Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Maybe the FAA Gadget Ban On Liftoff and Landing Isn't So Bad

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-have-your-opinion-I-have-mine dept.

Transportation 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."

cancel ×

414 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gahh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470293)

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 (4, Funny)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470513)

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 (-1, Redundant)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470769)

>implying a plane can actually land on water.

You are so naive.

Don't Want to Use Your Gadgets... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470297)

...then don't use them.

Idiot.

Attention (5, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470303)

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....

Re:Attention (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470385)

I don't think they're revising the rules against the pilot playing angry birds during take off and landing anyway. And frankly, as a passenger, with terrorist proof doors between me and the pilot's controls - in the event of emergency, I don't think my exact point of focus is going to matter to the outcome of the incident.

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. On light air craft or much older planes (the kind they use to fly mine workers to remote sites, or for tasks other than moving civilian passengers around between family reunions, vacations and business meetings) the pilot has more to do. But even then, newer small air craft don't really require a lot of piloting in typical operations. Passengers using electronics is unlikely in the extreme to ever impact flight safety.

Re:Attention (2, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470837)

as a passenger ... in the event of emergency, I don't think my exact point of focus is going to matter to the outcome of the incident

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:Attention (5, Informative)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470981)

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.

Neither new nor interesting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470417)

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:Neither new nor interesting (2, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470565)

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:Neither new nor interesting (2)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470577)

Exactly. If they're really serious about this, they should really implement a "Keep Your Shoes On" policy. The chances of survival in an airplane crash where you have to egress around debris/burning material is near nil.

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 (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470799)

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:No shit (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470851)

Ohh, I need all the spirituality I can get when flying.

It is what allows me the tolerance to deal with the TSA, the small ass seats, complete lack of leg room (my knees are jammed into the seat in front of me), the two fucking styrofoam peanuts they give you to eat, the cup with a half can of soda, etc.

The peanuts are absurd. Might as well individually package the peanuts. What a waste for so little. Give people the full soda can you cheap bastards.

Yeah.... I need my spirituality when flying. Otherwise I would just lose it.

That, and when some big hairy dude is grabbing my junk to make sure I am not a terrorist.....

Re:Attention (1)

Spodi (2259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470779)

I would say the opposite. For most all events that happen on a plane that will lead to a disaster, you have plenty of time to react. It is not like you need to sit there alert and listening for anything abnormal. "Hey pilot guy, I heard a sound!" "Thank you sir, you just saved everyone!" What we do NOT need is people over-reacting and creating a panic.

Re:Attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470925)

Let me get this straight...

The rules are being revisited(partly because they're old and partly because they're bogus).

But we shouldn't revise them...
Not because they're in any way at fault

But because the only reason the author can think of turning them off and doing a credible job of it...

Is because it might crash the plane...

If it's only to reclaim a few minutes of non-electric gizmo time, we won't do it, because it won't crash the plane?

If by interesting take you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470309)

The same old obvious take, then yes you are right.

reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470311)

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.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (5, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470327)

That is incredibly arbitrary.

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:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470455)

Indeed. Intellectual property; land and other natural resource ownership; limited liability businesses... all these arbitrary forms of power need to be abolished.

Then we can worry about liquor laws.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470351)

It's not the government's role to enforce a "dry day", if you want to drink you should be allowed to purchase it, and if you care about your health enough to have a day away from the drink, then you should have the self-control to do just that. This only really affects alcoholics.

Re:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470463)

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:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470491)

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:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470763)

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.

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:reminds me of blue laws in Massachusetts (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470919)

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.

person sitting next to the user (5, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470313)

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 (4, Insightful)

nemui-chan (550759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470361)

On any flight I go on, I have noise cancelling headphones. You can get a nice pair for ~$40 or so.

Re:person sitting next to the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470377)

Can you recommend a pair?

Re:person sitting next to the user (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470543)

I agree. I'd love to know some good options at that price. I've always thought that if you aren't spending upwards of $100 then they were crap. It would be great if this isn't the case.

Re:person sitting next to the user (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470747)

Use these [canadiantire.ca] : professional hearing protection. $32. Cover your ear buds with them and you can listen to music at low volume as well as block out most noise. I've been doing this for years and it works great. The only drawback is it isn't very stylish, but for the price and performance, who cares.

Re:person sitting next to the user (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470635)

I recommend the Etymotic MC5 [etymotic.com] . Noise cancelling, amazing reproduction and you can get them for around $50-$60 on Amazon.

