|
O/T: Gotta Love It
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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
In article , "Lew Hodgett" 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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/ |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:03:45 -0600, Morris Dovey
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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ... 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"EXT" wrote in message anews.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- |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT"
scrawled the following: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message .. . 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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 26, 4:00*pm, 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) 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 ;-) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"Neil Brooks" 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
Leon wrote:
"Neil Brooks" 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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"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 ****'em approach. Turn the jammer on the minute you start the car. Jam everything around you and let God sort'em out. Lew |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"Neil Brooks" wrote in message ... On Dec 26, 4:00 pm, 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) 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT" scrawled the following: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message . .. 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 10:42*am, "Lew Hodgett" 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 ****'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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On 12/27/2009 11:55 AM, EXT wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:07:18 -0500, the infamous "EXT" scrawled the following: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ... 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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 bull**** like the above? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On 12/27/2009 1:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:42 am, "Lew 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 ****'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/ |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On 2009-12-27, Swingman wrote:
Now, just what is it that you contribute to this forum besides warm, fuzzy bull**** like the above? The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no further than the muzzle of my .45 compact. nb |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 12:41*pm, Swingman 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. 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 bull**** 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! |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 12:54*pm, 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. *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! |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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? |
O/T: Gotta Love It
In article , Neil Brooks 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 6:43*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. *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 ;-) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:50:28 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
wrote: On Dec 27, 6:43*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. *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 ****ed 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? |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 6:46*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Neil Brooks 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. You've just reinforced my point. Thank you :-) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 6:59*pm, krw wrote:
Cell phone seeking Sidewinders? Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
wrote: On Dec 27, 6:59*pm, krw wrote: Cell phone seeking Sidewinders? Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-) Does saying it fast knock out cell phones? ;-) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 7:10*pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks wrote: On Dec 27, 6:59*pm, krw 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. |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
"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 |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
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) |
O/T: Gotta Love It
On Dec 27, 8:31*pm, Swingman 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter