Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
transmission.

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
front of you.

John

"John Halliburton" wrote in message
...


To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
in front of you.

Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
discussion of cellphone jammers. And just the other day someone
proposed the idea of a jammer tracker.
Electromagnetic spy vs. spy! :-)

On 3/10/05 10:34 AM, in article , "Richard
Crowley" wrote:


"John Halliburton" wrote in message
...


To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
in front of you.

Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
discussion of cellphone jammers.

I LOVE the jammer idea but when it first occurred to me in a rage several
years back, I immediately had a Moral Moment considering what would happen
if I jammed somebody and nearby also jammed someone with a real life-n-death
emergency call in progress...


And just the other day someone
proposed the idea of a jammer tracker.
Electromagnetic spy vs. spy! :-)

History seems to be SO beyond most folks...

Go to TRAKTOR.COM and see the works of the Brilliantly Insane producers of
INCREDIBLE commercials, including the Spy vs Spy spots.
The ones on the site available to watch rotate thru, dissapear and come back
on some sort of schedule, I highly recommend the SIEMENS spot called FACE OF
THE FUTURE.
That and the LEVI's spot where a guy ropes, rides and tames a chopped
Ranchero...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:20:46 GMT, "John Halliburton"
wrote:

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
front of you.

Hey, I need to make those calls.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds wrote:

Hey, I need to make those calls.


Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the same auto
accident stats as do drunk drivers. But hey, an aloholic needs a drink,
too.

--
ha

John Halliburton wrote:
To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.


No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
front of you.

John


You mean like Dudley Moore in 'Crazy People'? That was a great scene.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Mark Stebbeds wrote:

Hey, I need to make those calls.


Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the same auto
accident stats as do drunk drivers. But hey, an aloholic needs a drink,
too.

--
ha

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with other
people in the same vehicle? ( or smacking the kids in the back seat? ;-)
Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking on a
cell phone.

John L Rice

John L Rice wrote:

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with other
people in the same vehicle?

Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they place
the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if part
of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone
is only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues
coming to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones -
outside sounds are "masked."

Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking on a
cell phone.

Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.

What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while
on the phone.

I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so
can't get too righteous.

-Naren

Mike Rivers wrote:
Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
transmission.

And an adaptation of that device by Edison in 1877 led to the first
recorded sound ("Hello" on a piece of waxed paper). Yay.

I wonder how good was the fidelity, how much headroom, THD, SD
("sibilance distortion"), etc. etc. on that piece of waxed paper...

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

It doesn't flush, trust me.

-Naren

As I do exactly this kind of thing (R&D on Driver
Distraction) for a living, please be careful what you
casually talk about. Yes, some R&D pub has used those
provocative terms, but the research is questionable. It was
done on not very sophisticated driving simulators and the
variables measured don't have a lot to do with actual
driving under either condition. Being drunk affects balance
1st (weaving down the road) and cell phone calls don't.
Since simulated driving is almost wholly visual the results
are suspect.

Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.

Chip Wood

While I work for Motorola, these thoughts are my own and in
no way are intended to reflect company policy.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
Hey, I need to make those calls.


Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the
same auto
accident stats as do drunk drivers.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:09:52 GMT, John wrote:

On 3/10/05 10:34 AM, in article , "Richard
Crowley" wrote:


"John Halliburton" wrote in message
...


To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
in front of you.

Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
discussion of cellphone jammers.

I LOVE the jammer idea but when it first occurred to me in a rage several
years back, I immediately had a Moral Moment considering what would happen
if I jammed somebody and nearby also jammed someone with a real life-n-death
emergency call in progress...

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Al

Chip Wood wrote:


Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.

Chip Wood

While I work for Motorola, these thoughts are my own and in
no way are intended to reflect company policy.


hahahahaha

Actually I read that talking to another person in the car with you is
not as distracting as talking on the cell because the other person is
also aware of the traffic and will pause etc when you are about to
perform some dangerous manuver like pulling in to traffic etc. When
talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so are
you.

Mark

I've read maps/directions too in addition to eating, cell phone talking and
being WAY to tired to drive.

Here is a study on the effects of auditory interference while driving :
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...on%20Study.pdf


--
John L Rice


"Naren" wrote in message
...
John L Rice wrote:

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with
other people in the same vehicle?

Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they place
the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if part
of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone is
only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues coming
to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones - outside
sounds are "masked."

Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking
on a cell phone.

Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.

What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while on
the phone.

I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so can't
get too righteous.

