How many of these do you believe?

[Gnosital]

Kate wrote

All I know is, the seven NO CELLPHONES signs in my waiting room give me an excuse to throw out the diamond-encrusted Coach bag bearing cunts.

It's also entertaining to watch the old biddies screeching at them, "Cain'choo read all the signs?!"

I have no problem with restricting cellophone use, per se. I do it all the time in my classrooms. There are places that the things just chouldn't be used, based on logical arguments for safety and courtesy.

Oh, just LET THEM TRY to use one of the fucking things while I'm lecturing....

heheheheh. They don't do it twice.

[Kate]

I like their expressions when they try to check in and blab on the phone at the same time. I just walk away until they hang up.

"Yes, ma'am, I know you want to check in. I don't want to interfere with your important conversation. You will have to step outside to use the phone. Just let me know when you're back!"

I have perfected my sweet smiling FUCK OFF BITCH face.

Gnosital wrote

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices.

The evidence for cell phone interference in aircraft is circumstantial and debatable. The FAA won't allow it until the airlines perform rigorous tests and the airlines see no return on investment as long as no one else can.

Even if the FAA backs down, the FCC will still have a problem. When a cell phone is on the ground it has only one "closest tower" but in the air it could have several equally proximal towers. A few aircraft full of passengers with phones switched on could seriously mess up the mobile phone system.

I'm happy since I don't really feel the need to talk to anyone on the plane and people talking right beside you can get irritating. The girl next to me on the train on thursday spent half the trip jabbering on her cellphone in spanish.

To make up for it she spent the rest of the trip talking to me in a spanish accent, so I wasn't too upset.

[Gnosital]

mmfwmc wrote

The evidence for cell phone interference in aircraft is circumstantial and debatable. The FAA won't allow it until the airlines perform rigorous tests and the airlines see no return on investment as long as no one else can.

Even if the FAA backs down, the FCC will still have a problem. When a cell phone is on the ground it has only one "closest tower" but in the air it could have several equally proximal towers. A few aircraft full of passengers with phones switched on could seriously mess up the mobile phone system.

Thanks for that info, mmfmff!!

That almost makes up for you ignoring my PM~

[Gnosital]

Kate wrote

I have perfected my sweet smiling FUCK OFF BITCH face.

Heheheeheh!

Nice. I'd give good money to watch you in action.

I bet a lot of people would, actually.....

(I'm amusing the hell outta myself today!!)

[Kate]

Would that make me a whore?

[Gnosital]

Kate wrote

Would that make me a whore?

I think nkb said it, didn't he? We're all whores of some sort. The difference is only in what we're peddling.

But I was referring to how I need lessons in finding my inner bitch.

[Kate]

Ah!


Oh, wait, if I'm taking you under my tutlelage, does that make me an academic?





Or is that merely academic, as Sterny could make an exception for me?

[Gnosital]

Kate wrote

Ah!


Oh, wait, if I'm taking you under my tutlelage, does that make me an academic?





Or is that merely academic, as Sterny could make an exception for me?

Of course you are a professor of life, Katie dear!

I'm pretty sure Sterny might make an exception for you, but we'll have to make sure he's turned on to brainy chicks again, won't we?

We have a mission.

[Kate]

Roger!

[VladTheImpaler]

Cool article!

1. I never believed this, simply because I my self never had 8 glasses of water a day and I was perfectly fine.
2. I casually believed this up until about a year ago when I read an article that entierly rubbished this concept. In hindsight it sort of makes sense, how could we have evolved parts of our brains that weren't in use...
3. I believed this up until now based on word of mouth claims. People could mention this casually as if it was fact. Never bothered to question it.
4. This I never really believed but a lot of people would often claim so. I also could not imagine a mechanism that would cause this effect. Especially not after testing it on my self. I had a beard for a while and even now the hair growth in that area which was left alone is a lot thicker (more hairs closer together) than the rest of my face.
5. I never really believed this either, nor did I care. I often sat in a dark room in front of the computer and I never had any eye problems.
6. Can't remember coming accross this myth.
7. I remember believing this but questioning it heavily and remaining very skeptical.

[ghoulslime]

Gnosital wrote

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices. I believe the claim that cellphone use does not interfere with the proper functioning of HOSPITAL equipment was based on empirical investigation, and the issue of cellphone use on airplanes was not mentioned. It appears (based on Rattie's post) that the investigations in that arena are ongoing.

It's hardly "raining on a myth buster parade" if you are presenting a valid argument based on empirical support that refines or corrects a misinterpretation.

While there wasn't an actual misrepresentation inherent in the points made in the article, your distinction and clarification of a related issue is a perfectly skeptical thing to do.

Sort of like what I was trying to do in the prostitution thread.

What a coincidence!

Dude! I wasn't trying to beat you up. I was only pointing out a weak point in the argument. If you pound your fist on the table and make a claim, you'd better have a solid claim. The claim of the page to which you directed us stated that cellphones interfering with medical equiptment is a myth. That's a claim. I point out that any electronic device which broadcasts has the potential to interfere with other electronic devices.

Sensitive electronic devices would not have RF/microwave shields on them if interference were not a concern by the makers of these devices. Sensitive medical devices DO have RF shields on them to protect against interference. Will calling your aunt Polly while standing in the wiating room shut down the EKG machine in the emergency room? It's highly unlikely. Will heavy microwave or X-ray transmissions disrupt the functionality of sensitive medical devices? You can bet your pacemaker they will!

