October 12, 2004

• Forgot to mention its reg. req'd.
• Excellent plan. Any private business that wishes should be doing this as well.
• Good for France. Possibly my favourite country. Let's hope they extend it to trains, buses, restaurants and anywhere within a 50 yard radius of me.
• I'm sure there's a snappy French-rudeness comment here somewhere. I just can't find it. But I will say that my big beef with cell-phone-mania relates to numbers. Before, say, 1990, if there were 100 phoneless people in a room, at any given moment roughly half might be talking and half would be listening quietly. At any given moment today, though, it's not uncommon for 10% to be talking to another 10% who are listening, while 70% are talking on their cell phones and another 10% are wishing everyone would shut the hell up. So that's 80% of the room that is jabbering away all at the same time -- and fighting to be heard over other talkers in the room. IMF protests are quieter.
• That's a great idea. Not simply because it stops phones ringing throughout a show, but because it would help remove the paranoia I feel thoughout any public performance or screening - that, no matter how many times I check, my phone isn't really turned off, and any second now it's going to burst into screeching life and then everybody will lynch me. That really affects my enjoyment of the entertainment at hand.
• I'm no so sure. If I were a parent, getting a babysitter to watch my kids, and I was out around town, I would want them to be able to get a hold of me in case of an emergency.
• Hopefully, nobody here has a doctor that like to go to the movie theater.
• So there we have it: those of us with a sense of perspective and an understanding of civil public behaviour have to put up with interruptions in theatres and inconsiderate yapping in restaurants in case some paranoid parent's kiddiewink has an attack of the sneezums. God, however did our pre-cellphone parents bring themselves to leave the house without us? They must have worried themselves to death.
• Oh, Possum, that doesn't add up. :) If 70% of the people in the room are talking on cell phones, that means that only 35% are actually talking, while the other 35% are listening. So you're still talking about 10% talking to a person in the room + 35% talking on a cell phone = only 45% of the people in the room actually speaking. That's fewer people than the 50% who were talking prior to 1990! ;) My problem is people who abandon courtesy when talking on cell phones. And, of course, those who don't turn theirs off in movies, etc, but I admit I was at a wedding on Sunday when I forgot to turn mine off. Luckily, it didn't ring. :) Overall I'm more interested in humans becoming more courteous/mindful/responsible than imposing laws and rules to leash those who are not courteous/mindful/responsible....
• And hey, do cell phones exist that don't have the vibrating option? There are ways to reach others and to be reached without the noise pollution.
• To Mr. K's point, it's too bad things have gotten so bad we can't assume people have the courtesy and the smarts to set their phones (pagers, beepers) to "vibrate" and to leave the space if they need to answer the call. They don't. And so a small number of people with a real need to stay in contact will have to make accomodations. Blame those who caused the problem in the first place, not those trying to solve it.
• Perspective, Decani? This coming from someone who labels all Bush supporters as "wicked or stupid or some infernal combination of the two". Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I lack perspective. Yes, cell phone calls in theaters is annoying. Yes, people can be inconsiderate with cell phones. However, there is a case to be made that not all cell phone calls are inconsiderate luxuries. Some people depend on them, and for others to be made aware of an emergency during the first twenty minutes of a film, instead of waiting until well after the closing credits have rolled.
• iguanapolitico, you might have misunderstood. Those 70% on their cell phones are talking to people outside the room. They are calling the babysitter, their SOs, their moms, etc. So there are: - 70 people talking on their cell phones. - 10 people talking to other people in the room. - 10 people listening to what those 10 people are saying. - 10 people who are irritated as hell. In theory, you could have 100 out of 100 all yapping on their phones, all speaking at once, with none of the people in the room actually talking or listening to one another.
• Have been noticing that parents at the playgrounds lately are spending most of their time on cell phones rather than playing with their kids. Last Thursday I saw a 6-year old girl asking her mom to push her on the swing, and the mom waved off the kid and turned around to continue the conversation. I felt like using a cell phone jammer right then.
