Not just paid to install the spyware but PAID up to a million USD a month! That's unreal! No wonder he is moonlighting. He is getting paid many times over his yearly salary to kill two birds with one stone. I don't see how this can be legal, but then again it is the USA.

But they are ok with the 2 lb book I'm carrying or the can of coke (or bottle of wine/whiskey) that the flight attendant just sold me knocking them in the head or the 300 lb beverage cart ending up in their lap? Airlines still let infants travel on their parent's lap, surely if they were worried about my Kindle hitting someone in the head, they'd be worried about the child becoming a projectile.

Sure, I understand that loose items are dangerous in a crash,but if that's a significant risk, the solution to that is to ban *all* of the items, not just the ones that happen to have a battery.

Seriously - bring a package of cookies for the flight crew. The flight attendants will leave you alone except to check on you, and will probably sneak you a non-alcoholic treat at some point during the flight. And it's not a job that's appreciated terribly much - look at the comments in this thread, just for starters - so it goes a long way.

...because we've seen their act too many times, and pretty much everything except the location of the doors is common sense in the first place.

Anyone who can't figure that stuff out is probably traveling with an adult to handle the actual decisions.

I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).

I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.

This is a classic example of "mission creep". The decision to ban electronic devices originally had nothing to do with making people pay attention to flight attendants. Yet that is now being used as an excuse to keep the ban. The only reason for the ban was RF interference. That is no longer a problem with modern devices, so the ban should end.

How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.

You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.

You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.

Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.

For capitalism humans are required not only for labor but also as consumers. Therefore the elites require to find a way to distribute money to the rest otherwise their system will collapse. However, I have the distinct impression that they do not know that.

And in the meantime, work globally to stop travel out of West Africa until their outbreak problem is under control.

Certainly not true. This means we would spend more resources on a cure.

Louisiana: http://www.criminaldefenselawy...
Unfortunately in New York http://www.criminaldefenselawy... the intent must be criminal.

So the DOJ also involved her child by posting his picture? As part of a drug investigation?

She should also be suing them on behalf of her child for endangerment. In drug transactions family members can be targets of violence. The DOJ was putting a minor in harms way.

That would go really well for the DOJ in court. I would love to be in the courtroom and watch some lawyer from the DOJ defend a practice that puts a child at risk. I'm sure that the jury would hear that testimony and decide there and then that the DOJ should loose the case very painfully.

Also, aren't their laws pertaining to the use of images of minors without parental consent? Even if the image was obtained legally (not likely in this case). Sounds like a potential criminal case to me. Of course, considering it's the DOJ, they could have used the image in a pedophilia sting and nothing would happen.

although i know i cannot totally erase my FB account, i have done what i know how to do. fini.