 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
2 edits | How is this working out overseas Some other countries allow cell phone use in flight. Anyone know how that is working out. Personally I do not want to listen to cell phone conversations in the confined environment of a plane.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
 | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| Re: How is this working out overseas said by halfband  : Personally I do want to listen to cell phone conversations in the confined environment of a plane. Do you mean "do not" or did I overlook sarcasm?
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
|
| | amartinas
join:2007-11-19
USA | Re: How is this working out overseas im in the same boat as FF | |
|
| |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL | Yeah, Do Not Want. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| People in other countries are generally more reserved when having conversations in public. Most people keep it short and hang up.
However, American teens and people who thing they're important will talk so damn loud over the plane that someone's gonna get their butt kicked. I've had to deal with listening to people using the Airphone and that sucks. And at least it's mostly gone now. | |
|
| | 
pfak
Premium
join:2002-12-29
Canada
 ·Shaw
 ·Novus Entertainmen..
| Re: How is this working out overseas Uh, where have you been living?
At least in Vancouver we have many different ethnicities talking at the top of their lungs and having very long conversations on public transit all the time.
Mostly these people aren't even from North America to begin with.
--
Xenophase - British Columbia's premier online gaming community. | |
|
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Wait a minute!
Don't those that believe the government was behind 9-11 list as one of their talking points that cell phones don't work on airplanes? | |
|
| 
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| Why does a phone conversation bother you? Do two people talking on the plane bother you? If so, do you want a law that says the whole plane must be silent? If not, is it the fact that you're only able to eavesdrop on half the conversation that bothers you?
--
Overpower, overcome. | |
|
| | 
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How is this working out overseas said by BeesTea :Why does a phone conversation bother you? Do two people talking on the plane bother you? If so, do you want a law that says the whole plane must be silent? If not, is it the fact that you're only able to eavesdrop on half the conversation that bothers you? Because when people typically talk on the plane they aren't shouting over the engine or other noises. On the phone they almost do. Thats the HUGE difference. The latter is much more annoying. | |
|
| | | 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: How is this working out overseas said by Mchart :said by BeesTea :Why does a phone conversation bother you? Do two people talking on the plane bother you? If so, do you want a law that says the whole plane must be silent? If not, is it the fact that you're only able to eavesdrop on half the conversation that bothers you? Because when people typically talk on the plane they aren't shouting over the engine or other noises. On the phone they almost do. Thats the HUGE difference. The latter is much more annoying. Hey, I'm all for legislating etiquette. The next time you eat, better use that fork in the left hand and keep your napkin in your lap, or else I'm fining you $1000.
Think, man. Think. | |
|
| | |
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| said by Mchart :Because when people typically talk on the plane they aren't shouting over the engine or other noises. On the phone they almost do. Thats the HUGE difference. The latter is much more annoying. People on the plane talking to each other don't talk over the noise around them but people on a cell phone do? I'm pretty sure that's not the case. In order to be heard, everyone must talk over noise around them. This is simply the nature of acoustics.
I argue that loud people are just loud. Regardless of an ear listening or a microphone. Legislation will not change this.
--
Overpower, overcome. | |
|
| | 
Alex Foley
@metrocast.net
| Yep. You got it. They want to hear both sides of the conversation. Maybe people who DON'T talk on cell phones annoy me? Maybe I should go cry about it until they make it a requirement everyone must talk on cell phones while on a plane? That'd be pretty stupid right? Well that's how I feel about the anti-cell phone people. Get an iPod. Learn to stop being so damn nosey. It's not my problem. | |
|
| | rhexis
join:2002-05-18
Gilbertsville, PA
| said by BeesTea :Why does a phone conversation bother you? Do two people talking on the plane bother you? If so, do you want a law that says the whole plane must be silent? If not, is it the fact that you're only able to eavesdrop on half the conversation that bothers you? are you really this stupid or just trolling? i guess you have never been on a plane before but the background noise would make it difficult if not impossible to have a normal conversation on a cell phone. | |
|
| | |
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| Re: How is this working out overseas said by rhexis :are you really this stupid or just trolling? i guess you have never been on a plane before but the background noise would make it difficult if not impossible to have a normal conversation on a cell phone. Thanks for your thread participation. Next time, before calling people stupid, maybe try to not look like an uneducated idiot yourself. In the future, you can find shift keys in the lower right and left hand corners of your keyboard.
