Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

Scott wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in news:139390famhvpp71@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
>> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
>> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
>> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
>> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.
>
>
> Too bad we can't adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of
> course, you'd have to find something else to do with your time.
>
> You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to
> make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were,
> I'd do something about that anger control issue.

My my my... aren't we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care for
some cheese to go with that whine?

>
>
>> FCC regs
>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>>
>
> Case closed.

ayup.
--Hank Hill


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

<®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
> pencildick ass! Run to mommy you ****ing whiner!
>
>
>
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> BruceR wrote:
>> > Jer wrote:
>> >> BruceR wrote:
>> >>> > Scott wrote:
>> >>>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
>> >>>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@corp.supernews.com:
>> >>>>>>> What part of
>> >>>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half
>> >>>>> or the back half?
>> >>>>>
>> >>> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle
>> >>> and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
>> >>
>> >> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
>> >> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
>> >> even involve me. Take a break.
>> >
>> > Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
>> > (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
>> > reply, don't post.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
>> I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>>
>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
>> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
>> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
>> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
>> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>

Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let me
point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely
wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a technical
question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it
illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread (which I
would also be interested in).

Cheers,

Franz

P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
Dickens)

Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:
>
> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible),
> let me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and
> merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's
> a technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral
> questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could
> start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Franz
>
> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
> Dickens)

There are jammers that do work. How well, over what distance, and for
how long depend of course on the performance of particular brands of
which I'm sure there are several. The ones that the US Government uses
(exempt form FCC rules) are probably US made, top quality and top cost.
The stuff that comes out of China would be more of a crap shoot as
different factories provide varying quality of design and manufacture.

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
news:1393e4bbulknnd2@corp.supernews.com:

> Scott wrote:
>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
>> news:139390famhvpp71@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't
>>> know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've
>>> already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers
>>> because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of
>>> ingrates that can't seem to figure out where the off button is nor
>>> where the door is.
>>
>>
>> Too bad we can't adopt the same rationale for morons with computers.
>> Of course, you'd have to find something else to do with your time.
>>
>> You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity
>> necessary to make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon
>> anyone. And if I were, I'd do something about that anger control
>> issue.
>
> My my my... aren't we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care
> for some cheese to go with that whine?

Grumpy? Never- you existence and lack of a clue is hardly a reason to get
grumpy. In fact, your choice to be your own lawman is rather entertaining.
After all, you know more than the rest of us.

>
>>
>>
>>> FCC regs
>>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>>>
>>
>> Case closed.
>
> ayup.
> --Hank Hill
>
>

For you, a very appropriate quote source.

"Prof. Franz Blaha" <fblaha1@uneb.rr.com> wrote in
news:46929d4a$0$30645$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> <®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message
> news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>>I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
>> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
>> pencildick ass! Run to mommy you ****ing whiner!
>>
>>
>>
>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>> BruceR wrote:
>>> > Jer wrote:
>>> >> BruceR wrote:
>>> >>> > Scott wrote:
>>> >>>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
>>> >>>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@corp.supernews.com:
>>> >>>>>>> What part of
>>> >>>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front
>>> >>>>> half or the back half?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her
>>> >>> castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm
>>> >> somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap
>>> >> that don't even involve me. Take a break.
>>> >
>>> > Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
>>> > (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
>>> > reply, don't post.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to
>>> challenge, I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>>>
>>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't
>>> know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've
>>> already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers
>>> because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of
>>> ingrates that can't seem to figure out where the off button is nor
>>> where the door is. FCC regs and opinions aside, do whatever you
>>> want just like everybody else.
>>
>
> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let
> me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and
> merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a
> technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral
> questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could
> start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Franz
>
> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
> Dickens)
>
>

The legality question is simple- they are illegal because the frequency
ranges they are programmed to operate on have been exclusively leased by
companies that derive income from the uninterrupted use of that spectrum
by their subscribers. Subscribers pay to have access to that exclusive
spectrum. The lease allows the carrier to approve all devices used on
that frequency range and all devices used on that frequency range must
be approved by both the carrier and the FCC. Also to be considered are
the First Amendment implications of selectively targeting specific users
with active jamming based on the whims of a third party. As Jer has
clearly demonstrated, one does not need a cell phone to be a nuisance or
an idiot- what if I were able to jam his internet connection to stop the
noise?

What many people don't realize is that while active jamming is illegal,
passive jamming of a signal (most typically through the use of
architectural materials and applications) is totally legal in the US.
There are countless stories of various businesses building this type of
jamming into their walls, thereby rendering cell phones useless in the
environment without violating the exclusivity of the spectrum lease.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:

> <®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>> I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
>> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
>> pencildick ass! Run to mommy you ****ing whiner!
>>
>>
>>
>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>>>> > Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@corp.supernews.com:
>>>>>>>>>> What part of
>>>>>>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half
>>>>>>>> or the back half?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle
>>>>>> and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
>>>>> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
>>>>> even involve me. Take a break.
>>>>
>>>> Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
>>>> (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
>>>> reply, don't post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
>>> I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>>>
>>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
>>> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
>>> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
>>> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
>>> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
>>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>>
>
> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let me
> point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely
> wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a technical
> question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it
> illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread (which I
> would also be interested in).

OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and being
used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point where they
can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members of their social
butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of inappropriate settings
(eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction is known to be a factor in
accidents, movie theaters, church services, restaurants, and just recently
at my barber shop where a guy carried on his commercial business in a loud
tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damned
thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket again
so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.

Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
accident-emergency phone.

I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal, nothing
unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
courtesy, consideration, or forsight.

I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.

And, what would my recourse/greivance be? Legally? Could I file charges of
disturbing the peace?

Cell phone jammers can be found using search engines and I gather that law
enforcement agencies use them, legally or illegally, in the course of law
enforcement and I'll bet that they worry more about their mission than the
FCC's laws. There appear to be commercial cell phone jammers of high power
and also used in corporate settings to deter industrial spying. Do they
have licenses? Apparently the military uses them to attempt to thwart cell
phone mediated IED explosions/bombs.

Or, perhaps we should ask if anyone knows if there have been any cases of
person or persons using a cell phone jammer being caught and prosecuted
(apparently by the FCC?)? After all, there is sold IRS data that show that
significant fractions of tax dogers (25% to 75%, depending on methods)
never get prosecuted by the IRS.

Not that I'm advocating broad scale disobedience of the law, but an article
in the WSJ years ago said that it was OK for a jury to find 'not guilty'
in a clear case of guilt if the broken law was a bad law to begin with. In
other words, there are bad laws out there. Prohibition never worked, so it
was eventually withdrawn, too.


> Cheers,
>
> Franz
>
> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
> Dickens)
>
>
>

In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com> ,
Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:

> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
> accident-emergency phone.
>
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal, nothing
> unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
> courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
>
> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.

Straydog,

You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
you speak of.

I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a line
in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes that
the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the masses of
former fashion trends that the high fashion industry (she) had created.

So true.

Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a few
years ago.

Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
market here on board.

If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see in
back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and large
display.

The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
Doors)

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Straydog wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:
>
>> <??????.???> wrote in message
>> news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>>> I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
>>> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
>>> pencildick ass! Run to mommy you ****ing whiner!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>>> BruceR wrote:
>>>>>>> > Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@corp.supernews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>> What part of
>>>>>>>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half
>>>>>>>>> or the back half?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle
>>>>>>> and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
>>>>>> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
>>>>>> even involve me. Take a break.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
>>>>> (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
>>>>> reply, don't post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
>>>> I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>>>>
>>>> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't
>>>> know
>>>> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
>>>> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it
>>>> beats
>>>> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
>>>> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
>>>> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>>>
>>
>> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let me
>> point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
>> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely
>> wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a technical
>> question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it
>> illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread
>> (which I
>> would also be interested in).
>
> OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and
> being used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point
> where they can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members of
> their social butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of
> inappropriate settings (eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction is
> known to be a factor in accidents, movie theaters, church services,
> restaurants, and just recently at my barber shop where a guy carried on
> his commercial business in a loud
> tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damned
> thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket again
> so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.
>
> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
> accident-emergency phone.
>
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,
> nothing unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have
> no courtesy, consideration, or forsight.

Here's a novel use of a cell phone - cleaning the gene pool.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3378025


>
> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
>
> And, what would my recourse/greivance be? Legally? Could I file charges
> of disturbing the peace?
>
> Cell phone jammers can be found using search engines and I gather that
> law enforcement agencies use them, legally or illegally, in the course
> of law enforcement and I'll bet that they worry more about their mission
> than the FCC's laws. There appear to be commercial cell phone jammers of
> high power and also used in corporate settings to deter industrial
> spying. Do they have licenses? Apparently the military uses them to
> attempt to thwart cell phone mediated IED explosions/bombs.

I'm aware of two law enforcement agencies using cell jammers. Just
before serving a no-knock warrant, they'll engage a mobile cell jammer
to blind the area so the "good eyes" are left with playing pocket pool.
>
> Or, perhaps we should ask if anyone knows if there have been any cases
> of person or persons using a cell phone jammer being caught and
> prosecuted (apparently by the FCC?)? After all, there is sold IRS data
> that show that significant fractions of tax dogers (25% to 75%,
> depending on methods) never get prosecuted by the IRS.
>
> Not that I'm advocating broad scale disobedience of the law, but an article
> in the WSJ years ago said that it was OK for a jury to find 'not guilty'
> in a clear case of guilt if the broken law was a bad law to begin with.
> In other words, there are bad laws out there. Prohibition never worked,
> so it was eventually withdrawn, too.

Yes "jury nullification" is sometimes used when the jury is sympathetic
to the defense. Maybe some day, this will be tested.

>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Franz
>>
>> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles
>> Dickens)
>>
>>
>>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Hello All,

Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the numerous
responses.

Please allow me to respond to my original post.

I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
the various manufacturers say they do.
I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming various
areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim 30,
50 meters and more.
Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
which ones if so?

I of course would want this information for educational purposes only, as I
understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.

If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be kind
enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it would be
appreciated.

Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
breach of netiquette in advance.

