I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. Artist Julien F. Thomas has opened a new pop-up cafe built as a Faraday cage, making cell and WIFI devices useless. The Chinatown cafe will be open for the next two weeks. It is actually more an exercise in art than a practical solution to stopping unwanted cell-phone activity, although the Faraday cage will function as expected. There will be morning meditation sessions, afternoon DJ sets (around 3 or 4 o'clock), a storytelling event in the evening of Tuesday the 15th, and hopefully a party or two in the space as well.
FWIW, many of the better survivalist.. um "Prepper"... sites have handy-dandy instructions for building your own cage. Good to know that "A Faraday cage is particularly useful for protecting against an electromagnetic pulse that may be the result of a high-altitude nuclear detonation in the atmosphere."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @05:28PM
Seems odd to cater to a crowd that doesn't like cellphones and then fill the house with "shut-up and be quiet" events.
Do they not like it when people actually talk to each other?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday July 04 2014, @05:39PM
Why is that odd?
Have you ever been to a library, for example? Did they not like cellphones, but like talking, there? Or a chamber music concert - did they not like cellphones, but like talking, there?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @06:07PM
People reading on their phones in a cafe are not disruptive. If anything they sit quietly, eating and reading, and not adding to the general din.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by cykros on Saturday July 05 2014, @12:09PM
People reading (offline material) on their phones isn't disrupted by being inside a Faraday cage, as it only blocks the EM transmissions, not the phone's ability to operate. Yes, this method does take out the ability to peruse the web while at the cafe in order to stop phone calls, and is a bit more heavy handed than a sign advising customers to "Please keep all cell phone conversations outside". Depending on the area, though, with the way I've seen people pretty readily ignore anything with printed lettering addressing them (they might pay attention to writing NOT intended for them, but certainly not the sign that says "ATTENTION"), I can see where a Farraday cage would be more suitable than needing to cause a fuss over every fifth customer needing to be told to get off their cell phone if they'd like to stay in the restaurant.
As much as other customers tend to prefer people not being on phones, that interaction can still have a tendency to do net harm to the company, and if a Faraday cage can avoid the need for it, then it's something I'd strongly consider.
If the lack of web browsing is really an issue, a wifi network inside of the cage should suffice to allow quiet internet-enabled phone use while disallowing phone calls (provided QoS or some other means is taken to make VoIP traffic untenable).
(Score: 1) by Adamsjas on Friday July 04 2014, @08:05PM
Library?
Its a cafe.
Can we at least stay on point here?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ah.clem on Friday July 04 2014, @06:59PM
My thought, too. Why would I go to a cafe' where a DJ was playing, or there was a lot of partying going on? My objection with mobile phones in restaurants and theaters are the loud asshats yelling into them or in theaters, trying to hide them while they text - guess what? In a dark theater, a flash of light is a flash of light, even if it's half-way in a handbag. Too bad all theaters don't take the Alamo Drafthouse approach - show a phone and get tossed for life. As much as we have always enjoyed dinner and a movie as a night out we have finally decided to set up a real home theater in our house.
I have no problem with folks reading a book or texting on a tablet or phone in a restaurant - that's not the same thing as screaming into a mobile, disturbing an entire restaurant; I do find it rude when I am at lunch with someone and they are constantly checking their texts or even taking calls. I tell them I think it's rude behavior. Interestingly, if I'm at a lunch place that costs me $10, there appears to be a lot of mobile use; when we are spending $100 or more for dinner, it's quite rare, and is usually handled by the staff pretty quickly. It seems to me that low-cost, high volume places like movie theaters and lunch joints don't want to alienate their customers while more expensive venues with a smaller clientele (upscale restaurants, wine bars, galleries, live theater, the phil, etc.) expect folks (reasonably, IMO) to restrain themselves for 2 hours.
I do realize that I am in the minority these days.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 04 2014, @07:59PM
Taking calls, and yelling, sure, its objectionable.
But you (or at least I) seldom see that. Most people realize that just because they can't hear over the general noise background in a restaurant, doesn't mean that they have to yell into the phone, and when they do, they get up and leave the table.
Its not unusual to see a table full of friends, sitting in a cafe each checking messages, occasionally doing so for 5 or 10 minutes, while the talk continues around them.
