Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Government Transportation

Senators Propose Bill Prohibiting Phone Calls On Planes 513

Posted by Soulskill
from the nobody-wants-to-hear-your-conversation dept.
SonicSpike writes with news that two U.S. Senators, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have proposed legislation to ban cell phone calls while aboard an airplane. This follows a recent announcement from the FAA increasing the range of electronic gadgets travelers can use while flying, and a vote by the FCC to consider allowing phone calls during flight. However, even as those government agencies work to lift regulations on in-flight technology, the Department of Transportation is pondering a in-flight call ban of its own, saying it might not be "fair" to consumers to have to listen to other passengers talk on the phone throughout a long flight. FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "If we move beyond what we do here today and actually update our rules to allow voice calls on planes we can see a future where our quiet time is monetized and seating in the silent section comes at a premium."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Propose Bill Prohibiting Phone Calls On Planes

Comments Filter:
  • what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:47PM (#45681187)

    Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!

    • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by H0p313ss (811249) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:51PM (#45681251)

      Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters?

      That would be nice. We already know there's a special hell reserved for those who talk at the theater.

    • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glavenoid (636808) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:52PM (#45681271) Journal

      It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.

      • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by X0563511 (793323) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:56PM (#45681335) Homepage Journal

        Indeed. There is zero reason this needs to be legislated.

        This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:14PM (#45681617) Homepage Journal

          This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.

          Don't worry, the next election will change *everything*! At least, that's what I hear every two years...

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by macbeth66 (204889) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:15PM (#45681621)

          I'd rather that congress focus on this than on more ways to waste tax dollars. There is a lot to be said for a congress that can't do anything.

          • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by bonehead (6382) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:26PM (#45681795)

            Indeed. Political bickering and gridlock in Washington are the only things preventing this country from going downhill even faster.

            The absolute worst case scenario for the USA is that we ever elect a congress that can actually get anything accomplished.

            • Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)

              by DexterIsADog (2954149) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:35PM (#45681915)
              Yeah, it would be awful if congress were to, say, spend enough time to rationally examine energy policy, and pass laws to encourage responsible nuclear power in addition to renewables.
              • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by 0123456 (636235) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:18PM (#45682401)

                Yeah, it would be awful if congress were to, say, spend enough time to rationally examine energy policy, and pass laws to encourage responsible nuclear power in addition to renewables.

                Yeah, because that would totally happen.

                In the real world, they would pass a 2,000 page Affordable Energy Act that no-one had read, full of pork for hamster farmers.

                • Well, if you keep your expectations low, I guess you won't be disappointed. Too bad you live that way, though.
                  • by bonehead (6382)

                    Well, if you keep your expectations low, I guess you won't be disappointed. Too bad you live that way, though.

                    Live what way? With a realistic view of how the world works, based on decades of observation?

                    • If you always expect shit, you'll always get shit. Fortunately enough of us expect better that we occasionally get something good.
            • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by cayenne8 (626475) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:36PM (#45681927) Homepage Journal

              The absolute worst case scenario for the USA is that we ever elect a congress that can actually get anything accomplished.

              And, we saw this brilliantly illustrated when Obama first hit office and Dems had control of both houses. We're feeling the effects now of obamacare which was rammed through.

              Thankfully, even with majority in both houses, they didn't do more damage.

              Sadly, the only way to overturn this mess, and get it out and maybe revised would be to have the Reps in control of all 3x branches. But, I'm afraid what else they'd do if they had that much control.

              So, I'm afraid we're largely screwed on this one...

              • by tepples (727027)

                Sadly, the only way to overturn this mess, and get it out and maybe revised would be to have the Reps in control of all 3x branches. But, I'm afraid what else they'd do if they had that much control.

                Last time the GOP had the House, Senate, and Presidency, the United States got involved in Vietghanistan and Vietraq.

              • We're feeling the effects now of obamacare which was rammed through.

                Yes, yes... because the Republican solution to the country's healthcare issues (and/or anything else having to with people who are not rich and/or white and/or corporations) was/is *so* much better. Remind me what that was/is again, other than "let them eat cake"?

              • by LanMan04 (790429)

                Rammed through?

                Only due to 60 votes being the "new normal" to get any legislation to a vote.

                So it was only ramming through if we agree the GOP was *again* making egregious misuse of the filibuster. Otherwise, it's just business as usual for both sides.

        • Indeed. There is zero reason this needs to be legislated. This is just congress fucking off instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, again.

