posted 09-27-2007 10:58 PM                       

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Film is among them...

---

posted 09-28-2007 10:05 PM                    

quote:

---

Can you hear me now? No? Maybe that guy sitting on the other side of the restaurant is jamming your call.

Cell phone jammers, which scramble the signal of any incoming or outgoing cell phone call within a certain range, are illegal in the U.S. But that doesn't stop dozens of online catalogs from selling them to American buyers.

Although available for years, cell phone jammers are rare. You probably have never had your phone jammed. The reason is that, historically, jammers have been expensive, large and generally conspicuous looking.

Suddenly, all that has changed.

An online catalog called Brando, which specializes in all manner of USB gadgets and random peripheral devices, is now selling a very small and very inexpensive jammer. The jammer is actually smaller than a cell phone, costs only $166 and shuts down GSM 850-, 900-, 1,800- and 1,900-MHz cell phone calls within a 30-foot radius. The jammer holds a rechargeable lithium ion battery and comes with a charger.

The Palm Phone Jammer is the first cell phone jammer that I'm aware of that's priced, sized and created like a mass-market consumer electronics device.

Let's hope this product doesn't become a runaway hit this holiday season.

---

posted 09-28-2007 10:10 PM                    

quote:

---

April 06, 2007 (Computerworld) -- How many times have you heard this?

"At this time, all electronic devices, including cell phones and two-way pagers, must be turned off and put away. After takeoff, I'll let you know when you may use approved electronic portable devices."

Of course, those "approved electronic portable devices" won't include your cell phone, not until after you land.

The reason is that cell phones interfere with the airplane's electronics, right?

Well, no, actually. The risk posed by cell phones to airplane equipment is unknown, and will remain unknown for as long as possible.

Phones are banned for two official reasons:

1. Cell phones "might" interfere with the avionics (aviation electronics) of some airplanes.

2. Cell phones aloft "might" cause problems with cell tower systems on the ground.

Both of these risks are easily tested, yet somehow neither the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) nor the Federal Communications Commission has been able to get a definitive answer in the past 20 years as to whether phone calls in flight cause these suspected problems. (The FAA is responsible for the flight safety portion of all this, and the FCC is responsible for the cell tower part.)

The government's dirty little secret is that it cultivates uncertainty about the effects of phones in airplanes as a way to maintain the existing ban without having to confront the expense and inconvenience to airlines and wireless carriers of allowing them.

Why airlines want the ban

The airlines fear "crowd control" problems if cell phones are allowed in flights. They believe cell phone calls might promote rude behavior and conflict between passengers, which flight attendants would have to deal with. The airlines also benefit in general from passengers remaining ignorant about what's happening on the ground during flights, including personal problems, terrorist attacks, plane crashes and other information that might upset passengers.

One way to deal with callers bothering noncallers would be to designate sections of each flight where calling is allowed -- like a "smoking section." But the ban is easier.

Also: If real testing were done, and the nature of the problem fully understood, it would become obvious that airplanes could be designed or retrofitted with shielding and communications systems that would enable safe calling through all phases of flight. But that would cost money. The ban is cheaper.

However, the airlines know that some kind of plane-to-ground communication is coming, and they want to profit from it. Simply allowing passengers to use their own cell phones in flight would leave the airlines out of the profit-taking. Airlines would prefer that phones be banned while they come up with new ways to charge for communication, such as the coming wave of Wi-Fi access. Meanwhile, the ban is potentially more profitable.

Why carriers want the ban

Cell phone and tower designs are based on the assumption that at any given time, only a few cell towers will be close to any specific phone. So any given tower will use different channels than those used by other towers closest to it, but will use the same channels as towers farther away. However, when a phone is used in an airplane, it might have roughly equal access to two or more towers that use the same channels, which confuses the carriers' computer systems. This situation might result in interrupted calls, reduced system capacity and other problems.

Of course, this could be fixed in any number of ways, including an overhaul of the software used to manage calls between towers, but the fix would cost money. The ban is cheaper.

Why the government wants the ban

Cell phones and other electronics vary in how much they could interfere with avionics. If it's determined that some devices do cause problems, all gadgets would have to do extra certification testing, which the government doesn't want to spend the money to do. The ban is cheaper.

