On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 6:02:07 PM UTC-5, Hank Rogers wrote:
>
> we may eventually have cell
> phones that are interlocked with the car, and will not function if
> the vehicle's engine is active.
>
Excellent idea.
>
> Meanwhile, the morgues will CONTINUALLY have new telephone customers
> every day.
>
I think you nailed it.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 10:35:44 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2019-09-07 9:05 a.m., wrote:

>
>It would not be a UN agreement.

Yes, I cannot see how or why the UN would get involved.

>. The Trumpster at one time suggested dropping the
>charges against her if they were able to make a favourable trade deal
>with China, meaning that they charges against her were politically
>motivated.

Yes, politically motivated. The whole thing is a sham of the highest
order. This trade war with China is so damaging (for everyone) and in
hindsight the U.S is going to regret it. It will cost them dearly.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2019-09-07 7:01 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-07 6:04 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>
>>>> For cases involving deaths, there should be a mandatory sentence
>>>> for:
>>>>
>>>> Manslaughter, voluntary, intentional fiddling with telephone.
>>>>
>>>> minimum 20 years, no parole, no good time credits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Works for me.
>>>
>>
>> Eventually this will be a crime and it will be slowly snuffed out.
>> Then we can read the death tolls on sites like wiki. If we live
>> long enough to see the end.
>>
>> At the risk of sounding like crazy dsi1, we may eventually have
>> cell phones that are interlocked with the car, and will not
>> function if the vehicle's engine is active. Maybe some will phone
>> home to george jetson!
>>
>> Meanwhile, the morgues will CONTINUALLY have new telephone
>> customers every day.
>
> Most new cars have Bluetooth. That allows cell phone users to go no
> hands, which is still legal.* I am not sure that hands free is all
> that much safer than hands on, but it at least allows people to talk
> on the phone and still have hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.
>
>

BBluetooth won't help One needs mental presence as well as physical
presence.


If I was looking intently at a video screen, concentrating only on
it, would you trust me to fly a plane you just got on? Even if it
was a harmless bluetooth connection?.

If we were in an army platoon, deep in enemy territory, would you be
comfortable having me as platoon leader? Would you follow me,
knowing that I often stumble and make mistakes because I am
constantly fiddling with my bluetooth toys?

On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 08:45:43 -0300, wrote:


>>My new phone is an Honor 8X by Huawei.
>>
>>NO need for anything more expensive, as I have several very good
>>digital cameras, AND an SLR film camera.
>>
>Don't know where you are but I'm in Canada and for the moment Huawei
>is causing us a lot of political issues since Trump made us arrest
>Meng Wanzhou then lost interest in it all. Aside from that, I love
>my Nikons, have an original Nikon F, bought in Tokyo when it was first
>released.

Whatever trump does today, he will UNdo tomorrow.

He IS pathlogical liar, and a 5 year old in an old mans's body.

I'm in southern California.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:26:20 PM UTC-5, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>
>> A young lad, a few years ago, stopped in the middle of the stairway to text. I told him to get the f$%k out of my way. He then said that all I had to say was excuse me. Yeah right. I'm going to axe him to excuse me.
>> This one goof at a Toronto car wash, was in front of me to pay for his gas. He was on the phone and couldn't understand what the cashier was trying to say. It took a while before things got resolved. Good grief. But that's not the whole story. I was behind him when we went into the auto wash building. I saw that he was still on the phone. The shithead(pardon my lingo, but what else do you call someone like that)then proceeded to somehow get off of the track and ended up dead in the water. And my car was moving closer and closer; I leaned on the horn, and eventually they stopped the line before I hit him. They got him on the track, and when I exited he was gone; couldn't give him a piece of my mind.
>>
>It's jerks such as he that causes wrecks but then will deny they were on their
>phone.
>
>My city passed an ordinance on July 1 that makes it illegal to be on your
>cell phone while driving unless it's a hands-free device. The fine is
>$100 but I don't think it's being enforced and I would have liked to see
>the fine at $500. Just before that law went into effect I was reading
>online another city had passed the same law. They had officers dressed as
>part of a road crew at a busy intersection at whatever city it was. In one
>hour they had ticketed 150 drivers for being on their cell phones.

Been a law here in Cal. for a few years, and it IS enforced.

Basic fine is $20 first time, then $50, but there all sorts of fees
that make it more like $60 to over $150.

Also covers texting.

