Can You Hear Me Now?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
transmission.

To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
> transmission.

And an adaptation of that device by Edison in 1877 led to the first
recorded sound ("Hello" on a piece of waxed paper). Yay.

I wonder how good was the fidelity, how much headroom, THD, SD
("sibilance distortion"), etc. etc. on that piece of waxed paper...

> To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

It doesn't flush, trust me.

-Naren

 

[mark]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Actually I read that talking to another person in the car with you is
not as distracting as talking on the cell because the other person is
also aware of the traffic and will pause etc when you are about to
perform some dangerous manuver like pulling in to traffic etc. When
talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so are
you.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
front of you.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John Halliburton" <j_challiburton@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:iBZXd.2587$ZB6.241@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>> To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.
>
> No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
> in front of you.

Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
discussion of cellphone jammers. And just the other day someone
proposed the idea of a jammer tracker.
Electromagnetic spy vs. spy!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John Halliburton wrote:
>>To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.
>
>
> No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
> front of you.
>
> John
>
>
You mean like Dudley Moore in 'Crazy People'? That was a great scene.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3/10/05 10:34 AM, in article 1130q7venoqomde@corp.supernews.com, "Richard
Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>
> "John Halliburton" <j_challiburton@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:iBZXd.2587$ZB6.241@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.
>>
>> No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
>> in front of you.
>
> Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
> discussion of cellphone jammers.

I LOVE the jammer idea but when it first occurred to me in a rage several
years back, I immediately had a Moral Moment considering what would happen
if I jammed somebody and nearby also jammed someone with a real life-n-death
emergency call in progress...


> And just the other day someone
> proposed the idea of a jammer tracker.
> Electromagnetic spy vs. spy!

History seems to be SO beyond most folks...

Go to TRAKTOR.COM and see the works of the Brilliantly Insane producers of
INCREDIBLE commercials, including the Spy vs Spy spots.
The ones on the site available to watch rotate thru, dissapear and come back
on some sort of schedule, I highly recommend the SIEMENS spot called FACE OF
THE FUTURE.
That and the LEVI's spot where a guy ropes, rides and tames a chopped
Ranchero...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:09:52 GMT, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 3/10/05 10:34 AM, in article 1130q7venoqomde@corp.supernews.com, "Richard
>Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Halliburton" <j_challiburton@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> news:iBZXd.2587$ZB6.241@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.
>>>
>>> No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic
>>> in front of you.
>>
>> Over on one of the telephone newsgroups there is frequently
>> discussion of cellphone jammers.
>
>I LOVE the jammer idea but when it first occurred to me in a rage several
>years back, I immediately had a Moral Moment considering what would happen
>if I jammed somebody and nearby also jammed someone with a real life-n-death
>emergency call in progress...

I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
cell phones from annoying their customers.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:20:46 GMT, "John Halliburton"
<j_challiburton@ameritech.net> wrote:

>No, throw away the cell phone of the stupid person taling in traffic in
>front of you.

Hey, I need to make those calls.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark Stebbeds wrote:

> Hey, I need to make those calls.


Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the same auto
accident stats as do drunk drivers. But hey, an aloholic needs a drink,
too.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

As I do exactly this kind of thing (R&D on Driver
Distraction) for a living, please be careful what you
casually talk about. Yes, some R&D pub has used those
provocative terms, but the research is questionable. It was
done on not very sophisticated driving simulators and the
variables measured don't have a lot to do with actual
driving under either condition. Being drunk affects balance
1st (weaving down the road) and cell phone calls don't.
Since simulated driving is almost wholly visual the results
are suspect.

Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.

Chip Wood

While I work for Motorola, these thoughts are my own and in
no way are intended to reflect company policy.

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message > >
Hey, I need to make those calls.
>
>
> Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the
same auto
> accident stats as do drunk drivers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gt79gf.mveoxdd43xsaN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Mark Stebbeds wrote:
>
>> Hey, I need to make those calls.
>
>
> Folks thinking they need to do that are offering us the same auto
> accident stats as do drunk drivers. But hey, an aloholic needs a drink,
> too.
>
> --
> ha

Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with other
people in the same vehicle? ( or smacking the kids in the back seat? ;-)
Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking on a
cell phone.

John L Rice

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John L Rice wrote:

> Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with other
> people in the same vehicle?

Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they place
the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if part
of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone
is only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues
coming to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones -
outside sounds are "masked."

> Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
> always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
> even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking on a
> cell phone.

Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.

What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while
on the phone.

I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so
can't get too righteous.

-Naren

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chip Wood wrote:


> Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
> accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.
>
> Chip Wood
>
> While I work for Motorola, these thoughts are my own and in
> no way are intended to reflect company policy.


hahahahaha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've read maps/directions too in addition to eating, cell phone talking and
being WAY to tired to drive.

