posted
I love the pet cell phone idea. My dog wanders. I bet if I had one of those and called her on her cell phone to tell her to come home, she might actually do it.
'course, I might save some money if I just built a fence. But that would be very lo-tech of me.
edited: And you know, last year when I was travelling so much for work, my husband would take the dog to work with him so she wouldn't be lonely in the house by herself. So when I'd call to say Hi, he'd put the dog on the phone and make...er, let...me talk to her.
You might say our dog is spoiled.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this would be so much cooler to me if I acutally had a cell phone? But since I don't already have one it means I won't be getting any new features or a new phone. Blasted parents and their penny-pinching ways!
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it weren't low tech, pH, they wouldna covered up expensive really high-tech components with cheap gold and diamonds. They would have used diamond-film over transparent aluminum for a nearly indestructable case protecting&displaying the really really hot hi-tech components within.
I'm waiting for full-implants with a 100gigabyte flash memory, and HDTV-screen implantable lenses which double as asteropoeic telephoto/macroscopic video cameras. Though I suppose if the HDTV screen can't be combined with the camera, I'll accept the videocam as a third-eye. Then again biomimetic miniArgus-eyes planted all over the body with sponge-glass fiber-optic networking might be even purtier.
And I think that it's already federally mandated that within the next few years, the locations of all active*cellphones must be easily findable, pinpointable. It ain't even as if new technology has to be engineered and manufactured, it already exists. The capabilities of the cellular system's router/locator function must merely be fully implemented, mostly through soft&firmwear updating.
* ie Cellphones turned on to receive signals of and "ring" for incoming calls, as well as those being used during actual conversation. The law?/bill? -- I'm not absolutely sure that it has already passed -- might have also included provisions for remotely activating switched-off cellphones.
posted
I like the idea of the firefly, part of me hates children (meaning under 13) getting cell phones, another thinks "but they make it so easy"
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: I like the idea of the firefly, part of me hates children (meaning under 13) getting cell phones, another thinks "but they make it so easy"
*nod* Exactly. And the Firefly (like some, but not all, of the other cell phones designed for kids) can be set either to accept all incoming calls, or just those in its phone book.
But my DD's has already been invaluable (when pick-up plans fell through) more than once.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know there would have been several times in middle and early high school I would have needed one (not so much elementary, my mom was a stay at home, I didn't go anywhere far from my school, and my best friend lived a block from school so we walked to her house quite a bit).
Cell phones started becoming common place for teens my freshman year, really common my sophomore, and by my senior year, I was one of the last to get one, but it was invaluable multiple times. I'm not sure how parents survived before their sixteen year old driver had a phone to call in case of problems.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