          This is also a useful reminder from Lamar Alexander that Republicans are lying when they say they favor less government.

      • Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)

        by SJHillman (1966756) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:57PM (#45681349)

        "such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition"

        I propose an exception - if the violation happens before take-off, they should have to wait until the plane reaches a certain minimum altitude before the forcible disembarkation.

      • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:58PM (#45681371) Journal

        It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.

        How dare you let businesses determine their own methods of business. You NEED the government to tell you how to run your business since you suck at running it and some lifetime politician knows more about your business then you do.

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jedidiah (1196) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:24PM (#45681769) Homepage

          An airline?

          You really don't want to go there. These are some of the most heavily regulated businesses on the planet. The companies in question might not even mind given the kind of chaos that could ensue otherwise.

          Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.

          • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:27PM (#45681813) Journal

            Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.

            It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.

            • Regulation gives everyone a nice level playing field.

              It also ensures that inventiveness is removed from business.

              Really? Have you *seen* the proliferation of charges the airlines invented, to boost the bottom line? They must employ the equivalent of Einsteins and Shakespeares of customer ripoff to come up with those.

      • by swb (14022) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:26PM (#45681791)

        ...even if "being told what to do" means they decide internally but have a Federal organization slap their letterhead on it and make it a Federal rule/policy.

        There will probably be a lot of high-mileage and influential business customers who want to talk on the phone. These people are the gravy for airlines in terms of income and that can get expensive if they switch to another carrier who will allow these calls. Making their own policies that risks exposing them to a competitive disadvantage is something they don't want.

        If they do allow calls with their own policy, they then risk the public relations nightmare of bad press and public opinion. Of course they don't really care about vacation travelers opinions very much since they aren't the high margin business customers, but they also don't want the negative PR generally.

        It's just so much easier for them on this issue if they don't have to decide on their own and they can just point to a regulatory rule.

    • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edibobb (113989) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:58PM (#45681369) Homepage
      We should ban talking altogether. Terrorists have been known to use speech in training as well as in the execution of terrorist attacks. Child pornographers and drug cartels are also frequent users of speech.
    • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#45681465) Homepage

      Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!

      In a restaurant, I can ask my waitress to tell you to STFU. If she fails to, I can (and will) walk out.

      You already can't use your phone in a movie theater.

      Being stuck on a plane for several hours while some sales wanker is on a conference call -- well, let's just say the cabin crew might have to break up a few fights and deal with the fallout of someone who has had enough. After you've won buzz-word bingo for the 3rd time in 15 minutes, it wears thin, and people have already been stressed out by the process of going through the airport.

      Mark my words, I bet it would take less than 2 years before the first in-flight murder of a cell phone user or something silly like that. Because the people who feel they can't avoid using their cell phones often have absolutely no awareness of those around them, because they feel whatever they're doing is so important that the rest of us should have to put up with it.

      • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Entropius (188861) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:20PM (#45681715)

        There is a train line that came up with a novel idea: on part of the train you can use your cellphone, and on part of the train you can't! Gee, what a concept. Maybe we could let the airlines figure this out, rather than having Congress make laws.

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by nitehawk214 (222219) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:01PM (#45682221)

          There is a train line that came up with a novel idea: on part of the train you can use your cellphone, and on part of the train you can't! Gee, what a concept. Maybe we could let the airlines figure this out, rather than having Congress make laws.

          Amtrack does not charge extra for "quiet cars". You can bet your ass an airplane would charge you for some peace and quiet.

          Also, on a train you can get up, move around, and there is lots of room between seats. On a plane you are pressed right up against the asshole yammering on his phone right next to you.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vakuona (788200)

        Here is a thought. An aeroplane is a public place, and you should not necessarily expect quiet on a plane. What next, do you ban people talking to each other on planes because is disturbs your peace and quiet?

        Why not buy some earplugs if you want to drown out the noise around you? Why not let people use their time as productively as they wish.

        If it is a red eye flight, then I fully agree that people should be quiet at certain times. but to mandate it for all flights, whatever the time is ridiculous.

        • Re: what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:02PM (#45682229)

          Sure, and the trumpet player who's travelling to his next performance should be allowed to make productive use of his time by practicing. It's not like you have a right to peace and quiet at the expense of his convenience.

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by EdIII (1114411) on Friday December 13, 2013 @03:49PM (#45683415)

          You're still missing the point. (God I hate airplanes so freakin much)

          An airplane is NOT a public space.

