or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Technicalities holding up FAA decision on electronics on airplanes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Technicalities holding up FAA decision on electronics on airplanes

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
The Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to move forward with allowing passengers to use electronic devices during takeoff are reportedly being slowed by technicalities and the desire to develop a single, concise, future-proof set of regulationss.

airplane


Speaking with The New York Times' Bits Blog, a pair of sources close to the FAA said that the agency is under considerable pressure to relax the rules that require passengers to power down their devices prior to takeoffs and landings. The industry working group created by the administration to address the issue will likely give its final report this summer, and the FAA hopes to announce such a rule change in by the end of the year.

Holding up the process is the reality of the many types of electronic devices passengers bring onto airplanes now. In addition to tablets such as Apple's iPad ? which can also pack cellular connectivity ? passengers bring cellular phones, Wi-Fi-enabled ereaders like Amazon's Kindle, portable gaming devices with Wi-Fi or cellular connectivity, and more.

The FAA's working group, then, must account for these sorts of devices and determine what mode they should be put into when on an airplane. Many electronic devices currently feature an "airplane mode," in which they do not send or receive wireless signals, but that term can mean different things across different devices, so the group must develop a standard.

The group is also concerned with making sure that flight attendants "do not have to be the social police for which devices are acceptable during flight." Also a concern is making sure that the recommended rules apply to devices that aren't on the market today.

Unsatisfied with the FAA's progress on the issue, Missouri's Senator Clair McCaskill recently announced that she planned to introduce legislation circumventing the agency and allowing passengers to use their electronics from takeoff through to landing. McCaskill's bill is still in the formative stages, and will likely only serve as pressure on the FAA.

"So it's OK to have iPads in the cockpit; it's OK for flight attendants," McCaskill has complained. "Yet it's not OK for the traveling public. A flying copy of 'War and Peace' is more dangerous than a Kindle."
post #2 of 42

And here I thought aluminum was supposed to be good at shielding radio waves. Couldn't possibly make the conduits out of aluminum or anything… 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #3 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The group is also concerned with making sure that flight attendants "do not have to be the social police for which devices are acceptable during flight." Also a concern is making sure that the recommended rules apply to devices that aren't on the market today.

Unsatisfied with the FAA's progress on the issue, Missouri's Senator Clair McCaskill recently announced that she planned to introduce legislation circumventing the agency and allowing passengers to use their electronics from takeoff through to landing. McCaskill's bill is still in the formative stages, and will likely only serve as pressure on the FAA.

"So it's OK to have iPads in the cockpit; it's OK for flight attendants," McCaskill has complained. "Yet it's not OK for the traveling public. A flying copy of 'War and Peace' is more dangerous than a Kindle."

Why is it that when people get elected to office, they apparently are required to surgically remove half of their brain?

Let the FAA do its job. They're the ones responsible for airline safety - not some idiot Congresswoman from MO.

Oh, and btw, to answer your question--there are more issues than just radio signals involved. I suspect that the biggest one is that the airline is required to be able to evacuate a plane quickly in the event of an emergency. That's why they're so strict about things under your feet needing to be all the way under the seat in front of you. Passengers playing with electronic devices during an emergency could endanger themselves or other passengers. A pilot is well trained in how to handle emergencies and doesn't constitute the same issue.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #4 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why is it that when people get elected to office, they apparently are required to surgically remove half of their brain?

Let the FAA do its job. They're the ones responsible for airline safety - not some idiot Congresswoman from MO.

Oh, and btw, to answer your question--there are more issues than just radio signals involved. I suspect that the biggest one is that the airline is required to be able to evacuate a plane quickly in the event of an emergency. That's why they're so strict about things under your feet needing to be all the way under the seat in front of you. Passengers playing with electronic devices during an emergency could endanger themselves or other passengers. A pilot is well trained in how to handle emergencies and doesn't constitute the same issue.


Agree that this Congresswoman shouldn't interfere. Disagree about politicians being half-brain-dead. If your decisions/actions or mine are publicized as much as those of politicians, can they stand up better to scrutiny? You might say yes, but I have no doubt the answer is no in my case. We don't want to admit this, but politicians are more intelligent than the average citizen. I say this, even though I can't stand most of them.

