
Also ... people with "serious situation" -- much like people with a
serious buzz -- should pull over.
Touched a nerve, did I? LOL!
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" wrote
>
> Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> do physical harm to them.
> ===========================
>
> In a world where road rage exists, it is not a good idea to engage in any
> kind of activity that could set somebody off. It is unbelievable to me all
> these stories where some minor slight, comment or gesture quickly esculates
> to serious injury or a death. I make a counscious effort to be as courteous
> as possible out there in the world.
>
> It is like my old martial arts instructor said. You never pick a fight with
> anybody because you have no idea how skilled they are. In other words, they
> could kick your ass. So you behave yourself.
The best thing to do is to obey the law. Any self-righteous,
self-appointed vigilante, including those advocating using illegal
jamming devices, needs his ass kicked swiftly ... along with a jail
sentence.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built
>from discards headed to the dump.
>
>One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>
>Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
>switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string
>"Off" commands for every TV made.
>
>Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
>about 50 ft.
>
>Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
>diabolical sense of humor.
It's been done: http://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_main.php
Bought one of these a couple years ago. It's loads of fun.
Limey Lurker wrote:
>> No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
>> places where it would be inappropriate.
>
>
> I would very much like to know how you achieve this.
> Would it work between vehicles; could I use it to prevent
> the driver of a passing car using his cell phone.(using a cell phone,
> whilst driving, is illegal in the UK)
That depends - how loud can you sing?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On 12/27/2009 1:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:42 am, "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>> I am thinking the person using the jammer will be as big of a
>>> problem as the cell phone user. On the road he is certainly going
>>> to be watching the cell phone user to see if his jammer is working.
>>
>> Naw, use the fuck'em approach.
>>
>> Turn the jammer on the minute you start the car.
>>
>> Jam everything around you and let God sort'em out.
>>
>> Lew
>
> LOL!
>
> Thanks to Swingman, for reminding me/us of the ubiquity of
> irrationally violent people :-) Somebody interrupts your cell phone
> call -- scientifically, the equivalent of a DUI -- and you're going to
> do physical harm to them.
>
> Lovely.
Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is impaired to the
point that of it being a DUI? Some drivers can deal with the multitasking WAY
better than others. I can handle it just fine, thank you very much; my
mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and the world around me continue to get my
undivided attention, while the person on the other end of the phone gets what's
left. However, some (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're
carrying on a normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how
do you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block all
interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the activity is
*actually* impairing their ability and causing them to commit infractions, why
should there be any reason to interfere with their activities? And why should
*you* be the one to decide? This should be the domain of law enforcement, not
vigilantes. Besides, how do you know that cellphone conversation you're
jamming isn't somebody with a serious situation on their hands?
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On Dec 28, 1:35=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> > You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
> > both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
> > fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
> > fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
> > almost daily.
>
> A question for you Canucks ... I always wondered about these guys ...
> there was a small group of them (Canadians) serving as advisers (US) to
> a Montangard tribe in the Central Highlands and were reportedly indians
> themselves. Although I heard them daily on the radio, I actually ran
> across a couple of them in Dalat when the ARVN Ranger outfit I was with
> occupied a firebase there for a few weeks. Besides decidedly Candian
> accented English, they spoke Quebecois French, similar to what I heard
> as a kid and what my Dad spoke natively. Since Dalat had been under
> French rule for some time, and French was as prevalent as Vietnamese in
> that region, I figured that was why they were in the area.
>
> Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
> during that time?
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Native Americanadian Indians don't recognize the border between the US
and Canada. At least, around these parts, they can work and live on
either side of the border. Maybe that applies to all Native Americans.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a shit
> who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.
Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.
Despite the barbs and the arguments, I for one am glad that Canada is
as closely tied to the US as it is. I can envision a lot of other
locations that Canada could be placed other than North America and not
one of them appeals to me.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
> during that time?
Likely Mohawk, and likely from Akwesasne, which is in both Canada and
the US (NY State).
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?
Yes, it's in Quebec, Ontario and NY State.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwesasne>
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a shit
>> who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.
>
> Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
> best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.
>
> Despite the barbs and the arguments, I for one am glad that Canada is
> as closely tied to the US as it is. I can envision a lot of other
> locations that Canada could be placed other than North America and not
> one of them appeals to me.
You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
almost daily.
I don't understand why Dave would go off on that tangent ... but we all
do strange things on a Sunday after Christmas ... maybe the eggnog, eh?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:44:57 -0800, Tim Douglass wrote:
> I think the truth is that most people who are
> seriously distracted by their cell phone were previously seriously
> distracted by something else ...
That might well be the case since I can't imagine a good driver who would
compromise his/her driving by using a cell phone, eating, shaving,
applying makeup, etc..
I think they should all be ticketable offenses.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Tim Douglass" wrote:
>
>> Funny thing is that on a long drive you are probably more attentive
>> and less accident-prone if you have some snacks and a slurp of
>> coffee
>> or something while you are driving.
>--------------------------------------------
>My dad was an over the road driver back in the 50s.
>
>Can not remember the number of times he advised me:
>
>"Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
>use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."
>
>"Cuts down on the "Bennies", No-Doz, and the ammonia vials on a long
>trip," were his words.
>
>I still practice the above.
Practice what, Lew? The walking around or the cutting down? <bseg>
I take that former advice, too. Plus I drink water the whole way, so
I don't have the ups and downs of caffeine. And I usually have a bag
of baby carrots to munch on during the drive. Pee stops for a guy are
easy. Pull off anywhere and in 20', you're deep enough into the brush
and can pee in privacy. Well, that's up here. In LoCal, it's a bit
harder, so use one of the restrooms from any gas station at any
offramp. They're only a mile apart down there. ;)
--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:13:05 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>just pull over lots of cars at random in a select area and harrass
>everybody. Young, dumb and drunk, I drove through almost 50 miles of this.
>Hundreds of cars were pulled over getting "special treatment".
There they are, harassing people just for the hell of it, at least
that's how you make it sound. And behold, they actually catch a
percentage of drivers over the limit using this "harassing" tactic.
Wonders will never cease!
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:39:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an
>accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset
>about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a
>call, pull over and stop.
Just a little clarification on this one. Statistics have not shown
that cell phone use is a dangerous as drunk driving - *controlled
tests* have shown essentially that. The thing that interests me is
that the total number of accidents per mile driven in the US hasn't
moved significantly in the last few years while cell phone use has
gone through the roof. The *tests* show phone use while driving to be
much more dangerous than the *statistics* show it to be. I think the
truth is that most people who are seriously distracted by their cell
phone were previously seriously distracted by something else,
resulting in a wash as far as accident rates are concerned. With about
50% of the drivers I see on a daily basis on the phone I would expect
massive pile-ups at every intersection, but it doesn't happen, so
there is some disconnect between the controlled test results and the
real world. Not an uncommon problem with testing, I might add.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."
Swingman wrote:
> You won't hear any argument on that count from me ... I'm a big fan of
> both Canada and England, with relatives in both countries, and, AAMOF,
> fought side by side with a Canadian outfit in RVN ... they were in my
> fire support fan for 7 months and I called in artillery fire for them
> almost daily.
A question for you Canucks ... I always wondered about these guys ...
there was a small group of them (Canadians) serving as advisers (US) to
a Montangard tribe in the Central Highlands and were reportedly indians
themselves. Although I heard them daily on the radio, I actually ran
across a couple of them in Dalat when the ARVN Ranger outfit I was with
occupied a firebase there for a few weeks. Besides decidedly Candian
accented English, they spoke Quebecois French, similar to what I heard
as a kid and what my Dad spoke natively. Since Dalat had been under
French rule for some time, and French was as prevalent as Vietnamese in
that region, I figured that was why they were in the area.
Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
during that time?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Robatoy wrote:
> Native Americanadian Indians don't recognize the border between the US
> and Canada. At least, around these parts, they can work and live on
> either side of the border. Maybe that applies to all Native Americans.
Don't think I've ever met a Canadian overseas that wasn't proudly, and
obviously, just that. These guys were the same.
But maybe it was just the times ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.
>
> Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
> or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
> think so?
>
>>It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
>>ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
>
> And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
> law.
... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this bother
you so much?
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Tim Douglass wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:39:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an
>>accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset
>>about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a
>>call, pull over and stop.
>
> Just a little clarification on this one. Statistics have not shown
> that cell phone use is a dangerous as drunk driving - *controlled
> tests* have shown essentially that. The thing that interests me is
> that the total number of accidents per mile driven in the US hasn't
> moved significantly in the last few years while cell phone use has
> gone through the roof. The *tests* show phone use while driving to be
> much more dangerous than the *statistics* show it to be. I think the
> truth is that most people who are seriously distracted by their cell
> phone were previously seriously distracted by something else,
> resulting in a wash as far as accident rates are concerned. With about
> 50% of the drivers I see on a daily basis on the phone I would expect
> massive pile-ups at every intersection, but it doesn't happen, so
> there is some disconnect between the controlled test results and the
> real world. Not an uncommon problem with testing, I might add.
>
There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
to a grinding halt. :-)
Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
>> during that time?
>
> Likely Mohawk, and likely from Akwesasne, which is in both Canada and
> the US (NY State).
Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?
Apparently there were a number of them. If I hadn't gone through it
myself I would be surprised that their participation in that particular
operational area would not be better known.
No one wanted to hear about it then, and obviously fewer could care less
now.
My hat goes off to them in any event ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?