-Naren

I have often hung up from a cell phopne conversation while I've been driving
in my car and then tried to remember any details of my driving experience
during the conversation. Usually, I remember very little of what I was
doing/seeing/experiencing related to the action of driving the car. This was
so disturbing that I've pretty much quit making calls or taking calls on the
phone while driving. I reallly don't give a **** what *the studies* say. If
my attention is that distracted by the call, it's dangerous and
irresponsible for me to be doing it. I''m not trying to speak for everyone,
but I don't think I'm *that* different from the rest of the human race.

Just my $0.02

DJ

"John L Rice" wrote in message
...
I've read maps/directions too in addition to eating, cell phone talking
and
being WAY to tired to drive.

Here is a study on the effects of auditory interference while driving :

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...mages/Interfer
ence%20Simulation%20Study.pdf


--
John L Rice


"Naren" wrote in message
...
John L Rice wrote:

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with
other people in the same vehicle?

Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they place
the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if part
of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone
is
only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues
coming
to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones - outside
sounds are "masked."

Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels
and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking
on a cell phone.

Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.

What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while
on
the phone.

I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so
can't
get too righteous.

-Naren

I'd agree that most people in the human race consider themselves to be at
least as good if not better than everyone else in the human race. Also,
most people find research ( or reading manuals ) boring an difficult to do
or absorb and are pretty good at making justifications as to why *they*
should be exempt from it.

--
John L Rice


"Animix" wrote in message
...
I have often hung up from a cell phopne conversation while I've been
driving
in my car and then tried to remember any details of my driving experience
during the conversation. Usually, I remember very little of what I was
doing/seeing/experiencing related to the action of driving the car. This
was
so disturbing that I've pretty much quit making calls or taking calls on
the
phone while driving. I reallly don't give a **** what *the studies* say.
If
my attention is that distracted by the call, it's dangerous and
irresponsible for me to be doing it. I''m not trying to speak for
everyone,
but I don't think I'm *that* different from the rest of the human race.

Just my $0.02

DJ

"John L Rice" wrote in message
...
I've read maps/directions too in addition to eating, cell phone talking
and
being WAY to tired to drive.

Here is a study on the effects of auditory interference while driving :

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...mages/Interfer
ence%20Simulation%20Study.pdf


--
John L Rice


"Naren" wrote in message
...
John L Rice wrote:

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with
other people in the same vehicle?

Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they
place
the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if
part
of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone
is
only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues
coming
to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones - outside
sounds are "masked."

Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle?
I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels
and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than
talking
on a cell phone.

Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.

What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while
on
the phone.

I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so
can't
get too righteous.

-Naren

"play on" wrote in message
...

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN

In article writes:

Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.

I think that's because when those DWP (Driving While Phoning) start to
drive stupidly, the rest of us look out for them. I think that in the
past five years, I've been cut off by more people with a phone to
their ear than without. And I've seen more people with a phone to
their ear back out of a parking space in a lot than without. So I have
to be more careful because they're distracted.

Since you're into these stats, what's up with red light cameras. The
statute allowing them in Virginia expired and the state legislature
decided not to renewe it. The data (admittedly just marginal and not
very rigorous) showed that the number of side crashes at traffic
lights decreased slightly but that the number of rear end crashes
increased - like people who would othewise run a light and get out of
the way stopped quickly to avoid getting their picture taken.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mark wrote:


When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so
are you.

Two people driving and talking to each other multiplies the problem.

All to often, I am following, in front of, or next to someone on a cell
phone. Anybody that doesn't think these people are distracted from their
driving is insane.

On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:51 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

Please instead donate it to any of the many public do-gooder
agencies that can really use them; shelters, etc.

The mining of some weird-ass metal in Africa, to make cell
phones (what can this possibly be? that's so unique) is
contributing to the deaths of many of the remaining gorillas.

Yeah, sounds nuts, but I heard it on the radio. Gotta be true.

And, HANG UP AND DRIVE.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Chris Hornbeck

Joe Sensor wrote:
Mark wrote:


When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and
so
are you.

Two people driving and talking to each other multiplies the problem.

All to often, I am following, in front of, or next to someone on a
cell
phone. Anybody that doesn't think these people are distracted from
their
driving is insane.

Joe,

my bad, my statement was not clear...

When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so
are ___you.____

(I didn't mean ___YOU____ Joe Sensor, I meant __YOU___ the person
driving while on the cell phone.