          It's a pressurized little container where people are jammed packed like little fucking sardines. The average seat size has been reduced due to greed, while the average ass size has only gone up.

          So it's greatly uncomfortable as it is. Let's add to it ridiculously uncomfortable seats, and the fact they can recline annihilating the space for the passenger behind you. Your option? Recline your seat as well to reclaim the space. Last row that can't recline. You're fucked dude.

          You got problems with poor circulation and neuropathy? Ehhh, fuck you and stay sitting period. You can't even get up to stretch your legs unless it's the weak pretense of going to bathroom, and there are only two of those SOB's on most flights.

          Then there is biggest restraint. It's a pressurized fucking container moving 500+ mph through the sky and you can't leave .

          It's not a public space by any stretch of the imagination. It's an agreed upon temporary prison not designed for comfort at all with the sole purpose of ferrying your ass as fast as possible between two points.

          So let's be pragmatic in the approach and not so high and mighty about who gets to do what and how freedom shall not be tarnished and the wings of liberty can't lose a feather.

          Can I leave that environment at any time when some asshat like you thinks I should just spend my money for sensory deprivation equipment because you want to dominate the space with your loud incessant talking on the phone? You might want to think that through for a sec....

          Cuz... I will fucking kill you. They will pull you off that plane with peanuts jammed up your nose, and that life raft/vest/fart-catcher sticking out your ass. Ohh, and I will be wearing your fucking ears around my neck as a sign of my kill.

          I'm not trapped on that plane with you, you're trapped on that plane with me. I'm uncomfortable. I'm pissed off that the TSA didn't lube up on that pseudo random investigations they do for security theater. I'm possibly a little dehydrated cuz I didn't want to spend 10$ for a bottle of water and $3m USD for that turkey panini to raise my blood sugar up. It's not just me either. Keep that in mind.

          You're general audience is pissed off (at least to some extent), frustrated, uncomfortable, hungry, dehydrated, dealing with snotty children and babies, and CAPTIVE . Good luck if you want to be the asshole and become the center of attention.

          P.S - Having a conversation with another travelling passenger at a reasonable volume is just fine. You should just be civilized and keep in mind that nobody has the choice but to put up with you, and they have no where to go.

      • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by slew (2918) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:07PM (#45682285)

        Because the people who feel they can't avoid using their cell phones often have absolutely no awareness of those around them, because they feel whatever they're doing is so important that the rest of us should have to put up with it.

        This. I know someone that operates a hotel (and sometimes I used to help at the front desk). Often heavy smokers (and you can smell them as they walk up to the desk) specifically request a non-smoker room because they don't have to smell smoke. More often than not, they seem to end up lighting-up in that room because they just couldn't resist and they get indignant when the hotel attempts to fine them for smoking in a non-smoker room. The most common excuse was it was cold and didn't want to get dressed to go outside and I couldn't wait (as if that is somehow a valid excuse).

        People addicted to telephones, texting and internet games would seem to fit this profile better than they would probably want to admit.

        • by EdIII (1114411)

          Oooohhhh... that one.

          I was in an older hotel once and a couple across the border from Mexico would not stop smoking in the non-smoking room next to me. The smoke would come under the door and across through the ventilation.

          Complained at least 9 times till they moved me to a bigger suite across the hotel... since they could not get this guy to stop smoking. I knew he was Mexican and across the border (they come over to spend money in the large outlet malls) since he would scream every time they knocked on th

    • A closer analogy would be long distance bus journeys. Why are they not worried about quiet time when you are on a bus for 3 hours?

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      does the legislation have an provision for providing in-flight calls from more expensive seats?

      because fuck, if you just swiped a credit card then inflight calls were available from most "normal",non-budget airline, flights for about two decades now..

      and if that provision is there we know exactly who is lobbying for it. an airline could easily ban phone calls on it's flights if it wants now though, but it's a competitive disadvantage if it's not forced on all.

      they're not going to ban chatting, snoring, cryi

  • by alen (225700) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:47PM (#45681191)

    since its ok to talk on a cell phone, ok for my kids to vocalize themselves as well

  • by Nemyst (1383049)
    And that's different from talking with the person next to you how, exactly? If people can't respect basic social manners, they won't respect them regardless of how. If it's not a phone it'll be something else. This is why we have personnel on board the airplanes.
    • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:57PM (#45681353)

      People do tend to be less considerate of bystanders when making phone calls than when talking to someone who is actually in the room in my experience; you'll see someone who's having a perfectly reasonable conversation with somebody at dinner, then turn away to answer their phone and jump up an order of magnitude in loudness. I think it's the fact that one side of the conversation is private to the other people in the room; it triggers some sort of general "private talk" flag in the brain that makes you automatically and quite unconsciously begin talking as though there was nobody else there.

