I fly charter quite a bit, and believe me, the customer gets what the customer wants. Sure, the pilot could tell them to stash the phones for the whole flight, but then the customer would hire a different charter next time, and the pilot would get in deep shit with his boss. OP also mentioned alcohol sales, which doesn't happen on charters, at least not in my experience. That has always been included.
It actually is not your right. You must obey all commands given you by the pilot in command. It is a federal offense not to, and you can get jail time for disregarding captain's orders.
Regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of it, you must nonetheless obey the captain without question.
Granted, I think it's a little extreme for the OP to ban electronics from end to end, but nevertheless the Law is the Law and you must obey it, or face the consequences.
Oh, and by the way, the cell phone ban comes from FCC, not FAA. The FAA has a companion policy at request of FCC, but the technological reasons that cell phone use is banned on flights has a lot more to do with maintaining the integrity of the cell network on the ground than it does with flight systems.
To carry the 4G moniker, the technology must support 100Mbit PEAK rates from mobile clients, and 1Gbit peak rates from non-mobile or low-mobility client.
There is no 4G available in the US, but US Carriers are allowed to call LTE and HSPA by the 4G name because ITU gave them a pass for US Marketing only.
The ONLY technologies that actually meet the 4G standard as it is written are LTE Advanced (not available in the US) and 802.16m WirelessMAN-Advanced (also not available in the US).
... 226 bytes is cool and all, but is useless to me since it doesn't work on my platform. I would gladly accept it taking, say, even 15,000 bytes if it actually worked. It's not as if I can't afford the RAM.
I have a 6x2TB array and a 4x320gb array in my server, the former with HD204UI drives on an Intel SASUC8I controller, and the latter with various 320GB notebook drives I've collected, in a 6-bay 5.25" rack on the motherboard's controller. There's also a 120GB SSD in that rack to run ESXi and most of the guest OSes.
We keep all of our crap on the 4x320 array, which is backed up to the other array.
That's not as far-fetched as you think. We're raising the current generation of younglings with the impression that they get a gold star and excessive praise no matter what they do. There can be nothing negative ever.
This is why half the recent college grads I've been interviewing lately have unreasonable expectations. They've been raised in a fantasy land that doesn't exist in the real world.
The linked article is fairly contradictory on several points. The glaring one is this:
" It was first seen on the evening of March 20th. Jaeschke alerted the international Mars observing community about the odd "extension" at 190.5Â east, 43.7Â south, just before the area that rotates into daylight. The odd feature was visible in all color-filtered exposures from near-infrared to blue light. Jaeschke produced the animation below.
The feature was also reportedly captured by other amateur astronomers over the past few nights. Some astronomers in Europe have seen it as far back as March 12th."
So, it was NOT first seen on the 20th, but rather on the 12th in Europe, and the guy in West Chester is not the discoverer of it.
Oil prices do not depend solely on the amount of production in the United States. Oil prices, which drive gasoline prices, depend on many factors in addition to domestic production, such as world wide production, and political tension in producing areas.
After all, government is there to pick up the slack where individuals lack responsibility. That's why we have government retirement, government medical care, and government this and government that for retirees. People aren't responsible enough to save for their own retirement. How can we expect them to be responsible enough to plan to close a reactor?
It's a dividend yield of about 1.8% at current share price, so a little better than a savings account, but a lot more risky.
If I wasn't buying before, I'm REALLY not buying now. They're pledging about 2/3 of their normal operating profit to pay a dividend that is not even close to being in the "income stock" universe. That's a bad place to be, IMHO. You're sacking 2/3rd of your profit to pay a little better return than a savings account.
I own a bunch of dividend stocks in large companies that pay 4-6% with reasonably low risk, and I own some REITs that are paying 10-20% dividend yield (albeit with huge risk since interest rates have nowhere to go but up). AAPL doesn't meet the criteria of a low-risk stock, because their numbers of late seem "too good to be true."
It seems that technology can alleviate the problems that cell phones cause when used at altitude (hyper-voting and network saturation).
By placing a microcell on board the aircraft with a microwave backhaul, the phones on board won't be constantly hopping cells on the ground, which is the problem the FCC is solving by forbidding their use in flight.
I can't see anywhere on that site that they are approved in the US, and I don't believe the FCC has made a NPRM on this, so as far as I know today, use of a cell phone (as a cell phone) in flight is still illegal in the US.
That bluetooth headset is not more than a couple of feet away from the trunk of avionics cabling and other critical stuff running along the length of the plane, just inches from the head of the person in the window seat.
