IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st January 2022, 02:54 PM   #41
No Other
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 767
yep

Last edited by No Other; 21st January 2022 at 04:19 PM. Reason: elected to not post
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2022, 07:29 PM   #42
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm saying that without corroboration, their claim is weak.
Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. The Captain and First Officer were first hand, expert, objective witnesses who knew exactly what they were seeing - they repeated the test, and saw the anomaly both times. That is considered by the FAA to be sufficient evidence that the observations was confirmed, and the FAA is the authority with an opinion that matters. If the Captain of an aircraft says he saw it, then it happened - and doubly so when the First Officer sees it as well.

The fact that the anomaly could not be repeated with a different electronic device, in another place, at another time, not on the same aircraft (in fact not even on an aircraft at all, but on a test bench) does not make the aircrew's verified, FAA certified observation go away.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The general public is not seeing a strong claim that electronics use makes any difference at all.
And they don't see it. They dont know anything about the technicalities, and they don't need to know. All they need to know is, if the airlines, or the aircrew tell you to switch your ******* cellphone off, there is no wiggle room and no arguing - you turn it off. You do as you are told or you don't fly - if you are already flying and your refuse to switch your cellphone off in flight, it will be confiscated (by force if necessary) you'll be arrested when you land... its that simple!

49 USC § 46504
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Almost any offensive or disruptive behavior that distracts the crew can be considered interference, such as:
• physically blocking a flight attendant from walking down the aisle or out of the galley
disobeying repeated requests to sit down, return to your seat, or turn off an electronic device
• making threats to hurt a flight attendant, a pilot, or anyone else on the airplane, and
• from the ground, shining a laser beam into a cockpit.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2022, 04:34 AM   #43
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43,373
Correlation does not imply causation


That's why we have controlled testing.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 01:27 AM   #44
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Correlation does not imply causation


That's why we have controlled testing.

Great in theory, but in reality, it is not always as simple as you are pretending it is.

Aviation is littered with examples where "controlled testing" did not reveal the cause of incidents without repeated investigations and it was only
actual practical in-flight testing in real circumstances that resulted in a resolution.

I suggest you read up on UA 585, US Airways 427 and Eastwind Airlines 517.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd January 2022 at 01:34 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 04:01 AM   #45
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,800
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Because I don't know whether the FAA is wrong or not, and though I am skeptical of the suggestion, I don't have any evidence. I was reminded of a funny line from a good TV show and I shared it, thinking that someone else might also find it funny. Guess I was wrong.

You should. I'm dropping it now. Carry on.
Not entirely. Thanks for a reminder of something (tangentally) politics related which wasn't depressing as hell.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 06:48 AM   #46
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43,373
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Great in theory, but in reality, it is not always as simple as you are pretending it is.
Which is why things are tested.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 08:19 AM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. The Captain and First Officer were first hand, expert, objective witnesses who knew exactly what they were seeing - they repeated the test, and saw the anomaly both times. That is considered by the FAA to be sufficient evidence that the observations was confirmed, and the FAA is the authority with an opinion that matters. If the Captain of an aircraft says he saw it, then it happened - and doubly so when the First Officer sees it as well.

The fact that the anomaly could not be repeated with a different electronic device, in another place, at another time, not on the same aircraft (in fact not even on an aircraft at all, but on a test bench) does not make the aircrew's verified, FAA certified observation go away.



And they don't see it. They dont know anything about the technicalities, and they don't need to know. All they need to know is, if the airlines, or the aircrew tell you to switch your ******* cellphone off, there is no wiggle room and no arguing - you turn it off. You do as you are told or you don't fly - if you are already flying and your refuse to switch your cellphone off in flight, it will be confiscated (by force if necessary) you'll be arrested when you land... its that simple!

49 USC § 46504
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Almost any offensive or disruptive behavior that distracts the crew can be considered interference, such as:
• physically blocking a flight attendant from walking down the aisle or out of the galley
disobeying repeated requests to sit down, return to your seat, or turn off an electronic device
• making threats to hurt a flight attendant, a pilot, or anyone else on the airplane, and
• from the ground, shining a laser beam into a cockpit.
You're missing my point entirely. Blind faith in authority isn't enough. Humans need more. You're saying that's all they're going to get on this issue, and that they need to accept and comply on that basis alone.