• They don't go far enough. Movie-goers should be stripped and cavity-searched for any noise-making devices. Then they should be muzzled, muffled, and trussed. They should be forced to void their bowels, then strapped into their seats. They heads should be enveloped in noise-cancelling bubbles, and their remaining bodily orifices should be plugged. Only then can we begin to start enjoying the movies in peace and quiet.
• Possum: in theory, yes. But then the whole equation still doesn't help your case all that much, because those 70 people in the room who are all talking on their phones could be talking to 70 people in one other room who are, therefore, not talking. So there are a lot of satisfied people in the other, quiet, room. :) I'm just saying that if you're going to say that 70 people have their phones to their ear, you can't assume that they're all talking, unless you're trying to skew the numbers in your favor. :) So, if you're going to stand by your theory that all 70 are talking, I'm going to stand by my theory that all 70 are talking to 70 silent people in one other room. That's all. :) And my point is not to blanketly defend obnoxious cell phone users, don't worry!
• I went to the theatre the other night and as everyone was taking their seats for the first Act, I pulled a large purple dildo out of my pocket. People looked at me funny, but I just said "don't worry, it's set on vibrate".
• Cell phones can be very annoying. I would love to see this everywhere, subject to the following: It should be well signed, so that no-one who needs a call should be unaware of it. (Staff members may have to tell people of the policy, but it should be anywhere any reasonable person would look). Perhaps a small cell-phone accessible pocket should be left in the area. People would check-in their phones, and a staff member would answer those that ring, and inform the owner. (It wouldn't work in a theatre, but would in a restaurant). My most vivid memory of inappropriate cell use was during a hike on the Bruce Trail. In the middle of a quiet forest, birds singing, frogs croaking, etc., someone's phone starts playing one of those annoying tunes. Which brings me to my next point. Make it legal to lynch anyone whose cell phone rings loudly in an inappropriate area. After a few well-publicized deaths, people would be more aware of this. Courtesy or Death! (more likely the latter I'm afraid)
• In a movie theater (theatre, or as the hillbillies say: the-ATE-her) a ringing cell phone ceases to be a communication tool and becomes a highly directional MORON DETECTOR.
• iguanapolitico, I see what you are saying. I see your point. And yes, I've conducted no scientific study. But I tend to believe that all the cell yappers in, say, a grocery store are not talking/listening to cell yappers in another grocery store or room-like venue. Rather, those other people are in their cars or at home. You know, the old, "Honey, what do you need from the store?" conversation. (I'm not assuming that the entire universe of conversationalists exists only in rooms of 100 people each.) I guess the real issue is that venues that would normally exist at one noise level (a train car, a grocery store, a video store, a public library, etc.) exist at an elevated noise level because additional remote listeners have been injected into the scenario. The guy yapping on the train is speaking _because_ he has a cell phone. He wouldn't otherwise be talking to those around him. The cell phone lets us talk in places where typically we might be quiet. I'm not opposing freedom of speech. I'm just pointing out that grocery checkout lines 10 or 15 years ago were quiet. Today, there are often two people behind you, competing to be heard over each other while you attempt to tell the cashier that you need cash back. I'm saying that, 10 or 15 years ago, you could have read somewhat in peace on the train while perhaps 6 or 8 fellow commuters engaged in light conversation. Today, there are 50 or 60 people in your train car, all of them carrying on an annoying "Where are you?" conversation with parties on the other ends of cell phones.
• Interesting. I'll share with you all an observation, and leave it to you to tell me whether I'm full of it or not. I'm an American who has spent extensive time working and living in Europe (Italy, France, Germany, UK) over the past ten years. In my travels there, I have never been bothered by cell phone users to the degree that it bothers me here. In Europe, I have noticed that people, when speaking to someone via cell in public places, generally use their normal conversational voices. By contrast, Americans in similar situations will speak two to three times louder than their normal volume. I have absolutely no idea why this is. Could it be that cell service is just that much worse in the States, or is there someathing else at work here? At any rate, I have noticed it too many times for it not to be a phonemenon. Anyone else noticed this, or is it just the luck of the draw that I have never been seated at a restaurant near an oblivious loud-cell phone talker in Milan, Lyon or Edinburgh?
