h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
You know those times when you are talking to someone on a cell phone and the call suddenly drops, and then you are left wondering who should be the one to call back? And of course, the problem is that if you both call, you might collide and if neither calls, then well, you never end up reconnecting?
I
propose that the social protocol be that in such cases, the original caller be the one responsible for doing the reconnection.
I further propose that cell phones come with a little "cell phone etiquette" card when you purchase them that details various little things like this, along with other common cell phone etiquette (e.g. turn it off in movie theaters, etc), written in a polite, 19th-century style of English if possible.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I think this is bordering on "let's all." Granted, you're not requiring mass participation for a specific event, but how else is a 'social protocol' implemented other than mass participation? |
|
| |
Apperently it is now socially accepted that when involved in a conversation your phone goes off, you answer the call and leave the other waiting. During meals people use the mobile etc. |
|
| |
This is a good idea, people should be more civil in their use of mobile phones. In the Netherlands there are now warning signs in trains not to smoke alongside not talk loudly in mobile phones. You got a bun |
|
| |
If two callers call each other, the phone company could just notice that and connect them. |
|
| |
That might not be such a good idea if they're both faxes. |
|
| |
Interesting, [jutta]. That's probably a much better idea in and of itself. |
|
| |
I thought this was going to be an idea where if the call got cut off a system detected it was due to bad signal or whatever and reconnected the two callers automatically, continuing the call (fairly) seamlessly. Obviously it would have to know that one person didn't terminate the call or it could get quite interesting.... |
|
| |
Nice idea, jutta, but phone companies love the revenue when caller A gets voicemail from caller B, who also gets voicemail from caller A, who then recalls at a later date. So much revenue in call connection and voicemail checks. Mmmmm... revenue! |
|
| |
A protocol that sends a definite call disconnection signal would be good so that a dropped call could be distinguished from an ended call. (No more "I'm going through a tunnel [hang-up]"} |
|
| |
[not_only_but_also] - that's a great idea. |
|
| |
// [not_only_but_also] - that's a great idea // |
|
| |
Not at 17:00 on a Friday when the boss calls. "I'm going through a tunnel..." *Cuts off* "2 more pints please mate...." |
|
| |