Mark

On 3/10/05 9:25 PM, in article ,
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote:



Yeah, sounds nuts, but I heard it on the radio. Gotta be true.

And, HANG UP AND DRIVE.

PHONE-DRIVING = DRUNK-DRIVING

The tests and trials continue to completely nail this.
When you converse on the telephone in a car, your brain goes into a very
different mode and you CANNOT process visual and aural information beyond
that of a seriously drunk person.

Notice the verb up there is 'converse' ...
Not 'use'
or 'dial'
or 'hold'
Or 'manipulate'...

It's the unique aspect of how we manage a remote real-time full duplex
conversation. Doesn;t happen with one-way-at-a-time things like CB radio
operation.

Phone-&-Drivin'
Lose Your License

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.


I think that's because when those DWP (Driving While Phoning) start to
drive stupidly, the rest of us look out for them. I think that in the
past five years, I've been cut off by more people with a phone to
their ear than without. And I've seen more people with a phone to
their ear back out of a parking space in a lot than without. So I have
to be more careful because they're distracted.


Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a reasonably
smart person would answer "no" to such a question.

Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a vastly
different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all about it.

S O'Neill wrote:

Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a reasonably
smart person would answer "no" to such a question.

Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a vastly
different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all about it.

I think Motorola's study of preference is the first one.

Joe Sensor wrote:
S O'Neill wrote:

Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a
reasonably smart person would answer "no" to such a question.

Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a
vastly different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all
about it.


I think Motorola's study of preference is the first one.


I did try to skip around that. But you're absolutely right, the cell
phone manufacturers always point to that one.

On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:51 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
transmission.

I thought this was going to be about megaphones...

But anyway, where did he but his 48V battery?

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

Is this a "Landlines Forever" campaign, similar to Apple having an
"Apple II Forever" campaign when the IIGS was announced? I saw a IIGS
for cheap (a couple of dollars) recently and I didn't even buy it.
About eight to ten years ago I got some good POTS design experience
on my resume, but now I wonder if that was the last thing ever
designed to connect to POTS...

And on another tangent, is this how the "bathroom humor" cut on the
Bohemian Rap CD was recorded?

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:15:54 GMT, "Dave Martin"
wrote:

"play on" wrote in message
.. .

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

I've known people in the US who didn't stop doing something just
because it's illegal. OTOH I suppose a restaurant or theater using a
jammer would be discovered and fined or shut down pretty quickly.

Would putting a faraday cage around a restaurant or theater be
legal? It seems they should put up a sign saying cellphones are
inoperable inside, in case someone tried to call an ambulance for a
heart attack victim.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN





-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 04:21:26 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:15:54 GMT, "Dave Martin"
wrote:

"play on" wrote in message
. ..

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

I've known people in the US who didn't stop doing something just
because it's illegal. OTOH I suppose a restaurant or theater using a
jammer would be discovered and fined or shut down pretty quickly.

Seems like if it was done right, people wouldn't know, they would
just think, oh my cell signal isn't good in here...

Al

Would putting a faraday cage around a restaurant or theater be
legal? It seems they should put up a sign saying cellphones are
inoperable inside, in case someone tried to call an ambulance for a
heart attack victim.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN





-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

"S O'Neill" wrote in message ...
Joe Sensor wrote:
S O'Neill wrote:

Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a
reasonably smart person would answer "no" to such a question.

Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a
vastly different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all
about it.


Just don't ask them to fix you automotive problem.

DM

In article znr1110498131k@trad (that's me!) writes:

I've seen more people with a phone to
their ear back out of a parking space in a lot [without looking]
than without.

(bad edit)

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Would putting a faraday cage around a restaurant or theater be
legal?

I don't see any reason why it would be illegal. In fact, many
buildings are already about half way there right now. Surely you're
familiar with the "cell phone walk?" Where somoeone talking on the
phone is walking around a room, into a hallway, or outdoors to try to
find a place with a better connection?

It seems they should put up a sign saying cellphones are
inoperable inside, in case someone tried to call an ambulance for a
heart attack victim.

I guess that might be a nice gesture, but given the number of
"insides" where cell phones don't work reliably I don't see that it
would be a liability - but a good lawyer could probably make it one.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Would putting a faraday cage around a restaurant or theater be
legal?

I don't see any reason why it would be illegal. In fact, many
buildings are already about half way there right now. Surely you're
familiar with the "cell phone walk?" Where somoeone talking on the
phone is walking around a room, into a hallway, or outdoors to try to
find a place with a better connection?