Re:person sitting next to the user (0)

xandroid (680978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470369)

What? Lifting this ridiculous ban would not mean people could talk on their cell phones for an entire flight.

And, to the author of TFA: No. If you enjoy the solitude provided by people of questionable authority telling you that you can't do perfectly safe things because of some handwaving, there are lots of religions you can join.

Re:person sitting next to the user (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470503)

And, to the author of TFA: No. If you enjoy the solitude provided by people of questionable authority telling you that you can't do perfectly safe things because of some handwaving, there are lots of religions you can join.

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.

Re:person sitting next to the user (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470731)

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:person sitting next to the user (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470795)

And warning people about safe things just desensitizes them to warnings about things that actually *can be* dangerous. When that happens, more harm is done than good.

Re:person sitting next to the user (0)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470403)

Feel free to drive or charter your own plane, then. Some of us have things to do.

Re:person sitting next to the user (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470441)

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.

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"
/brief pause
"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 (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470493)

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:person sitting next to the user (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470653)

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:person sitting next to the user (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470789)

This. If the goal is spiritual and personal - then you really need to cultivate the self control to avoid using a gadget at all. I've gone on long flights and consciously chose to avoid listening to my ipod or watching the in flight tv/movies. However if the goal is stopping the annoyance of other people on their phones, then it would need to explicitly have that aim and be flight long. Noise canceling headphones are great for ambient noise, but do nothing to cancel out variable noises like conversations. This is another reason (on top of security theater) that trains are so much nicer than planes - they often have a quiet car.

Re:person sitting next to the user (4, Informative)

forand (530402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470861)

If you had RTFA you would have noted that the ban on cell phones is not being revisited. That is cell phones will continue to be banned during flight.

Re:person sitting next to the user (3, Informative)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470939)

Did you READ TFA? He's not talking about lifting the ban on talking on the phone - he's talking about lifting the ban on having gizmos powered on during the takeoff and landing. If you can tolerate someone next to you reading a kindle or playing angry birds for 10 hours, you can tolerate it for another 30 minutes.

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?

Uhhhh (4, Insightful)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470315)

His argument is that we need to keep a worthless federal regulation on the books (and remember, you can be charged with a felony for not complying) because it . . . preserves the "spiritualness" of the takeoff and landing period.

That's not an argument, that's just bullshit.

Re:Uhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470741)

He must be fishing for pageviews, he can't be that stupid.

Re:Uhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470801)

He must be fishing for pageviews, he can't be that stupid.

Citation Needed

Government as Jesus (5, Insightful)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470319)

But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one.

Okay, I've read enough. He doesn't really have a good argument for this.

How did this lame article get promoted?

Re:Government as Jesus (1)

xandroid (680978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470415)

That's what I was wondering. I saw this on Ars and actually said out loud, "What? No."

Re:Government as Jesus (2)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470551)

It is a sad day for Ars and /.

Re:Government as Jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470937)

But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one.

Okay, I've read enough. He doesn't really have a good argument for this.

How did this lame article get promoted?

My response is go buy your own private plane if you want to pray to the Luddite gods.

Screw off. (5, Interesting)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470329)

May I be the first to say, "SCREW OFF!" The entire argument is that the federal government should enforce a nationwide ban on the use of electronic devices during takeoff and landing, backed by criminal penalties for violation, simply because this author believes it's good for everyone to take a little break from their gadgets every now and then? Even if there's absolutely no safety issue? Jesus. Thankfully that basis for such a regulation clearly doesn't pass constitutional muster, even under the current interpretation of the 10th Amendment. People who think government should work like this are what's wrong with this country.

Re:Screw off. (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470357)

Has anyone in history ever been criminally prosecuted for using an electronic device during takeoff or landing?

Entitlement!!!11! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470555)

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??????

Re:Entitlement!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470923)

A blithering Republican is on the loose again.

Re:Entitlement!!!11! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470973)

Ok. So person A rants about the idea that a federal ban should be in place just because it is good for us.

Person B responds to that by mocking this as being just about selfishness and entitlement. i.e. the overall good
should make us willing to make small sacrifices even if they are stupid

Person C responds with a kneejerk "republican" response to person B.

A had a "central power is usually evil" normally associated w/ republicans (ok, *sometimes*, more often libertarians I guess)
B had a "just buckle down and be nice for sake of society" normally associated with democrats (ok, maybe more liberals or socialists, dunno)

But at least both were trying to be funny

Person C is apparently just an idiot who has convenient slots for worldview that everything fits into.