Here is a study on the effects of auditory interference while driving :
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/auditorytask/images/Interference%20Simulation%20Study.pdf


--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

"Naren" <naren99@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39bsqlF61o8leU1@individual.net...
> John L Rice wrote:
>
>> Well, how many accidents are cause by people having conversations with
>> other people in the same vehicle?
>
> Probably not as many. I find it interesting that this subject is raised
> here because I think that cell phones cause a problem in that they place
> the user in a different aural space than the car itself. It's as if part
> of the mind is in a different location. Additionally, though the phone is
> only on one ear, I think that the brain subconsciously ignores cues coming
> to the other ear. In effect, it is like wearing headphones - outside
> sounds are "masked."
>
>> Maybe we should have a law that says only one person per vehicle? I've
>> always thought hat people putting on makeup, shaving, reading novels and
>> even eating in stop and go traffic was much more dangerous than talking
>> on a cell phone.
>
> Well, certainly. But some of those will get you a ticket as well.
>
> What gets me are the drivers that weave in and out at high speeds while on
> the phone.
>
> I must confess I have once or twice consulted a map while driving so can't
> get too righteous.
>
> -Naren

 

[mark]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>
> > When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and
so
> > are you.
>
> Two people driving and talking to each other multiplies the problem.
>
> All to often, I am following, in front of, or next to someone on a
cell
> phone. Anybody that doesn't think these people are distracted from
their
> driving is insane.

Joe,

my bad, my statement was not clear...

When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so
> > are ___you.____

(I didn't mean ___YOU____ Joe Sensor, I meant __YOU___ the person
driving while on the cell phone.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark wrote:


> When talking on the cell, the other person is in another world and so
> are you.

Two people driving and talking to each other multiplies the problem.

All to often, I am following, in front of, or next to someone on a cell
phone. Anybody that doesn't think these people are distracted from their
driving is insane.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d0qgpe$rr7$1@avnika.corp.mot.com> chip.wood@motorola.com writes:

> Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
> accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.

I think that's because when those DWP (Driving While Phoning) start to
drive stupidly, the rest of us look out for them. I think that in the
past five years, I've been cut off by more people with a phone to
their ear than without. And I've seen more people with a phone to
their ear back out of a parking space in a lot than without. So I have
to be more careful because they're distracted.

Since you're into these stats, what's up with red light cameras. The
statute allowing them in Virginia expired and the state legislature
decided not to renewe it. The data (admittedly just marginal and not
very rigorous) showed that the number of side crashes at traffic
lights decreased slightly but that the number of rear end crashes
increased - like people who would othewise run a light and get out of
the way stopped quickly to avoid getting their picture taken.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <d0qgpe$rr7$1@avnika.corp.mot.com> chip.wood@motorola.com writes:
>
>
>>Actual stats from 26,000 accidents (AAA 2003) show VERY few
>>accidents as a direct result from cell phone usage.
>
>
> I think that's because when those DWP (Driving While Phoning) start to
> drive stupidly, the rest of us look out for them. I think that in the
> past five years, I've been cut off by more people with a phone to
> their ear than without. And I've seen more people with a phone to
> their ear back out of a parking space in a lot than without. So I have
> to be more careful because they're distracted.


Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a reasonably
smart person would answer "no" to such a question.

Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a vastly
different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all about it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill wrote:

> Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
> reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
> asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a reasonably
> smart person would answer "no" to such a question.
>
> Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a vastly
> different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all about it.

I think Motorola's study of preference is the first one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> S O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Another factor is that the study he refers to was based on police
>> reports, and the evidence of cell phone use was based on the officer
>> asking if they were on the phone. All they proved is that a
>> reasonably smart person would answer "no" to such a question.
>>
>> Studies correlating cell phone usage vs. time of accident told a
>> vastly different story. The Click and Clack Brothers can tell you all
>> about it.
>
>
> I think Motorola's study of preference is the first one.


I did try to skip around that. But you're absolutely right, the cell
phone manufacturers always point to that one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1ii1311p6blp4fcisa1g52kf9sishqf1ff@4ax.com...

> I read that some restaurants and theaters are buying jammers to keep
> cell phones from annoying their customers.
>
Not in the US, where it's illegal to use jammers.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:51 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

Please instead donate it to any of the many public do-gooder
agencies that can really use them; shelters, etc.

The mining of some weird-ass metal in Africa, to make cell
phones (what can this possibly be? that's so unique) is
contributing to the deaths of many of the remaining gorillas.

Yeah, sounds nuts, but I heard it on the radio. Gotta be true.

And, HANG UP AND DRIVE.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3/10/05 9:25 PM, in article e302315e216c78hm27r5ob8kl7bnbcnhk3@4ax.com,
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:


>
> Yeah, sounds nuts, but I heard it on the radio. Gotta be true.
>
> And, HANG UP AND DRIVE.

PHONE-DRIVING = DRUNK-DRIVING

The tests and trials continue to completely nail this.
When you converse on the telephone in a car, your brain goes into a very
different mode and you CANNOT process visual and aural information beyond
that of a seriously drunk person.

Notice the verb up there is 'converse' ...
Not 'use'
or 'dial'
or 'hold'
Or 'manipulate'...

It's the unique aspect of how we manage a remote real-time full duplex
conversation. Doesn;t happen with one-way-at-a-time things like CB radio
operation.

Phone-&-Drivin'
Lose Your License

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:51 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>Today is the anniversary of Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone
>transmission.

I thought this was going to be about megaphones...

But anyway, where did he but his 48V battery?

>To celebrate, throw your cell phone into the toilet today.

Is this a "Landlines Forever" campaign, similar to Apple having an
"Apple II Forever" campaign when the IIGS was announced? I saw a IIGS
for cheap (a couple of dollars) recently and I didn't even buy it.
About eight to ten years ago I got some good POTS design experience
on my resume, but now I wonder if that was the last thing ever
designed to connect to POTS...

And on another tangent, is this how the "bathroom humor" cut on the
Bohemian Rap CD was recorded?

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley