What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Kimbo Slice vs. a caterpillar. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The street-fighting legend takes on a leaf-eating menace. See the showdown. Seriously.
65 Comments
- bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+58great! finally I can smoke again.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41"No Hijacking"
"ALALALALALA... *notices sign*..aww.." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26When will the "NO SNAKES" signs start appearing?
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"No Hijacking"
"No crying"
"No kicking the back of the seat in front of you"
"No being too fat for the arm rests" - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16it would only take one loudmouth yelling into the phone for 3 hours sitting next to me to cause an "incident" that would affect the plane.
- iduno871, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15It doesn't suck at all, I don't want your cancer so keep it away from me.
- MrBilly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5On cell phones,
Did anyone see the myth busters episode that tackle this situation. Essentially, they tested a few cell phones to see if they would actually throw off enough interference to do any harm. They came up with a few conclusions:
Cell phones do throw off a lot of interference to unshielded wiring.
Cell phones can cause interference to unshielded navigational electronics.
They later went to a private jet. This jest was supposed to be "state of the art". They tried several cell phones, but it did not do anything to the navigational equipment. This is because the cockpit and wiring were shielded heavily against random interference. They assumed this to be true in commercial aircraft as well.
However, they concluded that because technology is constantly changing, it might be easier for the FAA to ban all phones simply since every phone cannot be tested to comply with every kind of aircraft (although the FCC (?) has rules for maximum frequencies and the amount of interference that electronics can throw out).
Further, I have quite a few friends who fly c-17s in the Air force and they have said that cell phones heavily interfere with their communications equipment, so much in fact that they can immediately tell if someone is using one on the plane just by the disruption. Although they have not personally had problems with their navigational equipment, they have had issues with their radio communications (specifically their headsets). One example they have given me is you can see the interference when you receive a call on your phones and it will mess up the speakers or radio if it is near by. IT has no effect on the flight controls at all- if there was there wold be stronger regulations, however it is the navigation and communications that could get messed up.
Now, the military most likely does not have the same technology as commercial carriers- especially in a 10 yr old cargo plane, but the potential danger is still there.
I will say that I am no pilot, engineer, nor do I work in an airport, but this is what I have been told by all of my friends who fly... just some thoughts... - jnderose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If only Mel Gibson had the latter sign on his dashboard the last time he went out drinking...
- yada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5using a mobile in the cramped confined of an airliner cabin is bad. they should wall off a section of cabin and call it the 'mobile class' or something so regular folk don't have to put up with the all the noise.
at least with smokers, you can vent & filter the air.. what are you gonna do with the obnoxious loudmouth and his mobile? chuck him out the door at 36,000 feet? - killdashnine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"No passing gas"
"No being drunk and belligerent" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Since you brought up the show, you also know that the reason why they don't allow cell phones is becuase new cell phones are coming out pretty much every single day, and it would be ridiculously expensive and stupid for them to have to test every single new phone to make sure it doesn't cause problems. So the simpler solution is, don't allow them. No one ***** needs to be able to make a call on a plane. Period
- cracell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8No smoking is a rule everywhere now...in fact if I didn't see a "designated smoking area sign" I wouldn't ever light up (in public places). Most places it's illegal and a lot of other places it's against the businesses rules...in general if you are a smoker who needs to smoke...you should just stay home (ya it sucks)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What if there are Snakes on a plane?
- marcan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No cell phones on planes is doing a service for the cell networks, not the air plane. Yes, cell phones do throw off a lot of interference. Unless airliners are running on Dell computers though, I highly doubt it will be enough to cause trouble.
However (I've heard) cell phones high in the air are a problem with the network, as they have direct line of sight connection to *many* towers, some of which might potentially have the same IDs (which wouldn't be a problem, as they would be physically separate so that reaching both from ground level would be impossible - however, a cellphone high in the air is a different story). I'm not too sure about this though - can someone with more experience with cellphone networks confirm this? - JamesGlover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Presumably the mobile networks will form deals with the airline companies to route your call through them. The customer will be billed in the same way in which calls made aboard are charge.
- Solidcell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They haven't said anything about designated areas in their comments, stop using that in your favor. I smoke a good deal myself so I'm not biased, but god damn, you seriously piss me off with that crap. You're getting agrivated over an argument that isn't really there, you're the only one mentioning desigated ares.
