digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Girl said 'like' too many times... So I jammed her cell phone

nytimes.com — “She was using the word ‘like’ all the time. She sounded like a Valley Girl,” said the architect, Andrew, who declined to give his last name because what he did next was illegal.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tomboys, on 11/12/2007, -14/+273I need one!
    • verge, on 11/10/2007, -3/+76for informational purposes only | http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/
      • computergod, on 11/05/2007, -5/+3That thing looks like a bitch to make and costs ~$100 just for the parts. I would have to make my own custom etched board too. I just want something that would drop a signal, like a simple spark gap transmitter or something else dirt cheap and deadly simple to make.

        Anyone know if a simple spark-gap transmitter would work?
        • Ramble, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2It might, if some of the EM frequencies produced were the same the phone uses.
          It would have to be pretty big though, you're talking about a spark that would encompass you and likely a person at least a meter away.
          • computergod, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1They generate *every* frequency, which is exactly why they are banned everywhere. The size of the spark isn't as important as the antenna size (quarter wave, full wave 1/16th wave, whatever) in determining output power. The size of the antenna, naturally, will determine the frequency. I think cell phones use four or so main frequency ranges, so I guess that just means four antennas.

            I did some quick google and found a simple one here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter
            No mention of what the values for the components are there though.

            Then there is this:
            http://web.telia.com/~u85920178/tx/sparky.htm
            The thing looks truly evil to me, and I'm sure if you plugged it in, you could take out the whole neighborhood, maybe even a whole cell tower's coverage area.

            I think you could make a simple one just by attaching an antenna wire to the top of a spark plug in a car and running the engine.
      • Baku, on 11/10/2007, -5/+41Is it bad that I thought the title wasn't complete.... and I was expecting it to end with "up her ass"....?
        • RandomGuySteve, on 11/04/2007, -5/+3The RSS feed said "Girl said 'like' too many times.. So I jammed her"

          I thought the story was going to be about a stabbing over something stupid.
    • cactus476, on 11/04/2007, -3/+5http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355~r.51715 ...
      • DesignEx, on 11/04/2007, -2/+4Thank you kind sir, this should be fun :)
        • xike, on 11/04/2007, -3/+4It's got to suck to get the model on the lower end of the promised range (2-40 feet). You'd basically just block yourself.
          • sv650touring, on 11/05/2007, -0/+8If you could just get everyone withing 40 feet to shut up, that could be a nice improvement on your personal space.
      • chad78, on 11/05/2007, -1/+19I love the disclaimer:

        Important Note: Usage and purchase of this item may not be allowed in certain countries. It is your responsibility to check for your local regulations. DX is not responsible for customs confiscations. [HERE'S the BEST PART]if you are not sure whether you country allows importing this product, do not use EMS express shipping to avoid problems.[/AWESOME]

        The Chad Translation: Use the slower shipping, that will get it past the authorities.
      • MrTankJump, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1The funny thing is, you can ship ANYTHING from one U.S. state to another, as long as it's using express shipping.
      • thwackitechnica, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2I just ordered one; moron-free commute, here I come.
        • djlosch, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1wait, so you're driving along and you see the guy in front of you talking on his cell while sipping on some mcdonalds coffee and shaving at the same time. so you activate your jammer. his call disconnects, and while he's trying to figure out what happened, he drops his razor into his coffee which splashes onto his leg, scalding his family jewels. he screams in pain and slams on his brakes. you rear-end him and then get pounded from behind by another driver whose call dropped while she was putting on her make-up.

          so what part about this is good?
          • DesignEx, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Every part except for the whole getting pounded from behind.
        • Maurauth, on 11/10/2007, -0/+0Who says he's driving?
          He could be on a bus or a train.
          Also in that situation, neither of them should have been doing anything other than driving, not shaving, not drinking, not putting on makeup and especially not talking on the phone. Over here it's illegal to use a phone whilst driving.
    • persept, on 11/10/2007, -28/+122Don't you think that it will distract them even more if their phone stops working? And think about if someone is making an urgent call concerning a life or death situation. This technology is illigal for a good reason, to stop people from interfering with communication. Everyone on Digg thinks it's a great idea to interfere with peoples phone signals, while they get enormously angry when Comcast interferes with their Bittorrent. Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me.
      • titlesaysitall, on 11/10/2007, -10/+33It seems like that right away but there is a difference from someone in the movie theater getting up and out of their seat to answer an emergency than some idiotic teen talking like a ***** caveman. Now if you're the love cell jammer vigilante you have a level of discretion but business that block all signals, eh, not so much.
      • Wrathernaut, on 11/06/2007, -16/+22If you're making a call in a life or death situation, chances are that you cannot affect it until you're off the subway.
        • saifatlast, on 11/05/2007, -8/+13What if you're not on the subway? People aren't always on the subway you know.
        • SJKat, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Like call an ambulance to the next stop? U R a genius.
      • latrosicarius, on 11/06/2007, -7/+17You're not going to be sitting in a movie theater with this on the entire time. That's a great way to run out of batteries. You would only turn it on for a short period to end some annoying moron's call. Then turn it off and enjoy your movie.
      • Audacitor, on 11/05/2007, -5/+23There is that factor. In my opinion, it should be legal to block cellphone signals on your own property. If you're not on your property, or if you're on public property, no jam for you. Cellphone jammers should also be able to detect when calls are being made to 911, and then not block any subsequent calls until reset.
        • GuitaristTom, on 11/10/2007, -6/+3i remember my high school had something like a cell phone jammer, so i think it is legal on your property
        • mlostracco, on 11/04/2007, -5/+13Because radio signals stop immediately at your property line.
          • Audacitor, on 11/04/2007, -4/+2Well yeah, there is that, but hey, 20 some odd years ago, it was $3500 10mb HHDs. All we need is a few years and someone will find the technology.
          • mcraigw, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1
            The portable devices are only effective from 3 to 10 meters.
        • noumuon, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4no, they don't, but as they propagate from a source they spread in proportion to the surface area of a sphere; thus, same amount of photons and a larger surface area equals a weaker signal; thus, the proper initial "brightness" and proper position, and yes, they can effectively stop at your property line.
        • schnibitz, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8At least there are some voices of reason here. Cell phone jammers, as tempting as they are, are not the answer. As pointed out above, you could disconnect an emergency call. The risks, however small, far outweigh the rewards IMHO.
        • StormyAaron, on 11/04/2007, -2/+3Yet Life or Death calls do not just mean 911 calls, but also say if a friend or loved one just got in to an accident, or is now very sick, or any other case where the call is not to 911, chances are you would be the once getting the call.
          • gromnie, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3If you truly care so much, go to the hospital and stay there. You'll get news the fastest way possible and not annoy anyone else in the process.

            "But that's not fair," I hear you whine. "I have a life to live."

            Oh? So it's _Not_ about any hypothetical injured person. It's about your egotism, your self-importance; your self-declared "right" to put your desires above and beyond those of everyone around you.

            If you are of the opinion that cell phones should be able to be used whenever, wherever, for whatever reason, fine. But don't delude yourself that your opinion is a noble one that claims the moral high ground.
          • mcraigw, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Yeah... and you're the only one with the right blood type?

            I turn my cell phone off at night, and I turn off the ringers on my land line phones, cause if someone in my family died or got in an accident, then I'll deal with it much better after a good nights sleep.
        • mcraigw, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1>>>>Cellphone jammers should also be able to detect when calls are being made to 911

          They aren't capable of that. You probably shouldn't keep one of these devices on in your pocket at all times. You (probably) should only use one of these devices when someone is being rude. Since the portable devices are quite limited in the size of their sphere of effectiveness, you are likely to hear anyone who was trying to make an emergency call.
      • whataboutdave, on 11/10/2007, -4/+19What did we do about life/death situations before everyone had cell phones?
        • reddikilowatt, on 11/05/2007, -2/+11Died... and lived. Now we just talk about it.
      • someidiotinnj, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1"Like all my gowd! I'm in a emergency life or death situation!" *click*
    • carbog, on 11/05/2007, -31/+13You would have to be a real ass to use something like this.
      • Aggaman, on 11/06/2007, -8/+19Uh no...
        The real asses are the worthless people who pollute the environment with their noise. They are simply rude. It should be a right for any property owner to be able to prevent cell phones from being used on their property if they so wish. The same goes for movie theatres. I don't know how many times some pig has spoiled the movie for everyone by failing to turn off his ***** phone, or worse, answering or making a call. These people are scum, and if you do this, you are scum too and deserve a severe beating.
        • GuitaristTom, on 11/05/2007, -15/+6god, and i hate it when people listen to music too loud... and i hate it when people have annoying accents... and i hate it when people yell... i know... lets just all be really quiet...