I'm saying humans don't work that way. They certainly don't work that way just because you think they should. Even religions which command blind faith offer more quid pro quo. You want to be entitled to all the benefits of religious fervor, for a cause that doesn't come anywhere close to inspiring religious devotion.

And that's why a lot of people don't take in flight electronic use even as seriously as they take seatbelts.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 01:08 PM   #48
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're missing my point entirely. Blind faith in authority isn't enough. Humans need more. You're saying that's all they're going to get on this issue, and that they need to accept and comply on that basis alone.

I'm saying humans don't work that way. They certainly don't work that way just because you think they should. Even religions which command blind faith offer more quid pro quo. You want to be entitled to all the benefits of religious fervor, for a cause that doesn't come anywhere close to inspiring religious devotion.

And that's why a lot of people don't take in flight electronic use even as seriously as they take seatbelts.

Here's the thing. Owning and operating a cellphone is a privilege in a private space, not a right. If I have a rule that saying you must turn off your cellphone in my house, then you turn it off. I do not have to justify this rule to you or anyone else. You comply or you leave.

An aircraft is a private space, owned by the airline. If they have a rule that says you must turn off your cellphone in their aircraft, then you turn it off. Even though they justify this rule, they don't have to - not to you or anyone else. You comply or you leave. This is no different than being told to sit down, told to wear your seat-belt, told to wear a mask or any other instruction the flight crew gives you --- comply or suffer the consequences.

Now, as I have explained repeatedly, passenger compliance with cellphone use is NOT the topic of this thread. Its the transmitters on the ground potentially interfering in specific aircraft navigation systems such as VOR/ILS, GPWS and radar altimeters that is at issue. It needs to be taken seriously. The US and Canada have not put in place the mitigation steps that Europe, Australia and NZ have - lowering the output power of cellular network towers near airports and under flight paths out to 3km and tilting their antennas downward about 5-10°.

... or would you prefer we wait until an airliner full of passengers crashes short of the runway because transmissions from the local cell-tower causes erroneous readings on the radar altimeter during a ILS approach?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd January 2022 at 01:09 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 01:10 PM   #49
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Which is why things are tested.
Tests don't always reveal results and/or causes

Did you read up on the three air incident reports I suggested?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 02:10 PM   #50
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Here's the thing. Owning and operating a cellphone is a privilege in a private space, not a right. If I have a rule that saying you must turn off your cellphone in my house, then you turn it off. I do not have to justify this rule to you or anyone else. You comply or you leave.

An aircraft is a private space, owned by the airline. If they have a rule that says you must turn off your cellphone in their aircraft, then you turn it off. Even though they justify this rule, they don't have to - not to you or anyone else. You comply or you leave. This is no different than being told to sit down, told to wear your seat-belt, told to wear a mask or any other instruction the flight crew gives you --- comply or suffer the consequences.

Now, as I have explained repeatedly, passenger compliance with cellphone use is NOT the topic of this thread. Its the transmitters on the ground potentially interfering in specific aircraft navigation systems such as VOR/ILS, GPWS and radar altimeters that is at issue. It needs to be taken seriously. The US and Canada have not put in place the mitigation steps that Europe, Australia and NZ have - lowering the output power of cellular network towers near airports and under flight paths out to 3km and tilting their antennas downward about 5-10°.

... or would you prefer we wait until an airliner full of passengers crashes short of the runway because transmissions from the local cell-tower causes erroneous readings on the radar altimeter during a ILS approach?
You're talking about the way it should be. How you think humans should behave and why you think they should behave.

I'm explaining my understanding of the way things are. The reasons I think humans aren't always behaving the way you think they should behave.

Telling me how you think things should be doesn't really alter my view of why things are the way they are.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 05:30 PM   #51
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're talking about the way it should be. How you think humans should behave and why you think they should behave.

I'm explaining my understanding of the way things are. The reasons I think humans aren't always behaving the way you think they should behave.

