The Shrine

I keep showing this image to people partly as a joke, partly to poke fun at them. I keep thinking about gimmicky marketing and ridiculous assumptions. Every person I know who has an iPhone or Blackberry spends most of their day within inches of a computer. So why spend ridiculous money on a smart phone? Just to connect to Facebook and update your status via a mobile aplication? Well good fucking spending moron. Hey how about you pay off you debt or save for a home, that way if you buy it you have an actual deposit instead of being a subprime lender. Cause jesus, how did we live without smartphones, those dark ages... what that was 2 years+ ago?

God people are fucking retarded -_- and I'm guilty at times too, but I have about 5 months of expenses in my bank account, have no debt, and pay off my credit cards monthly.

*sigh* and most this stems from a MAC rant and their retarded keynotes

That comic sets up a pretty weak straw man. I've got a 24 month, $45 (Australian) a month plan. I didn't pay a sign-up fee, and I'm only paying $5 more a month than I did for my Razr. $45 a month for a device I now feel completely naked without is a pretty good deal.

I agree with Andrew here. I like the idea if being connected to the Internet anywhere I go as well; ebooks, games, movie/game reviews for when I am buying. In fact, nearly all of my posts here since I got my iPhone have been made using it. It just improves my life situation. On another note, Penny Arcade has the price estimation way too high for a monthly plan with everything; I have the maximum plan with Rogers (which is supposed to be WAY overpriced) and I'm only paying $60 Canadian per month after tax.

There's just way too much offered, I also use my iPhone more than any other electronic device I currently own.

Why not make a rant against those people who get all the cable TV packages? There is what I call a huge waste of money.

It's ok Anarky, I agree with you in principle... smart phones for personal use are for the most part very retarded for most of the population and to a degree have turned into status symbols more than actual useful pieces of technology. It's called a laptop people, get one. Oh and I hope staring at that 4" screen all day makes you go blind.

I don't know about you guys, but the comic's exaggeration aside I still think $50+/month (US at least) for a cell phone is high to me. I notice you both also didn't argue against the $300-400 (back before the price drop) pricetag on a PHONE whose battery won't last you more than 3-4 years tops before you'll have to ditch it and get the next iphone for another 300 bones.

But hey, people can spend their money on what they want...

To each their own. I have a smartphone for personal use only and I couldn't live without it now. But I also didn't get it to have constant data connection. I just wanted a combined PDA/cell-phone/multimedia device that I could use to connect to the Internet if I was someplace with wi-fi. I've gotten a ton of use out of it because I use every one of its features (except its 3G capabilities).

Do most people probably need a device like the iPhone or my phone? Probably not. But there are plenty who can get a ton of use out of it.

My whole post about the comic was intended as an exaggeration leading in to how people spend money unwisely.

Like I said I know a lot of people who own smartphones or pay ridiculous premiums on things but at the same time have no savings and debt up their ass. Geek and Gadgets may be the new cool, but people really need to go back to saving some fucking dough in the bank.

And personally I don't think cellphones and smart phones are the best things in the world to begin with. I don't like the thought of receiving e-mail whenever I'm out or being disturbed. How many times have you guys been on dates when you or the date got a call or text, or even just hanging out with friends? Fucking annoying

And just out of curiosity I looked at AT&T and in my area, probably USA wide you have to have a $30.00 a month data plan, plus you have to chose you individual plan, the smallest starting at $39.99. That is not including iPhone text messaging plan yet...

Check for yourself

I have a Moto Q with 450 minutes, unlimited data, and unlimited text with Sprint for about $60 per month with taxes and fees. That includes my 18% discount I get because of my employer. If you work for a large company, always call to check if you get a discount. This includes retailers and services. Some other examples for me include the Dell Corporate Partners program and Best Buy.

You didn't need to give me even more ammo, but I do appreciate it :-)

Zeus wrote:You didn't need to give me even more ammo, but I do appreciate it :-)

For?

Louis wrote:I have a Moto Q with 450 minutes, unlimited data, and unlimited text with Sprint for about $60 per month with taxes and fees. That includes my 18% discount I get because of my employer. If you work for a large company, always call to check if you get a discount. This includes retailers and services. Some other examples for me include the Dell Corporate Partners program and Best Buy.

I hope your Moto Q is a newer model and its battery lasts longer than a day.. Lord I hated that phone. Actually I was lucky to get a day.

Anarky wrote:

Zeus wrote:You didn't need to give me even more ammo, but I do appreciate it :-)

For?

