Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the FAA Gadget Ban On Liftoff and Landing Isn't So Bad
First time accepted submitter oyenamit writes "Ars Technica reported a while back that FAA is going to reconsider the ban on use of electronic gadgets during take-off and landing. If this ban is revoked, you will be free to use your gizmos for an additional 30 minutes or so. Peter Bright has an interesting take on why lifting of the ban may not be such a good idea."
Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.
...then don't use them.
Idiot.
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The same old obvious take, then yes you are right.
TFA makes it sound as if keeping the ban is simply a nice way to preserve some "spiritual" time for yourself when you aren't tempted to use gadgets. That's not nearly as important as the effect on the person sitting next to the gadget user. Flying on airplanes has already become a really miserable experience these days. If I had to sit next to someone yakking nonstop on their cell phone for a 10-hour flight, I would go absolutely nuts. Even in places like the public library or the waiting room for jury duty, there are cell phone blabberers who simply cannot be convinced that their conversation is anappropriate and bothersome to others.
Find free books.
His argument is that we need to keep a worthless federal regulation on the books (and remember, you can be charged with a felony for not complying) because it . . . preserves the "spiritualness" of the takeoff and landing period.
That's not an argument, that's just bullshit.
Okay, I've read enough. He doesn't really have a good argument for this.
How did this lame article get promoted?
Dog is my co-pilot.
That is incredibly arbitrary.
I don't like allowing others to have arbitrary power over me. Fuck that. Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.
May I be the first to say, "SCREW OFF!" The entire argument is that the federal government should enforce a nationwide ban on the use of electronic devices during takeoff and landing, backed by criminal penalties for violation, simply because this author believes it's good for everyone to take a little break from their gadgets every now and then? Even if there's absolutely no safety issue? Jesus. Thankfully that basis for such a regulation clearly doesn't pass constitutional muster, even under the current interpretation of the 10th Amendment. People who think government should work like this are what's wrong with this country.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
The government should ban something because some guy on the Internet thinks "our entertainment must come from within, not without."
Liberty in your lifetime
I don't buy the safety in case something goes wrong bit any more than I buy the interference bit that has been the usual answer to why you cant have your laptop on during these times.
They won't let you have your laptop, or tablet, or mp3 player, or ebook reader, some say because they want you to be able to pay attention incase something goes wrong. Load of crap if you ask me. If that were the case, how come I can sit down, buckle up, put in ear plugs, and fall asleep, all before we've left the gate, and no one says anything? Or why can I pull out a 2 pound hard back book the size of a shoebox (I exaggerate, but not by far), and no one says anything? If its really for safety reasons in case something goes wrong (the pilot fails in his job of keeping the plain from hitting the ground), that hard back edition of Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter/Sword of Truth will do a lot more damage flying around the cockpit than my 6 ounce kindle.
I've always liked looking out the window on takeoff and landing, so I've never had a problem having my various tech turned off during this time, but the "it's only 15 minutes each way" argument irritates me. There have been numerous times that the plane I was on had to wait somewhere between leaving the gate and actually taking off, or between landing and reaching the gate, once for over an hour, but they still demand we keep all electronic devices off. 15 minutes I can handle, but being forced to stay seated for over an hour without at least having my kindle to read is all sorts of annoying.
Here's the stupid reason:
"But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one. There is something to be said for not being transfixed by an electronic gizmo."
*facepalm*
It's not the government's role to enforce a "dry day", if you want to drink you should be allowed to purchase it, and if you care about your health enough to have a day away from the drink, then you should have the self-control to do just that. This only really affects alcoholics.
It always struck me as odd that you can't take in a 100mL bottle of water but they allow devices that can supposedly interfere with the plane, ensuring they are turned off only with an honour system.
If there was the remotest chance their $millions worth of plane and PR could be brought down by your phone no one would be allowed them.
The article, though, is pretty light - suggesting aviation authorities should maintain the ban to give for the 'spiritual' reason of giving us a break from technology.
I never turn my phone off during take off or landing. I usually even have headphones in the flight attendant never say a word. Oh yeah did i mention i fly at least every 2 weeks normally more?
I can foresee the author's arguments moving into new areas. A new Wii splash screen, for example.
"Why not take a break? IT'S THE LAW."
#DeleteChrome
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....
I've heard this argument repeatedly and it is out of hand absurd. What of all the people who can't understand the language, are hard of hearing, too young etc.? Want to ban them from flying. As with all books/magazines/newspapers. Not to mention any medication which may make the occupants sleepy.
Perhaps we should require everyone to become a qualified airline pilot just in case!? And arrest them if they've had any alcohol - after all they may need to take over the plane. Next step: ban flying altogether.
Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?
This guy is the exact reason why we shouldn't have people making arbitrary laws.
Thanks for the "higher cause" law, shitbean.
I've always stopped whatever I'm doing during take off and landing. It doesn't matter if I'm in a really good spot in a book, or engrossed in a great conversation; at these times I stop. Even if I were allowed to used a portable electronic device, I'd still stop for landings and take offs.
