Nokia 6310i replacement

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:34:18 +0100, michael turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:30:05 +0100, lysander wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:19:46 +0100, michael turner
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:45:04 +0100, Chogaire wrote:
>>>
>>>> From curiosity, what businesses are banning camera phones, and banning who
>>>> from using them? The employees? People who come onto their 'patch'? And why?
>>>> I don't understand. (well if it's people visiting then I suppose it's to do
>>>> with industrial espionage or some such? Bloody drama queens!!!)
>>>
>>>A lot of public swimming-baths, health-clubs and gyms are now banning
>>>camera-phones for obvious reasons.
>>
>>
>> What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
>
>The 'obvious reason' I had in mind was, paedophiles trying to photograph
>children in the changing-rooms.


That's the same reason I was talking about. How many paedophiles have
actually been caught taking photographs of children in changing rooms?

---

› See More: Nokia 6310i replacement

"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> Yup I will concur with that, and it's exactly the same with GCHQ in
> Cheltenham.
> http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
>

Are you a spy? And do you wear a dinner jacket and drink shaken not stirred
drinks n that lot? :-)

"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:19:46 +0100, michael turner wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:45:04 +0100, Chogaire wrote:
> >
> >> From curiosity, what businesses are banning camera phones, and banning
who
> >> from using them? The employees? People who come onto their 'patch'? And
why?
> >> I don't understand. (well if it's people visiting then I suppose it's
to do
> >> with industrial espionage or some such? Bloody drama queens!!!)
> >
> > A lot of public swimming-baths, health-clubs and gyms are now banning
> > camera-phones for obvious reasons.
>
> Oh yeh...
>
> Add primary-schools to that list as well.
>

Well of course I agree here. I was amazed that the ability to shut off the
camera noise in my phone was in the settings. I think it should be
compulsory to make a noise when activated...for obvious reasons.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:34:18 +0100, michael turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:30:05 +0100, lysander wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:19:46 +0100, michael turner
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:45:04 +0100, Chogaire wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From curiosity, what businesses are banning camera phones, and
banning who
> >>>> from using them? The employees? People who come onto their 'patch'?
And why?
> >>>> I don't understand. (well if it's people visiting then I suppose it's
to do
> >>>> with industrial espionage or some such? Bloody drama queens!!!)
> >>>
> >>>A lot of public swimming-baths, health-clubs and gyms are now banning
> >>>camera-phones for obvious reasons.
> >>
> >>
> >> What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
> >
> >The 'obvious reason' I had in mind was, paedophiles trying to photograph
> >children in the changing-rooms.
>
>
> That's the same reason I was talking about. How many paedophiles have
> actually been caught taking photographs of children in changing rooms?

FFS, if it stops *one* dirty ****ing nonce from abusing a child (and taking
pictures for those reasons *is* abuse) then it is a worthwhile rule.....is
it not???

"Chogaire" <spam@my*****up.co.uk> decided it would be mildly amusing to
write:

> Well of course I agree here. I was amazed that the ability to shut off
> the camera noise in my phone was in the settings. I think it should be
> compulsory to make a noise when activated...for obvious reasons.

YES! I am too DISGUSTED that these camera phones can have noises
disabled!! IT SHOULD BE TEH LAW that camera phones should make a loud
piercing tone followed by "ATTENTION! PERVERT AND OR PEADOPHILE ACTIVELY
TAKING LOW RESOLUTION PICTURES IN THIS LOCATION!".

Don't be so bleedin' stupid, Chogs, if a PEEDOPHILEEE wanted to take
pictures of you, she or he could easily rig up some kind of 46 MEGGARPIXEL
camera in their underpants which would not only be concelated, but take
clearer pictures. They would also put some chewing gum in the cameras
speaker so it doesn't make a noise.

--
Lots of love, Rich
crapola - http://www.brushtastic.f2s.com
gamertag - sausagelord / ph33r my ****e gaming skillz!!!

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:40:45 +0100, lysander wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:34:18 +0100, michael turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:30:05 +0100, lysander wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:19:46 +0100, michael turner
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:45:04 +0100, Chogaire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From curiosity, what businesses are banning camera phones, and banning who
>>>>> from using them? The employees? People who come onto their 'patch'? And why?
>>>>> I don't understand. (well if it's people visiting then I suppose it's to do
>>>>> with industrial espionage or some such? Bloody drama queens!!!)
>>>>
>>>>A lot of public swimming-baths, health-clubs and gyms are now banning
>>>>camera-phones for obvious reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>> What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
>>
>>The 'obvious reason' I had in mind was, paedophiles trying to photograph
>>children in the changing-rooms.
>
>
> That's the same reason I was talking about. How many paedophiles have
> actually been caught taking photographs of children in changing rooms?

