4 ms·

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long

I think the point was that if a theatre installed jammers, then patrons could not receive calls. Yea, I get that no one wants to overhear someone having a long chat with their significant other right as the plot line thickens, but a doctor on call or a parent who's kid is just got hurt at the baby sitter might appreciate being able to receive a call or text while their phone is on silent. They can then step out of the theatre in order to take the call or call back. That said, I totally agree with you on your main point. This is often a counter argument when people suggest that mobile devices should be disabled when the car is in motion (which isn't necessarily the same thing as jamming). Often, when I'm driving, my wife is looking up directions or letting a family member know that we're near.

Jtsummers 12y ago
Thanks, receiving calls is really the big one for me. I know a lot of people working in fields requiring them to be on call 24x7 unless they're on leave. A 2 hour delay in calling back is just barely tolerable for most of them, and unacceptable for some. It'd suck to have to stop enjoying something outside a couple vacations a year because some people are inconsiderate and other people can't tune them out. That said, making calls to emergency services, if you have to run outside to make that call, you've lost 30 seconds or a couple minutes. And you can't follow their directions in aiding the person because you're outside, and the victim(s) are inside. That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place.
- vacri 12y ago
  That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place. Is this really such a pandemic in the US these days?
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    Theater shootings and mass shootings, not really. But shootings do happen, sometimes over the dumbest crap, and by people you wouldn't expect ([EDIT: retired] police officer in FL in a theater, a veteran shot a woman at a gas station here in GA [1]). Shootings aren't nearly common enough, though, to justify a ban on jammers. But emergency situations do come up, especially in a country of 300 million people and some 40k theaters [2], each with several screens. It just strikes me as irresponsible and unnecessary to insist on such a hardline ban for the sake of shutting out a few rude jerks. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/05/woman-killed-gas-station/1748949/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/05/woman-k... [2] http://chartsbin.com/view/32k http://chartsbin.com/view/32k -- I'm assuming this is accurate
vacri 12y ago
A doctor on-call can go without going to the movies. I say this having been on-call (not as a doctor) myself. When you're on-call, your life is seriously curtailed. You can't drink, you have to be within range of tools to do your work, you have to be immediately accessible. Being on-call sucks, but it's no reason to argue against passive signal blocking in theatres. As for the babysitter, deal with it. If you're not contactable for 90 minutes, you're not contactable for 90 minutes. This perma-connectivity is an entirely new phenomenon, and there's no absolute need for it. Essentially this argument is saying that the parent's inability to deal with lack of connectivity is a convenience which trumps the general theatre-going public's convenience of not having people talking on the phone, or who light up the people behind them because they're bored with the movie and are playing online. Being uncontactable for a short period is not the horror that it's made out to be in these arguments. The good old argument that someone can't sit through a lecture without connectivity "in case Auntie Mabel dies", but of course it's just a cover for having phone access for other things. If one were to believe the excuses that get trotted out, you'd be forgiven for thinking that human mortality had skyrocketed since the public acceptance of mobile phones :)
- stevekinney 12y ago
  Yea, I could probably list a few hundred examples and you could probably shoot each and every one of them down on an individual level. Great. The larger point is that in the aggregate, there are enough individual situations that would be disrupted by jammers in the theatre that it would outweigh the nexus between the number of times someone is going to be inconvenienced by a conversation during a movie and the number of times someone is actually rude enough to pick up the phone during a movie. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit analysis. If a movie theatre did in fact install jammers each parent concerned about their kid (yea, it's probably not a true emergency, but subjective perception matters) or each doctor (I'm thinking more about delivering babies, which can mean being on call for weeks at a time, than an ER doctor) might choose to skip the movie. The end result is that that the theatre will likely take a hit on their profits. That's not a compelling reason to invest in installing a jammer. The whole "we survived just fine without constant connectivity" argument is flawed. Yea, we did a lot of things without modern technology. We got along fine without movies, driving to the movies, mobile phones, the Internet, or arguing on the Internet about the need for mobile phone access during a movie.

Jtsummers 12y ago

Thanks, receiving calls is really the big one for me. I know a lot of people working in fields requiring them to be on call 24x7 unless they're on leave. A 2 hour delay in calling back is just barely tolerable for most of them, and unacceptable for some. It'd suck to have to stop enjoying something outside a couple vacations a year because some people are inconsiderate and other people can't tune them out. That said, making calls to emergency services, if you have to run outside to make that call, you've lost 30 seconds or a couple minutes. And you can't follow their directions in aiding the person because you're outside, and the victim(s) are inside. That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place.

vacri 12y ago
That's assuming it's not an attacker who would prevent you from leaving in the first place. Is this really such a pandemic in the US these days?
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  Theater shootings and mass shootings, not really. But shootings do happen, sometimes over the dumbest crap, and by people you wouldn't expect ([EDIT: retired] police officer in FL in a theater, a veteran shot a woman at a gas station here in GA [1]). Shootings aren't nearly common enough, though, to justify a ban on jammers. But emergency situations do come up, especially in a country of 300 million people and some 40k theaters [2], each with several screens. It just strikes me as irresponsible and unnecessary to insist on such a hardline ban for the sake of shutting out a few rude jerks. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/05/woman-killed-gas-station/1748949/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/05/woman-k... [2] http://chartsbin.com/view/32k http://chartsbin.com/view/32k -- I'm assuming this is accurate

vacri 12y ago

A doctor on-call can go without going to the movies. I say this having been on-call (not as a doctor) myself. When you're on-call, your life is seriously curtailed. You can't drink, you have to be within range of tools to do your work, you have to be immediately accessible. Being on-call sucks, but it's no reason to argue against passive signal blocking in theatres. As for the babysitter, deal with it. If you're not contactable for 90 minutes, you're not contactable for 90 minutes. This perma-connectivity is an entirely new phenomenon, and there's no absolute need for it. Essentially this argument is saying that the parent's inability to deal with lack of connectivity is a convenience which trumps the general theatre-going public's convenience of not having people talking on the phone, or who light up the people behind them because they're bored with the movie and are playing online. Being uncontactable for a short period is not the horror that it's made out to be in these arguments. The good old argument that someone can't sit through a lecture without connectivity "in case Auntie Mabel dies", but of course it's just a cover for having phone access for other things. If one were to believe the excuses that get trotted out, you'd be forgiven for thinking that human mortality had skyrocketed since the public acceptance of mobile phones :)

stevekinney 12y ago
Yea, I could probably list a few hundred examples and you could probably shoot each and every one of them down on an individual level. Great. The larger point is that in the aggregate, there are enough individual situations that would be disrupted by jammers in the theatre that it would outweigh the nexus between the number of times someone is going to be inconvenienced by a conversation during a movie and the number of times someone is actually rude enough to pick up the phone during a movie. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit analysis. If a movie theatre did in fact install jammers each parent concerned about their kid (yea, it's probably not a true emergency, but subjective perception matters) or each doctor (I'm thinking more about delivering babies, which can mean being on call for weeks at a time, than an ER doctor) might choose to skip the movie. The end result is that that the theatre will likely take a hit on their profits. That's not a compelling reason to invest in installing a jammer. The whole "we survived just fine without constant connectivity" argument is flawed. Yea, we did a lot of things without modern technology. We got along fine without movies, driving to the movies, mobile phones, the Internet, or arguing on the Internet about the need for mobile phone access during a movie.