Maybe the FAA Gadget Ban On Liftoff and Landing Isn't So Bad 414
First time accepted submitter oyenamit writes "Ars Technica reported a while back that FAA is going to reconsider the ban on use of electronic gadgets during take-off and landing. If this ban is revoked, you will be free to use your gizmos for an additional 30 minutes or so. Peter Bright has an interesting take on why lifting of the ban may not be such a good idea."
Gahh (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Funny)
how much sleep do you get in that half hour? do you manage to see the safety demonstration?
at least you'll be relaxed if there's an emergency landing.
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Insightful)
how much sleep do you get in that half hour? do you manage to see the safety demonstration?
at least you'll be relaxed if there's an emergency landing.
Usually I get 25 minutes sleep in that half hour. I've seen the safety presentation for every type of aircraft that I fly in currently. If there is an emergency, I hope they don't wake me up for it.
Sleeping is by far the best way to fly.
Re:Gahh (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm of the humble opinion that every airline should offer Xanax to passengers as they board. I have a high tolerance for an awful lot of things, but Xanax puts me right to sleep.. I can be oblivious to the world from the time they push back from the gate, to the time the plane lands. It's really nice to wake up all relaxed and refreshed when I get to where I'm going. :)
But (before anyone says it) the plane landing is enough to wake me up. That's a normal landing. If there were an incident, the adrenaline jolt would make me wide awake instantly. I hate it when there's bad turbulence. I wake up, see that we're not there yet, and go back to sleep.
As I understand it, I am the perfect passenger for the flight crew.
If I start multiple flights a week, I'll have to get doc to prescribe me some more Xanax. :) Crying babies? Annoying people in my row? No problem.
Re:Gahh (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only is it possible it was rather famously done in the last few years by a pilot with essentially no engine power. There were pictures and video on all the major networks and most new websites; this one included IIRC (or at least links to pictures and video). Not only is GP replying to nonexistent quotes in his parent, he's quite wrong. Captain Sully proved that a skilled and lucky pilot can ditch even the largest planes in water and have them and their passengers survive the incident.
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice quote, considering you're quoting something that wasn't said.
And I guess either you're young, or have been living under a rock. Jan 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549.
There are circumstances where it's good not to have your laptop, tablet, phone, etc, all occupying your space. Consider August 2, 2005, Air France Flight 358.
In both of these circumstances, it was advantageous for the passengers to be able to disembark the aircraft expeditiously and unencumbered by extra items.
Planes only crash land, when they are near land or water. That is the minutes surrounding takeoff and landing. During the rough of landings, objects in your hands can become objects flying around the cabin.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're on the plane, chances are it's safe to fly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Funny)
Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.
I SAID I CAN'T HEAR YOU! THE PLANE IS TAKING OFF RIGHT NOW! PLEASE SAY IT AGAIN LOUDER!
Yeah, almost as bad as the fuckwits in restaurants and theaters.
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Interesting)
you're supposed to stow them away when taking off and landing anyways - the issue is actually just about if you have to turn them off..........
Re:Gahh (Score:5, Insightful)
...So it's selfish to use a computer on a plane, but not selfish to complain that 200 people are not forced to sit silently because you can't be bothered to sleep at night?
Don't Want to Use Your Gadgets... (Score:5, Insightful)
...then don't use them.
Idiot.
Attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....
Neither new nor interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen this one before... "If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them."
And not to an iPad! Or iPhone! Or a SkyMall magazine! Or an in-flight magazine! Or a magazine in general! Or a paperback! Or a hardback! Or sleeping! Or entertaining the kids! Or...
You get the idea. Not to mention that a sudden and rapid descent and/or crash will probably grab pretty much everyone's attention, no matter how engrossed they are in Angry Birds....
I've heard this argument repeatedly and it is out of hand absurd. What of all the people who can't understand the language, are hard of hearing, too young etc.? Want to ban them from flying. As with all books/magazines/newspapers. Not to mention any medication which may make the occupants sleepy.
Perhaps we should require everyone to become a qualified airline pilot just in case!? And arrest them if they've had any alcohol - after all they may need to take over the plane. Next step: ban flying altogether.
Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this argument repeatedly and it is out of hand absurd. What of all the people who can't understand the language, are hard of hearing, too young etc.? Want to ban them from flying. As with all books/magazines/newspapers. Not to mention any medication which may make the occupants sleepy.
Plus the pre-departure drinks that flight attendants serve in first class. If absolute concentration during takeoff and landing is required, perhaps they should stop serving alcohol before departure and stop serving 4 hours before landing.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better would be a "No Open Toed Shoes" policy.
Or the policy makers should realize that these events are rare enough that they're always going to catch people off guard regardless of what policies you institute.
No shit (Score:5, Interesting)
If distraction is the issue, fine, but then I'd better see legislation dealing with that. If the rule was "You may not have anything in your hands or on your lap during takeoff and landing. You must face forward and direct all attention towards the flight deck in case the attendants or captain has something you need to know." If we want to go that route of extreme stupidity in the name safety, ok, but you can't somehow argue that it is for no distractions and then still say books are ok.
What's more, if we go that route you'd better do all that in cars first. Far more people die in car accidents than plane crashes and their attention is extremely relevant since they are the operator. So no food, no music, no talking on the phone, eyes on the road, mirrors, or instruments at all time, etc.
Of course we don't have those rules and that is because the no electronics on flights is not one of personal safety, it is one of plane safety. The FAA is worried stray signals could fuck up the plane. Ok maybe that was reasonable in the 70s and 80s, it is fucking stupid now. Test the things, if anything CAN interfere fix it and fix it now, as planes should not be so fragile as to be harmed by stray RFI/EMI and then allow devices on the damn planes at all times.
As to his "spiritual" argument? That tells you all you need to know right there. The guy is an unmitigated selfish jackass. Seriously if you seek spirituality in a plane takeoff, you need to examine your fucking life.
Re:Neither new nor interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Why is this RUBBISH on the front page?
Because the stupid people that rule the world have finally taken over our beloved site.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/travel/autopilot-airlines/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may have no idea, but your point of focus can determine if you get out of the situation dead or alive. Some people can even change the outcome for others, those are not everybody, but aren't rare either.
Re: (Score:3)
In the really rare chance of an emergeny, there is a huge chance you'll be able to help yourself, and a small (but not small enough to be rare) chance you'll be able to help others.
I'm not defending the ban. I have no idea if it is important, and keeping people atent is not justification for it. I'm just replying to your claim that attention is useless.
Re:Attention (Score:5, Informative)
Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway. Automation is so extensive that the air craft is basically a drone flight and the pilot is just an emergency override.[...]
No, not even close. See the "Ask the Pilot" [expertflyer.com] piece, or go read a bit more about it. Patrick covers this particular myth with remarkable frequency, since It Will Not Die!
Passengers using electronics is unlikely in the extreme to ever impact flight safety.
Absolutely agree. Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.
Re:Attention (Score:5, Funny)
Basically, if it were possible to bring a plane down merely by using a cellphone, it would already have been done by now. Certain groups have an intense interest in doing just that. They haven't, so they can't. Q.E.D.
Toby Ziegler: We're flying in a Lockheed Eagle series L1011. It came off the line 20 months ago. It carries a Sim-5 Transponder tracking system. Are you telling me I can still flummox this thing with something I bought at Radio Shack? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745667/quotes?qt=qt0508645 [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, the plane won't stop flying. But you may find yourself annoying back at your departure airport because of someone's cellphone.
All reports of interference are anecdotal - there are simply too many variables (device model, age, production run, seat, navigation in use, etc) t
Re:Attention (Score:5, Funny)
Modern commercial passenger aircraft are barely flown by the pilot anyway.
Old joke.
In the future the cockpit will have a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, and most survivable ones involve runway overruns. They are not exactly slowly unfolding events.
Re:Attention (Score:4, Insightful)
Treat this gadget rule as a test. If someone is utterly unable to avoid using their toys for a few minutes and will break the rules, then they can not be trusted on a plane without sufficient supervision.