          ...
          shh
          • breadfred, on 11/05/2007, -2/+19It's called consideration for other people and not being a selfish *****.
        • ronar, on 11/05/2007, -6/+12These Cell-phone jammers are made for people who are too pussy to tell other people off.
          • Tenoq, on 11/05/2007, -2/+19It's the US - they're made for people who don't want to get shot for telling someone off.
      • Girlieq3, on 11/04/2007, -5/+2But... if its you... its different, right?
    • mikesbaker, on 11/06/2007, -62/+3like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like
      also
      like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like
      • vornan19, on 11/05/2007, -4/+22You are like, so buried.
      • theaceoffire, on 11/05/2007, -4/+22If you were a real man, you would have typed them with varying capitalizations, spellings, etc.
        Copy and paste is for pussys.
        • mikesbaker, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1i was trying to be annoying not ghey
        • chyya, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2hats off to you, you were able to accomplish both
    • mikesbaker, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4also ray bradbury wrote about this in the 50s - in his short story the man used a jammer and well read the story your self - it was written in the 50s and IMHO accurately describes many parts of our world today. for those of you who have forgotten about bradbury he also wrote fahrenheit 451
    • GuitaristTom, on 11/10/2007, -21/+21wow, you are all terrible people... first, what if some guy was talking to someone about what stop to get off at, or was on an important conference call in the near vicinity... wow, nice job just effing up their conversation...

      and who are you to say that because someone says like a lot that they aren't having a serious discussion... mind your own damn business you control freak
      • breadfred, on 11/05/2007, -16/+8Yeah and respect my right to NOT listen to your important business phone calls.
        • NSResponder, on 11/06/2007, -7/+12If you don't want to hear the sounds around you in public, get some noise-canceling headphones.

          -jcr

        • vornan19, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4All we can do in that situation is either leave or ask the person to lower their voice. If they refuse I believe you are then allowed to disrupt (in no greater degree than you are disrupted) the offender.
        • cbuddha42, on 11/06/2007, -2/+4I must have missed that in US history. Where in the Bill of Rights is the right not to be annoyed? Where is it in any subsequent law? Maybe a supreme court case you would like to cite? Stop claiming you have a right to things just because you want them; you don't have ***** as far as a right not to be annoyed by people's cell phones in public.
      • izzie2, on 11/06/2007, -12/+6How about the scenario where someone is recording your conversation or broadcasting it with their hidden phone.Or worse yet texting while I'm talking to them.Well it has happened too many times and I have placed a moratorium on the use of cell phones in my house.Not only is it rude but potentially privacy invasive.In fact while my neighbor was asking me questions about my opinion on different things i noticed them texting but trying to hide it.Am i being spied on or are they just rude?Probably a little of both.Who knows.I have a cell phone jammer.I also call it my face jammer aka fist.
        • vornan19, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4Right on!
          I plan on getting all the old broken microwaves and metal sheets I can. then I'll make a farrady cage built into the walls and ceiling. If you enter your signal dies!
          • mcraigw, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2
            This is legal too. Theaters can be built to be Faraday cages, which would solve that problem. Schools may have more difficulty doing this because they have windows.
      • noumuon, on 11/10/2007, -5/+10well, to be blunt: too bad for those people. there was a time before cell phones where people would get lost and conferences were held in person. sure, it wouldn't be great for either of those people, but if the technology they're relying on fails, it shouldn't be the end of the world. life goes on.
      • sleepwalkers, on 11/05/2007, -2/+8Chances are, a terribly important conference call isn't going to be happening while some dude is riding the subway.
        If someone is using a cell phone for semi-important communication, then that's fine - leave them be. If they're being dickholes about it and blabbing on and on about how drunk they were last night or something terribly unimportant that's doing nothing but (as one commenter put it) "polluting our environment with noise," then I feel no sympathy for them.
      • mcraigw, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3>>>>wow, you are all terrible people... first, what if some guy was talking to someone about what stop to get off at, or was on an important conference call in the near vicinity... wow, nice job just effing up their conversation...

        You get on a train without knowing at which stop to get off? Brilliant!!

        What if I'm a doctor on my way to surgery and I'm reading about the operation I'm about to perform and some idiot next to me is being loud and obnoxious on their cell phone preventing me from concentrating? About as likely as holding an important conference call on public transit over a cell phone. If you're that important, you would have learned to plan ahead.
        • bulkhater, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1So, you've never gotten a cell phone call about plans changing? Do people never break legs in your world or do you just not have any friends and therefore never have to deal with plans changing?
          • mcraigw, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2I don't own a cell phone, so no, I don't get cell phone calls about plans changing. And I'm not rude to people in theaters or on trains, or in any public place, so surprisingly enough I do have friends, but they are smart enough to plan things.
    • pifko123, on 11/10/2007, -2/+25Here's how to deal with the problem:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXp1R1RPNU

      Larry David = Awesome
    • chyya, on 11/05/2007, -2/+15i like totally dont believe what that guy did was cool. i personally believe that like, hes mean and therefore, such as.
    • thomasX, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40& ...
    • Frosty122, on 11/05/2007, -6/+2i have one(it's not illegal to own one..at least not hear anyway) and it's nice, i only use mine when i have to, like say a movie theatre.
    • ninalama, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Seriously. I would use it on like, most of the like, girls in my high school. Please don't tell me it's "terrible" because you do NOT experience what I experience on a daily basis; thank god I only have less than a year left.
  • ViRaZ, on 11/06/2007, -6/+48I like Jon Reep's idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786e80QR9_A
  • jmgoody311, on 11/09/2007, -6/+327I prefer the "swift kick to the face" method of cell phone jamming.
    • vulcanius, on 11/04/2007, -19/+3How about a quick tase.
    • pdxuser, on 11/09/2007, -5/+66Am I the only one who read the title and thought "...into her head?"
      • Audacitor, on 11/09/2007, -2/+27No, I had slightly different version: "up her ass"
    • Valkarie70, on 11/05/2007, -4/+6As would I, bit freeway speeds in moving vehicles may inhibit that kick unless you were say..Chuck Norris.
    • computergod, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5>How about a quick tase.

      Some phones can be made into stun guns, while keeping their original functionality:
      http://www.hackaday.com/2007/10/23/cell-phone-tase ...
      • frankietears, on 11/09/2007, -0/+7Maintaining it's original functionality?