--
Overpower, overcome. | |
|
| | dlr_graph
join:2002-02-03
Elizabeth, NJ
| Usually people control their voices when talking to another (maybe you don't) person close by. This does not work when using a telephone. Using a cell phone in flight could be permitted but the lenght of the call should be regulated but since this may not be possible the only option will be not to allow it. Will you be willing to listed to music being played by the person sitting next to you? | |
|
| | |
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| Re: How is this working out overseas said by dlr_graph :Usually people control their voices when talking to another (maybe you don't) person close by. This does not work when using a telephone. Using a cell phone in flight could be permitted but the lenght of the call should be regulated but since this may not be possible the only option will be not to allow it. Will you be willing to listed to music being played by the person sitting next to you? We can't regulate length of calls, it's simply unrealistic. Even if we had a person watching a stopwatch for every passenger, you then need someone to count how many calls people get etc. This isn't something that can be legislated.
As for people listening to music? I ignore them, and the people talking to one another around me, by bringing my mp3 player and headphones. If you don't care for music, there's always noise canceling earphones. If that's not your bag, use earplugs. Simply put, comfort is not a right, don't pervert our legal system to provide crap like that. Just as you have the right to silence, others have the right to speak. If it's someone sitting there talking to themselves, or into a cell phone, either way it's simply speech. In the USA, this is something you have no choice but to accept. The current FAA regulation isn't there for the sake of comfort, it's there for the sake of safety.
--
Overpower, overcome. | |
|
|
anono
@netelligent.ca | I say cell phones should be fully operable on commercial flights if only as a security/safety aid. That said, there should be some rules in place as to their use, to insure common courtesy to other passengers. | |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. A failed congress has it all wrong. We have an ENERGY crisis in America at the moment. I want to thank each and every one of my reps for taking the time to address cell phone use which is already not allowed on flights. I want to thank them for taking this up ESPECIALLY at a time where airlines are hurting and people are not flying now anyway. I want to thank them for ignoring oil prices that affects everything we buy, and not just the tank. I want to thank them for addressing an issue which is so low on the totem pole it's buried in the ground.
WTF?
I think if anything they should spend their time working to give some operating ability to airlines so that the American traveler can actually get back in the sky, so they aren't forced to pay per bag, or pay for a drink of water on the plane, and are not seeing skyrocketing prices of fares.
But damn it! They did it! We can't do something we already can't do! BRAVO!  | |
|
| 
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by fiberguy :We have an ENERGY crisis in America at the moment. I'll believe that when I see the mile long lines of people waiting at the fuel pumps again, like they were in the mid to late 1970s.
$4.00/gal is just sooooo bad. I think our neighbors across the pond in London would disagree with that sentiment.
But if the government and the people of America were really interested in solving the "crisis", instead of wasting time trying to drill for more oil (which won't produce anything for at least five to ten years), perhaps the effort of the government should go to asking why so much of the domestic oil and gas production is EXPORTED to other countries.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by NetAdmin :I'll believe that when I see the mile long lines of people waiting at the fuel pumps again, like they were in the mid to late 1970s. Having sat in those lines as a teenager in June 1979 I would agree. Gasoline is available you just have to pay for it. In 1974 and 1979 the odds were pretty good you might not be able to buy it for any price.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. You could always drive out to the airport and get aviation gas. I had to do that a number of times in the early 70s. The price was a lot higher but they never ran out. Now I hope gas stays high so we can switch to electric cars (for passengers). | |
|
| | | | 
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. And just where do you plan on getting the electricity for said vehicles?
