Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday June 1, 2010 @01:06AM from the would-you-like-an-apple-product-with-your-meal? dept.

OzPeter writes "Jetstar will start renting out of pre-loaded iPads as a form of inflight entertainment instead of the more typical seat back video system. No word in the article on how or if they will handle Wi-Fi connections, but interestingly it does mention that they will be usable during takeoff and landings — something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics."

152 of 198 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Aircraft electronics by Joce640k · 2010-06-01 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.
The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Aircraft electronics by EdZ · 2010-06-01 01:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
2. Re:Aircraft electronics by fotbr · 2010-06-01 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.
3. Re:Aircraft electronics by NoPantsJim · 2010-06-01 01:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, in a roundabout way, it does have to do with safety.
  
  Takeoff and landing are the times in flight most likely to result in an accident. If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.
  
  Most people in the aviation business know this is the real reason.
  
  --
  Name...That...Autocomplete!
4. Re:Aircraft electronics by calmofthestorm · 2010-06-01 01:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text. I find it ver yfrustartaing to be presented with a video to teach/explain something when simple text would do. Maybe hte reason those damn young ones on your lawn don't pay attention is because there's nothing useful being expressed.
  Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the speeds at which the planes are moving which is a reason to turn them off[line] (not like you're going to get good reception in a plane anyway)
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
5. Re:Aircraft electronics by pandrijeczko · 2010-06-01 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  I flew to Dubai on Emirates a few years ago, they had the seat-back screen entertainment systems with about 200 music albums, films and games loaded in.
  It was the only flight I have ever been on where they didn't mind you sticking the headphones on during taxi once the safety briefings had finished - it was kind of cool having "Back In Black" by AC/DC at full volume in my ears during take off. :-)
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
6. Re:Aircraft electronics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 01:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
  If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear. There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.
  As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?
7. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.
  Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.
  If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
8. Re:Aircraft electronics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 01:21 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Takeoff and landing are the times in flight most likely to result in an accident. If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.
  What about magazines, books, and newspapers then? I know that I am paying closer attention to what is going on around me with my MP3 player running than if I'm nose-buried in a book.
9. Re:Aircraft electronics by ThunderBird89 · 2010-06-01 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As if anyone these days needed the instructions: I'm pretty sure 99.999% of fliers are already familiar with the procedures, there's an illustrated card on the back of every seat, and people can pretty much rely on common sense.
  
  Not that any of that is worth shit when the plane plows into the ground at 160 kmph, and you have lim(0) chance of survival with or without having listened through the lecture.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
10. Re:Aircraft electronics by Altima(BoB) · 2010-06-01 01:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And if you build your own flying combat suit (perhaps with a red and gold color scheme...) you can listen to it every time you take off!
  
  --
  Yup...
11. Re:Aircraft electronics by fotbr · 2010-06-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.
12. Re:Aircraft electronics by jellomizer · 2010-06-01 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well you are more willing to let go and drop a book or a news paper then a piece of expensive electronics. If the plane is going in to a hard landing and you need to brace yourself you are more likely to drop a book or a paper and brace yourself... For a laptop or an expensive device you may put it away or keep it safe while you should be protecting your own neck.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
13. Re:Aircraft electronics by NoPantsJim · 2010-06-01 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Doesn't having music pumped into your ears kind of interfere with hearing audible safety instructions? Reading does not.
  
  --
  Name...That...Autocomplete!
14. Re:Aircraft electronics by RedLeg · 2010-06-01 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.
  The reasons have EVERYTHING to do with safety, just not the way most people think.
  The airlines and the FAA don't want passengers to be distracted or rows and aisles to be encumbered. Passengers need to be alert enough take direction from the aircrew (pilots + flight attendants) and free to maneuver in times of emergency. The most likely times for emergencies are during takeoffs and landings, hence the ban.
  It has nothing to with harmful interference with avionics, but with interrupting communications and encumbering maneuvering.
  Consider trying to get up and use the head from a window seat when the passengers in the row ahead have their seats reclined, and those on your row have tables down and laptops out. Add earphones in ears impeding hearing, and you get a mess in an emergency.
  Red
15. Re:Aircraft electronics by pandrijeczko · 2010-06-01 01:34 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Stop with the Iron Man associations already!!!
  The Iron Man movies weren't bad (from someone who's not really a fan of superhero movies except stuff written by Alan Moore) and it was kind of nice to see AC/DC get to do the soundtrack for IM 2 - but I'm in my 40s, not that much younger than Angus and the boys themselves, and really cannot be doing with standing amongst hordes of screaming kids with their parents at the next AC/DC concert just because they saw the movie.
  Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
16. Re:Aircraft electronics by YouWantFriesWithThat · 2010-06-01 01:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  i am not flying the plane.
  
  there is no amount of concentration on my part that is going to help when the plane banks sharply on take off, slams into the ground, and begins cartwheeling through a cornfield spewing burning jet fuel while rows of seats tear off the floor and fall out of holes in the plane.
  
  but if i could listen to music, at least i wouldn't have to hear everyone else screaming as i burned to death in an aluminum tube
17. Re:Aircraft electronics by butterflysrage · 2010-06-01 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  I'm able to pay quite a bit of attention to audio instructions with music playing... I have background music on damn near my whole waking day. While reading however I have to block out all my hearing so I don't get distracted from my book.
  If you have any links to studies that show that people are more able to remember/process audio cues while reading than while listening to a song I would be quite interested in seeing it.
  
  --
  the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
18. Re:Aircraft electronics by e2d2 · 2010-06-01 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  You sounds like an authority on the subject. What is your FAA AMT/AMTE certification# by the way? An ICAO equal will work too. I'd like to cite your expertise when I pull out my iPhone on the flight deck and start playing field runners.
19. Re:Aircraft electronics by vlm · 2010-06-01 01:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded.
  Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.
  No one takes low altitude sight seeing flights in a 747.
  Its not like the high power radio transmitter towers to the east of timmerman and north of mitchell airport in Milwaukee somehow magically know they are supposed to interfere with the light planes but not the big planes. Theres no little eyeball on the top of the tower.
  Light planes are pretty simple. You screw up the fuel management system on a major jetliner, you get big problems transferring fuel from tank 7 to tank 18 and weight and balance get all screwed up, now is engine 3 feeding out of tank 2 or is that cross connected to tank 9 again? In comparison, on the old 172 I flew in the 80s (eek) the fuel management system was an emergency shut off valve from the overhead tanks, a left/right/both tank selector switch, and an electric backup fuel pump with a circuit breaker and a switch. And a fuel gauge meter than was about 1/2 inch square and could not be read more accurately than "full, empty, or somewhere in between". It was so old it had a mechanical carb instead of a fuel injection system.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
20. Re:Aircraft electronics by NoPantsJim · 2010-06-01 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not all commercial aviation accidents rule out the possibility of survival.
  
  --
  Name...That...Autocomplete!
21. Re:Aircraft electronics by jittles · 2010-06-01 01:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's not entirely true. They do not allow them during takeoff and landings because these are the most dangerous parts of the flight. If there is some sort of emergency the last thing they (and I) want is the guy in the emergency exit row to miss some important instruction because he was too busy watching a movie.
  Sure these emergencies are rare and unlikely to happen but I don't mind reading the magazine in the seat pocket for 10-15 minutes just to be on the safe side.
22. Re:Aircraft electronics by Raven42rac · 2010-06-01 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  So they monetized it on their own, probably after testing it.
  