My rants against cell phones of any kind is well documented. And one of the main reasons is the insane costs

And we've pointed out that for some of us, a cell phone is cheaper than a landline.

Kupek wrote:And we've pointed out that for some of us, a cell phone is cheaper than a landline.

That is a given Kupek, but how does that justify dropping more than $80 a month on a cellphone plan. I had my buddy over tonight who has an iPhone and he agreed with the comic, he does indeed pay around $130 a month, and if you ask other people with an iPhone (in the US) they probably pay easily over $80 a month.

Anarky... Kupek was talking to Zeus's overall statement about the inanity of cell phones in general, not about yours.

The only phone I own is my company issued blackberry-- love the thing for work but hate it for personal use, but since I don't have to pay for it I won't complain. It's one thing to rant against overly expensive phones that half the people buy just cause they're cool, but if you are actually against cell phones in general then you're just being ignorant of technological progress.

Kupek wrote:And we've pointed out that for some of us, a cell phone is cheaper than a landline.

Cheaper? I seriously doubt that. You can get a basic land line for $20. Ain't so cell plan that cheap, at least not up here. It's more you need it for something and you can eliminate your land line, which is why it becomes worth it as the incremental costs of a cell over a land line are much less.

For a smaller portion of the population, that makes sense. But for the vast majority of cell phone users? No chance

No. When I had a landline, it was about $50 total for the simplest thing possible. I was charged $20 for the mere privilege of getting a dialtone.

I just checked Verizon's website, and for my area code, the "Verizon Local Package" is $35 a month. Add in long distance - which I need to be able to talk to family and friends - along with significant taxes and fees, and it's well above the $40 a month I pay for my cell phone.

Tessian wrote:It's one thing to rant against overly expensive phones that half the people buy just cause they're cool, but if you are actually against cell phones in general then you're just being ignorant of technological progress.

It's not a technological issue. I love technology. It's more of a socio-economic thing to me.

Basically any cellphone up here is expensive. It's extremely difficulty to use your cell for more than 100 minutes and have it run under $40 a month up here (thanks mostly to the bullshit "system activation fee" that is thankfully dying) for a 3-year contract. And if you go that cheap you're paying $100 min for the shit phone that barely works 'cause it's been repackaged for the last 6 years. It's a bit different when we pay twice as much as you guys down there and are one of the most expensive countries in the modern world for this type of service. There's a reason the CRTC (our FCC-equivalent) opened up the floodgates last year to the US companies to come up here.

FYI: my mother and sister have been through this for years. They've had cells for about a decade. I have first-hand knowledge of all this shit (I used to deal with all their issues) so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass. This last phone/contract my mom has had for the last 3 years or so is the first time she hasn't had insane issues. But her bill is still insane and you can only save so much by switching plans based on her usage.

The second main reason is the way people use cells. Lack of etiquette in many ways, not bothering to remember anything, no responsibility for stayin' in touch as needed, planning ahead is going the way of the dodo....it's fucking irritating. That's just as important as money to me if not more so.

Since my wife has been pregnant, I've actually been looking at plans so she has a way to get a hold of me in emergencies. And why I say emergencies, I mean a freakin' emergency not a "I want to talk to you right now just because" emergency. But it's been a lot of the issues my family goes through with their companies coupled with the social stuff and insane costs that have actually kept me from getting one myself. So I adjust. I make sure that before I'm unreachable for any length of time that my wife has an emergency contact (such as my mother who's home the majority of the time) or I just plan to be unreachable when she has my mother there to help her. I let her know where I am at all times and have an Excel file with all the phone numbers she could ever need.

We've survived quite well without being inconvenienced due to a lack of a cell. Just no reason to get one, really. At least not for my lifestyle. That might change in the future but right now? It just ain't worth it

Kupek wrote:No. When I had a landline, it was about $50 total for the simplest thing possible. I was charged $20 for the mere privilege of getting a dialtone.

I just checked Verizon's website, and for my area code, the "Verizon Local Package" is $35 a month. Add in long distance - which I need to be able to talk to family and friends - along with significant taxes and fees, and it's well above the $40 a month I pay for my cell phone.

Not up here. You can get a landline for $20 a month without needing internet, $15 if you do have it with the company

http://www.primustel.ca/en/residential/ ... ephone.htm

I pay $75 a month (before taxes; about $85 after) and I get unlimited long distance 24/7 to North America, a landline with 3 features, and unlimited high-speed internet (I think it's a 7MB connection, whatever Bell ffers; and no stupid cap limit thank GOD :-). So it looks like we beat you guys in pricing on at least one thing

I found another pet peeve I forgot to mention and it touches on Zeus's etiquette post.