Don't worry. Even if the FAA allows the use of phones on flights, it will still be against FCC rules, and they will have to have their cellular chipsets turned off.
It's clear the legislators have zero clue what investment means.
When a company receives startup funding, it is in exchange for ownership shares. That makes it borrowing, not income. Shareholder Equity offsets that funding on the balance sheet.
I have to agree with your experience. I bought a tablet a while ago, and after a few days I put it down and I haven't really used it since. It's too big to carry around, but not big enough to have a good experience.
By the time I got done finding a good folio and bluetooth keyboard for it, I realized I was just putting together an ultrabook, albeit much more expensively and more klunkily.
First, I've never once seen a best practices document that says "put RDP on the Internet." Maybe one exists, or maybe there are special cases somewhere that allow for it, but to me it just seems stupid to connect a Windows machine directly to the Internet, or port-forward directly to one from the edge device.
Second, has anyone heard of an exploit for this that involves a prior uncovered exploit - basically you get some malware that "phones home" to an SSH server and opens a reverse tunnel back to the local RDP server? It seems to me that this would be one way they would do it.
When you spend $300M to develop a drug that is only going to be used by 3000 people, of course it has to be expensive to recover the cost of R&D.
If, the day after you release the drug, some jackbooted thug declares that some competitor of yours can steal your formula and sell the drug for 3% of what you need to sell it for to recoup your cost, then you have zero incentive to develop life-saving drugs. And, neither does anyone else.
>> Opinions like this are written from the perspective of a buyout company which is solely interested in maximizing share price.
That is what the Law says Google must do - act in the best interest of the shareholder. Spending money with no intent to turn a profit has its limits, and there is a fine line that is easily crossed when were talking about numbers that start with "B."
It is one thing for a company to exercise some community goodwill by making small, token donations to charity. It's another to waste $16B of the shareholders' money on projects that have zero chance of success.
Google's thoughtless stewardship of shareholders' funds is precisely why I have never and will never own a single share of GOOG.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I've never ever seen ice cream on an airplane, or any other frozen food, because they don't have freezers.
I find it highly likely this is just another somewhat half-assed attempt at a slashvertisement.
Not true at all. Apple says you don't need an SD card slot.
QED.
Slashdot sold out years ago. It's only Slashdot in name, now.
I fly charter quite a bit, and believe me, the customer gets what the customer wants. Sure, the pilot could tell them to stash the phones for the whole flight, but then the customer would hire a different charter next time, and the pilot would get in deep shit with his boss. OP also mentioned alcohol sales, which doesn't happen on charters, at least not in my experience. That has always been included.
It actually is not your right. You must obey all commands given you by the pilot in command. It is a federal offense not to, and you can get jail time for disregarding captain's orders.
Regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of it, you must nonetheless obey the captain without question.
Granted, I think it's a little extreme for the OP to ban electronics from end to end, but nevertheless the Law is the Law and you must obey it, or face the consequences.
Oh, and by the way, the cell phone ban comes from FCC, not FAA. The FAA has a companion policy at request of FCC, but the technological reasons that cell phone use is banned on flights has a lot more to do with maintaining the integrity of the cell network on the ground than it does with flight systems.
To carry the 4G moniker, the technology must support 100Mbit PEAK rates from mobile clients, and 1Gbit peak rates from non-mobile or low-mobility client.
There is no 4G available in the US, but US Carriers are allowed to call LTE and HSPA by the 4G name because ITU gave them a pass for US Marketing only.
The ONLY technologies that actually meet the 4G standard as it is written are LTE Advanced (not available in the US) and 802.16m WirelessMAN-Advanced (also not available in the US).
... 226 bytes is cool and all, but is useless to me since it doesn't work on my platform. I would gladly accept it taking, say, even 15,000 bytes if it actually worked. It's not as if I can't afford the RAM.
I have a 6x2TB array and a 4x320gb array in my server, the former with HD204UI drives on an Intel SASUC8I controller, and the latter with various 320GB notebook drives I've collected, in a 6-bay 5.25" rack on the motherboard's controller. There's also a 120GB SSD in that rack to run ESXi and most of the guest OSes.
We keep all of our crap on the 4x320 array, which is backed up to the other array.
That's not as far-fetched as you think. We're raising the current generation of younglings with the impression that they get a gold star and excessive praise no matter what they do. There can be nothing negative ever.
This is why half the recent college grads I've been interviewing lately have unreasonable expectations. They've been raised in a fantasy land that doesn't exist in the real world.