Also: No FCC or FAA chairman wants to sign off a change in the rules because if a cell phone does cause either an airplane crash or a cell tower computer system crash, they don't want to be blamed. Keeping the ban is the safe decision for the politically ambitious. The ban is easier.

What are the facts?

DVD players, laptops, portable game machines, CD players, MP3 players all radiate energy, and theoretically could cause interferences with GPS systems, communications equipment and the airplane's interaction with distant navigational systems.

U.S. airlines alone carry on average some 2 million passengers per day. If just 1% of these passengers accidentally or deliberately leaves their cell phones on, that means some 20,000 cell phones remain on during flights every single day. Despite this, no crash has ever been definitively attributed to cell phone or gadget interference.

Many headsets used by private pilots come with jacks for using them with cell phones. The manufacturers say they're for use on the ground only. But many private pilots use them in the air without incident.

Cell phones are used in airplanes every day, and no crash has ever been definitively attributed to cell phone or gadget interference.

The TV show MythBusters "busted" as a myth the conventional wisdom that phones interfere with avionics.

However, a Carnegie Mellon University study conducted some four years ago found that portable electronics interfere with airplane systems -- especially GPS -- even more than previously feared.

The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), a nonprofit corporation that advises the FAA, studying the effect of phones on avionics. The RTCA is also looking at technologies that would minimize any disruption, including the use of ultrawideband frequencies and extremely low-power cellular phone systems. They're predicting a definitive answer to all this, but don't hold your breath.

Just this week, the FCC officially dropped its inquiry into lifting an existing ban on using cell phones during commercial flights. The FCC said after the ruling that "given the lack of technical information in the record upon which we may base a decision, we have determined at this time that this proceeding should be terminated."

So the ban remains in place because the government can't seem to come up with definitive answers.

But does that even matter? Interference problems could be overcome with well-understood techniques of shielding, reprogramming and other technology designed to facilitate safe calls.

(When I say "we," I mean we Americans. In Europe, they're working on both legalizing and facilitating calls on airplanes.)

What's wrong with the ban?

The government's reasoning for banning cell phones in airplanes is weak, lame and evasive.

Don't buy the government's bull about electronic interference. The truth is that the ban is cheaper and easier for airlines, carriers and the government than mustering the political will and leadership to make in-flight cell calls a reality.

Here's another problem with the government's abdication of responsibility on this question: Either phones and other gadgets can crash airplanes or they can't. If they can, then we've got a serious problem on our hands, and airplanes need to be upgraded to protect the public safety.

What's to stop terrorists from testing various gadgets, finding the ones with the highest levels of interferences, then turning on dozens of them at some crucial phase of flight, such as during a landing in bad weather?

If gadgets can't crash planes, then the ban is costing billions of hours per year of lost productivity by business people who want to work in flight.

For the government to avoid knowing the answer is incredibly irresponsible.

Clearly, using cell phones is a public benefit, not to mention a business benefit. Shouldn't the airlines and the regulatory agencies figure out how to make that happen?

We can put a man on the moon -- and let him chat with his friends in Houston for the whole trip. Surely, we can solve the problems associated with in-flight cell calls.

Mike Elgan is a technology writer and former editor of Windows Magazine. He can be reached at mike.elgan@elgan.com or his blog: http://therawfeed.com.

---

posted 10-01-2007 04:32 AM                    

quote:

---

PHOENIXVILLE — The Phoenixville Police Department is investigating a freak accident in which a borough woman ran over both of her legs in the drive-through lane at McDonald’s, 651 Nutt Rd., Friday afternoon.

According to Cpl. Pat Mark, a black Chevrolet Blazer, driven by a 53-year-old borough woman, was in the drive-thru lane at McDonald’s around 1:55 p.m. September 28.

“For some unknown reason, her legs were run over by her vehicle,” said Mark. “We are investigating how this accident could’ve happened.”

What police are trying to determine is how the woman exited her vehicle and how her vehicle rolled over both legs.

Emergency personnel arrived on scene and began treatment before placing her on a stretcher.

The woman was conscious while speaking with emergency personnel, as they were focused on her legs.

The woman was transported via West End Ambulance to Friendship Field, where a waiting PennStar helicopter airlifted her to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) for unknown injuries to her legs.

Police are not releasing the name of the woman due to the uncertainty about her injuries.

One witness said that it looked like the woman had placed an order, and her vehicle was slowly moving forward.

The witness said that the next thing they knew, the woman had somehow fallen out of the Blazer and landed partially in the lane, and her legs went underneath her vehicle.

The distance from the Blazer to the restaurant wall in the drive-thru lane was approximately 53 inches, as measured by police.

The Blazer came to a stop just before the next drive-thru window at the restaurant.

Several blood stains were prevalent in the drive-thru lane, but were cleaned up by emergency personnel.

The Blazer was towed away from the scene by Dominick’s Auto Body, Phoenixville.

Mark said this accident is currently under investigation by police.

Assisting at the scene were Phoenixville Police Department, Phoenixville Fire Department and Phoenixville Fire Police.

---

posted 10-02-2007 09:28 PM                    

quote: Phil Hill

---

Thompson had a reputation for handing out stiff sentences.

---

posted 10-03-2007 01:14 AM                    

quote:

---

Secret Apartment in Mall Parking Garage Discovered

What would it be like to live at the mall?
The leader of a Rhode Island artists' cooperative has been placed on probation for trying to find out -- by illegally living inside a secret apartment set up in a parking garage at the Providence Place Mall.

Michael Townsend and other artists started building the apartment nearly four years ago inside a void in the parking garage.

The apartment eventually had a sectional sofa and love seat, coffee and breakfast tables, a rug, paintings and a video game system. The artists built a cinderblock wall to disguise their hideaway.

Townsend says members of the collective would stay for up to three weeks at a time. Plans for a one-year stay fell apart when mall security found Townsend last week and detained him.

He has pleaded no contest to a trespassing charge.

Police Major Stephen Campbell says while he's surprised by what the artists accomplished, their stunt was still illegal.

---

posted 11-24-2007 09:57 PM                    

quote:

---

KERSHAW COUNTY, SC (WIS) - A Kershaw County man is sharing his story of survival. He faced a life or death decision when his hand got stuck in a piece of farm equipment, and then a fire broke out around him. What he did next might shock you, and we have to warn you that some of the details might be disturbing.

"If I was going to die here, I was going to put up a fight, and that's basically what I did," says Sampson Parker.

For Parker, it could've all ended on his Kershaw County farm. He noticed a corn-stalk stuck in an old rusty picker. "I went up with my hand and the roller that takes the shucks off the corn had grabbed the glove and pulled my hand into the rollers."

"The more I tried pulling my hand out, the farther up my hand went."

On his knees, his hand stuck in the picker, Parker tried yelling out for help. No one answered. "Would've probably have passed out before anybody got here."

An hour passed. Parker's hand went numb and he couldn't wait any longer. With a rod he was able to jam the machine. Then, Parker took out "the John Deere pocket knife I had - started cutting away at my fingers like this."

But before he cut himself free, rod and machine started to spark. "It was almost like a gasoline fire - all of a sudden it went 'woosh'."

His right hand still stuck in the machine, Parker used his left to fight the spreading grass fire around him. "My skin was melting. It was dripping off my arm like plastic, plastic melting. I realized I was in trouble."

And he was desperate. So, Parker reached back in his pocket and grabbed his knife. "And I just jammed it into my arm, just like that, just started cutting away from the bone - just dropped."

His right arm now cut off, his body badly burnt, Parker drove to the road in front of his home. A firefighter from the town of Kershaw passed by. Doug Spinks says, "My biggest fear was this guy is going to die on me right here and there's nothing else I can do, other than what I've done."

What Spinks did was pull over, wrap Parker's arm and call for help. "I'm just thankful I was there."

So is Parker, crediting Spinks with saving his life.

On his farm, the idle corn-picker still sits. But Parker is moving on, and he says he isn't upset with anyone or anything. "Came down here, had a prayer with God and the corn picker and me. Made it easier, made peace with it."

"I'm just thankful to be alive - to do an interview with you."

Reported by Dan Tordjman

---