And this is nothing to do with guns. Whilst the US may be better off with fake child porn, it's less free in other areas - e.g., sodomy was only recently legalised in the US. Where were your guns before then? More generally, there are plenty of areas the US has shown slipping towards a more authoritarian state, just as much as the UK.
Furthermore, fake child porn was originally declared illegal, and it was the Supreme Court which overturned it, based on the First Amendment. Guns were no help whatsoever.
Also the British Government want to make any images of "violent" acts illegal, even if between consenting adults, or even if entirely fake, and even for possession (not public distribution).
Not to mention that asteroids are often referred to as "minor planets", so reclassifying Ceres as a "dwarf planet" seems a bit redundant. Though I'm not sure if "minor planet" is an official classification.
You clearly don't have any children or you wouldn't make such an incredibly idiotic statement.
If you stop to listen, you might hear the wooshing sound of my point going right above your head.
Of course it would be wrong to ban baby food - if you actually read my posts before spouting off, you will see I am the one against these sorts of security measures (as opposed to the "if you don't like it, don't fly" people).
However, since people can still bring liquid on board, I am asking what is the point in banning all other liquids, when the same check of getting the passenger to taste it would work there too? Can you answer that question, rather than missing the point?
Because this whole issue is just a few days old, and assessing the risks and training thousands of agents to appropriately make those judgements/policies work is completely out of the question on such short notice.
If it takes them days to spot the inconsistency in this (i.e., if any liquids are dangerous, why not those in baby bottles? And if those can be safely allowed in, why prevent time with other liquids?), then I'm rather worried.
Don't you think it's reasonable to let this hash out for a little while, and start thinking about the technology and personnel training that needs to be in place before re-allowing containers of liquid back in the passenger compartments?
Training? What training? What technology? You'd be right if there was a blanket ban on all liquids, but they already had to be trained to spot the baby milk.
And if fighting terrorism is so important, why wasn't this training and technology already in place (using liquids to try to blow up planes is nothing new)?
Basically they think that the greatest evil is the US military themselves, as they are the only military force that would probably comply with the license, given the advanced reach of the law in the US. They surelly know that groups like al-qaeda are not going to be restrained by the GPL, so, they are clearly stating that it's not a problem for them.
There's more to military than the US and al-qaeda! This would be enforceable against armies in most countries around the world (as much as copyright in general is enforceable in other countries), and that is their intent. There's no reason to suggest they hate the US military more, just that they don't like its actions enough all the time to grant it an exception.
It's a fair point that if a war broke out against the US, the enemy could not comply with the licence and there'd be nothing they could do - but as I say, they could always change their licence if some big war broke out against the US and they felt the war was just.
or that they are trying to impress some pacifist girls in their universities to increase their reproductive success ratio (this is my bet).
So they don't think the US military is the greatest evil after all? And, I'd love to be somewhere where telling girls what licence you released your software under is a good chat-up line...;)
At least think a little bit before you post. I'll buy you nice dinner if you can post a video of yourself drinking acetone or high-strength peroxide and keeping a smiling, straight face. What will really happen is that you'll immediately be either violently frothing at the mouth as the peroxide reacts with all that organic material, or you'll be aspirating acetone funes and coughing like crazy.
Okay - but if this method is so foolproof, why not allow drinks on board, as long as the passenger sips a bit?
Although I've always wondered why they didn't go for more of a solo sniping attack.
In Cambridge, UK, a few years ago, there was a series of cycle-by stabbings. For some reason, this didn't quite make the international headlines I don't think, but it was quite nasty, and had us all quite jumpy everytime a cyclist went past.
Erm - you already have that choice. If you are scared of the minimal risk of terrorism, then don't fly. Leave the rest of us in peace.
(Actually, it would be curious to see what would happen if there were some flights which ran as they used to, and others where you had loads of extra security, you weren't allowed any hand luggage, and you had to pay significantly more to cover this too, as well as a significantly increased chance of flght cancellation or missing your flight due to being kept in security - people would then have the choice, but I wonder what would be more popular?)
Undertaking precautions when stuff three hundred people into a giant flying metal tube that will hurtle over dense population centers is not "living in fear."