        Yeah, I can't see anything going wrong there.
    • EarlOfLade, on 11/05/2007, -14/+5Trust an American to suggest physical violence as solution to any problem.
      • sabach, on 11/05/2007, -2/+4EarlOfLade
        A male from the United States who joined Digg on May 8th, 2007
        • Tenoq, on 11/05/2007, -9/+2At least he can recognise the deficiencies of his own culture.
      • vornan19, on 11/05/2007, -2/+3Thems fightin' words, mister!
      • Economist35, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3you got your ass kicked too many times in gym class
      • sleepwalkers, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Trust... another American to make fun of himself while at the same time letting any sort of humor just completely fly over his head and take things said in Digg comments (of all places) way too seriously.
    • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2Such violence and aggression. *sigh*
    • machismonstro, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1Is face jamming illegal?
  • Prathik89, on 11/07/2007, -34/+28This guys awesome
    • Elranzer, on 11/07/2007, -7/+3If he didn' tlike girls who say "like" so much, he shouldn't live in San Francisco.
      • duckyinc, on 11/05/2007, -10/+4true lol
        • therightclique, on 11/05/2007, -8/+7stop saying "lol". you look like an idiot. just trying to help you.
          • mlostracco, on 11/08/2007, -1/+13Someone needs to invent an LOL jammer. Half the internet bandwidth would free right up.
        • Cenobite, on 11/08/2007, -4/+15If you don't like people who say "lol" so much, you shouldn't be on the Internet.
    • BinaryDelt, on 11/10/2007, -2/+14Apostrophes are awesome.
  • doctorfungi, on 11/12/2007, -17/+162Although I do think this is a pretty cool piece of technology that could be used to shut up the most annoying of people on buses and trains, the ways the device could be abused is alarming.
    • Lyanto, on 11/05/2007, -2/+29Yeah, reminds me of the device that broadcasted all infrared TV shut-off signals. You could more or less shut off any TV, and I was imagining the havoc someone could create if they brought it to E3...
      • computergod, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8Public places stick electrical tape over the sensors for this very purpose.
    • Flashman, on 11/09/2007, -4/+81Imagine armed bandits using a jammer to prevent anybody dialing 911. That would suck.
      • daza, on 11/05/2007, -11/+22You think the armed bandits would let anyone call 911 if they didn't have a jammer?
        • saifatlast, on 11/05/2007, -3/+15You think armed bandits are omnipotent? With no jammer, hostages could just keep the phone in their pocket as they punch the numbers in by feel.
        • Dumbledorito, on 11/04/2007, -3/+21@saifatlast: Not with an iPhone. Touchscreens aren't great for tactile feedback. D'oh!
          • saifatlast, on 11/04/2007, -4/+1I bet iPhone users get to memorizing where their keys are though just from using them so much.

            Also, learn how to use the reply button, dammit.
      • WaterDragon, on 11/05/2007, -17/+26speaking of armed bandits...imagine cops shocking citizens with tasers for little or no reason, when they are too lazy to just use their physical skills.
        • bizkit00, on 11/04/2007, -10/+9haha, you implied pigs have physical skills, good one.
        • doctorfungi, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8I'd probably rather get tazed than have a cop beat the ***** out of me...
        • Cenobite, on 11/04/2007, -11/+3@doctorfungi

          Obviously you've never been tazed.
        • doctorfungi, on 11/04/2007, -0/+9@Cenobite

          Obviously you've never been hit with a night stick. Dude, I've been pepper-sprayed, hit with a night stick, and tazed. I'd take tazing over the other two ANY day of the week.

          Just as a note, only one of these incidents (the night stick) was due to an altercation with police.
      • IHaveIssues, on 11/05/2007, -5/+24They have these new phones now to counter that, the signal actually goes over wires than run right to the phone company's switching office.
        • Dumbledorito, on 11/04/2007, -1/+5Well thank god. I'll be safe on the commute to work with one of those, won't I? I'll even use it to save other people. I'll be like Batman!
    • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -13/+8"the ways the device could be abused is alarming."

      Yeah, like using it at all. It's a crime.

      -jcr

      • chad78, on 11/05/2007, -7/+12why do you put -jcr on your comments? I mean, don't you realize that digg labels them for you? we don't know who you are, or care. The intitials jcr mean nothing to us, and make you look stupid. This is the internet. If a website wants you to have a sig line - they'll give you the functionality to do so autmotically.

        -cws (see what I did there? It looks stupid and wastes my time and everyone else's bandwidth and screens space - that's 2 more lines everybody has to scroll to read the comments below - well, 3 now)
        • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1"The intitials jcr mean nothing to us, and make you look stupid."

          How do you think your diatribe makes you look, sunshine?

          -jcr
    • Syntaxis, on 11/05/2007, -5/+7Think of the POSSIBILITIES! You're in a cinema, watching a nice movie, some ***** has her cellphone on and starts to talk to her giiiirrrlllfrrieeeend on the other end of town, like, very like important stuff you know, and like, she's in a movie which is like very stupid, like, stupid like.. like.. it's just stuuuuuupid hehahhahahhihihihi.

      You know. The type that you wish you could throw into the vacuum of space.

      Imagine having a phone blocking device with you. Peace on earth was never this easy.
      • tinselsnips, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1So instead of getting off your ass and getting the management to kick her out, you stop her from talking to her "giiiirrrlllfrrieeeend", and you stop the guy two rows down from finding out his kid just got hit by a car. Congrats.
  • MasterThief117, on 11/06/2007, -19/+37There are so many times where I wish I had one of these. What they can do is make cell phones use a different frequency to dial emergency services, and make the jammers not interfere with that frequency. Or they can make jammers detect calls to emergency services (if its possible) and have it shut off so the call can go through. If they did this, they could install permanent ones inside theatres where people are complete jackasses, and on the silent area of trains and other public areas.
    • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -35/+23Or, what they can do is not allow pricks like you to jam other people's conversation when they are doing absolutely nothing illegal, or even wrong. How about that?
      You have NO right to decide what is an important conversation and what isn't.
      • Professr, on 11/05/2007, -8/+4If it's so loud that I develop a fear of people from it, and start cringing at every loudly-spoken word, it's not important enough.
        • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1If you develop a fear, then you need to seek counseling.
      • MasterThief117, on 11/05/2007, -7/+24It is very wrong to talk on a cell phone in the theatre, or in a nice restaurant, or any other quiet areas. But because of what you said, I am assuming you are the type of prick who does ***** like that.
        • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1I haven't been to a theater in years. And I don't bring my phone to restaurants. Howeve,r people talkign on a phone is no different than having a conversation with someone else at their table. So unless you are listening in, it should not bother you.
      • andymadigan, on 11/05/2007, -6/+7No, but you do have a right to go elsewhere to have your 'important' conversation. I wish I had one of these local to the inside of my car, I find it impolite when people start carrying on long conversations while I'm driving.
        • jftitan, on 11/05/2007, -4/+9You know what.... I also find that as another useful tool.... The ***** who are talking on their cellphones while driving.... if they get too close to my car, their conversation gets disconnected.... I would much prefer people paying attention to the road than on the phone. if the call is really important, they will get the call soon enough as they get AWAY from me.

          However to bingobongony... If I were jamming the nearby area, and an REAL emergency were to occur, I surely wouldn't be dick enough to keep jamming frequencies around me. Its an EMERGENCY. and Yes, most people intelligent enough (and I do stress 'most') are also able to comprehend a serious need for others to use a phone in such cases as well.
          • Tenoq, on 11/05/2007, -1/+5That's a great idea. My life is threatened daily by morons talking on mobile phones while driving. It's epidemic here - at least a dozen every trip to and from work. A jammer would be a potential life-saver for me - a good investment really.
          • theshizzler, on 11/05/2007, -0/+8Yes, because its infinitely more desirable to have a terrible driver looking down at their phone in puzzlement after they figure out they're disconnected...and then trying to redial.
          • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1As I said (but you are too slow to cmprehend) you don't know what is an emergency or not. The notion that you think that only obvious emegencies that affect everyone are improtant shows how ***** stupid you are, and is EXACTLY whay you should never have any power over anyone else. (and never will.)
            As for drivers...you are not a cop. It is not up for you to decide. you are just a ***** nobody. Remember that your entire worthless life and realize htat no one will EVER be on your side.
        • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2People have the RIGHT, but not the obligation to go somewhere else when they are IN PUBLIC. So you are saying htat what YOU use a public place for is OK, but not what others do?
      • gromnie, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1"You have NO right to decide what is an important conversation and what isn't."

        And yet you seem to think _you_ have the right to decide what I should have to listen to.

        Somehow, I don't think you'd have this same opinion if I came to your house and described in graphic detail my last surgery while you're eating dinner.
        • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2I DO have that right you stupid *****. What part of being IN PUBLIC do you not understand?
          If you are unable to live in a social environment, then kill yourself and do the world a favor.
          • gromnie, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1So, someone incapable of forming a rational rebuttal who instead resorts to swearing and suggestions of suicide sees himself as the Champion of Modern Society.