So, someone who can't take their eyes off their book is fine, but someone who can't take their eyes off their ebook should be kicked off the flight?
person sitting next to the user (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA makes it sound as if keeping the ban is simply a nice way to preserve some "spiritual" time for yourself when you aren't tempted to use gadgets. That's not nearly as important as the effect on the person sitting next to the gadget user. Flying on airplanes has already become a really miserable experience these days. If I had to sit next to someone yakking nonstop on their cell phone for a 10-hour flight, I would go absolutely nuts. Even in places like the public library or the waiting room for jury duty, there are cell phone blabberers who simply cannot be convinced that their conversation is anappropriate and bothersome to others.
Re:person sitting next to the user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/Etymotic-Research-Isolating-In-Ear-Earphones/dp/B003S3RFIQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332724721&sr=8-2 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Noise-isolation headphones (in or over ear) are what you should be looking at. As you hear practically nothing of outside noise, they carry the added bonus of never requiring you to blast your eardrums in order to hear what you're playing.
I have a $25 pair of Klipsch isolation earbuds that work excellently in this manner. They're perfec
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:person sitting next to the user (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA makes it sound as if keeping the ban is simply a nice way to preserve some "spiritual" time for yourself when you aren't tempted to use gadgets. That's not nearly as important as the effect on the person sitting next to the gadget user. Flying on airplanes has already become a really miserable experience these days. If I had to sit next to someone yakking nonstop on their cell phone for a 10-hour flight, I would go absolutely nuts. Even in places like the public library or the waiting room for jury duty, there are cell phone blabberers who simply cannot be convinced that their conversation is anappropriate and bothersome to others.
This man speaks the truth.
/brief pause
This sadly is something I've actually heard from a man using his mobile on the plane.
"Guess where I'm calling you from."
"GUESS WHERE I"M CALLING YOU FROM"
"I'm on a plane"
"I'M ON A PLANE"
"I'M ON A PLANE"
At this point two of the flight attendants arrive to tell the man to turn off his phone and he asks if they could turn the engines down so he can talk to his friend. They confiscated his phone and he spent the next 20 minutes complaining about it until one of the other passengers said he'd "knock his teeth out if he didn't shut up".
I'd like to add to this the arm swinging. Most people already have enough trouble trying to sit still and not elbow the person next to them. Add a tablet to this and all of a sudden there's arms flailing everywhere, elbows hitting you from nasal to naval and the best this person offers you is a meek "I'm sorry" before going back to having a fit.
Personally, I love flying. It's the other passengers I cant stand.
Re:person sitting next to the user (Score:5, Insightful)
The most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport. Which is why I always congratulate myself for getting to the check in counter in piece. Seriously, over 300 people in my state alone (Western Australia) die on our roads. About 10 Australians die on aircraft per year around the world.
Where's the road from Australia to Singapore?
There is no such thing as a short drive from where I live and I've done more then enough of those two day trips up north for one lifetime, besides there's nothing up there but bogans, heat, flies and dust.
7.5 hours of driving at 120 KPH (10 KM's over the speed limit here in West Oz and you're unlikely to sustain 120 KM/h for that entire 7.5 hours) is 900 KM, good work, you have 2 to 3 more days of this before you reach the nearest capital city, Adelaide. Meanwhile I've flown 5,000 KM's to another country, passed through customs and am now enjoying my holiday at my destination.
Spending 3 days getting to my destination wastes 5 good days of holiday time, talk about the worst way to spend my time off.
In reality all you've done is limit the places you can go. No crossing oceans, you cant go further then 800 KM's. What's the point of even taking a holiday if you're not going to see anything new or exciting. Might as well stay home.
Re: (Score:3)
The most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport.
That used to be the case. These days, the most dangerous part of any flight is when you are assaulted by the TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
The parent is in Australia, and apparently likes to fly either to other places in Australia, or to Singapore. They don't have molesters in the airports there as far as I know, that's a purely American innovation.
Re: (Score:3)
You fly to Paris only to fly back to London, all in order to save a buck?
Is the tax your first-born child or is your time really worth so little?
Re: (Score:3)
Even in places like the public library or the waiting room for jury duty, there are cell phone blabberers who simply cannot be convinced that their conversation is anappropriate and bothersome to others.
Polite confrontation usually works.
