> Butch Malahide wrote: >> On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" >> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >>> Butch Malahide wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 11:32 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> pay to park my car at the airport when picking somebody up instead of >>>>> just snatching them off the curb, >>>> I can't quite picture how that works. Where are you when you get the >>>> phone call that they are ready to be picked up? Driving circles around >>>> the airport in your car? >>> At home. They call you, you drive out, you call them as >>> you're arriving >>> at the airport, they come out just as you drive up, pick 'em up at >>> the curb.
>> I still don't get it.
> Obviously.
> If I'm at home, I don't need a cell phone, I >> have a real telephone. Where are they calling from? If they've arrived >> at the airport, they don't need a cell phone either, they can use a >> payphone there (and then wait an hour or so while I drive to the >> airport from home).
> But using a payphone is a pain in the butt compared to pulling out > your cell and calling. Assuming your payphones exist, and are working, > and are not occupied. And you have the money to use with them.
> Then they wait, comfortably inside, while you drive out, assuming > that you didn't anticipate and set out earlier. The latter depends on > whether you trust airline schedules.
> When you're getting close, you call, they assemble their stuff and > head out. By the time they get outside, you're pulling up, they get in.
> Otherwise, either you have to park your car (paying money), go in > and find your friend, then go back, bring your car around, etc., or else > HE has to stand outside watching for you to arrive and dash out.
All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to park and walk over to where the person is and bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports > than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" > doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in > the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and > when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to > the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are > cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much > easier to park and walk over to where the person is and > bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking > garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it > doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
"OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
"I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
"A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
"Yep!"
Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash wrote: > In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
>> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports >> than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" >> doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in >> the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and >> when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to >> the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are >> cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much >> easier to park and walk over to where the person is and >> bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking >> garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it >> doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
> "OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks > like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
> "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
> "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
> "Yep!"
> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone, which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
> Mike Ash wrote: >> In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
>>> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the >>> ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you >>> have to figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only >>> zone" you have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of >>> traffic to get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are >>> cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to park >>> and walk over to where the person is and bring them back to my car, >>> personally. Most airport parking garages give you the first 15-30 >>> minutes free, and it doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival >>> and go.
>> "OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks >> like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
>> "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
>> "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
>> "Yep!"
>> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone, > which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given > that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving > drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I > live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an interest in getting the equipment to do it.
A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas in the car."
If you're going to argue "It's not easier because I don't have the hardware," then you can just fall back on, "I don't have a cell phone so it's not easier." Or even "I don't like it, it's scary and modern," which seems to be what much of this anti-cell-phone fooferah seems to boil down to.
This thread branch started when someone said that life was simpler without cell phones. It isn't.
To someone without a cell phone, it's in many ways the same as it ever was, and in some ways it's simpler (less competition for the pay phones, for instance). To people with cell phones, there are so many ways that they're a convenience that yes, those advantages are actual advantages.
The argument that people using cell phones illegally in traffic has merit, though it's pretty much the same argument when it wasn't cell phones but hamburgers or Egg McMuffins that people were involved with as they drove, and thus paying less attention. Meetings that people interrupt to take phone calls are poorly-run meetings, and whoever's running them needs to set some rules.
But "It's not simpler because I don't do it" doesn't hold much water; the reason it's not simpler isn't because cell phones are inherently complicating, it's because you don't have the small piece of equipment required. Whether you don't have it because you don't know about it, don't want it or can't afford it, that's not a weakness of the cell phone, it's your own choice.
I sympathized with whoever described this thread as a bunch of science fiction fans complaining about SF-come-true, and I'm sympathizing with it more and more.
On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> said: > > Mike Ash wrote: > >> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
That still exists only in science fiction!
> > Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone, > > which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given > > that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving > > drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I > > live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an > interest in getting the equipment to do it.
> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" > phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so > saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot > like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas > in the car."
So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they haven't done so yet.
> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >> On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> said: >>> Mike Ash wrote: >>>> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
> That still exists only in science fiction!
>>> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone, >>> which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given >>> that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving >>> drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I >>> live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
>> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an >> interest in getting the equipment to do it.
>> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" >> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so >> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot >> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas >> in the car."
> So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands > phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are > certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they > haven't done so yet.
It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
: Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> : So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands : phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are : certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they : haven't done so yet.
It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers, of course.
FWIW it's always been annoying/distracting/immersion-breaking to see the quite common scenes in movies and tv shows where a driver turns to face a passenger to talk with them. Without so much as a glance back out at the road for tens of seconds at a stretch. In real life, I've only seen drivers glance aside, or possibly turn aside but frequently glance back. The way it's frequently depicted just *screams* "they're really on a sound stage or whatnot!", at least, to me.
And may I add that I'm just as happy for not seeing such things irl.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa, not screaming in terror like his passengers." --- no attrib
On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" >> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so >> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot >> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas >> in the car."
21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving, which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23 haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey, grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
> Mike Ash wrote: > > In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, > > Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
> >> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports > >> than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" > >> doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in > >> the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and > >> when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to > >> the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are > >> cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much > >> easier to park and walk over to where the person is and > >> bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking > >> garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it > >> doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
> > "OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks > > like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
> > "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
> > "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
> > "Yep!"
> > Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a > hands-free phone, which I don't. And also much more likely > to result in a crash (given that speaking on a cell phone > while driving is equivalent to driving drunk) and that > airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I live > when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
Many trivial ways to get around the illegality:
1) Hands-free headset.
2) Speaker phone.
3) Pull over to the side when talking. (Lots of places to do this at airports.)
4) Have a passenger with you.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: > >> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" > >> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so > >> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot > >> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas > >> in the car."
> 21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
> What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a > law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding > that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving, > which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23 > haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey, > grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet? What's holding it back?
> On Nov 8, 4:28 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said > :
>>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >>>> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" >>>> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so >>>> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot >>>> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no ga > s >>>> in the car."
>> 21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
>> What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a >> law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding >> that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving, >> which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23 >> haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey, >> grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
> You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet? > What's holding it back?
On Nov 8, 4:15 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said: > > So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands > > phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are > > certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they > > haven't done so yet.
> It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
If not more so. There are times when driving demands more of your attention than usual. Your passenger is more likely to be aware of what's going on than the person on the phone, and to shut up when he needs to.
On 2009-11-08 16:16:52 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> On Nov 8, 4:15 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said > : >>> So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands >>> phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are >>> certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they >>> haven't done so yet.
>> It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
> If not more so. There are times when driving demands more of your > attention than usual. Your passenger is more likely to be aware of > what's going on than the person on the phone, and to shut up when he > needs to.
In the specific scenario that brought this to hand, though -- the picking-up-at-airport one -- that doesn't apply, since the person on the other end of the phone is actually giving directions the driver wants to use at present.
In the larger scenario, the driver is capable of saying, "Quiet a sec," which admittedly may not work on either phone call person or passenger, but shouldn't be discounted as a strategy. And again, screaming children lurching about in back seat is not considered detrimental enough to a driver's concentration to ban, so it's hard to imagine the phone caller that would be worse than that, or even close to that level without being hung up on.
And while passengers may be "more likely" to be observant, the unobervant ones are still legally allowed to ride.
Kurt Busiek wrote: > On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> said:
>> Mike Ash wrote: >>> In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the >>>> ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you >>>> have to figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only >>>> zone" you have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of >>>> traffic to get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that >>>> are cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to >>>> park and walk over to where the person is and bring them back to my >>>> car, personally. Most airport parking garages give you the first >>>> 15-30 minutes free, and it doesn't take me longer than that to get >>>> my arrival and go.
>>> "OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks >>> like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
>>> "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
>>> "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
>>> "Yep!"
