If there's really not any actual risk, what is the point of the rule? Why should it remain in place?

 

Because at one time there was thought to be a risk. As the article stated, they are reviewing it to be certain there are no risks whatsoever. In the meantime, they have more important issues than whether or not Trixie can check her Facebook while the flight's landing.

That it is - I got a ticket for 73 in a 55 just a week ago.

That's the worst, my one ticket is a 76 in a 55, when others were going 80+ around me.

If there's really not any actual risk, what is the point of the rule? Why should it remain in place?

I'm betting most people who don't care about the inconvenience only travel a couple times each year. This meaningless "rule" is quite annoying for those of us who are on 30 plus business trips per year.

Because at one time there was thought to be a risk. As the article stated, they are reviewing it to be certain there are no risks whatsoever. In the meantime, they have more important issues than whether or not Trixie can check her Facebook while the flight's landing.

 

the FAA has supposedly been reviewing that rule forever.

 

let me read my ebook, damn it.

I'm betting most people who don't care about the inconvenience only travel a couple times each year. This meaningless "rule" is quite annoying for those of us who are on 30 plus business trips per year.

^^

Look at the consternation I caused!

 

Because at one time there was thought to be a risk. As the article stated, they are reviewing it to be certain there are no risks whatsoever. In the meantime, they have more important issues than whether or not Trixie can check her Facebook while the flight's landing.

I turn my electronics off during take off and landing; it's not that big a deal to me. Intuitively, it always seemed like it was a rule that didn't make much sense, so my interest was piqued by an article going into greater detail about it.

I'm betting most people who don't care about the inconvenience only travel a couple times each year. This meaningless "rule" is quite annoying for those of us who are on 30 plus business trips per year.

 

I travel often enough, I don't have an issue with it at all.... if I cant get away from my phone or whatever for 10 minutes barring extreme circumstances I have a problem.

I absolutely agree that people should be able to put things down for 15 minutes, but that's not the point.

 

If the FAA said everyone should have to sit still with their eyes closed the entire flight for the safety of the plane, does that make it OK? Or would you question it because it doesn't make sense, and want a reason for it?

 

If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc.

Edited January 3, 201313 yr by IlliniKrush

I absolutely agree that people should be able to put things down for 15 minutes, but that's not the point.

 

If the FAA said everyone should have to sit still with their eyes closed the entire flight for the safety of the plane, does that make it OK? Or would you question it because it doesn't make sense, and want a reason for it?

 

If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc.

 

I'd find another mode of transportation in that case, unless I was traveling overseas in which case the night before I'd stay up to sleep in the plane. But, that is a ridiculous comparison anyways and really I am wasting my time responding to someone that would compare turning a phone off for 15 minutes to being forced to close your eyes for an entire flight.

I absolutely agree that people should be able to put things down for 15 minutes, but that's not the point.

If the FAA said everyone should have to sit still with their eyes closed the entire flight for the safety of the plane, does that make it OK? Or would you question it because it doesn't make sense, and want a reason for it?

 

If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc.

 

I would fly more often...

If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc.

this is exactly what I do!

I'd find another mode of transportation in that case, unless I was traveling overseas in which case the night before I'd stay up to sleep in the plane. But, that is a ridiculous comparison anyways and really I am wasting my time responding to someone that would compare turning a phone off for 15 minutes to being forced to close your eyes for an entire flight.

It's not just phones. why shouldn't I be able to read my ebook during taxi-ing, take-off and landing? How is that different from someone reading a physical book or magazine during those times from a "you should be able to put it away for 15 minutes!!!" perspective?

I guess absolute isnt absolute..

 

Quantum gas goes below absolute zero

It may sound less likely than hell freezing over, but physicists have created an atomic gas with a sub-absolute-zero temperature for the first time1. Their technique opens the door to generating negative-Kelvin materials and new quantum devices, and it could even help to solve a cosmological mystery.

 

Lord Kelvin defined the absolute temperature scale in the mid-1800s in such a way that nothing could be colder than absolute zero. Physicists later realized that the absolute temperature of a gas is related to the average energy of its particles. Absolute zero corresponds to the theoretical state in which particles have no energy at all, and higher temperatures correspond to higher average energies.

 

However, by the 1950s, physicists working with more exotic systems began to realise that this isn't always true: Technically, you read off the temperature of a system from a graph that plots the probabilities of its particles being found with certain energies. Normally, most particles have average or near-average energies, with only a few particles zipping around at higher energies. In theory, if the situation is reversed, with more particles having higher, rather than lower, energies, the plot would flip over and the sign of the temperature would change from a positive to a negative absolute temperature, explains Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany.

It's not just phones. why shouldn't I be able to read my ebook during taxi-ing, take-off and landing? How is that different from someone reading a physical book or magazine during those times from a "you should be able to put it away for 15 minutes!!!" perspective?

This. I'm fine w/ not using something that uses a wireless connection, but I just want to read my book - damnit.

Haven't seen a post on the subject... Has Littlehurt's kid arrived yet? Was due on the 1st.

Haven't seen a post on the subject... Has Littlehurt's kid arrived yet? Was due on the 1st.

 

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

 

 

Great news mate. Congratulations to youself, your good lady, and the little one.

I absolutely agree that people should be able to put things down for 15 minutes, but that's not the point.

 

If the FAA said everyone should have to sit still with their eyes closed the entire flight for the safety of the plane, does that make it OK? Or would you question it because it doesn't make sense, and want a reason for it?

 

If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc.

 

I believe a better example would be if they told you that you could not take nail files, water bottles, shampoo, shaving cream, or 1/8" or longer pen knife blades would you question it? Would you question it is they they asked you to take your shoes off before boarding the plan, stuff like that. If the FAA said that a terrorist could bring down the plane with an iPad, we'd give them up from takeoff to landing. Silly isn't it? We easily accept greater restrictions to possibly prevent a random act of human horror, but fight much smaller restrictions that might prevent a random act of electronic malfunction.

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

Congratulations!

, Little Hurt.

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

Congrats! Make sure to get her a Sox onesie, all the other one-week-olds will be jealous.

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

Awesome dude congrats

Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good.

Congrats!

 

Congrats on Babyhurt!

Congrats dude! It's truly a life changing experience and I wouldn't change it for the world.