• People can talk in movie theaters etc. quite well without cell phones. I've seen it. Really. Cell phones just widen their sphere of people they can yammer to - rather than yammering to the person next to them, they can now yammer to the entire world. But anyone who is inconsiderate and stupid enough to be talking in that case would probably be doing it anyway. I wish we had an Inconsiderate Idiot jammer; perhaps I should invent one and retire early.
• In my (obviously limited) experience, the things people talk about on cells are simply not so important that they can't wait. Remember beepers? They were obnoxious until somone had the bright idea of making them vibrate. The person who had it could look at the little screen, see the number so they knew who was calling, and, if it was important enough to them, go to the nearest telephone and call the other back. Unfortunately, cell phones are here to stay. I feel very fortunate to live in a cellular dead zone.
• psmealey, try London. I swear it's worse than New York. Italy isn't so bad... you just have to watch out for the deadly combination of cell phones and motorini.
• shawnj you seem to be missing his point, which, i think, is, doctors, or whomever you seem to think is so important that they need to get a call during the movie rather than at the end, got by for a long time without taking calls during the theater, movie or otherwise. I guess I don't understand how not being able to have your telephone ring in a public performance setting somehow disables you from being able to find out about an "emergency."
• @psmealey: Americans are louder in general, not just on the phone. :)
• shawnj: I'd be happy to actually discuss how it is possible to still be a Bush supporter without being wicked or stupid (I'll add 'uninformed' to that) to some degree. Rather than your just loftily suggesting that this shows a lack of perspective on my part, I mean.
• I'm not missing his point. I disagree strongly with his assertion that his right to a quiet theater is somehow more important than the ability for people to be in contact with people who might need to speak with them. People are always going to be inconsiderate. They'll mess around with loud candy wrappers, suck on a straw of a empty cup, talk to the person next to them, etc, etc. Getting rid of the cell phone signal isn't going to magically turn a theater or shop into a peaceful paradise where there will be no distraction. At best, this would decrease some frustration while increasing other's frustration. At worst, you could have psychiatrists not getting emergency calls, etc. Yes, they got by for a long time without it, but that does not make it somehow better than the situation we have now.
• I don't know what the lawsuit situation is in France, but if/when this happens in America,m the first person who can demonstate significant injury do to the fact they didn't get their phone call is going to sue the shit out of the jammers, the people that make the jammers, and probably Smuckers. A better solution: Advise theatre goers that anyone whose cell phone goes off during the presentation will be ejected, no Q and A, no refund. Make it very clear up front that this will happen. When some moron's cell phone goes off? Eject them. People will learn.
• Also: Vibrate-mode, people! Give up your idiot Green Day ringtones and switch to vibrate. Not only is it far more polite, depending on which pocket you keep your phone it can be quite enjoyable as well.
• I swear to God that this would be a much better world if cellphones ONLY vibrated. Fancy ringtones damn near send me into a berserker fury.
• I'll pass, thank you. Not because I don't have the time, energy, or ammunition, but because I really don't want to. The blanket statement and the attitude behind it is precisely why our country is so divided and why political discourse is so horrible. It's akin to Ann Coultier claiming liberals are treasonous, and shows a great deal of immaturity that you can't be reverent of what other people believe or follow. Grouping all Bush supporters as uninformed, wicked, and stupid people does absolutely jack shit toward solving any of the worlds problems, and in fact makes the world a more hostile place. But hey, keep fighting the good fight, from your perspective.
• To turn this around a bit: if you can reasonably suppose that somebody will need to talk to you in the next two hours, should you really be going to the theater? - that is, does a person have a right to both? Not to say that there's an absolute here, I see shawnj's point, though I don't think his slippery slope argument re inconsiderate moviegoers really works. I would prefer some sort of override that forces the cell phone to go on vibrate and take a message, so that the moviegoer has to go outside to answer the call, but obviously that's harder to implement. Until then what Fes said.
