And why are they rated for cockpit use, because their emissions have been tested and unlike some of the devices that Boeing found they do not exceed limits?

As others have pointed out, Boeing says it is not a theoretical problem ...

"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing)."

"Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits."

http://www.boeing.com/commerci...

Wait, slashdot posters are now accepting the idea that personal electronics can affect aircraft electronics ?

My local Sheriffs Department patrols both urban and rural areas. Patrol vehicles have a shotgun and a rifle. Prior to 9/11 and all the federal subsidies and giveaways of military class gear, the Sheriff chose the Mini-14 over the M-16/M-4/AR-15.

What the range master at the Sheriffs training facility explained to me is that the Mini-14 offers the exact same performance as the semi-auto M16/M-4/AR-15 type rifles at a fraction of the price. Plus it is easier to maintain. That the only advantage of the M-16/M-4/AR-15 was a visually intimidating look by having a "military" silhouette. He said only the SWAT team needed that intimidation factor and that patrol officers were better served by the more compact and simpler Mini-14.

Again, this was in the 1990s, when the Sheriff was spending their own money.

That is one big long list of "we don't know", hardly evidence against the hypothetical angel being alive. Given that they can communicate, plan, adapt plans to circumstances, experience emotions, etc the scales lean towards alive. Also we are presuming a biblical environment, the scientific definitions are a bit lacking in such an environment. Is divine instantiation on the list under reproduction? :-)

Its already a known fact that what the rank and file believers consider life and what most scientists consider life do not agree.

Don't try moving the goal posts. We are discussing what the rank and file believe, and how well they can incorporate alien life into their belief system.

Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life. They've made the most difficult step, going from 1 to 2. Going to 3 or more is relatively simple at that point.

I wouldn't limit things to Christianity. The old testament literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example. So other religions that accept the old testament have a precedent of accepting non-human intelligent beings.

The bible literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example.

The important distinction between Ferrari and Tesla is that Tesla is moving towards the mass market.

The point you are missing is that the GM exec is speaking as if Tesla is *and will remain* a fringe product. It most likely will not remain such, hence the fact that GM is afraid and talking about it.

No, its not as simple as comparable. The brand can make a difference when the price is affordable to a particular consumer, even when more expensive.

Using your numbers, fewer potential Volt buyers will settle for a Volt if the Tesla is $855 a month rather then $1,187 a month. GM would experience some loss in customer retention in the scenario you describe.

The point is that Tesla is working on more affordable cars. That "fringe" you refer to is known as walking a new technology down the willingness to pay curve using supply constraints, capturing the maximum value from each buyer, maximizing profits. Its a beautiful fit when your new tech starts out expensive and limited in numbers due to various constraints.

That first high priced iPhone was once "fringe". However once Apple had several generations of phones and could offer them a high, medium and low price points the iPhone became a much more significant part of the market. Tesla is on a similar track. GM is, and should be, afraid.

You mean GM is perfectly happy that people don't have an affordable option. The point is once those people have an affordable option the meaningfulness of past sales becomes apparent, i.e. not very meaningful at all.

It affects customer retention, future money. It Tesla comes out with affordable cars GM is in for serious competition.