- MrButthead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Anyone who doesn't know that smoking is not allowed in a plane is an idiot. May as well replace the sign with something meaningful to all the non-idiots.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Frankly I don't care if a mobile phone doesn't cause disruption on a plane, I still don't want mobile phones in the air. I dread the day that my 4 hour flight that is right now the only out of sight down time in my life to become "productive time" in which I can be pinged by my entire organization, just as if I were at my desk.
More so I dread the red eye flight where I could catch a few zzz's, but can't as I'm surrounded by knuckle heads who think that speaking louder makes them more intelligible over a wireless connection. 15 year old girls saying "Oh My Gawd, you won't believe what Jane Said to Timmy!" . Sales people calling their client list, asking for appointments, pressing the secretary to find out if the decision maker is really in or not. Bosses calling their underlings, giving them a tongue lashing as their productivity is down. Significant others getting into fights over their mobile phone, when they're sitting 18 inches from my ear. Just ***** great... - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It would take a million cell phones to have any effect on the plane.
Myth busted. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Most pilots use standard Plantronics headsets, the same type you probably use if you spend alot of time on the phone at work. These are affected by cell phones.
- rocketrye12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3next? the slot for "used razor blades".....replaced with the slot for "used memory sticks"
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If it were true, to hijack a plane you wouldn't even need a gun, bomb, or boxcutter; just stand up and hold your cell in the air and scream "I'll do it!"
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe they can replace all the "unleaded" gasoline signs with "regular", now that leaded is no longer regular (or available). And bring back the big nozzles!
- buckdog05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DOn't they already have phones on planes? THe ones in the backs of the seats?
- FireflyII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those don't work anymore. The service providing them has been shut off.
- liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, that's exactly what needs to be done. :)
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3while they're at it add a colored class so us "normal folks" dont have to hear their *****.
- MrBilly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Again the issue is that phones do not cause loss of control to the plane. If this was true, they would not even let them in the air for fear of crashing. But phones can have problems booosting the signal, which may cause false alarms (such as impact alarms) and interfere with communications with the ground/ control tower or in communications via the pilot's headsets. Pilots can msot definately work around this as they are trained, but the less chaotic the better.
- MrBilly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think Verizon just picked up a contract if I'm not mistaken. I also believe that they can be used to transmit data from your PC (although its insanely expensive). Not everyone who talks on a cell phone is an idiot. For those that complain that people cannot got more than a simple flight without talking- it may be true, but for a business person, it may be important.
In today's global business environment, it is important to be available as much as possible. Working in print production, I know it is important to be able to receive calls, view emails, and get quotes as fast as possible. A 5 hour flight across the country may seem short to some, but that flight may be taking place at a time when the only time a client is available. Consider that it is 8 AM in China when most red-eye or late night flights take place here. Just because you are on the plane, doesn't mean time (or the economy) stops moving.
Also, personal considerations. I don't have kids yet, but if I did, I would want them to be able to reach me at any point in time- to be always available. The same with my wife. Those that may question this want may ask why I would want this, but in a connected world. Going without the level of connectivity we have been used to is hard. Just try leaving your cell phone at home for a day (camping excluded).
BTW I know that this response concerns more than the previous post, but I figured I did not want to go the trouble of posting this below. - ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who said anytihng about designated areas? Me and a bunch of friends are waiting for a bus, guy comes up in front of me starts blowing smoke in my face. Most smokers are considerate, but some, like Tweekster, choose to use the "***** off you little bitch" line. They're the ones that get their ass kicked and then complain their rights are being taken away.
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with cell phones on airplanes is not just as simple as "it might interfere with the plane" (although I believe that risk to be so minor as to be acceptable). Interacting with the standard ground-based cell network from the air is just never going to happen. I guess that's why these satellite-based systems are being developed.
You have to consider the fact that an airplane is a big metal tube, which acts as a shield for radio waves. The airplane's communication and navigation systems use antennas which are mounted in the wings and fuselage in such a way that they can receive and transmit signals just fine, but a tiny cell phone antenna inside an airplane is going to have serious trouble penetrating the metal walls of the plane. Sure, it might work at low altitude or up next to the window, but that's probably about it. So you pretty much have to have some kind of relay on board.
