Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows
from the mandatory-civility dept
During a recent 13-night run at Thalia Hall in Chicago Dave Chappelle tried something different. He partnered with a company by the name of Yondr in an attempt to keep attendees from not only taking photos or videos, but from so much as sending an emoji during the program. Yondr's solution to public performance cell phone etiquette is basically a smart cell phone sock. Or perhaps a cell phone cozy if you're a grandma (hi grandma). Effectively it's a pouch that attendees of an event are forced to put their devices in if they want to enter the performance:
"Attendees at any of Chappelle's 13 sold-out Thalia Hall performances will be greeted by staffers handing out gray smartphone sleeves, available in three sizes. They are then instructed to place their phones inside the sleeves and fasten them, at which point they are welcome to carry them inside the venue.It's obvious to see the appeal for some folks given the recent hysterics surrounding bizarre behavior during Broadway performances. And while admittedly most of us remain nitwits when it comes to cell phone etiquette, it's hard to not see the peaceful cozy cell phone sock as a bit of a pipe dream.
As soon as they enter the "no-phone zone," however, the pouches will have locked shut, preventing anyone from firing off so much as a winking emoji. Need to make a call or send an email? No problem. Simply leave the designated zone (and head, say, to the lobby bar), and, as you move past several strategically placed stations, the pouches can now magically be unlocked."
As it stands, there's nothing stopping an individual from hiding a phone, with the act of removing that person probably causing more disruption to the audience and artist than just letting them take a photo would have. It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, which is why the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking (Yondr claims that venue staff's phones will still work, but it still seems dangerous).
I think it probably feels good to believe you're force feeding civility and decorum upon the brutish and inconsiderate masses, but at the end of day, those thinking that hope and a phone cozy are a replacement for etiquette (or will stop people from recording their experiences) will probably be disappointed, especially as we stumble toward our inevitable, transhumanist future, and our implants, phones, cameras, and other devices become increasingly difficult to detect.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: concerts, dave chappelle, no phone zone, phone cozy, phones, pouch
Companies: yondr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, me neither. Everyone who said that is long dead now, and so is the concept of horse-drawn traffic in modern cities. This simple point is worth keeping in mind for people who complain about cell phones being disruptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, this is the same guy who wants a CCTV he can watch on his dashboard instead of learning how to use a rearview mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spent 25 years in it. Sensors first came out and I started repairing many a deck lid and back hatch the got crunched by an object above the height of the sensor. So they came out with the camera...no more dents at the back...started repairing the fenders. Watching the backup up camera and forgot to watch the front end swinging into something.
Technology only works when it's used properly. I have that stuff in the Edge. I still check all mirrors first, then look out all windows then and only then do I look at the dash rear view camera...and I still look up and sweep the others as I back up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an incredibly cynical viewpoint.
I've never had that problem; my car has sensors on the front as well as the back. :)
Bottom line: when moving around in close quarters, void areas are your worst enemy, and any technology that can help reduce or eliminate them helps improve your safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That being said, in many cars and vans, you can't see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the esoteric skill we're talking about here. Seeing an image in a rear-view mirror and having your mind still able to manage things, even if it's mirror imaged. I would of course include shoulder checking in the mix of this (thanks for mentioning it).
One of my eyes is growing a cataract. I (mostly; yes it's annoying) don't care, because the other eye works fine and the brain adapts and makes up for the loss of the other eye. Consequently, despite the loss of most of the use of my left eye, I can still see a computer screen and read books.
Similarly, you can teach yourself to look in a mirror and understand left == right, and vice versa. It takes some time and effort to really wrap your mind around it so it's second nature, but it's not that hard to do. It used to be SOP for everyone so how difficult can it be (even if some did it badly)? Many nowadays think it's not worth the effort when tech is being sold which purports to replace it.
Which is great, if you can afford the expense of the system, and what happens when the system fails/breaks? It's complex, after all, with wires, sensors, a controller, and software/drivers in between. Mine will continue working. Will theirs?
You need to concede that automobiles are sold oft-times on "sexiness" and size of windows enters into that design. Thank gawd they came up with this reversing camera system !@#$ or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that unusable tiny rear window (etc., etc.). I will concede they allow you to avoid the time and tedium of learning to use mirrors effectively, but that's all.
That, and you're suckers for falling for it if you did. Sorry, but often the truth hurts. You could have avoided all of this complexity and expense by learning an easy to acquire skill, but instead you chose to throw money at the problem to get a sexy car with an unusable rear window. Your choice, and good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ironically, you sound a bit like the horseless carriage critics Mason was talking about... Reversing cameras are far superior to mirrors for reversing. This is not up for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I beg your pardon! I'd no idea god in all its glory was listening in. What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say. If you were my boss or a client, you wouldn't be seeing me tomorrow. You've already decided it's your way or the highway. Okay, g'bye!
