OT: Santonio Holmes escorted off plane at Pitt Airport Thursday

[Frezo]

In an attempt to put an end to further speculation, Apple has announced the release of their new iBomb. From now on intent can never be in question. A partnership with BVD will produce the iBomb in a new line of men's underwear to appease future Undiebombers. It's been reported that Apple is seeking a second partnership with Ben Wa to research an exploding vaginal iBomb to be called the PieBomb.

 

[Tunescribe]

==================================================

Al Queda Holmes on a suicide mission.

He's not smart enough to plan anything that complex.

 

[Synovia]

IPODS are electronic devices that have an FCC code attached to them. IPOD Touches also have them.. They do produce an electric field around them when in use.

So does the human body.

Do you really think that the FCC would put a code on them if they didn't have the potential to broadcast or receive.. Hell, Gameboys supposedly can't, yet you aren't allowed to have them on either..

The FCC puts codes on pretty much every electronic device, so yes, I think they would put on a code whether or not something can broadcast.

The rules aren't ridiculous. They are there for a reason. YOU may not understand the science behind it, but that doesn't make it any less real.

No, DaBruinz, I do understand the science behind it, which you clearly don't. The fact that I understand the science is exactly why I think the rules are ridiculous.

 

[spacecrime]

No, DaBruinz, I do understand the science behind it, which you clearly don't. The fact that I understand the science is exactly why I think the rules are ridiculous.

Well, in fairness, you did say that ipods didn't transmit. If you understand the science behind electronic radiation/emmission, and that testing for all possible frequencies of emissions from every model of electronic devices is prohibitively expensive, then why would you call the rules ridiculous?

It is your BELIEF that they could not interfere, and the chances are that they will not, but no one can PROVE they wouldn't interfere with any takeoff and landing function without testing.

Logical solution is to allow devices while plane is in the air, but to pohibit them during takeoff and landing when there might not be enough reaction time to correct even a small problem or issue.

The radio frequency emissions of the human body and a powered electronic device are not comparable

 

[Synovia]

Well, in fairness, you did say that ipods didn't transmit. If you understand the science behind electronic radiation/emmission, and that testing for all possible frequencies of emissions from every model of electronic devices is prohibitively expensive, then why would you call the rules ridiculous?

The iPod doesn't have a strong enough battery, or high enough voltage anywhere to put out a signal that would get through the seat in front of you, let alone through the ****pit door, and start screwing up navigation instruments.

It is your BELIEF that they could not interfere, and the chances are that they will not, but no one can PROVE they wouldn't interfere with any takeoff and landing function without testing.

You can't prove a negative. If devices like iPods could interfere with the navigational instruments of a plane, you wouldn't be able to fly planes at all. There's too much low end EMI near our cities.

 

[DaBruinz]

So does the human body.

Not nearly in the same levels as electronic devices..

The FCC puts codes on pretty much every electronic device, so yes, I think they would put on a code whether or not something can broadcast.

There are plenty they don't put them on..



No, DaBruinz, I do understand the science behind it, which you clearly don't. The fact that I understand the science is exactly why I think the rules are ridiculous.

Yes, you've been told by umpteen people that you are wrong, yet you are telling me that I'm wrong when I agree with them.. Sorry, Synovia, you are the one who clearly doesn't understand the science behind it.

As others have said, Flight Attendants don't have TIME to be discriminatory on flights. It's safer for everyone for them to just say "Shut off all unapproved electronic devices" than it would be to try and figure out which devices are and aren't going to mess with the flight electronics.

So, while you may disagree with it, that doesn't make the rule stupid or you correct.

 

[spacecrime]

The iPod doesn't have a strong enough battery, or high enough voltage anywhere to put out a signal that would get through the seat in front of you, let alone through the ****pit door, and start screwing up navigation instruments.