>
> Yes, it's in Quebec, Ontario and NY State.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwesasne>
Using your above to DAGS, I ran across a blip in the first paragraph of
this:
http://www.mormonmohawk.com/mohawkchildhood/militaryservice.html
Which, after all these years, is starting to make sense. 5th Special
Forces Group, headquartered in Nha Trang at the time, was in charge of
"indigenous" (Montagnard in this case) "Mike Strike" units in the
Central Highlands which participated in the same operations that the
ARVN Ranger unit, for whom I acted as artillery adviser and Forward
Observer, participated.
These "indigenous" military units were headed by US Special Forces
Rangers, usually 2 to four per unit. It happened that quite a few of
these guys in this particular area were Canadians and spoke French,
which fit nicely with the location (Central Highlands) and SF Ranger
remarks in the link above.
A piece of the puzzle that at least some of these were the "reportedly
Canadian Indians" they were rumored to be? ... something I always
wondered about ... complicated by the fact that there were Korean and
Australian units in the same area, so language differences when dealing
with each other over the radio was both an issue, and when things got
hot, noticeable.
Thanks ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:41:25 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:01:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing these
>> almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet. It's not
>> that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from being idiots
>> and causing a danger to others in society.
>
>That idea has a certain appeal, but I hope the cop pulls them over
>first :-).
I'm SURE glad I had swallowed that sip of coffee before reading your
post, Lar. <vbg>
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>A little bit of complex peeking out there, Dave? Who really gives a shit
>> who got there first, eh? If it makes you feel better, gloat away, Bubba.
>
> Agreed. Just as long as they got in there eventually and did their
> best, the rest is just poking with a sharp stick.
Well, that got it back on topic ...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.
Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
think so?
>It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the ones
>who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
law.
Replying only once, for obvious reasons. <heh heh heh>
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:13:33 -0700, the infamous Matt
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
>for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
I use my watch all the time. It helps me remember that I put tea in
to steep and lets me know when 4 minutes have elapsed to go get it.
I also set alarms to remind me to get dressed for work on the late
days. I live in long sleeved tees and fleece pants otherwise.
>- I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
>in touch with me.
I carry one but only use it to find clients who can't seem to remember
to give me proper directions to their house, or the proper address.
One guy gave me the neighbor's house number and watched me drive by
looking for him. He evidently didn't notice the large sign on the
side of my truck... <sigh>
>The few people who do have the number know they can
Nobody knows my number.
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:13:33 -0700, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>>> cell
>>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>>> emergency call.
>> =================================
>>
>> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>>
>> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
>> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>>
>> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>>
>> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>>
>> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
>> problem.
>>
>> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
>> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
>> me during those times.
>>
>> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
>> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
>> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>>
>> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
>for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
>- I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
>in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
>reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that
>I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
>dropped considerably.
Ok, I haven't worn a watch in at least 25 years but do carry a cell
phone. We have a phone line at home, sans phone. I *like* cell
phones, even though I average perhaps 10 minutes a month (my wife
talks to the "kid" about an hour a week, so...). I don't have to sit
around the house waiting for a tradesman, or delivery. They now phone
30minutes ahead so I can stay at work until they call. Nice. It was
also useful when I was looking for a job.
Talk while driving? Never. I have called SWMBO, who was in the same
store, to find out where the hell she was. ;-)
In article <[email protected]>, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>And OhByTheWay: as a former bartender, I'm *quite certain* that I can
>drive perfectly fine ... WAY over the legal limit.
Most other drunks are, too. They're quite certainly perfectly wrong.
>
>But I'm perfectly fine with obeying the law because:
>
>a) I'm probably wrong about that, and
Yep. You are. Friend of mine with a PhD in toxicology participated in a study,
when he was in grad school, sponsored by the university's toxicology
department and the State Police. They set up a road course with traffic cones
in a parking lot, and served alcohol to the volunteers while the officers
measured their BAC with breathalyzers and the uni tox dept confirmed the
measurements by analyzing blood samples. The volunteers would then attempt to
drive through the course.... He said that at 0.03 BAC he thought he probably
wasn't safe to drive, at 0.05 he was sure he was NOT -- and at 0.10 he was
quite sure that he WAS safe, but the video proved otherwise. :-)
That's really the danger of alcohol: it destroys the judgement. The more you
drink, the less able you are to tell if you've had too much.
On 12/27/2009 7:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Steve Turner wrote:
>>
>> Some drivers can deal
>> with the multitasking WAY better than others.
>
> True.
>
>> I can handle it just
>> fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and
>> the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the
>> person on the other end of the phone gets what's left.
>
> That statement alone proves you wrong. Read what you wrote.
You know, I thought about using something other than "undivided attention", but
I decided to leave it in just to see how many people would call me on it. :-)
Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example). If a careful and alert driver
deems the risk factor to be low enough, many can give the act of driving all
the attention it needs yet still have plenty of brain capacity left over for
other things; other people, not so much. For some, anything other than their
"undivided attention" would make them an unsafe driver.
> However, some
>> (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a
>> normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do
>> you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block
>> all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the
>> activity is *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to
>> commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with
>> their activities?
>
> There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the
> phone. Really, there is. Talking to a passenger, you are more likely to
> stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention
> compared to talking on the phone.
I only used that as one example of the zillion things that drivers do *instead*
of paying attention to the road. All I'm saying is that some people are such
idiots they can't even have a simple conversation with a passenger without
weaving all over the road.
> Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. I do it
> myself. The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends on
> many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc.
> In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far
> different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give
> detailed technical support to a customer.
Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
doing so.
> In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while
> driving and talking.
Teenagers have been inventing new and outrageous ways to get themselves killed
on the highway for decades.
> Where do you draw the line?
By leaving the line where it is and enforcing the existing careless and
imprudent driving laws.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Dave Balderstone" wrote:
> Of the four of us in the family, Only me and daughter have cell
> phones.
>
> I see her bills as it's my name on the account, and of course I see
> mine.
>
> Between the two of us? Fewer than 30 calls a month. Fewer than 10
> text
> messages a quarter.
>
> Horses for courses...
Sounds like it's time to look at "Burn it" phone cards.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, I find it amusing that so many people find cell phone use to be
> so important for their social interactions that they are on the phone from
> the time they leave their work to the time they get home. What's even more
> amusing to me is the amount of personal information people are willing to
> share in public during their "private" cell phone chats. I'm betting many
> of these are the same people who got all bent out of shape over monitoring
> oversees calls to terrorist countries, yet they are willing to share the
> most intimate details of their latest medical ailment or inter-familial feud
> with the public.
Of the four of us in the family, Only me and daughter have cell phones.
I see her bills as it's my name on the account, and of course I see
mine.
Between the two of us? Fewer than 30 calls a month. Fewer than 10 text
messages a quarter.
Horses for courses...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:32:35 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
> Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
> huh?
If I'm out in the country on a long trip, and there isn't other traffic,
I've been known to sip a bit of coffee which my wife pours out of a
thermos. Only about 1/4 of a cup so it won't spill if I hit a pothole.
Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being thirsty
too often.
But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.
After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
well as five years as a full time RVer.
So it works for me. YMMV.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring
>> things
>>to a grinding halt. :-)
>>
>> Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the
>> people
>>designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
>>those tests.
>
> It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
> every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
> existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
> created and I'll reconsider my statement.
>
One only needs to google in order to read the very tests he spoke of. As he
stated, there are no statistics to refer to in support of the claim of
increased accidents with cell phone use, since the accident rate has been
fairly flat despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use.
> He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
> accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
> on his "controlled tests" theory.
No - the controlled tests are quite well publicized. They're available to
read (or to recap) on the net. The actual facts from accidents do not show
a rise in accidents comenusrate with the climb in cell phone use.
>
> Obviously, you're biased.
Hell - we all are.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
>>to a grinding halt. :-)
>>
>> Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
>>designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
>>those tests.
>
>It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
>every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
>existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
>created and I'll reconsider my statement.
Google on "cell phone use as dangerous as drunk driving". I think you'll be
surprised at what you find. Four of the first five hits refer to a *single*
study conducted by researchers at the University of Utah using simulators.
The fifth does cite actual accident statistics, but states "The risk of having
a traffic accident while using a cellular phone is the same as that while
driving drunk" -- which is decidedly not the same thing as saying that the
levels of danger are equivalent, because it addresses only the frequency of
accidents and not their severity. My gut feeling is that people yapping on
cell phones cause minor accidents, and drunk drivers cause serious ones: we're
all far too familiar with reports in the newspaper of drunk drivers killing
people, but when was the last time you read about a fatal accident caused by
an idiot on a cell phone?
>
>He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
>accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
>on his "controlled tests" theory.
Excerpts from the articles referenced by Google:
"Using a driving simulator under four different conditions..."
"Each study participant drove the simulator..."
"The volunteers in the new study drove a virtual vehicle..."
>Obviously, you're biased.
Obviously, you and I couldn't be, eh? :-)
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
>to a grinding halt. :-)
>
> Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
>designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
>those tests.
It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.
He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.
Obviously, you're biased.
Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
huh?
I agree with the rest listed, but some folks pretend that all drivers
must always have both hands on the wheel (at 10 and 2) 100% of the
time and be staring intently at the road maintaining a stoney silence
and never so much as talking to a passenger, and that is taking the
pendulum too far the other way. There should be parameters, but I
don't know exactly how to specifically define them so that some
reasonably fair enforcement can occur.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:39:41 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:44:57 -0800, Tim Douglass wrote:
>
>> I think the truth is that most people who are
>> seriously distracted by their cell phone were previously seriously
>> distracted by something else ...