Why? This will sound strange. Take offs and landings are the riskiest phase of a flight. I don't want to die and miss out on the experience. For whatever reason, I want to be in the here and now in the event of a catastrophic failure. I think it would be a shame to leave the present plain of existence (no pun intended) without being aware of the events that led up to the departure.
I forbid the use of electronic devices on my aircraft from door close to door open - that is my right as pilot in command and the person responsible for the lives of everyone on my aircraft.
My employer fully supports this and gives me extra magazines, newspapers, and a bunch of flight-length short stories that people can borrow to read - although the reason they support it so well is because alcohol sales on my flights are 5x the average for my company.
Indeed. Intellectual property; land and other natural resource ownership; limited liability businesses... all these arbitrary forms of power need to be abolished.
Then we can worry about liquor laws.
Tennessee has this, its dumb in 2 ways
1) wine is only sold in liquor stores, and they are closed on sunday, so you cant buy wine on sunday, but you can buy 2 cases of beer at walmart
2) you cant buy liquor or wine from a liquor store on sunday, but restaurants and bars are allowed to
I hope the author realizes his argument applies to mostly anything one wants:
"I think people should be banned from talking all Tuesdays for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about having a day to listen to your own thoughts"
"I think everyone should forced to wear burkas for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about being free from sexual attraction in daily life"
"I think Peter Bright should be banned from writing articles for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about preventing people from reading his dumb apologies of abusive government bans."
Dilbert RSS feed
Up until recently, Massachusetts clung to centuries-old laws banning the sale of alcohol in retail stores on Sundays. Naturally, the local liquor industry lobbied continuously to have the ban lifted, so it finally was a few years ago. Now people can happily shop for liquor seven days a week.
But I wonder if something was lost in the process. Back when sales were banned on Sunday, you either had to plan ahead or improvise if you wanted something to drink on Sunday. Of course, sometimes this wasn't feasible so this became an unscheduled "dry" day. That's not necessarily a bad thing as sort of a random test of self-control.
Even more bizarre, even before then you *could* within a certain distance of the border -- because they didn't want MA to lose out on liquor sales to NH and RI.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the pilot requests that all passengers put their trays forward, put their seat back in their forward position, turn off all electronic devices, and chant the spiritual mantra of the Ars Technica Church of spirituality for the next fifteen minutes prior to landing."
Gently reply
The point of the article is not that they should keep the ban in place, but that the argument against the ban isn't all one-sided.
But of course this is /., and subtle arguments like that are beyond most readers here (if they even bother to rtfa).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Down
I'm generally an easy going guy, but I have never been closer to murdering a total stranger in public than when some asshole starting talking loudly on a quiet train into his cellphone
simple decency consideration and respect. some people do not understand the concept
i can only imagine the douchebaggery that will go on and bring airplane travel into an even worse circle of hell, if that is even possible, when utterly socially inept twatstains start yammering about their laundry and their dogs and the celebrity they sited and the awesome upcoming party on flights
prisons, cinemas, planes, trains, concert halls: signals only carry 911 and data
this is not rocket science, and it is something the vast majority would agree with
write your congresscritter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And airphones for that matter.
Wait a second.
I am ENTITLED to use my gadgets on any plane I am on.
Don't you see I am ENTITLED???
What is wrong with you??????
Modern planes are designed to take lightening strikes. Their electrical systems are designed to be shielded and highly resistant to interference.
If a 2 watt cell phone signal causes problems in a relatively new plane, I would argue there is a significant problem in the plane's electrical systems. Either the electrical systems are damaged or there is a design flaw.
Watch as your nation is demolished by people claiming that religion is more important than science, and that giving all children the same grade in reading tests is better for their education. If you want to know where your country is headed, watch "Idiocracy".
Just remember that it's easier to control a population if they are uneducated and fearful.
The lasting thing one should want in a plane is when the landing is rough, or even worse, a crash, is to be getting hit by the Ipod or Ipad from the guy sitting 17 seats behind you. In the event of a crash where the cabin will fill with smoke in just seconds you don't want to be navigating the exit lights while avoiding slipping over a tablet or other gadget. What if the guy next to you, at the exit-zone, is sitting there with his tablet when you need to (e)vacate the plane? That is costing you precious seconds, and seconds is all you get when there is a real emergency. Please don't lift the ban. In time people will pay with their lives. A low weight tabled, phone or other gadget will do a mighty good job at becoming a projectile in the event of a really rough landing.
But that article is Jon Katz stupid.