I suspect it is highly debatable whether reversing cameras are demonstrably superior to mirrors. *Perhaps*, they may be better or easier for Joe Sixpack in too much of a hurry to master the esoteric skill of using mirrors, or who's foolish enough to buy a vehicle with lousy window visibility. I would not own such a vehicle. Nor do I think the cost of such a system is anywhere near justifiable. YMMV. *I* can understand that. It's sad that you can't. End of debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's nothing arrogant about what I said, it's just a statement of the obvious. Note that I said for reversing. Your mirror's only job is to show you what's behind you, and when reversing a camera shows you more of the area where things you could hit will be. It sees things the mirror simply cannot. It's hard to think of any way you could claim that's not better, but have at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As this concept is explained in driver's ed, it's at least somewhat reasonable to conclude that tqk does not, in fact, know how to drive, and therefore his opinions on the subject are not backed by any actual experience and can be safely discounted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you'd learned to use mirrors, you'd know that you're always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you're not looking at them, you're still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas. No children are going to be able to sneak up on you so you smush them when you back up. I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it's easy to keep it updated. I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.
FWIW, I've never bent a fender or bumper hitting anyone, and the only scratches on my vehicles have come from assholes keying the paint (I don't worry about it).
I'll just put you down as the average java programmer who thinks the jvm is everything you need to care about, and deal with your broken hardware when you call me to tell me it's "acting up" and you've not a clue what could possibly be wrong.
"Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a better computer."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 'Its easy/routine for me' crowd. You are perfect, so how dare everyone else not be on your level.
You talk arrogantly about your own skill, knowledge, ability and more, then chastise others for not having the same.
Nevermind that the world is made up of more people than you. Nevermind that different people face difficulty in different areas than you. Nevermind that some people may need some help determining whether or not their bumper is against the curb several feet behind them.
The solution to the world is to get on your level, not offer assistance to those who may have difficulties you do not.
The solution to the world is to simply trudge on with what we already have, not try to offer advancements or improvements. It works perfectly well for you right?
Thats all that matters. Anyone who can't just isn't enough of a person/adult/competent individual. Better just give up and live with the fact that you don't diserve assistance because 'other people manage just fine'.
People like you who give other people an inferiority complex to match your own bloated ego.
Does it feel good? Grandstanding above people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a patently false statement. There are areas behind you car that are not in the mirrors' field of view. This is a simple fact, not a judgement or opinion. Every car has them, some worse than others.
"I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it's easy to keep it updated."
What's that got to do with reversing cameras. Nobody is talking about the use of mirrors in traffic.
"I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that."
First, nobody does because they don't cost anywhere near that. Second, nobody said anything about replacing mirrors. Cameras augment mirrors by showing more than mirrors can see. Your argument is obviously weak if you need to exaggerate costs and misstate the opposing argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are completely missing the point. My argument in two words is "situation awareness." I'm not Batman leaping into my car, slamming it into gear, and burning rubber with a "Hi-yo Silver, away!"
I walk around my car with my eyes open checking out the scenery and everything that's happening in the vicinity. Once in the car, I can update that by checking the mirrors.
No toddler is going to have a chance to sneak up on me where he'll get smushed because I didn't know he was there.
"Void areas" are irrelevant if you already know what's in them, or possibly can get in them. If I see any potential victims in the area via this procedure, I make sure I know where they are and stay where I am until I do.
This is not rocket science. You people are insisting that your expensive high-tech solution is necessary to solve the problem when it isn't. Technology can solve many problems. There are many problems that *shouldn't* be solved with technology for various reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure that's a huge relief to the hundreds of small children every year who are hit by cars backing up, not to mention the drivers who never saw them. They don't have to worry about it anymore, because it simply can't happen.
Neither did I. My entire car cost significantly less than $40K, brand new. So now you're just being silly.
...and neither has anyone else, right up until they do. And then they have hit someone.
Based on what?
I have just barely enough experience with the JVM to know I don't want any more experience with it; it's too broken in too many ways, particularly generics. As a matter of fact, I'm working with a few engineers on porting Microsoft's open-sourced CLR implementation to Android so people won't have to use Java or C++ or pay through the nose for Xamarin there, all of which are bad options to one degree or another. I work on native code for a living, I hack around in compilers for fun, and when hardware breaks that I can't fix, I replace it.
But what does any of that have to do with driver safety in any way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2.You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I rarely see people actually 'talk' on the phone during the movie, and the few that do leave the theater because they can't hear the person over the movie. Most of the time it's people texting, checking things on facebook, and you know what? I'll take them over the rest of the disruptive crowd.
