IIRC they sent the phone sanitizers on the "B" ship and all the elites on the "A" ship died from infections they got from using the phones.

Emotionally stable is the exact opposite of what is needed for a successful reality TV show. People want to watch others on TV who are batshit crazy. It helps them feel like their own only slightly less batshit decisions are more rational than they really are.

1) It isn't a company phone. It's my phone. The company doesn't require me to have it. Sure, it makes my job easier, but I could do without if I wanted to. Which I don't. There are cases where I have chosen not to purchase a device. For example, an iPad would help me do demos of our products, but I don't want to buy one, and the company does not want to buy one for me. So I don't use one. Everyone's fine with that.

2) Are you asking why would anyone want to have the flexibility to buy an iPhone, or a Nexus 4, or whatever other kind of device they prefer and then use that single device as their mobile platform? Have fun carrying two phones forever, I guess.

They don't require me to use a smartphone, and it's not used for work unless I choose to do so. Which I do, because it makes my life easier. That has value to me. But go ahead and call me stupid if that makes you feel like a man.

This is how it works where I am (Fortune 500 technology company). The company pays all the service, including my personal calls and data use, and I pay for the phone. They negotiate shorter contract terms and lower up-front device costs. I get my choice of carriers and devices. They also negotiate discounted service pricing for my family.

The company does not wipe my entire device when I disconnect it from their system and remove their MDM, they just delete their content and leave everything else alone. They do enforce screen lock timeouts and require a PIN or password. They will wipe my device in its entirety if it's stolen.

This is a sane BYOD policy that balances the desire of the employees to have a choice in their electronic tether with their needs to secure their IP.

Yes, they do. It's very easy to understand what their plan entails by simply reading what's on their site. I know, so many werdz, it makes my head hurt! But seriously, it's not at all a hidden or masqueraded charge.

So... why not just run Linux on the MacBook Air, if that's what you prefer?

I think of it like golf. While it's very easy to swing a club and hit a golf ball, it's incredibly difficult to get the ball to wind up exactly where you want it to go.

Target shooting is the same, for me at least. It's very easy to fire a gun, but it's incredibly difficult to hit exactly where you are aiming. It takes patience, time, and a lot of practice to achieve even small incremental improvements. Many people enjoy this sort of challenge.

Your supposition that all gun owners own and shoot them for the express purpose of practicing to kill a human being is wrong. It certainly does not apply to me. I've no intention of ever being in a position where I'd want to kill someone, and if I did it's unlikely that I'd have the means to do so at my immediate disposal.

Now, you can sit there and think "well that's just fine but I know in my heart of hearts that deep, deep down this random Internet asshole just wants to blow someone away" and I can't possibly argue with that. But it's not a reasonable position.

I don't work for Microsoft (I'm with the networking evil empire) but I still know a bullshit story about a common practice when I see one.

Or irrelevant. But true enough.

Isn't that kind of like saying articles about the sun should mention it's a star?

Who cares about cell phones during takeoff? I'd just like to continue reading my book during the 20 minutes of taxi/takeoff and the 20 minutes of approach/landing on my airplane-mode tablet.

And what I meant by the public accepting restrictions is that they would provided evidence the restrictions actually accomplish something. I think this was fairly obvious but I'm happy to have provided the clarification.

Mobile communication protocols aren't voodoo. The rules are so well-understood that you can go damn near anywhere on the planet where there's even basic infrastructure and use the same mobile device you bought at Walmart in Des Moine. Pilots seem to be fond of repeating that we simply can't understand all the possible effects of all mobile devices on aircraft instrumentation, but this is false. All these mobile devices communicate outside of themselves in a predictable, understood manner.

The public will accept that there are good reasons for disabling devices on takeoff and landing. The FAA needs to provide those reasons with an evidence-based approach. I suspect they will have a hard time doing so.

It's a good thing when companies with deep pockets stand up patent trolls and win, but I worry that they'll just move to smaller, softer targets who can't afford to fight. Even after widely-publicized losses like this we'll continue to suffer from patent trolls until we have some meaningful legal reforms.

What would airplane mode have to do with a wired interface?