  --
  I hate sigs.
23. Re:Aircraft electronics by Skuld-Chan · 2010-06-01 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Plus anything that runs on magic doesn't interfere with aviation electronics anyhow.
24. Re:Aircraft electronics by icebrain · 2010-06-01 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, people are stupid, especially when faced with panic situations that they haven't trained for. Drivers reacting suddenly to a safety threat (like a person pulling out in front of them, road debris, etc.) will often distract themselves trying to save their drink or cellphone from flying off/out of whatever they're in rather than put both hands on the wheel and focus completely on the driving. People will run back into burning buildings or other dangerous areas to save common things. Airline passengers have been known to hold on to things or try and get their carryons with them during an evacuation.
  You don't want anything distracting people when they're trying to evacuate, whether it's keeping them from hearing instructions or putting something into their hands that they'll worry about when they shouldn't. And as others mentioned, having objects flying about in the cabin is a Bad Thing during turbulence or hard/"unplanned" landings. If the devices are off and put away, they can't do that.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
25. Re:Aircraft electronics by arielCo · 2010-06-01 02:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
  If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
  I guess the GP meant "too old to be properly shielded, modern enough to have lots of electronics", not a DC-3 ;). The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me the Boeing 737-400 started flying in 1985 and had a full glass cockpit.
  
  those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
  If anything, a PCB with discrete components has longer exposed copper (a requisite for EM induction) than an IC measuring 4x4 mm doing the same function. "They don't make them like they used to" is wholly untrue in this field.
  
  There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.
  They're hard to mess with from outside the cigar tube; they weren't designed to deal with random EMF inside it, other than their own.
  
  As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?
  Of course they're revising their safety standards, and they start with a popular device. Just to nitpick, the switching DC-DC converter in a laptop and the little inverter for the CCFL backlight can be some noisy buggers.
  
  --
  This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
26. Re:Aircraft electronics by AndrewNeo · 2010-06-01 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I've never had a problem wearing headphones with the on-flight audio system on any flight I've been on, inside the US.
27. Re:Aircraft electronics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 02:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?
  Of course it does. Remember, the iPad is magic. The ThinkPad/Palmcorder aren't.
  Very few airplanes are properly shielded against magic.
28. Re:Aircraft electronics by geminidomino · 2010-06-01 02:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Funny you should mention that card. I'm glad I already know the (not complicated) instructions since the completely wordless cards are actually harder to understand....
29. Re:Aircraft electronics by VendettaMF · 2010-06-01 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recall any recently (or indeed ever) where having earphones in and an mp3 player running at the time would have affected matters.
  Survival in a commercial airliner accident comes from two things.
  1. Pure dumb luck. Nothing else will have you alive and mobile after any significant incident.
  2. Being willing and physically able to trample/force your way clear when the wreckage stops moving. If you don't need to do this then it wasn't a significant accident (or you're nine years old and Dutch(See aspect 1, above)).
  
  --
  kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
30. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.
  You also are doing the inspection on VFR days, so if VOR gets screwed up it's not that big of a deal.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
31. Re:Aircraft electronics by NoPantsJim · 2010-06-01 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to claim that a person with music blasting in their ears can listen to a flight attendant more accurately and attentively than a person without music blasting in their ears?
  
  Sounds like you're trying to pick an argument. It's a little early for that, and I'm not interested.
  
  --
  Name...That...Autocomplete!
32. Re:Aircraft electronics by Lumpy · 2010-06-01 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Light aircraft that is not 50 years old also dont have a problem. I have done AV work at several of the Aircraft shops around here. Every one of them have told me that the phone and wifi myths are just that. Myths..
  Unless you are flying a 1958 Piper cub that has never had it's gear upgraded, you dont have a problem.
  Hell I have installed WIFI in Learjets that are 40 years old to support the Crestron 6X touchpanel to deal with the in flight entertainment.
  Their biggest gripe is Bluray players... needing a network connection for updates. The in flight 3G dont work at cruise altitude and they worry about a disc not playing because of updates needed.. Rich guys that own these are really whiney..
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
33. Re:Aircraft electronics by pandrijeczko · 2010-06-01 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's the difference - on UK flights, officially you can turn on MP3 players and computers when the seat belt lights go off after the aircraft has completed the steepest part of its climb. However, I normally start switching stuff on (without undoing my seatbelt) as soon as the attendants get up from their seats to start messing around with trolleys and none of them have ever said anything to me about it.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
34. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.
  Wait, you make a comment like that and you claim that YOU are the mature one?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
35. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.
  And if not, I'd want to know the name of the band that's so good that it can keep me distracted during a plane crash.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
36. Re:Aircraft electronics by stakovahflow · 2010-06-01 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Keep your AC/DC (or Metallica, for that matter), give me KMFDM, Ministry, or Thrill Kill Kult...
  But, really, what does this portion of the conversation have to do with aviation electronics? ...Oh, yeah... Iron Man...
  --Back to the subject: --
  I, personally, feel that, if you are in a small aircraft, maybe you shouldn't be using an ipod/ipad anyway...
  Generally, small electronics are more a nuisance than an electrical risk, and should, as such, be banned from any aircraft smaller than 25 passengers, if only for annoyance purposes...
  Just my $0.02...
  --Stak
  
  --
  Holy happy hippy crap!
37. Re:Aircraft electronics by pandrijeczko · 2010-06-01 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I said "old", not "mature" - and Metallicock are "Mastered As Puppets" by their corporate lords... plus all their "music" sounds like each band member is racing to finish each song first.
  There, out of my system now, switching back to "mature" mode...
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
38. Re:Aircraft electronics by nedlohs · 2010-06-01 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  And what if the guy in the emergency exit row missed some important instruction because he was too busy reading the magazine in the seat pocket?
  I say we staple the eyes of those in the emergency rows open, with some sort of spiked cage contraption to make sure they are always pointing their head at whatever it is that is so important.
39. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  I, personally, feel that, if you are in a small aircraft, maybe you shouldn't be using an ipod/ipad anyway...
  Generally, small electronics are more a nuisance than an electrical risk, and should, as such, be banned from any aircraft smaller than 25 passengers, if only for annoyance purposes...
  Maybe we shouldn't be so worried about what we feel other people should be doing with their own time?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
40. Re:Aircraft electronics by eharvill · 2010-06-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.
  If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.
  They should ban sleeping on planes as well... ;-)
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
41. Re:Aircraft electronics by jittles · 2010-06-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well at least his/her hearing is theoretically unimpaired while reading the magazine and they miss that important instruction. Life happens, you just have to make reasonable rules.
42. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe banned from cars as well.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
43. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 03:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That is because you weren't around when metal started little shit.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
44. Re:Aircraft electronics by rhsanborn · 2010-06-01 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Which is what I do during take-off and landing because I can't have my laptop out. The alternative is to read my paper book, which is strangely allowed while my e-reader isn't, nor are other hand-held electronics...
45. Re:Aircraft electronics by butterflysrage · 2010-06-01 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  no, I'm trying to ask for evidence of their standpoint that reading is less distracting then music at any volume. If you are so sure of your position then please provide proof.
  