Telling me how you think things should be doesn't really alter my view of why things are the way they are.
"The way things are" is that if airlines tell you to turn off your phone, or put it in flight mode, then that is what you do, regardless of how incredulous you might be, or that you think there is no danger. It is their call, not yours.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2022, 05:51 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"The way things are" is that if airlines tell you to turn off your phone, or put it in flight mode, then that is what you do, regardless of how incredulous you might be, or that you think there is no danger. It is their call, not yours.
That's the way it should be. That's not the way a lot of people see it. Why do you keep harping on should be? I agree with you about should be.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 04:48 AM   #53
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,554
Reading through the 20 or so most recent contributions, I found only one paragraph that was relevant to the topic of this thread:
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Now, as I have explained repeatedly, passenger compliance with cellphone use is NOT the topic of this thread. It's the transmitters on the ground potentially interfering in specific aircraft navigation systems such as VOR/ILS, GPWS and radar altimeters that is at issue. It needs to be taken seriously. The US and Canada have not put in place the mitigation steps that Europe, Australia and NZ have - lowering the output power of cellular network towers near airports and under flight paths out to 3km and tilting their antennas downward about 5-10°.
(I added the red correction.)
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 05:20 AM   #54
Lplus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,271
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's the way it should be. That's not the way a lot of people see it. Why do you keep harping on should be? I agree with you about should be.
Nope, that's the way it is in law. Sure there's plenty of people who think it should be something else, but tough on them if they don't see it the way it is. Why do you keep on harping on about other peoples mistaken assumptions?
__________________

Life isn't fair, Princess; anyone who says it could be is selling a political ideology.
Whinging on internet forums is the last resort of the powerless
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 01:03 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Nope, that's the way it is in law. Sure there's plenty of people who think it should be something else, but tough on them if they don't see it the way it is. Why do you keep on harping on about other peoples mistaken assumptions?
I was explaining why people (mistakenly) don't take the law too seriously.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 02:14 PM   #56
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,648
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Sometimes part of being a good skeptic is knowing when you don't know enough to express an opinion on a particular topic. That's me here. I can make some observations about the overall situation, but not the technical issue as it relates to radar altimeters in particular.
Sames but I do have questions.

Isn't 5g operating elsewhere in the world? Do they have problems?
How did we get days from starting up 5g before it became story? Seems like something folks should have known about a long time ago, you know, like when the spectrum the US alotted to 5g was announced? Why didn't some point this out then?
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 02:31 PM   #57
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,313
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I was explaining why people (mistakenly) don't take the law too seriously.
Which you were very patient about doing.

My thought has always been: if me turning in this phone could be deadly then there would be just as many phones in passenger hands on this plane as there are guns.

I have a good friend who worked in engineering for Boeing and he says I’m an idiot. He is probably right. But that’s the sort of logic used by people who understand risk better than they understand radio frequencies.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 05:08 PM   #58
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,984
This issue was discussed on the most recent episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, but apparently they got a number of things wrong. One regular poster to the SGU Forum is a commercial pilot, and offered the following, which I reproduce here with permission (link). This is not a response to anything posted here, but it does contain some good information from a source that I believe to carry some authority.

Quote:
Hi Jay and Steve,

I wanted to write you about the 5G and Airline discussion to correct a few mistakes that were made. Like much media reporting this has been very much overhyped. First my background:

1) I am NOT a 5G expert
2) I am an airline pilot and have been an airline pilot for 23 years. I’m currently a Captain on the Airbus A320 series.

At approximately 7minutes and 50 seconds into the podcast you state that ‘5G signals could potentially render aircraft unusable’. This is an EXTREME overstatement of the facts. Let me explain:

  • First, the only instrument that is affected by the problem is the radar altimeter not the altimeter. The airplane altimeter is essentially just a air pressure measurement device and it cannot be affected by a 5G signal. It measures the static pressure of the ambient air around the airplane and presents that as an altitude. (There’s additional complexity but this is the basic idea).
  • The Radar Altimeter is a direct measurement of how far the aircraft is above the ground. From the name you can deduce how it works. It bounces a radio signal off the ground and measures the time it takes for the signal to return. It is really only ever used when an aircraft is close to the ground(within about 2500 feet) and it does provide input to a LOT of aircraft systems. On my aircraft, as an example, it is used for auto throttles, Ground Proximity Warning, Windshear warnings and the auto land system (more on that one later).
  • Bottom line this is the only instrument affected by 5G transmissions, however, different aircraft have different makes and models of radar altimeters and different aircraft incorporate the readings from this instrument in different ways. (More on this later too). Interfering with this instrument would NOT make aircraft unusable, but it does make operating an aircraft in certain weather conditions or very near to the 5G transmitter antenna a problem.