It seems they should put up a sign saying cellphones are
inoperable inside, in case someone tried to call an ambulance for a
heart attack victim.

I guess that might be a nice gesture, but given the number of
"insides" where cell phones don't work reliably I don't see that it
would be a liability - but a good lawyer could probably make it one.

For a venue where clear RF space is a major limitation, such as
NYC, constructing some sort of faraday cage for the main space would
be nice to have. If you specify reinforced concrete walls, with rebar
on a appropriate grid that just happens to block the frequencies used
by radio microphones, then blocking cell phones would be just an
unintended consequence. ( What are the cell phone frequencies?
I thing AMPs was around 800 mhz in the US. But there are other
bands in use. )

--Dale

play on wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 04:21:26 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:15:54 GMT, "Dave Martin"

wrote:

"play on" wrote in message
. ..

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to
keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

I've known people in the US who didn't stop doing something just
because it's illegal. OTOH I suppose a restaurant or theater using a
jammer would be discovered and fined or shut down pretty quickly.

Seems like if it was done right, people wouldn't know, they would
just think, oh my cell signal isn't good in here...


Seems like the place would loose buisness.

Its a social problem and should be addressed with social measures, not
technology.

Mark

On 11 Mar 2005 08:54:43 -0800, "Mark" wrote:


play on wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 04:21:26 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:15:54 GMT, "Dave Martin"

wrote:

"play on" wrote in message
. ..

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to
keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

I've known people in the US who didn't stop doing something just
because it's illegal. OTOH I suppose a restaurant or theater using a
jammer would be discovered and fined or shut down pretty quickly.

Seems like if it was done right, people wouldn't know, they would
just think, oh my cell signal isn't good in here...


Seems like the place would loose buisness.

It might have tighter business among those who don't want to hear
cellphones ringing while at the restaurant or the movies.

Its a social problem and should be addressed with social measures, not
technology.

I dunno, it seems a good Faraday shield could be effective. Those
who really want to use their cellphones can stand outside the door
among the smokers.

Mark

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

The best legal and logical (funny juxtaposing those words)
idea seems to be- make a faraday cage of the theater, but
install a cell phone repeater with an outdoor antenna to be
turned on when the theater has work going on, but no
audience, and shut it down when there is a performance.
That way the staff and tech crews can get their calls during
normal work hours. The audience would be warned at the door
and perhaps in the announcement that no cell calls can get
in or out.

Chip Wood

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Would putting a faraday cage around a restaurant or
theater be
legal?

I don't see any reason why it would be illegal. In fact,
many
buildings are already about half way there right now.

In article .com writes:

Seems like if it was done right, people wouldn't know, they would
just think, oh my cell signal isn't good in here...

Seems like the place would loose buisness.
Its a social problem and should be addressed with social measures, not
technology.

Agree about the social problem, but I doubt that a cell phone not
working in a restaurant would cause it to lose business unless the
restaurant had cultivated the busy cell phone clientele (which would
pretty much drive away anyone wanting to have a quiet lunch).

Your postulate seems a bit like saying the record companies would lose
business if people couldn't download music.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Animix" wrote:

I have often hung up from a cell phopne conversation while I've been
driving in my car and then tried to remember any details of my
driving experience during the conversation. Usually, I remember very
little of what I was doing/seeing/experiencing related to the action
of driving the car. This was so disturbing that I've pretty much quit
making calls or taking calls on the phone while driving. I reallly
don't give a **** what *the studies* say. If my attention is that
distracted by the call, it's dangerous and irresponsible for me to be
doing it. I''m not trying to speak for everyone,but I don't think I'm
*that* different from the rest of the human race.


Dead on. That's what did it for me too. Putting down the phone and
wondering "How did I get here?" Made me realize that I obviously wasn't
giving driving the deadly serious attention it deserves.

Studies schmuddies. I don't dial and drive anymore either.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1110459785k@trad...

Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
transmission.

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.


Actually, talking to a cell-phone repairer, that is actually a major reason
for mobiles being brought in for repair. They decline ...

geoff

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually I read that talking to another person in the car with you is
not as distracting as talking on the cell because the other person is
also aware of the traffic and will pause etc when you are about to
perform some dangerous manuver like pulling in to traffic etc. When
talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so are
you.


There is nothing more impolite than a passenger in your car talking at you
while you are trying to concertrate on driving and your phone call ...


geoff

ps and why do people use those embarassingly naff ring tones ?