  --
  the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
46. Re:Aircraft electronics by safetyinnumbers · 2010-06-01 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text.
  Some people's minds are verbal in nature, some work more visually. Some solve a problem with algebra, some solve the same problem with geometric diagrams. Having a card, demonstration and a video is probably going to get everyone.
  And the forced repetition is important for learning, too, to help you learn something you'll have to remember while panicking.
47. Re:Aircraft electronics by AppleTRON · 2010-06-01 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.
  The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.
  In fact, it has precisely everything to do with safety.
  
  A pilot once told me that while most electronic equipment doesn't interfere with the plane's systems, it prevents a passenger from devoting immediate and full attention to emergency protocol during the most dangerous times in the flight: takeoff and landing.
  
  In the event of an emergency during takeoff and landing (which are statistically most likely), the flight crew needs everyone's attention to ensure the emergency is handled readily.
  
  That, according to a commercial pilot, is the reason we must switch off portable electronic devices during takeoff and landing.
  
  --
  *AppleTRON*
48. Re:Aircraft electronics by ceoyoyo · 2010-06-01 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  The reason they normally don't allow any devices, not even headphones, on takeoff and landing has very much to do with safety. It's so in a crash there aren't any random gizmos flying around the cabin, you're paying attention in the event of a problem, you're not tied up in cords, and you can hear instructions.
49. Re:Aircraft electronics by AndrewNeo · 2010-06-01 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure it's the same here in the US - that when the seatbelt lights go off, you're allowed to use electronics again. What I was referring to is being able to use the armrest audio (not all planes seem to have this, anymore) during taxiing and takeoff, since it's built into the plane, which would still prohibit me from listening to the flight attendant's safety instructions (despite having heard it plenty of times before)
50. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  For a laptop or an expensive device you may put it away or keep it safe while you should be protecting your own neck.
  Call me a dick or whatever you want, but I am really ok with those people not making it.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
51. Re:Aircraft electronics by tlhIngan · 2010-06-01 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.
  The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.
  Not entirely true. There are documented cases where cellphones have caused navigational systems to lose lock - notably a Samsung phone caused the onboard GPS to lose lock, amongst other things. The following article has some research the IEEE did a few years ago to that effect. It's a bit dated given how far technology's advanced, but you can be sure the problem is still present given how many cellphones and how many models there are.
  http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed
  The more practical matter was to prevent a planeload of cellphones from DoS'ing the cellphone network because each cellphone can suddenly see towers across several states. Yes, the majority of the signal is aimed downwards, but short of parabolic dish antennas, all antennas have unwanted sidelobe radiation. Heck, I'm sure some terrorist group may be contemplating some illegally amplified cellphones flying across a city to effectively kill the cell network in the city as well as the surrounding region (and maybe even states).
  And light aircraft carry cellphones all the time. When you file a flight plan the briefer often asks if I'm carrying a cellphone. First, it may help in an emergency. Second, if you lose your radios or electrical system (common issue), you can still maintain communications with an airport tower (you're low enough that multiple towers isn't really an issue).
  One other interference issue is the aviation band is smack dab in the middle where it's easy to have unintentional radiators. Inflight systems know to avoid running any bus between 118-140MHz or so (which is an issue when you have DDR RAM running at 133MHz (266DDR), or LCD pixel clocks often rise somewhere in that area).
52. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  You don't want anything distracting people when they're trying to evacuate, whether it's keeping them from hearing instructions or putting something into their hands that they'll worry about when they shouldn't
  As I mentioned before I really do want people who put their laptop above their safety (even for a moment) to reap their rewards.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
53. Re:Aircraft electronics by queazocotal · 2010-06-01 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Tapping generation after generation?
  Isn't that why they went into rock?
54. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Try not to be an idiot. Nobody here was talking about distractions on the flight deck. Go back under your bridge troll.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
55. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  >
  I say we staple the eyes of those in the emergency rows open, with some sort of spiked cage contraption to make sure they are always pointing their head at whatever it is that is so important.
  No. But if that fuckers is sitting there confused when I get to the exit row I am gonna just pop him in the head an get on with it my damn self.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
56. Re:Aircraft electronics by kevmeister · 2010-06-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Folks, the claim that the issue is the inability to hear the flight attendants is a red herring.
  If you read the rules (at least on Southwest), noise suppression headphones (e.g. Bose Quiet Comfort) may be powered on at all times including take-off and landing.
  
  --
  Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
57. Re:Aircraft electronics by 5pp000 · 2010-06-01 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I distinctly recall that, in the days when analog cassette players were still around but digital devices had appeared, the instruction to turn off devices for takeoff and landing applied only to the digital ones -- use of cassette players was specifically allowed.
  
