O/T: Gotta Love It
Lew Hodgett
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
Doug Miller
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.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
No one is able to use a cell phone near me in restaurants and other
places where it would be inappropriate.
Limey Lurker
>
> 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)
Morris Dovey
That depends - how loud can you sing?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
krw
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.
EXT
"Lew Hodgett" <sails...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:00b235fd$0$26923$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
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.
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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.
Lew Hodgett
"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
Mike Marlow
"EXT" <no...@reply.here> wrote in message
news:4b36ec0d$0$65832$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> 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-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Larry Jaques
<no...@reply.here> scrawled the following:
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
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 ;-)
Leon
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> 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.
Swingman
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)
Lew Hodgett
"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
CW
Jammers are available.
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.
EXT
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:idoej5l04eqcvda4v...@4ax.com...
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
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.
Doug Winterburn
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.
Swingman
> 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?
Lee Michaels
"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.
Steve Turner
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/
Swingman
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.
Robatoy
I still like the idea of jammin' the jammer up the jammer's ass.
*breaking into Marley's song* Jamminajamminajamminajammin
Lew Hodgett
"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
> "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.
--
notbob
> 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
Neil Brooks
> 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?
Is there a certain threshold that I'm obliged to meet, and ... are you
the Keeper Of That Threshold?
More details, please!
Neil Brooks
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. 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?
*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!
Neil Brooks
Totally agreed.
notbob
> 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
Ed Pawlowski
>
> 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?
Doug Miller
>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.
Neil Brooks
> 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 ;-)
> 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.
> 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 ;-)
SBH
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0095f4a6$0$8169$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
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.
>
>
>
krw
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?
Neil Brooks
You've just reinforced my point. Thank you :-)
Neil Brooks
> Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?
Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-)
krw
Does saying it fast knock out cell phones? ;-)
Neil Brooks
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
>
> >On Dec 27, 6:59 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
Martin H. Eastburn
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
"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
> 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.
Swingman
> "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
>
> 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 ...
Swingman
> 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.
Neil Brooks
> 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.
Ed Pawlowski
> 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.
Neil Brooks
Was it Voltaire who said, "Common sense is not so common?"
Indeed.
krw
Or unluckily, a New Deal.
notbob
> 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
Swingman
> 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.
Swingman
> uOn 2009-12-28, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> 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.
Steve Turner
> 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/
Neil Brooks
<bbqbo...@swtacobell.net.invalid> 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!!!
-MIKE-
>
> 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
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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.
Swingman
> In article <vsedneatruYJpqXW...@giganews.com>, Swingman
> <k...@nospam.com> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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.
Swingman
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?
Steve Turner
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?
Lew Hodgett
> 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
Swingman
> 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?
Neil Brooks
wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
> > <bbqbo...@swtacobell.net.invalid> 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?) :-)
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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.
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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. :)
Steve Turner
> 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.
Robatoy
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.
Steve Turner
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."
Swingman
> 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 ...
--
LDosser
news:1uhgj556su32v7gev...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:51:56 -0600, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> 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 ...
ups...@teksavvy.com
>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?
LDosser
news:hh9k7e$r5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/27/2009 11:43 PM, ups...@teksavvy.com 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.
Neil Brooks
wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 12:37 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:16 pm, Steve Turner<bbqbo...@swtacobell.net.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2009 11:39 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 27, 10:27 pm, Steve Turner
> >>> <bbqbo...@swtacobell.net.invalid> 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?
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.
Robatoy
No you're not. You're being a dick.
LDosser
news:0qmgj59kangqpnu68...@4ax.com...
> 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.
ups...@teksavvy.com
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.
Mike Marlow
"Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:W_UZm.487491$ua.2...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> 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-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96501069-92f7-4110...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...> > 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-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
notbob
> .....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
Neil Brooks
Ouch.
notbob
> 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
Neil Brooks
Sounds like you wouldn't have been driving at the time, if you had
one.
No danger to others, then.
Steve Turner
> "Steve Turner" <bbqb...@swtacobell.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hh9k7e$r5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> it gets, and I *know* it's better than 90% of the other people on the
>> road. Of course, I can't *prove* it to you, and even though I've had a
>> clean driving slate for 15 over years,
>
> Come back when you've got Fifty.
Ok, so you've always been a perfect driver, whereas I've made a few mistakes
along the way before I learned my lessons. The fact is, we're both
demonstrably "safe" drivers, but that means nothing in the face of the crusade
to ban the use of cellphones while driving. I can still have my hot cup of
McDonald's coffee in one hand, a hash brown in the other, fiddling the controls
on my road shaking stereo system while checking my look in the vanity mirror,
but the minute I put that cellphone to my ear I'm a *criminal*.
Neil Brooks
wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 1:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>
> >news:hh9k7e$r5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> 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.
Swingman
> In article <Fe6dnRwdF_QszKXW...@giganews.com>, Swingman
> <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Where and what kind of Canadian indians would be serving in the US Army
>> during that time?
>
> 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 ...
-MIKE-
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
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
notbob
> 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
Swingman
> In article <WaqdnezSCelwe6XW...@giganews.com>, Swingman
> <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Quebec, which would explain the particular French dialect?
>
>
> <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 ...
Lew Hodgett
<ups...@teksavvy.com> 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
Steve Turner
> 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.
Larry Jaques
<mmarlo...@windstream.net> scrawled the following:
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
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?"
Steve Turner
> 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.
Ed Pawlowski
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.