iPlot?
Category musings
My earlier encounter with the "Muppet Trifecta" reminded me of a realization I had in June while flying back from Denver. I was about to say "flying home", but I've a rather nebulous concept of home these days. After all, for most of my life, Denver was home. In the past eight months, I've lived in three states. So I guess home is where you synch your iPod. Which brings me back to my original thought.
While stranded in Dallas for six hours (because it was raining, and apparently these expensive planes don't have the same traction control systems that now come standard on every Mazda), it occurred to me that, although airport security in Denver had been dutifully confiscating matches and cigarette lighters and such, they still allowed passengers to bring on board devices such as iPods, cellphones, and the like - devices that supposedly can crash planes. And suddenly I wondered, might not this be the next terrorist plot? "Okay, everybody, let's go over this one more time: as we approach the runway, on my signal, everybody turn on your iPod." Imagine the terrorists' dismay when they all turn on their PED....... and nothing happens.
Out of sheer mind-numbing boredom, I whipped out a PED of my own - my trusty cellphone - and did me a little Internet research. Much to my complete lack of surprise, our government (well, the House of Representatives, anyway) doesn't believe that these devices pose much of a threat:
The Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on Portable Electronic Devices: Do they really pose a safey hazard on aircraft?
Although the overall conclusion of the report didn't surprise me, it was an interesting read. Then again, after six hours in the Dallas airport, I suppose jabbing a pencil in my own ear would have seemed interesting too. Here are the highlights:
What interests me is that the underline emphasis above is not mine; that's included in the House report. In short, to all you little aspiring terrorists who think you can crash planes with your little iPods... don't bother. Your iPlot poses no real threat.
My earlier encounter with the "Muppet Trifecta" reminded me of a realization I had in June while flying back from Denver. I was about to say "flying home", but I've a rather nebulous concept of home these days. After all, for most of my life, Denver was home. In the past eight months, I've lived in three states. So I guess home is where you synch your iPod. Which brings me back to my original thought.
While stranded in Dallas for six hours (because it was raining, and apparently these expensive planes don't have the same traction control systems that now come standard on every Mazda), it occurred to me that, although airport security in Denver had been dutifully confiscating matches and cigarette lighters and such, they still allowed passengers to bring on board devices such as iPods, cellphones, and the like - devices that supposedly can crash planes. And suddenly I wondered, might not this be the next terrorist plot? "Okay, everybody, let's go over this one more time: as we approach the runway, on my signal, everybody turn on your iPod." Imagine the terrorists' dismay when they all turn on their PED....... and nothing happens.
Out of sheer mind-numbing boredom, I whipped out a PED of my own - my trusty cellphone - and did me a little Internet research. Much to my complete lack of surprise, our government (well, the House of Representatives, anyway) doesn't believe that these devices pose much of a threat:
The Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on Portable Electronic Devices: Do they really pose a safey hazard on aircraft?
Although the overall conclusion of the report didn't surprise me, it was an interesting read. Then again, after six hours in the Dallas airport, I suppose jabbing a pencil in my own ear would have seemed interesting too. Here are the highlights:
- Out of the almost 69,000 incidents reported to NASA's ASRS (pilot-initiated reports of problems experienced during a flight), 52 incidents involved suspected interference from a PED. Not 52,000... 52.
- In addition to restrictions imposed by the FAA, the FCC has concerns about inflight use of cellphones - not because they might crash planes, but because the altitude from which the signals would reach the ground might confuse cell towers.
Neither the RTCA nor the CAA were able to duplicate under controlled conditions the interference from a PED that their studies indicate could theoretically occur.
What interests me is that the underline emphasis above is not mine; that's included in the House report. In short, to all you little aspiring terrorists who think you can crash planes with your little iPods... don't bother. Your iPlot poses no real threat.
Comments
Damit, don't you get it man, the government is just looking out for our own good here, restricting that which does no harm in order to protect us from the harm-doing items they aren't restricting.
Stop questioning the beast of burrocracy and just take it like a patriot..... oh wait, the forefathers, true patriots, didn't like government telling them what to do.... ummm.. then take it like a slave!
Posted by Steven Rodgers At 23:01:23 On 08/20/2006 | - Website - |
For example, last weekend the president informed us in a radio address { Link } that terrorists have a "totalitarian ideology". Which, I'm embarrassed to admit, I hadn't realized. 'Cause, see, the other day I was reading this fascinating book... darn it, what's it called again? Oh yeah: the DICTIONARY. And it says that totalitarianism is centralized control by an autocratic authority. But the terrorists - at least the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan - have lately been almost exclusively referred to as "insurgents". And that little dictionary book says that an insurgent is "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government". Certainly an accurate depiction of their behavior.
But now I'm confused. If the ideology ("the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program") of the terrorists is one of totalitarianism, which favors centralized control, why would they revolt against the established government? That doesn't make sense. Well, maybe that's because I haven't looked up what autocratic means yet. Here it is: "of, related to, or being an autocracy". Well, that doesn't help much. No wonder nobody reads this book any more. Well, what's an autocracy? It says an autocracy is "government in which one person possesses unlimited power".
Now, that is interesting. Because less than a week after that radio address, a federal judge ruled that the administration's terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be stopped. Yet the administration responded that { Link } until they are able to appeal the decision, they're gonna do it anyway, citing as justification "the President's most solemn duty". Through signing statements like this one { Link } the president has repeatedly undermined congressional authority by reserving the right to do (in some cases, continue to do) something that the law in question specifically forbids. And now he is undermining judicial authority by stating that, until the decision can be appealed, the program continues; if an ordinary citizen is convicted of a crime and appeals the conviction, they don't walk free in the meantime. The three branches of government were instituted to provide checks and balances so that no one branch - or individual - would gain too much authority. If the legislative and judicial branches are stripped of their authority to determine what is and is not illegal or unconstitutional, the executive branch "possesses unlimited power". Weird... unless the dictionary is wrong, that would mean... that the president is an autocrat. Which, at least temporarily, makes our government an autocracy. And anyone who is in favor of moving even further in an autocratic direction has a "totalitarian ideology". But....... but I thought that was a bad thing. I mean, our enemy has a totalitarian ideology. That's what we were told. And they're our enemy. So we don't want what they want.
Or maybe...... maybe "totalitarian" is just a big word that sounds scary. A word that a public figure can insert into a speech, hoping that the general public will remember that it is scary and forget why. { Link } The fact is, I absolutely agree that in a time marked by extreme tensions measures need to be taken that would be unnecessary under other circumstances. However, whatever those measures might be, they need to be measures that reduce tensions instead of further elevating them. And applying a scary word to our enemy that (sadly) more accurately describes us at present than it does them only serves to demonstrate that those we trust to protect us either are woefully ignorant... or assume that we are. Take your pick.
Posted by Tim Tripcony At 00:48:20 On 08/21/2006 | - Website - |