>
>That might well be the case since I can't imagine a good driver who would
>compromise his/her driving by using a cell phone, eating, shaving,
>applying makeup, etc..
>
>I think they should all be ticketable offenses.
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:37:19 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0800, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> My dad was an over the road
>> driver back in the 50s.
>>
>> Can not remember the number of times he advised me:
>>
>> "Get out of the car, stretch your legs by walking around the car, and
>> use the restroom every 2 hours or 100 miles driven."
>
>At my age, 100 miles between piss stops is too far!
I'd comment but I'm pleading the 5th.
--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:04:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Steve Turner wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> dhall987 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clearly I personally do not find anything wrong or even
>>>> slightly out of place with having a drink (non-alcaholic of course)
>>>> while I drive.
>>>
>>> It is terrible to sip a beer over an hour's drive, but it is acceptable
>>> to pound down a few and jump behind the wheel.
>>>
>>> In CT they were trying to change the law. It is OK to have an open
>>> container as long as it is not the driver's.
>>
>> Both the open container laws and the driving while talking in a cellphone
>> laws
>> are "no brainer" low-hanging fruit for law enforcement. It's easy to
>> catch the perpetrators because the offending cause of "evil" is in plain
>> sight; never mind that fact that the presence of an open container or a
>> cellphone doesn't
>> prove any sort of impairment on behalf of the driver. I can chug a beer
>> before I walk out the door on my way to the store to pick up some milk and
>> not be "impaired" by any measure of the law, but if I drink it slowly
>> along the way I'm in violation.
>>
>
> When I first moved to Texas years ago, it was an open container state; one
>could drink while driving, you just couldn't drive while impaired. Having
>come from Colorado, a state where that was against the law, I was initially
>amazed. However, it didn't seem to be a major contributing factor to any
>worse statistics than elsewhere. I know that they enacted an open container
>law several years later. Not sure if it was driven by statistics or by
>federal fiat threatening the loss of highway funds.
VT had allowed anyone other than the driver to have an open container.
The feds *did* use the highway funds as a lever to force them to
change (as well as the seatbelt laws). I used to drive a carload of
friends down to Saratoga every year and they'd drink on the way back.
> FWIW, I very seldom (less than one glass of wine every 6 months or more)
>drink, can't stand even the smell of beer (it tastes like stale bread to
>me), so I don't have a dog in this fight other than keeping those who are
>really impaired off the road.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring
>> things
>>to a grinding halt. :-)
>>
>> Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the
>> people
>>designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
>>those tests.
>
> It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
> every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
> existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
> created and I'll reconsider my statement.
>
> He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
> accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
> on his "controlled tests" theory.
>
> Obviously, you're biased.
Actually, I am not. I very seldom use the cell phone for calls while I'm
driving (less than once or twice a month). I use it as an MP3 player, but
that requires no intervention on my part from the time I leave the parking
lot to the time I pull in the driveway at home.
Frankly, I find it amusing that so many people find cell phone use to be
so important for their social interactions that they are on the phone from
the time they leave their work to the time they get home. What's even more
amusing to me is the amount of personal information people are willing to
share in public during their "private" cell phone chats. I'm betting many
of these are the same people who got all bent out of shape over monitoring
oversees calls to terrorist countries, yet they are willing to share the
most intimate details of their latest medical ailment or inter-familial feud
with the public.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 12/27/09 11:35 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> So don't be TOO proud of yourselves.
>
Said the condescending Canadian who'd be speaking in a German accent if
it wasn't for the ones for whom he has such contempt.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
>> light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
>> doing so.
>
> IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
>
> In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
> time:
>
> When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
> you've lost the debate.
>
> Bravo!!!
Oh, you're a real sharp tack. I didn't call *anybody* involved in this
"debate" an idiot (though with you I'm getting pretty close). The "idiot" in
this case (and let me just repaste the relevant context that you snipped) is
the guy "in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give detailed technical
support to a customer". If you disagree with me that this guy's operating in
an idiotic fashion, then perhaps your argument for banning his use of a cell
phone just disappeared into thin air, no?
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 27, 11:16 pm, Steve Turner<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, and because of that idiot, those of us who just want to call our wives in
>>>> light traffic to ask if we need to bring some milk home will be banned from
>>>> doing so.
>>
>>> IIRC, I've been online since about 1994.
>>
>>> In that time, I cannot EVER remember me saying this, but ... it's
>>> time:
>>
>>> When you have to resort to name-calling, it's the surest sign that
>>> you've lost the debate.
>>
>>> Bravo!!!
>>
>> Oh, you're a real sharp tack.
>
> Hm.
>
> No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
> since ... you just did it (again?) :-)
Do you know how to read? You certainly seem able to snip things that don't
play into your "argument"...
--
Repeat after me:
"I am we Todd it. I am sofa king we Todd it."
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 12/28/09 9:50 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
>> inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and not at
>> all supportable.
>
> Are you really that thick?
>
> I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a mile in
> snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. I now carry a
> pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn things.
> Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it.
>
> nb
You're the one being dense.
Yes, the huge spike in cell phone related traffic accidents we've seen
in the last several years is all the result of people calling loved ones
on their death beds or giving instructions on how to diffuse a ticking
time bomb and not people texting or making convenience calls for no
other reason than impatience.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:50 am, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-28, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> like the line "if it saves just one life, it's worth all of the
>>> inconvenience...". Both are built upon an emotional statement, and
>>> not at all supportable.
>>
>> Are you really that thick?
>>
>> I was recently in an auto accident in which I had to hike half a
>> mile in snow and freezing cold to reach the nearest phone. I now
>> carry a pre-paid cell when traveling, despite my dislike of the damn
>> things. Yes, they are inconvenient and yes, they are worth it.
>>
>> nb
>
> Sounds like you wouldn't have been driving at the time, if you had
> one.
>
> No danger to others, then.
Just a comment, but anyone who is not disabled and considers half a mile to
be a "hike" needs to get himself to a gym, pronto.
Personally I don't carry one very often--dropped my bike one time and landed
on the phone--broke one of my ribs and the phone.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> How about side-aimed lasers under the car to take out the
> tires on a car you're passing who held up the line 30-deep on a 2-lane
> highway?
Or the asshole who's been riding my tail when I'm already doing 10 kph
over limit as he decides to pass on a double-yellow.
On Dec 30, 8:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>
> >Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
> >without a conference, etc.
>
> That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
> he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
> was looking for ~ the ATM.
>
> THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
> there was an ATM on the premises.
>
> I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
> the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
> than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
> That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
> to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
>
> And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
> the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
> for too long a period.
One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
devices in the asshat's ear.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, at least they're starting to take care of it. I went into a
> MANN theater several years back and the girl introducing the movie
> (not a normal thing in most theaters) asked everyone to pull out their
> phones. She gave them a few seconds and then asked them to turn them
> completely off so everyone else could enjoy the movie. She explained
> that she said "OFF" because she knew that when they were set to
> "vibrate", the nice cell owner would take the call and be talking all
> the way out to the lobby.
Around here, they have a different way of dealing with cell phones and
conversation in a movie theater. They turn the volume up so high that you
would have to yell to be heard. I don't go to movies anymore. Don't want to
have to wear earplugs for 2.5 hours.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
>without a conference, etc.
That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.
THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.
I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
>> did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
>> Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
>> cases?
>
>Slower.
>
>Before the telegraph cables were laid across the Atlantic, how did
>governments communicate between Europe and North America?
>
>Slower.
>
>Cell phones and email just allow us to share information faster.
>
>As for the "cell phones while driving" sub thread, we have the "fine
>and points" law going into effect here Jan 1. Personally, I'd rather
>have the right to mount high energy lasers or surface to surface
>missiles in my vehicle and simple take out most of the assholes on the
>road,
That's my preference, too.
>but the courts here seem to not want to deal with grey areas like
>"driving without due care and attention" so our lawmakers are having to
>give the cops specific, non-negotiable offence to deal with the
>dipshits on the road.
Well, at least they're starting to take care of it. I went into a
MANN theater several years back and the girl introducing the movie
(not a normal thing in most theaters) asked everyone to pull out their
phones. She gave them a few seconds and then asked them to turn them
completely off so everyone else could enjoy the movie. She explained
that she said "OFF" because she knew that when they were set to
"vibrate", the nice cell owner would take the call and be talking all
the way out to the lobby.
That got some really loud applause from us folks who didn't use cell
phones. I just wish that happened at every theater and gathering.
>Here the joke is "young woman on a cell phone in a Sunfire", except is
>ISN'T a joke.
>
>The bonus is that they're most of who I see in the ditch when we get a
>bit of blowing snow and icy roads.
That's kinda satisfying, isn't it?
>I still want my lasers...
You betcha! How about side-aimed lasers under the car to take out the
tires on a car you're passing who held up the line 30-deep on a 2-lane
highway?
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
uOn 2009-12-28, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>
>> The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
>> further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.
>
> Careful there nutjob, you're way out of your league with that kind of
> online threat ... reconsider, very carefully, those words.
I make no threat. I declare only that I countenance no threats from
newsgroup whackjobs such as yourself.
nb
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built from
>> discards headed to the dump.
>>
>> One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>>
>> Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
>> switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string "Off"
>> commands for every TV made.
>>
>> Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>> wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in about
>> 50 ft.