            How sad it is that I'm not overly surprised.
    • takeda, on 11/05/2007, -7/+2Instead of jamming signal I think there could be a device that sends a specific signal every (let say) 10 seconds. The cellphones listen for it, and won't allow to dial anything except emergency numbers.
      There's no need for jamming signal, but the companies producing cellphones and networks would need to cooperate.
      • KidKenosha, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6Why would they? What possible benefit could there be to them, particularly the networks?
        • MrScience, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1Not that they want to, but the VP's and board could sleep better at night.
          • gromnie, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2You assume these VPs and board members are like you and need things like sleep.

            Bad move, human.
    • meridian300, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3That wouldn't work, those things aren't that selective, nor would a company spending billions to maintain their networks go out of their way and spend more on a system like that.
    • Ramble, on 11/04/2007, -5/+2What would be awesome is to generate a fake GPS time signal, and throw people's sat nav off by a few km or something.

      Actually, this might not be that hard to do.
    • gropo, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Eventually the jammers would start pooping upwards of the 2ghz bands and messing with WiFi.
      It would turn in to a newt/garter-snake-like evolution of predator/prey dynamics. Jamming isn't the answer.
      Sociological paths to weaning tok-box-munkees from their social ineptitudes is the sole practical way to deal with the problem.
    • cbuddha42, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Right because the manufacturers of an illegal device totally wouldn't want to break the law, would they? If you added more cell phone frequencies they would just get jammed too regardless of what they were earmarked for.
  • Cannon13, on 11/11/2007, -9/+89So umm...where would a curious person go if they were interested in...researching these devices? Yes, researching.
  • benitojuarez, on 11/04/2007, -12/+8in for 3!
  • Konrad9, on 11/12/2007, -11/+371"Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an upscale restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant owner said. The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a powerful jammer for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees focusing on their phones rather than customers.

    “I told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away your phones,” he said. They ignored him."

    FIRE THEM YOU LITTLE BITCH.
    • vanbacon, on 11/06/2007, -3/+54I had a Co Worker get fired for that. Why can't people freaking learn some respect with their cell phones
    • TheNik, on 11/09/2007, -3/+121What? Sorry, I was texting.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 11/06/2007, -47/+3Calling him for sure is stupid just like calling anyone else that is rude. How sad. BITCH equals female dog.Grow up
      • CatalystGhost, on 11/08/2007, -1/+22Hey, the female dog thing? Yeah, we stopped thinking we cared back in the 2nd grade. Shut the hell up, you *****.
        • Klarth, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10***** is just another word for vagina. Stop being such a dick.
          • Travelsonic, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6Dick is just another word for penis, don't sound like a queef.
      • IHaveIssues, on 11/04/2007, -1/+11Was there some form of coherent sentence in that jumble of words?
    • Promantarius, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8Why could he just require that everyone turns off their cell phones entirely and leaves them in a secure area at work to prevent them using them? If you give people free reign on temptation while working you're guaranteed to have them distracted frequently.
      • tehseanzor, on 11/06/2007, -10/+2Ya my work makes us do that, however u still bring my phone because I only look at it when not doing anything and I only look at it for a second to see who texted me and if I should text them back. It's just the stupid people who answer their phones at work that ruin it for the rest of us
        • jakem1, on 11/05/2007, -0/+7Maybe you should quit your job at McDonalds and get a job at a company that trusts you.
        • oldhick, on 11/04/2007, -0/+4Why would someone trust him if he can't be separated from his phone for a few hours? Sounds like his boss has no choice but to fire him.
          • frankietears, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Corporate offices certainly wouldn't work like this. I deal with AV for some high profile events and meetings at my office building. I have to ask people to turn off their Blackberrys and phones all the time. Its emitting frequencies that are ***** with our speakers and create disruptive noises during these meetings.

            Some people just can't have their phone off.
      • Ramble, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5Depends on your work.
        Where I work I use my phone to lsiten to the radio, I don't deal with any customers, nor any other person. However, if I were a waiter I'd expect to be told not to use my phone.
    • Subvexer, on 11/08/2007, -1/+27You've got red on you
    • OrangeTide, on 11/06/2007, -9/+7Yea. fire them. Using an illegal jammer that could interfere with emergency service seems like a bad idea.
      • cplusplus, on 11/04/2007, -4/+3In an emergency I bet the restaurant with allow use of their landline
        • Travelsonic, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3Depends on accessabilit to a landline.
    • NikoKun, on 11/06/2007, -4/+12I think if a Store owner wants to put a cell phone jammer in HIS store, that is his right. After all, it is his property.
      • rmxz, on 11/10/2007, -6/+9Owning property doesn't make you the king of your own little kingdom. It doesn't let you enslave all your employees and customers who walk on your property. It doesn't let you shoot whatever you want in the air over your property (whether bullets or cell phone jamming signals). And most relevantly, owning property doesn't give one the right to regulate airwaves.

        And PS: No, the store owner probably doesn't own it - he's probably leasing it; but that doesn't give his landlord the right to regulate the airwaves either.
        • oldhick, on 11/10/2007, -2/+7You're kind of right, but it should. I should be able to own my property and own the air for a reasonable distance above it. As long as notify the public that are coming in the cell phones will be jammed while on my premises then what could be wrong there? You would then be able to make a decision on entering or working for an establishment with those practices. I understand that it is illegal today, I just don't quite get why...
        • gromnie, on 11/10/2007, -1/+3"Owning property doesn't make you the king of your own little kingdom."

          And owning a cell phone _does_?
      • sigmundfinger, on 11/06/2007, -5/+2Even if he does own the store he doesn't have a right to send out a jamming signal, or use a device that is prohibited by the FCC, especially in a heavily trafficked commercial area.
        • Cerebral, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2That's really the problem though. Is that the FCC is the one who has the RIGHT to decide what we can/cannot DO with these signals and are then bought by the big cell companies. Why don't I have the right to say that I don't want Cell waves in my house? I purchased my house(and essentially the land as well) and if I want to block cell service I should have every right to as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's property lines.
      • msgyrd, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2You know, installing a cell-phone jammer in your store would be illegal.

        Building a giant Faraday cage is completely kosher though...and probably cheaper.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1If you fire them, in America, they sue you for 300 million $.
  • RatATool, on 11/04/2007, -16/+0I want one, too.
  • weirdlookinguy, on 11/10/2007, -17/+50Andrew is my new hero. I hate fake ass bitches who talk on the phone like the whole world gives a ***** that their anniversary is next week. The type that sit around watching MTV and celebrity gossip all day.
    • mRIpX, on 11/04/2007, -2/+11bawwwwwwwwwww
    • mrjit, on 11/10/2007, -5/+10Little bit of inner instability there? All I read was "She said like too much and sounded like a Valley Girl" - I know plenty of people who say Like, Um, etc and don't give a ***** about MTV.
      • vornan19, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5But when the quotient of likes exceeds the sentences' informational capacity meaning is lost. :D
      • Drizzit, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Only because the problem of kids today using the word "like" has become so widespread they're all doing it. I wonder how todays high school kids will even be able to function through a college writing or English class. It's not a case of it's the popular talk. It's evidence if a severe dysfunction of schools teaching children to speak properly and parents not dealing with it on their end as well.

        Seriously it's disturbing to listen to people who use like so much they're talking in the 3rd person about themselves.
        • elementfire, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1The funny thing is, I knew several people in my college writing class(es) that had dysfunctional speech patterns, but all their papers were quite coherent. It's as though they balance IMing, teen-speech, and written coherency. Which is quite surprising, since their IQs seemed abysmal.
    • fetusdrugs, on 11/04/2007, -10/+2i bet you're a virgin
    • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -11/+6Your hero is a coward who doesn't have the guts to actually complain to someone who's using a phone. No, he just hits his little secret felony button.