People with cellphones under the age of 16, WTF! This is the most ludicrous thing and annoying. When I was on vacation this summer camping with friends, one of the families let their 8 year old have a cellphone with a plan and everything. I just could not fathom a good reason for it.

Shrinweck wrote:I hope your Moto Q is a newer model and its battery lasts longer than a day.. Lord I hated that phone. Actually I was lucky to get a day.

I used to only get about a day of use before the battery would go dead. I changed the interval that it checks my e-mail from fifteen minutes to one hour and I get about three days out of it before requiring a charge. I can't really complain though. I only paid $29.99 for it with a contract renewal.

Anarky wrote:I found another pet peeve I forgot to mention and it touches on Zeus's etiquette post.

People with cellphones under the age of 16, WTF! This is the most ludicrous thing and annoying. When I was on vacation this summer camping with friends, one of the families let their 8 year old have a cellphone with a plan and everything. I just could not fathom a good reason for it.

I think 8 is a bit young, but it all plays into the maturity of the kid. I would say high school is probably an ok time to give your kid a cell phone as long as it has limits imposed and such. You can't deny that it has become one of the biggest communication mechanisms because of texting and stuff like that. It's different from how it was when we were teenagers, but that doesn't make it wrong, just different.

If there's no problem with a 16 year old driving, working, or living on their own, then why have a problem with someone that age or any age younger owning a mobile phone?

Anarky wrote:People with cellphones under the age of 16, WTF!

Haha, man, you are a curmudgeon! As soon as you own a lawn you're going to be yelling at kids to get off it.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

Anarky wrote:People with cellphones under the age of 16, WTF!

Haha, man, you are a curmudgeon! As soon as you own a lawn you're going to be yelling at kids to get off it.

Just like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, you better believe it!

Anarky wrote:I found another pet peeve I forgot to mention and it touches on Zeus's etiquette post.

People with cellphones under the age of 16, WTF! This is the most ludicrous thing and annoying. When I was on vacation this summer camping with friends, one of the families let their 8 year old have a cellphone with a plan and everything. I just could not fathom a good reason for it.

I have to agree, kids outside of HS should NOT have phones. Or, if they do, they need those special kids phones like Kajeet sells. Those are configured to pretty much be solely usable to call your parents, not your friends. Cheaper too, and some of the advanced models I think act as a GPS locator too (although that's a whole separate issue).

Legend of The Seeker wrote:If there's no problem with a 16 year old driving, working, or living on their own, then why have a problem with someone that age or any age younger owning a mobile phone?

The problem is when they mix the cellphone with any of the things you mentioned above

Zeus wrote:

Legend of The Seeker wrote:If there's no problem with a 16 year old driving, working, or living on their own, then why have a problem with someone that age or any age younger owning a mobile phone?

The problem is when they mix the cellphone with any of the things you mentioned above

The point of my post is that those three things I mentioned are all much more serious responsibilities than a cell phone. Anyway, if cell phones were available in today's configurations back in 94, I would have found good use for one when I was 13.

I can imagine how annoying (more so) it must be to be a high school/junior high teacher now with every fucking kid under the sun having his/her own phone.

Blotus wrote:I can imagine how annoying (more so) it must be to be a high school/junior high teacher now with every fucking kid under the sun having his/her own phone.

All schools at this point have anti-cell phone policies. Some are pretty smart: If you're caught with a phone on during school it gets confiscated until your parent comes to pick it up and pay a small fee. Damn good way to make sure the kid stop doing it-- nothing parents hate more than wasting time and paying fees for their stupid children.


I find the whole issue of kids + technology being a major issue... how DO you raise kids around this stuff? We were all fortunate enough to be old enough before this stuff really took hold, but all technology: cell phones, computers, the internet, they're all very important to a kid's education and also very dangerous. I shudder to think about what kind of stupid ass dangerous shit some of us would have done if facebook and myspace and youtube existed back when we were in our early teens (or earlier). Parents have to maintain a careful balance and it's not easy.

I worked in education for a couple of years (alternative and elementary teacher). The district's policy (an independent public school district in a small, rural town) was that cell phones were permitted as long as they were not a disruption. You can have them and use them in between classes, but you may not use them during class. The reason this policy was put in place was because some parents argued to the school board that they would be beneficial in an emergency situation. This school district is an exception to the rule though.