--
Now typed solely on DSK (Dvorak Simplified Keyboard). | |
|
| | | | | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by koolman2 :And just where do you plan on getting the electricity for said vehicles? Nuclear Power would be a good start, until that new Particle Collider in Europe makes a mini black hole and we're all sucked into it. | |
|
| | | | | |
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. What about when we run out of Uranium? | |
|
| | | | | | | lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. Simple, reprocess spent uranium. There are already processes for it, and ongoing research for more efficient methods (of course, a few billion dollars from the .gov into energy generation research instead of murder would be rather helpful). | |
|
| | | | | | |
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by koolman2 :What about when we run out of Uranium? If not for the proliferation issue, breeder reactors could create Plutonium that could then be used to power additional reactors. Unfortunately they also create a waste mess that has to be cleaned up.
Too bad cold fusion never panned out. | |
|
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by james :said by koolman2 :And just where do you plan on getting the electricity for said vehicles? Nuclear Power would be a good start, until that new Particle Collider in Europe makes a mini black hole and we're all sucked into it. Fine, you can have nuclear power when the liberals allow it. It is too dangerous because they are subject to terrorist attacks and the spent fuel is too dangerous. | |
|
| | | | | | |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. Ah, but without the need for oil the U.S. would no longer bother with the Middle East and there would be no more threat of terrorism. Except from those eco-nutjobs I guess. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by KoolMoe :said by moonpuppy : and the spent fuel is too dangerous. So spent fuel is not dangerous? Cool! So you'll offer up your property as a storage facility, right? And no problem with transporting the stuff through your community either? Sweet. KM Funny how the containment vessels have been tested by hitting them with a train, burning in jet fuel for an hour and dropping them on concrete and still no leaks.
I guess you don't mind the fly ash that is being dumped by BGE in AA County and already contaminating the ground water. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| If the libs would bother to read up on nuclear technology, they'd understand just exactly how hard it would be for a "terrorist" to turn a plant into a weapon against us.. there simply are WAY too many safeguards in place for that to happen, for one, and even then, the mechanics behind the plants as built wouldn't allow it anyway. Spent fuel? well.. there can be some debates there.. but still.. very weak.
Many liberals need to stop with 50 year old talking points and evolve with the rest of us. | |
|
| | | | | 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| I don't know where you and James1 get your electricity from, but my electricity comes from the Grand Coulee Dam, a.k.a. the largest electric power producing facility in the United States. And if the Columbia River ever dries up, I think we'll have a lot more to worry about than where we are getting our power from.
I hate to break this to you, but energy is free and comes from many different sources. The sun is giving us solar power constantly. The wind is always blowing somewhere. Rivers are always flowing. There's no reason we can't store this free energy and use it to power our cars. Solar panels are only getting cheaper, and battery technology is only getting better.
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
2 edits | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. Do some math and then tell me how you'd power more than the state of New Jersey with all that great energy. I suppose we should simply turn the entire mid west into wind mills and solar panels to power others? And, how about all those batteries to "store" energy in? Unused energy isn't stored... it's just unused. | |
|
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. Fiberguy
Consider this. IF every roof in the US had solar panels on the roof we could idle down the majority of the power plants during the daylight hours to minimal output(minimal fuel consumption). Wind blows day and night. Could we do this tomorrow, no. There is not enough solar panel production capacity today, but if ALL the major car companies began producing electric cars today it would take a very short time to expand that capacity(probably less than 2 years).
Ultra capacitors(UC) will hopefully store energy. Both in cars and in large banks (unused energy). The advantages of UC is that they can be charged/discharged instantaneously and repeatedly without harming them(unlike batteries). They also have a greater energy density. Unfortunately further research is needed and virtually no funding has been allocated (like most other green tech).
No matter when we switch over to electrics (or whatever) there is going to be a transition period. People are going to get stuck with buying very expensive gas during that transition period(regardless of when it happens). Its the old chicken or the egg problem. No one will buy them until they build them (large scale manufactures) and no one will build them until they know people will buy them. You also have the reluctance of auto builders to change over. Anyone who knows the history of the EV1 (a EXTREMELY successful electric car produced by GM in the early 90s) will understand that there is something "screwy" going on behind the scenes.