Though I sit back and half-enjoy, half-panic during take-off an landings and don't WANT to focus on anything but the view (window-seater, exclusively), my brain goes into spaz-mode during flights. I'll go to watch a movie, thinking 'I'll get so engrossed, this 9-hour flight to Heathrow will go faster." Then I skip to an episode of 'Friends'. Get halfway through, switch to ANOTHER movie. Stop, look around to everyone else, be nosy about the magazine someone's reading. If I *had* brought my computer on my last flight as I'd almost done, I'd start off with "I'm gonna write more to my story", then play Plants Vs. Zombies for ten minutes, skipped to Sims to make a character, give up and play a computer-made household, not bother saving the game to get back to my document, close it... this is while I'm on Ativan to keep myself from thinking "WE'RE GONNA DIE!" every time we hit turbulence.
In short (too late), in situations where I'm trying too hard to pass the time, technology's made me ADD.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
So we need a government agency to enforce peacefulness upon us? Seriously?
Can't I just go for a hike when I want some peace?
I'm sure someone is going to try to make the same argument about a hard-back book, but in general, the things people hold in their hands on planes (paperback books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) are light and soft, so if the plane were to lurch suddenly, and they were to go flying through the cabin and hit someone in the head, it wouldn't hurt. On the other hand, an iPhone, iPad, Nook, etc. are rigid objects, and some of these things are moderately heavy too, making them potentially dangerous should they impact another passenger. This is why they want your belongings tucked under the seat in front of you during takeoff and landing, so they don't go moving around in unwanted ways.
The paying attention thing is moot, because once you've flown a few times, you know the procedures and are already aware of where the exits are before you sit down, because most reasonably intelligent people NOTICE THEIR SURROUNDINGS.
While we're on the subject of annoying things people do on planes––
Nitwits that hoist themselves out of their seat by pulling on the seat back in front of them. If I'm sleeping and you jerk _my_ seat – because you're too fat, lazy, stupid, or just plain inconsiderate to push down on your armrests to stand up – and wake me up, I'm not going to be happy with you. One of these day I'm going to haul off and smack the person who does that to me upside the head, because that's pretty much what they just did to me.
And I was under the impression that mobile phones had a range of about five miles. Cruising above 25,000 feet you'd be out of range of ground-based cell towers. Doesn't seem to me like people are going to be able to use their mobile phones during most of the flight. At least not until airlines start putting micro cells onboard with a high powered repeater.
The last thing I want is for all those 'important' people to talk from the time they get on the plane until the time they get off the plane. If you switch from 'turn your phones off or we're all going to die' over to 'be nice and don't talk on your phone during takeoff and landing' it'll be nothing but people talking the entire trip. People aren't nice.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Even more bizarre, even before then you *could* within a certain distance of the border -- because they didn't want MA to lose out on liquor sales to NH and RI.
And for those who don't realize this - No part of MA takes more than an hour to get to either RI or NH. So pretty much a moot point in either case.
On top of that, if you live close enough to NH, they have far lower liquor taxes, so pretty much all of New England saves up to do our bulk liquor shopping there whenever we plan to pass through.
If distraction is the issue, fine, but then I'd better see legislation dealing with that. If the rule was "You may not have anything in your hands or on your lap during takeoff and landing. You must face forward and direct all attention towards the flight deck in case the attendants or captain has something you need to know." If we want to go that route of extreme stupidity in the name safety, ok, but you can't somehow argue that it is for no distractions and then still say books are ok.
What's more, if we go that route you'd better do all that in cars first. Far more people die in car accidents than plane crashes and their attention is extremely relevant since they are the operator. So no food, no music, no talking on the phone, eyes on the road, mirrors, or instruments at all time, etc.
Of course we don't have those rules and that is because the no electronics on flights is not one of personal safety, it is one of plane safety. The FAA is worried stray signals could fuck up the plane. Ok maybe that was reasonable in the 70s and 80s, it is fucking stupid now. Test the things, if anything CAN interfere fix it and fix it now, as planes should not be so fragile as to be harmed by stray RFI/EMI and then allow devices on the damn planes at all times.
As to his "spiritual" argument? That tells you all you need to know right there. The guy is an unmitigated selfish jackass. Seriously if you seek spirituality in a plane takeoff, you need to examine your fucking life.
On the infrequent occasions when I am on a plane, in the early/late phase of a flight it isn't the internet or the phone system that I particularly want to make contact with. I don't give a damn about 802.11 or 3G data access. I don't want to make stupid "where are you" phone calls... or carry on conversations of any kind, for that matter.
What I want is to be able to get back to the story that I was writing on my laptop, resume reading the book in my Nook, or consult the travel information stored within my phone reminding me of what gate my next flight is on, or what time I said I'd meet someone after arrival. All I ask is that the FAA spare me the enforced meditation, let me disable the potentially troublesome RF transceivers in my FCC-approved devices, and use them for anything else.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I always wonder what people talk about incessantly on their cellphones.
Around here it's either people talking rapidly in some asian language (Cantonese, Tagalog, Vietnamese), or a zero content conversation along the lines of "uh huh...yeah...no...on the bus...later...no...uh huh...yeah...OK..." I have better things to do with my life.