If I recall correctly, the Kentucky State Legislature has attempted to pass laws pertaining to students possessing cell phones in schools but I don't think they ever became law. The legislature decided to leave it up to the school districts.

When I was in high school, you couldn't even get caught with a pager or you got a referral. They apparently thought that pagers were used strictly by drug dealers. That was honestly the logic behind the ban.

Emergency situations are a good reason to have cell phones in schools. If I were in charge, I'd allow them, but as soon as someone used it in class in any form, it'd be taken away and they'd have to get their parents to come in.

My mother's a teacher. I think it's understood most kids have phones, they just can't use them in class.

Legend of The Seeker wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Legend of The Seeker wrote:If there's no problem with a 16 year old driving, working, or living on their own, then why have a problem with someone that age or any age younger owning a mobile phone?

The problem is when they mix the cellphone with any of the things you mentioned above

The point of my post is that those three things I mentioned are all much more serious responsibilities than a cell phone. Anyway, if cell phones were available in today's configurations back in 94, I would have found good use for one when I was 13.

The problem is when you give too much responsibility to someone who doesn't really know how to handle it. Putting too many things together for these kids, many of whom can't even handle the responsibility of the stuff you put above, is not a good idea

Tessian wrote:I find the whole issue of kids + technology being a major issue... how DO you raise kids around this stuff? We were all fortunate enough to be old enough before this stuff really took hold, but all technology: cell phones, computers, the internet, they're all very important to a kid's education and also very dangerous. I shudder to think about what kind of stupid ass dangerous shit some of us would have done if facebook and myspace and youtube existed back when we were in our early teens (or earlier). Parents have to maintain a careful balance and it's not easy.

Simple: manners, etiquette, and basic awareness/responsibility to your fellow citizen. These have been lost from my generation and onwards - and from the generation before mostly too - but they're more important than ever now with the increased pressures and technologies that we face.

Problem really is: how do parents who don't have these basic social skills themselves teach them to their children? The pussification of society has left the vast majority of society without such skills

Lox wrote:When I was in high school, you couldn't even get caught with a pager or you got a referral. They apparently thought that pagers were used strictly by drug dealers. That was honestly the logic behind the ban.

Emergency situations are a good reason to have cell phones in schools. If I were in charge, I'd allow them, but as soon as someone used it in class in any form, it'd be taken away and they'd have to get their parents to come in.

Those are just morons making decisions when they know nothing. That's not logic.

It should be pretty simple: if a teacher hears a freakin' phone in the classroom in any way - it vibrates, rings, or someone's texting - that student gets a detention and a reprimand of some kind. Second offense is 3 to 5 detentions and a greater reprimand. Third offense is a week-long suspension. Fourth offense is a month-long suspension. Fifth offense is expulsion. I promise you they likely won't have the cellphone anymore after offense #3.

Outside of the classroom, inbetween periods, and for breaks, I don't see it as any different than walking down the street in a big city and using it. Same etiquette and social responsibility requirements. No reason to ban them really anywhere other than inside the classroom itself.

Zeus wrote:

Tessian wrote:I find the whole issue of kids + technology being a major issue... how DO you raise kids around this stuff? We were all fortunate enough to be old enough before this stuff really took hold, but all technology: cell phones, computers, the internet, they're all very important to a kid's education and also very dangerous. I shudder to think about what kind of stupid ass dangerous shit some of us would have done if facebook and myspace and youtube existed back when we were in our early teens (or earlier). Parents have to maintain a careful balance and it's not easy.

Simple: manners, etiquette, and basic awareness/responsibility to your fellow citizen. These have been lost from my generation and onwards - and from the generation before mostly too - but they're more important than ever now with the increased pressures and technologies that we face.

Problem really is: how do parents who don't have these basic social skills themselves teach them to their children? The pussification of society has left the vast majority of society without such skills

I agree Zeus, people have lost social etiquette when it comes to cell phones and usage. People with annoying ringtones that have very private conversations in public, its just bad.

A new rule I've established with dating is if the Cellphone comes out during a date I probably will never ask the girl out again. Maybe its harsh or the girls aren't that in to me, but fuck it if I'm going to blow money to be out with someone who isn't fully there.

Anarky wrote:People with annoying ringtones that have very private conversations in public, its just bad.

I always have my phone on vibrate. I can't remember the last time I actually had a ringer on. It always rings on the worst times. I just find it easier and less embarrassing.