>>> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
>> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free >> phone, which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash >> (given that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to >> driving drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate >> where I live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not >> easier.
> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an > interest in getting the equipment to do it.
> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" > phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so > saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot > like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas > in the car."
> If you're going to argue "It's not easier because I don't have the > hardware," then you can just fall back on, "I don't have a cell phone so > it's not easier." Or even "I don't like it, it's scary and modern," > which seems to be what much of this anti-cell-phone fooferah seems to > boil down to.
Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for privacy and politeness. I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no matter what. Now that I don't have to be available at all times I like being able to go do my own thing without having to worry about being interrupted or bothered by anyone with a whim to do so.
As for politeness, fine, that may be a generational thing but that doesn't mean I have to contribute to it.
So my cell sits on the bookshelf by my desk. If I feel like taking it with me when I go out, I'll grab it, but mostly it just doesn't occur to me to bother. And it goes on silent mode frequently when I do take it.
-- 7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths Myths - Will - Fall!
Kurt Busiek wrote: > On 2009-11-08 15:48:36 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
>> On Nov 8, 4:28 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >>> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> >>> said >> :
>>>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: >>>>> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" >>>>> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so >>>>> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot >>>>> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no ga >> s >>>>> in the car."
>>> 21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
>>> What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a >>> law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding >>> that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving, >>> which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23 >>> haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey, >>> grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
>> You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet? >> What's holding it back?
> The powerful keyboard lobby!
In conjunction with the butter lobby in return for helping them bring back the Oleo Ban? :-P
-- 7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths Myths - Will - Fall!
> Kurt Busiek wrote: >> On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> said:
>>> Mike Ash wrote: >>>> In article <hd5qas$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the >>>>> ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you >>>>> have to figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only >>>>> zone" you have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of >>>>> traffic to get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are >>>>> cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to park >>>>> and walk over to where the person is and bring them back to my car, >>>>> personally. Most airport parking garages give you the first 15-30 >>>>> minutes free, and it doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival >>>>> and go.
>>>> "OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks >>>> like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
>>>> "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
>>>> "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
>>>> "Yep!"
>>>> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
>>> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone, >>> which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given >>> that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving >>> drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I >>> live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
>> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an >> interest in getting the equipment to do it.
>> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free" >> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so >> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot >> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas >> in the car."
>> If you're going to argue "It's not easier because I don't have the >> hardware," then you can just fall back on, "I don't have a cell phone >> so it's not easier." Or even "I don't like it, it's scary and modern," >> which seems to be what much of this anti-cell-phone fooferah seems to >> boil down to.
> Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for > privacy and politeness. I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is > a legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority > of people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time > no matter what. Now that I don't have to be available at all times I > like being able to go do my own thing without having to worry about > being interrupted or bothered by anyone with a whim to do so.
Which is fine, but that's your wish, not an inherent evil of cell phones.
When I don't want to be available by cell, I turn it off. I am then in pretty much the same situation I'd be in if I was away from home and had only a landline, except that I have greater convenience available -- if for some reason I decide I want to make a call or check messages, I can turn the phone back on. It's under my control, and having a cell phone does not mean I have no choice but to be bothered by anyone with a whim to do so.
> So my cell sits on the bookshelf by my desk. If I feel like taking it > with me when I go out, I'll grab it, but mostly it just doesn't occur > to me to bother. And it goes on silent mode frequently when I do take > it.
And thus, your cell phone use can be customized to your wants and needs; so useful that way.
I used to leave my cell at home most of the time because I work at home and just wasn't in the habit of using it, so I rarely remembered to take it with me, except on business trips when I was hampered by the fact that I used it so little I had to learn various stuff over and over.
Once I ported my office number over to the cell, so that I use it as my primary phone, I got a lot more practice with it, got in the habit of carrying it around, and found it much more useful. Plus, my phone bills went down and I don't get bothered by calls when I don't want to, because (a) most people who have the number are people I'm open to hearing from, and (b) I turn it off when I don't want to be disturbed.