      -jcr

      • vornan19, on 11/05/2007, -3/+2lol, I like that. little felony button.
  • joshuagor44, on 11/04/2007, -24/+12"“She kept talking into her phone for about 30 seconds before she realized there was no one listening on the other end,” he said."
    That is sofa king hilarious!
    • theone3, on 11/04/2007, -5/+3Wow.. way to get around the censoring system. Never mind that it's opt-in.
  • Hoxie, on 11/05/2007, -36/+13This technology is very dangerous. Sure, you may think that the lady sitting next to you on the bus is annoying, but then what happens when you jam the signal and the bus runs off the road. If someone is seriously injured, how can anyone call for help? The jamming signal may dissipate after a few moments, but if someone is seriously injured, then that means the difference between life and death.
    • zeeky, on 11/05/2007, -16/+22oh ok i see how using this could run a bus off the road. you know, because the steering wheel uses radio waves to turn the wheels...
      • vhtrading, on 11/04/2007, -6/+4No, *****, he was simply giving an example of an emergency. The jamming of any cell signal would effect any calling for help afterwards.
        • mrFREEZE, on 11/04/2007, -3/+5The odds of that happening are astronomical. I can dream up fantasy scenarios too:

          What if the NSA needs to call me with the correct defusing codes in the event I accidentally stumble on an abandoned US nuke attached to a detonator?
        • oldhick, on 11/04/2007, -2/+4Yeah, we're the *****... You make up a ridiculous situation to back up a ridiculous point and WE'RE the ***** for pointing out how stupid the argument is.
      • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2what a ludicrous scenario.
    • pinguwin, on 11/04/2007, -5/+12This device may, repeat, may harm someone in the above listed scenario and perhaps this device should be banned for such a reason. Fair enough, let's ban the jammer.

      Look at this article http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1 which contends that cell phone using drivers are substantially impaired and pose a serious risk to others, so logically we should also ban cellphones...DEAL!
      • WaterDragon, on 11/04/2007, -2/+4Ban buses...or better yet, ban idiots... and don't let them drive vehicles or use cell phones.
    • Ap31r0n, on 11/04/2007, -5/+7I like how you changed this from a valley girl that was creating noise pollution to a life and death scenario!

      You win you're right, how dare people take technology into there own hands! how dare people other then our mighty military even know of such things!

      See I can twist things around too :)

    • Zybergod, on 11/04/2007, -1/+6P.S. You CAN turn it off. A difficult concept, I know.
    • Masefield, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3You know, we did manage to handle with emergencies prior to cell phones. God forbid the technology fails and we have to fend for ourselves.
    • asines1, on 11/04/2007, -1/+0Killjoy.
  • maidix, on 11/07/2007, -30/+8Nobody likes a cellphone-cop.
    • Jimgress, on 11/05/2007, -5/+21I do, and a lot of people in this thread do too.
      It's called manners.
      let me show you it.
      • maidix, on 11/05/2007, -26/+4By jamming everyone around you? I wouldn't call that manners. Cure is worse than the disease.
        • Professr, on 11/05/2007, -1/+15It's hard for me to agree with you when I find more sympathy for the jammer than for the victim.
        • takeda, on 11/04/2007, -7/+5You think you might be just jamming a non important conversation. What if you jam the signal when some guy is talking to his mother in law? What if she will think he hang up on her? There can be someones life at stake.

          Jammers are really dangerous...
          • jakem1, on 11/05/2007, -1/+7Who the ***** is your mother-in-law? Supergirl? Why are conversations to your mother-in-law so important?
      • jessicass, on 11/05/2007, -1/+13Manners, do you has them?
    • weirdlookinguy, on 11/05/2007, -3/+15I do. I wish they would outlaw cellphones already, annoying pieces of *****.
  • vulcanius, on 11/09/2007, -4/+22I'd like one of these for my car and to carry in lines with me. Nothing worse than having to wait because some ***** can't get off their cell phone.
    • kevptim, on 11/09/2007, -3/+21Nothing makes a driver safer than attempting to redial a number because their service dropped unexpectedly...
      • jakem1, on 11/09/2007, -5/+6Except the driver being on the phone in the first place.
    • Cerebral, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1Ummm I don't get why people just don't man up and tell people to hurry the ***** up. I do all the time. It may make me look like an ass but as soon as there is at least one other person behind me, I end up a hero.
  • nicatron21, on 11/04/2007, -13/+2now cell phone company's will do this once you buy the phone...
    *Click* "What???"
  • HAMMERotheGODS, on 11/05/2007, -22/+12I'm sure I would be tempted to do the same thing, but if I ever got jammed while on the phone and found the person doing it, I would beat the living ***** outta them. Shove their little tool right up their ass.
    • Professr, on 11/04/2007, -1/+16That's funny, when I'm on the train and some lady is talking about 10 decibels above "outdoor voice" to her girlfriend and laughing hysterically, I have that same urge to shove their little tool right up their ass.
    • KanchoBukkakeku, on 11/04/2007, -4/+2If it can reach around to their *****, i doubt it is a little tool.
    • genepooldesign, on 11/06/2007, -3/+6How violent of you. Freak.
  • AndrewWiggin, on 11/12/2007, -5/+149What happens when you activate this on an airplane?
    • OBKenobi, on 11/10/2007, -23/+90The airplane crashes into a skyscraper.
      • kahrytan, on 11/09/2007, -59/+4Dude, really bad taste. Don't go there again. It's not funny.
        • WaterDragon, on 11/06/2007, -4/+28S.....SSSS....STTTT...STFU!
        • pintomp3, on 11/04/2007, -1/+12i dugg him up because of your comment.
        • Ramble, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7Waaa. Lets stop the world because you find something offensive.
        • SeaICIubber, on 11/04/2007, -2/+3He cant because they haven't rebuilt the skyscraper!
        • had3l, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. boohoo.
        • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8dude, it was 6 years ago, get the ***** over it already.
        • thomasX, on 11/04/2007, -2/+3Never forget.
      • Professr, on 11/04/2007, -8/+5Wait... I had an idea there for a second. Let's see if it comes back...
        • WaterDragon, on 11/04/2007, -3/+7I sure hope it does. I'm just here waitin'......
      • Nidy1, on 11/05/2007, -2/+13I am so ashamed that I'm still laughing at that.
      • Jones82, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Too soon?
    • Ap31r0n, on 11/06/2007, -3/+56You get the gloved hand of an FBI agent up your ass?
    • TomRitchford, on 11/05/2007, -3/+22There's really only one way to find out. Are you volunteering? Do let me know so I can be in a different continent.
    • Ogopogo, on 11/05/2007, -9/+3Nothing.. passenger planes aren't falling out of the sky due to cell phone use (or jammers). The FAA tries to freak out gullible passengers by insisting that they 'turn off all electronic devices'. Google http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22todd+beamer ...
      • ttamshadbolt, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7tin-foil hat?
      • GuitaristTom, on 11/05/2007, -5/+1regardless of what you might think you know, i bet you know nothing of how jammers work or how airplanes communicate... the fact is this guy has a good point... maybe people should just mind their own buisness
    • NevinW11, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4rudy gulliani shows up
      • reddikilowatt, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Well that could be for just about anything these days...
    • MasterDwarf, on 11/06/2007, -1/+10Do I really need to quote Spiderman's uncle?
    • Buddhist, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6Snakes.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1You rest in peace.
  • FluffyWolf, on 11/06/2007, -16/+33It's a great thing the jammer lets through 911 calls...
    • Pacificblue, on 11/05/2007, -16/+5Who said so???
      • FluffyWolf, on 11/05/2007, -3/+10Nobody, I'm just trying to trick people into thinking a bit.
        • djdedeo0, on 11/06/2007, -5/+11Wow a great philosopher you are. If there is an emergency situation I think someone will have the comman sense to turn the thing off or walk out of their range. It's not like your gonna follow the same person around and jam their calls all day. the cheap jammer probably has an effective range of 15 feet or something. Hardly a threat to society unless you're both trapped in a phone booth that is filling with water.
          • FluffyWolf, on 11/04/2007, -1/+6There is no such thing as a general "effective radius" that's simplified marketing *****, if you are in an area with poor reception the radius grows much larger and if you are blocking the line of sight between a station and the blocked cell phone with the jammer the blocking range also increases dramatically. How do you know there is an emergency situation within a 50m radius of yourself? Especially when traveling on a bus or commuting in any other way?
          • adoggz, on 11/05/2007, -2/+9yeah, so just because something has the possibility to be used maliciously, we should make it illegal?
  • bingobongony, on 11/05/2007, -45/+12So, this guy thinks he is superior to someone becuase of how they talk, yet he is a ***** lowlife criminal? If people were allowqed to take matters into their own hands every time someone did something annoying, then this guy would be dea.
    • samzklub, on 11/07/2007, -4/+12He never said anything about feeling superior. The man just wanted a little peace and quiet on the train. The conversation OBVIOUSLY was not of any importance. Perhaps when this issue arises on public modes of transit, a vote be taken. I guarantee the majority of people will vote to jam the conversation. At that point, however, I imagine she would voluntarily end her conversation for fear of me making her feel awkward.
  • cactus476, on 11/05/2007, -8/+29*cough*
    http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355~r.51715 ...
    *cough*
  • compgeek, on 11/05/2007, -18/+3this would be a godsend granted I always have my cellphone with me but I am also courteous enough to turn it on vibrate and if a call comes in I just briefly take it out to look who it is if it's someone important (my parents for instance) I will politely excuse myself take the call and come back if not I just let it go to my voicemail and I try to avoid use of my cell phone on buses or trains walking down the street I'll use it but my calls are kept short sweet and to the point where would I go to acquire one of these I do wonder so what if they are illegal being next to someone on a train or bus that keeps blabbing on drives me crazy that's why I don't do it I can understand the small 30 second calls but more often than not when I'm next to a cell user on public transit they are blabbing the whole ride
    • pinguwin, on 11/04/2007, -1/+6If all were like you, the device would be unlikely to have been invented. Good to hear that have such standards.
    • theorem7, on 11/04/2007, -1/+14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Here, you can have these ^. I noticed by the lack of them in your comment that you seem to be out and I had some extras lying around.
  • lead2thehead, on 11/05/2007, -14/+7I need one of these to jam every phone within a 500 foot radius of my car.
  • ItsMyWii, on 11/04/2007, -10/+3I liked the Windows Mobile ad right next to this article.
  • MasterThief117, on 11/05/2007, -1/+75When I read the headline, I thought it was incomplete, if you catch my drift. The description made it worse.
  • idiotwithastick, on 11/09/2007, -2/+31I wonder if it can jam my wireless conne
  • mf0thrilla, on 11/11/2007, -9/+33"The radio frequencies used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like those used by television and radio broadcasters."