>>
>> Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
>> diabolical sense of humor.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>Something does not make sense. A TV remote needs to send an Infra-Red code
>to turn the TV off, this will not work through a hat, and the remote needs
>to be aimed at the TV for it to receive the IR beam. Secondly most cheap TVs
>do not have discrete off codes, it is the same code that turns the TV on --
>it works as a toggle -- so if the TV is off it will turn it on, if it is on
>it will turn it off.
All of the new DVRs use an RF signal, so this is more plausible than
you think.
--
"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things
that money can buy." --Tom Clancy
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1c818af3-e2eb-4165-9b8d-99f1eee204f0@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 4:00 pm, Limey Lurker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
> > places where it would be inappropriate.
>
> I would very much like to know how you achieve this.
> Would it work between vehicles; could I use it to prevent
> the driver of a passing car using his cell phone.(using a cell phone,
> whilst
> driving, is illegal in the UK)
Jammers are available.
In fact, for the States, the UK is our primary source.
But ... think about it: if you think the cell-phone-using driver is
distracted while they're mindlessly chatting away, then just imagine
their reaction when their call suddenly drops.
I think you make a horrid situation worse.
Movies? Restaurants? Elevators? For environments like that, I'd
LOVE to have one ;-)
The operation of a jamming device in the US can get you a $20000 fine and
five years in jail. The operation of such a device in the UK can put you in
violation of two laws. One carrying a maximum fine of 5000, the other a
maximum of two years in jail and an unlimited fine. In the US, many things
are available for purchase but are not legal to use. In the UK, devices that
are illegal to use are generally illegal to manufacture or purchase.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1c818af3-e2eb-4165-9b8d-
Jammers are available.
In fact, for the States, the UK is our primary source.
But ... think about it: if you think the cell-phone-using driver is
distracted while they're mindlessly chatting away, then just imagine
their reaction when their call suddenly drops.
I think you make a horrid situation worse.
I am thinking the person using the jammer will be as big of a problem as the
cell phone user. On the road he is certainly going to be watching the cell
phone user to see if his jammer is working.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
> cell
> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
> emergency call.
=================================
I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
I conduct my telephone business in my office.
If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
problem.
Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
me during those times.
I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
Lew
"Matt" wrote:
> In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago.
That's funny.
Broke my wrist ban, thus lost my wrist watch 10-15 years ago.
Never quite got around to replacing it.
Seem to maintain a mental clock that is +/- 15 minutes of actual,
regardless of time zone.
Traffic here in SoCal is such that most people understand and accept
that traffic often dictates the start of a meeting.
Lew
"Swingman" wrote:
>
> Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
> that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>
> I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
> upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
> the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
> every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
> into a construction project.
>
> In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
> become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to
> supervise and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen
> to be standing.
>
> My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the
> instancy of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency
> and the ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a
> better built project.
>
> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>
> Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
would be your primary responsibility.
Just an observation.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote
> That, I have heard and also that there's a move in Ontario underway
> (or might already be in effect) to limit the number of hours they
> can
> drive.
My dad was an over the road driver in the '50s.
Limits on driving hours were in effect back then.
Only one problem.
If you drove legal, you starved.
A driver's log book and a salesman's expense account have something in
common.
Both are examples of The Great American Novel.
Lew
On Dec 29, 10:30=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 10:34 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you kno=
w.
>
> No, it's people like YOU who think that numbers and statistics can classi=
fy
> what kind of person I am and what my abilities are. =A0*I've* never done
> *anything* to warrant this law being used against me, nor will I, because=
I am
> a responsible law-abiding citizen.
>
> > It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the =
ones
> > who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
>
> And I am NOT that person, so why don't you punish them, not me?
I'll grab that one.
I've never spilled a Coke inside of Banana Republic (or ... wherever),
yet ... somebody did, and ... because that somebody did ... I can't
come into their store with food or beverages.
Ah, well.
It's called "Living Among Other People."
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:14 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
>No sense in me checking to verify whether or not I made a mistake ...
>since ... you just did it (again?) :-)
Hope it doesn't put you off. Name calling and insinuations are fairly
common. Hell, I specialize in name calling. If I couldn't do it, I'd
be cut off at the knees. :)
On Dec 29, 4:15=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
> >>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
> >>> cell
> >>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
> >>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
> >>> emergency call.
> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> >> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> >> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> >> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> >> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> >> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> >> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> >> problem.
>
> >> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> >> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> >> me during those times.
>
> >> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> >> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> >> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> >> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> >> Lew
>
> > In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
> > for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew =
-
> > I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
> > in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
> > reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that I'=
m
> > retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has dropped
> > considerably.
>
> Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
> that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>
> I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
> upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to the
> supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
> aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
> construction project.
>
> In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
> become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
> and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standing.
>
> My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
> of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
> ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better built
> project.
>
> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
> or as a subcontractor.
>
> Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tonight my car almost got bumped into in a parking lot by a car backing
> out of a
> parking space--the driver talking on the phone. What was interesting this
> time
> was that it was a Police Car! No kidding... Actually, my hat is off to
> those guys;
Ride with a cop sometime and watch them typing on their laptop while
driving.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:37:37 -0600, Steve Turner
>air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has actually
>occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
I'm in Toronto, Canada and I've actually viewed the pulling of people
over for cell phone use. A grace period has been enacted until Feb 1,
2010 when actual fines of up to $500 will be given. And in addition to
that, police also have the ability to lay careless and dangerous
driving charges. It's certainly not a feel good law, at least not
here.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091025/Cellphone_Ban_091025/20091025/?site_codename=Toronto
As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway
at all if I go to the effort of digging up actual statistics that cell
phone use while driving increases the chance of an accident? Or, will
you continue to insist that your personal opinion on cell phone use is
all that matters?
On Dec 29, 5:15=A0pm, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
> >> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
> >> cell
> >> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
> >> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
> >> emergency call.
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> > I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> > electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> > I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> > If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> > If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> > problem.
>
> > Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> > telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> > me during those times.
>
> > I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> > unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> > into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> > Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> > Lew
>
> In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. =A0Was never late
> for a meeting or appointment after that, either. =A0And I'm with you, Lew
> - I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
> in touch with me. =A0The few people who do have the number know they can
> reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. =A0And now that
> I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
> dropped considerably.
>
> Matt
Matt uses the new Pneumatic UseNet Client from Harbor Freight..... it
triple fires.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:31:42 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.
That, I have heard and also that there's a move in Ontario underway
(or might already be in effect) to limit the number of hours they can
drive.
On Dec 29, 11:12=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 4:15=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> >> > On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device=
.
> >> >>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>
> ... snip
>
>
>
> >> Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
> >> that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>
> >> I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
> >> upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to t=
he
> >> supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
> >> aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
> >> construction project.
>
> >> In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
> >> become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
> >> and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standi=
ng.
>
> >> My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
> >> of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
> >> ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better bui=
lt
> >> project.
>
> >> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
> >> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
> >> or as a subcontractor.
>
> >> Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
>
> > You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
> > rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.
>
> =A0 Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. =A0You, of course h=
aving
> the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
> someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commer=
ce
> and production.
Uh ... no. No arrogance at all.
Simply read what he wrote.
It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
HIM.
I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
whole.
I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."
And ... best of luck arguing with that.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:12:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>Just a comment, but anyone who is not disabled and considers half a mile to
>be a "hike" needs to get himself to a gym, pronto.
I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use cell
phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
emergency call.
While I'm entirely capable of rolling a 1/2 mile, my first cell phone
purchase a number of years ago was prompted by my falling out of
wheelchair in the middle of an icy parking lot. The ice prevented me
from climbing back into the chair and I had to sit there for over 30
minutes before I got the attention of someone. My butt was cold for
the next three days.
Bought a cell phone the next day.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:21:52 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
>>without a conference, etc.
>
>That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
>he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
>was looking for ~ the ATM.
>
>THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
>there was an ATM on the premises.
>
>I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
>the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
>than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
>That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
>to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
It's 85%, not 50.
>And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
>the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
>for too long a period.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Makes a person all teary-eyed.
SPSB.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 29, 4:15Â pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> >>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
... snip
>> Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
>> that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>>
>> I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
>> upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to the
>> supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
>> aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
>> construction project.
>>
>> In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
>> become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
>> and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standing.
>>
>> My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
>> of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
>> ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better built
>> project.
>>
>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
>> or as a subcontractor.
>>
>> Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
>
>
> You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
> rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.
Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. You, of course having
the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commerce
and production.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Dec 29, 6:10=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Matt" wrote:
> > In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago.
>
> That's funny.
>
> Broke my wrist ban, thus lost my wrist watch 10-15 years ago.
>
> Never quite got around to replacing it.
>
> Seem to maintain a mental clock that is +/- 15 minutes of actual,
> regardless of time zone.
>
> Traffic here in SoCal is such that most people understand and accept
> that traffic often dictates the start of a meeting.
>
> Lew
What Swing said....and:
That Crackberry of mine buzzes.....it often means I am about to make
some money. It is my business. I sell on it. I buy on it. I 'discuss
issues' with delivery drivers on it. Solve problems in the shop when I
am away... order food, look up a map/location/GPS..... receive mail,
send mail, text with my wife and daughters, meet friends for a beer,
keep appointment calendars, reminder lists, price lists. Frankly... I
depend on it.
I am also perfectly capable of shutting it down and let it take mail
and messages for a few days. I depend on it, but I'm not dependent on
it... if you catch my drift bro'. I haven't touched the thing since
Dec 24. Jan 4, it goes back on. If you can't get a hold of me another
way? Then you're not close enough for me to give a shit. *S*
On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>> cell
>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>> emergency call.
