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.
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.
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.
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?
Personally i've always been enthralled by the goings-on of take-off and landing. I'm a bit of a gearhead though, so things like the whine of a turbocharger spooling up, a rotary engine with a lopey idle, the pop of an open exhaust, etc have always held my attention. To that end, a jet powered aircraft is an extreme version of a lot of these things. The feeling of n-thousand pounds of thrust pushing you back in the seat, the howl of a turbine climbing through several octaves that never seems like it will stop ascending, whining hydraulics and various mechanical sounds of things opening or closing... all of that stuff makes me secretly giddy.
I'll never forget being ~10 years old and landing at Vancouver - I was sitting at a window right behind the wing and it was the first time in my life i'd ever seen thrust reversal. The back of the turbine housing splitting and then rejoining like that nearly had me convinced that the airplane was actually a transformer. The only thing better than seeing it was hearing and feeling the engines at full throttle as they (and the brakes) struggled mightily against the plane's momentum. It's one of those surreal awe-struck moments forever lodged in my mind.
I've enjoyed that visceral, mechanical part of flying ever since. I've always had to resist the urge to shout - over screaming turbines, little old ladies praying, and children crying - "THIS IS F*%KING AWESOME!!!" during takeoff/landing.