I thought you knew the science of electro-magnetism? What is a seat stops radio frequencies? And what does the ****pit door have to do with anything? On some planes, RF is used to operate the control surfaces at the rear of the airplane.

Think about why such an unpopular rule is enforced. One of two things is true.

a) It is only your belief, not a proven fact, that it is impossible for electronic devices to affect radio controls.

b) It is a proven fact, but has been kept hidden from everyone, becasue the FAA does not want ipods listened to during takeoff and landing for some nefarious reason of their own.

It's not just ipods. It is all electronic devices. As has been said by someone else, it is too expensive for testing to determine which is safe and which are not. An uniformed opinion just isn't good enough for the FAA. Silly them.

You can't prove a negative.

You most certainly can. You a political science major or something?

 

[Synovia]

Yes, you've been told by umpteen people that you are wrong, yet you are telling me that I'm wrong when I agree with them.. Sorry, Synovia, you are the one who clearly doesn't understand the science behind it.

People disagreeing with something doesn't make it incorrect.

If you want to go ahead and define anything that creates a magnetic field as broadcasting, which is pretty much what you're doing, then we might as well talk about magnetic fields.

I can pretty convincingly say that the magnetic field produced by an iPod isn't reaching the ****pit.

 

[Synovia]

I thought you knew the science of electro-magnetism? What is a seat stops radio frequencies? And what does the ****pit door have to do with anything? On some planes, RF is used to operate the control surfaces at the rear of the airplane.

The seats in airplanes are generally have wire mesh supporting frames.

Think about why such an unpopular rule is enforced. One of two things is true.

a) It is only your belief, not a proven fact, that it is impossible for electronic devices to affect radio controls.

That is not my belief at all. That is a strawman you have invented to argue against. My argument is that an iPOD can not affect radio controls, while in a passenger seat in an airplane.

b) It is a proven fact, but has been kept hidden from everyone, becasue the FAA does not want ipods listened to during takeoff and landing for some nefarious reason of their own.

It's not just ipods. It is all electronic devices. As has been said by someone else, it is too expensive for testing to determine which is safe and which are not. An uniformed opinion just isn't good enough for the FAA. Silly them.

And you continue arguing against the strawman you so hastily erected.

You most certainly can. You a political science major or something?

No, I'm an engineer. You can't prove a negative. Trying to prove a negative is like trying to prove there's no god. There's no way to set up an experiment to do it.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

One more time. I'm an EE, one who has had electronic devices tested and classified per FCC specs. All electronic devices radiate EM energy, even iPods. iPods have been tested and shown to meet rigorous FCC Class B stds over a wide spectrum of frequencies. Sure, their inadvertant boradcast is miniscule, but it is detecteable.

Airlines are extremely, probably overly (but that's the direction to err) cautious about electromagnetic radiation interferance with digital ****pit electronics. Therefore they prohibit operation of ANY and ALL devices during the critical phases of takeoff and landing. Flight Attendants cannot be tasked with discriminating between various devices and their EM aspects which can even vary somewhat between releases of software and programs running so the simplest viable operational approach is to prohibit any use for those brief periods. This horrific limit on freedom of behaviour can be avoided by not flying.

 

[DaBruinz]

The iPod doesn't have a strong enough battery, or high enough voltage anywhere to put out a signal that would get through the seat in front of you, let alone through the ****pit door, and start screwing up navigation instruments.

You do realize that planes are flown via computers and not via cables that link the yoke to the rudder and ailerons. Hasn't been that way for years. Not to mention all the various sensors that they have on the plane..

You can't prove a negative. If devices like iPods could interfere with the navigational instruments of a plane, you wouldn't be able to fly planes at all. There's too much low end EMI near our cities.

There is a difference between being 20 ft away from the circuits and wiring and instrumentation in a plane and being several thousand feet. And if you looked around at the airports, you'd know that there is a buffer zone between them and most things that could emit interference.

You're just grabbing at straws because you painted yourself into an unsupportable stance.