And for the people who aren't polite, you get a librarian/baliff/usher/etc to tell them they're annoying others and STFU or go outside.
I've been thanked by others more than once after a movie, because I spoke up and told someone to STFU or stop texting.
If we want a polite society, we have to ask for it ourselves... and try not to get stabbed in the process
/get off my lawn
Re: (Score:3)
There is something to be said for not being transfixed by an electronic gizmo.
Freedom: the ability to choose and execute your choice without restraint.
So, FAA makes you not-free to use your gadget, but arguably is helping you make the occasional choice to put it down.
I knew several physicians who refused to ever carry a cellphone as late as 1999... why? Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:person sitting next to the user (Score:5, Informative)
Re:person sitting next to the user (Score:4, Informative)
His real point is that he's too weak to turn his gizmos off when he wants some down time, so he wants to make sure no one else can use theirs either.
Actually, I wonder - if that's the only time he can get away from his gizmos, does he book pointless flights back and forth across the country, with as many stops as possible, just to get some quiet time?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Capitalism's the worst religion of all, telling me I can't safely use nearly all the stuff around me because it "belongs" to other people - even when I'm harming no-one.
The odd part is that people who don't believe in private property shout the loudest when people come round and take all their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not an argument, that's just bullshit.
Re:Uhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Careful, at this rate you'll have enough points we'll have to suspend your internet license.
Government as Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I've read enough. He doesn't really have a good argument for this.
How did this lame article get promoted?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering. I saw this on Ars and actually said out loud, "What? No."
Re: (Score:3)
It is a sad day for Ars and /.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Screw off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone in history ever been criminally prosecuted for using an electronic device during takeoff or landing?
Re:Screw off. (Score:5, Informative)
Entitlement!!!11! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait a second.
I am ENTITLED to use my gadgets on any plane I am on.
Don't you see I am ENTITLED???
What is wrong with you??????
Article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
The government should ban something because some guy on the Internet thinks "our entertainment must come from within, not without."
Re: (Score:2)
Or: the government doesn't need to rethink pointless rules because of get off my lawn, damn kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course i'll usually take a break and look out the window when it's actually time to take off, but there's usually a long period of taxiing before the takeoff and then a long period between when we pass
If it really were only a few moments... (Score:2)
They won't let you have your laptop, or tablet, or mp3 player, or ebook reader, some say because they want you to be able to pay attention incase something goes wrong. Load of crap if you ask me. If that were the case, how come I can sit down, buckle up, put in ear plugs, and fall asleep, all before we've left the gate, and
Safety (Score:2)
It always struck me as odd that you can't take in a 100mL bottle of water but they allow devices that can supposedly interfere with the plane, ensuring they are turned off only with an honour system.
If there was the remotest chance their $millions worth of plane and PR could be brought down by your phone no one would be allowed them.
The article, though, is pretty light - suggesting aviation authorities should maintain the ban to give for the 'spiritual' reason of giving us a break from technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that there aren't any liquid explosives capable of downing a plane, chances (remote or otherwise) aren't important factors in what goes on in these decisions,
If the law stays on the books (Score:5, Funny)
I can foresee the author's arguments moving into new areas. A new Wii splash screen, for example.
"Why not take a break? IT'S THE LAW."
Re: (Score:2)
I can foresee the author's arguments moving into new areas. A new Wii splash screen, for example.
"Why not take a break? IT'S THE LAW."
At least one MMOG I've played already bugs you to take a break after a couple of hours. Guild Wars, maybe?
Waiting for the Crash (Score:2)
I've always stopped whatever I'm doing during take off and landing. It doesn't matter if I'm in a really good spot in a book, or engrossed in a great conversation; at these times I stop. Even if I were allowed to used a portable electronic device, I'd still stop for landings and take offs.
Why? This will sound strange. Take offs and landings are the riskiest phase of a flight. I don't want to die and miss out on the experience. For whatever reason, I want to be in the here and now in the event of a catastrop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have flown 2+ times a week for the past 15 years or so. I usually stop what aim doing too. Never really thought about why. However, I woul love to continue reading my kindle during the 45 minute taxis to takeoff.