Sincerely,

bc

meters,etc
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-22A85D.19393118072007@news.giganews.com...e
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com> ,
> Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
>> accident-emergency phone.
>>
>> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal, nothing
>> unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
>> courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
>>
>> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
>> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
>> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
>
> Straydog,
>
> You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
> you speak of.
>
> I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a line
> in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
> something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes that
> the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the masses of
> former fashion trends that the high fashion industry (she) had created.
>
> So true.
>
> Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
> phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a few
> years ago.
>
> Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
> couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
> market here on board.
>
> If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see in
> back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
> niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and large
> display.
>
> The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
> retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
> recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
> Doors)
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"

BC wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the numerous
> responses.
>
> Please allow me to respond to my original post.
>
> I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
> the various manufacturers say they do.
> I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming various
> areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim 30,
> 50 meters and more.
> Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
> which ones if so?
>
> I of course would want this information for educational purposes only, as I
> understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.
>
> If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be kind
> enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it would be
> appreciated.
>
> Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
> breach of netiquette in advance.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> bc


This is the one an acquaintence uses to cover an open area roughly equal
to two city blocks at half power. On concert nights, he cranks it up to
cover the entire area.

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Y400.htm


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

I don't think I would need that much power!

How about the RX9000 by the same company. It claims to be the most powerful
handheld available.

Offers up to 30 meters of coverage, should be enough to nail that idiot
driving in front of you, that is if it were to be used at all, which it
won't be since it is illegal........


"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:139tmotr25d9m18@corp.supernews.com...
> BC wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the
>> numerous responses.
>>
>> Please allow me to respond to my original post.
>>
>> I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
>> the various manufacturers say they do.
>> I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming
>> various areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some
>> claim 30, 50 meters and more.
>> Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
>> which ones if so?
>>
>> I of course would want this information for educational purposes only, as
>> I understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.
>>
>> If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be
>> kind enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
>> breach of netiquette in advance.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> bc
>
>
> This is the one an acquaintence uses to cover an open area roughly equal
> to two city blocks at half power. On concert nights, he cranks it up to
> cover the entire area.
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Y400.htm
>
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

BC wrote:
> I don't think I would need that much power!
>
> How about the RX9000 by the same company. It claims to be the most powerful
> handheld available.
>
> Offers up to 30 meters of coverage, should be enough to nail that idiot
> driving in front of you, that is if it were to be used at all, which it
> won't be since it is illegal........

<snip>

The idiot calling 911?

--
Notan

That's the one....the same one putting everyones life at risk because their
brain is too small to do two things at once, and is too stupid to pull over
and make his/her all so important phone call.
The same one sitting for a full 90 seconds at a green light, while busy
sharing the latest Paris Hilton story with their idiot friends, not smart
enough to realize the light has changed.
The same one cruising along at 55 mph in the fast lane, causing other cars
to swerve around them on the right side,
oblivious to everything in front,back or anywhere else.
Yes, that is the one!
I doubt if it is a 911 call.

"Notan" <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in message
news:d8qdnXH09MiXeAPbnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
> BC wrote:
>> I don't think I would need that much power!
>>
>> How about the RX9000 by the same company. It claims to be the most
>> powerful
>> handheld available.
>>
>> Offers up to 30 meters of coverage, should be enough to nail that idiot
>> driving in front of you, that is if it were to be used at all, which it
>> won't be since it is illegal........
>
> <snip>
>
> The idiot calling 911?
>
> --
> Notan

asd@panix.com (Straydog) wrote in
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix. com:

> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,
> nothing unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones.

And yet, they have no effect on you.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:15:29 -0400, Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:


>
>OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and being
>used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point where they
>can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members of their social
>butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of inappropriate settings
>(eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction is known to be a factor in
>accidents, movie theaters, church services, restaurants, and just recently
>at my barber shop where a guy carried on his commercial business in a loud
>tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damned
>thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket again
>so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.
>
>Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
>accident-emergency phone.
>
I just hope that when you find the need to use your heart-attack-car-
accident-emergency phone, someone else is jamming you! Think about
it. I am in agreement that there are some people who should never be
on the phone while driving. OTOH there are people out there who can
handle it, and need to use it to continue to make a living.

For example, I am a service engineer who happens to work on MRI
systems. How would you like to be the patient in one of those systems
when something occurs, that is a simple phone fix, and the person with
the knowledge to fix it cannot be reached because some
holier-than-thou jerk with a jammer is preventing it? It's ok. Even
though you've been injected with the proper contrast agent, you can
always come back later and have it injected again. If you're lucky
the delay won't be life threatening.
There are other people like me who work on CT systems. There are no
trauma centers in the USA these days which does not have at least one
CT close by. Then there are the people who work on systems that are
in operating rooms. How would like to have to be opened up a second
time because of a delay in getting a phone fix?

Jammers can be used effectively to block signals that might set off
explosive devices and that I agree with, even if lives might be put at
risk in the process. But that decision should be in the hands of
those that have the responsibility to make the decisions for the
safety of the general public, not someone who is tired of driving
behind some teenage girl trying to talk on the phone and put on makeup
while navigating through traffic.