    • by bws111 (1216812)

      People on cellphones talk louder, for one thing. And hearing only half of a conversation is way more distracting and annoying than hearing both sides.

  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chinton (151403) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [todhsals-100notnihc]> on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:50PM (#45681241) Journal
    Do they really have nothing more pressing to deal with than legislating common courtesy?
    • by X0563511 (793323)

      Yes. But they seem hell-bent on not doing it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes common courtesy, but there are so f*cking many jerks and morons that have no clue what courtesy is...

    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:23PM (#45681755) Journal

      Congress regularly has to regulate what anyone would consider common courtesy.
      What do you think the Do Not Call list and the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act are?

      • While I agree that a law against phone calls on planes is stupid, I wouldn't lump the Do Not Call list into that. With phone calls on planes, consumers have a choice. You can not fly on or complain to airlines that permit this. If they get enough complaints/lost revenue, they'll ban it without the need for legislation.

        With the Do Not Call list, though, there were companies calling people to solicit them. These people didn't have the option of just not getting these calls. You could demand to be taken o

  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:51PM (#45681257)

    Not cell phones, but there have definitely been phones available. Some planes even had handsets embedded in the back of the headrests.

    Also, I have always left my phone on in flights. It doesn't get a signal at altitude, and definitely not over the middle of the ocean. It's really only when you are near takeoff or landing.

    • by perpenso (1613749) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:00PM (#45681395)

      Not cell phones, but there have definitely been phones available. Some planes even had handsets embedded in the back of the headrests.

      And their high cost has moderated their usage. Cell phone usage would be quite different.

    • by Solandri (704621) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:49PM (#45682097)

      Also, I have always left my phone on in flights. It doesn't get a signal at altitude, and definitely not over the middle of the ocean.

      Most airlines have or are adding Internet service to their planes, and some are contemplating using it to provide a cellular microcell (acts like a tower and connects to your cellular provider over Internet). I think the plans right now are to set it up as a third party cell and you'd get charged roaming rates on it if you used it. But it's not difficult to conceive a future where the roaming rates have been scaled back to a few cents/min or eliminated altogether from the cellular carriers competing (hah!) and deciding to just pay the airlines to provide their service.

  • by magic maverick (2615475) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:53PM (#45681291) Homepage Journal
    I've seen plenty of phones on planes before, but I've never seen them used to actually make calls. Probably because they cost a shitload.

    So, just have a fair warning to consumers, that each call will cost $10 a minute (via various methods, including text messages to those phones that are turned on). Then, only those people who actually have a pressing need will use the phones in flight. Solves the problem for me.

    Moreover, if noise worries you, then get a pair of earplugs. And/or don't fly (the engines are almost always the noisiest thing on airplanes for me).
    • by perpenso (1613749)

      ... including text messages to those phones that are turned on ...

      I think the point of the legislation is to get people to use text rather than voice, text having near zero impact on your fellow passengers.

    • by wcrowe (94389)

      I don't understand why so many people suggest getting earplugs. I've tried your suggestion, and it doesn't work. Earplugs do not cancel out all noise. You would still be able to hear someone next to you on their phone. And if you were able to cancel out all the noise, then what you would hear is the sound of your own breathing and possibly your heartbeat. This will actually drive you crazy after a while.

  • by Old97 (1341297) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:53PM (#45681295)
    I think a better solution is that once you've achieved cruising altitude that passenger can petition for a vote of all passengers to have specific annoying passengers literally thrown off the planes. No parachute, just a good heave. As annoying cell phone users are - shouting in their phones, etc. - seat kickers, loud drunks, crying babies and others deserve some sort of retribution too.
  • by rubycodez (864176) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:56PM (#45681327)

    quiet time huh? don't fly much?

  • by tomhath (637240) on Friday December 13, 2013 @12:59PM (#45681383)
    If the person next to you is talking on the phone just join in. Comment on what they say, ask what the other person said, etc. Someone rude enough to have a phone conversation in a crowd won't catch the sarcasm, but at least you'll annoy them as much as they annoy you.
  • I commute to and from New York City on a train every day. I've seen fights almost break out from rude people yapping on phones. Allowing phone calls on planes is a very bad idea. Nobody wants to listen to other people yap on a phone during a three hour flight.