  --
  Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
58. Re:Aircraft electronics by MachineShedFred · 2010-06-01 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Video / speech might be slow, but when it's this broad doing the talking, I'm still gonna watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
59. Re:Aircraft electronics by MachineShedFred · 2010-06-01 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Further, I can't believe that they would confiscate nail clippers and bottles of mouthwash larger than 6 oz. at the gate, but let you bring on an electronic device that you bought at Radio Shack that can cause the avionics to fly you right into a mountain.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
60. Re:Aircraft electronics by paeanblack · 2010-06-01 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments.
  The real problem is that a cellphone at 10,000ft over an urban area can see a crapton of cell towers. The system wasn't originally designed to have one phone talking to 500 towers while moving at 450 knots. That the inter-cell traffic to constantly hand off that phone and coordinate everything put a huge strain on the system.
  Also, the airlines didn't want cellphones competing with their existing Airphone at $5/minute.
  The 1991 cellphone ban on airplanes had little to do with safety...it was about technical limitations and price gouging. Selling the ban as "for safety reasons" was just the easiest way to get everyone to comply and to speak up if their rowmate broke the rules.
  Nowadays, the cell system is far more robust, and phones at altitude aren't so disruptive. The Airphone is mostly dead. Congress is looking into relaxing the ban. People are also realizing that thousands of cellphones get used on planes every day, either intentionally or accidentally left on, and thousands of planes aren't crashing every day.
  The biggest resistance to lifting the ban now is that people don't want to sit next to someone screaming into a cellphone for several hours.
61. Re:Aircraft electronics by icebrain · 2010-06-01 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  fuel management system... fuel gauge... mechanical carb
  That is still a fitting description of the vast majority of light airplanes today, as most of the fleet is rather old and hasn't changed much since the 70s. Newer (read expensive) light aircraft often have fancy avionics and instruments, but the engines and most other systems are still generally at a 1930s or 1940s tech level.
  The biggest cause is liability and lawyers; manufacturers have been burned too many times by stupid lawsuits, like the one where a non-instrument-rated pilot knowingly took off into IMC (low visibility), got disoriented, and crashed; family sued the manufacturer (and won several millions) on the grounds that said manufacturer failed to train the pilot for that--even though it's not their responsibility, and more to the point, as just a private pilot without an IR, he has been specifically instructed and trained to not fly into such weather! The rough equivalent would be a freshly-licensed teenager driving a new Accord off the lot in the middle of a thunderstorm, losing control, and crashing... then saying that it's Honda's fault because they didn't teach him to drive in bad weather.
  They've also been sued for "faulty designs" after an improperly-maintained engine fails due to poor maintenance or improper operation. Older designs have been around a while (proving themselves, at least to the public), and some were exempted from liability suits. Ergo, manufacturers are very hesitant to introduce something new for light airplanes because it exposes them to frivolous lawsuits.
  It doesn't help that the light aircraft market is small and certification standards are overly strict (requiring lots of paperwork, which means time manpower and money), being geared for corporate jets and airliners instead of light piston singles. You wind up with a market where an "affordable" day VFR airplane costs as much as a house, and a decent traveling one as much as two houses.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
62. Re:Aircraft electronics by e2d2 · 2010-06-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Pointing out that the OP was unqualified to make such statements is IMHO completely okay. So fuck you if you don't like it bitch. WTF you gonna do about it besides calling me a troll? Nothing oh yeah this is the fucking internet. Nothing. So fuck you.
63. Re:Aircraft electronics by e2d2 · 2010-06-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit you will. I'd crack your fucking head wide open and laugh you fucking limp dick bitch. Fucking nerd hiding behind a keyboard gonna be a big man. I'd like to fist fuck your face to put you in your place.
  How's that for trolling mafucka?
64. Re:Aircraft electronics by e2d2 · 2010-06-01 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also I wasn't talking about distractions on the flight deck asshole. I was talking about interference with avionics. Can you prove they don't interfere? Oh yeah you can't All you can do is read a fucking article on the internet. You can every other arm-chair expert on this board. You fucking know it all huh. Well riddle me this Edward Nigma - is there a Faraday cage around the cabin or something? No? Well I guess it could effect the flight deck then huh? Turns out I actually did have a valid point and you are the fucking troll.
65. Re:Aircraft electronics by swb · 2010-06-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  If there's an emergency and the guy in the exit row is doing *anything* other than opening the emergency hatch and exiting the plane I will be climbing over him to do his "job" for him, up to and including disabling him, so I can exit the plane.
  But let's face it, the "exit" row is really there because it has to be and so the airline can upcharge people who sit there for the precious inch or two of extra leg room. Otherwise the FAA would require the seats to actually be filled by physically fit people between the ages of 21-50. When I get in the exit row and see my fellow passengers in that row are petite women, old people or obese people I always wonder how they'll pop the exit.
  What's really amusing is that they require the extra room because it is an emergency exit, but apparently that extra room isn't required to get out of the middle or window seats in all the other seating aisles.
66. Re:Aircraft electronics by Virtucon · 2010-06-01 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  NO, there are are certain frequencies and radiation levels that can affect aircraft avionics. Especially the flight control (Nav) and communications system. The latter being the most important so the assertion that these won't cause interference is a mute point.
  Published 3/15/10 in FAA AC 20-164, an advisory circular that the FAA published around the whole certification and use process around Portable Electronic Devices. I was in the field, so going through all of these documents is mandatory before you allow something to be used on-board an aircraft. It's available here: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-164.pdf
  In general, the FAA does require, as stated below, that during takeoff, taxi and landing PEDS have restrictions on use. It would be up to the airline, the device maker and the certification process to vet when these PEDs can therefore be used and approved by the FAA. Given that it's difficult enough for a flight crew to prepare for takeoff/landing, just asking everything to be "shut off" will most likely be the norm for quite awhile. On most flights now, FAs are now demanding "complete off" not "Airplane Mode" either on PEDS. Even AirCell (GoGo) has automatic features that disable and enable the service at around FL 10000.
  "Use of RTCA/DO-294C Guidance by Aircraft Operators. RTCA/DO-294C, Guidance on
  Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices, dated December 16, 2008, describes how
  aircraft operators can show whether using PEDs on board aircraft is acceptable. The aircraft
  operators may use RTCA/DO-294C for operational assessment of potential interference from a
  particular transmitting portable electronic device type, such as cell phones. RTCA/DO-294C
  methods would generally allow approval of a specific transmitting PED type for a particular
  operator on a particular aircraft type and model only. The FAA would generally require
  restrictions during taxi, takeoff and landing. Therefore, RTCA/DO-294C is not suitable for
  demonstrating aircraft tolerance to all types of PEDs.
  "
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
67. Re:Aircraft electronics by GlassHeart · 2010-06-01 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the speeds at which the planes are moving
  The other reason is that frequencies are reused, so that geographically-separate cells can assign the same frequency to different phone calls. When you're on a plane and your phone's transmission can be received in many cells, you risk interfering with another call if the frequency assigned to you is also concurrently assigned by another cell to another phone.
68. Re:Aircraft electronics by Voyager529 · 2010-06-01 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  As if anyone these days needed the instructions: I'm pretty sure 99.999% of fliers are already familiar with the procedures, there's an illustrated card on the back of every seat, and people can pretty much rely on common sense.
  Not that any of that is worth shit when the plane plows into the ground at 160 kmph, and you have lim(0) chance of survival with or without having listened through the lecture.
  If you're confused...George Carlin summed it up better than every flight attendant I've ever heard...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagVklB4VHQ
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKciefHo38&feature=related
69. Re:Aircraft electronics by tompaulco · 2010-06-01 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  You also are doing the inspection on VFR days, so if VOR gets screwed up it's not that big of a deal.
  How about if you have a fancy new glass cockpit and your MFD goes out due to interference?
  The truth of the matter is, there is very little possibility of interference in most any modern gadget, and much more possibility that if there was an accident, the gadget would become a projectile. But they don't exactly want to go declaring that fact at the beginning of every flight, now do they?
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
70. Re:Aircraft electronics by tompaulco · 2010-06-01 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  The rough equivalent would be a freshly-licensed teenager driving a new Accord off the lot in the middle of a thunderstorm, losing control, and crashing... then saying that it's Honda's fault because they didn't teach him to drive in bad weather.
  I disagree. He's at leased licensed to drive a car. It's more like a freshly-licensed teenager driving a new Peterbilt with a 48 foot trailer and crashing that, and then suing Peterbilt because they didn't teach him to drive a fully loaded semi truck.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
71. Re:Aircraft electronics by horatio · 2010-06-01 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just about paying attention to the briefing. It *is* about safety. The most dangerous part of any flight is taxi, takeoff, and landing. The flight attendants, despite popular conception, are there first and primarily for your safety, not to serve you a drink. The don't want your iPod jammed in your ears so that that if something goes wrong, you can actually hear and follow the instructions. Being stuffed into a small metal tube with thousands of pounds of jet fuel all around you isn't just about you - it is also about you moving your ass so you're not preventing other people from also exiting in a timely and orderly fashion.
  
  The fact that something is wrong or about to go very wrong isn't always as obvious as a big ball of flames - and may not be at all evident to the un-trained passenger - which is why your two ears need to be available during these phases of flight.
  
  The airline in the story is .au. I will grant you, the FAA regs do lag a little bit. Kindles, like anything else w/ an on/off switch, are not permitted under FL010 (10,000 feet).
  