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:38:27 PM UTC-5, Still Bud wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >My city passed an ordinance on July 1 that makes it illegal to be on your
> >cell phone while driving unless it's a hands-free device. The fine is
> >$100 but I don't think it's being enforced and I would have liked to see
> >the fine at $500. Just before that law went into effect I was reading
> >online another city had passed the same law. They had officers dressed as
> >part of a road crew at a busy intersection at whatever city it was. In one
> >hour they had ticketed 150 drivers for being on their cell phones.
>
> Been a law here in Cal. for a few years, and it IS enforced.
>
> Basic fine is $20 first time, then $50, but there all sorts of fees
> that make it more like $60 to over $150.
>
> Also covers texting.
>
For a fine that low I would not bother pulling anyone over. California
might enforce it but I bet it's not stopping it with a ticket that cheap.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:43:23 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:38:27 PM UTC-5, Still Bud wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >My city passed an ordinance on July 1 that makes it illegal to be on your
>> >cell phone while driving unless it's a hands-free device. The fine is
>> >$100 but I don't think it's being enforced and I would have liked to see
>> >the fine at $500. Just before that law went into effect I was reading
>> >online another city had passed the same law. They had officers dressed as
>> >part of a road crew at a busy intersection at whatever city it was. In one
>> >hour they had ticketed 150 drivers for being on their cell phones.
>>
>> Been a law here in Cal. for a few years, and it IS enforced.
>>
>> Basic fine is $20 first time, then $50, but there all sorts of fees
>> that make it more like $60 to over $150.
>>
>> Also covers texting.
>>
>For a fine that low I would not bother pulling anyone over. California
>might enforce it but I bet it's not stopping it with a ticket that cheap.

In Australia, the fines are not cheap. You also lose 'points' on your
licence. Lose enough points through traffic violations and you lose
your licence.

Still Bud wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 3:26:20 PM UTC-5, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>>
>>> A young lad, a few years ago, stopped in the middle of the stairway to text. I told him to get the f$%k out of my way. He then said that all I had to say was excuse me. Yeah right. I'm going to axe him to excuse me.
>>> This one goof at a Toronto car wash, was in front of me to pay for his gas. He was on the phone and couldn't understand what the cashier was trying to say. It took a while before things got resolved. Good grief. But that's not the whole story. I was behind him when we went into the auto wash building. I saw that he was still on the phone. The shithead(pardon my lingo, but what else do you call someone like that)then proceeded to somehow get off of the track and ended up dead in the water. And my car was moving closer and closer; I leaned on the horn, and eventually they stopped the line before I hit him. They got him on the track, and when I exited he was gone; couldn't give him a piece of my mind.
>>>
>> It's jerks such as he that causes wrecks but then will deny they were on their
>> phone.
>>
>> My city passed an ordinance on July 1 that makes it illegal to be on your
>> cell phone while driving unless it's a hands-free device. The fine is
>> $100 but I don't think it's being enforced and I would have liked to see
>> the fine at $500. Just before that law went into effect I was reading
>> online another city had passed the same law. They had officers dressed as
>> part of a road crew at a busy intersection at whatever city it was. In one
>> hour they had ticketed 150 drivers for being on their cell phones.
>
> Been a law here in Cal. for a few years, and it IS enforced.
>
> Basic fine is $20 first time, then $50, but there all sorts of fees
> that make it more like $60 to over $150.
>
> Also covers texting.
>
>
>

In californy, a bag of peanuts cost about that much. Even $150 is a
joke.

On 9/7/2019 9:42 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I've just recently had this conversation with my SO. He's one of those
>> people, if the phone rings you must answer it. I don't get it.
>
> I so agree with you, Jill. That's also one of my pet peeves.
> Talking to a friend or a customer and soon as their cell phone
> rings, they HAVE to answer it and put ME (there in person) on
> hold. Grrrrr. So very rude, imo.
>Thank you, Gary! I feel the same way about Call Waiting. It's included
in my phone plan but if I'm talking with someone and it beeps in I don't
say, "Getting another call, hold on." Chances are it's just another
annoying robo-call anyway.

> I had a cell phone for about 8 years and I never did that to
> anyone else. My cell phone rings and I would ignore it until I
> finish talking to whoever (or is that whomever?). Occasionally
> the person would ask, "Don't you want to answer that?" No...they
> can leave a voicemail or not, I'm talking to YOU right now.
>
Apparently if it was *their* cell phone ringing they'd have rushed to
answer it and left you standing twiddling your thumbs. <sigh>

Jill

On 9/6/2019 3:18 PM, Still Bud wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:48:19 -0600, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> It's not the only answer. I've never been near FB and I get occasional
>>> unwanted calls on my cell phone. The calling number is generally the
>>> same exchange as my cell phone, to make it look like a local call.
>>
>> Same here, but I usually answer local calls anyway, unless it's MY own
>> phone number.
>
> There WAS a time when a 'local' call WAS really local.
> But now, with cells and spoofing, you have no idea where
> a call is coming from.
>
So true. Technology is not necessarily a blessing.

Remember the days before caller ID? We'd answer the phone because,
unless it was actually a wrong number, it was someone we knew. Those
were also the days before robo-calls and auto-dialers.

Jill

On 2019-09-09 3:51 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/6/2019 3:18 PM, Still Bud wrote:

> So true.Â* Technology is not necessarily a blessing.
>
> Remember the days before caller ID?Â* We'd answer the phone because,
> unless it was actually a wrong number, it was someone we knew.Â* Those
> were also the days before robo-calls and auto-dialers.