At approximately 9 minutes and 40 seconds you state ‘you would only be able to do a visual approach’, and this is also not true.
  • It is true that SOME approaches are affected, but these are mainly precision approaches. Non-precision approaches and approaches which do not depend on radar altimeter settings would not be affected, and I’d estimate that 90% of the approaches pilots fly are visual.
  • The why only some approaches takes a bit longer to explain. Lets take the ILS approach as an example. The technology to do this has been around since the 1920s and 1930s. The first time this approach was used on a commercial flight was 84 years ago this week on January 26, 1938. It has existed since then virtually unchanged, with the exception of improving precision and in the 1960s the technology was improved enough to allow a landing without seeing the runway at all. The radar altimeter was key to this because the radar altimeter was able to give a very precise distance to the ground measurement. In the Airbus when performing one of these almost no visibility approaches, the airplane does almost all of the work and the pilot’s ONLY job is to monitor the equipment for failure and react accordingly to go around in the event of failure.

Cara’s question around using a cell phone on a plane:
  • This is really a FCC rule and using a cell phone on a plane would likely (in my non-expert) opinion not interfere with anything on the aircraft. But remember how cell phones work. There are ‘cells’ of area and generally speaking when you’re in one area you phone only can ’talk’ to one or two cells at the most. When you use your cell phone at altitude in an airplane your cell phone can talk to hundreds or thousands of cell antennas and this degrades the performance of the system. So it’s an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. In fact there have been prototype ‘cell towers’ developed for use ON AN AIRPLANE, but their use has been rejected by the airlines due to passenger concerns. (Can you imagine flying across the country having to listen to your seat mate yell into their cell phone in loud speaker mode? I can’t stand that at the grocery store and I’m usually only there a few minutes!)

Some more information around 5G:

5G will be turned off around airports - no only around the approach ends of the runway. Very likely there will still be some lower power antennas within the terminals for 5G.

C-Band is from 3.3Ghz to 4.2Ghz and from 4.4Ghz to 5Ghz. Radar altimeters operate from 4.2Ghz to 4.4 Ghz. When you don’t have perfect transmitters (there is no such thing) there is always some ‘bleed’ around the edges and this is where the problem is.

More information around what the airlines and FAA are doing about this:
  • The FAA has been rapidly testing radar altimeters and how they’re integrated into various aircraft. As of this writing the vast majority of Boeing and Airbus aircraft have been approved using an Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC) (FAA Statements on 5G | Federal Aviation Administration)
  • Regional aircraft have not been cleared yet (and some may never be). This does not mean they are unsafe or can’t be used, but that they can not be flown into super low visibility conditions.
  • Airlines have developed procedures to alert pilots which airports and which approaches are affected by 5G signals. The difficult part is that this is changing relatively quickly and where today I might have one approach that is fine to use, I might NOT be able to use it tomorrow.
  • Why did this happen? I don’t think anyone really knows, but I’m betting it has something to do with the FCC regulating radio frequencies and the FAA regulating aviation safety and the two governmental bodies not communicating well with each other, but your guess is as good as mine in this regard.
  • In the end we do now have procedures and processes to safely operate the aircraft into areas where 5G is being used.
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2022, 09:44 PM   #59
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Sames but I do have questions.