  --
  There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
72. Re:Aircraft electronics by oldspewey · 2010-06-01 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  pay attention to the crew
  How many times should I watch the same safety demonstration in order to satisfy your requirements? If I fly the exact same airline, with the exact same flight numbers, between the exact same two cities, on the exact same weekdays, at the exact same times, often with the exact same crew, and I do this for six weeks in a row, do I still need to rivet my attention on the oxygen mask demonstration during week seven?
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
73. Re:Aircraft electronics by vlm · 2010-06-01 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  if VOR gets screwed up
  And....... it doesn't.
  Its another application where people don't understand the inverse square law, no matter how many times its explained, much like the bee vs cell phones article. And even my slowpoke Cessna 172 flew about 2 miles a minute.
  The power level needed to knock out instruments for a minute is staggering, in theory. In practice, looking at the actual specs of air force ECM machinery, it is in practice staggering.
  Turning the entire HV power line into a spark gap transmitter might screw stuff up for a couple hundred feet range, maybe.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
74. Re:Aircraft electronics by thesandtiger · 2010-06-01 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  The solution to people screaming into their cellphones on planes is clear:
  Make a separate compartment on the plane. In one compartment fly individuals without children. In the other compartment fly individuals with children and people who want to use their cellphones. Install massive sound dampening between the compartments. Charge people in the "quiet" compartment $25 to fly in peace, charge people in the "loud" compartment $25 to be able to use their phones. Charge people who wish to go from one compartment to the other $15 per time through the (very solid) door between the two compartments.
  Everybody gets what they want and the airlines can make more money. Yay?
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
75. Re:Aircraft electronics by thesandtiger · 2010-06-01 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.
  You also are doing the inspection on VFR days, so if VOR gets screwed up it's not that big of a deal.
  So you're saying it's not a BFD if the VOR gets FUBAR? Sounds like something that should be in TFM, but IANAP, so YMMV.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
76. Re:Aircraft electronics by vlm · 2010-06-01 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  VFR = visual flight rules. AKA "top gun" time. Keep your eyes out the window at all times. An instrument failure is irrelevant because you are not using your instruments. You know where you are because you keep your eyes out the window at all times. In practice you're going to glance at the altimeter on occasion.
  VOR is a semi-ancient VHF navigation system sandwiched above the FM radio band and below the 2M ham band, public safety scanner band, and over the air TV channels 7-13. It gets interference about as often as your FM car radio, aka about never. Theres a beam antenna that spins around constantly like every second transmitting continuously, and a vertical omnidirectional antenna that transmits an itty bitty beep every time the rotating one swings by magnetic north (or was it geographic north?). Anyway it is no great electronic or mechanical accomplishment to figure out the "radial" you are currently located on. You have a handy dandy chart that shows where each VOR is located and it's frequency. So, draw a line outward from that one at 45 degrees, another line outward from this one at 270 degrees, and another one outward from that one at 90 degrees and the hopefully your airplane is inside the itty bitty little triangle formed by those lines. Innumerable "victor airways" exist between VORs... Fly a course of about 90 degrees outbound from "badger vor" on radial 90 and you'll intersect timmerman airport when you pass radial 0 from ... I don't remember. Most planes have two sets to enable easy triangulation. Most (major) airports have a VOR on the premises.
  So his argument is you do a visual inspection of aerial fiber or electric high voltage lines when ... you can see the wires ... so if the navigation instruments are interfered with, who really cares, because by definition the whole point of the flight was to be able to see where you're going... If you're doing a visual inspection by flying in the clouds or fog, you're doin it wrong.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
77. Re:Aircraft electronics by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  And....... it doesn't.
  Its another application where people don't understand the inverse square law, no matter how many times its explained, much like the bee vs cell phones article. And even my slowpoke Cessna 172 flew about 2 miles a minute.
  The power level needed to knock out instruments for a minute is staggering, in theory. In practice, looking at the actual specs of air force ECM machinery, it is in practice staggering.
  Turning the entire HV power line into a spark gap transmitter might screw stuff up for a couple hundred feet range, maybe.
  I'm not talking about you keying up a phone and having your instrumentation crap out, I'm talking about having someone use a knockoff phone and shift your needle 1/2 a degree. I'm talking about that piece of cheap non-flight critical equipment that resets when someone keys a P25 radio (Don't worry, we caught that, but the test house they used missed it on the original pass)
  These aren't things that would cause a plane to fall out of the sky, not by a longshot, but they are things that you generally want to minimize. There are so many pieces of consumer electronics coming to market each year that it simply isn't possible to test how they all would behave on an aircraft. So we say to ourselves, "It probably won't do anything, but why don't we just be a little cautious and take a 10 minute break from using our electronic devices".
  If only to keep the pilot from having to ask something twice as a cheap transmitter steps on a transmission.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
78. Re:Aircraft electronics by tompaulco · 2010-06-01 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you are flying a 1958 Piper cub that has never had it's gear upgraded, you dont have a problem.
  And if you are flying a 1958 Piper Cub that has never had its gear upgraded, then you are running steam gauges and still don't have a problem. Worst case, it interferes a little with the radio.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
79. Re:Aircraft electronics by JimBobJoe · 2010-06-01 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  but if i could listen to music, at least i wouldn't have to hear everyone else screaming as i burned to death in an aluminum tube
  Your description ("begins cartwheeling through a cornfield) was likely a direct reference to United Airlines 232.
  I've remember reading an article about that crash. At the time the aircraft was upside down and started cartwheeling, passengers said that there was no screaming. At that point, passengers had accepted that they were going to die and were at peace with it.
  Many survived of course, but I thought that was an interesting footnote to your post.
80. Re:Aircraft electronics by YouWantFriesWithThat · 2010-06-01 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  nice catch, it was a reference to that particular crash.
81. Re:Aircraft electronics by fractoid · 2010-06-01 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  If there's an accident, any unsecured passenger becomes a projectile too. I'm not sure I'd rather be hit by a terrified granny than by a gameboy.
  
  There were a couple of cases of very early instrument landing systems and soforth being interfered with by gameboys, and so they instituted a blanket ban on electronics in planes, then reduced it to a ban during takeoff and landing (where you don't have a couple of minutes to run up and down the aisle screaming "turn that thing the fuck off" before you hit the ground). Generally people can live without their gadgetty-doos during the half hour at the start and end of the flight, and so no-one really bothers to do the huge amount of work required to compile a list of "safe" devices. It's just easier to say "keep your elbows and knees inside the plane". The cellphone ban is exactly what was said earlier, that being on a plane puts you in LoS of a large and rapidly changing number of phone towers and confuses the GSM network. I dunno how well 3G handles it. Aren't some modern planes starting to run their own GSM towers inside the plane anyway?
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
82. Re:Aircraft electronics by TBoon · 2010-06-01 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  But do you want them to block the escape routes for the rest of us?
83. Re:Aircraft electronics by ptbarnett · 2010-06-01 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Theres a beam antenna that spins around constantly like every second transmitting continuously, and a vertical omnidirectional antenna that transmits an itty bitty beep every time the rotating one swings by magnetic north (or was it geographic north?).
  A slight correction: the original VOR transmitter used mechanical rotation of a directional antenna. Current installations use an antenna array and rotates the signal electronically. The rotation occurs 30 times per second.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range#Operation
  The transition from mechanical to electronic rotation was a bit more complicated -- see the Discussion page on Wikipedia for the details.
84. Re:Aircraft electronics by momerath2003 · 2010-06-02 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  If this is the case, why don't they ban the use of earplugs and books during takeoff/landing?
  
