you forgot the 1 child per family china, and the majority of those families are having males. More Males mean less kids.
In 40-50 years china's population will start to contract massively.
compare with the Western world which is having less kids later in their lives. means that the separation between generations is increasing.
Not to mention the fact that resource wars and wars caused by having too many unattached men on the planet are likely to take care of some of the population...
I've argued against your false portrayal of my opinion. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the anecdote vs science red herring.
This would be the first time you've said I've portrayed your opinion incorrectly, and if you bother to reread the thread here, you'll see that either you are intentionally misrepresenting the exchange, or you have somehow completely forgotten everything we've said.
Intentionally misrepresenting my opinion does not really enhance your argument. I did not say I feared your kindle. I said it added to the flight crew workload for no real benefit. You can read between take off and landing. We all make trivial accommodations during takeoff and landing for the comfort and safety of each other and the efficiency of the flight crew.
Arguing dishonestly doesn't make this a "win" for you. You have clearly NOT said that it "added to the flight crew workload for no benefit." You have repeatedly compared the "trivial use" of a banned electronic device (which includes the Kindle) should not be allowed because it may endanger everyone. That has nothing to do with crew workload, and everything to do with an unreasonable fear.
If you want to continue to shift your position, and deny what's been stated in the thread, then I suppose I will be forced to conclude that this conversation is a waste of time, as you are not only not having an honest conversation with me, but are apparently only discussing this issue for some imagined audience with which you are trying to gain some sort of "points" as if you can win somehow.
Wrong. I have *never* said anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I started the discussion with a cost-benefit type argument, that the trivial unnecessary benefit of using a personal device during landing is not warranted given the extremely high cost (100+ human lives) of a possible accident. Basically that even though the likelihood of such an event is extremely unlikely the trivial nature of the benefit suggests forgoing the benefit.
And I've argued from the beginning that anecdotal stories do not trump scientific studies, which has always clearly been my point - so why are you even responding to me? If you agree, then just say so.
An uninformed guess on your part. Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs. Like my original argument, the trivial unnecessary benefit you experience from using your kindle during takeoff does not warrant the additional workload you will cause the flight crew.
There are MANY MANY MANY more sane ways to deal with this. Device certification, for example, would handle the issue. Having the ability to DETECT devices onboard that are emitting dangerous signals would be another. Hell, I'd expect you to, I don't know, want to see that more than a ban, since, as many people have already said to you - people are constantly using these devices and leaving them on every flight that goes up. Don't you think we should actually enforce the ban, you know, the one that was supposed to be temporary while studies were conducted to determine if there really was a problem?
I still, by the way, say that my right to read a friggin' book is more important than your right to exercise your unreasonable fear. Especially given more sane options to resolve the potential, and unlikely, issue.
Consider that in the specific test offered by Boeing engineers the worst offender was an iPad. So it is an extremely recent experiment. Consumer technology has changed radically over time. Studies conducted five or ten years ago are becoming decreasingly relevant.
If you are going to change your argument so that you agree with mine, can you just admit it so we can all go on? After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I disagreed. Now you are saying, but, well, there are scientific studies mentioned in the article that are more recent than the old ones. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along - there are currently scientific studies being done on the subject - so why should we legislate over anecdotal stories that are at best, questionable? As in, "not likely to be true"?
A far more important problem with the analogy is that using a car is more of a necessity for many individuals, whereas the use of a personal device during landing is a trivial and unnecessary act. Recall the cost-benefit analysis, a low frequency but high cost paired with a trivial benefit suggests forgoing the benefit while a highly useful benefit may suggest the risk is warranted. The later is pretty much a daily experience given the hazards of driving, one is more likely to get taken out by a drunk driver than a software failure in the brakes.
Argue against the analogy all you want - my inability to use a Kindle during takeoff, when the Kindle has zero emissions during use, because you are scared because some guy told you a story about a time when some unnamed device caused some sort of issue in a situation completely unrelated to, you know, the situation in which I'm actually using the Kindle - well, that's just silly, at best. And that is the actual reason why people are looking at your posts and thinking that you are a slight bit more than a little crazy.
The pitot tubes on certain Airbus aircraft were heavily tested using scientific methods and found to be safe. Reports of problems were probably considered anecdotal by some. Yet we eventually had a catastrophic loss of life where we found that the scientific methods employed failed to uncover a design flaw. Your analogy is also severely flawed. Eating is a necessity. Using a handheld device during landing is not.
Really? So, some idiot who has an anecdotal story (which, by the way, I can counter with my own, absolutely true, idiotic anecdotal story), should take precedence over scientific research, because scientific research once failed to predict a problem? Why bother with science at all then? If that's the value of a scientific study to you, then perhaps you should be campaigning against science. While using a handheld device during landing isn't all that crazy important to me, basing laws on anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts scientific findings (and massive amounts of other anecdotal evidence) is dangerous - and that IS important to me. I absolutely refuse to ignore B.S. like this, just because someone says it's for the children.
Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.
Here's the problem with this reasoning. Much work has been done to prove a connection using scientific methods. The answer? Nope - not a problem - but let's keep looking, because, as you said, this is dangerous and important. And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!" Well, I'm sorry, but just because a friend of mine swears that genetically altered food contains arsenic because he got sick once, and was told he had food poisoning after eating an apple, doesn't mean it's something to freak out about - even though food poisoning is dangerous, and yes, it's possible he could have died.
According to the tweets about the incident, as it happened, if we've got a stealthy, quiet super-secret high-tech helicopter here, then I think we might have overpaid for it. Check out the article, and then read the tweets: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.twitter.reports/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Whoops - I see this has already been answered ad naseum. Please ignore my post as you should. That's all - thanks.
Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.