I was amused at the mention in the article about landing being the phase of flight where the plane impacts the ground. I found this one of the hardest things about learning to fly, getting over the phobia of the plane hitting the ground. In the case of landing, that's exactly what it's supposed to do.
...laura
"The reason for the rule is wrong but it kinda sorta might possibly solve some other problems by accident so we should leave it. Also people using their phones too much is sad so yeah lets keep the rule."
This is just an idea, so maybe it's not a great one.
The electronic equipment test has turned into a bit of a social test. If you can't behave and follow instructions for five minutes, it is probably a liability to keep you on a plane with 200+ other people for a three or twelve hour flight, where, should you throw a temper tantrum, it can have serious consequences. If you can't shut up and pay attention while the flight attendant explains how to use a seat belt and jump out of a burning plane for the whole 120 seconds or so it takes, then chances are you have a personal discipline or disrespect problem and you might be better off being walked off the plane by security. That goes for screaming two-year-olds, two-year-old teenagers, and two-year-old forty-year-old drunk guys who want to pick a fight with other passengers.
I think if the FAA was honest: This is a social test to see if you can behave for 120 seconds, then people would be a little more understanding. Of course, there needs to be exceptions for those with behavioral and mental disabilities but who are otherwise non-disruptive or dangerous.
There is no technical justification why electronic items need to be powered off, other than a failure for the FAA to make intellectual decisions and be properly managed.
FYI, I am against the TSA and their security theater, so don't think I am an authoritarian or anything. Sometimes, however, we do need to cooperate together, shut up, sit down, and pay attention.
Pennsylvania is a lot like this. All liquor stores are state owned, so of course the prices are way higher than NJ or Delaware. During the holidays, the state troopers stake out the borders looking for people that cross over the border just to buy booze and bust them on the way back. You'd think the Quakers were still in charge here.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
That's the gist of the article? That we should enjoy taking a government-enforced break from our gadgets so that we can experience the wonder and the majesty of flight? After the horror that modern air travel has become - cramped seats, endless "security", sitting on the ground for hours on end, little or no food - I want every possible diversion I can have from the nightmare that faces me until I'm back on the ground at my destination.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Just because takes an armed air marshal to prise your ipod from your fingers because you can't even get through a date without some sort of gadget in your hand, that should not be everyone else's problem. If 15 minutes without an ipad in your hand every time you fly improves your quality of live you need to sort your life out and fly less
The author makes a very good point. In fact, the point is so good that I think we should carry it a bit further. I mean, why should only those flying on an airplane have to have 30 minutes of gadgetless spiritual time? I think this should apply to everyone. The government should select 30 minutes each day, and require everyone to turn off all electronic devices. There should also be absolutely no talking. Television and Radio should stop broadcasting for those 30 minutes, and ISP's should disable all Internet access. Perhaps the electric companies should shut off power for those 30 minutes too.
On every flight I've taken for the last few years, from my seat I can see several people using their mobile device during takeoff and landing. Extrapolate that to every flight everyday and these devices are already well tested. Planes would be falling from the skies like flies if using a mobile device could bring one down.
What do they bust them for exactly? What law are they breaking? If it's about paying use tax, how do the police prove they weren't going to pay it? Or do they have some law about transporting alcohol on holidays, or perhaps across state lines at all?
Go die you scumbag.
If you don't want to own property, I will happily buy you a plane ticket to North Korea.
With gas at $3.75/gallon, not so much. You can easily use more than one gallon of gas for that trip so if you're spending less than 50 bucks then you're probably losing money, not to mention time. And you have to be careful to stay south of NH's toll booths, and not get busted in one of their speed traps.
Ban books also. They are too captivating. Better have everyone focused on the take off and landing phase of flight. They could spot a bad guy or a design floor in the plane or a criticism of the pilots technique. Instead of distracting themselves from the most dangerous and most stressful part of the flight.
When he first spoke of how air passengers use their phones to escape the confines of the cabin, I thought he might be saying that we need to remember just how hellish an airliner is, so we'll be encouraged to give the industry more hell about it.
:/
Nope, too chickenshit. Just navelgazing that he swears isn't luddism.
I will confirm the fact that phone use during taxi, takeoff, or landing IS potentially harmful to the airplane. Ever leave your phone near your computer speakers and get a text message? That DITDITDITDAAAAAAATTTDITDIT noise it makes is sometimes audible over the communications radios. One phone is annoying. Fifty phones may overwhelm the ATC transmitter. (Keep in mind that the antennas on most airliners are on the top and bottom back where the passengers are, NOT in the cockpit).
As for ipads and kindles? No problem whatsoever.
(And yes, I am an airline pilot. I have experiences this stuff personally.)
The government in my country decided to ban the sale of alcohol on September 1st (start of school year), in an effort to reduce the number of drunk schoolkids (you must be 18 to buy alcohol, but not all sellers follow this law). The result is more drunk people on September 1st.