Zeus wrote:
The problem is when you give too much responsibility to someone who doesn't really know how to handle it. Putting too many things together for these kids, many of whom can't even handle the responsibility of the stuff you put above, is not a good idea

What's your view on store clerks being allowed to sell games with graphic violence to kids again? Anyway, I just think there's a bit of an over-reaction here; while cell phones are something of the past couple of decades, old people being afraid of teenagers is not.

Anarky: on the date thing, that was one of my pet peeves as well. Only if it was an extended conversation though. A couple of years ago, a girl who I was going to go out with had the nerve to do a phonecall that was reaching about 10 minutes. I straight up told her to get off the phone or she can pay her own way; I then proceeded to lecture her on how rude that was. She agreed, apologized, a few minutes later she was texting people, I canceled the date after a rant. Though what pisses me off more is after getting home and she wants to check her email/msn or anything else like it; my rule on that, never have a computer turned on in the house when bringing her home =p.

Though, it's not like previous generations didn't have dating problems. Just listen to 80's Will Smith =P

Legend of The Seeker wrote:What's your view on store clerks being allowed to sell games with graphic violence to kids again?

Store clerks aren't those kids' parents. Big difference.

SineSwiper wrote:

Legend of The Seeker wrote:What's your view on store clerks being allowed to sell games with graphic violence to kids again?

Store clerks aren't those kids' parents. Big difference.

I worked for EBGames when I first went to college. At the time, store policy said that we just had to use common sense. The way I handled it was if the kid sounded mature enough when he requested the game, I went ahead and sold it. If the kid was not very mature when requesting the game, I denied the purchase. Personally, I'm against too strong of censorship. But yet I don't think a child should be exposed to inappropriate content before they are ready.

Legend of The Seeker wrote:

Zeus wrote:
The problem is when you give too much responsibility to someone who doesn't really know how to handle it. Putting too many things together for these kids, many of whom can't even handle the responsibility of the stuff you put above, is not a good idea

What's your view on store clerks being allowed to sell games with graphic violence to kids again? Anyway, I just think there's a bit of an over-reaction here; while cell phones are something of the past couple of decades, old people being afraid of teenagers is not.

Simple: M-rated I didn't sell to anyone under 18 without a parent. I also had movies in my store so I simply treated the M-rated games like R-rated movies. Same shit, different pile IMO. If the parent is there, you inform them of the content of the game and let them make the decision. If they accept it, it ain't your problem anymore.

It's not an over-reaction, there's actuallly a severe under-reaction in society 'cause you have just as many irresponsible, etiquette-less parents who ain't teachin' their kids jack shit. My issue isn't with technology, never has been. It's with societal norms that have developed over the last 10-15 years. And everyone just accepts it 'cause that's how they are too.

So you're ending up with 18 year-olds now that are less mature than 14 year-olds were only a couple of generations ago 'cause they've never been forced to grow up, to have real responsibility. Many never grow up at all (I'd equate it to the kitten- or puppy-like state that cats and dogs always stay in, but you probably wouldn't pay attention to the analogy; now that I think of it, am I wasting my time yet again?.....). My generation that's now having children is a big part of the problem. Society is set up to not force kids to mature with the pussification of society over the last couple of decades.

And it's not like you can convince these people that they're wrong. They think because everyone else around them thinks and acts the same that it's the right thing to do. Mass acceptance doesn't equate to being right. So when someone like me stands up and says "ya'll are fucking ridiculous and just dead wrong" you're treated as being just crazy or off the wall and ostracized simply for thinking differently. But that's human nature. History is littered with the ostracization of different-thinking people who eventually were proven correct years later.

Louis wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:

Legend of The Seeker wrote:What's your view on store clerks being allowed to sell games with graphic violence to kids again?

Store clerks aren't those kids' parents. Big difference.

I worked for EBGames when I first went to college. At the time, store policy said that we just had to use common sense. The way I handled it was if the kid sounded mature enough when he requested the game, I went ahead and sold it. If the kid was not very mature when requesting the game, I denied the purchase. Personally, I'm against too strong of censorship. But yet I don't think a child should be exposed to inappropriate content before they are ready.

Their official policy now is to treat them like movie ratings. Should always have been IMO

Zeus wrote:Their official policy now is to treat them like movie ratings. Should always have been IMO

Yeah, which is really fucking ass-backwards. Sure, we'll allow any kid watch R-rated stuff, but as soon as something like South Park comes up, it's "HOLY FUCKING SHIT! EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE CARDED!!!"

(A few other movies were like this, but I've forgot the examples. Oh, and nevermind that the MPAA rating system is totally fucked up.)