With respect to the Nuclear power plants: The new pellet style plants (France and Germany have been using them for years) are much safer( the isotopes are encased in a ceramic pellet). With this style of design a china syndrome type event if virtually impossible (without intentional intervention). The major concern with Nuclear (as far as terrorism) is that a small force would take the plant and blow the core with plastic explosive. There would be no "atomic bomb" in this scenario but the fallout could kill millions and poison the ground effected for decades (or longer). Security experts have stated repeatedly since the 1970s (as well as reviews in the last couple of years) that the security of nuclear power plants (for this type of attack) is extremely poor. The industry has refused to install even simple double blind entrances(two doors in a row, where only one door can be opened at a time and can only be opened remotely from within the secured area). | |
|
| | | | | pcnetworx1
join:2005-09-21
Bethel Park, PA
| And tell me, if it were 1900, and somebody told you there would be hundreds of millions of cars on the road - do you think there was infrastructure ready? Proper mechanics, ALL the lubricants in the cars, let alone the oil drilling, refining, and distribution technology ON DAY ONE?
Hell no - It gets built progressively, but it just needs built with a vision, instead of panicky necessity.
And furthermore, the energy required is far less than gasoline - in the end of the line wheel-on-road efficiency, there is 8% of the energy used to actually move the car. Electric motors frequently do 93% and that would be very close to the road efficiency, decreasing the amount of energy required.
Pardon me for being on my weekend, and relaxing. Otherwise, I'd be more thorough with figures. Plus, this isn't a place like slashdot 
Anyway instead of building the darn electric cars, it looks like the horse and buggy whip makers are winning this time... | |
|
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
2 edits | Well, there is wind, solar, and other green technologies we can invest in. Even if we have to burn coal the current plants still have less emissions than the cars do. The new series of zero emission coal burning plants (sequestered CO2) are even better than current plants. Even when you include the losses over wires(which is significant) electrics are still more energy efficient than current cars. Electrics also have next to no maintenance costs(brakes, tires, and battery upkeep are about it). The life expectancy of an electric drive train is about three times that of an internal combustion system. Our current battery technology is such that the range should be 120 miles plus per charge which is much greater than the average commuter travels in a day. There is no need for a new infra structure since the vast majority of people could charge overnight when demand is at a minimum.
Edit: meant to reply to koolman2 | |
|
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Europeans pay more for gas, but they generally have shorter travel distances and quite a few options for mass transit. | |
|
| | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by SLD :Europeans pay more for gas, but they generally have shorter travel distances and quite a few options for mass transit. And their vehicles (can you say "diesel?") are much more efficient. | |
|
| | | | 
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
1 edit | Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. said by PolarBear :said by SLD :Europeans pay more for gas, but they generally have shorter travel distances and quite a few options for mass transit. And their vehicles (can you say "diesel?") are much more efficient. It evens out.
I will even say that the diesel engines are on the path of having a cost of operation higher than that of gasoline ones.
Diesel models cost more compared to their gasoline counterparts.Taxes are higher on diesel.One gallon of diesel fuel is more expensive than one of gasoline.
Where you are right is the smaller capacity of engines thus lower consumption.
This is because there are more smaller cars due to narrower roads and the most important continuous high price of fuel all around.
In the past, in US when a gallon of gas was at a cost of 80 cents in the EU the same amount of money would gave you one liter (1 gal=3,7858 liter).
Also the mass transit is amazing, practically due to lack of car culture and not being so easy to own a car or obtain a driver license.
I EU even to this day parties are being thrown when one gets his driver license (the cost to obtain one is approx.3000 Euros. more or less depending of the dexterity and driving experience of each individual)
Is all about perception.
For example a automatic transmission cost more than a manual (due to driving habits) which is totally contrary in US.
--
Give the world changes at a pace it can absorb. | |
|
| | |
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by SLD :Europeans pay more for gas, but they generally have shorter travel distances and quite a few options for mass transit. True, very true, but what are now paying for gas at the pump, they have been paying more than that for years. But I think that people need to realize they need to pay for the pleasure of living in the burbs and working in the city. I moved into the city back when gas was still pretty cheap, mostly because I hated giving my hard earned money to Shell and Exxon more than once a week, when I had other things I wanted to do with it. Life styles need adjustment and the way people think about their use of energy need to change drastically.