• Possum: now I see what you're saying. And that goes along well with what PatB said/implied: now that we have cell phones, chatty people use them as a way to find *someone* to blather to. Where there wasn't mindless chatter before, there now is. Plus, as psmealey noted, Americans talk darn *loud* on their phones. I think some people do it because their connection isn't great and they think that yelling will help. I personally have not been at all impressed with any cell phone connection I've ever had in the US, and frequently boggle that we don't have the technology to improve this. I haven't used a cell phone elsewhere, so I can't compare. I do have to remind myself that my yelling won't help me hear the person on the other end of the line any better. :)
• Can anyone point me to a site that sells personal phone-jammers? I want to wear one and sit on a bus. Or in a restaurant.
• If other Americans' cell phones are like mine, they talk louder because they can't freakin' hear above the surroundings. I was in the airport a few weeks ago making a cell phone call to a car rental place to tell them I was going to be late picking up my car. I started out in a relatively quiet area, but quickly ended up in a loud area. My "if I can't hear them, they can't hear me" instinct kicked in and suddenly I was talking a lot louder. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can hold a cell phone conversation outside or on the bus.
• Oh, and speaking of stupid cell phone moments, last night I saw a guy ride down the road, on a bike (at night! Did I mention it was night?) on a cell phone.
• I want a phone-jammer in my car. With a 50 foot range. Yeh.
• I wonder if US cell phone users (I single us out becuase I live in the US) will ever get to the point where we're *over* it and we don't have to yammer so much on our new cellular toys. Or if we'll adopt text messaging. (Or at least, for pete's sake, learn to set our phones to vibrate!) /wish
• that's kinda stupid. Turn your damn cell phone off and that's that. Plus, if you get someone with a cell phone in the middle of a show, you can just sit back and enjoy as they desperately dive for their cell phones, and turning them off while looking like asses. It's lovely. I say "no" to the ban. I love france, but that's just not necessary.
• Why not duct tape everyone's mouth shut when they enter the movie, just to make sure no one talks? Oh yeah, because trying to legislate courtesy is incredibly silly. Cell phones are a part of our lives now. Adjust and join us in the year 2004. (the camera isnt stealing your soul, either)
• Skrik: behold!
• drjimmy nailed it. The problem is not cell phones, it is the people using them. Changing the behavior would be exponentially better and more beneficial (not to mention a shit ton cheaper) than technological or legislative stops. This is just stupid. They should put up a sign at said theater and enforce it strictly rather than this jamming nonsense. People will get the idea by the end of the first week.
• Turn off your cell phone or watch it fly!
• When cellphones are outlawed, only outlaws will have gun phones.
• fuyugare: I see you are taking the wimpy option - I prefer encasing them in concrete.
• Hmmm phones are bad for our health.
• I believe I have mentioned before my distaste for knee-jerk anti-mobile phone whingers before. Only the lack of archives and my own personal laziness prevents you all from feeling the awesome power of my rage once more. One thing I would say - some people here have bleated about use of mobiles on trains and buses. It's one of the most hated cliches of the mobile phone user, the phrase "yeah, I'm on a train..." Now, I'm puzzled as to why this is such a hated phrase, or such a terrible situation to use a mobile in. Surely the phrase "I'm on a train" provides the recipient with useful information that could only have been communicated via mobile phone? Surely telling the person your going to visit that you've caught the train, or that the train's delayed, or that you can't talk in detail now but will talk to them face-to-face very soon because you're on a train is exactly the kind of concise, information-rich, socially-enabling communication that we should encourage in modern society? Hmmmm? Also, as I've said before, if the obnoxious fucks who are currently talking into their mobiles didn't have mobiles to talk into, they'd be talking to obnoxious fucks sat right next to them instead. Next time a person chatting on their mobile annoys you, just imagine how much worse it would be if the equally appalling friend they're braying at was there as well. And breathe a sweet, blessed sigh of relief.
• And then there's the situation in which the stranger I'm standing or walking next to asks a rather personal question, and I reply pleasantly, but get looked at like I'm a moron. Turns out they are babbling into one of those earset phones -- you know, hands free -- looking like they're talking to ground control. Here I was thinking I was defusing a potential delusional situation, but in reality I'm a snoop and an eavesdropper. How embarrasing. Emily Post has nothing to say about this.