How this works - when you could buy alcohol any time, no real planning was needed, if you lived near a store that works 24h you can just go and buy some if you run out. Of course some people were lazy and since they didn't buy a lot of alcohol at first, they just drank less. Now, on August 31st, everyone, who plans to party on September 1st, stocks up, buying more than they think they need, so that they don't run out. Of course, now that the alcohol is on the table, they drink it all, the end result being more alcohol consumed. The stores don't complain about this law because they see increased demand for alcohol for the whole week prior to the "dry day".
Also, the sale of alcohol is banned from 22:00 till morning (I do not know the exact hour in the morning), so everyone plans and stocks up already.
Until there is an app for that, there is always Clippy:
I see your plane is crashing, would you like to:
A) Purchase flight insurance
B) Compose your last will and testament
C) Evacuate the contents of your bowels
But you're so confined into that little seat that most directions are blocked off, preventing the item to become much of a projectile.
I remember one documentary on an aircrash where the experts just couldn't find what had happened. Or rather, one of them had an idea what might have happened but couldn't prove it. A fuel filter had somehow clogged up with ice even with a working anti-icing system and they couldn't reproduce the icing in any case.
Turns out, that it could happen very easily but only under a very special set of circumstances and if just one variable was off, the problem corrected itself.
It is not whether an iPhone can cause interference. It is whether any gadget build at any time at any point in time can affect any still flying aircraft under the most extreme and unprecedented conditions, ever. Aircraft don't crash under normal conditions, they are pretty safe BUT they are always operating on the edge. Just rain on the runway can turn a comfortable landing with plenty of space into a disaster. Aircraft are supposed to land at the beginning of the runway but at high speed (and an incident might easily force a higher then recommended landing speed) it is the work of seconds to land halfway. Then a split second error, braking to late, brakes not firing etc etc may cause a disaster.
Do gadgets have an influence? Imagine an aircraft flying blind and having to be talked down, the well known interference on radio bands might cause a vital instruction to be missed. Needing a repeat, causing confusion and distraction and BAM. Bad radio protocol HAS caused fatal crashes.
More over, if you don't draw the line somewhere, someone will cross it. Why not a walkie-talkie? Why not a satelite phone? Why not a HAM radio set? Why not a radar dish? Someone, somewhere will push the line no matter where you put it.
No food in the cinema, pretty common rule OBVIOUSLY only enforced to protect the cinema's expensive food stall... yes... and believe it or not to stop people bring in bread. Not sandwhiches, bread and butter and meat to be prepared during the movie. And how do you stop that if you don't ban all food?
Air travel is a miserable business filled with the dregs of humanity. The same people who put 5 tons of water in an ordinary car and don't even think safety as the axel grinds over the road are also the ones who bring a drum of petrol on their flight. Really, the things people do will astound you. Forget terrorists, the average unchecked passenger is way more dangerous. Not necessarly through malice but through unthinking selfish stupidity. No, you cannot bring a throw away grill to a crowded rock concert, thank you very much.
I do not want my airsafety to be risked by the kind of person who has alcohol poured into their mouth and then set on fire. Do you? There are 300-400 people on the biggest planes, do you trust every single one of them NOT to do something incredibly stupid?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Fifty bucks on liquor? You're either a pansy or a cheapwad. Or both.
Some of this is inaccurate. I agree about the reasons they don't want you holding heard heavy objects in your hand. However, the reason things have to be out of your way/under the seat is so if you have to leave in a hurry (as a flight attendant said once, in an emergency we would have seconds to get out of this aircraft), you don't want a bunch of junk on the floor.
The paying attention thing is moot because even people who are paying attention are not really paying attention. Yeah, you've heard the emergency exit speech before. Yes, you can find one by strolling down the aisle. But in an emergency, no lights, maybe smoke/fire etc., do you think you would remember how to operate one of the exits? Or find the exit door in the dark, etc.? You can hear something hundreds of times, but if you start to tune it out after only a few, it becomes information you've never used and now have not really listened to in years. I often wonder how many of the people at the exit doors who can't even be bothered to look at the safety card would really be any good in a panic situation?
Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.
I think you're reading too much into that. I think AC was making an offhand comment, not actually justifying some religious ninnies in government trying to regulate his morality. Much like laughing about how you won't have to come into work on monday after getting fired is not actually saying "It is good and fair that the company fired me."
Edit: okay, I've been drinking too much, went back and read the context, yes, AC does in fact seem to miss big government telling him to keep his nose clean. Sorry.
... got a "sad refelction on our modern lives".
Good bye Slashdot.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
And
Two: If you can't sit quietly and do nothing for 30 minutes during a takeoff or landing, perhaps you should turn all your shit off and reflect on your sad little life and just where you went wrong with it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Usually there is a limit on the amount of alcohol one can carry over state line (So as to discourage people from starting a black market). It is usually set to what one person can consume in 1 night. People who cross state lines, just to get alcohol tend to stock up for more than one night (especially during long weekends (even more frequently before New Year/Christmas holidays), and get busted for it.