The people on cell phones are probably the LEAST distracting people in the gorram theater!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, I see theaters as a trade off. They offer a pricey, crowded, loud, obnoxious experience. In exchange, I get to see something sooner rather than later, without having to put up with crap quality screencams.
Theaters have long stopped being the 'premium experience' they think they are, at least for me. They are simply a way to deal with my own impatience. OCCASIONALLY... there is a movie I so badly want to support that I will go out of my way to go to a theater, but these are few and far between.
The rest are usually tagging along with friends to get out of the house once in a while.
Still doesn't beat watching movies on a digital projector in my garage with a cheap surround sound setup, but if I don't want to be a thief, I apparently have to deal with a shitty experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> cellphone yakker" that everyone loves to wring their
> hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to
> believe that he doesn't exist
Yes, because your personal experience is the objective benchmark by which reality is judged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The one I patronize doesn't allow babies at all. For movies of any rating. If you're too young to understand language, you're too young to be in a movie theater.
They're also very good about policing people who talk or otherwise disrupt the movie. They "profile" customers and if, for example, a huge gaggle of loud and chatty teen girls shows up for movie, they'll pop in occasionally during the film to make sure they're not f'ing it up for everyone else, either by talking amongst themselves, or using their phones.
That theater is all about maximizing the customer's experience, and for that reason it gets all my business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you saying my phone is going to shit on the street?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn some history rather than speculating
Your post can literally be read as "Remember X from history? I don't, because I wasn't alive then. We can and should ignore all history and any lessons it offers and instead judge everything only by personal experience."
The truth is that there *were* complaints about cars and they were *correct* and cars have had hugely negative impacts on society in all sorts of disruptive ways, mostly enabling the break-down of human-centered urban planning etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take them out of the sock
"Problem" solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take them out of the sock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take them out of the sock
Or, just don't go if you're not welcomed, which you aren't with your cell phone.
Problem created. You're in the company of thousands of others who've paid their hard earned bucks for the best entertainment experience Chappelle can offer you, and you think it's okay to interrupt everyone else's enjoyment of it? Fuck you, asshole. Stay home, or find something else to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Take them out of the sock
Chappelle does not offer an "entertainment experience" and just because someone can does not mean they will.
I too am all for ignoring anything anyone tells me what they think I should do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Take them out of the sock
> they think I should do.
So if someone tells me I shouldn't break into your house and steal your stuff, you'd be cool with me ignoring that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The future is weird sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally, I think he got it almost right: what he really needed to do was give out socks with a simple (but noisy) release switch. Label the outside of the sock with "This venue kindly requests that you keep your phone stowed while present" printed on it.
I think that this in itself should apply the social pressure needed in this situation, while flagging phone jerks as such. Maybe make it shout "I'm the center of the universe!" whenever it is opened -- and make that part of a running gag in the performance so that everyone else gets a laugh at the expense of whoever decides they just must get their phone out.
And it would make for a nifty souvenir, too :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I usually leave it behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...or do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue
Nope, only those who opted in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notice the word FORCED
The only way it is "voluntary" is if you can get a full refund of your ticket including any service charges if you decide not to hand over your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The contrariness of these comments is reminiscent of grade school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are forcing you to submit to arbitrary and frankly obnoxious rules without warning after you've bought the ticket, which is likely to leave you painfully aware of just how many distractions are more obnoxious than someone trying to snap a pic or check twitter.
If the experience is really so important to them, why are they only bothering with one form of obnoxious distraction?
Obnoxious people are going to be obnoxious with or without their cell phones. Considerate people are going to be considerate with or without their cell phones. Removing a piece of technology does not suddenly, magically make people well behaved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/i-let-yondr-lock-my-smartphone-in-a-sock-so-i-could-live- in-the-moment/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F U E T
Phone home, you do not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being the person who cut it open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do they take everyone's name when they put the cell phone in the bag? Is each bag registered to a specific person?
If not, what's to stop someone from just walking out and saying that they didn't have a phone with them? Will people be searched as they leave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i have a solution for dave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phone signal blocking.
Speaking just for myself, that seems quite the heavy-handed response. How many mass shootings have you experienced in person lately? I've never been anywhere near one, nor do I know anyone who has. I'm suspicious that the cell phone industry "regulatory captured" the FCC into forcing that ban as it might otherwise interfere with their profits.