Taking sensible precautions which cause minimal disruption is great. The question is taking extreme precautions, that may or may not even help - having people to sit bored for hours on end; having to put expensive (and possibly uninsurable) items into the risky hold luggage; overloading the airports with security checks so that many people miss their flights, and many flights are cancelled (Heathrow Airport say these checks are unsustainable and are now going to have to cancel 20% of flights until this changes; also this may mean the end of "cheap" airline travel - http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/14 /terror_spells_trouble_for_cheap_travel/ ).
At this level of "precautions", it's worth weighing the loss caused, against the risk from terrorism.
It's easy to say "anything's worth it to save the risk of one life" - but that's actually not true. If people were willing to give up things in order to avoid the risk, you can do that already by not getting on a plane.
The problem is that sometimes peace first requires war, whether you want it or not. I know a lot of poeple have misgivings about premptive policies and interventionalist practices, but there are plenty of examples of when war is not just justified (like in Afghanistan or the first Gulf war), but required (like WWI and WWII).
By banning military use, you also ban the use by forces that are more often a force of good in the world than bad. In that context, U.N. peacekeepers, for example, would not be able to use this. What if an entire military force doesn't use it because they can't all work together, including the parts of the military that rebuild and bring humanitarian aid?
I don't know whether the programmers are total pacifists or not - it's possible though that they entirely agree with you here. The problem is, is it feasible to say "You can use it, but only in wars that satisfy such-and-such criterion"? It's difficult to lay down in strict legal terminology what a "just war" is.
It would have been nice if they made an exception of UN peacekeepers... but given the wars the US gets itself into, it doesn't surprise me that they rule out military use, even if they believe that war is sometimes necessary (hell, if WW3 breaks out, they can always change their licence). It's not as simple as "our army is Good, their army is Bad".
Not all these changes have been positive. In terms of large-scale changes along those lines I'd probably include the nasties such as doubleclick and whatnot.
Okay I'll bite. Whilst I can't stand how most MySpace pages look (and sound...), how have these changes been negative? Can't you just like, not go to those sites?
And... blogger.com, really? I would think that livejournal would have been a better choice for the "dragging down journalistic standards/bluring the line between infotainment and slice of life." category...
I was wondering why not LiveJournal, too. They were both created in 1999 (and according to Wikipedia, LJ was March compared with August for Blogger). LiveJournal also combined it with the social networking aspect, which I don't believe Blogger does(?). It wasn't the first social networking site - but are there any earlier ones still going today? And were there any earlier social networking sites that combined it with "blogging"/journalling?
Not to mention the source being open, and having spawned many other sites. Does that apply to blogger?
(Though I disagree it's "dragging down journalistic standards" - LiveJournal is primarily used for journalling and discussions with friends, not "pretending to be a journalist" like many blogs - but nonetheless, LJ can be used for stereotypical standalone blogging if you wish.)
So what are you suggesting? Get rid of all of the security precautions at airports?
Where on earth did I suggest that? Nowhere have I complained about metal detectors or being wanded. Where did anyone say that?
If security can be done with minimal hassle as you claim, then that's great. But the current restrictions in the UK do not look sustainable ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787161.stm ) - not to mention that these current restrictions have more problems than waiting times (e.g., having to sit still and do nothing but twiddle your thumbs for hours on end, or having to place valuable, possible uninsurable items in the oh-so-safe hands of the baggage handlers).
EULAs do not trump the law. If you think otherwise - my EULA says if you reply to this, you owe me £1000. No one is forcing you to reply, so sounds like a perfectly valid contract to me?
Is the user allowed to negoiate the terms of the contract? Also, if the person says they do not accept the terms, but the webserver still lets them have the software, and the software still installs anyone, that's tough luck for Microsoft.
And no, IANAL either - but the burden is on you to show a court case where a term was enforced because it was part of an EULA. And don't forget that £1000.
Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of rules (from legal to economic) Don't bitch just because they're not working in your favour.
What? For starters, there is more than one person on "Slashdot".
And it's the RIAA who claim that "intellectual property" is somehow distinct from physical goods - e.g., saying that I'm not allowed to do what I like with it, or give a copy I make to someone else.
How are you "stuck with their hardware"? Intel processors, the same components that are currently in my Windows box.