Re:Waiting for the Crash (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally i've always been enthralled by the goings-on of take-off and landing. I'm a bit of a gearhead though, so things like the whine of a turbocharger spooling up, a rotary engine with a lopey idle, the pop of an open exhaust, etc have always held my attention. To that end, a jet powered aircraft is an extreme version of a lot of these things. The feeling of n-thousand pounds of thrust pushing you back in the seat, the howl of a turbine climbing through several octaves that never seems like it will stop ascending, whining hydraulics and various mechanical sounds of things opening or closing... all of that stuff makes me secretly giddy.
I'll never forget being ~10 years old and landing at Vancouver - I was sitting at a window right behind the wing and it was the first time in my life i'd ever seen thrust reversal. The back of the turbine housing splitting and then rejoining like that nearly had me convinced that the airplane was actually a transformer. The only thing better than seeing it was hearing and feeling the engines at full throttle as they (and the brakes) struggled mightily against the plane's momentum. It's one of those surreal awe-struck moments forever lodged in my mind.
I've enjoyed that visceral, mechanical part of flying ever since. I've always had to resist the urge to shout - over screaming turbines, little old ladies praying, and children crying - "THIS IS F*%KING AWESOME!!!" during takeoff/landing.
Re: (Score:2)
me too, except I was in my twenties for my first flight. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Takeoff is my best opportunity to fall asleep on a flight.
The acceleration and the slight incline of the plane serve to make your seat feel that much less vertical, and I'm usually tired when I get on a plane for one reason or other. So I just drift off and hope to miss as much of the flight as I can that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Fly enough (even better if you have sim time) and you get to know the feelings and sounds of things. I don't panic when flaps go down, because I know what the hydraulic pumps are doing :)
Though the first time I saw a thrust reverser deploy [blogspot.com] I almost shit myself!
As a pilot (Score:4, Interesting)
I forbid the use of electronic devices on my aircraft from door close to door open - that is my right as pilot in command and the person responsible for the lives of everyone on my aircraft.
My employer fully supports this and gives me extra magazines, newspapers, and a bunch of flight-length short stories that people can borrow to read - although the reason they support it so well is because alcohol sales on my flights are 5x the average for my company.
His argument is overreaching (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the author realizes his argument applies to mostly anything one wants:
"I think people should be banned from talking all Tuesdays for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about having a day to listen to your own thoughts"
"I think everyone should forced to wear burkas for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about being free from sexual attraction in daily life"
"I think Peter Bright should be banned from writing articles for spiritual reasons. There's something to be said about preventing people from reading his dumb apologies of abusive government bans."
Re: (Score:3)
Any ban from the government that isn't backed up with solid reasoning is an "abusive government ban" How about the government just bans books you don't like. Is that ok to start the burn pile then?
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with the importance. It has to do with being arbitrary. Arbitrary bans are always abusive.
I would have no problem turning my iPad (if I had one) off if I was asked to, or if the airline required it. But I do have a problem being forced to by governmental mandate for no good reason. And I'm far from a libertarian.
Ommmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the movie Falling Down? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Down [wikipedia.org]
I'm generally an easy going guy, but I have never been closer to murdering a total stranger in public than when some asshole starting talking loudly on a quiet train into his cellphone
simple decency consideration and respect. some people do not understand the concept
i can only imagine the douchebaggery that will go on and bring airplane travel into an even worse circle of hell, if that is even possible, when utterly socially inept twatstains start yammering about the
EM radiation (Score:3)
Modern planes are designed to take lightening strikes. Their electrical systems are designed to be shielded and highly resistant to interference.
If a 2 watt cell phone signal causes problems in a relatively new plane, I would argue there is a significant problem in the plane's electrical systems. Either the electrical systems are damaged or there is a design flaw.
Flying objects and obstacles (Score:2)
I don't say this often.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that article is Jon Katz stupid.
Enforced tranquility? (Score:3)
So we need a government agency to enforce peacefulness upon us? Seriously?
Can't I just go for a hike when I want some peace?
Re: (Score:3)
Not while the seatbelt sign is illuminated.