 

As for emergency evacuation being the issue, I have trouble seeing that. If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to eat or do anything else. Furthermore, we are allowed to use electronics after takeoff and the plane is in the air. Emergencies don't just happen while a plane is on the ground.

post #5 of 42
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Why is it that when people get elected to office, they apparently are required to surgically remove half of their brain?

 

Well, they don't exactly want their plan for stealing the Infinite Improbability Drive to be noticed, now do they?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #6 of 42
Just don't allow cell phones. Please. Unless you want to see rampant 'cabin rage' from the idiot braying into his phone next to people who just want to survive the flight.
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Agree that this Congresswoman shouldn't interfere. Disagree about politicians being half-brain-dead. If your decisions/actions or mine are publicized as much as those of politicians, can they stand up better to scrutiny? You might say yes, but I have no doubt the answer is no in my case. We don't want to admit this, but politicians are more intelligent than the average citizen. I say this, even though I can't stand most of them.

As for emergency evacuation being the issue, I have trouble seeing that. If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to eat or do anything else. Furthermore, we are allowed to use electronics after takeoff and the plane is in the air. Emergencies don't just happen while a plane is on the ground.

You're apparently not paying attention. Look at all the politicians advocating stupid things - particularly the flat-out denial of scientific reality. We still have politicians insisting that the earth is 6,000 years old. Not to mention the large number who deny evolution.

Then there's they absolutely insane crap floating around. Like politicians wanting women to be forced to submit to intravaginal ultrasound before they can get an abortion.

Or, of course, the denial of how our system works - like the OK legislature which regularly votes to put a 10 Commandments plaque in the Capitol - even after being soundly spanked over the issue repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

And that doesn't even get into stuff like inability to work together for the good of the country.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're apparently not paying attention. Look at all the politicians advocating stupid things - particularly the flat-out denial of scientific reality. We still have politicians insisting that the earth is 6,000 years old. Not to mention the large number who deny evolution.

Then there's they absolutely insane crap floating around. Like politicians wanting women to be forced to submit to intravaginal ultrasound before they can get an abortion.

Or, of course, the denial of how our system works - like the OK legislature which regularly votes to put a 10 Commandments plaque in the Capitol - even after being soundly spanked over the issue repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

And that doesn't even get into stuff like inability to work together for the good of the country.

With all due respect, do you read some of your posts here? You too have spouted off stupidity and have not always shown an ability to get along with those who disagree with you. So who are you to call politicians brain dead?

If you argue with me, you'd just be proving my point. 1smile.gif
Edited by ankleskater - 3/25/13 at 10:49am
post #9 of 42

If I may probe a point as well, it seems the issue is that politicians should be qualified on a subject before issuing public statements or legislation. For instance, maybe the Congressional Science Committee should only accept Congresspeople who have a science degree. Repeat for economics, technology, etc. You wouldn't necessarily take legal advice from a chess grandmaster, because of different areas of expertise.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Agree that this Congresswoman shouldn't interfere. Disagree about politicians being half-brain-dead. If your decisions/actions or mine are publicized as much as those of politicians, can they stand up better to scrutiny? You might say yes, but I have no doubt the answer is no in my case. We don't want to admit this, but politicians are more intelligent than the average citizen. I say this, even though I can't stand most of them.

 

As for emergency evacuation being the issue, I have trouble seeing that. If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to eat or do anything else. Furthermore, we are allowed to use electronics after takeoff and the plane is in the air. Emergencies don't just happen while a plane is on the ground.

Emergencies do happen in the air, however, during takeoff, the emergencies are much more serious (usually). Clearly there are situations were being at 32000 ft is more serious. But it is much more serious if an engine fails during takeoff, the plane could instantly stall with only hundreds to a few thousand feet for a correction. Or during landing, a wind changes and pushes the plane into the ground, causing the landing gear to fail. Unusual for a large plane, however, it is a possibility. I agree that the passengers can't do much to help but having them pay attention, keep calm (if thats possible), and not have electronics everywhere couldn't hurt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion,

 

I don't understand why this is a big deal. Just get off your electric for 10 minutes, it won't kill you. Even as a kid, I could do this, it wasn't a big deal. Its a small price to pay for the additional safety. 