Yes, but the point is that in future, I can't take these 3rd party components, or a 3rd party computer, and have a new machine that runs MacOS and my Mac software.
Of course there's nothing wrong using a platform if you prefer it, but it is a problem depending on a product from a single company - years ago I was happy using the Amiga, but that only worked as long as Commodore were around, and were releasing the products that I wanted. Whether it's a platform, or something like a programming language, investing time and money into a closed solution from one company does have this disadvantage, that one should always bear in mind.
So Pluto made the cut, while other objects didn't. So what?
So what, indeed - I haven't said there's anything wrong with Pluto being a planet when other things weren't, and indeed, I'm pointing out that there also wouldn't be anything wrong if Pluto stopped being considered a planet. I merely point out that there isn't some magical "The Time of Naming Planets", because things have gone from planets to not-planets before, and that "history and tradition" is a rather temporary thing.
Yes, because there certainly never was a terrorist attack or attempt on U.S. citizens before 2001.
Yes, because the US was entirely isolationist before 2001, they never liked to play world policeman, intervene in other countries' politics or tried to support sides during wars.
The argument is that it's the US's intervention and taking part in wars which leads to terrorism, and since this existed before 2001, your point does not counter that argument. What's happened now is that they've labelled it the "War On Terror", and have been doing a lot more of it.
And if you're going to play the "terrorism has always existed" card - yeah, I agree. So why all these new "security" measures now?
The head in the sand approach to terrorism is why over 3000 people died on 9/11. Thanks for trying to revive it.
No, he didn't say we should avoid fighting terrorism (in the normal sense, such as using intelligence, police and so on), he was talking about the "War On Terror" - e.g., invading random countries.
Of course its a basic right, so why not just take a walk the next time you need to make a trip to the other side of the country. I don't believe walking is regulated. I also think it's a bit silly how people get annoyed because they have to wait in line longer just because there are threats of terror and waiting in line longer may save their life.
I've got a better idea - if you're so worried about the minimal risk of dying by terrorism, how about you give up flying and walk instead, and let the rest of travel in peace.
Pluto was named during The Time of Naming Planets. Therefore, for reasons of history and tradition, we count it among the planets, even though it's also a KBO.
Ah, but this isn't the first time this controversy has happened.
Ceres for was considered a planet - and it stayed this way for about 50 years. In fact, even Pallas, Juno and Vesta were considered planets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Ceres ); yes, at one time our solar system had 12 planets. However, with the further discovery of even more asteroids, they quickly lost their status (though we still have the term "minor planet").
It's more than 50 years since the discovery of Pluto, but it's clear that history and tradition are not reasons for keeping something a planet. It seems bizarre to most people today because all our lives Pluto has been a planet - but this doesn't mean future generations will see it that way.
Keeping Pluto a planet for now, possibly adding objects such as 2003 UB313 as planets, could be seen to mirror when Pallas, Juno and Vesta were added as planets. But who knows whether it will stay that way.
by which time the first 386s/EGA displays were hitting the market.
Woo, 16 colours!
The OP may have been wrong to compare to 8086s with text displays, but even compared with what PCs were available in 1985, the point still stands (and not just for graphics - e.g., to be honest Windows was laughable until Windows 95).
but hopefully when things calm down a little, they'll stick with reduced carry on (hopefully with a few extra kilos for checked in).
I don't see why anyone (medical equipment & nursing mothers aside) would need more than an eight ltr backpack anyway.
As far as the "cheap" airlines like RyanAir are concerned, I think a lot of the problem is that they are continually reducing the allowances for checked-in baggage, making it more expensive to put items there (e.g., a cost of £5 per bag independent of weight; weight allowance is going from 20kg to 15kg from 1st November), so of course people are going to take extra bags and belongings in as hand luggage, as much as they can. Indeed, these companies outright encourage that - they'd rather people just have hand luggage, and save all the cost and work with them dealing with checked-in luggage.
Perhaps one good thing if hand luggage allowance is severely reduced would be it would force these airlines to go back to the old model of allowing more in checked-in luggage as standard. But then again, I'm not convinced this would happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The brits let them ban guns and kitchen knives
No, we haven't banned kitchen knives.