Article summary (4, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470341)

The government should ban something because some guy on the Internet thinks "our entertainment must come from within, not without."

Re:Article summary (1)

xandroid (680978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470407)

Or: the government doesn't need to rethink pointless rules because of get off my lawn, damn kids.

If it really were only a few moments... (2)

herrnova (2534538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470343)

I don't buy the safety in case something goes wrong bit any more than I buy the interference bit that has been the usual answer to why you cant have your laptop on during these times.

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 no one says anything? Or why can I pull out a 2 pound hard back book the size of a shoebox (I exaggerate, but not by far), and no one says anything? If its really for safety reasons in case something goes wrong (the pilot fails in his job of keeping the plain from hitting the ground), that hard back edition of Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter/Sword of Truth will do a lot more damage flying around the cockpit than my 6 ounce kindle.

I've always liked looking out the window on takeoff and landing, so I've never had a problem having my various tech turned off during this time, but the "it's only 15 minutes each way" argument irritates me. There have been numerous times that the plane I was on had to wait somewhere between leaving the gate and actually taking off, or between landing and reaching the gate, once for over an hour, but they still demand we keep all electronic devices off. 15 minutes I can handle, but being forced to stay seated for over an hour without at least having my kindle to read is all sorts of annoying.

Re:If it really were only a few moments... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470845)

Or why can I pull out a 2 pound hard back book the size of a shoebox (I exaggerate, but not by far), and no one says anything?

"Please put your seats and tray tables in their full upright position and stow all belongings."

You're supposed to hold off on your literary excursions as well.

So you don't have to read (1)

DSS11Q13 (1853164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470345)

Here's the stupid reason:

"But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one. There is something to be said for not being transfixed by an electronic gizmo."

*facepalm*

Safety (2)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470381)

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.

the ban is dumb (0)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470401)

I never turn my phone off during take off or landing. I usually even have headphones in the flight attendant never say a word. Oh yeah did i mention i fly at least every 2 weeks normally more?

If the law stays on the books (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470411)

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:If the law stays on the books (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470745)

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?

Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470425)

This guy is the exact reason why we shouldn't have people making arbitrary laws.

Thanks for the "higher cause" law, shitbean.

Waiting for the Crash (1)

JimMcc (31079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470427)

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 catastrophic failure. I think it would be a shame to leave the present plain of existence (no pun intended) without being aware of the events that led up to the departure.

Re:Waiting for the Crash (1)

manoweb (1993306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470461)

During takeoff, for whatever reason, I seldom fall asleep. Landing instead is almost erotic to me.

Re:Waiting for the Crash (2)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470585)

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 (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470673)

On my flight back from the UK, every time turbulence hit, I looked around in a panic to everyone else to get my bearings. STILL couldn't help from thinking, "How can you all just SIT there, aren't we about to DIE?!"

Agreed on the take-off/landings bit. Scariest, really, while being really cool.

Re:Waiting for the Crash (5, Interesting)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470695)

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:Waiting for the Crash (1)

turtledawn (149719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470739)

me too, except I was in my twenties for my first flight. :-)

Re:Waiting for the Crash (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470699)

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:Waiting for the Crash (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470857)

You're not alone. And I think you're on to something.

Being mortal, we're all going to die after some finite time. If we ask ourselves what is our purpose as human beings, as compared to the many other configurations in which our atoms have found themselves over the past few billion years, it seems reasonable to suppose that this is our time to experience specifically what it is to be human. There's time, but not infinite time, to experience all of the essential aspects of being human, including participation, withdrawal, boredom, transcending boredom, and so on.

Being fully present in whatever you're doing is a basic motif for living a fulfilling life. So when you come to the end of your life, you know that you were really there during all that time, you can regard your life as complete and satisfying.

Re:Waiting for the Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470945)

The non-intended pun might have worked better if you had spelled plane right.

As a pilot (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470447)

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.

Re:As a pilot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470477)

Cause they are all drinking cause you wont shut up with the flight-length stories....

His argument is overreaching (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470485)

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."

Ommmmmmm (4, Insightful)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470507)

"Ladies and gentlemen, the pilot requests that all passengers put their trays forward, put their seat back in their forward position, turn off all electronic devices, and chant the spiritual mantra of the Ars Technica Church of spirituality for the next fifteen minutes prior to landing."

Can't anybody comprehend what they're reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470517)

The point of the article is not that they should keep the ban in place, but that the argument against the ban isn't all one-sided.

But of course this is /., and subtle arguments like that are beyond most readers here (if they even bother to rtfa).