 

I do not keep up to date on the issue, but it seems like allowing cell phones would be a stupid idea. Some planes are in service for 20 years without upgrades. You never know what new technology may come out that could possibly cause communication problems. 

 

It just seems like a simple, safe measure for 100 lives you know? I am sure your movie can wait 10 minutes.

 

The U.S. commercial airplanes have an amazing track record lately, just because the danger seems to be lower, doesn't mean we should lighten up on a system that is working fine.

 

I also think that the congressmen/women should stay the hell out of it. They have no idea or qualifications to give them the right to decide this stuff.

post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

With all due respect, do you read some of your posts here? You too have spouted off stupidity and have not always shown an ability to get along with those who disagree with you. So who are you to call politicians brain dead?

Sorry, but a politician who denies evolution is wrong. Period.

A politician who insists that the earth is 6,000 years old is wrong. Period.

No matter how many fools might choose to believe them.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 42
Good on Senator McCaskill. If the FAA fails to act quickly, she should work hard to push the legislation through.

The ban on electronics is stupid, as demonstrated by the fact that pilots are now using iPad flight manuals.

As for emergencies, if that were the rationale, then EVERYTHING would have to be stowed during takeoff and landing, and that just plain isn't the case. A cell phone, iPod, or even an iPad is going to cause far less trouble during an emergency than a book, and there's no rule about having a book out. So to claim that it's for emergencies is a disingenuous argument at best.

It's been proven over and over that consumer electronics can't cause airplanes to crash, it's time for the rule to end.

Oh, and if you're one of those people whining about other people talking on the phone - shut up, and mind your own business. Feel free to make your own phone call if you like, or talk to your neighbor. An airplane flight is not a social occasion, and it is NOT rude for someone nearby to be holding a conversation, either with someone present or over a telephone.
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, but a politician who denies evolution is wrong. Period.

A politician who insists that the earth is 6,000 years old is wrong. Period.

No matter how many fools might choose to believe them.

You are correct.

But a politician who wants to get rid of a ridiculous FAA rule is not wrong, no matter how many fools choose to believe otherwise.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Agree that this Congresswoman shouldn't interfere. Disagree about politicians being half-brain-dead. If your decisions/actions or mine are publicized as much as those of politicians, can they stand up better to scrutiny? You might say yes, but I have no doubt the answer is no in my case. We don't want to admit this, but politicians are more intelligent than the average citizen. I say this, even though I can't stand most of them.

 

As for emergency evacuation being the issue, I have trouble seeing that. If that were the case, we wouldn't be allowed to eat or do anything else. Furthermore, we are allowed to use electronics after takeoff and the plane is in the air. Emergencies don't just happen while a plane is on the ground.

Politicians on average might be more "intelligent", but there are pretty stupid ones.

 

On top of it, they're definitely not experts the way professionals dedicated to those matters for years of training are. They're also biased.

 

As for emergencies, they definitely can happen on the ground, check the history of plane incidents for reference.

 

LBNL, slipping on an iPad while trying to escape from a plane with everyone panicking seems to me to be a critical issue...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post



Oh, and if you're one of those people whining about other people talking on the phone - shut up, and mind your own business
 
An airplane flight is not a social occasion, and it is NOT rude for someone nearby to be holding a conversation over a telephone.

Well, in my humble opinion, it is rude, and telling me to mind my own business won't change that. It might be considered rude though to try to overrule the social convention by telling people to "f___ off", otherwise know as "mind your own business"... but probably, in your mind it's just polite sharing of information, so you're welcome ;)


Edited by lightknight - 3/25/13 at 12:03pm

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

LBNL, slipping on an iPad while trying to escape from a plane with everyone panicking seems to me to be a critical issue...

 

Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

 

If there was a true disaster, then somebody slipping on an iPad would be pretty low down on the list, IMO.lol.gif

 

If safety is the true issue (or the excuse), then why not ban all obese people over a certain weight, we can't have them blocking the aisles in the case of an emergency now can we? Why not ban all non-English speaking people from flying, as we can't have people on the flight who do not understand safety and emergency instructions now can we?