    Oh yeah, those invisible waves are "protected", aren't they?

    Tech guerrilla warfare sounds great to me.
    • WaterDragon, on 11/05/2007, -5/+1Tech guerrilla warfare died long ago, from a total lack of balls! That's why we still have things like FAUX news spreading their BS all over.
    • banmaster, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3What about my god damned ears? Aren't they protected from hearing stupid white trash bitches yammer on and on about inconsequential ***** the whole damn time I'm in a bus or train?
      • AngryAmish, on 11/09/2007, -5/+5No, they're not. Just like you can't shut up two people having an annoying conversation on a train, you cannot stop someone from talking on a cellphone, legally or ethically.
      • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -7/+3That's public transport, sunshine. If you want peace and quiet while you're traveling, get a job and buy a car.

        -jcr

    • Pacificblue, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1To be technically correct, i guess "protected" means two things, one that they cant/should be blocked and second is that they are "encrypted", so no one can eavesdrop.
    • CatalystGhost, on 11/04/2007, -3/+1"Tech guerrilla warfare sounds great to me." Lights out, guerilla radio! Turn that ***** up!
      Amirite?
    • Ramble, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Tech guerilla warfare has died out or isn't being used becuase it's extremely difficult to actually do it. As well as the expensive equipment and skill needed jammers have a short range.
  • Ebeach, on 11/05/2007, -14/+29Despite my knee-jerk thumbs up to this guy, I don't like this. Say there was an emergency on that train, and no one could reach help because of this device. Would he then be held responsible for the repercussions?
    • barc0001, on 11/05/2007, -8/+31Totally. I mean, if this device only had some sort of switch so it could be deactivated in an emergency...

      • AngryAmish, on 11/04/2007, -6/+5Its a shame that the one using the jammer would have no way of determining if there was an emergency, since the cellphone wouldn't ring, since he is doing Illegal jamming. If someone was jamming my phone, and someone tried to call me in an emergency, I would never know.
      • Coffeedemon, on 11/04/2007, -5/+8And the person in control of the switch knows all of the circumstances on his/her bus and within the range of their jammer so they can switch off the device in case of an emergency? No thanks... this is too open for abuse by self righteous assholes who think they have the right to decide what is and isn't appropriate cell phone usage.

        If you aren't ready to actually ask a person if they would mind keeping it down or minding their language (grammar doesn't count here) then don't be a ***** coward and use a button to shut down the whole damn bus. Suck it up or buy a music player.
        • bossm4n, on 11/04/2007, -3/+4You're missing the point completely. This is about people talking mindlessly on cell phones in public without concern for anyone around them. One should not have to ask anyone to, "keep it down" or resort to using a jamming device. This is about rude, thoughtless behavior on the part of these out of control cell phone users.
          FTA - “If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University.
        • SingerSirCoda, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3How dare people *talk in public*? This is *America*!
          Whoops, this is meant as a reply to bossm4n.
    • 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/09/2007, -8/+26Odd... but we managed to respond to all sorts of emergencies back in the 80s/90s without everyone having a cell phone...
      • CatsAreGods, on 11/04/2007, -1/+10But not always so fast, eh? Go ahead, try to find a phone booth in an emergency...or any other time!
        • minigamer1896, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1There are at least 15 of them around where I live.
      • glitch47, on 11/05/2007, -9/+2Just to play devil's advocate... what if it was the last call from your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband on one of the airplane's from 9/11?
        but on the other hand, the woman behind me in the movie theater today answered her cell phone during the movie. yeah, i would've used it.
        • jakem1, on 11/05/2007, -1/+6What if the woman in the movie was receiving a call from her boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband on one of the airplane's from 9/11?
      • demonicume, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3yeah, the difference between the 80's and now is called progress. i don't pay hundreds of dollars a month to miss a bereavement or business call because you turned into some wireless vigilante. you wanna deal with ***** phone users, deal with THEM directly. be a man about it and tell them to STFU. don't press some gay ninja remote on your key ring like a coward. Be a big man or suffer like we do. the rest of us have a right to send and receive text messages or maybe listen to a voice mail saying a family member is dead or dying - as long as we arent bothering other people.
    • eanzelc, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Have you ever tried to use your cell phone in an emergency? They're pretty much useless. Everyone is trying to make calls at the same time which overloads the cell towers. I live in the Bay Area and we had an earthquake of 5.6 magnitude last week (no major damage) and I tried using my cell phone right after the quake and I might as well have been trying to make a call with a brick.
      • ChromaVita, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Not every emergency is an earthquake. Some people go into seizures or kids go missing or women go into labor early. Stuff like that.
  • slashbot, on 11/11/2007, -11/+29Very nice. Unfortunately not a good idea for mass consumption and should still be illegal.

    Imagine criminals blocking cell phone calls for help, etc
    • SiNN4R, on 11/04/2007, -5/+12Thats actually a valid point. Although most people are probably more inclined to throw their cellphone at a criminal instead of dialing for help anyways.
    • antsofthesky, on 11/06/2007, -7/+21Yeah, since they are illegal I bet criminals won't use them. Not that armed robbery and murder aren't already illegal.

      Maybe they should make drugs illegal too so people won't use them.