Re:Can't anybody comprehend what they're reading? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470637)

We can comprehend just fine. His argument simply isn't.

Remember the movie Falling Down? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470533)

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 their laundry and their dogs and the celebrity they sited and the awesome upcoming party on flights

prisons, cinemas, planes, trains, concert halls: signals only carry 911 and data

this is not rocket science, and it is something the vast majority would agree with

write your congresscritter

Allow electronics permanently ban cellphones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470553)

And airphones for that matter.

EM radiation (2)

ebonum (830686) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470573)

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.

American Taliban (1, Informative)

Grail (18233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470597)

Watch as your nation is demolished by people claiming that religion is more important than science, and that giving all children the same grade in reading tests is better for their education. If you want to know where your country is headed, watch "Idiocracy".

Just remember that it's easier to control a population if they are uneducated and fearful.

Flying objects and obstacles (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470613)

The lasting thing one should want in a plane is when the landing is rough, or even worse, a crash, is to be getting hit by the Ipod or Ipad from the guy sitting 17 seats behind you. In the event of a crash where the cabin will fill with smoke in just seconds you don't want to be navigating the exit lights while avoiding slipping over a tablet or other gadget. What if the guy next to you, at the exit-zone, is sitting there with his tablet when you need to (e)vacate the plane? That is costing you precious seconds, and seconds is all you get when there is a real emergency. Please don't lift the ban. In time people will pay with their lives. A low weight tabled, phone or other gadget will do a mighty good job at becoming a projectile in the event of a really rough landing.

I don't say this often.. (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470625)

But that article is Jon Katz stupid.

I think I should drink more while flying. (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470651)

Though I sit back and half-enjoy, half-panic during take-off an landings and don't WANT to focus on anything but the view (window-seater, exclusively), my brain goes into spaz-mode during flights. I'll go to watch a movie, thinking 'I'll get so engrossed, this 9-hour flight to Heathrow will go faster." Then I skip to an episode of 'Friends'. Get halfway through, switch to ANOTHER movie. Stop, look around to everyone else, be nosy about the magazine someone's reading. If I *had* brought my computer on my last flight as I'd almost done, I'd start off with "I'm gonna write more to my story", then play Plants Vs. Zombies for ten minutes, skipped to Sims to make a character, give up and play a computer-made household, not bother saving the game to get back to my document, close it... this is while I'm on Ativan to keep myself from thinking "WE'RE GONNA DIE!" every time we hit turbulence.

In short (too late), in situations where I'm trying too hard to pass the time, technology's made me ADD.

Enforced tranquility? (2)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470665)

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?

A flying iPad hurts when it hits you in the head (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470667)

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 impact another passenger. This is why they want your belongings tucked under the seat in front of you during takeoff and landing, so they don't go moving around in unwanted ways.

The paying attention thing is moot, because once you've flown a few times, you know the procedures and are already aware of where the exits are before you sit down, because most reasonably intelligent people NOTICE THEIR SURROUNDINGS.

Pulling on the seat back too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470703)

While we're on the subject of annoying things people do on planes––

Nitwits that hoist themselves out of their seat by pulling on the seat back in front of them. If I'm sleeping and you jerk _my_ seat – because you're too fat, lazy, stupid, or just plain inconsiderate to push down on your armrests to stand up – and wake me up, I'm not going to be happy with you. One of these day I'm going to haul off and smack the person who does that to me upside the head, because that's pretty much what they just did to me.

And I was under the impression that mobile phones had a range of about five miles. Cruising above 25,000 feet you'd be out of range of ground-based cell towers. Doesn't seem to me like people are going to be able to use their mobile phones during most of the flight. At least not until airlines start putting micro cells onboard with a high powered repeater.

Really.. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470723)

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.

not the internet, just the device (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470819)

On the infrequent occasions when I am on a plane, in the early/late phase of a flight it isn't the internet or the phone system that I particularly want to make contact with. I don't give a damn about 802.11 or 3G data access. I don't want to make stupid "where are you" phone calls... or carry on conversations of any kind, for that matter.

What I want is to be able to get back to the story that I was writing on my laptop, resume reading the book in my Nook, or consult the travel information stored within my phone reminding me of what gate my next flight is on, or what time I said I'd meet someone after arrival. All I ask is that the FAA spare me the enforced meditation, let me disable the potentially troublesome RF transceivers in my FCC-approved devices, and use them for anything else.

What do people talk about? (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470863)

I always wonder what people talk about incessantly on their cellphones.