 

And I always see people who bring too much carry on baggage with them and try to stuff it in those overhead compartments. Out of all of the potential dangers on a flight, iPads are extremely low on that list. I will as always continue to use my iOS devices when I fly, regardless of what any politicians or the FAA or anybody else deems to be correct. 

post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sorry, but a politician who denies evolution is wrong. Period.

A politician who insists that the earth is 6,000 years old is wrong. Period.

No matter how many fools might choose to believe them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Politicians on average might be more "intelligent", but there are pretty stupid ones.

 

On top of it, they're definitely not experts the way professionals dedicated to those matters for years of training are. They're also biased.

 

As for emergencies, they definitely can happen on the ground, check the history of plane incidents for reference.

 

LBNL, slipping on an iPad while trying to escape from a plane with everyone panicking seems to me to be a critical issue...



I was talking about "on average", as LightHead quoted. Yet the two of you pick on exceptions to try to refute my point. This is an exemplar of how endless arguments become endless in this forum.

 

A: "The sky is often blue."

 

B: "Sometimes it is cloudy, you moron."

 

A: "But I am talking about the general case."

 

C: "But you are ignoring the cloudy days, not to mention nighttime. What an idiot. What a troll."

 

Sigh ...

post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

 



I was talking about "on average", as LightHead quoted. Yet the two of you pick on exceptions to try to refute my point. This is an exemplar of how endless arguments become endless in this forum.

 

A: "The sky is often blue."

 

B: "Sometimes it is cloudy, you moron."

 

A: "But I am talking about the general case."

 

C: "But you are ignoring the cloudy days, not to mention nighttime. What an idiot. What a troll."

 

Sigh ...

LOL!

 

So true!

post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And here I thought aluminum was supposed to be good at shielding radio waves. Couldn't possibly make the conduits out of aluminum or anything… 

 

Based on this wiki, though cell phones can breach aircraft, it's quite unlikely to actually make a call in the air. On the ground is another matter (I don't call my wife...but I frequently text her once I've landed.)

It is useless for sheep to pass laws outlawing carnivorism when the wolf is of a different mind.
Reply
It is useless for sheep to pass laws outlawing carnivorism when the wolf is of a different mind.
Reply
post #20 of 42
I'm always amazed at how many atheists are on the internet forums.
post #21 of 42
With these axxholes from the FAA controlling things, we'll never be able to use the same devices that the pilots use during takeoff and landing. There is only one viable solution: mass violation of the rules. Vote with your finger. Turn it on and leave it on. Are the waitresses going to go to 300 crammed passengers and ask them to turn off their devices. Don't think so. It's called civil disobedience.
Eph nMP, rMBP13&15, MBA, Minis, iPhone 3GS,4,4S,5,5S,6
Reply
Eph nMP, rMBP13&15, MBA, Minis, iPhone 3GS,4,4S,5,5S,6
Reply
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithian View Post

With these axxholes from the FAA controlling things, we'll never be able to use the same devices that the pilots use during takeoff and landing. There is only one viable solution: mass violation of the rules. Vote with your finger. Turn it on and leave it on. Are the waitresses going to go to 300 crammed passengers and ask them to turn off their devices. Don't think so. It's called civil disobedience.

Disobedience on an airplane can land you in jail with a nice fat fine. Go for it dude! I'm sure your fellow passengers won't mind being delayed while the  authorities are dragging your antiestablishment ass out the cabin doors.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

You are correct.

But a politician who wants to get rid of a ridiculous FAA rule is not wrong, no matter how many fools choose to believe otherwise.

Please tell us what the politician's credentials are that makes her more of an expert than the FAA.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Please tell us what the politician's credentials are that makes her more of an expert than the FAA.

Agree.

 

Furthermore, even if a particular Congress(wo)man or Senator is an expert in the field, they should hold a proper meeting to assess the rationale for the delay. The fact is, there are many, many complications in this situation.

post #25 of 42

This page has been .... sanitized.

post #26 of 42
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post
This page has been .... sanitized.

 

And moved to PO, otherwise it would needed sterilizing… 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithian View Post

With these axxholes from the FAA controlling things, we'll never be able to use the same devices that the pilots use during takeoff and landing. There is only one viable solution: mass violation of the rules. Vote with your finger. Turn it on and leave it on. Are the waitresses going to go to 300 crammed passengers and ask them to turn off their devices. Don't think so. It's called civil disobedience.

