"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
> such a jammer.
<snip>

My local trains are 150s - no vestibules! It's also impossible to do this
if your train is as packed as most evening rush-hour services on the
Kidderminster line are.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

---

› See More: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't
>> think so..
>
> Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
> had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
that unpromising first minute!

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

On 5 Dec, 00:47, Mizter T <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 Dec, 22:35, tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > >Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
> > >of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
> > >speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
> > >pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
> > >probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.
>
> > Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...
>
> > Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
> > but that ain't gonna happen is it?....
>
> Erm...
>
> I have had a horrible thought that at some point Nokia or some other
> handset maker might approach the audio manufacturer Bose - who
> reputedly work magic when designing small but powerful speakers - and
> cross their palms with silver in order to get them to design and
> produce some super-small speaker that turns a mobile into a non-tinny
> miniature boombox.
>
> Perhaps audio engineers who work on tiny speaker R&D should be
> routinely shunned by their peers and cast off into the wilderness of
> noise that they were seeking to add to...


Quite off topic, but before someone comes along to correct me of any
misconceptions I might have I'll say that I've just glanced over this
1995 FAQ on Bose, which has disabused me somewhat of my perhaps naive
notion that they were in some way a revolutionary company who were
head and shoulders above all others in the field of audio products. An
interesting read...

http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/stereo/bosefaq.htm

>> Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
>> should have got the drift..
>
>OK, you were addressing the hypothetical jammer! Thanks for clearing
>that up.
>
>>
>> >because it certainly read as if it was
>> >addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
>> >urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>>
>> >*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
>> >wrong.
>>
>> Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>>
>
>Sorry if my words were harsh - the way you phrased your original post
>was open to misinterpretation, hence my comments. Perhaps my reply was
>a tad on the heavy side though! :-(

Thats OK .. anyone who can apologise on usenet has got to be a decent
bloke:--))
>
>>
>> >Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
>> >of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
>> >speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
>> >pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
>> >probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.
>>
>> Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...
>>
>> Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
>> but that ain't gonna happen is it?....
>>
>
>Erm...
>
>I have had a horrible thought that at some point Nokia or some other
>handset maker might approach the audio manufacturer Bose - who
>reputedly work magic when designing small but powerful speakers - and
>cross their palms with silver in order to get them to design and
>produce some super-small speaker that turns a mobile into a non-tinny
>miniature boombox.
>
>Perhaps audio engineers who work on tiny speaker R&D should be
>routinely shunned by their peers and cast off into the wilderness of
>noise that they were seeking to add to...

Indeed.. I bet some bu**er somewhere is working on it right now;(..
--
Tony Sayer

>Quite off topic, but before someone comes along to correct me of any
>misconceptions I might have I'll say that I've just glanced over this
>1995 FAQ on Bose, which has disabused me somewhat of my perhaps naive
>notion that they were in some way a revolutionary company who were
>head and shoulders above all others in the field of audio products. An
>interesting read...
>
>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/stereo/bosefaq.htm

Nah, he was just very good at marketing...
--
Tony Sayer

In article <[email protected]>, David
Buttery <[email protected]> scribeth thus
>Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't
>>> think so..
>>
>> Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
>> had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
>spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
>was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
>daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
>hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
>that unpromising first minute!
>
No lets take what the first poster said about loud chav's and city
types...
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:33:57 -0600 someone who may be David Buttery
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>My local trains are 150s - no vestibules!

The area between the door is the vestibule. There are screens which
one can stand behind.

>It's also impossible to do this
>if your train is as packed as most evening rush-hour services on the
>Kidderminster line are.

If it is possible to take a telephone out of one's pocket then the
train is not packed:-)


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:33:57 -0600 someone who may be David Buttery
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>My local trains are 150s - no vestibules!
>
> The area between the door is the vestibule. There are screens which
> one can stand behind.

On some 150's, including those that do the Kiddy line, the screens near
the doors only extend full-width to waist height. Thereafter they taper
to the sides, and would not screen phone conversations.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633127.html
(D26 (no TOPS class) at Didcot, Sep 1995)

On 5 Dec, 00:36, David Buttery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> >> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming �.. don't
> >> think so..
>
> > Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
> > had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
> spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
> was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
> daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
> hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
> that unpromising first minute!
>
> --
> Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.

George

tony sayer wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, MichaelJP
> <[email protected]> scribeth thus

>>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of
>>interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical"
>>applications.

> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...

What about it?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
21:40:57 up 24 days, 10:20, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.09, 0.09
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

In article <[email protected]>, alexd <[email protected]>
scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, MichaelJP
>> <[email protected]> scribeth thus
>
>>>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of
>>>interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical"
>>>applications.
>
>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>
>What about it?
>
Well "mission critical" is it not?..

--
Tony Sayer

furnessvale <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1400e400-2e40-4965-b72c-9167cd3eb0a4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring
>> someone and spend the first minute so saying that they were on the
>> train and that it was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that,
>> he asked how his daughter was doing, and the implication was that she
>> was quite ill in hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have
>> cut him off because of that unpromising first minute!

> Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.

I think that's unfair. Not so long ago I had to make a phone call about a
very serious situation involving someone close to me. I found that a bit of
gentle, undemanding chat first was the only way I could settle my mind
enough to do the next bit of the talk, which it was extremely important I
got right. I reckon I spent longer than a minute on the "prattle" phase.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

"tony sayer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
: : In article <[email protected]>, alexd
: : <[email protected]> scribeth thus
: : : tony sayer wrote:
: : :
: : : : In article
: : : : <[email protected]>,
: : : : MichaelJP <[email protected]> scribeth thus
: : :
: : : : : Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
: : : : : to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
: : : : : be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
: : :
: : : : Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
: : :
: : : What about it?
: : :
: : Well "mission critical" is it not?..

<pedant>

It's not a "surface" environment either..!

</pedant>


Ivor

On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "tony sayer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
> : : In article <[email protected]>, alexd
> : : <[email protected]> scribeth thus
> : : : tony sayer wrote:
> : : :
> : : : : In article
> : : : : <[email protected]>,
> : : : : MichaelJP <[email protected]> scribeth thus
> : : :
> : : : : : Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
> : : : : : to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
> : : : : : be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
> : : :
> : : : : Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
> : : :
> : : : What about it?
> : : :
> : : Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>
> <pedant>
>
> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>
> </pedant>
>
> Ivor

?

I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
environment"?

In article <[email protected]>, David
Buttery <[email protected]> scribeth thus
>furnessvale <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:1400e400-2e40-4965-b72c-9167cd3eb0a4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring
>>> someone and spend the first minute so saying that they were on the
>>> train and that it was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that,
>>> he asked how his daughter was doing, and the implication was that she
>>> was quite ill in hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have
>>> cut him off because of that unpromising first minute!
>
>> Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.
>
>I think that's unfair. Not so long ago I had to make a phone call about a
>very serious situation involving someone close to me. I found that a bit of
>gentle, undemanding chat first was the only way I could settle my mind
>enough to do the next bit of the talk, which it was extremely important I
>got right. I reckon I spent longer than a minute on the "prattle" phase.
>

Point is that you can make a call on a mobile in a normal voiced
discreet manner, but there are a LOT who can't and have to shout think
their sooo bloody important!....
--
Tony Sayer