And this is nothing to do with guns. Whilst the US may be better off with fake child porn, it's less free in other areas - e.g., sodomy was only recently legalised in the US. Where were your guns before then? More generally, there are plenty of areas the US has shown slipping towards a more authoritarian state, just as much as the UK.
Furthermore, fake child porn was originally declared illegal, and it was the Supreme Court which overturned it, based on the First Amendment. Guns were no help whatsoever.
Although note that this is not (rather worringly, in my opinion) legal in the UK, even just for possession - for example, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/47 76123.stm .
Also the British Government want to make any images of "violent" acts illegal, even if between consenting adults, or even if entirely fake, and even for possession (not public distribution).
Not to mention that asteroids are often referred to as "minor planets", so reclassifying Ceres as a "dwarf planet" seems a bit redundant. Though I'm not sure if "minor planet" is an official classification.
Are you really that stupid?
You clearly don't have any children or you wouldn't make such an incredibly idiotic statement.
If you stop to listen, you might hear the wooshing sound of my point going right above your head.
Of course it would be wrong to ban baby food - if you actually read my posts before spouting off, you will see I am the one against these sorts of security measures (as opposed to the "if you don't like it, don't fly" people).
However, since people can still bring liquid on board, I am asking what is the point in banning all other liquids, when the same check of getting the passenger to taste it would work there too? Can you answer that question, rather than missing the point?
Because this whole issue is just a few days old, and assessing the risks and training thousands of agents to appropriately make those judgements/policies work is completely out of the question on such short notice.
If it takes them days to spot the inconsistency in this (i.e., if any liquids are dangerous, why not those in baby bottles? And if those can be safely allowed in, why prevent time with other liquids?), then I'm rather worried.
Don't you think it's reasonable to let this hash out for a little while, and start thinking about the technology and personnel training that needs to be in place before re-allowing containers of liquid back in the passenger compartments?
Training? What training? What technology? You'd be right if there was a blanket ban on all liquids, but they already had to be trained to spot the baby milk.
And if fighting terrorism is so important, why wasn't this training and technology already in place (using liquids to try to blow up planes is nothing new)?
Basically they think that the greatest evil is the US military themselves, as they are the only military force that would probably comply with the license, given the advanced reach of the law in the US. They surelly know that groups like al-qaeda are not going to be restrained by the GPL, so, they are clearly stating that it's not a problem for them.
;)
There's more to military than the US and al-qaeda! This would be enforceable against armies in most countries around the world (as much as copyright in general is enforceable in other countries), and that is their intent. There's no reason to suggest they hate the US military more, just that they don't like its actions enough all the time to grant it an exception.
It's a fair point that if a war broke out against the US, the enemy could not comply with the licence and there'd be nothing they could do - but as I say, they could always change their licence if some big war broke out against the US and they felt the war was just.
or that they are trying to impress some pacifist girls in their universities to increase their reproductive success ratio (this is my bet).
So they don't think the US military is the greatest evil after all? And, I'd love to be somewhere where telling girls what licence you released your software under is a good chat-up line...
At least think a little bit before you post. I'll buy you nice dinner if you can post a video of yourself drinking acetone or high-strength peroxide and keeping a smiling, straight face. What will really happen is that you'll immediately be either violently frothing at the mouth as the peroxide reacts with all that organic material, or you'll be aspirating acetone funes and coughing like crazy.
Okay - but if this method is so foolproof, why not allow drinks on board, as long as the passenger sips a bit?
Although I've always wondered why they didn't go for more of a solo sniping attack.
In Cambridge, UK, a few years ago, there was a series of cycle-by stabbings. For some reason, this didn't quite make the international headlines I don't think, but it was quite nasty, and had us all quite jumpy everytime a cyclist went past.
If you don't like it, then don't fly.
Erm - you already have that choice. If you are scared of the minimal risk of terrorism, then don't fly. Leave the rest of us in peace.
(Actually, it would be curious to see what would happen if there were some flights which ran as they used to, and others where you had loads of extra security, you weren't allowed any hand luggage, and you had to pay significantly more to cover this too, as well as a significantly increased chance of flght cancellation or missing your flight due to being kept in security - people would then have the choice, but I wonder what would be more popular?)
Undertaking precautions when stuff three hundred people into a giant flying metal tube that will hurtle over dense population centers is not "living in fear."