Isn't 5g operating elsewhere in the world? Do they have problems?
How did we get days from starting up 5g before it became story? Seems like something folks should have known about a long time ago, you know, like when the spectrum the US alotted to 5g was announced? Why didn't some point this out then?
Elsewhere in the world, 5G towers around airports and under flight paths are operated on lower power settings, and they have their antennas tilted so that their radiation lobes do not radiate into the sky, or at least so that the amount of sky radiation is significantly reduced. None of this appears to be happening in the US.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th January 2022 at 09:49 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 02:48 PM   #60
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,219
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Lockheed L-1011 ceased production in 1984

Radio Shack didn't start selling cellphones until 1987.... and they looked like this - "flight mode" on these suckers was the off switch! They didn't have sim cards. and 5G was out of the question... more like 5kG!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i35lwbfzyn...hone.jpg?raw=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tqqi3v7dj9...neAd.jpg?raw=1

That's not so much a cellphone as it is an item of carry-on luggage!!
I used to sell those to Mexican nationals at a Radio Shack in Laredo, TX. I loved those guys. . . along with their computer purchases, I made a lot of money from them!
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 03:01 PM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Elsewhere in the world, 5G towers around airports and under flight paths are operated on lower power settings, and they have their antennas tilted so that their radiation lobes do not radiate into the sky, or at least so that the amount of sky radiation is significantly reduced. None of this appears to be happening in the US.
And for this I'm inclined to blame the FAA, FCC, and the cellular network companies. It seems to me the airlines have a valid complaint and are right to obstruct the rollout of 5G service in the US.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 06:14 PM   #62
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 56,306
Originally Posted by SteveAitch View Post
Didn't seem to do DB Cooper a lot of good...
Come on, we all know DB Cooper was Loki.......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:34 PM   #63
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"The way things are" is that if airlines tell you to turn off your phone, or put it in flight mode, then that is what you do, regardless of how incredulous you might be, or that you think there is no danger. It is their call, not yours.
No. That is what you are supposed to do. And that's what I do. But it is absolutely not what everyone does, both because, as theprestige correctly points out, most people don't SEE any risk from electronics use, but also because there's no mechanism to enforce the requirement. People leave their cell phones on all the time, accidentally or on purpose, and they aren't seeing any harm caused by it.

And to be clear, I am not arguing that there is no risk, or that people shouldn't turn off their phones. Neither is theprestige. But given that this sort of rule needs voluntary compliance to work, and given that people won't comply if they don't understand why they should, and given that people mostly don't understand why they should, it's kind of obvious that plenty of people won't comply.

As for 5G vs. airplanes, I really didn't know anything about it until this nice video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:37 PM   #64
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,984
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. That is what you are supposed to do. And that's what I do. But it is absolutely not what everyone does, both because, as theprestige correctly points out, most people don't SEE any risk from electronics use, but also because there's no mechanism to enforce the requirement. People leave their cell phones on all the time, accidentally or on purpose, and they aren't seeing any harm caused by it.
And on the other hand, there are still signs up at petrol stations telling people to turn their mobile phones off, and I'm pretty sure nobody does it.
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:39 PM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And on the other hand, there are still signs up at petrol stations telling people to turn their mobile phones off, and I'm pretty sure nobody does it.
Honestly, I don't bother with that one.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:42 PM   #66
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,984
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Honestly, I don't bother with that one.
Neither do I. In fact, around here, we're required to check into the venue with a QR code. Hard to do that without a mobile phone.
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:45 PM   #67
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,419
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And on the other hand, there are still signs up at petrol stations telling people to turn their mobile phones off, and I'm pretty sure nobody does it.
There are no signs saying that in most countries, as far as I know. They just say don't use them while filling your car. Australia must be very risk averse.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 07:52 PM   #68
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,984
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
There are no signs saying that in most countries, as far as I know. They just say don't use them while filling your car. Australia must be very risk averse.
Yeah nah, those signs are all twenty years old. I think just no-one's bothered to take them down.
__________________
? > !
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 08:05 PM   #69
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Those obviously inconsequential gas station signs can't possibly be helping the FAA's case.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 08:31 PM   #70
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. That is what you are supposed to do. And that's what I do. But it is absolutely not what everyone does, both because, as theprestige correctly points out, most people don't SEE any risk from electronics use, but also because there's no mechanism to enforce the requirement. People leave their cell phones on all the time, accidentally or on purpose, and they aren't seeing any harm caused by it.