It also pinpoints the need for this country to start investing much more heavily in light rail and other mass transit systems.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
2 edits | I was in those lines too, and just because we don't have lines doesn't mean there isn't a crisis.
I pitty you for your way of thinking, I really do.. sorry. But, nothing turns on a dime. Oil is not an infinite resource and it will get harder to get as time goes on. Further, anything you want to change takes YEARS to change - it's not an over night thing.
We SHOULD have changed our ways BACK in the 1970's.. we didn't, however. In the 30 years that passed we could have been COMPLETELY off oil had we worked on it then.
There are many ways to classify an energy crisis. For one, it's not all about "GAS".. to think that it's all about the pump simply shows your lack of knowledge on the reality of what's happening. Oil is not used simply for gas. Oil is used in plastics and many other products. You do realize how much plastics are in our lives alone, right? Second, yes, gas itself at a high price when an economy can't handle such a surge IS causing a crisis.. it effects the economy.. or didn't you notice? I don't think I need to tell you how much fuel/oil causes EVERYTHING to rise do I?
Further, about why we export oil... you DO know there are various types of oil produced out of the ground, right? Sweet, etc. The oil we export largely does not get used by the U.S. .. Most of it goes to Russia in addition to other countries. The whole "why do we export our oil" statement is commonly mis-applied. Further, we don't export "gas"... we export OIL. There IS a difference.
You state that we're wasting time trying to drill for more oil which won't have an affect for 5 or 10 years.. you're completely wrong - those are talking points. And either way, we DO have the fuel.. the crisis is in the system itself. Even if we didn't drill for today, what do you want tomorrow? Hydrogen cars? Any idea how fast that is going to come? It's going to take about 10 to 20 years to turn over the fleet of cars we have in the U.S. anyway. Further, you also fail to realize the economic impact of people that DO have the largest bulk of cars right now.. A 2007 GMS Sierra 2wd truck that retailed for $38K was worth only $17k 9 months later.. Can't simply buy another vehicle.. can't simply trade it in or even sell it unless you're willing to front the $21K to pay it off, OR roll it into a new car, which no finance company will do.
Shall we go into the housing crisis that was created by the feds the last few years?
If you don't think we're in an energy crisis right now, you're sadly mistaken.. this time, it's far bigger than another country turning off the spigot... the crisis is the fact that we haven't had an energy policy in years, AND, the economy is on the brink. We have two parties that don't understand IMMEDIATE relief, rather, they're going to stand each other down and wait.. it doesn't affect them anyway.. they can afford $4 gas.. they can hold out while many Americans can't... We should have had more nuclear energy plants built.. cleaner coal plants.. rather, right now, the dems are sitting on 40 and 50 year old fears (I guess they can't read up on technology anymore) that this will kill is. Rather, ask any of them and they'll sit back and say no to off shore, no to alaska, no to oil shale in the mid section of the US (which is an INCREDIBLE fuel source) and no to nuclear.. rather, they want all wind and solar.. like that's going to fuel our country.
And, if you think that we have fuel, it just cost more to get it.. um.. how many small businesses have to go under and how high does unemployment have to go and how many people have to FURTHER lose their homes and how much more economic disaster will it take before you realize that there is a problem?
(Hint: the biggest problem is that oil is the current bubble.. if you know anything about the economy and the history of it, there is generally always something that is the latest "hot" buy.. money people are like locust, they all swarm on one thing, devastate things in the process and then move on to the next.. In recent times, it was the dot.com, then housing, now oil.)
edit: sorry, some of my post refers to another reply as well. | |
|
| | |
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. There are many ways to classify an energy crisis. For one, it's not all about "GAS".. to think that it's all about the pump simply shows your lack of knowledge on the reality of what's happening. Oil is not used simply for gas. Oil is used in plastics and many other products. You do realize how much plastics are in our lives alone, right? Second, yes, gas itself at a high price when an economy can't handle such a surge IS causing a crisis.. it effects the economy.. or didn't you notice? I don't think I need to tell you how much fuel/oil causes EVERYTHING to rise do I? Actually, I probably know more about oil that you do. I grew up around several refineries, near a massive Dow plant and my father worked for a company that produced chemicals critical to the plastics industry. I'm one of those people that believes that using fossil fuels for transportation is stupid because it is moronic to be burning a valuable resources critical to thousands of products just so people can park their fat asses at the drive through window, etc.