I saw that happen once. The guy was removed from the flight. I don't know if or when he got to go home.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 42
It's not the 10 minutes taking off or landing. It's the hour waiting in a queue on the ground for takeoff.
post #29 of 42
I dont remember reading nything about evolution in this article, so whoever has tried to hijack it to make a political argument, please stfu. Whoever took the bait and responded, please stfu.

It is 99.9999 pct likely that there is zero danger from using any electronic device on an airplane at any time, but the FAA is notoriously loathe to change or become more modern.

A simple series of studies and tests could have most passengers utilizing their personal tech and enjoying modern conveniences on an aircraft but the FAA has deliberately dragged its feet to avoid having to deal with it for ten years now.

Most of your arguments are moot. The FAA needs to conduct a series of tests and release the results, and then act upon them. They NEED to do this because europe already is.

If there is an actual reason or complication, it will fall on the shoulders of the product manufacturers to correct for airline compliance...

And the concept of "future proof" is a fallacy. Tech advances so rapidly the FAA will need to get its head around a regulr series of tests and such every ten years or so, or whatever interval they think best keeps up with the advance of the modern world.
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sorry, but a politician who denies evolution is wrong. Period.

A politician who insists that the earth is 6,000 years old is wrong. Period.

No matter how many fools might choose to believe them.

I, personally, don't believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old- and I believe in aspects of evolution.  But let me just play Devil's advocate for a minute.  I think we can both agree that there could or could not be a God- Divine creation is a valid theory.  Regardless of the debate, if you believe there is no God- it can never be 100% proven- nor could someone who believes prove it.

That said- let's take the argument there is no God- ok- the world is not 6,000 years old because carbon dating proceeds that.  Done.  Now let's take the argument there is a God.  Could this God- who created the universe- not also make it appear as if the earth were a certain age to create doubt?

 

Again- this isn't a religious argument.  Things are scientifically "proven" and then disproved countless times over.  My point is- even with Science- one can never be sure about anything unless we are all-knowing.  Even though some of us on this forum believe we are, let's be honest.  :)

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

 



I was talking about "on average", as LightHead quoted. Yet the two of you pick on exceptions to try to refute my point. This is an exemplar of how endless arguments become endless in this forum.

 

A: "The sky is often blue."

 

B: "Sometimes it is cloudy, you moron."

 

A: "But I am talking about the general case."

 

C: "But you are ignoring the cloudy days, not to mention nighttime. What an idiot. What a troll."

 

Sigh ...

Lighthead. Not a personal attack at all, because you have a valid point. Oh, wait, you don't.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

LOL!

 

So true!

Not really... He was more saying "in general, people don't get accidents, so we should never put our seatbelts on". It's pretty different.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

 

If there was a true disaster, then somebody slipping on an iPad would be pretty low down on the list, IMO.lol.gif

 

If safety is the true issue (or the excuse), then why not ban all obese people over a certain weight, we can't have them blocking the aisles in the case of an emergency now can we? Why not ban all non-English speaking people from flying, as we can't have people on the flight who do not understand safety and emergency instructions now can we?

 

And I always see people who bring too much carry on baggage with them and try to stuff it in those overhead compartments. Out of all of the potential dangers on a flight, iPads are extremely low on that list. I will as always continue to use my iOS devices when I fly, regardless of what any politicians or the FAA or anybody else deems to be correct. 

I'd rather trust professionals than you, and why am I not surprised that you think you have a right to not follow the rules other do follow?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

TS, While I sometimes agree with you, I think that if you're going to remove a post saying what i just did, then you should also remove HIS post, which is highly offensive to me and anyone who believes in freedom of abortion.

 

If he believes life begins at conception, then it is the murdering of a child.  If you believe life begins at 20 weeks (like the state of Texas) or whenever- then anything past that time would be the murdering of a child.  The whole abortion argument drives me crazy because people put the focus on the choice of the mother instead of when life begins.  I'm not one to say when life begins- in fact, science (again- that great science word) can't even prove it because it's subjective.  If people would argue about conception and their individual belief on that- then that's a valid argument.  But the whole "Mother's right" is bogus.  Completely and utterly.

 

Edit: What's this thread about again?