> =================================
>
> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> problem.
>
> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> me during those times.
>
> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
- I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that
I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
dropped considerably.
Matt
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:18:37 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry
> >Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>
> >> > I still want my lasers...
> >>
> >> I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
> >> mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
> >> drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).
> >
> >I'll accept that as an interim measure.
> >
> >;-)
>
> While fun, it wouldn't take them off the road. At the least, please
> install undercar lasers to give 'em flats, OK?
Oh, I still ultimately want the friggin' lasers. Right with you on that
one, C-less.
I'd go with the paintballs as a proof-of-concept measure only.
(New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
have traded some more carbon credits.)
In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> ... snip
> >
> > (New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
> > have traded some more carbon credits.)
>
> You sure he isn't coming up there to give a speech or hold a climate
> summit? That's the usual weather phenomenon associated with those events.
Naw, this is just winter in western Canukistan. Not usually this cold
at this time of year, but it's not outside the range of "normal".
I did have to laugh at the protest against global warming in
"Hopenchangin" the other day that was cancelled due to blizzard,
though.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:18:37 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry
>Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>> > I still want my lasers...
>>
>> I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
>> mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
>> drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).
>
>I'll accept that as an interim measure.
>
>;-)
While fun, it wouldn't take them off the road. At the least, please
install undercar lasers to give 'em flats, OK?
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Dave Balderstone wrote:
... snip
>
> (New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
> have traded some more carbon credits.)
You sure he isn't coming up there to give a speech or hold a climate
summit? That's the usual weather phenomenon associated with those events.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> ... snip
>>
>> (New Years morning, and it's -32C, -41 with wind chill. Al Gore must
>> have traded some more carbon credits.)
>
> You sure he isn't coming up there to give a speech or hold a climate
> summit? That's the usual weather phenomenon associated with those events.
>
You mean a blast of hot air?
On Dec 31, 1:01=A0pm, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:11:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 30, 8:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>
> >> >Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
> >> >without a conference, etc.
>
> >> That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
> >> he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
> >> was looking for ~ the ATM.
>
> >> THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
> >> there was an ATM on the premises.
>
> >> I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
> >> the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
> >> than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
> >> That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
> >> to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
>
> >> And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
> >> the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
> >> for too long a period.
>
> >One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
> >devices in the asshat's ear.
>
> You'll yawn and stretch on your way by them, "accidentally" throwing a
> swift elbow into the greentooth's ear with the bluetooth in it, eh?
> I like it!
>
> --
> =A0 Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
That, or do a Laurel & Hardy-style turn...with a board on my shoulder.
6 feet of 3/4" x 6" oak oughtta do it? "Oops..didn't see ya!...what's
that blue light inside your ear?"
"I have heard of people who had ringing in their ears...but yours is
BEEEEPING!!!"
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:23:14 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>> How about side-aimed lasers under the car to take out the
>> tires on a car you're passing who held up the line 30-deep on a 2-lane
>> highway?
>
>Or the asshole who's been riding my tail when I'm already doing 10 kph
>over limit as he decides to pass on a double-yellow.
Whenever anyone gets too close to me, I tap the brakes, then slow down
and pull over as far as possible, hand out the window waving them on.
Life's too short to get rear ended by some brainless dolt.
Then again, it's usually me passing the slow jerk. ;)
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:11:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Dec 30, 8:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>
>> >Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
>> >without a conference, etc.
>>
>> That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
>> he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
>> was looking for ~ the ATM.
>>
>> THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
>> there was an ATM on the premises.
>>
>> I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
>> the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
>> than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
>> That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
>> to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
>>
>> And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
>> the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
>> for too long a period.
>
>One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
>devices in the asshat's ear.
You'll yawn and stretch on your way by them, "accidentally" throwing a
swift elbow into the greentooth's ear with the bluetooth in it, eh?
I like it!
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>> cell
>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>> emergency call.
> =================================
>
> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> problem.
>
> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> me during those times.
>
> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> Lew
>
Amen. I have a cell and will carry it if I am to be away from home for
some period of time. I turn it on only if I need to make a call. My
brother asked for my number, I gave it, and informed him that if he
wanted to call me, he needed to call my land line first so I could turn
on the phone.
mahalo,
jo4hn (who hasn't carried a time piece in 40 years)
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:842ce0f8-9cdc-46c9-86eb-366d8e867e61@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
> HIM.
Boy - you don't get it do you? He was using himself as just one example of
how and why people use things like cell phones in necessary and productive
ways, despite the self-righteous proclamations from some, about the vanity
of a society that uses them.
> I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
> whole.
And he pointed out that said society includes many types of people you
obviously have not considered in your determination of what a society should
need.
> I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
> that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."
You really believe you have the insight into what's better for the many?
And you don't even understand the many? No - you have your own ideas that
you think everyone should follow. That's fine - it's what opinions are all
about, and there's nothing wrong with an opinion. But - an opinion is not
what serves the interests of the many, it only serves the interest of the
individual.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Dec 29, 11:20=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
> > that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
>
> > I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
> > upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
> > the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
> > every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
> > into a construction project.
>
> > In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
> > become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to
> > supervise and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen
> > to be standing.
>
> > My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the
> > instancy of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency
> > and the ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a
> > better built project.
>
> > You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
> > during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
> > hire, or as a subcontractor.
>
> > Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
>
> If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
> basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
> any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
> would be your primary responsibility.
>
> Just an observation.
>
> Lew
I can't speak for Swing, but my calls are usually about 20-30 seconds
unless I am doing a pitch for my product.
On Dec 27, 7:10=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 6:59=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?
>
> >Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-)
>
> Does saying it fast knock out cell phones? ;-)
What?
Hello?
Hel-lo??
Hel-LOooo??
Crap.
On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:
> On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>>> cell
>>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>>> emergency call.
>> =================================
>>
>> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>>
>> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
>> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>>
>> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>>
>> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>>
>> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
>> problem.
>>
>> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
>> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
>> me during those times.
>>
>> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
>> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
>> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>>
>> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
> In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
> for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew -
> I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
> in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
> reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that I'm
> retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has dropped
> considerably.
Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?
I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to the
supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
construction project.
In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standing.
My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better built
project.
You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
or as a subcontractor.
Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:57:33 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 12/31/2009 4:05 PM, CW wrote:
>
>> I don't go to movies anymore. Don't
>> want to have to wear earplugs for 2.5 hours.
>
>Hell, I don't either ... but because I don't want to have to take out a
>loan for popcorn and drinks for two.
I take a big coat with deep, deep pockets, even in the heat of summer.
Nobody's gonna take my handpopped (nuked) popcorn away from me.
My niece talked me into going to see Avatar last week. There were
only 10 people, including us, in the theater. It was great! $6 each,
so it didn't break the bank. I took a baggie of beef jerky and we
split it.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
On 12/28/2009 4:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:37:37 -0600, Steve Turner
>> air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction has actually
>> occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
>
> I'm in Toronto, Canada and I've actually viewed the pulling of people
> over for cell phone use.
Get a warm feeling of satisfaction from that, did you?
> A grace period has been enacted until Feb 1,
> 2010 when actual fines of up to $500 will be given. And in addition to
> that, police also have the ability to lay careless and dangerous
> driving charges.
Oh? They didn't have that ability already? I wonder how many of the people
you saw getting pulled over were actually cited for such infractions...
> It's certainly not a feel good law, at least not here.
> http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091025/Cellphone_Ban_091025/20091025/?site_codename=Toronto
>
> As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway
> at all if I go to the effort of digging up actual statistics that cell
> phone use while driving increases the chance of an accident?
Oh, I'd imagine a whole bunch of people feel all warm and fuzzy inside now that
this law has been passed. Hooray for us! We've saved the world from the evil
cellphone talkers! Thank gawd, the accident rate will finally go down! How's
about you send me *those* statistics once it's been "proven" that this law is
doing the job it was designed to do?
> Or, will you continue to insist that your personal opinion on cell
> phone use is all that matters?
Oh, I'd wager I'm far from alone in my opinion.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 4:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:37:37 -0600, Steve Turner
>>> air drumming to hip-hop "music", etc.), but unless an infraction
>>> has actually occurred, this is just another "feel-good" law.
>>
>> I'm in Toronto, Canada and I've actually viewed the pulling of people
>> over for cell phone use.
>
> Get a warm feeling of satisfaction from that, did you?
>
>> A grace period has been enacted until Feb 1,
>> 2010 when actual fines of up to $500 will be given. And in addition
>> to that, police also have the ability to lay careless and dangerous
>> driving charges.
>
> Oh? They didn't have that ability already? I wonder how many of the
> people
> you saw getting pulled over were actually cited for such
> infractions...
>
>> It's certainly not a feel good law, at least not here.
>> http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091025/Cellphone_Ban_091025/20091025/?site_codename=Toronto
>>
>> As to your opinion that this *is* just a feel good law, will it sway
>> at all if I go to the effort of digging up actual statistics that
>> cell phone use while driving increases the chance of an accident?
>
> Oh, I'd imagine a whole bunch of people feel all warm and fuzzy
> inside now that
> this law has been passed. Hooray for us! We've saved the world from
> the evil
> cellphone talkers! Thank gawd, the accident rate will finally go
> down! How's
> about you send me *those* statistics once it's been "proven" that
> this law is
> doing the job it was designed to do?
>
>> Or, will you continue to insist that your personal opinion on cell
>> phone use is all that matters?