Around here it's either people talking rapidly in some asian language (Cantonese, Tagalog, Vietnamese), or a zero content conversation along the lines of "uh huh...yeah...no...on the bus...later...no...uh huh...yeah...OK..." I have better things to do with my life.

I was amused at the mention in the article about landing being the phase of flight where the plane impacts the ground. I found this one of the hardest things about learning to fly, getting over the phobia of the plane hitting the ground. In the case of landing, that's exactly what it's supposed to do.

...laura

HUNGER GAMES FOR REAL: THEY WANT YOUR MIND, SOUL.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470871)

HUNGER GAMES FOR REAL: THEY WANT YOUR MIND, SOUL, AND BODY!

"Wow this is a fact when I see people in public transports and all, most of them especially the young are glued to their mobile handphones and tablets staring zombie-like into their tiny little screens without a care about the environment and people around them. Total brainwashed freaks, why do we want to live in this kind of emotionless world it really baffles the mind."

We are fast marching down the road to implantation of chips and or hardware components into our bodies and or mind which will eventually have total control over our minds.

* Johnny Mnemonic
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113481/ [imdb.com]

Johnny Mnemonic: Yeah, the Black Shakes. What causes it?
Spider: What causes it?
[points to various pieces of equipment throughout the room]
Spider: This causes it! This causes it! This causes it! Information overload!
All the electronics around you poisoning the airwaves. Technological fucking
civilization. But we still have all this shit, because we can't live without it.

Johnny Mnemonic: What the fuck is going on? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON? You know, all my life, I've been careful to stay in my own corner. Looking out for Number One... no complications. Now, suddenly, I'm responsible for the *entire fucking world*, and everybody and his mother is trying to kill me, IF... IF... my head doesn't blow up first.
Jane: Maybe it's not just about you any more.

* Google: Targeted Individual(s) aka Ti
* Visit: http://www.thehiddenevil.com/ [thehiddenevil.com]

* Freejack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104299/ [imdb.com]

Alex Furlong: Man, if it's come down to this. What's the point?
Eagle Man: He Riddles me. The ancient riddle: "What's the point?" Have you ever seen an eagle flying back to his home with dinner for the Mrs. and all the little eagle babies. And he's flying against the wind and he's flying in the rain and he's flying through bullets and all kinds of hell, and then right at that moment when he's about to get back to his nest, he says, "What the fuck, it's a drag being an eagle" and right then two little x'es comes across his eyes just like in the old fashion cartoons. And he goes plunging down, and down and down and BAM. He's just a splatter of feathers and then we don't have the national bird of America no more. Did you ever see that?
Alex Furlong: No.
Eagle Man: Me Neither. Eagle's got too much self-respect. How's yours?
Time Travel Technician #1: I wouldn't dance to it, but that's a pulse.

* Neuromancer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer [wikipedia.org]

"Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts⦠A graphic representation of data abstracted from banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding..."

After we've been "tricked" into accepting this "false" man-and-machine technology, I believe:

* Revelation 9:6
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

The implanted chip was too jarring for most, so it's been put on hold, for now, unless we're receiving it through some vector like injections or other means. They tried to make it appear cool, but it flopped. Now they're working on pushing tattoos which can store information, this may be the poisoned doorway through which we spiral down through the trap door into Alice's world of man turning into machine through the perversion of so called "science".

They may "work" on us for awhile, to break us down and condition us for implants of chips and or
other electronic devices, through "external" devices like computerized "glasses" or "goggles", which they've tried in the past but will now be much more techno-geek oriented and tied to
the net, again with the external tattoos which will be made to look "cool" so people accept them.

Down, down, down, we'll slide as they make all of this technology appear harmless and cool,
much of us already are spending a great deal of our lives with this external technology in
the form of computers getting smaller by the day and trendier.

* "Star Trek: The Next Generation" The Game (1991)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/ [imdb.com]

Ensign Lefler: [about her childhood] I spent all of my time around technical equipment. My first friend was a tricorder.
Wesley Crusher: Really? My very first friend was a warp coil.

Commander William T. Riker: What is this?
Etana Jol: It's a game. Everyone here's playing it. It's fun!

Wesley Crusher: Maybe there's more going on here than we thought. What if someone's trying to use the game for some purpose other than pleasure?
Ensign Lefler: Then Data would be a threat to that plan. And only with Data out of the way would everyone become addicted.
Wesley Crusher: And everyone has... except us.

(A majority of the humans enslaved, "friendly" to human resistors shut down?)