• I'll just use my cellphone gun to shoot the bastards then take a picture of it with my gigapixel camera phone while listening to...oh, someone that really makes me feel the old ultra-violence....I know...Enya!
• Plus, Flashboy, I disagree with you. I think cell and mobile phones have conned people into thinking they're involved in some kind of immediate public discourse that is somehow valuable. Why not just wait and make a pay phone call like us old folks used to? Why is what you're thinking so valuable this very second so important? I understand about the people in the emergency biz who need to get immediate info. But when my brother shot himself, I was alerted immediately by the theater staff where I was watching "400 Blows." Many more people helped me out because multiple people were involved..
• flashboy - I think people are so annoyed by the use of phones on buses and trains because they can't get away from them. I know I have that problem - when someone is on the street, I can walk away. But when I am trying to read on the train, and there is no where to move, it's just like nails on a chalkboard to have the sound of someone talking. I have actually gone to another car on a train to get away from it. Yes, people do talk to other people when travelling. Somehow, that's not as annoying> Maybe because they tend to talk more quietly when sitting beside themselves. Certainly, they rare talk in that loud business meeting-like way. I think it's fine to make a quick call on your way into the station, or to let someone know you're late (I was delayed on a train for four hours this summer - I wished I had a phone that day.) It's the long, and loud, conversations that drive the rest of us crazy.
• It's the long, and loud, conversations that drive the rest of us crazy. I know - me too. The loud part, especially. I was just pondering why the rage all gets taken out on that most innocent of phrases, "I'm on a train"... It's the way that mobile-phone angst so often gets targetted at the totality of phone users, as opposed to just the inconsiderate ones. I've been infinitely more annoyed by a group of people talking loudly to each other near me on the train, as I'm sure many people have. But I don't go around wishing that everyone be struck dumb... :-)
• At work alot of people are issued cell phones instead of desk phones, presumably because it is so important for them to be in contact at all times. This had lead to the irritating phenomena of people who can't sit in their office and talk, but must roam the halls having loud one-sided conversations. They're like zombies ... I feel better now that this is off my chest.
• I'm with Decani. The rude and loud factors are multiplied considerably when an inconsiderate person makes or receives a cell phone call. I think France is on the right track with this. If they start executing litterbugs, I'll be moving again....
• As far as legal repercussions, I would imagine that the theater would simply post a large notice that the phones were jammed in that theater. If you went to see a movie there, you'd know, and it would be your choice. Remember, no one has the absolute right to either see a movie or use a cell phone, so the business can pretty much do what it wants. If people don't like it, they'll go to the other theaters. An interesting experiment would be to, in one of those multiplexes, have some screens with the jamming and some without. Then people who needed their cell phones on could see the movie in one theater. I bet that a significant number of people would go to the jammed one, and probably a significant minority would stick to having ubiquitous access.
• I think my new strategy is going to be to gaze hard at these loud-talking retards on trains -- try to make them feel uncomfortable.
• shawnj: so, your idea of "passing" an offer to discuss your accusation that I lack perspective is to simply restate the accusation, to call me immature and to compare me with Ann Coulter? Duly noted.
• Not quite. I was giving you the rationale behind why I would pass on the offer, which is that having a discussion with you about it would be about at pointless as trying to convince a pious Catholic that the Immaculate Conception never happened, or trying to convince a Libertarian that taxes aren't immoral theft. It's quite clear, by this thread and the handful of others that you have "contributed" to over the last couple of days that you are just as much of a true believer "sheeple" that you rail against, never bending in the face of evidence that contradicts your point of view. And I am not comparing *you* with Ann Coulter. I am comparing your debating style and attitude to Ann Coulter, which is to say that you are forceful, use blanket statements, and insult people based on what they believe or what they conclude. If there was a killfile for MoFi, you would certainly be on mine, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I'm also sure that Tracicle doesn't want to see this sort of thing in the threads, so if you still have a problem, take it to her blog. Because personally, I'm done with this discussion, and I'll make sure to avoid threads with your taint in them.