The linked article is fairly contradictory on several points. The glaring one is this:
" It was first seen on the evening of March 20th. Jaeschke alerted the international Mars observing community about the odd "extension" at 190.5Â east, 43.7Â south, just before the area that rotates into daylight. The odd feature was visible in all color-filtered exposures from near-infrared to blue light. Jaeschke produced the animation below.
The feature was also reportedly captured by other amateur astronomers over the past few nights. Some astronomers in Europe have seen it as far back as March 12th."
So, it was NOT first seen on the 20th, but rather on the 12th in Europe, and the guy in West Chester is not the discoverer of it.
My phone came with a GPS navigation app. Any time it is moving, it blanks the screen and says "GPS Navigation Not Allowed While Moving."
We make more than enough gasoline to meet domestic demand, evidenced by the fact that we are a net gasoline exporter.
Oil prices do not depend solely on the amount of production in the United States. Oil prices, which drive gasoline prices, depend on many factors in addition to domestic production, such as world wide production, and political tension in producing areas.
After all, government is there to pick up the slack where individuals lack responsibility. That's why we have government retirement, government medical care, and government this and government that for retirees. People aren't responsible enough to save for their own retirement. How can we expect them to be responsible enough to plan to close a reactor?
It's a dividend yield of about 1.8% at current share price, so a little better than a savings account, but a lot more risky.
If I wasn't buying before, I'm REALLY not buying now. They're pledging about 2/3 of their normal operating profit to pay a dividend that is not even close to being in the "income stock" universe. That's a bad place to be, IMHO. You're sacking 2/3rd of your profit to pay a little better return than a savings account.
I own a bunch of dividend stocks in large companies that pay 4-6% with reasonably low risk, and I own some REITs that are paying 10-20% dividend yield (albeit with huge risk since interest rates have nowhere to go but up). AAPL doesn't meet the criteria of a low-risk stock, because their numbers of late seem "too good to be true."
I dunno, I am just not buying it.
Correct. They are using treated water, which is neither Black nor Grey water.
It seems that technology can alleviate the problems that cell phones cause when used at altitude (hyper-voting and network saturation).
By placing a microcell on board the aircraft with a microwave backhaul, the phones on board won't be constantly hopping cells on the ground, which is the problem the FCC is solving by forbidding their use in flight.
I can't see anywhere on that site that they are approved in the US, and I don't believe the FCC has made a NPRM on this, so as far as I know today, use of a cell phone (as a cell phone) in flight is still illegal in the US.
That bluetooth headset is not more than a couple of feet away from the trunk of avionics cabling and other critical stuff running along the length of the plane, just inches from the head of the person in the window seat.
Don't worry. Even if the FAA allows the use of phones on flights, it will still be against FCC rules, and they will have to have their cellular chipsets turned off.
It's clear the legislators have zero clue what investment means.
When a company receives startup funding, it is in exchange for ownership shares. That makes it borrowing, not income. Shareholder Equity offsets that funding on the balance sheet.
I have to agree with your experience. I bought a tablet a while ago, and after a few days I put it down and I haven't really used it since. It's too big to carry around, but not big enough to have a good experience.
By the time I got done finding a good folio and bluetooth keyboard for it, I realized I was just putting together an ultrabook, albeit much more expensively and more klunkily.
First, I've never once seen a best practices document that says "put RDP on the Internet." Maybe one exists, or maybe there are special cases somewhere that allow for it, but to me it just seems stupid to connect a Windows machine directly to the Internet, or port-forward directly to one from the edge device.
Second, has anyone heard of an exploit for this that involves a prior uncovered exploit - basically you get some malware that "phones home" to an SSH server and opens a reverse tunnel back to the local RDP server? It seems to me that this would be one way they would do it.
When you spend $300M to develop a drug that is only going to be used by 3000 people, of course it has to be expensive to recover the cost of R&D.
If, the day after you release the drug, some jackbooted thug declares that some competitor of yours can steal your formula and sell the drug for 3% of what you need to sell it for to recoup your cost, then you have zero incentive to develop life-saving drugs. And, neither does anyone else.
>> Opinions like this are written from the perspective of a buyout company which is solely interested in maximizing share price.
That is what the Law says Google must do - act in the best interest of the shareholder. Spending money with no intent to turn a profit has its limits, and there is a fine line that is easily crossed when were talking about numbers that start with "B."
It is one thing for a company to exercise some community goodwill by making small, token donations to charity. It's another to waste $16B of the shareholders' money on projects that have zero chance of success.
Google's thoughtless stewardship of shareholders' funds is precisely why I have never and will never own a single share of GOOG.
"Sunshine... on my shoulder... makes me happy...."