    People get agitated enough being cramped into small seats with no leg room. Lets just add to the agitation my making the person next to you annoy the hell out of you by yapping on the phone to their friend.

  • Is this even feasible? with most flights you're 5-7 miles above the ground. IIRC, cell phone signals radiate mostly parallel to the ground. Can you even get a cell signal in a plane? I don't fly much, and the times I've had I never turned my cellular radio on in my phone.

    • Re:Cell Signal.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#45681467)

      Not that way, no. The plan is to give the plane a small mobile cell of its own, connected to the wider network via satellite backhaul.

    • by slew (2918)

      Acutally you can sometimes get a cell signal from a phone on a plane (some lightly used rural towers can pretty high power/range). Unfortunatly the high-altitude and velocity of a plane used to confuse cell networks (esp., the tower-handoff protocols between say a 3G and a CDMA tower on a multi-mode phone) and consume too much of the tower's antenna power-bandwidth envelope leaving less for other calls. Because so many folks leave their cell-phones onboard planes, nowdays many networks are configured dete

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:01PM (#45681427) Homepage

    How about we respect the fact that the plane is the property of the airline and let them set policy accordingly. I mean holy crap on a cracker Batman, civility will break down because someone is talking (at most likely) conversational volume on a cell phone on a long flight that already has cranky and cramped adults, babies and drunks.

  • by aegl (1041528) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#45681463)

    Airline keeps half. The rest is distributed to the people sitting next to the person making the call.

  • Distraction Bill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Antipater (2053064) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#45681469)

    Both Alexander and Feinstein have issues that they'd rather the media not look at right now. Alexander's chief of staff was just arrested on child porn charges, and Feinstein...I don't think I have to mention, here on /., why people hate Feinstein.

    So they've come together with a "you know that thing that people really hate? Let's ban it!" bill meant to get their names in the headlines next to something they think people will like. It's just a stunt. Pay no heed to it.

  • I use foam ear plugs and sleep through most flights. I stay up late, crash on the plane perhaps with the help of some Dramamine, and I don't care what the other passengers do.

    Let them have their communication so I may have mine when I wish.

  • I can't overexaggerate how much I love the zone of silence in my daily bus and train rides, or the pristine calm of the city sidewalks.

    Give me a fucking break. Suddenly the Senate is concerned for my delicate ears? More likely: an airline was cutting a deal with a carrier to sell AirTalk (tm) in-flight voice at $3.99 a minute and doesn't want to be undercut.

  • by macbeth66 (204889) on Friday December 13, 2013 @01:10PM (#45681553)

    Oh, God! That's all I need. Cramped in a tin can with a pack of bored nitwit talkers for a five hour flight to the west coast. There is absolutely no need for this at all.

    But then there will be all of the amusing fights that will surely follow. Maybe I ought to get an upgraded device to record videos. :)

    Yeah. I've changed my mind. Allow cell phone calls on a plane.

  • Nine Eleven (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:38PM (#45682609)
    If phone calls would be prohibited on planes, flight 93 would have hit something in D.C. Maybe where these senators are sitting. Time for someone to use 9-11 politically again.
  • Hypocrite Feinstein (Score:5, Informative)

    by craighansen (744648) on Friday December 13, 2013 @02:53PM (#45682757)

    I have personally witnessed Diane Feistein bumping off a confirmed passenger (an associate who had booked a seat near me), and refusing to turn off her electronic equipment (A Kindle) during landing operations on a commercial flight (when it was prohibited to leave it on during takeoffs and landings). Who the F**k is this person to make this kind of policy when she can't think of anyone but herself when it comes to behavior on an airplane?

  • Babies (Score:4, Funny)

    by x0ra (1249540) on Friday December 13, 2013 @06:45PM (#45685081)

    Dear Senator Feinstein,

    Could you please pass a law to create a new felony for crying on a plane. All there uneducated babies are really, but really annoying me when I am trying to browse porn sites while in the middle of a transcontinental flight.

    Kind regards,
    - x0ra

  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Friday December 13, 2013 @09:34PM (#45686199) Homepage Journal

    Maybe the best compromise would be to have phone booths, where you can go in and make your call? Anywhere else in the plane there would be no signal. Now how to make it so people share the space respectively?

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...