>
> Oh, I'd wager I'm far from alone in my opinion.
People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.
It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the ones
who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
On 12/29/2009 10:34 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.
No, it's people like YOU who think that numbers and statistics can classify
what kind of person I am and what my abilities are. *I've* never done
*anything* to warrant this law being used against me, nor will I, because I am
a responsible law-abiding citizen.
> It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the ones
> who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
And I am NOT that person, so why don't you punish them, not me?
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use cell
>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>> emergency call.
> =================================
>
> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an electronic
> one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
> and I'm not that important.
> ...
> Lew
I feel the way you do about that Lew.
Tonight my car almost got bumped into in a parking lot by a car backing out
of a
parking space--the driver talking on the phone. What was interesting this
time
was that it was a Police Car! No kidding... Actually, my hat is off to
those guys;
I think they have a tough job I wouldn't like to face.
Bill
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote
>>
>> You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
>> during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
>> hire, or as a subcontractor.
>>
> <sniff>
>
> Does that mean you are not going to hire me? :)
I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".
On 12/30/2009 8:58 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:12 pm, Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
>>> rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.
>>
>> Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. You, of course having
>> the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
>> someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commerce
>> and production.
>
> Uh ... no. No arrogance at all.
>
> Simply read what he wrote.
>
> It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
> HIM.
And of course, he's the only one on the planet who has this point of view.
> I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
> whole.
Which of course, is comprised of FAR more people holding your point of view
than that of the opposite. No question. It's a given.
> I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
> that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."
I see, you speak for the "people", whereas "the rest of us" (I, and Mark, and
Karl, and Tim, and Robatoy, and ...) all speak for ourselves.
> And ... best of luck arguing with that.
Oh right, absolutely NO arrogance there.
--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>> cell
>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>> emergency call.
> =================================
>
> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> problem.
>
> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> me during those times.
>
> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
- I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that
I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
dropped considerably.
Matt
On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>> cell
>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>> emergency call.
> =================================
>
> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>
> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>
> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>
> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>
> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
> problem.
>
> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
> me during those times.
>
> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>
> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
- I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that
I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
dropped considerably.
Matt
On 2009-12-29, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bought a cell phone the next day.
Don't give out the number to ANYONE! ;)
nb
On 12/29/2009 3:39 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:15 pm, Matt<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
>>>> Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use
>>>> cell
>>>> phones while driving, all emergency calls (in Canada anyway) are
>>>> exempted from the new laws on using them while driving if it's an
>>>> emergency call.
>>> =================================
>>
>>> I find the whole discussion rather amusing.
>>
>>> I long ago got past the need for a nurse maid, especially an
>>> electronic one hanging from some part of my body.
>>
>>> I conduct my telephone business in my office.
>>
>>> If I'm not there, leave a message, I'll return it.
>>
>>> If you can't wait until I'm in my office to talk to me, you have a
>>> problem.
>>
>>> Sailing and wood working both provide a means to ignore the damn
>>> telephone, a pleasure I choose not to violate by providing access to
>>> me during those times.
>>
>>> I find it quite amusing to see someone walking down the street, so
>>> unable to manage their business to the point that they have to jabber
>>> into a mouthpiece in a vain attempt to improve their efficiency.
>>
>>> Life is far too short and I'm not that important.
>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> In a similar vein, I quit wearing a watch decades ago. Was never late
>> for a meeting or appointment after that, either. And I'm with you, Lew
>> - I do carry a cell phone, but it's for MY use, not for the world to get
>> in touch with me. The few people who do have the number know they can
>> reach me if needed, but otherwise, wait until I'm home. And now that
>> I'm retired, the number of people who "need" to get ahold of me has
>> dropped considerably.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Matt uses the new Pneumatic UseNet Client from Harbor Freight..... it
> triple fires.
But it was cheap! :-)
Just switched from Thunderbird 2 to Thunderbird 3, and I kept getting
"failure to post" errors, followed by "timeout" messages concerning
connecting to the server. So, I tried (and tried) again... sigh...
Matt
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:31:42 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Unfortunately far too many of them are travelling tired or wired.
>
> That, I have heard and also that there's a move in Ontario underway
> (or might already be in effect) to limit the number of hours they can
> drive.
They do have limits per day and per week. Enforcing them is another problem
though. Good drivers are adept at keeping multiple sets of logs.
On 12/29/2009 10:20 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
> If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
> basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
> any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
> would be your primary responsibility.
>
> Just an observation.
And an extremely faulty one ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 6:59 pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?
>
>Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-)
Does saying it fast knock out cell phones? ;-)
Leon wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1c818af3-e2eb-4165-9b8d-
> Jammers are available.
>
> In fact, for the States, the UK is our primary source.
>
> But ... think about it: if you think the cell-phone-using driver is
> distracted while they're mindlessly chatting away, then just imagine
> their reaction when their call suddenly drops.
>
> I think you make a horrid situation worse.
>
>
> I am thinking the person using the jammer will be as big of a problem as the
> cell phone user. On the road he is certainly going to be watching the cell
> phone user to see if his jammer is working.
Plus, if he uses it around me and I catch him, he's going to need a
jammerectomy from the vicinity of his anal area.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Steve Turner wrote:
>
> Some drivers can deal
> with the multitasking WAY better than others.
True.
>I can handle it just
> fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and
> the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the
> person on the other end of the phone gets what's left.
That statement alone proves you wrong. Read what you wrote.
However, some
> (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a
> normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do
> you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block
> all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the
> activity is *actually* impairing their ability and causing them to
> commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with
> their activities?
There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the
phone. Really, there is. Talking to a passenger, you are more likely to
stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention
compared to talking on the phone.
Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. I do it
myself. The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends on
many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc.
In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far
different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give
detailed technical support to a customer.
In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while
driving and talking. Where do you draw the line?
In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same
> area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.
>
Deb and I (and darling daughter) still talk with disbelieve about the
time we saw a woman driving through the curves of the Canadian Rockies
just east of Field, heading west, with a point and shoot camera to her
eye trying to get a picture of the scenery.
I tapped my brakes and allowed a few vehicles to pass (when they could,
there aren't a lot of opportunities), then dropped about 5 kph in speed
for half an hour or so.
I sure as hell didn't want to be anywhere close behind her, and trying
to pass was WAY too dangerous.
I saw no EMTs as we drove on, so I guess she made it and unfortunately
she appeared to be of an age where she'd already reproduced...
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:34 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you
>>>>know.
>>>
>>> Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
>>> or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
>>> think so?
>>>
>>>>It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
>>>>ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
>>>
>>> And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
>>> law.
>>
>> ... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this
>> bother
>>you so much?
>
> They have and are, Mark. Ask any savvy insurance guy. Also, cops are
> notorious drivers, despite the extra high-speed training...if they got
> it. It's too expensive for most cities nowadays. Cops are one of the
> worst sets of distracted drivers. Check their stats. It's scary.
> While you're there, check their shooting stats. That's the scariest
> stat I can think of. Their bystander/perp scores are painful.
>
> When vital info is passed over a phone line, the person receiving it
> uses all his attention on it, to the near exclusion of everything else
> around them. Watch people on the phone some day. Hell, people in
> London have put up mattress pads on telephone poles because people
> have been bumping into them at a savage rate while texting on their
> phones. _Train_ wrecks have been caused by texting, fer chrissakes.
> Where have you been?
I thought the discussion was regarding *talking* on cell phones while
driving. Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same
area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.
>
> --
> It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
> -- Garrison Keillor
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:34 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.
>>
>> Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
>> or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
>> think so?
>>
>>>It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
>>>ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.
>>
>> And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
>> law.
>
> ... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this bother
>you so much?
They have and are, Mark. Ask any savvy insurance guy. Also, cops are
notorious drivers, despite the extra high-speed training...if they got
it. It's too expensive for most cities nowadays. Cops are one of the
worst sets of distracted drivers. Check their stats. It's scary.
While you're there, check their shooting stats. That's the scariest
stat I can think of. Their bystander/perp scores are painful.
When vital info is passed over a phone line, the person receiving it
uses all his attention on it, to the near exclusion of everything else
around them. Watch people on the phone some day. Hell, people in
London have put up mattress pads on telephone poles because people
have been bumping into them at a savage rate while texting on their
phones. _Train_ wrecks have been caused by texting, fer chrissakes.
Where have you been?
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark &
> Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same
>> area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.
>>
>
> Deb and I (and darling daughter) still talk with disbelieve about the
> time we saw a woman driving through the curves of the Canadian Rockies
> just east of Field, heading west, with a point and shoot camera to her
> eye trying to get a picture of the scenery.
>
I hear ya. This fourth of July, we were in Dallas and attended a wedding
in Lewisville. On the way back to my Sister-in-Law's house, we happened to
be driving by the Lewisville mall when they were having the fireworks grand
finale. On the interstate, there was a woman in one of those new VW bugs
driving in the middle lane with a camera taking pictures of the fireworks.
She was slowed down to about 35 mph on a 65 mph highway in the flippin'
middle lane. One of those, "Excuse me for staring, it's just that I've
never seen stupid of this magnitude before" moments.
... snip
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:47 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Found an off the wall TV program that showed various projects built
>>from discards headed to the dump.
>>
>>One was the universal "Off", TV remote.
>>
>>Starting with an old TV remote, stripped out everything but the "Off"
>>switch then re-programmed the remote to issue a continuous string
>>"Off" commands for every TV made.
>>
>>Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>>wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
>>about 50 ft.