[ghoulslime]

mmfwmc wrote

The evidence for cell phone interference in aircraft is circumstantial and debatable. The FAA won't allow it until the airlines perform rigorous tests and the airlines see no return on investment as long as no one else can.

Even if the FAA backs down, the FCC will still have a problem. When a cell phone is on the ground it has only one "closest tower" but in the air it could have several equally proximal towers. A few aircraft full of passengers with phones switched on could seriously mess up the mobile phone system.

I'm happy since I don't really feel the need to talk to anyone on the plane and people talking right beside you can get irritating. The girl next to me on the train on thursday spent half the trip jabbering on her cellphone in spanish.

To make up for it she spent the rest of the trip talking to me in a spanish accent, so I wasn't too upset.

Cell phones operate at 824 - 849 MHz. These are UHF (Ultra High Frequency)transmissions. Aircraft communications operate on a lower band, so the possibility of inteference by cell phones is very low. (with the exception of the aircraft's own cellular system) However, the GPS systems on aircraft operate in the range of 1 - 2 GHz or 1,000 MHz. There are currently two signals sent in an aircraft's GPS system: L1 And L2 signals. The L1 signal is the primary signal transmitted at 1575.42 MHz, while the L2 signal is transmitted at 1227.60 MHz. These are both UHF bands. Cell phone transmissions interfere with the coarse/acquisition code, which is a sequence of 1023 pseudorandom binary numbers which are sent in different phases within a GPS carrier signal.

This is not a myth. This is a fact.

Would cellphone interference cause an aircraft to divert course radically? Most likely not! The GPS systems in modern aircraft adjust their GPS signal every 1 millisecond or so, so they can adapt to any cellphone-caused interference quite easily. Is it a major safety concern to turn off cells in phones? Most likely not! An aircraft headed for Fiji won't end up in London, but onboard cell phones can cause interference with an aircraft's GPS. There is no controversy on this fact, only on how to deal with it.

Would anyone like to be educated further on the effect of microwave/radiation transmissions from cell phones and their effect on medical devices? Go ahead and push it motherfuckers!

ghoulslime wrote

Cell phones operate at 824 - 849 MHz. These are UHF (Ultra High Frequency)transmissions. Aircraft communications operate on a lower band, so the possibility of inteference by cell phones is very low. (with the exception of the aircraft's own cellular system) However, the GPS systems on aircraft operate in the range of 1 - 2 GHz or 1,000 MHz. There are currently two signals sent in an aircraft's GPS system: L1 And L2 signals. The L1 signal is the primary signal transmitted at 1575.42 MHz, while the L2 signal is transmitted at 1227.60 MHz. These are both UHF bands. Cell phone transmissions interfere with the coarse/acquisition code, which is a sequence of 1023 pseudorandom binary numbers which are sent in different phases within a GPS carrier signal.

This is not a myth. This is a fact.

Would cellphone interference cause an aircraft to divert course radically? Most likely not! The GPS systems in modern aircraft adjust their GPS signal every 1 millisecond or so, so they can adapt to any cellphone-caused interference quite easily. Is it a major safety concern to turn off cells in phones? Most likely not! An aircraft headed for Fiji won't end up in London, but onboard cell phones can cause interference with an aircraft's GPS. There is no controversy on this fact, only on how to deal with it.

Would anyone like to be educated further on the effect of microwave/radiation transmissions from cell phones and their effect on medical devices? Go ahead and push it motherfuckers!

I agree that the transmissions could interfere, but it should be a fairly simple thing to overcome with signal detection. edit: I was thinking about a different part of the signal. Re-reading GS' post, it wouldn't be so easy to overcome.

Even if we can't overcome it, it might make a difference in unmanaged airspace (where there aren't many cell phone towers anyway) but it won't have an effect in the managed space (i.e. most of Europe and populated USA). Aircraft in managed airspace are under radar guidance, so they wouldn't have too much to worry about. In the future it may become more of a problem, since they are thinking about shifting to GPS location of aircraft for air traffic control. I'm writing a paper about ATC right now, although I'm not an expert on the navigational side, just the human control aspects.

Interestingly, because of the current methods for ATC, constantly updated info provided by GPS might actually make things harder for the controllers!

[ghoulslime]

Gnosital wrote

I believe the post refers to interference with HOSPITAL devices, not to a concentrated mass of peoples on an airplane turning on their cellophones all at once on a runway causing interference with other wireless communication devices. I believe the claim that cellphone use does not interfere with the proper functioning of HOSPITAL equipment was based on empirical investigation, and the issue of cellphone use on airplanes was not mentioned. It appears (based on Rattie's post) that the investigations in that arena are ongoing.

It's hardly "raining on a myth buster parade" if you are presenting a valid argument based on empirical support that refines or corrects a misinterpretation.

While there wasn't an actual misrepresentation inherent in the points made in the article, your distinction and clarification of a related issue is a perfectly skeptical thing to do.

Sort of like what I was trying to do in the prostitution thread.

What a coincidence!

Excellent!

You are presenting argument which should be based on empirical support. (Remember, I have not...yet.)

Please present to me the findings of this argument which state that RF/Microwave transmissions do not cause interference in medical devices.

Would you like to be more specific in your argument? Would you like to include or disclude any equipment before I commence clobbering your argument?

Or would you like to disengage?

Again, I’m not trying to beat you up or discredit you in any way, Gnosital. If I come across as a mean asshole in my writing it is only because I am a mean asshole.