The reason I picked on gas is not because I view energy only in terms of gas, but because the majority of America believes that there is a crisis solely because they now have to pay more to fill up their gas guzzlers or sell it to buy a car with decent fuel economy.
You state that we're wasting time trying to drill for more oil which won't have an affect for 5 or 10 years.. you're completely wrong - those are talking points. Not true at all. This being an oil producing area, there are plenty of petroleum and chemical engineers and they will all tell you that you don't just through a rig up and start producing oil overnight. It takes 5 to 10 years because you have to explore, acquire the necessary rights and permits, construct your platform, sink the platform, connect the platform to the distribution network and then drill, all with the possibility that you hit a dry hole.
Shall we go into the housing crisis that was created by the feds the last few years? By the feds ?! Try irresponsible home buyers and mortgage companies with financial practices that I liken to teen kids with mom and dad's credit card. People were buying houses left and right that they knew they could NEVER afford. Lenders were giving out loans that they knew people wouldn't be able to pay.
If you don't think we're in an energy crisis right now, you're sadly mistaken.. this time, it's far bigger than another country turning off the spigot... the crisis is the fact that we haven't had an energy policy in years, AND, the economy is on the brink. The energy "crisis" is an issue that comes about due purely to growing world demand for oil and gas. America is finally feeling the effects the market and speculators can have on a product. And for a country with such a massive hard on for the "free market", people should realize that the increase in fuel prices is in large part due to market demand increasing on a product that is finite.
And, if you think that we have fuel, it just cost more to get it.. um.. how many small businesses have to go under and how high does unemployment have to go and how many people have to FURTHER lose their homes and how much more economic disaster will it take before you realize that there is a problem? I'm keenly aware of the problems and where and how they came about.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: 
| said by NetAdmin :said by fiberguy :We have an ENERGY crisis in America at the moment. I'll believe that when I see the mile long lines of people waiting at the fuel pumps again, like they were in the mid to late 1970s. $4.00/gal is just sooooo bad. I think our neighbors across the pond in London would disagree with that sentiment. But if the government and the people of America were really interested in solving the "crisis", instead of wasting time trying to drill for more oil (which won't produce anything for at least five to ten years), perhaps the effort of the government should go to asking why so much of the domestic oil and gas production is EXPORTED to other countries. 4 dollars is also relative you retard. i hate when other people say "look what other people pay"
you cannot say they pay 12 gallons and we pay 4 and say oh they have it 2.5x worse. the value of their pound is easly 2 times more then our dollar
also they have been paying that much more for year so the cost of living, payroll, taxes, etc have already gotten ahead of those prices where our prices have increased so fast that these things have not caught up.
in a few years with significant wage growth and less inflation 4 dollars will not seem so much but this is usally a 5 year cycle | |
|
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| You know, Congress can do more than one thing at a time. Just because there is something important happening, they dont have to stop voting on everything else. I'm sure they are as concerned as you, afterall, they have to pay for their fancy imported goods, and gas for their fleet of cars. | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Deal with gas prices first and other imporant issues. Well, they also don't have infinite time, and neither do we. I do realize they can do more than one thing - sometimes. However, it takes TIME to get things moved. There are only so many legislative hours in any session..
... now that I think of it, I suppose you're right. Nancy Pelosi is making all the time for anything else as she is "saving the world" as she was quoted saying, by not allowing votes on anything that involves energy unless it matches her views.
As for "they can do more than one thing" ... politicians loose seats for pulling stunts like this.. the American people do pay attention. In MN, there was so much paying attention to little things like this and not paying attention to issues that matter than an entire party who was in power was unseated in a landslide in the 2006 election. Gov. Pawlenty held on to his seat by literally about a couple thousand votes.. (He was the only Republican that held his seat other than Michelle Backman, but that district always goes R since it's pretty much all that lives there.) | |
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| One bill I hope Passes I think this is one bill that should pass. Who wants to hear other peoples crap (usually loudly) on a 3 hour flight. It's bad enough on local commuter trains for 1 hour.