A flying iPad hurts when it hits you in the head (Score:2)
I'm sure someone is going to try to make the same argument about a hard-back book, but in general, the things people hold in their hands on planes (paperback books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) are light and soft, so if the plane were to lurch suddenly, and they were to go flying through the cabin and hit someone in the head, it wouldn't hurt. On the other hand, an iPhone, iPad, Nook, etc. are rigid objects, and some of these things are moderately heavy too, making them potentially dangerous should they im
Really.. (Score:2)
The last thing I want is for all those 'important' people to talk from the time they get on the plane until the time they get off the plane. If you switch from 'turn your phones off or we're all going to die' over to 'be nice and don't talk on your phone during takeoff and landing' it'll be nothing but people talking the entire trip. People aren't nice.
The phone ban is legit. (Score:3)
I will confirm the fact that phone use during taxi, takeoff, or landing IS potentially harmful to the airplane. Ever leave your phone near your computer speakers and get a text message? That DITDITDITDAAAAAAATTTDITDIT noise it makes is sometimes audible over the communications radios. One phone is annoying. Fifty phones may overwhelm the ATC transmitter. (Keep in mind that the antennas on most airliners are on the top and bottom back where the passengers are, NOT in the cockpit).
As for ipads and kindles? No problem whatsoever.
(And yes, I am an airline pilot. I have experiences this stuff personally.)
Two Things (Score:3)
And
Two: If you can't sit quietly and do nothing for 30 minutes during a takeoff or landing, perhaps you should turn all your shit off and reflect on your sad little life and just where you went wrong with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that's assuming that takeoff and landing are 30 minutes. Sometimes I've been on a plane which had to wait out on the tarmack for as long as an hour (and there have been other cases which were quite a bit longer which I didn't personally experience). How do I deal with all that time? Well, if my seatmate doesn't feel like conversing, I usually read a book. I don't think that wanting to read a book when there's nothing else to do means that I have a sad little life, but maybe you think that mak
They should exempt ebook readers (Score:3)
And ebook reader is such a low-power device, it should be exempted from the ban. Just make them disable wireless on it if necessary.
And I thought the linked article and its rationale were pretty much worthless.
Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like allowing others to have arbitrary power over me. Fuck that. Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Tennessee has this, its dumb in 2 ways
1) wine is only sold in liquor stores, and they are closed on sunday, so you cant buy wine on sunday, but you can buy 2 cases of beer at walmart
2) you cant buy liquor or wine from a liquor store on sunday, but restaurants and bars are allowed to
Re: (Score:2)
Up until recently, Massachusetts clung to centuries-old laws banning the sale of alcohol in retail stores on Sundays. Naturally, the local liquor industry lobbied continuously to have the ban lifted, so it finally was a few years ago. Now people can happily shop for liquor seven days a week.
But I wonder if something was lost in the process. Back when sales were banned on Sunday, you either had to plan ahead or improvise if you wanted something to drink on Sunday. Of course, sometimes this wasn't feasible so this became an unscheduled "dry" day. That's not necessarily a bad thing as sort of a random test of self-control.
Even more bizarre, even before then you *could* within a certain distance of the border -- because they didn't want MA to lose out on liquor sales to NH and RI.
Re: (Score:3)
And for those who don't realize this - No part of MA takes more than an hour to get to either RI or NH. So pretty much a moot point in either case.
On top of that, if you live close enough to NH, they have far lower liquor taxes, so pretty much all of New England saves up to do our bulk liquor shopping there whenever we plan to pass through.
Re: (Score:3)
Pennsylvania is a lot like this. All liquor stores are state owned, so of course the prices are way higher than NJ or Delaware. During the holidays, the state troopers stake out the borders looking for people that cross over the border just to buy booze and bust them on the way back. You'd think the Quakers were still in charge here.
Re: (Score:3)
The government in my country decided to ban the sale of alcohol on September 1st (start of school year), in an effort to reduce the number of drunk schoolkids (you must be 18 to buy alcohol, but not all sellers follow this law). The result is more drunk people on September 1st.
How this works - when you could buy alcohol any time, no real planning was needed, if you lived near a store that works 24h you can just go and buy some if you run out. Of course some people were lazy and since they didn't buy a lot o
Re: (Score:2)
We can comprehend just fine. His argument simply isn't.