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I, personally, don't believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old- and I believe in aspects of evolution.  But let me just play Devil's advocate for a minute.  I think we can both agree that there could or could not be a God- Divine creation is a valid theory.  Regardless of the debate, if you believe there is no God- it can never be 100% proven- nor could someone who believes prove it.
That said- let's take the argument there is no God- ok- the world is not 6,000 years old because carbon dating proceeds that.  Done.  Now let's take the argument there is a God.  Could this God- who created the universe- not also make it appear as if the earth were a certain age to create doubt?

Again- this isn't a religious argument.  Things are scientifically "proven" and then disproved countless times over.  My point is- even with Science- one can never be sure about anything unless we are all-knowing.  Even though some of us on this forum believe we are, let's be honest.  1smile.gif

That argument is a red herring. I don't know ANYONE who claims that they can prove that there's no God. Atheists believe that there's no evidence for good and therefore believe that he doesn't exist. Agnostics say that no one can prove it one way or the other so there's no way of knowing. Few, if any, people claim to be able to prove that God doesn't exist - and no one in their right mind would claim that carbon dating proves that.

It's not just carbon dating that says the earth is billions of years old (technically, carbon dating only takes you back a few hundred thousand years, IIRC). There is moutains of evidence from virtually every field of science that points to an ancient earth. Just a few examples:
- Physics - Radioisotope decay. Potassium decay, for example.
- Biology - The rate of mutation is pretty well defined for most species and is consistent with the known timeline. It is not consistent with a 6,000 year old earth.
- Geology - There are fossil records of thousands of species that have never been reported in human history (which if you believe the 6,000 year argument, constitutes the entire age of the earth).
- Astronomy - relative motion of the planets and stars, etc
- Physics - Calculations based on the rate of cooling of the Earth's crust
And so on. The evidence is immense.

So, that leaves you with two possibilities:
1. The earth really is billions of years old.
or
2. The earth is 6,000 years old and God gave us intelligence specifically so that he could fool us into denying what our own intelligence tells us - which suggests that he is more interested in the gullible and ignorant following him than the ones with the intelligence he created.

I certainly can't prove #2 to be false, but I can't accept that. If there is a God, I would be more likely to believe that his creation extends back billions of years to the Big Bang rather than intentionally setting out to make our senses and brains lie to us.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #36 of 42

I just want an Apple story to break so we can stop this thread.

 

Edit: Hey- iPhone on T-Mobile.  My prayers are answered!

 

See what I did there Jrag?  :)


Edited by Andysol - 3/26/13 at 8:44am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

If he believes life begins at conception, then it is the murdering of a child.  If you believe life begins at 20 weeks (like the state of Texas) or whenever- then anything past that time would be the murdering of a child.  The whole abortion argument drives me crazy because people put the focus on the choice of the mother instead of when life begins.  I'm not one to say when life begins- in fact, science (again- that great science word) can't even prove it because it's subjective.  If people would argue about conception and their individual belief on that- then that's a valid argument.  But the whole "Mother's right" is bogus.  Completely and utterly.

Edit: What's this thread about again?

That is not correct. Killing is not necessarily 'murder'. We allow killing in a war, for example, and don't call it murder. Many states (including many of the political groups opposed to abortion, btw) allow capital punishment and don't call it murder.

I did an essay for an ethics class once. The argument about whether life begins at conception is misguided - and is the cause of much of the inability of the two sides to rationally discuss the topic. To determine the morality of abortion, one must address each of the following questions:

1. When does life begin? This is simple biology and is a known fact. Biology defines 'life' as a series of chemical reactions and behaviors that meet certain criteria. Respiration (taking in one gas and giving off another). Processing of food to energy. And so on. By standard biological definition, life begins at conception - and discussing that point is wasted energy.

2. When does HUMAN life begin? Again, simple biology. We determine the species by its genetics, not by its appearance. A person who lost all 4 legs and nose and ears is still human. Again, at the moment of conception, the fetus has a full complement of human genes and is, therefore, human. Discussing that point is wasted energy.

3. Does the unborn child have rights? This is not a simple scientific question and is open for debate. The general consensus is that even an unborn child has SOME rights. For example, it is not considered ethical to walk down the street kicking dogs or cats. By analogy, it is often considered that a fetus has the right not to be abused without good reason.