>>
>>Impressive use of technology by someone with a lot of spare time or a
>>diabolical sense of humor.
>
>It's been done: http://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_main.php
>
>Bought one of these a couple years ago. It's loads of fun.
No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
places where it would be inappropriate.
"Steve Turner" wrote
>
> I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you
> speak, but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while
> performing distracting acts (such as those I described above)? I don't
> think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not
> getting enforced: Because they'd have to pull over practically every car
> on the road, that's why!
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who are
> *actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody from
> doing things that *might* cause an accident? If it turns out the errant
> driver was engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them
> with an additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply
> can't contain these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and
> from each other.
>
> --
I told this story before.
The only time I ever drove drunk was through on of those "intensive
enforcement" campaigns supposedly designed to catch drunk drivers. They
just pull over lots of cars at random in a select area and harrass
everybody. Young, dumb and drunk, I drove through almost 50 miles of this.
Hundreds of cars were pulled over getting "special treatment".
Drunk as a skunk, I drove through this. They never noticed me. They were to
busy rousing the citizens to notice me. Good timing on my part. Or just the
luck of youth or something. First and last time I ever did this. I knew my
luck would never hold out another time.
On Dec 29, 9:19=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve Turner wrote:
> > On 12/28/2009 10:11 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> On Dec 28, 9:00 am, Steve Turner<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>
> >>>> "Steve Turner"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> I *know* my awareness is as good as
> >>>>> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on
> >>>>> the road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though
> >>>>> I've had a clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>
> >>>> Come back when you've got Fifty.
>
> >>> Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few
> >>> mistakes along the way before I learned my lessons. =A0The fact is,
> >>> we're both demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in
> >>> the face of the crusade to ban the use of cellphones while driving.
> >>> I can still have my hot cup of McDonald's coffee in one hand, a
> >>> hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls on my road shaking
> >>> stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror, but the
> >>> minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
>
> >> Nah.
>
> >> HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of
> >> "distracted driver" laws that are already on the books of so many
> >> municipalities.
>
> >> But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted)
> >> ears.
>
> >> Why? =A0I can only speculate.
>
> >> If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a
> >> proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no
> >> additional law needed.
>
> > I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you
> > speak,
> > but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while performing
> > distracting acts (such as those I described above)? =A0I don't think it
> > would
> > take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not getting
> > enforced:
> > Because they'd have to pull over practically every car on the road,
> > that's why!
>
> I see enforceability as the issue. =A0"Distracted" is a judgment call--a =
cop
> pulls somebody over for distracted driving and spends the next six months=
in
> court while the lawyers wrangle over what "distracted" means, then the ca=
se
> goes up through the appellate process and eventually the Supremes rule th=
at
> "distracted" is "unconstitutionally vague".
>
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who
> > are
> > *actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody
> > from doing
> > things that *might* cause an accident?
>
> Distracted driving _is_ an "infraction". =A0Stopping somebody who is ten =
over
> the limit in a brand new Ferrari on a rural Interstate on a bright sunny =
day
> makes less sense from a public safety viewpoint than does stopping somebo=
dy
> who is nattering on a cell phone while reading a map, eating a burger, an=
d
> getting a BJ but obeying the speed limit.
>
> > If it turns out the errant
> > driver was
> > engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them with an
> > additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply
> > can't contain
> > these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and from each
> > other.
>
> Futile attempts to save everybody from themselves I agree with. =A0Saving
> people from each other though is the reason we _have_ laws. =A0If we aren=
't
> going to do that then we may as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery.
Excuse me, but ... every point you made was both reasonable and well
made.
Please stop.
;-)
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
... snip
>
> I see. Since nobody can ever be perfect, I guess nobody can ever be
> trusted to
> operate a cellphone in motor vehicle in a responsible fashion. What about
> all those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of
> "contraptions" to
> communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I
> don't recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
This debate is as old as technology. I have some old amateur radio
magazine from the 50's in which there were discussions of various
municipalities banning the use of microphones while driving. Much for and
agin' on the ham radio side. This whole thread could have been held in a
several month sequence of letters to the editor in "CQ" magazine back in
1955.
/disclaimers: a) No, I'm not that old, I got the magazines from a family
friend when I was about 12. and b) no, I'm not a ham operator, I could never
teach myself how to reliably receive the required morse code at speed.
Sending, no problem, hearing -- big problem. But I did actively pursue it
when I was young, built a couple of receivers and spent a lot of time
listening as well as shortwave listening.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
J. Clarke wrote:
> Saving
> people from each other though is the reason we _have_ laws. If we aren't
> going to do that then we may as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery.
Bingo! But, if you REALLY want to stop it, the ONLY thing that would
work to make "enforcement" efficient/viable are stiff fines for first
offenders, and mandatory jail sentences for the second offense.
Put some soccer mom's high school kid in jail for thirty days, and it
wouldn't take long for the ADD generation and their spawn to get the point.
Too damn bad the warm fuzzy liberal judges, the ultimate political
appointees of the very folks screaming the loudest in favor of the laws,
won't do that.
A perfect example of the built-in inconsistencies in warm fuzzy thinking ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 28, 9:00=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>
> > "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> I *know* my awareness is as good as
> >> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
> >> road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
> >> clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>
> > Come back when you've got Fifty.
>
> Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mista=
kes
> along the way before I learned my lessons. =A0The fact is, we're both
> demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the cr=
usade
> to ban the use of cellphones while driving. =A0I can still have my hot cu=
p of
> McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the co=
ntrols
> on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mir=
ror,
> but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
Nah.
HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of "distracted
driver" laws that are already on the books of so many municipalities.
But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted)
ears.
Why? I can only speculate.
If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a
proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no
additional law needed.
On Dec 29, 9:48=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bingo! But, if you REALLY want to stop it, the ONLY thing that would
> work to make "enforcement" efficient/viable are stiff fines for first
> offenders, and mandatory jail sentences for the second offense.
>
> Put some soccer mom's high school kid in jail for thirty days, and it
> wouldn't take long for the ADD generation and their spawn to get the poin=
t.
>
> Too damn bad the warm fuzzy liberal judges, the ultimate political
> appointees of the very folks screaming the loudest in favor of the laws,
> won't do that.
I was hoping somebody would try to make this a purely one-sided
partisan issue.
That train ain't never late.
That person ... always seems ignorant to the corporate interests whose
profitability would be *decimated* by proposals like banning cell
phone use while driving.
And ... as we all know ... only one party is beholden to the interests
of Big Business, right??
Hmm.
> A perfect example of the built-in inconsistencies in warm fuzzy thinking =
...
Which ... as it turns out ... usually leads to better conclusions than
not thinking at all, or -- perhaps worse -- confirmation bias ;-)
On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
>> Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
>> not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
>> 28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).
>
> Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
> *you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
> awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
> brain power left over for something else.
What the hell does that even mean? You have no idea how aware I am of my
surroundings when I'm driving. I *know* my awareness is as good as it gets,
and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the road. Of course,
I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a clean driving slate for
15 over years, I'm sure statistics will "prove" that my use of a cellphone on
the road makes me an unsafe driver.
> The real fact is that no one, not even your Mario Andretti example is
> capable of being aware of everything around them when they're driving.
> There's just too many things that can happen. There are people however
> that are much more aware than others. They are the safer driver.
Oh yeah; that safer driver? That's me. Does that earn me the right to use my
cellphone when *I* deem it to be safe? No, I didn't think so.
> It's like taking martial arts training. As you progress through the
> ranks, you gain additional awareness of what is happening around you
> and that gives you greater control in a given situation. But, even the
> top ranked in martial arts will admit that no one knows it all,
> there's always something additional to learn. Driving can be
> considered the same way. It's common sense.
I see. Since nobody can ever be perfect, I guess nobody can ever be trusted to
operate a cellphone in motor vehicle in a responsible fashion. What about all
those commercial drivers out there that use other forms of "contraptions" to
communicate with their central office or co-workers? Two-way radios? I don't
recall this issue ever coming up with CB radios.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
In article <[email protected]>, Ed
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> dhall987 wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard
> >> Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being
> >> thirsty too often.
> >>
> >> But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.
> >>
> >> After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
> >> and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
> >> And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
> >> streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.
> >>
> >> So it works for me. YMMV.
> >
> > Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
> > because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
> > safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
> > doesn't seem worth it....
>
> Back when I was a kid, about 1956, a friend's mother drove us to the movies
> one afternoon. We had to sit in the back seat and were not allowed to talk
> while she drove.
>
> While I strongly am against driving distracted, the radio is on most all the
> time, I've eaten a burger or breakfast sandwich if traffic allows a couple
> of times a year. Most important, I keep one hand on the wheel at all times.
> Well, a few fingers from one hand at all times.
Back when I was a teenager I was quite capable of rolling a smoke while
steering with my knees and upshifting the Beetle from a full stop.
Automatic transmissions have weakened the human race...
dhall987 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard
>> Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being
>> thirsty too often.
>>
>> But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.
>>
>> After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
>> and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
>> And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
>> streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.
>>
>> So it works for me. YMMV.
>
> Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
> because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
> safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
> doesn't seem worth it....
Back when I was a kid, about 1956, a friend's mother drove us to the movies
one afternoon. We had to sit in the back seat and were not allowed to talk
while she drove.
While I strongly am against driving distracted, the radio is on most all the
time, I've eaten a burger or breakfast sandwich if traffic allows a couple
of times a year. Most important, I keep one hand on the wheel at all times.