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Personal logs... diagnostics... duty logs, they all appear normal; there's no evidence of anything that could lead to Data's shutdown.
Commander William T. Riker: Maybe we should ask his cat.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Game_(episode) [memory-alpha.org]

"The characters only become addicted because they were getting the game from people they trusted,"

(how many times a day does your local or national news pound into your head statements like,
"news from the people you trust", "from the team you trust", "the channel you trust" "the news you trust") -- This invasion of bastard technology will likely be a peer process, through a delivery vehicle called, "Trust". Witness how smartphones are becoming "the norm". See how popular sitcoms, just as with cigarettes in the past, has driven us towards their use. Science is still squabbling, and possibly through corrupt collusions between scientists and techno giants, like we see happening in the world of big pharma and some educated and respected minds and schools, whether or not cell phones are bad for us. Look how many years it took for Big Tobacco to finally cave in to the dangers of cigarettes. How many slick deals were there to cover it up?

If "they" don't like you, they can always give you cancer or a heart attack. Look at Bill Hicks and George Carlin. With their messages before their deaths, can you honestly tell me their deaths were of natural causes? Perhaps you've heard of Russian spies who have died quickly of cancer following being "poisoned".

* Silkwood
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086312/ [imdb.com]

Karen Silkwood: You think I contaminated myself, you think I did that?
Mace Hurley: I think you'd do just about anything to shut down this plant.

* The Plutonium Files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files [wikipedia.org]

"The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War is a 1999 book by Eileen Welsome. It is a history of U.S. government-engineered radiation experiments on unwitting Americans, based on the Pulitzer Prizeâ"winning series Welsome wrote for the Albuquerque Tribune.

The purpose of the experiments was to assess the effect of radioactivity on the human body. For example, between April 1945 and July 1947, 18 people were injected with plutonium by doctors associated with the Manhattan Project. None of these men, women, and children were told what was being done, and none gave informed consent. Most of the subjects, Welsome writes, "were the poor, the powerless, and the sick -- the very people who count most on the government to protect them".

These medical experiments were covered up for 40 years. When they became public, the government apologized but not a single doctor or hospital was publicly blamed."

And what human experiments are being carried out as we speak which we may or may not ever find out about?

** I want you to read that again:

"These medical experiments were covered up for 40 years. When they became public, the government apologized but not a single doctor or hospital was publicly blamed."

Resist the mark, in whatever form it comes in. You won't be able to buy or sell but remember, and go read about the people who have been called Saints, though you may disagree about their canonization and the process itself, read how many of them endured until the very end and did not surrender their fate to evil.

Remember this if "they" come for you: (and "they" may not come in a form you may expect, instead they may "hide" visually because "they" are cowards)

* Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

At least one movie has lampooned the idea of "the mark" for everyone. Movies like this make me believe even stronger they will use "cool" methods and "dumb the people down" to this idea so they will accept it through least resistence:

* Idiocracy
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ [imdb.com]

IPPA Computer: Confirmation is complete. Please wait while I tattoo your new identity on your arm!

(A version of what we're hearing right now, why can't we have leaders of nations who write their own speeches instead of allowing others to put words in their mouths? Check this out:)

President Camacho: Shit. I know shit's bad right now, with all that starving bullshit, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
South Carolina Representative # 1: That's what you said last time, dipshit!

(dumbing down through television continues:)

Ow! My Balls! Guy: Comin' up next on The Violence Channel: An all-new "Ow, My Balls!"

(What we're headed for in the world of film:)

Narrator: The #1 movie in America was called "Ass." And that's all it was for 90 minutes. It won eight Oscars that year, including best screenplay.

They're biting down hard now on Internet freedoms. People will continue to laugh until they are swindled into taking the mark, and or merging their minds with machine.

Science is working hard on manipulating memories, do a Google search and see. I am of the opinion that many in the world of Science, and if not them, those who may fund them or are in total control, are like the world of MKUltra, not looking for promising drugs to help us, but rather to control us and if not eliminate us, reeducate or retrain our minds through eventual enslavement through electronic and chemical means.

The "Borg" in ST:TNG is an example, probably planted on purpose, of the eventual melting of minds into one big gang bang of shared thought.

Remember the signs and wonders the Bible warns about about the evil one to come.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470881)

"The reason for the rule is wrong but it kinda sorta might possibly solve some other problems by accident so we should leave it. Also people using their phones too much is sad so yeah lets keep the rule."

