Again, I sum up the whole "anti-cell phone" camp as having a bunch of anecdotal stories and little evidence. It's alot like a medieval witch hunt driven by fear of the unknown (i.e. unknown to the pitch fork carrying folk).
As for the arguement raised over the squared relationship between power & distance. Go read the next chapter of that book on frequency, signal bandwidth & filtering:), you'll find it rather enlighting.
It would be nice if "the powers that be" would leave engineering to the engineers and scientists, and stop making up policy based on data which is most likely incomplete or simply flawed.
I'd much rather pilots looked into what is ACTUALLY wrong with their instruments should something odd happen, than run about the cabin and lynching the nearest poor soul for simply using a laptop. This way the instrument could be looked at by a real live trained technician or engineer and be fixed:).
L8r...
Rich...
See this is where I think people get into trouble, making statements like "entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems".
Yet, I've yet to read a paper, or hear about and conclusive research nor be able to hear a presentation detailing how this is anymore probable than the many RF interference conditions that planes must endure.
Again, alot of talk, no conclusive proof. Again, the key idea here is any MORE probable, we obviously cannot shield planes from everything. Reminds me of the countless medical studies regarding vitamins and cancer prevention. Alot of studies, one contradicting another, yet at the end of the day we are no better informed.
Rich...
Forget the background science, forget the RF engineering, and forget the fact that the pilots and managers creating these policies no absolutely nothing about RF/microwave princples.....consider layman logic and basic engineering principles.
Do you REALLY think, the achilles heel of aircraft made in the last 40 years (little lone last 20) is that turning on a cell phone or wifi card (with only the mW's of power)will interfere with the navigation systems or possibly down the plane? Give me a break. Those creating these regulations should put down their pens and close their mouths and try picking up a book.
Aircraft systems have countless safety factors designed in, and extensive RF shielding around critical systems (i.e. nav, comm, control etc.). The common radio, TV, cell tower would have a far greater impact on interferance than a lower power transmitter on board ever would, and we don't see them re-routing planes around those towers (even on landing or take off) do we? Why? Because it's NOT a problem and never was.
Here's a reality check for those of you unfamilar with the real business world. AOL can do anything they want with their property (i.e. network equipment) to protect their business & customers. If you think they care even remotely about RFC's or academic papers which don't have a chance of having some form of ROI, think again.
Secondly, the likehood of any of the users who actually care about receiving DSL based mail would actually use AOL in the first place is so remote that I don't think anyone at AOL will lose sleep.
Finally, I think I can probably sum up AOL's attitude on RFC's in the words of Triumph the Dog, "RFC's are good.....FOR ME TO POOP ON!":P
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I sum up the whole "anti-cell phone" camp as having a bunch of anecdotal stories and little evidence. It's alot like a medieval witch hunt driven by fear of the unknown (i.e. unknown to the pitch fork carrying folk). As for the arguement raised over the squared relationship between power & distance. Go read the next chapter of that book on frequency, signal bandwidth & filtering :), you'll find it rather enlighting.
It would be nice if "the powers that be" would leave engineering to the engineers and scientists, and stop making up policy based on data which is most likely incomplete or simply flawed.
I'd much rather pilots looked into what is ACTUALLY wrong with their instruments should something odd happen, than run about the cabin and lynching the nearest poor soul for simply using a laptop. This way the instrument could be looked at by a real live trained technician or engineer and be fixed :).
L8r...
Rich...
See this is where I think people get into trouble, making statements like "entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems". Yet, I've yet to read a paper, or hear about and conclusive research nor be able to hear a presentation detailing how this is anymore probable than the many RF interference conditions that planes must endure. Again, alot of talk, no conclusive proof. Again, the key idea here is any MORE probable, we obviously cannot shield planes from everything. Reminds me of the countless medical studies regarding vitamins and cancer prevention. Alot of studies, one contradicting another, yet at the end of the day we are no better informed. Rich...
Forget the background science, forget the RF engineering, and forget the fact that the pilots and managers creating these policies no absolutely nothing about RF/microwave princples.....consider layman logic and basic engineering principles.
Do you REALLY think, the achilles heel of aircraft made in the last 40 years (little lone last 20) is that turning on a cell phone or wifi card (with only the mW's of power)will interfere with the navigation systems or possibly down the plane? Give me a break. Those creating these regulations should put down their pens and close their mouths and try picking up a book.
Aircraft systems have countless safety factors designed in, and extensive RF shielding around critical systems (i.e. nav, comm, control etc.). The common radio, TV, cell tower would have a far greater impact on interferance than a lower power transmitter on board ever would, and we don't see them re-routing planes around those towers (even on landing or take off) do we? Why? Because it's NOT a problem and never was.
Dear lord.....may the ignorance stop one day....
Rich...
Here's a reality check for those of you unfamilar with the real business world. AOL can do anything they want with their property (i.e. network equipment) to protect their business & customers. If you think they care even remotely about RFC's or academic papers which don't have a chance of having some form of ROI, think again.
:P
Secondly, the likehood of any of the users who actually care about receiving DSL based mail would actually use AOL in the first place is so remote that I don't think anyone at AOL will lose sleep.
Finally, I think I can probably sum up AOL's attitude on RFC's in the words of Triumph the Dog, "RFC's are good.....FOR ME TO POOP ON!"
Enthrash...