  --
  I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
85. Re:Aircraft electronics by Man+Eating+Duck · 2010-06-02 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.
  Absolutely true. I was on a flight with Ryanair, the aircraft had a ridiculously expensive cell tower on board. Suddenly it was not only acceptable to switch on your phone in online mode and make calls, they also ran commercials for it frequently during the flight. On other flights they don't allow you to turn your on phone even in offline mode. I guess they want you to be bored so that you'll buy some of the crap they're peddling except when the crap consists of expensive calls on your own phone.
  Citation
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
86. Re:Aircraft electronics by Dishevel · 2010-06-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  You are so right. I would patiently wait for his confusion to end so we could all exit calmly.
  and, ummm, What is a mafucka? Is that what what your mothers "boyfriends" called you whilst fucking you in the ass?
  How is that for flamebait Motherfucker?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is sa by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-01 01:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.
And will the standard rates apply? by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 01:14 · Score: 1

I just have to wonder if the standard rates for 'luxury-IT' will apply. You know the rates, they are so high that for physical items, you are reaching the point where you can just buy the item at retail and then sell it on Ebay and still do better. The price for 'consumable' services will be so high that even though they have scared off most of their potential customers, that one guy who either doesn't care, or has to buy it makes up the cost for the hundreds who were driven off by the price.
Yes, I'm also talking about you Marriott, and your $14/day internet access charges. For anything more than a week I could go buy a data card and plan from a cell carrier.
Perhaps I'm just a bit bitter, but I am getting damned tired of people pricing 'IT' services in the same tier as high end luxury goods.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
1. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by calmofthestorm · 2010-06-01 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I intend to get a smartphone with a cheap, low-throughput data plan and then tether for internet when traveling.
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
2. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by pandrijeczko · 2010-06-01 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a problem when the kids start screaming because they cannot play the same Flash games on it that they can on their home PC!
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
3. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by Cwix · 2010-06-01 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  They got real upset when they tried to play their 360 games in the ps3. I think the point of the device is to be preloaded with games and the such, Im sure they could find something entertaining. Anyways, the ipad will be for daddy, the kids can read a damn book. BTW Im not an apple fanboi, ive just been on a few long flights, like nonstop from atlanta to anchorage. I would have gladly rented an ipad to keep me entertained on the long flights.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
4. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Great plan. I'm sure you'll get a great cell signal at 30,000 feet over the middle of an ocean.
  What the hell kind of kickass hotel are you staying at that flys at 30k feet ASL?
  Hint: He might have been planning an alternative to Marriott's high data rates.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
5. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by xaxa · 2010-06-01 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  On Sunday EasyJet offered to loan me a PSP for the flight -- I think it was about £8.
  That wouldn't be unreasonable on a several-hundred-dollar flight (says the AC above, anyway), but when the flight is only £40 and a couple of hours I'll just doze or stare out of the window. (And look forward to food at home, since a sandwich was also £8.)
6. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by sp0tter · 2010-06-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  this is exactly what I have done. I am using it now actually. You dont even need a real smartphone, I use a samsung impulse. You DO need to run ubuntu (10.4 works best) and have bluetooth on your netbook and phone. Then you just install bluetooth-manager and it is just a wizard away. I can even create a wifi hotspot to let my friends on. This works so well and I am now so dependent on it that I no longer have the choice to go back to windows(as if I EVER would) There is just nothing that compares to this on windows.
  
  --
  you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
7. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by hawaiian717 · 2010-06-01 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  The first class suite aboard a Singapore Airlines A380, perhaps?
  
  --
  End of Line.
8. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-02 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  this is exactly what I have done. I am using it now actually. You dont even need a real smartphone, I use a samsung impulse. You DO need to run ubuntu (10.4 works best) and have bluetooth on your netbook and phone. Then you just install bluetooth-manager and it is just a wizard away. I can even create a wifi hotspot to let my friends on. This works so well and I am now so dependent on it that I no longer have the choice to go back to windows(as if I EVER would) There is just nothing that compares to this on windows.
  What are you talking about? I do that right now using XP with my phone tethered via bluetooth. Although I also do it via 802.11 or usb.
  Then again, I have years more experience with Windows, and got tired of having to tweak so much with Linux. I suppose if I had similar levels of experience with Ubuntu it might be easier for me there, but to imply that you can't do that on Windows just seems fanboyish.
  Or am I doing something impossible? If so, I guess I might as well round it off at Milliways.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
9. Re:And will the standard rates apply? by sp0tter · 2010-06-03 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  I probably am a fanboi. I was unaware this was possible with Windows, what software is required?
  
  In any case, no fiddling is required to get this to work. You do not even have to touch the keyboard once bluetooth-manager is installed. Works with every phone that I have tried without additional drivers.
  
  --
  you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
LOL by rock_climbing_guy · 2010-06-01 01:14 · Score: 1

I parsed that as
Rent an iPad For Infant Entertainment

--
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Same poop, different bucket by namdanog · 2010-06-01 01:16 · Score: 1

Jetstar have been offering this kind of service for ages now, albeit on a rather more cumbersome piece of equipment than the swishy iPad. It's an interesting and effective way of monetising on-board entertainment services. The only problem is they don't have one for every passenger, so you might be out of luck if you're stuck at the back of the plane!
Not on UK airlines they won't by gb7djk · 2010-06-01 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered. It *is* true that in pre CE certification days, certain mobile equipment did have some unfortunate spurii, but CE testing got rid of all of them decades ago. Which means that we are left with either a) the cabin crew need to demonstrate who's boss or b) the airlines don't want equipment flying about if there is any nasty tail waving or bumps during take off or landing.
1. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by Overzeetop · 2010-06-01 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  So does the US, afaik. I wonder how this will play with the "everything must be stowed during take off and landing to prevent your hiding a bomb in your lap" directive in the US.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
2. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by fustakrakich · 2010-06-01 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  The crew doesn't want to be caught on tape doing something stupid..
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by Chardish · 2010-06-01 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Delicate navigation equipment?" Yeah, right. Would you feel comfortable piloting an aircraft that could be turned around or taken down by an 8-year-old kid's Nintendo DS?
4. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by xaxa · 2010-06-01 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing.
  They also ban having the window blind shut, your seat tray table lowered, your seat reclined, talking during the safety demonstration, having the cabin lights on during take-off or landing when it's dark, and probably loads of other things that I'm not really aware of (as a passenger).
  Not all safety considerations are technical.
5. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by Mr_Silver · 2010-06-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered.
  Not to mention that if a turned on piece of electrical equipment could bring down a plane, it would instantly become a banned item and you've have to pack it in the hold.
  