In article <hd7fup$4i...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't driving on I-anything.
-- Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books: habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
On 2009-11-08 16:41:11 -0800, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> In article <hd7fup$4i...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> > wrote:
>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
> When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car > when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't > driving on I-anything.
I've been known to pull over until they shut up, too, though generally they'll quiet down once yelled at; I have them trained that well, at least. And up to a certain height/weight/age, it's the law these days that they ride in the back, in most states I've been in lately.
But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
In article <drache-DF7CD8.18411108112...@news.eternal-september.org>,
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote: >In article <hd7fup$4i...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> >wrote:
>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
>When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car >when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't >driving on I-anything.
Even if you had been, and there was no exit for miles and miles, you could, I think, have pulled over to the shoulder and set your flashers flashing.
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote: > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> >: So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands >: phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are >: certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they >: haven't done so yet.
>It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting >than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as >I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers, >of course.
Various places in the US have figured out that it's causing problems on the same order as regular cellphones while driving; I'm fairly sure parts of Tennessee are included.
And as others have pointed out, the person on the other end of the cellphone can't -see- when you need to be paying more attention to the road the way a passenger can. (And, as near as I can tell, the kind of person who talks on a cellphone while driving generally won't -tell- the person on the other end of the cellphone to hush for a bit, or hang up without warning and call back later.)
>And may I add that I'm just as happy for not seeing such things irl.
Ditto.
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote: >Kurt Busiek wrote: >> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said: >>> You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet? >>> What's holding it back?
>> The powerful keyboard lobby!
>In conjunction with the butter lobby in return for helping them bring >back the Oleo Ban? :-P
Hot buttered schwas for EVERYONE! It's their guttural, oleaginous RIGHT!
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for >privacy and politeness. I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a >legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of >people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no >matter what.
My husband used to be, in effect, available 24/7 to the computer room that ran his programs. There were no cellphones then (we're talking early 1970s), but we had a landline phone right by the bed and every now and then it would ring in the middle of the night. Hal would pick it up, listen, and sometimes he would say, "OK, I'll be right over." He would then get dressed, get into the car, and drive across the Bay. Or, he would listen and then say, "OK, go to line 467 and change the slash-asterisk-slash to a slash-slash-asterisk," [or words to that effect] "and run it again and if it still doesn't work call me back," and hang up and he'd be asleep again before his head hit the pillow. And mostly they wouldn't call back.
And I'm not convinced that he was actually awake when he answered some of those calls. He could do FORTRAN and COBOL in his sleep. The only, only time I ever heard him talk in his sleep (well, of course I listened), he was giving me instructions on how to fix my COBOL program, even though I didn't have one.
So cell phones are neither necessary nor sufficient. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Rebecca Rice wrote: > All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the ones > I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you have to > figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only zone" you > have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to > get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are cutting > over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to park and walk > over to where the person is and bring them back to my car, personally. > Most airport parking garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and > it doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
We are having a mining boom and the workers are all employed on a "fly in, fly out" basis, which means two thirds of the aiport's car park is perpetually occupied. On top of that, there is no free period and the airport charges more than any other place in the city. So, these days, I tell my friends and relations to pay the $30 taxi fare and I'll have food and/or drinks ready when they arrive at my house. I do drop them off at the airport when they leave, though.
> It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting > than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as > I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers, > of course.
There's been a lot of talk by my state government about banning it. So far, it's only talk, but they have got serious about other even more trivial matters. --
Kurt Busiek wrote: > On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands > > phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are > > certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they > > haven't done so yet.
> It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
I've heard claims that there are studies that say it (hands free cell phone use) is more distracting then the equivalent conversation with a person inside the car. I've yet to actually see one of those studies though...
- W. Citoan -- It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back up again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task. -- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil)