Also, most commercial flights operate around 30,000 to 35,000 feet. This means dozens of cell towers could be in range of a plane at any one time. It's really quite confusing for the network when a single phone is within range of several towers at once, and is traveling at 500 mph, so it may only be in range for a few seconds at a time. And, most cell towers are also designed to focus their antennas (and, subsequently, the majority of their power) toward the ground, since that's where they expect their customers to be located.
So for those reasons I don't think anyone will ever be able to use cell phones on commercial flights unless it's through some kind of satellite relay like this article mentions. And I guess that's a good thing. I personally don't want to have to listen to other people's conversations, but I wouldn't mind having the ability to send text messages from a plane. I'd really prefer in-flight wi-fi above everything else, though. - MrBilly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1However, as I said before. The interference can come from the radio headsets, which according to my friends are not shielded (the booms that go on their helmets)
- mymoustache, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We actually already have something similar to these in the US.
If I'm not mistaken, a newish Delta Embraer that I flew on this spring had "No Electronics" indicators in place of "No Smoking" lights.
I guess these will have to be replaced when mobile services come out over here. - toastgodsupreme, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What about data transfer? SMS? Will charges be applied to those people? How will the service bill people? Hrm, I still wonder about this...
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I swear that movie is part of an experiment. Take a good actor like Samuel L. Jackson, throw out the worst movie idea ever, and see if the public buys it. I'm still going to see it though, its going to take some real acting skill to make the plot fly and I'm anxious to see if he's up to the task.
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The no smoking sign doesn't need to be illuminated. The only point of having the light is the ability to turn it on/off. No smoking should just be screenprinted directly on the console.
- ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And those nozzles that you can leave on. They took the switches off here, so now I have to hold the damn nozzle..then again, duct tape always works.
- Baloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@lakawak
-Bollocks...
it might be possible to engineer an electronic device designed to interfere with the navigation or flight controls..
but your everday electronic items will not cause any harm.. or effect (nor will they assist in combustion while you are refueling).
The only exceptions would be -
an exploding notebook...
or a Mossad tampered mobile (they tend to go bang too) - matrixneo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2they will swipe your card and let you do whatever you want...
- josegutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This thing about no mobile is a good thing. Now we can sit in our seat in peace and won't have to deal with robo douche bag sitting next to us and talking to themself...
- pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regular Plantronics headsets, huh?
That's a new one on me.
Anyway, like the Mythbusters episode, it's easier just to ban it all rather than be specific. My Cessna does not like my cellphone, but the commercial jet I flew last week could react completely differently. - Yankees368, on 06/01/2009, -0/+1I've already been on a plane that instead of NO SMOKING, it says NO ELECTRONIC DEVICES. It was a little CRJ-900, but it was brand new. This already seems to be the norm for new planes.
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've always thought the no smoking light shoudl be replaced with a "no portable electronics" light. Because when they announce "turn off your MP3 players" etc...I can never hear it with my headphones in anyways.
- praveenmarkandu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAH! and those airlines used to say it interfered with electronics and communication during flight. what a load of *****. what about all the other wireless signals going around the plane like bluetooth and 802.11x? they just wanted you to use their own phone and charge straight to your credit card
- surfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did they use them at full power i.e. not within range of a transmitter - as this will be the only real test? Another thing people don't realise when they propose having a transmitter onboard to prevent phones switching to full power is that you can set phone to ignore certain networks via the options. So someone could easily set their phone up to pump out high power signals for the full flight searching for a network.
- liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very good point, does this mean that talking to your wife who is sitting next to you should be banned as well? If you think about it someone on a cell phone means one lest respondant then 2 people conversing with each other on the plane.
Anyways, I would never call anyone while in flight and certainly would not want to be productive while in flight but I just don't see how 1 person sitting near you talking on a cell phone ruins your entire flight? Does this mean anyone talking to each other on the plane ruins your flight? - surfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When they do those sorts of things on TV they rarely test the phones running at full power (which is what they will be doing since they wont be within range).
- siliconglen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm wondering why mobile phones are seen as a problem for aeroplanes. After all, the banning of mobiles in hospitals is now being phased out
http://www.siliconglen.com/news/2006/06/mobile-phone-ban-to-be-lifted-in.html - sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If this was such a big problem, then why wouldn't terrorists just pack a bulk of mobile phone into 1 device and start dialing them when they're in the air to interfere with signals? Just seems like another way to make money at $2.50/minute.
- ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't do a fake-ass cough, I tell the guy to get his ass away from me.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is