[Bleep] You

Scott Hardie | November 29, 2004
Who else besides me feels a stronger and stronger urge to smack the phone to the floor and stomp on it every time they hear that grating "chirp" tone when someone uses a "walkie talkie" cell phone in public? The walkie-talkie part is meant to be used when the phone is in the user's hand, so there's no need for that beep to be so damn loud and shrill.

(I'm assuming that the "chirp" sound is part of the walkie-talkie function, because when I do hear it, I hear it every few seconds, with the person talking to the phone intermittently. It may have some other purpose entirely, but it's still irritating.)

Todd Brotsch | November 29, 2004
I take anger management classes now.

Anna Gregoline | November 29, 2004
The real point, I think? WHY ARE THEY USING A WALKIE TALKIE PHONE ANYWAY WHAT'S WRONG WITH A REAL PHONE?

Ok, thank you.

David Mitzman | November 29, 2004
I have a Nextel, and I find the walkie-talkie (they call it Direct Connect) to be completely useless to anyone other than people in construction (or other related jobs where you need a quick answer and a phone call is too time consuming for the task). I see kids and stuff use it like it's a toy. When I do get a call on the direct connect, I usually leave the speakerphone off as to allow myself some level of privacy. I dont' know what's so hard about that. I thought people using cell phones in the movies are bad, but the people with those nextels and getting a direct connect are worse.

Scott Hardie | November 30, 2004
That's the thing about cell phones today: They're toys. The cameras in some of them can have practical functions, but 99% of the time or more they're used for silliness. And having video games in the phone like Moto GP? The more useless, fun shit the manufacturer crams in there, the more teens have to have one.

Anthony Lewis | December 2, 2004
And this is why I stick with my "primative" cellphone. No camera. No high-tech video games. It does what it's supposed to do. Make phone calls and receive phone calls. I don't want it to do anything else.

Well, I might like a camera phone somewhere down the line, but I'm in no rush.

Anna Gregoline | December 3, 2004
Camera phones are such poor quality anyway - you're better off getting a real digi cam.

Scott Horowitz | December 3, 2004
Camera phones are fun though. I got one because it had better service than the phone I had. And it isn't about the quality, it's just for a quick snapshot.

Anna Gregoline | December 3, 2004
I want my snapshots to look good. What's the point otherwise? I've just never been sold on the commercials "practical" uses of the phone.

Scott Horowitz | December 3, 2004
These are for fun. I don't download these pictures and use them and send to friends. 1 cool thing is picture caller-id. When someone calls, their picture shows up on the screen. Another thing is that your cell phone is on you 90% of the time, which is typically much more than you are carrying your camera. So, if you want to get a picture of something, your cell phone may be the best option.

And here is a practical use of a cell phone camera (tho it may not be the best): I saw a news article that people were using camera phones to take pictures of credit cards when people used them in stores. Getting all the info without stealing the card.

Anna Gregoline | December 3, 2004
The pictures I've seen people post on their blogs are SUCH poor quality that I just don't see any use for them whatsoever.

Todd Brotsch | December 3, 2004
I think Scott outlined exactally why people take them.

Anna Gregoline | December 3, 2004
Yep, he sure did. I just don't really see the point. Pictures to me mean something, I don't really see the purpose of taking them when they have no quality for the possibility of saving them.

John E Gunter | December 3, 2004
I think most of the pictures on blogs are from the mental attitude of "Hey, look at the cool thing I can do with my phone.", more than the, "Let me compose this picture so I get something I'm going to like and or be proud of." That's why the pictures on blogs are usually of such poor quality.

Course, most picture phones don't really take that high a quality of picture, they're phones after all, not cameras.

John

Anna Gregoline | December 3, 2004
I acknowledge that it would be fun to send someone a photo from my phone - but that's how I feel about it generally - that it's a novelty with no real purpose. All the photos I've seen from them carry the general impression for me of, "Gee what a crappy photo."

Scott Hardie | December 4, 2004
Remember, for most teens, blogs are just elaborate toys as well. (Same goes for adults I suppose, but I'd like to think we generally take them more seriously and give them more effort.) So the useless novelty of "look what I saw outside the Taco Bell!" goes hand in hand with the useless novelty of "I gotta tell you what I saw outside the Taco Bell!" Quality? Saving for posterity? These issues are not on teens' minds, or at least the teens who want a toy-phone.

Anna Gregoline | December 4, 2004
I guess I place slightly more stock in words, so a blog/diary is something to look back on, even if it won't last forever. I guess the same rings true of a picture, but I'm sure more than a few people wish their camera photos were better quality when they take a good one.

I'm sure in a few years the technology will catch up anyway.