Well, a few fingers from one hand at all times.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
>>After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
>>one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
>>that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
>>well as five years as a full time RVer.
>>
>>So it works for me. YMMV.
>
> Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
> because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit safer
> in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just doesn't
> seem worth it....
So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:33:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
>>
>>>> After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
>>>> and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault.
>>>> And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface
>>>> streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.
>>>
>>> Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
>>> because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
>>> safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
>>> doesn't seem worth it....
>>
>> So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
>> phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?
>
> No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison.
I agree. But either "dhall987" was equating that behavior to my post on
driving, or he was off on a tangent that had no point.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:21:10 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:32:35 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
>
>> Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
>> huh?
>
>If I'm out in the country on a long trip, and there isn't other traffic,
>I've been known to sip a bit of coffee which my wife pours out of a
>thermos. Only about 1/4 of a cup so it won't spill if I hit a pothole.
>
>Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being thirsty
>too often.
>
>But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.
>
>After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
>one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
>that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
>well as five years as a full time RVer.
>
>So it works for me. YMMV.
Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
doesn't seem worth it....
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:53:54 -0500, dhall987 wrote:
>
>>> After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor
>>> and one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's
>>> fault. And that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago
>>> surface streets, as well as five years as a full time RVer.
>>>
>>> So it works for me. YMMV.
>>
>> Sorry. I knew a lady once that hadn't left her house for 15 years
>> because it is "just too dangerous" out here. She is probably a bit
>> safer in her house than out in public, but self-imposed prison just
>> doesn't seem worth it....
>
> So driving attentively is a "self-imposed prison" and equates to a
> phobia? Your reasoning is defective. Or are you just trolling?
No, not leaving your house in 15 years is a self-imposed prison. Some
people just have problems that way--Isaac Asimov didn't go to the convention
where he got his fourth or fifth Hugo because sitting on the train from NY
to Miami was too stressful for him (and _forget_ about flying).
"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
>>> Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where
>>> driving does
>>> not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda
>>> Civic at
>>> 28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).
>>
>> Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
>> *you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
>> awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
>> brain power left over for something else.
>
> What the hell does that even mean? You have no idea how aware I am of my
> surroundings when I'm driving. I *know* my awareness is as good as it
> gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the road.
> Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a clean
> driving slate for 15 over years,
Come back when you've got Fifty.
On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I *know* my awareness is as good as
>> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
>> road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
>> clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>
> Come back when you've got Fifty.
Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes
along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is, we're both
demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade
to ban the use of cellphones while driving. I can still have my hot cup of
McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls
on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror,
but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 12/28/2009 10:11 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:00 am, Steve Turner<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Turner"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I *know* my awareness is as good as
>>>> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
>>>> road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
>>>> clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>>
>>> Come back when you've got Fifty.
>>
>> Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes
>> along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is, we're both
>> demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade
>> to ban the use of cellphones while driving. I can still have my hot cup of
>> McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls
>> on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror,
>> but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
>
> Nah.
>
> HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of "distracted
> driver" laws that are already on the books of so many municipalities.
>
> But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted)
> ears.
>
> Why? I can only speculate.
>
> If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a
> proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no
> additional law needed.
I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you speak,
but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while performing
distracting acts (such as those I described above)? I don't think it would
take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not getting enforced:
Because they'd have to pull over practically every car on the road, that's why!
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who are
*actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody from doing
things that *might* cause an accident? If it turns out the errant driver was
engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them with an
additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply can't contain
these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and from each other.
--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve Turner wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 10:11 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 9:00 am, Steve Turner<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Turner"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> I *know* my awareness is as good as
>>>>> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on
>>>>> the road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though
>>>>> I've had a clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>>>
>>>> Come back when you've got Fifty.
>>>
>>> Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few
>>> mistakes along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is,
>>> we're both demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in
>>> the face of the crusade to ban the use of cellphones while driving.
>>> I can still have my hot cup of McDonald's coffee in one hand, a
>>> hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls on my road shaking
>>> stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror, but the
>>> minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
>>
>> Nah.
>>
>> HUGE numbers of people vocally advocate for enforcement of
>> "distracted driver" laws that are already on the books of so many
>> municipalities.
>>
>> But ... those cries seem to fall on deaf (or cell phone distracted)
>> ears.
>>
>> Why? I can only speculate.
>>
>> If municipalities WOULD start enforcing distracted driver laws -- a
>> proposition with just about zero downside -- then there would BE no
>> additional law needed.
>
> I'm not too familiar with these "distracted driver" laws of which you
> speak,
> but I'm guessing they seek to cite people for driving while performing
> distracting acts (such as those I described above)? I don't think it
> would
> take a rocket scientist to figure out why they're not getting
> enforced:
> Because they'd have to pull over practically every car on the road,
> that's why!
I see enforceability as the issue. "Distracted" is a judgment call--a cop
pulls somebody over for distracted driving and spends the next six months in
court while the lawyers wrangle over what "distracted" means, then the case
goes up through the appellate process and eventually the Supremes rule that
"distracted" is "unconstitutionally vague".
> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pull over and cite people who
> are
> *actually committing* infractions rather than try to stop everybody
> from doing
> things that *might* cause an accident?
Distracted driving _is_ an "infraction". Stopping somebody who is ten over
the limit in a brand new Ferrari on a rural Interstate on a bright sunny day
makes less sense from a public safety viewpoint than does stopping somebody
who is nattering on a cell phone while reading a map, eating a burger, and
getting a BJ but obeying the speed limit.
> If it turns out the errant
> driver was
> engaging in "distracted" behavior, then by all means slap them with an
> additional charge, but our law enforcement infrastructure simply
> can't contain
> these futile attempts to save everybody from themselves and from each
> other.
Futile attempts to save everybody from themselves I agree with. Saving
people from each other though is the reason we _have_ laws. If we aren't
going to do that then we may as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:27:32 -0600, Steve Turner
>Fine; I'll restate. For many people, there *are* situations where driving does
>not require 100% of their attention (Mario Andretti driving a Honda Civic at
>28mph in a 35mph zone might be one example).
Just the fact that you're arguing this topic shows everybody that
*you* are one of those people that doesn't have the requisite
awareness to qualify for your ridiculous statement of having enough
brain power left over for something else.
The real fact is that no one, not even your Mario Andretti example is
capable of being aware of everything around them when they're driving.
There's just too many things that can happen. There are people however
that are much more aware than others. They are the safer driver.
It's like taking martial arts training. As you progress through the
ranks, you gain additional awareness of what is happening around you
and that gives you greater control in a given situation. But, even the
top ranked in martial arts will admit that no one knows it all,
there's always something additional to learn. Driving can be
considered the same way. It's common sense.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:00:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
>>to a grinding halt. :-)
>>
>> Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
>>designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
>>those tests.
>
>It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
>every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
>existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
>created and I'll reconsider my statement.
I think you misunderstand. The statement "using a cell phone while
driving is as dangerous as driving drunk" is based on a series of
comparative studies done under controlled conditions. The actual
accident statistics are a separate issue and are somewhat interesting
in themselves, although not nearly as hype-worthy. If you look at
accident causes you will see that over that last several years the
accident rate has remained essentially flat, but you will also find
that there is an increasing number of accidents attributed to cell
phone use. I'm not denying that there are risks associated with the
distraction of talking on a cell phone, but it appears from the
statistics that the risk is replacing other risks in causing
accidents. In other words, those who are easily distracted while
driving are going to be distracted - whether from a cell phone or from
their stereo or from their burger or whatever. This leads me to the
assertion that the hype is misleading in regard to reality and that
the reality is much more complex than the media and special interest
groups would like us to believe.
>He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
>accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
>on his "controlled tests" theory.
There are both controlled tests and statistical evidence. The two do
not produce the same conclusions when taken in context and then
extrapolated to the total population. Therefore the issue is much more
difficult to evaluate than "using a cell phone while driving is as
dangerous as driving drunk".
>Obviously, you're biased.
Yes. I dealt with my drinking problems many years ago and don't drink
at all any more, but back in the day I did a fair share of driving
drunk. I currently do quite a bit of talking on my cell phone while
driving, albeit mostly with a headset. I can pretty confidently assure
you that talking on a cell phone while driving is nowhere near as
dangerous as driving drunk.
YMMV, as always.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:37:39 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>Next, hide the unit in a hat so that you could walk down the street
>wearing the hat and push the "Off" button turning off any TV with in
>about 50 ft.
I've done the same thing before, but my preferred target is a bar when
the Leaf's are playing and I get to watch everybody freak out. It's
truly amazing to see the fans support such an inept hockey team when
they've given so little back all these past years.
notbob wrote:
> The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no
> further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.
Careful there nutjob, you're way out of your league with that kind of
online threat ... reconsider, very carefully, those words.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2009-12-27, CW <cmagers@earthlink> wrote:
> Movies? Restaurants? Elevators? For environments like that, I'd
> LOVE to have one ;-)
Likewise.
I'd love to have a personal 100 ft radius jammer. The number of
people who blather endlessly about inane crap is noise pollution in
the worst degree. It's only due to the power of corporate money that
has made the cell phone unstopable in everyday life. OTOH, with the
advent of texting and the horrendous charges inflicted on the
customer, I'm amazed companies have not made a u-turn and advocated
the banning of cell phone conversation many places. Now that texting
is possible, the lame excuse of "my baby is on fire", along with the
higher texting fees, makes cell phone drone laws completely bogus.
nb