Here's a better idea:

I'll promise that the airport was there BEFORE some developer bought the farmland and built your subdivision full of McMansions on it. He got a spanking deal on the land because it's near an airport and you didn't do your homework.

How about, instead of chastising the airport and pilots for your mistakes, DO YOUR HOMEWORK THE NEXT TIME YOU BUY A HOUSE.

To answer your direct question, yes, there is a rule. However, it does not apply during approach and landing, which is what you are talking about.

I apologize in advance for the tone of this message, but I used to fly out of an airport in exactly this situation. There were hundreds of home owners constantly complaining/picketing/etc. I have 0 sympathy for them. They knew the airport was there when they bought the house. You are in the same boat.

I'm in. You had me at free beer.

In all seriousness... I regularly debate politics with people from both sides. The Liberals call me heartless and the "Tea partiers" call me a lefty. What ever happened to good ole common sense?

Unfortunately, what has really happened is that we've allowed the bastards to polarize the whole thing. They find hot button issues and beat the drum until the sheep all fall on one side or the other. Everybody says the sky is falling.

I'm at the office and don't have time to really elaborate, but I think you're on the right track. A little bit from both platforms is what will really work.

"And don't give me the "radio interference" crap - there's no evidence at all to support this and it's routinely ignored by anybody in the industry"

I love how technology types tend to think they know everything about every piece of technology because they can use VB.

Aside from being a geek and occasional programmer, I'm also a pilot. I've also personally encountered navigational interference from a cellular phone. I think that qualifies as "evidence at all to support this". You can also refer to the link posted below that gives detailed accounts of specific interference on scheduled airline flights.

Seriously, airplanes are not computers. The rules are not meant to be broken. The rules are intended to be as minimally invasive as possible while still protecting against all potential issues. Note: This statement does NOT apply to TSA rules. They are maximally invasive and minimally effective. I'm only speaking to FAA rules regarding flight safety.

The real issue in this case is that some devices can/do cause interference and others don't. But, on a commercial airliner with hundreds of passengers that might each be carrying a potentially interfering device, the rule is that everybody has to turn them off and safely store them. Of course, the issue of a laptop being a potential projectile during a rough take-off/landing is also a concern. Short of having flight crews carry around an FCC manual and an RF meter to test every single device that a passenger might want to use, I think the current situation is a reasonable compromise.

So, basically, you'll never get what you want. The FAA and the airlines are in the business of protecting and delivering passengers respectively. They are not in the "allow some random passenger to use whatever device he wants that can potentially screw up the airplane at any time" business. If you want that level of service, charter a Gulfstream. Small, private aircraft can and do provide that level of service. If some electronic device is screwing with navigation, it's very easy to know who's device it is and have them turn it off. That's not easy on a commercial airliner.

As for the article topic, I would LOVE to have this available and would happily pay probably as much as $20 to use it on a cross-country or international flight. Being able to accomplish something with otherwise wasted time is always a win.

There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.

So, you start off by insulting your opponent? It's not even a correct insult. I'm actually a card-carrying libertarian. I'm also intelligent enough that I realize that all of these issues are multi-dimensional and require real research. The talking heads aren't nearly enough.

We put him in power. Actually, to be precise, the Reagan administration put him in power. That's most certainly relevant. We either knew he was crazy and didn't care, or we didn't and are covering up our mistakes. In any case, it's very relevant.

Irrelevant. We put him in there via treachery and then we had to get rid of him when he stopped being our puppet. We shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

LOL. Seriously, LOL. That means, you'd basically abolish nothing. I assume you also wouldn't touch medicaid. Or, do you believe that because a child is born to poor parents, they deserve to die from diarrhea or some other trivially manageable disease? In any case, the only program you'd end up eliminating is the food stamp program. Food stamps (of which, 76% got to households with children... should we starve the poor children too while we're at it?) only cost $28.6B per year. That number is a rounding error in the federal budget.

I don't believe in pyramid schemes either. But, I don't see you making any proposals to fix it. For the record, it's not a pyramid scheme. It IS pay as you go. When it was created, they didn't anticipate your grandparents having nearly as many children as they did. Furthermore, our parents generation reduced their own taxes (greedy bastards) and stole, "borrowed", from the fund. Now, they expect us to pick up the tab. Well, shit.. what do we do with that? We either throw it all away, which we'll never be able to do. Even you said "for those not near retirement age". Does that mean that I get to pay into it for the next 20 years and never collect? Screw that. Pay the thing up to where it needs to be and move on. You won't get rid of it, but you won't pay for it either.