  --
  Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
6. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by Jeng · 2010-06-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's just all about safety.
  Instead of having half the plane full of people chatting on their phones on take-off the airline would prefer them praying for their lives.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7. Re:Not on UK airlines they won't by icebrain · 2010-06-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Trays and seats "upright and locked" is so that they're out of the way if you have to evacuate.
  Not talking during the demo is so others (who may not be frequent fliers) can hear.
  Window shades open for taxi, takeoff, and landing is so that the flight attendants can see what's going on outside if there's an emergency, and can decide whether or not to evacuate (or which side to evac on in case of fire, bad terrain, etc).
  Lights off at night is for the same reason; you want your night vision intact if you have to evacuate.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Already rent out entertainment units by Chuck+Chunder · 2010-06-01 01:22 · Score: 1

Jetstar (and other budget airlines) already rent out entertainment units rather than having in seat units.

I highly doubt that the devices will be used during take off and landing, not least because the cabin crew won't have time to distribute them until after take off and will collect them before landing.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Re:daily tampon story? by quantumplacet · 2010-06-01 01:27 · Score: 5, Funny

If you want to troll, try harder. Here's a hint, tampons aren't pads, they're cylindrical. You did however do a nice job of proving beyond any doubt that you've never had a girlfriend.
Good marketing by Petron · 2010-06-01 01:32 · Score: 1

This would put product in the hands of quite a few potential buyers, this would be a smart move by Apple. As for Wi-Fi, last two flights I've been on had in-flight Wi-Fi connections (Both with Delta/Norwest)

As for the ipad... I'm still waiting for somebody else. iPad seems to be much to limited for what I want it to do. I want a productivity/viewing device, not just a viewing device.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
In case of a crash... by Alwin+Henseler · 2010-06-01 01:35 · Score: 2, Funny

If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.
Not important... the point is this: if your plane crashes and rescue workers are sorting through the debris & body parts, would you want to be found with an airplane seat stuck in your skull, or with an iPad stuck in your skull?
Keeping in mind that the reality distortion field surrounding an Apple product makes anyone look cooler, the choice is clear: you'll look better with a iPad stuck in your skull. That $10 premium looks like a small price to pay for the privilige, doesn't it? (Apple fanboy or not). On top of that: no worries on compensating the full iPad's price in case it gets damaged in such a crash - you just can't go wrong here!
1. Re:In case of a crash... by oldspewey · 2010-06-01 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  an iPad stuck in your skull
  Is this some kind of Jobsian mindmeld?
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:daily tampon story? by OzPeter · 2010-06-01 01:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

seriously enough with the tampon stories.
The funny thing is that I submitted this partly on the basis of seeing how fast an iStory would be accepted. My previous submissions have always seemed to languish around for a significant amount of time before being accepted or rejected (especially rejected), yet this one was accepted within 12 hours of submission.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:daily tampon story? by fustakrakich · 2010-06-01 01:43 · Score: 3, Funny

...they're cylindrical.
I guess he should've posted here then..

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just more stupid iHype by jedidiah · 2010-06-01 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Airliners already have very robust inflight DVR systems that make something like a stuffed 500G Archos moot. Throwing an iPad into the mix doesn't really add anything. If this sort of rental would be seen as anything as redundant then the airline in question is already far behind the curve. I'm not sure I would trust them to get the content end of things right with the iPad.
This sounds like a lame marketing stunt.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1. Re:Just more stupid iHype by LynnwoodRooster · 2010-06-01 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, are you that mythical person that actually LIKES the music and movie selection aboard airplanes? I suppose next you're going to tell us the food is fine cuisine and the seats are spacious!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
2. Re:Just more stupid iHype by xaxa · 2010-06-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Cheap airlines (round here, anyway) have as little equipment on the plane as necessary -- presumably to save weight (and hence money). There's no entertainment system. Ryanair doesn't even have an in-flight magazines, or a seat pocket -- the safety information is instead printed on a sticker on the seat in front.
  Some (e.g. EasyJet) already rent out PSPs for games or films.
3. Re:Just more stupid iHype by jonwil · 2010-06-01 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  This is a low cost carrier that doesn't have an inbuilt entertainment system.
  Many low cost carriers are using portable gadgets as entertainment rather than installing inbuilt systems as its cheaper to do that. (mainly because it also allows them to charge money for the entertainment more easily than with built-in systems)
  Although I know of one low cost carrier that has installed individual seat back TV screens with credit card readers and you can buy access to a number of different channels from a local pay TV provider (with the signals comming over a sattelite dish somehow I would assume)
4. Re:Just more stupid iHype by Requiem18th · 2010-06-01 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed it's a marketing stunt, any sane people would rather have their own equipment back.
  There are already cheaper touch enabled netbooks with real keyboards and all, this is indeed another case of "Less space than a nomad".
  The iPad might be an inferior product but that won't stop Apple to shove it into everybodies hype spot.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
5. Re:Just more stupid iHype by hawaiian717 · 2010-06-01 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, live TV on an airplane (as opposed to pre-recorded content) is via satellite. The satellite receiver is a round unit mounted on the top of the fuselage, as seen here: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Frontier-Airlines/Airbus-A319-111/1686613/L/
  
  --
  End of Line.
6. Re:Just more stupid iHype by JimBobJoe · 2010-06-01 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Airliners already have very robust inflight DVR systems
  Eh, some are ok. Some are notoriously troublesome. All of them are heavy, expensive, require substantial wiring, and when problems occur, they tend to take down all the seat screens.
  I'd be astounded if those systems are less than $800/seat installation.
  Hell, a built in iPad would be the way to go if I were running an airline. Relatively inexpensive, flexible, light weight, swap it out if something's wrong.
7. Re:Just more stupid iHype by ekhben · 2010-06-01 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Jetstar is an extremely budget airline. I flew Jetstar to Japan last year; nine hours overnight, ticket price excludes luggage, meals, blankets, and entertainment device. Entertainment device currently means about an 8" screen heavy brick with a handful of old movies, budget sitcoms, and cheap games.
  Qantas, the more expensive, dare I say "premium" airline that owns and operates the Jetstar subsidiary, has an in-seat entertainment system on international flights. Of the eight flights I've made on Qantas airplanes in the past two years, six of them have featured several hours to the whole flight with the entertainment system being down or only able to show a reduced content because it's unable to scale to demand. Two were on the A380; one was just fine, the other I have a photo of the boot-up sequence, which I got to see several times.
8. Re:Just more stupid iHype by ktappe · 2010-06-02 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  To the misguided person who modded this "flamebait", please feel free to explain how the word "lame" is not subjective, and why it's wrong to tell someone who thinks the iPad is "lame" to go read non-iPad stories.
  Certain people should not be given moderator points.
  
  --
  "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
9. Re:Just more stupid iHype by jedidiah · 2010-06-04 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should stop flying the airline that makes you pay to use the bathroom.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
oddball by Beer_Smurf · 2010-06-01 01:47 · Score: 1

Actually there is a reason.
No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.
1. Re:oddball by ktappe · 2010-06-01 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually there is a reason [for turning off electronics during takeoff & landing]
  No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
  But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
  Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.
  Two problems with that theory:
  1) Anyone able to afford an airline ticket is able to afford real electronics instead of homebrewing.
  2) Anyone independent enough to homebrew a device is also independent enough to not turn it off during takeoff & landing.
  