Hehe... Here in Denmark we had a "closing law" (lukkeloven) for a long time. It was originally meant to reduce commercial activity on Sundays and holidays for religious reasons but during the German occupation during WW2 it was expanded so the shops have severely reduced opening hours in order to conserve resources. It was relaxed post-war when resources were more available again, but remained fairly strict for long, long time. Only in the past decade or two it has been slowly relaxed into more modern rules (more hours each day and the possibility of Sunday hours, especially for smaller businesses), and later this year (October I think) it will be replaced completely with a holiday law that dictates close days on a few select holidays, mostly Easter and Christmas stuff. but otherwise gives everything completely free.
Now, all us that grew up during the more strict law (like supermarkets only open between 10am and 4:30pm on weekdays (Thursday an hour longer) and 10am to 2pm on Saturdays) learned to plan and shop ahead, which means that we usually have a small stockpile of the daily consumables - including alcohol. A lot of us still do it to this day, despite things being much more available today.
So what I'm basically trying to say - if you get used to days where you cannot get something, you'll learn keep a stockpile so you don't run out.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
What do they bust them for exactly? What law are they breaking? If it's about paying use tax, how do the police prove they weren't going to pay it? Or do they have some law about transporting alcohol on holidays, or perhaps across state lines at all?
Most states have laws which set a maximum quantity on the amount which qualifies as being for "personal use". Anything over that quantity is considered a Commercial Import, so at that point you run into all sorts of regulations regarding how much can be imported, from where, to where, documentation, inspection, etc.
Same goes for tobacco products.
The short and not very accurate (but generally correct) answer is that you'd be smuggling.
Forget the interference - in the event of an accident iPads, laptops and even cellphones will be flying around the plane at speeds that will cause serious injury to the passengers inside. I always assumed this was why most airlines will tell you not only to turn off your laptop, but also to STOW it for take-off and landing.
His arguments are interesting, but: It is not the FAA's job to improve our social skills and teach us how to use our technology. He has a point, but he's barking up the wrong tree.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I was always told that the ban on electronics during take off and landing has nothing to do with interference anymore (hard to believe anyone could seriously believe this nowadays), and everything to do with paying attention to flight instructions. IE - if you are using an electronic device on an airplane, odds are very high that you have earbuds in, and are tuneing-out most flight instructions. In the event of an emergency, lack of hearing these in a timely fashion could put you and everyone around you at risk. Rather than banning earbuds (which are hard for the flight crew to see without being intrusive), they ban the devices themselves. Once in the air the odds of in-flight instructions goes way down so you can now use the device.
Is this not true?
from that: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/13/1340227/ars-thinks-google-takes-a-step-backwards-for-openness
From tfa: ...sporadic buzzing, bleeping, and illumination courtesy of pocket-sized gizmos is abundant...
Go camping in the mountains in a little tent if you don't want to hear cell phones.
An engineer with a fairly demanding job
Go die you scumbag.
I see you take the neo-con approach toward liberty...
If you don't want to own property,
...and their level of reading comprehension. Notice how everything I listed is owned only because of arbitrary government mandate rather than by virtue of the physical labour or thought of man? No, of course you didn't. Looking at your posting history, you're not very clever. Even if you did notice, you wouldn't comprehend a difference. You wouldn't spot that I was describing some of the tenets of georgism, which is very much pro-private property.
I will happily buy you a plane ticket to North Korea.
OK, I accept. My name is Stephen Jameson and any of the airports near London, England will suffice to start the journey. Temporary e-mail address p23hx@temporaryemail.us to send me an e-ticket (so you don't spam with with crap). You have 24 hours after which I'll post either a link to an extract of either the ticket, for the benefit of other readers, or a statement that you are a pathetic half-man full of empty threats.
FWIW I used to go to East Asia regularly on business on short notice. I can leave with 12 hours' notice at any time in the next 2 weeks. I look forward to adding NK to my list. Thanks!
Being a doubter I had always questioned the ban on electronics. This was until one time we couldn't land due to interference. The landing systems were inoperable. We were unable to land until the stewardess found the person whose device was causing the interference. After the flight I did some research and found that faulty grounding in the plane can result in devices causing interference with the electronics. In our case it wiped out the landing navigation. I doubt this is the case with all planes but I can speak of at least one.
And ebook reader is such a low-power device, it should be exempted from the ban. Just make them disable wireless on it if necessary.
And I thought the linked article and its rationale were pretty much worthless.
Because of the TSA, since 2001, I haven't flown. I just suck it up and drive.
But, I would carry one of those kill everything gadgets if I could get away with it.
Why? It's bad enough having to hear babies crying, kids yapping don't touch me
from one side of the country to the other, but now you would hear the beep beep
beep from them until they plug in their headsets.