If it stops even ONE paedophile satisfying his/her/it's needs, then thats
reason enough.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:07:20 +0100, "Bob Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Someone posted a few days ago that some distributors have had hints from
>>> Nokia that a true 6310 replacement is been worked on so CAR-91 will be
>>>compatible, cant see it myself, was either in this group or the nokia
>group
>>
>> I saw that post, but the advert Nokia have been running in the
>> broadsheets on Thurs or Fri showing a photo of a 6310i and what they
>> suggest would be a good replacement for it (not sure of the model, but
>> it looks like a normal phone, but you can swing the keypad through 180
>> degs to have a keyboard split by the screen) would tend to suggest
>> that nokia have indeed buried the 6310i.
>
>Didn't see the broadsheet adverts, but your description does rather sound
>like a 6810, which Nokia are touting as the "Ideal Upgrade" for the 6310i
>online(http://www.nokia.co.uk/nfb/n6810.html)
>

The ad is being carried on the back page of the Business section of
todays Sunday Times - the phone is the 6820 - no mention of a camera


--
Cheers

Peter

Remove the INVALID to reply

>What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
>

I was thinking the same thing.

What are they going to do, stop everyone at the door and ask to check the make
and model of their cell phone.

I don't think so!

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

>> What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
>
>The 'obvious reason' I had in mind was, paedophiles trying to photograph
>children in the changing-rooms.
>

Who even thinks of these things ???? What made you think of them? hmmmm...

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

"Chogaire" <spam@my*****up.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:>
> FFS, if it stops *one* dirty ****ing nonce from abusing a child (and
> taking pictures for those reasons *is* abuse) then it is a worthwhile
> rule.....is it not???

And paedophiles are going to obey this rule because ..............

They are law abading citizens !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FFS

banning something doesn't stop it happening

--

In the deserts of Sudan
And the gardens of Japan
From Milan to Yucatan
Every woman, every man

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:58:03 +0100, Peter wrote:

> The ad is being carried on the back page of the Business section of
> todays Sunday Times - the phone is the 6820 - no mention of a camera

It's got a camera alright.

http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,47814,00.html
----------
Nokia 6820 Messaging Device
Messaging keyboard
Several messaging options: SMS, MMS, Instant Messaging, email
Bluetooth wireless connectivity
>>>Integrated digital camera<<<
XHTML browser
----------

Which makes it, no use to me as a 6310i replacement.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:19:01 +0100, michael turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:58:03 +0100, Peter wrote:
>
>> The ad is being carried on the back page of the Business section of
>> todays Sunday Times - the phone is the 6820 - no mention of a camera
>
>It's got a camera alright.
>
>http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,47814,00.html
>----------
>Nokia 6820 Messaging Device
> Messaging keyboard
> Several messaging options: SMS, MMS, Instant Messaging, email
> Bluetooth wireless connectivity
>>>>Integrated digital camera<<<
> XHTML browser
>----------
>
>Which makes it, no use to me as a 6310i replacement.

Likewise


--
Cheers

Peter

Remove the INVALID to reply

"rich a" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chogaire" <spam@my*****up.co.uk> decided it would be mildly amusing to
> write:
>
> > Well of course I agree here. I was amazed that the ability to shut off
> > the camera noise in my phone was in the settings. I think it should be
> > compulsory to make a noise when activated...for obvious reasons.
>
> YES! I am too DISGUSTED that these camera phones can have noises
> disabled!! IT SHOULD BE TEH LAW

It soon will be. Japan are making it compulsory for the phones to make a 65
decibel sound when a shot is taken. Japan has suffered a lot of voyeur
camera phone activity.

BTW, I'm sure the victims themselves, who have their asses posted on the net
without their consent, don't take it as lightly as you. ;-)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:46:34 +0100, Chogaire <spam@my*****up.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>
>> Yup I will concur with that, and it's exactly the same with GCHQ in
>> Cheltenham.
>> http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
>>
>
>Are you a spy? And do you wear a dinner jacket and drink shaken not stirred
>drinks n that lot? :-)

No. We all know this world isn't real, this is just the figment of some
crazed world-dominating computer's imagination. ;-)

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell
Eridani MailStripper -- www.eridani.co.uk/MailStripper -- Uncovers Everything!
/* Halley */ <--- Halley's Comment

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:46:34 +0100, Chogaire wrote:

>
> "michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>> Yup I will concur with that, and it's exactly the same with GCHQ in
>> Cheltenham.
>> http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
>>
>
> Are you a spy? And do you wear a dinner jacket and drink shaken not stirred
> drinks n that lot? :-)

LOL...my name is Bond...Basildon Bold.

I few years ago I used to have to go in there as a contractor.
Prohibited items (cameras included) where confiscated at the gate, but
they where returned upon exiting the establishment. BUT if you where found
with any prohibited items while on the premises, you where in pretty
deep ****...attempted espionage, etc.

Even now my job requires me to go into some sensitive establishments,
so a camera-phone is not an option for me.

I want a camera, I go to Jessops or London Camera Exchange NOT Vodafone
or T-mobile.

Anyway I've already got a nice 4megapixel Canon Ixus400, so why would I
want a phone with a poor CIF(webcam) resolution POS.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]