4 /terror_spells_trouble_for_cheap_travel/ ).
Taking sensible precautions which cause minimal disruption is great. The question is taking extreme precautions, that may or may not even help - having people to sit bored for hours on end; having to put expensive (and possibly uninsurable) items into the risky hold luggage; overloading the airports with security checks so that many people miss their flights, and many flights are cancelled (Heathrow Airport say these checks are unsustainable and are now going to have to cancel 20% of flights until this changes; also this may mean the end of "cheap" airline travel - http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/1
At this level of "precautions", it's worth weighing the loss caused, against the risk from terrorism.
It's easy to say "anything's worth it to save the risk of one life" - but that's actually not true. If people were willing to give up things in order to avoid the risk, you can do that already by not getting on a plane.
The problem is that sometimes peace first requires war, whether you want it or not. I know a lot of poeple have misgivings about premptive policies and interventionalist practices, but there are plenty of examples of when war is not just justified (like in Afghanistan or the first Gulf war), but required (like WWI and WWII).
... but given the wars the US gets itself into, it doesn't surprise me that they rule out military use, even if they believe that war is sometimes necessary (hell, if WW3 breaks out, they can always change their licence). It's not as simple as "our army is Good, their army is Bad".
By banning military use, you also ban the use by forces that are more often a force of good in the world than bad. In that context, U.N. peacekeepers, for example, would not be able to use this. What if an entire military force doesn't use it because they can't all work together, including the parts of the military that rebuild and bring humanitarian aid?
I don't know whether the programmers are total pacifists or not - it's possible though that they entirely agree with you here. The problem is, is it feasible to say "You can use it, but only in wars that satisfy such-and-such criterion"? It's difficult to lay down in strict legal terminology what a "just war" is.
It would have been nice if they made an exception of UN peacekeepers
Not all these changes have been positive. In terms of large-scale changes along those lines I'd probably include the nasties such as doubleclick and whatnot.
Okay I'll bite. Whilst I can't stand how most MySpace pages look (and sound...), how have these changes been negative? Can't you just like, not go to those sites?
And... blogger.com, really? I would think that livejournal would have been a better choice for the "dragging down journalistic standards/bluring the line between infotainment and slice of life." category...
I was wondering why not LiveJournal, too. They were both created in 1999 (and according to Wikipedia, LJ was March compared with August for Blogger). LiveJournal also combined it with the social networking aspect, which I don't believe Blogger does(?). It wasn't the first social networking site - but are there any earlier ones still going today? And were there any earlier social networking sites that combined it with "blogging"/journalling?
Not to mention the source being open, and having spawned many other sites. Does that apply to blogger?
(Though I disagree it's "dragging down journalistic standards" - LiveJournal is primarily used for journalling and discussions with friends, not "pretending to be a journalist" like many blogs - but nonetheless, LJ can be used for stereotypical standalone blogging if you wish.)
So what are you suggesting? Get rid of all of the security precautions at airports?
Where on earth did I suggest that? Nowhere have I complained about metal detectors or being wanded. Where did anyone say that?
If security can be done with minimal hassle as you claim, then that's great. But the current restrictions in the UK do not look sustainable ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787161.stm ) - not to mention that these current restrictions have more problems than waiting times (e.g., having to sit still and do nothing but twiddle your thumbs for hours on end, or having to place valuable, possible uninsurable items in the oh-so-safe hands of the baggage handlers).
EULAs do not trump the law. If you think otherwise - my EULA says if you reply to this, you owe me £1000. No one is forcing you to reply, so sounds like a perfectly valid contract to me?
Is the user allowed to negoiate the terms of the contract? Also, if the person says they do not accept the terms, but the webserver still lets them have the software, and the software still installs anyone, that's tough luck for Microsoft.
And no, IANAL either - but the burden is on you to show a court case where a term was enforced because it was part of an EULA. And don't forget that £1000.
Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of rules (from legal to economic) Don't bitch just because they're not working in your favour.
What? For starters, there is more than one person on "Slashdot".
And it's the RIAA who claim that "intellectual property" is somehow distinct from physical goods - e.g., saying that I'm not allowed to do what I like with it, or give a copy I make to someone else.
How are you "stuck with their hardware"? Intel processors, the same components that are currently in my Windows box.