The whole controversy boils down to how badly consumer electronics could interfere with cockpit avionics. There are several types of systems used in aircraft, and they boil down to 1: navigation 2: communication 3: auto pilot and assisted landing 4: fly by wire controls
Navigation systems generally have backups. In fact there are now at least 4 different electronic navigation aids still in use 1: NBS (non-direction beacons) are low frequency radio stations used to do a radio fix on to determine your distance and bearing from a known point, 2:VOR VHF directional beacon stations that provide known 'airways' in the sky that allow a plane to chose a known path to follow in route 3: LORAN systems using MF stations that provide a GPS like system enabling determining one's position on a map, flight direction and speed 4: GPS a UHF radio system using space based stations to show one's position , speed, altitude and track. 5: In addition there are both magnetic and gyro compass instruments to show heading. The possibility of interference with ALL of the above by personal electronics to the point of causing a flight to become even slightly lost or off course is effectively zero.
Aircraft communication systems are on various frequency bands, but mostly VHF and UHF. The radios are designed from military derived specs to meet FAA requirements. I doubt that personal electronics can cause any interference, not even requiring the readjustment of the squelch level. Auto pilot systems are only a work load reduction system. The major use is to maintain flight level and course while the pilot flies hands free to check other controls systems such as engine and hydraulics. Auto landing systems are only required as an aid in IFR (instrument flight rules) landing with close to zero visibility. Such landings would be considered an emergency situation and not attempted on most commercial flights. Such systems were developed for the military. Fly by wire systems use electronics to replace hydraulics as the connection between flight controls and aircraft control surfaces. These are mostly hard wired systems that use computer processors to handle digital sensor data. These are well hardened from interference from other electronics.
The interference noises which you describe is actually a result of rf energy exciting the microphone or speaker coil in certain audio devices. It usually is worst is 800 MHz phones such as AT&T in the us. For these waves to travel efficiently and cause interference, they must be in close proximity to the aforementioned coils; this is highlyy unlikely on a commercial flight.
Those planes are for midgets.
While it's amusing to think that Yao Ming would have the same problem on those flights as you, I think they just adjust the planes to deal with the average Chinese person. It's the same reason I had to duck to get on the subways in Seoul (all the doors are 185cm tall).
I don't need the FAA, the airlines, the author of TFA or anyone else to tell me how to behave in a confined space with several hundred other people. I admit that some people do apparently need that level of supervision, but this should be the job of the passengers sitting next to the idiot making the noise, or society in general, not the flight crew. A few shouts of "shut the fuck up, you blithering idiot" directed at the salesman on the phone, the corporate vice-president playing angry birds or the mother with the portable DVD player showing VeggieTales should be enough to get the point across.
If they want to have a rule that says "Don't annoy your neighbors during the flight", then fine - but arbitrary pseudo-science is not acceptable.
Look, their are two possibilities.
1. The devices don't cause any real problem and it is just a bunch of fascists telling is what to do. Yeah, some people will be rude, but if the flight attendant can tell people to turn things off now, they can tell people to STFU later.
2. The devices do cause a life threatening problem. In which case I want a better security system then a flight attendant happening to catch someone using one. That is, I have seen people ignore the law on planes, just as people speed on the highway. I've even forgot to turn off a cell phone or two myself that was packed in a bag. If this is a real problem than I don't want to trust my life to the watchful eye of a flight attendant.
True, but if you happen to have other business in the area, NH makes it really easy to pick up some booze on your way through. The "NH State Liquor Stores" are right off all the major interstates; it's like a rest area with a liquor store instead of a McDonald's, and that liquor store is the size of an average supermarket.
I believe the words "Fuck off" come to mind as a response. You don't want time away from the silicon, fine, do it, turn off your device. But don't impose your spiritual voodoo on me.
So, Peter Bright, fuck off, because its none f your fucking business whether or not my electronics are turned on or off, and headphones + mp3 player are a good way of ignoring self-righteous assholes like you, even in the last 30 minutes of a flight.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Because without it, parents could shut their kids up with the sedative powers of their DS or iPad. And no takeoff is complete without screaming children.
The up direction isn't blocked. It's only limited by gravity. Whatever knocks it out of your hand could cause it to fly upward. And the down direction isn't really blocked either. It could slide around below the seats, which could interfere with an evacuation.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I don't have a solution for the first thing other than to make these instructions simpler or more meaningful - and since passengers are not in control of the plane, there isn't much we can do if the plane crashes. I'd rather be calmly ignorant of my impending doom, with my face buried in my laptop. The second...I'm not sure how I feel about giving the FAA the power to enforce zen in my life. I also reject arguments that mobile phones should be banned because cell conversations are annoying. That's just not the FAA's job. If the airlines want to create a policy around politeness, awesome - but this is up to the airline.
-Turkey
This happens in PA too. The laws promote the practice of "stocking up" rather than "drinking less". And "stocking up" leads to "drinking more". Go into any alcohol drinker's basement in PA and you'll find their own little distributor.