The FCC helped finance most of the infrastructure that the telecoms used to build the internet. Saying that the "free market" did it is a gross over simplification. While we're on the free market bit, where does the illusion come from that anything in the US is a free market?

A free market has competition. It has companies that provide similar products and compete based on features and price. Using internet access as an example, THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. All of the companies have paid state and municipal legislatures to give them monopoly control over their particular delivery mechanisms. Unless you live in a very dense metro area (I know Chicago has this), you can only choose 1 cable company or 1 DSL provider. (Yes, I know that other companies like Covad, et al. can resell DSL, but it all still comes from your local Bell). So, your point about the internet being free market is 100% wrong.

Thanks for number 2.

As for the no student loans, you either worked very hard or had parents that contributed. I suspect it's a combination of both. For the record, my parents were/are dirt poor. They couldn't contribute anything. There are countless others in a similar position. But, you would happily do away with the DoEducation and consequently, student loans. You would happily tell me to go be a ditch digger or garbage man because I was born poor.

I'm an enabler of the status quo? The status quo, as has been mentioned by several comments below mine has been to enable to republicans to deregulate banking, energy and other industries that WORKED JUST FINE WHEN THEY WERE REGULATED. We ended up with Enron and the financial collapse. The status quo took the US from an almost universally prosperous country into an caste system with an income disparity in line with Georgia, Tunisia and Cameroon.

Since you took a shot at me for talking about Reagan, I'm going to do it some more. Do you have any idea what trickle down actually did? We created an entire class of people (upper middle class) that have significant amounts of investment capital and no CLUE what to do with it. We started with the S&L meltdown. We progressed to the dot-com bubble when they all bought tech stocks. Then, we ended up with the real-estate bubble when they all decided that houses and mortgages were the things to buy. After this last one, we had to spend a fortune of tax-payer money bailing out the banks that were complicit in helping "investors" deal with their capital. I wonder what bubble they'll create next?

Between the great depression and Reagan, we didn't have any bubbles. It wasn't until we started fostering all of this massive investment for "investments sake" that we started having these huge cycles. If you really want an economic boom, put money in the hands of people that will SPEND it. Buying stocks isn't "investment." The companies don't see a dollar of that money (unless it's new issue/ipo/etc..). All it does is prop up the price of an intangible asset and create more faux asset value. You talked about inflation... the stock market is the single biggest driver of inflation that exists. Every company is expected to grow year after year after year. Do you really believe that is possible? It's not. The game isn't completely zero-sum, but it's aweful close. Every dollar in the "market" isn't real. It's all faux money derived from the valuation of some asset. If the real-estate collapse didn't teach you that fact, I don't know what will.

Back to point, the last thing that I am is an enabler of the status quo. I'm a firm believer in "change". We should re-regulate banks back to the way they were in the 1970's. Keep asset classes separate. Don't allow them to own investment banks. Don't allow them to own insurance companies. There are too many ways, now, for them to manipulate everything to take all of us for a ride.

You're kidding right? He was pandering for Wall-street donations. Can you imagine what would have happened if we'd allowed Social Security to be privatized when they proposed it back then? It would have gone through two bubbles and gained essentially nothing. I promise that by now, the broker fees alone would have eaten up any tangible gains it would have made in the market. Besides, our stock market has GODS plenty of capitalization. It doesn't need any more. It can't even keep up with the amount of money that's pumped into it right now. We can only create so much value out of thin air. When you're talking about the scale of money that we're talking about with privatized SS, there is nothing that can absorb that amount of capital and provide any decent return. The best deal going for that kind of money is US Government bonds (which is where we have it right now).

If you want more proof of that fact, take a look at China. They are certainly very smart when it comes to fiscal policy. Money management is a very ingrained part of the culture. (Note, I do happen to live in mainland China right now). What do they do with their trillions of USD in currency reserves? Do they buy stocks with it? Heck no. They buy US Government bonds.

Right now, the SS trust fund is invested in the way that the rest of the world manages their large amounts of capital. I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. Or, are you going to tell me that China doesn't know what they're doing with their money?

That's not a contrarian opinion. It's nothing but a collection of the usual bile.

"vile dictator named Saddam Hussein"

You do remember that we CREATED him? We (the US) put him in power and provided the weapons he used to fight against Iran, against his own people and eventually against us.

I'm all for deficit reduction,et al.. But I really wonder when these self-declared "conservatives" will wake up and realize that all the preaching in the world isn't going to change anything. You can rail against "entitlement" programs and bureaucracies until you're blue in the face, but I guarantee you wouldn't want to live without them. Might I point out that the money we spent on Iraq is enough to permanently fix social security?