ALIENS and the WAR for your SOUL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470887)

"I mean the people when you look at them or talk to them it's like there clueless and their mind is off in outer space.And even a simple conversation seems like something their not capable of,whats up with them."

I swear there is another, even larger thread about this same issue. Maybe more people are just waking up to this. When you're in a place where people are waiting or in transit in large groups, a Subway, a Bus station, etc. in checkout lines in stores, at amusement parks in long lines, etc.

(I am not promoting or suggesting you or anyone watch one or any of the following films. I haven't since I've awoken and I intend to avoid them from now on):

Films that have always bothered me when considering what you've said, in the real world:

* They Live: but what if he was going *too* far and these *aliens* were just possessing the people and he saw the evil which was front and center while the human was "asleep" (Matrix possible connection) in the background of the mind?

* Truman Show: if not "one" individual, what of "millions" all duped by another race?

* Dark City: what if not only the "dead" were/are being used as vessels, but living ones
as well? (remember "Dax" from ST:DS9? and her "parasite" like being inside her?)
Something interesting if you should ever watch Dark City, potential spoiler,
one guy who "woke up" was concerned about "them" getting to him, so he found
a way out, and he jumped in front of a train to his death..
if you go frame by frame around the time or after he jumps in front of the train,
or press pause exactly at the right moment (it's difficult to spot if you use
pause) there is a poster on the wall, where one normally wouldn't be in real
life, and it mentions HELL, I forget what it says exactly, but HELL is mentioned
on the poster. It's been a long time since I've sat down with Dark City, and
honestly I won't again, it's too jarring to the mind once you've explored all of
this Illuminati crap.

* Matrix: In my opinion the movie is a lie, IMOthe red pill symbolises the opposite, being
pushed into a frame of mind or (sub)reality in which you are a puppet and controlled.
vs. "awakening" to truth, instead you are "deceived" through lies. Symbolism of
the creature taken from Neo could be related to a soul or more likely a protective
(holy) spirit, extracted by Satanists. The whole "Matrix" world, when viewed in
reverse (no, I don't mean watching it from ending to beginning) and perverted *for*
Satanist world-view/goals is eye opening, the same with Dark City. This movie only
bothers me, not for the fake/real awakening/reality concepts but in that I feel
the whole movie, IMO is a lie and the real meaning is perverted, kind of like..

* Fight Club: On many levels this movie bothers me, but I see the dark female character in the
movie as an evil angel which is involved in the split of the two identities of
the one leading role. In the same way I perceive her role in the film I see the
same, or feel the same vibe for the role of the female evil creature in the movie..

* The Ninth Gate: both the "odd" female role in this and in Fight Club shout out to me in
that they are both playing a similar or the same role. Please don't watch
this movie, I'm sorry I ever did.

---
This one, not so much as the method of alien attack as for how it sometimes "feels" for the person played by NK, in public once they've awoken to the aliens around them and how they act, or rather what actions the aliens DON'T display:

* The Invasion (I) (2007) | Nicole Kidman in lead role
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427392/ [imdb.com]

Tucker: When you wake up, you'll feel exactly the same. (possible tie-in to the movie, "Dark City")

"As a Washington psychiatrist unearths the origin of an alien epidemic, she also discovers her son might be the only way it can be stopped."

Yorish: I say that civilization is an illusion, a game of pretend. What is real is the fact that we are still animals, driven by primal instincts. As a psychiatrist, you must know this to be true.
Carol: To be honest, ambassador, when someone starts talking to me about the truth, what I hear is what they're telling me about themselves more than what they're saying about the world.
---

* The Arrival (1996) | Charlie Sheen in lead role
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115571/ [imdb.com]

"Zane, an astronomer discovers intelligent alien life. But the aliens are keeping a deadly secret, and will do anything to stop Zane from learning it."

Zane Ziminski: I come to you with what may be the preeminent discovery of the 20th century, the possibility of extra-solar life, and I get shit-canned for it?

[right before he kills an alien]
Zane Ziminski: Do you want to see the ruins, my friend?
---

* Starman (1984) | Jeff Bridges in lead role
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088172/ [imdb.com]

"An alien takes the form of a young widow's husband and asks her to drive him from Wisconsin to Arizona. The government tries to stop them."
--

* The Last Starfighter (1984) | Lance Guest in lead role

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/ [imdb.com]

A video-gaming boy, seemingly doomed to stay at his trailer park home all his life, finds himself recruited as a gunner for an alien defense force.

--

Starman
and
The Last Starfighter,
when compared together,
is interesting.