It got ridiculous for a while, but I was quick to sign up for the Do Not
Call Registry and it has eliminated the majority of those calls. Those
guys who call to solicit sales or scams are fair game for harassment.

Pollsters, political parties and charities are able to call despite the
DNC. I am quick to hang up on all three.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 15:51:04 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/6/2019 3:18 PM, Still Bud wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:48:19 -0600, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not the only answer. I've never been near FB and I get occasional
>>>> unwanted calls on my cell phone. The calling number is generally the
>>>> same exchange as my cell phone, to make it look like a local call.
>>>
>>> Same here, but I usually answer local calls anyway, unless it's MY own
>>> phone number.
>>
>> There WAS a time when a 'local' call WAS really local.
>> But now, with cells and spoofing, you have no idea where
>> a call is coming from.
>>
>So true. Technology is not necessarily a blessing.
>
>Remember the days before caller ID? We'd answer the phone because,
>unless it was actually a wrong number, it was someone we knew. Those
>were also the days before robo-calls and auto-dialers.

Tech never has been perfect.

I remember a Thanksgiving back in the late 60s.

Family had just sat down for dinner when the phone rang.
I answered it, and there were at least a dozen people on the line,
EACH saying THEY hadn't made a call, but gotten one. They were all
across the country. As I was taking with them, a few dropped out, and
you could HEAR the ringing with others answering. Stayed like that for
about 20 minutes until I finally hung up.

Happened again a few weeks later, but only lasted about 10 minutes
that time.

At least no Nigerian Princes came into the call.

On 9/9/2019 6:44 PM, Still Bud wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 15:51:04 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2019 3:18 PM, Still Bud wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:48:19 -0600, notbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not the only answer. I've never been near FB and I get occasional
>>>>> unwanted calls on my cell phone. The calling number is generally the
>>>>> same exchange as my cell phone, to make it look like a local call.
>>>>
>>>> Same here, but I usually answer local calls anyway, unless it's MY own
>>>> phone number.
>>>
>>> There WAS a time when a 'local' call WAS really local.
>>> But now, with cells and spoofing, you have no idea where
>>> a call is coming from.
>>>
>> So true. Technology is not necessarily a blessing.
>>
>> Remember the days before caller ID? We'd answer the phone because,
>> unless it was actually a wrong number, it was someone we knew. Those
>> were also the days before robo-calls and auto-dialers.
>
> Tech never has been perfect.
>
> I remember a Thanksgiving back in the late 60s.
>
> Family had just sat down for dinner when the phone rang.
> I answered it, and there were at least a dozen people on the line,
> EACH saying THEY hadn't made a call, but gotten one. They were all
> across the country. As I was taking with them, a few dropped out, and
> you could HEAR the ringing with others answering. Stayed like that for
> about 20 minutes until I finally hung up.
>
Yeah... except I wasn't getting many phone calls in the 1960's and don't
recall ever being on a party-line.

Jill

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:44 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>> I remember a Thanksgiving back in the late 60s.
>>
>> Family had just sat down for dinner when the phone rang.
>> I answered it, and there were at least a dozen people on the line,
>> EACH saying THEY hadn't made a call, but gotten one. They were all
>> across the country. As I was taking with them, a few dropped out, and
>> you could HEAR the ringing with others answering. Stayed like that for
>> about 20 minutes until I finally hung up.
>>
>Yeah... except I wasn't getting many phone calls in the 1960's and don't
>recall ever being on a party-line.

We WEREN'T on a partyline at all. Just a large family, and phone was
on the kitchen wall, with a cord long enough to reach part of the
living room. Extension for Parent's bedroom, of course.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:23:48 -0700, Still Bud >
wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:28:44 -0400, jmcquown >
>wrote:
>
>>> I remember a Thanksgiving back in the late 60s.
>>>
>>> Family had just sat down for dinner when the phone rang.
>>> I answered it, and there were at least a dozen people on the line,
>>> EACH saying THEY hadn't made a call, but gotten one. They were all
>>> across the country. As I was taking with them, a few dropped out, and
>>> you could HEAR the ringing with others answering. Stayed like that for
>>> about 20 minutes until I finally hung up.
>>>

This happened to me once circa 1987. Picked up the phone to make a
call and could hear more than one conversation. It was small community
and even recognised one person. It only lasted a day. When I contacted
our phone company (because my bill was unusually high) they denied
such a thing was possible <rolls eyes>.

On 2019-09-10, Still Bud > wrote:

> We WEREN'T on a partyline at all. Just a large family, and phone was
> on the kitchen wall, with a cord long enough to reach part of the
> living room. Extension for Parent's bedroom, of course.

By late 50s, party lines were pretty rural. I only heard one, in rural
CA, in 1956. Most towns had separate phone numbers.

nb