  --
  "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
2. Re:oddball by hotsauce · 2010-06-01 02:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
  You must have been under a rock for the last few decades. Every electronic device is made in the "third world". They've been handing us our collective asses, if you haven't noticed.
  
  --
  Lies about crimes
3. Re:oddball by The_mad_linguist · 2010-06-01 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  3) The security people wouldn't allow anyone with a homebrewed device on anyway (at least, unless they were distracted by a bottle of evian)
Re:daily tampon story? by MrHanky · 2010-06-01 01:54 · Score: 1, Troll

Yeah, Slashdot is essentially a spamhost working for Apple these days. "News for nerds"? "Stuff that matters"? This story is neither. Not even the worst offenders among the fanboys can find it interesting at all. I can't imagine Apple doesn't pay Slashdot a significant amount for keeping their hype going.
I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to hold. by DirkDaring · 2010-06-01 01:55 · Score: 1

Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.
Re:I want a google-pad by santax · 2010-06-01 02:14 · Score: 1

No mate, I am the Captain.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by ktappe · 2010-06-01 02:18 · Score: 1

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.
BS. They allow you to hold heavy hardback books in your hands during takeoff/landing. Also if they didn't want these items flying around they'd be banned the whole flight because there is always a danger of turbulence.

--
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by dunezone · 2010-06-01 02:20 · Score: 1

Not sure this is the reason for cell phone bans but as a result I don't have to hear the person next to me or somewhere in the cabin talk on the phone the whole flight.
Re:daily tampon story? by Adambomb · 2010-06-01 02:21 · Score: 1

What he should have trolled with is "ipad with wings..."

--
Ice Cream has no bones.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by __aamnbm3774 · 2010-06-01 02:23 · Score: 1

comeon, you gotta think bigger conspiracy than that!

you know, 'zomg the govt is trying to control us'
'how dare they take away my right to WiFi!'
etc...this is slashdot!
Re:I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to ho by jdgreen7 · 2010-06-01 02:25 · Score: 1

Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.
That's why I bought a folio-style case with adjustable stand for mine so you can leave it propped up at a reasonable angle, making it a nice hands-free device while watching a movie or reading a book. The popular response to that is "Why not just get a netbook, since that stands up on its own already?!" Well, the iPad just does a lot of things very well that I want it to do, and with a 10+ hour battery life (generally much longer if just reading an ebook), I haven't found a better device yet. Plus, it comfortably fits on the fold-out tray on planes when the person in front of you leans back, unlike my 15" laptop.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by jonwil · 2010-06-01 02:37 · Score: 1

No, the real reason is that takeoff and landing is the most dangerous part of the flight and if something goes wrong, they dont want people distracted by gadgets.
Great Idea! by KiwiCanuck · 2010-06-01 02:49 · Score: 1

Now I can watch youtube videos while I'm flying... oh wait!
1. Re:Great Idea! by intheshelter · 2010-06-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get the joke on this one?
2. Re:Great Idea! by oakgrove · 2010-06-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Er, the iPad has a Youtube app so, yes, you can watch Youtube videos while you're flying.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 02:54 · Score: 1

Not sure this is the reason for cell phone bans but as a result I don't have to hear the person next to me or somewhere in the cabin talk on the phone the whole flight
If it's so important to you that you need this level of control over the behavior of the people sitting near you then perhaps you shouldn't have left home.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
There is also the issue of attention by Hazelfield · 2010-06-01 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most of the accidents happen during take-off or landing. In case something happens, the captain may need the full attention of the passengers to inform or instruct them. If people sit using notebooks, listening to music, watching movies etc, this will become very much less effective.

Additionally, if a plane crashes, the less stuff lying around the better. Notebooks can become projectiles, earphone cords can become a hindrance for evacuation, and having your hands full is just generally a bad idea. Banning electronic equipment is a safety issue that has nothing to do with electricity itself, in much the same way as texting and driving.
1. Re:There is also the issue of attention by P-Nuts · 2010-06-02 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't they ban books on takeoff and landing? Someone reading a book is just as distracted as someone using a computer (though less distracted than listening to music), and if it's a hardback it's just as dangerous a potential projectile.
2. Re:There is also the issue of attention by Hazelfield · 2010-06-02 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would guess because a ban on books and newspapers simply doesn't seem as reasonable as a ban on electronics. Most people have no idea just how much or how little electronic devices interfere with the plane's onboard instruments, but few people question the ban. For some reason it's easier to accept that you have to turn your laptop off than that you have to stop reading your book.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by jimbolauski · 2010-06-01 03:09 · Score: 1

If it's so important to you that you need this level of control over the behavior of the people sitting near you then perhaps you shouldn't have left home.
I'm sure you would just love to have a teenager yapping it up for a whole 3 hour ride next to you, after the 5th OMG and like about 20 likes I bet you would pray for the days with no cell phones on planes.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
OK, how does this work? by LatencyKills · 2010-06-01 03:37 · Score: 1

I didn't RTFA, but the summary states the iPads are pre-loaded. If I buy a copy of a game and install it on a computer, I can't then rent out that computer and let someone else play the game, can I? How would that be different from buying a copy of a movie and then renting it out? Typically rental copies are purchased differently from sale copies for movies. I assume the same is true of games? Not to insinuate in any way that the company is doing anythign illegal - perhaps they've jumped through those hoops - but I'm curious nonetheless.

--
Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by IndustrialComplex · 2010-06-01 04:06 · Score: 1

I'm sure you would just love to have a teenager yapping it up for a whole 3 hour ride next to you, after the 5th OMG and like about 20 likes I bet you would pray for the days with no cell phones on planes.
Earplugs are amazing things. They have the primary benefit of blocking out ALL of the things you are complaining about, but they also have the secondary benefit of telling the person next to you that you are not interested in a conversation. You act as if someone can't just start yapping your ear off if they don't have access to a phone.
Legislating social behavior is not the way we should approach the problem. What's more intrusive and time consuming? Bringing a pair of earplugs, or having to support/fight a political campaign every time someone gets an 'idea' over how you should behave in a given situation?

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
new device detected by roman_mir · 2010-06-01 04:48 · Score: 1

Considering iPads are not very good (so I heard) at networking, this may not become a problem.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Wrong! by VincenzoRomano · 2010-06-01 05:16 · Score: 1

spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics

That's all about stupidity, nothing else.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is by andrewa · 2010-06-01 06:17 · Score: 1

You don't seem to have a concept of what noise-canceling headphones do. Headphones, sure, but noise-canceling technology is not going to help you on its own.

--
:(){ :|:& };:
Re:I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to ho by fluffernutter · 2010-06-01 06:46 · Score: 1

I'm also of the mode of thought that using an iPad would be uncomfortable on a plane. The problem is that it is not held like a book. I use my netbook (which gets 10+ hours battery) on the bus and when I rotate the screen I hold it truly like a book, resting it on my lap or whatever and using the pad with my thumb.

I saw a guy on the bus with an iPad and he looked uncomfortable because there was no way for it to sit nicely. On a plane I wonder where the iPad would stand up even if in a case. Those tray tables just aren't big enough to have something that size sitting upright and it's not even with your eyes either.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.