In Starman, the "alien takes the form of a young widow's husband"

In The Last Starfighter, the character Alex Rogan goes into space to do battle while a clone,
Beta Alex, is left behind. Notice the lizard reference:

Alex Rogan: Teriffic. I'm about to get killed a million miles from nowhere with a gung-ho iguana who tells me to relax.

(it's all just a clever "mistake"):

Centauri: The amusing thing about this, it's all a big mistake. That particular Starfighter game was supposed to be delivered to Vegas, not some fleaspeck trailer park in the middle of tumbleweeds and tarantulas. So it must be fate, destiny, blind chance, luck even, that brings us together. And as the poet said, the rest is history.

Alex's "twin" or "clone":

Beta: Wait a minute, what are you doing back?
Alex Rogan: Are you kidding? It's war up there!
Beta: Oh, save the whales, but not the universe, huh?

[Beta is about to sacrifice himself]
Beta: [grimly smiling] You owe me one, Alex.

Alex Rogan: Hey, you look like me!
Beta: Of course I do. I'm a beta unit.
Alex Rogan: What the hell is a beta unit?
Beta: A beta unit is a simuloid. An exact duplicate, only not as loud!

Did you read that? "An exact duplicate" - so one tie to the "Starman" movie.

(Ask yourself, have YOU ever had "something", notice I didn't say someone, as to suggest
a human being, ask YOU if you wanted to FIGHT in SPACE? Be honest, now, and you don't have
to tell us, just know inside that that "voice" was of evil) In many "space" themed and
science fiction stories there's often this "split" personality or "other" being involved
somewhere, usually with the leading role.

----

Hebrews 13:2
"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Are they ALL good angels? Are some bad?

Are some people possessed? Do some of these people have their true nature/soul either
extracted from them and the "walk in evil being" is in control or what?

Or are we simply more "self aware" and notice differences in people around us who
are not as self aware? Have we isolated ourselves too much playing games, using computers,
being nerds, etc. and simply notice people aren't as fully animated as television and movie
characters?

I believe there's more to it, and I believe it's spiritual. One crazy commercial had a ton of people riding a train with the "shh!" finger at their lips. I've seen a lot of ads with the "shh!" sign and trains and cars of different colors being used as "spiritual" symbols as vehicles in a spiritual way, colors having their own defining characteristic.

If you watch much television, you've probably noticed the increase in evil themed shows,
if people aren't simulated as killing other humans it's zombies, vampires, or showing
vampires and other "evil" creatures as "good", which is a Satanic lie.

=

One thing is for sure, whatever the truth is: I cannot wait for this "ride" to end.

It is a social test: If you can't behave, GTFO (1)

lanner (107308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470905)

This is just an idea, so maybe it's not a great one.

The electronic equipment test has turned into a bit of a social test. If you can't behave and follow instructions for five minutes, it is probably a liability to keep you on a plane with 200+ other people for a three or twelve hour flight, where, should you throw a temper tantrum, it can have serious consequences. If you can't shut up and pay attention while the flight attendant explains how to use a seat belt and jump out of a burning plane for the whole 120 seconds or so it takes, then chances are you have a personal discipline or disrespect problem and you might be better off being walked off the plane by security. That goes for screaming two-year-olds, two-year-old teenagers, and two-year-old forty-year-old drunk guys who want to pick a fight with other passengers.

I think if the FAA was honest: This is a social test to see if you can behave for 120 seconds, then people would be a little more understanding. Of course, there needs to be exceptions for those with behavioral and mental disabilities but who are otherwise non-disruptive or dangerous.

There is no technical justification why electronic items need to be powered off, other than a failure for the FAA to make intellectual decisions and be properly managed.

FYI, I am against the TSA and their security theater, so don't think I am an authoritarian or anything. Sometimes, however, we do need to cooperate together, shut up, sit down, and pay attention.

"Stop and smell the roses"?! (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470959)

That's the gist of the article? That we should enjoy taking a government-enforced break from our gadgets so that we can experience the wonder and the majesty of flight? After the horror that modern air travel has become - cramped seats, endless "security", sitting on the ground for hours on end, little or no food - I want every possible diversion I can have from the nightmare that faces me until I'm back on the ground at my destination.

Couldn't be more selfish (1)

TheGinger (2575099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470971)

Just because takes an armed air marshal to prise your ipod from your fingers because you can't even get through a date without some sort of gadget in your hand, that should not be everyone else's problem. If 15 minutes without an ipad in your hand every time you fly improves your quality of live you need to sort your life out and fly less
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>