      Oh.. wait.
      • slashbot, on 11/05/2007, -4/+16Actually making them illegal does tend to make such devices harder to get.... so I fail to see your point
        • antsofthesky, on 11/04/2007, -3/+9Yeah but it still doesn't stop the people who have intentions of using them from using them.

          I'm not saying make them legal or anything; just pointing that out (and being an ass).
          • saifatlast, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7Sure, specialized criminals will still get them, but if they're everyday things, it's a lot more likely run-of-the mill types will ahve them too.
      • silverchrysalis, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3your username intrigues me
    • twrife, on 11/04/2007, -7/+2How unique and original of an idea of a problem concerning this technology.
      • slashbot, on 11/04/2007, -2/+4You forgot the ./sarcasm

        but I did not assume I was close to the first person to think of such problem. I was just using an example to support my argument. Which I thought wasn't such a horrible thing to do. But I guess I'm wrong
    • PirateBob, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1How about... use a landline? Public phones are everywhere, and most people have them in their homes...
  • jt18, on 11/06/2007, -2/+63“He went to everyone in town and gave them his number and said if they were having trouble, they should call him right away,”

    I really can't see how this would work...
    • sq377, on 11/04/2007, -4/+3Well, if he uses the jammer excessively someone is bound to be annoyed, and might just call. Personally I would come into town silently and then use all the fancy equipment to find the jammer, because when he knew the guy was there he shut it off, and can turn it back on after a reasonable amount of time.
      • lucas22, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1straight over the cranium... pheeeeewwwwwww
    • Upsizer, on 11/06/2007, -5/+2Since the restaurant is a fixed location, if someone reported he/she was having trouble around that area, an investigator could catch by surprise the owner with his jammer on, using the jammer-detecting equipment mentioned in the article. Of course, the reporter would have to leave the jammer's radius of effect before calling.
    • themoose, on 11/05/2007, -1/+10You're missing the point. They can't report it because their phone won't work.
  • unearth, on 11/04/2007, -6/+5I have to give this guy some moral support for his cause, but the man carries a cell phone jammer in his pocket. I'm sure he has used it in much less appropriate situations.
    • banmaster, on 11/04/2007, -2/+2Prove it!
    • bulkhater, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1My cousin LOVES his. He uses it all the time. This past Summer he wandered around town clicking the button. He particularly favored stores that cell cell phones. There's a couple kids at his school who use them whenever they want to beat someone up. Cutting off all cell service in a ten yard radius makes it really hard to call the cops. It works on wireless phones too, people try to call the cops and end up getting beat to a pulp in their own homes with the phone in their hand.
  • Trax91, on 11/04/2007, -10/+4I've found my hero.
    • bulkhater, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Yeah it's great isn't it? Imagine a mugger carrying one so he can make sure no one can call the cops to interfere with his recreation. Rapists too. Cell phones meant that just cutting the phone lines wasn't enough to prevent a call to the cops, but now this fills the gap.
  • WaterDragon, on 11/11/2007, -27/+26She was like..."I'll call you tomorrow."
    And I was like...."Oh no you won't."

    It is deplorable, the way the common language has gotten compromised and corrupted. And I totally blame commerce, and advertising, more than any other influence -- well except for maybe all the ignorant, illiterate people who decided they could make music and write lyrics, when they probably couldn't even pass a third grade grammar test.

    I've noted that nowadays, the phrase, "She was like..." is used in place of the simple phrase, "She SAID..."

    So, instead of telling of what someone has expressed, the speaker is, stupidly and unintentionally associating the person's identity with the content of what they want to say.
    e.g. Note the subtle difference in meaning between "He was like 'I'm going to the store' " and "He said 'I'm going to the store' "

    How stupid is that?
    HE is definitely not LIKE "I'm going to the store", since 'I'm going to the store' tells us nothing about his nature or being. It is a total disrespect to associate someone's nature with any and every mundane action or statement they might make!



    • DigitAl56K, on 11/04/2007, -3/+22Yes, and, let's not forget, to bash, people, who use the comma, 'far too much', and who mix and match, the apostrophe, and, "quotation marks", at will.
      • WaterDragon, on 11/07/2007, -3/+7And don't forget people who don't know the difference between the single quotation mark and the apostrophe.....just because most fonts don't distinguish them. There are two kinds of quotation marks in English!
    • chillfaktor, on 11/04/2007, -1/+14totally.
    • Professr, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2I believe it notifies the listener that the speaker is going to imitate the person they're referring to. Rather than "saying" something, "being like" something is more descriptive.
      • WaterDragon, on 11/07/2007, -6/+3Arguably, it is more juvenile and simplistic, using imitation in place of actual comprehension.
    • Fr4nk2012, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8I'm all like , whatever.
    • Ap31r0n, on 11/04/2007, -9/+4Gramat0wned L01Z!1!!1!!1one!11!1!
      Pffft you dunz kn0w ***** fo0, Dease Symbol chains Alw4ys Distort content.
      Lik3z 2 m1rr0Rs rehflectin deh same l1gHt gona b3 a 3vent Horizon at s0me ponit
      itz like we all be gruntin at eachotha. bound ta have da Informationz Entropies.

      But enough about linguistic sand castles on the edge of high tide. let a sleeping dog lie.
      Bury ME :)
    • ShinRaTDR, on 11/04/2007, -2/+7Because "Was like" implies the whole action, the way the person said it, their tone, body language, etc..., instead of "said" which is usually just a recall of words that were spoken.
    • CatsAreGods, on 11/04/2007, -3/+1In the 1960s, the expression of the day was equally retarded: "She went ...." instead of "She said ..."
    • saifatlast, on 11/04/2007, -2/+3People talk however they want. People talk differently in different situations, to different people. People use the words of those around them. ***** prescriptive grammarians.
    • rockdawg, on 11/04/2007, -2/+1Nice run on sentences. ;-)
    • Tahiri, on 11/05/2007, -4/+1The words ginormous, and shelaxing especially bug the hell out of me.
    • mrgoat, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2Yes, you are very right. I see in advertising and commerce (which you blame for the decline in language) use valley girl speak ALL THE ***** TIME!

      "Hey, like, dude, like, do you like, wanna buy a lexus, they are like, cool man."

      "Trust, like, Visa, man, for your, like money and stuff"

      "Victoria's like, secrets, the, like place for panties, and stuff"

      "Macdonalds, like, over 3 billion, like, served. Hehe, Served! You got, like served"

    • NSResponder, on 11/09/2007, -3/+2"How stupid is that? "

      Not nearly as stupid as getting your panties in a bunch because other people don't comply with your petty demands. It's called "freedom of speech", and if they want to use a dialect that irritates you, too ***** bad for you. Try to work it out in therapy.

      -jcr
    • KLowD9x, on 11/04/2007, -2/+1See movie: Idiocracy
    • coviecarbine, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Languages evolve, some parts are dropped others are added. So long as you speak the language (or dialect) it doesn't interfere with communication. The next generation learns it the way it changed and the cycle continues. Stop trying to nail down exactly how our language is spoken because it is a living, changing thing, and it always will be.
    • friedman420, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1maybe when newspeak censorship ramps up we can start getting rid of stupid filler words like like (like).
  • DigitAl56K, on 11/06/2007, -24/+35.. Yeah, because it's a great idea to give everyone else the power to decide what YOU can say on YOUR cellphone...