While they are at it ban them in cars while the car is moving. The technology to do that should be easy with all the electronics in modern cars. Every car you come across in the passing lane going 30 in a 40 zone has a cell phone stuck in their ear. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| Thank goodness. In public places, you can walk away from someone who's talking obnoxiously loud on a cellphone. In a plane, you're stuck. I'm in favor of the ban. With Internet services beginning to be deployed on many carriers, those addicted to constant chatter can opt to connect with their friends online. | |
|
|
|
See 34 replies to this post |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| So why not a Shut Up Act... to keep everyone from talking "obnoxiously loud" no matter where they are? (Freedom of Speech anyone? ...anyone? Bueller?)
The airlines should "get smart" and install a cone of silence for each passenger.  | |
|
| 
HappyBunny
Hi. Cram It.
Premium
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: So why not a Shut Up Act... said by mod_wastrel :to keep everyone from talking "obnoxiously loud" no matter where they are? (Freedom of Speech anyone? ...anyone? Bueller?) The airlines should "get smart" and install a cone of silence for each passenger. I like this. I want one. | |
|
|
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: Need a Screaming Brat In The Box Law first. I like that idea! | |
|
| |
zenafu
join:2007-06-12
Brooklyn, NY | Off with the offsprings I don't mind cell phone yapping on planes, it's the screaming babies that drive me looney.
Baby-free flights would be awesome. I'd even pay more. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | no talk they should ban talking on planes, not just talking on phones.
they should allow: Wi-Fi, and Text messaging with silent ringers. | |
|
aaronfitz
Premium
join:2004-03-06
Cedar Rapids, IA | Private Planes? Anyone know if this bill covers private planes as well? Not that your general aviation pilot who talks on a cell phone while flying is going to stop because of this, but interesting to know nonetheless. | |
|
| MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Private Planes? Actually, non-emergency use of cell in private plane is a violation of FCC rules, unless it is one of the very few 'approved' aviation air-phones. It's because the cellular providers convinced the FCC that if all these general aviation pilots use their cell phones, they'll tie-up all the cell-towers. | |
|
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| Re: Private Planes? said by MTU :It's because the cellular providers convinced the FCC that if all these general aviation pilots use their cell phones, they'll tie-up all the cell-towers. Yeah, because a couple pilots in the sky are going to tie up the towers so much more than the 100 million people on the ground will...  I guess lobbying gets you whatever you want... | |
|
MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Airline chat Cell phone use in-flight would be a nightmare. Notice when the plane lands, the number of shouting calls made to who knows who. Last flight a "doctor" stayed on his cell, after the 'cabin door closed' and while taxiing, and loudly blathered details of a patients medical condition to someone. I felt sorry for the poor stewardess who only got through to his huge ego by making threats to bring the pilot back.
Airline travel (unless you're rich - 1st class) is crappy. It gets worse sharing a row of seats with the obese, and with crying/whining kids. In-flight cell use would be worse than in-the-theatre, or restaurant etc etc.
I all for sedating everyone (sleeping gas?) when the plane prepares for take-off. The airlines could save money on food and blue-water. | |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| Ban cells on planes ... please! Flying is already getting miserable, and cell phones would make things worse.
I have yet to overhear a cell phone conversation that was as important as the person having it thought it was. No lives were saved, although a few came dangerously close to getting the caller killed.
As for babies, I've seen mothers who sat there yakking on their cells before the cabin doors were closed while their baby screamed bloody murder.
Ugh. | |
|
Edrick
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Orlando, FL | One Step Further to Phone-Free Flights?! We're not allowed to have phones on the flights already, what kind of misleading title is this.
