|
|
I think you two need a group hug. |
Posted on 12/18/2005 7:27:25 AM PST by Kjobs
It is also very likely that the jamming signals will not be limited to the premises of said private property - and that's the other problem.This part I agree with. And that would very definitely be the theater's responsibility not to have the jamming signal outside the confined space. So as a practical matter, it gets back to the problem of shielding the building, which is expensive, thus impractical. But that doesn't change what I consider to be the moral right of the theater to do this, if it really could limit the jamming to inside the proscribed area.
So yes, RFEngineer, I'm not surprised that you found the fly in the ointment, but it's still an ointment that I would hardily approve of, if it could be perfected.
As an RFEngineer myself, let me come to your defense. Jammers are illegal, period. Those arguing for "free airspace and spectrum" will do so at the extreme displeasure of the US government. If they don't believe that, let them try cranking 100 watts through their homemade FM transmitter. I respect your opinions, and at no time have you deviated from what the law states...once again Merry Christmas.
In other words, you are rescuing his flawed technical argument by begging the question and appealing to authority. The subject of the thread is whether it should be illegal. Repeating that it is, is a content-free statement.
"You do a good job of protesting your rightness even after being proven wrong."
I must have missed a few posts, because I'm not following you here.
I didn't so much say I was right as state unequivocally that you were wrong. I have nothing at stake for being right, I just think it's funny that you are so wrong - yet still you come up with "solutions" in ever-increasing detail in a futile attempt save face. Just give up, will you?....please.
There is no active technical solution to this "problem" that is workable, legal. It's a matter of social behavior, politeness.
No, I'm recusing his flawed technical argument because he is arguing the law (at present) and as an FCC licensed engineer he has no choice but to obey it..... and it's Christmas....and we're still all FReepers. Merry Christmas SI!
Check this out if you haven't seen it already... http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv
This is the whole point. The problem is not the existence of cell phones in a movie theater but inconsiderate usage. The vast majority of people will set their cell phone on vibrate and will go into the hallway to return a call.
Why would anyone think that a person that is inconsiderate using a cell phone would be perfectly mannerly in every other area?
Odds are that the same person that talks on a cell phone during a movie is also going to talk to people around him as well and show other inconsiderate behavior.
That isn't the subject of the thread at all - that's just the topic you've dwelled on.
Most people have talked about whether blocking cell phone usage by any method, legal or illegal, is a good idea for movie theaters.
I contend most anti-smoking laws won favor because too many smokers are so rude that non-smokers felt the need to fight back. I think you are seing the same thing with cell users. They are rude and they will evetually be treated the same as the smokers - ostracized from the public square.
"If they don't believe that, let them try cranking 100 watts through their homemade FM transmitter"
True words......sounds like you may know this more than anectdotally! ;^)
Merry Christmas to you, as well!
I Heard it on the X.....:)
"Um, you realize that passive shielding is in fact legal? By the above ridiculous argument, it should not be."
Spectrum licenses apply to transmitters only. It kinda makes sense if you think about it.
All I know is I never had $8 to throw away (much less use of a cell phone with "limitless" minutes)... these disruptors must have a bottomless pit of coin or enablers (aka parents).
My position: let potential customers know that all transmissions will be blocked before accepting money for a ticket so that others can enjoy the shew (so sez Frontrow Joe).
|
|
I think you two need a group hug. |
"you are rescuing his flawed technical argument by begging the question and appealing to authority."
You wouldn't want the government to get MAD at you would you?
If you put up a jammer, I'm telling......
If I were out at a show without my kids I would put my cell on silent so I would be able to check if I was needed without disturbing anyone. If the theaters decided to block my ability to do that I would stop going.
I wonder what the total IQ of that group is.
You keep saying that, but you haven't yet pointed out exactly where I'm wrong. Doesn't that embarrass you? It should.
On the contrary, you've offered my own argument why it doesn't make sense. Given that I can passively shield my building, you will have little trouble realizing that inside an RF quiet room I am also free to generate as much RF as I please on any frequency I like. If you ponder that very carefully, you will realize that restricting emission is not sensible. Restricting RFI is what makes sense.
If you reach that epiphany, you will realize that the question boils down to this: should you be entitled to protection from RFI on my private property? After you discover you are unable to justify a positive answer, you will reply, "Say what you want, jamming is illegal." You might even bold or capitalize illegal, just to prove your point even more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.