    I hope this guy gets arrested. It's bad enough when the government screws with your freedom of speech without every jackass out there screwing with your cell phone service.
    • TheBigBad, on 11/09/2007, -6/+11If people talked on their cell phones at a volume level that didn't sound like they were calling elderly, deaf dogs in from a hurricane of car alarms there would be no problem.
      • saifatlast, on 11/04/2007, -3/+5So maybe 1 in 10 people do that. You can't silence just that one person, so the other 9 don't get to use their phones? And neither do you, for that matter?
        • TheBigBad, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Are you saying 1 in 10 people speak at an obnoxious volume when using their phones? Then please tell me where you live because I will start packing right now.
      • cinder, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Oh, so freedom of speech only applies if you talk quietly?
        • TheBigBad, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1So you are saying that all libraries violate the first amendment?
          Speaking at a reasonable volume while using a cell phone has nothing to with the first amendment, it's called common courtesy and if more people were to abide bycommon courtesy in all regards, the world would be a considerably more tolerable place to live.
  • fatesdefiance, on 11/09/2007, -25/+146Ahh, Diggers. The champions of free speech...as long as it doesn't annoy them. You know, if someone related to the government were to jam cell phone signals in an area for some reason (even a good reason) you people would be totally up in arms. But as long as it's just some random jackass doing it, it's A-OK! Hypocrites.
    • BlackAle, on 11/09/2007, -16/+13this has nothing to do with freedom of speech
      • eecan, on 11/09/2007, -1/+11So if I blocked a website, it wouldn't impede free speech?
        • jmpeagle, on 11/04/2007, -5/+3as long as it isn't the government. Citizens cannot be arrested for violating first amendment rights.
      • SingerSirCoda, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3Except in that it infringes on someone's freedom to speak.
    • PhillyMJS, on 11/05/2007, -6/+3The government (well, not the US government, yet) DID do this:
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/18/black_heli ...

      And people were pissed off about it.

      And personally, I don't have any problem with a personal jammer being used to kill the signal when some rude jackass is yammering loudly into their phone with no regard for those around them. I would love to have one to take along when I go to the movies.
      • Pikachelsea, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Congratulations, you just proved everything fatesdefiance just said, moron.
    • swatward, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Good call.
  • pilot3033, on 11/09/2007, -7/+74How about this? Grow a pair of balls and tell the person next to you they are an annoying twit.
    If I were being good mannered with my cell phone, and was perhaps on a rather important call, I would want to punch the jammer in the face.
    People are just pussies, if living in New York has taught me one thing, is that we can all be nice and civil with each other, and it works great. When someone breaks the social norms, you call them out on it, and you don't sit there getting all angry at yourself.

    (not keep in mind, you need to use tact. You can't go telling off everyone who you think deserves it, just in situations where clear norms are broken. For example: stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, taking the elevator only 1 floor, overly loud cellphone use for a prolonged period, etc.)
    • Comatose51, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_uncle

      Don't try it in Hong Kong. You might get your ass kicked. In fact, don't try to be civil in Hong Kong, you might get your ass kicked. It's taken a turn for the worse since I moved to the US.
    • nanboya, on 11/06/2007, -4/+4That's exactly why these exist though; for those folks who AREN'T being good mannered on the phone... It has nothing to do with being a pussy; rather, it's giving back as good as you get from rude, thoughtless people. Imagine being able to wipe out reception of those dumbasses who sit in traffic slowing things down because they aren't paying attention!

      I'd love to have one for the sake of screwing with folks like these.
      • Coffeedemon, on 11/06/2007, -3/+3How the ***** do you know they're on cell phones or not paying attention ... you're sitting two or more cars back. How do you know their transmission hasn't just locked at the lights and now they're trying to call help before some impatient ***** two cars back rear-ends them and cripples/kills someone?

        • nanboya, on 11/06/2007, -3/+3Because I'm sitting at the bus stop watching them trying make a call or typing madly away on their Blackberries. The worst people are still those on public transport oblivious to those around them...
    • crapmatic, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5"tell the person next to you they are an annoying twit"

      Yeah, I'm so sure that will fix the situation and prevent further bad behavior.
  • INTERNETMASTER, on 11/06/2007, -21/+15what an *****
  • mwang1999, on 11/04/2007, -3/+3It's not illegal in all countries... commonly used in concert halls in the UK (the Barican... despite it apparently illegal according to Wikipedia), Japan and China (most likely others too).
    • BlackAle, on 11/05/2007, -6/+4don't forget the corporations control the US, hence why it's illegal.
    • daza, on 11/04/2007, -3/+8My University uses cell phone blockers in the libraries.. good idea if you ask me.
      • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -4/+3If your university is in the USA, then someone's committing a crime.

        -jcr

        • DarkDx, on 11/05/2007, -3/+2No, because it's their property.
          • NSResponder, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1A jammer is an unlicensed transmitter. Ask the FCC to explain it to you.

            -jcr
  • BigFatCow, on 11/06/2007, -2/+60“If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people”
    How true it is.
  • WaterDragon, on 11/04/2007, -7/+25I was all like " I think I'll click on this article so i can read it"...but the Digg-weed who posted it was all like "You'll have to get a membership at the NY Times site first."
    So I jammed his Digg membership! .
  • BlackAle, on 11/05/2007, -4/+11Business should have the right to use jammers within their property, aslong as they make clear they are doing so. Here in the UK I believe they can.
  • Atomic1fire, on 11/04/2007, -10/+5I would prefer that they have cellphone jammers in places like schools
    yes there is some chance of emergancys but most schools provide phones in every classroom and office
    so there is no point in having every student carrying a phone unless they are getting a ride and are contacting a parent over an emergancy and they are not near a phone
    texting is something they should not be doing in school
    and carrying a phone and acting like its an major organ so the teacher cant take it is stupid
    and they deserve to get it removed
    (and yes I do know people like this)
    • BigBrother87, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7Ever. heard. of. punctuation?!?
    • dannybito, on 11/04/2007, -1/+0That seems dumb to me, along as it isn't a disturbance to other then there shouldn't be a reason to block it but i do agree that it's retarded some idiots just talk or text on their phones in class. We need to find a way to teach people not to be such assholes, thats the real problem. Rules like that would only piss people off.
    • issachar, on 11/04/2007, -1/+0The texting and the talking are not the only problems with cell phones in school. Think camera phone, bathrooms and people with the maturity of... well 14 year olds.

      The school I taught at had a "no cell phones" policy for this very reason. If they were visible inside the school building they were confiscated. It was a good policy.
    • fef560, on 11/04/2007, -1/+3What is with you vagina faced ***** and this no cell phone *****. God damn I can't wait your generation dies off so we can have some progress in the world.
    • bulkhater, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1"most schools provide phones in every classroom"
      What school do YOU go to that there was a phone in every classroom???
  • Flashman, on 11/06/2007, -4/+17Whether or not behaviour is antisocial can be summed up with this question: What if everybody did it? Just as it's obnoxious to talk loudly on a cell phone, it's very disruptive to knock out people's communications.
    • fantasticFlan, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4Moderation in all things
      • Ap31r0n, on 11/04/2007, -2/+3Including moderation.
      • fef560, on 11/04/2007, -6/+1Jesus Ap31r0n (Nice name by the way. Still playing with Transformer toys?) could you make any more of a stupid statement. Or was that your horrible attempt at a joke?
    • b3mus3d, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2What about moving to spain?
      moving to spain isn't antisocial but it would be pretty awful if everybody did it.

      (I'm sure there is some addition to the rule that sorts this issue that I read about in a philosophy book or something, but I've forgotten :( anyone know?)
      • aNsfpGejzd5zx0z, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2The usual example is "what would happen if everyone became a doctor?"

        If everyone became a doctor, it would be chaos. No police, no teachers, and especially no farmers. We'd all starve to death. Ergo, doctors are all anti-social, right?

        In fact you can make the same argument for ANY profession. ANYONE who has a job is anti-social, because if EVERYONE had that exact same job, society would not function. But it gets worse: anyone who DOESN'T have a job is anti-social too!

        The idea of "what if everybody did it?" is just flat-out retarded. If you accept that, it's absolutely trivial to prove that anyone who has lived, is living, or ever will live, is anti-social or unethical or whatever. DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. You cannot lay down a system of ethics where EVERYONE has to do the same thing.
        • Flashman, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1"aNsfpGejzd5zx0z" is a pretty anti-social username. I can't even pronounce that *****.
          • aNsfpGejzd5zx0z, on 11/04/2007, -0/+0dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/stdout bs=10 count=1 | uuencode -m -

            Shut up: I value my anonymity :P
    • Pikachelsea, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1What if everyone in the world gave me $