I assume you're not old enough for Social Security, but I bet your parents are and claimed it. Since you're using your computer and posting to a website, you've benefited from the FCC and the DoEnergy. If you drove on any US highway or ridden on an airplane, you've benefited from the DOT. I assume you were educated in the US,probably attended college and probably used at least some amount of student loans to pay for it. You can thank the DoEducation for that.

If you really want to change something, why don't you take the time to actually learn what all of these agencies do. Instead of being spoon fed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, take the time to do the research. Then, you can make some intelligent arguments about how to improve the system. For all the rhetoric, the "conservative" movement is nothing more then the same old crap in a different wrapper. Reagan raided SS and filled it with bonds to finance his deficit spending. The Bush's both wanted to raid it entirely and give it to their wall-street buddies in the form of "private accounts." The only people that would have benefited from that are the investment bankers. I think we've given them enough handouts already.

So, back to my original point: Unless you have a better proposal that's well thought-out and actually implementable, you have no standing.

If all you can say is that we should do away with all of it, you've only demonstrated your own ignorance.

I live in a place that HAS high speed trains (south China). I also drive. The train is great for a trip to Guangzhuo (80km) or Shenzhen (72km). Driving to either of those places is a pain in the butt and the train is pretty cheap (about $8).

There are places that they work. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Japan. The high speed trains there also work great.

All of the previous posts about suburbia are correct, but you have to look at the big picture. Not everyone lives in suburbia. I'm not an advocate of forcing people to abandon the suburban life, but there is a third option. South China has huge sprawling megalopolis type cities with a smattering of high speed rail connecting them. Overall, it's pretty efficient. Most people, when looking for a residence here, specifically ask how close it is to the train station.

With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.

Not only do they limit access to internet cafes, but to a whole assortment of other "entertainment“ venues.

Even video arcades (places quite strongly associated with children) are age restricted here.

This has nothing to do with the usual "evil China" banter about censorship, et al. and everything to do with conservative "family" values.

China is so conservative, it makes Ronald Reagan look like a communist. (Note: I live in mainland China)

How about lower 6 digit?

Consider yourself confirmed

Below is right about the bleach, but there are other concerns as well.

Ever been poked accidentally by a barber? Now, what happens if they draw blood (even a drop is enough) and you're HIV positive? It's a reasonable question to ask.

Or, simple things like hair lice or other vermin that could be infesting you.

Some of it is obviously marketing driven (hair cut count, family members, etc..), but the other stuff is not as sinister as it might first appear.

In the US, tablets aren't really that big of a deal. I have a graphic artist friend that bought one to draw with, but he would have been happy with an LCD Wacom .

Outside the US, though, there are some huge tablet markets. The two biggest being Hong Kong and Taiwan. Both of them use traditional Chinese characters which don't have a convenient typing system. Anyone that was educated in either of those places more then 15 years ago doesn't know how to type.

For the record, I recently bought an HP tablet in HK for exactly this reason.

G forces are directly related to how tightly and how fast a maneuver is performed. It's simply a matter of knowing what your limits are and not exceeding them. That's a pretty recurrent theme in all things aviation.

I'm a licensed pilot and a flight sim buff. Some time ago, I had a chance to fly a T-34 Mentor (military trainer, that prior to an AD was legal for aerobatics). I flew the heck out of one in the sim, and then tried it in the real plane to test exactly this theory and to hopefully be more comfortable in some of the really unusual attitudes that aerobatic flying can produce.

Granted, a T-34 isn't a fighter jet, but it's as close as anybody with a realistic budget can get.

I was able to perform nearly all of the maneuvers that I'd practiced in the sim and other then a headache afterwords was also quite pleased with the outcome. Pleased enough that I flew it subsequently.

To answer your question directly, I wouldn't suggest someone with only sim experience trying to fly without proper training. I also wouldn't advocate trying aerobatics without a proper aircraft, some solid previous real world training in recoveries and a parachute. All of that being said, YES, sim experience definitely translates to the real world up to the point that you have the balls to test it.

I was going to give you hell about your terrible pinyin, but then I realized that you're in HK and pinyin doesn't apply.

"This is based on thousands of stories I've heard over many years."

Wait.. you have no first hand experience? Do you mean that you never lived in China? My guess is that you're a silver-spoon Hong Kongease who's parents paid your way into the US and now you look down on the Americans that come to China.

  "You won't find any discussion about it on Chinese sites, sure. But it's all over overseas Chinese forums."

That tells the story right there. You think that you can speak for the Chinese people since you are a member of an overseas Chinese forum?

Live here for a while and then maybe you can have some credibility.