--
Ricky Smith
| |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Hang that damned phone up! Unless its a $5/minute GTE airfone call! | |
|
Alex Foley
@metrocast.net
| What? I never really understood why people were upset over people having cell phone conversations. Are these people upset when two people sitting next to each other have a conversations near them? If so, why? If you don't like it that seems like more of a personal problem. (jealously? unsatisfying life?) Or are they just so nosey that they want to hear both sides of the conversation? I suspect that must be it. | |
|
FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Over-reach. I think cell phone use should be allowed anywhere as long as the people around you don't mind, if they don't care then why limit people by law. Lame and over-reaching. Some people actually find comfort in talking to specific people for certain reasons, and don't just talk to talk. Why bother flying somewhere if you can't communicate with the party you intend on meeting on the way? How about a "quiet" section of the plane where those fussy passengers can sit. Oh, they have one all ready, it's called first class.
- Andy
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
| ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA
·Comcast
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: Over-reach. are you smoking crack? the issue ain't fussy bro---the issue is being stuck next to some idiot with zero manners or consideration. it is nowhere near my job to have monitor local conversations. by analogy, one can smoke a cigarette out in the parking lot----not in the restaurant where the rest of us attempt to eat without choking. oh, there i am being fussy again----------------NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 | |
|
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Over-reach. ebubman
Your analogy is flawed. Secondhand smoke is a health issue. Listening to other peoples phone conversation is just an inconvenience. Put some headphones on and listen to some music. Get the noise cancellation headphones, ear plugs, or just get used to it. The planet is getting more crowed every day, adapt or become extinct. | |
|
Edrick
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Orlando, FL
| Here's an Idea If it bothers you then kindly ask them to hang up the phone, if they refuse to contact the closet flight attendance at your earliest connivence on your flight and kindly ask them to tell the person to shut their god damn mouth as it's bothering you on your flight. Thankyou for Flying Air Tran
--
Ricky Smith
| |
|
|
FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA | Re: Here's an Idea Yep. I agree.
- Andy
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St John'S, NL
| Do Cell phones even work when a plane is in the air? I thought that we were told that cell phones can't communicate with cell towers when planes are at cruising altitude, or that there would be confusion between towers because of the possibility of being in contact with 2 or more towers at the same time.
Is this true?
Does this new law make a distinction between using a cell phone when a plane is on the ground vs in the air? | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Do Cell phones even work when a plane is in the air? Cell phones work fine when they are in the air. There is not any more confusion between towers in the air than there is on the ground. At any one time your cell phone is probably able to contact several towers(even on the ground), it is constantly evaluating which provides the best signal. | |
|
| | sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St John'S, NL
2 edits | Re: Do Cell phones even work when a plane is in the air? You're telling me that the highly specialized antenna radiation pattern of cell towers is such that they *expect* to send and recieve signals from several miles *above* their ground-plane? Why would a cell tower waste their energy transmitting signals UP when their intended coverage area is within 100 feet (altitude) of the area surrounding them?
See this:
»www.physics911.net/projectachilles
Basically, you will probably always be able to make a call from a plane if it's at 2000 ft or lower, but next to impossible to get a working signal higher than 8000 ft.
All this talk of laws pertaining to cell phone use on planes is B-crap, because aside from take-off, landing and taxiing, cell phones simply don't work above a few thousand feet.
| |
|
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA
·Comcast
·Vonage
| keep flights phone free please flying is a bad enough experience these days--------you're treated like cattle & shoe-horned in w/o any real rights. typically then, while you're shoe-horned in there, those with no manners or poor manners arrogantly eat, talk, fail to correct unruly children, & more. it's one issue to be forced to listen to a loud conversation about inane bullsh!t while you're in grocery line---------however it would be radically different matter if you were forced to endure that level of rudeness for several hours on end. i'll say again: please keep flights phone free. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: keep flights phone free please You are not forced to do anything. You choose to fly a commercial flight. No one came to you house, put you in chains and made you get on that plane. You could choose to simply deal with the problem (your problem) in a lot of ways. Learn to ignore it would be the easiest. Headphones for music or noise cancellation is another option. Ear plugs, etc. | |
|
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Ban phones and cigarettes Second hand smoke creates a health issue. Somebody else's phone conversation is not an issue for your health. | |
|
|
|
|
Airline Passengers One Step Closer To Phone-Free Flights
·
Need a Screaming Brat In The Box Law first.