Yes, but the point is that in future, I can't take these 3rd party components, or a 3rd party computer, and have a new machine that runs MacOS and my Mac software.
Of course there's nothing wrong using a platform if you prefer it, but it is a problem depending on a product from a single company - years ago I was happy using the Amiga, but that only worked as long as Commodore were around, and were releasing the products that I wanted. Whether it's a platform, or something like a programming language, investing time and money into a closed solution from one company does have this disadvantage, that one should always bear in mind.
So Pluto made the cut, while other objects didn't. So what?
So what, indeed - I haven't said there's anything wrong with Pluto being a planet when other things weren't, and indeed, I'm pointing out that there also wouldn't be anything wrong if Pluto stopped being considered a planet. I merely point out that there isn't some magical "The Time of Naming Planets", because things have gone from planets to not-planets before, and that "history and tradition" is a rather temporary thing.
Yes, because there certainly never was a terrorist attack or attempt on U.S. citizens before 2001.
Yes, because the US was entirely isolationist before 2001, they never liked to play world policeman, intervene in other countries' politics or tried to support sides during wars.
The argument is that it's the US's intervention and taking part in wars which leads to terrorism, and since this existed before 2001, your point does not counter that argument. What's happened now is that they've labelled it the "War On Terror", and have been doing a lot more of it.
And if you're going to play the "terrorism has always existed" card - yeah, I agree. So why all these new "security" measures now?
The head in the sand approach to terrorism is why over 3000 people died on 9/11. Thanks for trying to revive it.
No, he didn't say we should avoid fighting terrorism (in the normal sense, such as using intelligence, police and so on), he was talking about the "War On Terror" - e.g., invading random countries.
Of course its a basic right, so why not just take a walk the next time you need to make a trip to the other side of the country. I don't believe walking is regulated. I also think it's a bit silly how people get annoyed because they have to wait in line longer just because there are threats of terror and waiting in line longer may save their life.
I've got a better idea - if you're so worried about the minimal risk of dying by terrorism, how about you give up flying and walk instead, and let the rest of travel in peace.
Pluto was named during The Time of Naming Planets. Therefore, for reasons of history and tradition, we count it among the planets, even though it's also a KBO.
Ah, but this isn't the first time this controversy has happened.
Ceres for was considered a planet - and it stayed this way for about 50 years. In fact, even Pallas, Juno and Vesta were considered planets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Ceres ); yes, at one time our solar system had 12 planets. However, with the further discovery of even more asteroids, they quickly lost their status (though we still have the term "minor planet").
It's more than 50 years since the discovery of Pluto, but it's clear that history and tradition are not reasons for keeping something a planet. It seems bizarre to most people today because all our lives Pluto has been a planet - but this doesn't mean future generations will see it that way.
Keeping Pluto a planet for now, possibly adding objects such as 2003 UB313 as planets, could be seen to mirror when Pallas, Juno and Vesta were added as planets. But who knows whether it will stay that way.
by which time the first 386s/EGA displays were hitting the market.
Woo, 16 colours!
The OP may have been wrong to compare to 8086s with text displays, but even compared with what PCs were available in 1985, the point still stands (and not just for graphics - e.g., to be honest Windows was laughable until Windows 95).
Well, I don't mean to turn this into a US-vs-UK thing ;) I hate all these things that have been happening in the UK recently, and elsewhere.
but hopefully when things calm down a little, they'll stick with reduced carry on (hopefully with a few extra kilos for checked in).
I don't see why anyone (medical equipment & nursing mothers aside) would need more than an eight ltr backpack anyway.
As far as the "cheap" airlines like RyanAir are concerned, I think a lot of the problem is that they are continually reducing the allowances for checked-in baggage, making it more expensive to put items there (e.g., a cost of £5 per bag independent of weight; weight allowance is going from 20kg to 15kg from 1st November), so of course people are going to take extra bags and belongings in as hand luggage, as much as they can. Indeed, these companies outright encourage that - they'd rather people just have hand luggage, and save all the cost and work with them dealing with checked-in luggage.
Perhaps one good thing if hand luggage allowance is severely reduced would be it would force these airlines to go back to the old model of allowing more in checked-in luggage as standard. But then again, I'm not convinced this would happen.