Nobody is disrupted. Nobody is insulted. People understand their friends have other friends and perhaps family or work obligations.
I just don't see the point of a restaurant opening with the clear intention of working against their customer's wishes.
I understand that if this was a live music cafe historically, and FIRST, that they might want to cater to customers that were looking for that kind of experience by making sure there would be no ringing phones, or yaking on phones during the music.
But this doesn't sound like that, it sounds like someone had a thing against phones and was looking for an excuse to block them, and having done so, found out nobody would come due to the bad reception. So they add group events as a cover.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by cykros on Saturday July 05 2014, @02:30PM
You seem to have hit the nail on the head when it comes to the high volume/low cost establishments. I work at a small sit down restaurant myself, and while the kitchen churns out some pretty amazing food, we are decidedly somewhat casual, and in the moderate price range (more due to location than much else). The unfortunate reality is that while phone calls are disturbing, the disruptiveness of a potential angry customer (whose business is clearly more important than our business while they're visiting...our business) is something that generally is just better off not risked. With a more formal atmosphere seems to come some respect from customers that just isn't afforded to the lower-price establishments.
Personally, if I'm out with friends and one of them picks up a phone, provided it's someone I've been friends with long enough to know how they'll react, I have no qualms about saying or doing something (hell, if it's a feature phone, I'll slap it out of their hands, but I'm less quick to do that when it's a $700 device...). It's amazing that something as non-disruptive as e-cigarettes (which produce tar free steam that quickly dissipates) can cause such uproar, while cell phones are something people just feel they have a right to use no matter where they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday July 05 2014, @07:29PM
i assume it wouldnt bother you if somebody whipped out a crackpipe or meth pipe and started smoking crack/meth right in front of you either, right? i mean, its not like they'd be blowing anything more than vapors in your face, rather than polluting the air with what you consider poison.
if you think one is ok, but the other two arent, you're a hypocrite.
(Score: 1) by cykros on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:15PM
Personally? I can't say I'd be all that bothered, though naturally if it is being done in a way as to direct the vapor directly at my face/neck (particularly in the case of meth, where the potency is VASTLY higher than that of an ecig, and is capable of absorbing through the skin), I'd remove myself from the situation by a good few meters.
This however is a matter of comparing a little smoke coming out of the kitchen from cooking to the basement being on fire. One is on the border of being even noticeable at all, while the other is an overwhelming barrage. I see the point you're trying to make, but we could at least first ban cologne, perfume, and various hair products first in this vein before stepping it down to the small-fry e-cigs. Or even tap water, which undoubtedly contains more toxins than any second hand vapor you get off of someone's e-cig. God forbid someone with a cold comes in...
The point is, it's a matter of degree for any of these contaminants. The matter of introducing toxins being the defense for any kind of legal ban on e-cigs is entirely transparent, as it is obviously moralism (that plague upon any would-be free society) rearing it's ugly head yet again. When e-cigs are the worst source of toxins in the restaurant, I'd be willing to consider legislation in kind, but at this point, it'd be nothing more than arbitrary.
That said, restaurants should absolutely be free to decide for themselves whether or not to allow the use of e-cigs (and, for that matter, cell phones). I'll avoid those where everyone's on their cell phone (creating unnecessary noise pollution that I find distasteful), and you can avoid those where everyone is on their e-cigs (where you find the toxins, or aesthetics, whichever the case may be, distasteful), and we can all go about our lives in peace.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't actually smoke e-cigs, but absolutely view them as a step in the right direction for harm reduction purposes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2014, @03:44AM
Idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @09:03PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection#Impact_on_Earth [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by pkrasimirov on Friday July 04 2014, @09:11PM
Phone calls and Internet won't work there. That means ad-free games :)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @03:31PM
My cellphone will last for more than a week when I have reception but just hours when I don't. So it seems that the cellphone will output a lot more power when it doesn't have reception.
I would think that the crowd that would setup such an art installation overlaps a lot with the crowd worried about electrosmog. Congratulations.
(Score: 2) by AsteroidMining on Saturday July 05 2014, @06:06PM
Above the atmosphere, not in it.