If I were an entertainer like Chappelle, I'd find a way to get my hands on a Stingray which overpowers other cellphone towers, then lock the Stingray down to not provide outside connectivity. I'd also upfront warn all invitees I'd be doing this. If you don't like it, you're not welcome. Many other fans very much do resent your cell phones interrupting performances. If you can't be bothered to keep your dog on a leash, it's not welcome and neither are you. Substitute "squalling babies", "drunken boyfriends" or whatever you prefer for "dog."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
Techdirt usually campaigns against fear-mongering so it's odd to see a writer using it to support their opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
My family moved to Marysville, Washington after I graduated. My brother was a student at the high school there. Luckily, he wasn't injured, but... yeah. Don't think "this will never effect me." I never thought it would effect me either, until I saw the name "Marysville Pilchuck High School" in the news one day while on lunch break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
As you hinted at though... what is it helping?
If the goal is to cut down on 'distractions' during the show... Cell phone use tends to be the LEAST distracting part of public shows in my experience. Squalling babies, drunken boyfriends, obnoxious fans squealing all around you, people shouting to their SO's about how much they're loving/hating the show, are cell phones REALLY worse than all of these? Should we start to look into solutions for these things to? Or should we accept it all as part of going to a PUBLIC venue for a PUBLIC show?
If the goal is to cut down on recordings of the show, maybe the entertainer should think about why people would take a shit quality video with scratchy audio surrounded by squealing fans causing neighborhood dogs to hide under the covers over going to the show live and.. I dunno... offer a good quality, professionally sound edited video of the own show to offset that?
Cause I know when I consider going to a live show, I'm not going in thinking 'I'm going to surround myself with quiet, respectful, attentive individuals'. I go in thinking 'Well, Better pack earplugs so I can actually pay attention to the performer over the constant murmur and obnoxious behavior of some of the other patrons.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
the whole point and value of a cellphone is - they work everywhere, not in a few select locations excluding where someone wants to protect their jokes or simply is annoyed with loud one-sided conversations. A swiss-cheese cellphone coverage is annoying when the phone company does it. We don't need every Tom, Harry, or some Dick deciding this is a dead zone too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
> attack in a theatre and you have to abandon them and run
> 50 feet out in the street to escape the jammer or
> stingray?
Or, you know, use the restaurant's land line.
Kinda like they did before these things were invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
> this is a dead zone too.
If it's their private property, why shouldn't they be allowed to turn it into a dead zone if they want to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.
And second, you're on his property. He should get to set the rules for access to his property. If you want your phone to work, you're free to go elsewhere. No one's holding you captive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is an arstechnica story from last year that talks to the inventor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I really don't get the draw of live events myself. The experience is measurably worse in every way (sound quality, nearby distractions, crowded venues, long times spent forced to sit and do nothing but watch, regardless of biological needs, more expensive, visibility)
I don't get why people will spend over $100 to sit far far away from a performer and try to listen to ear grating acoustics bouncing off every murmuring fan in the place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faraday Theatre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sucks!
Now if I want to see a show I'll have to keister my smartphone. Do you think I want to hear how they get stuff into prison while being violated by Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sucks!
"I have an important job, so that entitles me to annoy others and disrupt entertainment venues!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-seeks-to-keep-guns-out-of-its-cofee-sh ops.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ringing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well.
You guys can call me an inconsiderate asshole, a distracting jerkwad or whatever else you like, but if I pay someone good money, and they turn around and treat me like a toddler who needs his toys taken away before class, then I'd demand my money back.
Yeah, I use my smartphone before the show starts. Yes, sometimes I check updates during the performance (Screen brightness set to min/sound off). Perhaps I want to forge fond memories of a live show I shelled out for. If you can't handle being distracted in a public venue at a live event, go home and buy the DVD.
I hate to break it to you, but I'd rather every person there be distracted on their smart phones then have to listen to people talk, debate or argue during the show. I have to deal with distracting assholes EVERY time I go to a public event. I had to deal with this before cell phones were prominent, and I'm gonna have to keep dealing with it until venues start insisting on locking gag and straight jacket combos.
Dealing with other people is part of being in a PUBLIC venue. If other people are bugging you, guess what? Maybe you should just stick to watching stuff at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Blocking"
And I agree with the other poster that we don't need this fear-mongering. You say we're in an "age of...mass shootings", but statistics say this is one of the safest times in recorded history. Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there's a real emergency. Once that's done there's little benefit for other people to use their phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Blocking"
> emergency.
No kidding. And honestly, if you're in an active shooter situation and you're actually in danger (as opposed to someone outside who is just hearing the gun fire), then the absolute *last* thing you should be fucking around with is your goddam cell phone. You either need to be evacuating most riki tik, or, if you're trapped inside, deciding the optimal way to counter-attack the shooter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Just Tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are YONDR Socks Cleaned Between Users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the ars article about the yondr sock
No the yondr sock won't make the experience better. I 'smuggled' cameras into live shows in the hopes that i could take away memories of an experience I was really enjoying. When I wasn't enjoying it I didn't bother recording the experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]