4. Does the mother have rights? Generally accepted to be 'yes'. Adult humans have certain inherent rights.

5. Does the mother's rights outweigh the unborn child's rights? Wide open for discussion. People who discuss it seriously use a variety of analogies (my favorite is the one where you wake up with a world famous composer connected to you. You can elect to have him removed, but he will die. What should you do?). There is no consensus on this issue - and should be the main focus of discussion. THIS is really the question that must be answered.

6. Does the mother's action affect the answer to #5? (In the above example, what if the mother volunteered to be connected to the composer? Would that change her rights to disconnect him later?) The importance of this is that it is the ethical question that might justify abortion in the case of rape or incest even if it is not allowed in other cases.

Until people start discussing the things that are open for discussion, there will never be consensus on the issue. The anti-abortion group is spending all their energy arguing #1 - which is already a scientific fact. The pro-choice group is spending all their energy arguing #4 - which is widely perceived as already answered. The two sides aren't even discussing the same question (which should be #5).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That is not correct. Killing is not necessarily 'murder'. We allow killing in a war, for example, and don't call it murder. Many states (including many of the political groups opposed to abortion, btw) allow capital punishment and don't call it murder.

I did an essay for an ethics class once. The argument about whether life begins at conception is misguided - and is the cause of much of the inability of the two sides to rationally discuss the topic. To determine the morality of abortion, one must address each of the following questions:

1. When does life begin? This is simple biology and is a known fact. Biology defines 'life' as a series of chemical reactions and behaviors that meet certain criteria. Respiration (taking in one gas and giving off another). Processing of food to energy. And so on. By standard biological definition, life begins at conception - and discussing that point is wasted energy.

2. When does HUMAN life begin? Again, simple biology. We determine the species by its genetics, not by its appearance. A person who lost all 4 legs and nose and ears is still human. Again, at the moment of conception, the fetus has a full complement of human genes and is, therefore, human. Discussing that point is wasted energy.

3. Does the unborn child have rights? This is not a simple scientific question and is open for debate. The general consensus is that even an unborn child has SOME rights. For example, it is not considered ethical to walk down the street kicking dogs or cats. By analogy, it is often considered that a fetus has the right not to be abused without good reason.

4. Does the mother have rights? Generally accepted to be 'yes'. Adult humans have certain inherent rights.

5. Does the mother's rights outweigh the unborn child's rights? Wide open for discussion. People who discuss it seriously use a variety of analogies (my favorite is the one where you wake up with a world famous composer connected to you. You can elect to have him removed, but he will die. What should you do?). There is no consensus on this issue - and should be the main focus of discussion. THIS is really the question that must be answered.

6. Does the mother's action affect the answer to #5? (In the above example, what if the mother volunteered to be connected to the composer? Would that change her rights to disconnect him later?) The importance of this is that it is the ethical question that might justify abortion in the case of rape or incest even if it is not allowed in other cases.

Until people start discussing the things that are open for discussion, there will never be consensus on the issue. The anti-abortion group is spending all their energy arguing #1 - which is already a scientific fact. The pro-choice group is spending all their energy arguing #4 - which is widely perceived as already answered. The two sides aren't even discussing the same question (which should be #5).

 

This is very well laid out. As to the issue of people moving the discussion to the items that are open for discussion (items 3-6 in your list) has become a problem because many people simply deny the assertions in 1-2. Once there is agreement on these two, then the discussion can move to 3-6 and the complicated issues therein.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 42
Well if someone has cellular,wifi, and Bluetooth turned off(regular airplane mode) it will not do any difference when the plane is taking off. As I hope planes will have free wifi instead of paid.
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Well if someone has cellular,wifi, and Bluetooth turned off(regular airplane mode) it will not do any difference when the plane is taking off. As I hope planes will have free wifi instead of paid.

Except that you're ignoring the points that I've been making (repeatedly). I really don't think it's about the radio signals as much as the safety issue of trying to get people off the plane in an emergency when some of them are distracted with their electronics.

And don't hold your breath expecting free WiFi on planes. They charge for everything else, so why give free WiFi?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Technicalities holding up FAA decision on electronics on airplanes