I wear an iPod Shuffle when I fly. I clip it on my belt loop. I keep my headphones in the whole time. During takeoff and landing, I turn the iPod off, but I leave the headphones in my ears. They have no problem with this. If the flight has inflight radio, I might switch the headphones to the inflight radio, but the shuffle remains on my belt loop.
So the projectile argument is invalid for my iPod. The paying attention argument is always invalid, as you could just be reading the magazine at that time. interference is invalid, because there is no way a tiny iPod shuffle can hurt anything. Bothering other people is invalid. My iPod shuffle doesn't bother anyone.
Takeoff and landing procedures require all items in the cabin to be secured during the transition. Books, magazines, bags, and even you. That seatbelt is not there just to make you feel warm and fuzzy. Takeoffs and landings can be rough and sometimes they go badly wrong. During these times, I don't want 150 lbs objects (people) to be flying around the cabin and nor do I want 7 lbs objects (laptops) to be doing the same thing. The electronic interference issue is the most minor safety consideration in this case. Even if cell phones are allowed in time to transmit at full power at cruising altitude, they should be stowed safely and securely during the dangerous times of Takeoff and Landing.
It doesn't matter, cell signals are transmitting (mostly) horizontal, so at 20k feet you won't get a signal anyways. In-flight calling and wifi has to be routed through specific and very expensive services that setup vertically pointing towers.
Didn't realize you lived in the People's Democratic Republic of England. No need to buy your anarcho-communist ass a ticket anywhere. Doubt they'd let you in for a permanent stay, anyways.
Just stay away from me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I despise anarcho-communists because you have made animals of yourselves through your rejection of the principles of property (where a homestead or minerals claim is mixed with a person's labor to become property, which can then be sold), which leads directly to theft, and murder when confronted. You and your kind are no better than apes. Worse, actually, because you are smarter and deadlier.
Enjoy the next five years. I'm sure you won't realize that it was your poisonous ideology which caused the destruction you are about to witness. The same ideology has laid waste to America as well as the rest of the West.
Didn't realize you lived in the People's Democratic Republic of England.
Well, I was going to move to the US, but after you guys went into a pants-wetting panic after 11 September 2001 I kinda felt embarrassed that I ever admired you for revolting against us. We'd solved our IRA problem only a few years before, despite on-going US funding, and we somehow managed to do it without completely shitting over our freedoms.
No need to buy your anarcho-communist ass a ticket anywhere.
Gotcha - empty threat.
Doubt they'd let you in for a permanent stay, anyways.
Dunno. You were the one offering. I guess I shouldn't have expected you to do any research.
As an anarcho-capitalist, I despise anarcho-communists because you have made animals of yourselves through your rejection of the principles of property
You and I are both animals, friend. What I do not reject is reality.
(where a homestead or minerals claim is mixed with a person's labor to become property, which can then be sold)
I looked at your wife last night. That took me effort. She now becomes my property. Arbitrary, you say? Quite so.
which leads directly to theft,
You can't have "theft" of an item not "owned". Please think through your argument.
and murder when confronted
What?
You and your kind are no better than apes. Worse, actually, because you are smarter and deadlier.
I'm worse than an ape because I'm smarter and deadlier than an ape? Does this mean you're better because you're no smarter or no deadlier?
Enjoy the next five years. I'm sure you won't realize that it was your poisonous ideology which caused the destruction you are about to witness.
The ideology epitomised by Thatcher and Reagan has already destroyed Western civilisation. The fall-out might increase over the next half decade, but the damage has already been done. People like you will continue acting in the manner which caused the problem, just as any fool in a burning city thinks that the solution is to administer more fuel. I'll sit back and enjoy the sight, wake for people to realise how they've been hoodwinked and help them out when they're ready :-).
Must be a small Wal-Mart to not carry wine these days.
Good grief. Thank goodness they don't have rules like that for buying groceries. I sometimes cross state lines to do so and, when I do, I'm pretty much always buying more than I can consume in one day. For that matter, as far as alcohol goes, do they actually sell alcohol in quantities that the state considers to be less than one person can consume in one night (I'm aware that plenty of people can consume quite large quantities of alcohol, but I'm guessing that the state sets it to something more like one glass of wine per night).
I just want to use my camera. Like virtually all cameras made in the last 20 years, it qualifies as an electronic device. The last time I flew into Newark, I was treated to breathtaking vistas of the Manhattan skyline, including the Empire State building in full plumage. I can't share those memories because of FAA stupidity.
wine is not allowed to be sold in grocery stores here, the only place that can legally sell it is liquor stores
"I have zero self-control and wish to enforce needless annoying restrictions on others in order to provide an incredibly minor transient benefit to my own peace of mind, which I could do for myself if I tried even a little bit."
I'm seriously confused by this, since last time I looked the power to regulate interstate commerce was reserved to the federal government, according to the U.S. Constitution. States don't get to regulate "imports" and "exports" across their borders--they aren't independent nations.
---dragoness
Leave your screaming cabbages at home.
So keep it in the trunk and tell the cops they don't have permission to search the car?