Yes there is. If a flight attendant or a crew member tells you to turn your phone off and you refuse to comply, you are breaking the law by your refusal, and they can have you removed if the flight is on the ground or arrested when it lands. Its that simple..

You don't think so?

100 Students kicked off flight for refusing to turn off their phones
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ay-phones.html

Man Arrested on Plane After Refusing to Turn Off Cell Phone
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/...cell-phone-off

Unruly Passenger Kicked Off Plane for Refusing to Turn Off Cellphone
https://www.gawker.com/unruly-passen...turn-573246091

Actor Alec Baldwin, was kicked off an American Airlines plane at LAX for refusing to turn off his iPad
https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...lane-kick-offs

Arianna Huffington removed from plane after refusing to turn off her BlackBerry
https://crackberry.com/arianna-huffi...her-blackberry

Man arrested, removed from a flight and charged after refusing to turn off his phone
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014...with_diso.html

...and here's the law

49 USC § 46504
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Almost any offensive or disruptive behavior that distracts the crew can be considered interference, such as:
• physically blocking a flight attendant from walking down the aisle or out of the galley
disobeying repeated requests to sit down, return to your seat, or turn off an electronic device
• making threats to hurt a flight attendant, a pilot, or anyone else on the airplane, and
• from the ground, shining a laser beam into a cockpit.
.
.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 26th January 2022 at 08:56 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 08:55 PM   #71
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And on the other hand, there are still signs up at petrol stations telling people to turn their mobile phones off, and I'm pretty sure nobody does it.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Honestly, I don't bother with that one.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Neither do I. In fact, around here, we're required to check into the venue with a QR code. Hard to do that without a mobile phone.
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
There are no signs saying that in most countries, as far as I know. They just say don't use them while filling your car. Australia must be very risk averse.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah nah, those signs are all twenty years old. I think just no-one's bothered to take them down.
Indeed those are legacy signs which haven't been removed. Originally, they warned of a valid risk because back in the days of the 1G Analog Network, cellphones and carphones used to output a considerable amount of RF power - up to 8 watt or more on transmit in some cases.

In these days of 4G and 5G, absolute maximum is about 2–3 watts which is rarely reached, but is regulated by the phone depending upon its distance to the cell tower. lower when closer, higher when distant, up to the maximum. Most of the time, its less than 800 milliwatts.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2022, 10:47 PM   #72
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes there is.
Fine. There's no effective method of enforcement.

Quote:
If a flight attendant or a crew member tells you to turn your phone off and you refuse to comply, you are breaking the law by your refusal, and they can have you removed if the flight is on the ground or arrested when it lands. Its that simple..
If you get into trouble for not turning off your phone, you WANTED to get in trouble. Flight attendants generally have no way of knowing the status of your phone, or even if you have one, and they do not (and, practically speaking, cannot) actually go around checking everyone. And if you want your phone on and the flight attendants do somehow find out, then just turn it off and turn it back on later. It's trivial to avoid the requirement. People who get in trouble don't actually get in trouble because the phone was on, they got in trouble because they made themselves a nuisance.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2022, 01:49 AM   #73
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Fine. There's no effective method of enforcement.
For certain definitions of effective!

I'd say removing people from planes, arresting them and charging them (and I gave you several examples of exactly that) is a very effective means of enforcement - seems to work well for most other laws.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you get into trouble for not turning off your phone, you WANTED to get in trouble. Flight attendants generally have no way of knowing the status of your phone, or even if you have one, and they do not (and, practically speaking, cannot) actually go around checking everyone. And if you want your phone on and the flight attendants do somehow find out, then just turn it off and turn it back on later. It's trivial to avoid the requirement. People who get in trouble don't actually get in trouble because the phone was on, they got in trouble because they made themselves a nuisance.

All of which is, of course, entirely irrelevant!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2022, 02:08 AM   #74
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
For certain definitions of effective!

I'd say removing people from planes, arresting them and charging them (and I gave you several examples of exactly that) is a very effective means of enforcement - seems to work well for most other laws.
It's not effective because it's almost impossible to identify violators. The examples you cite are all people who were 1) completely stupid about flaunting their violation, and 2) chose not to comply when commanded. You can trivially violate the prohibition with basically no risk of getting caught, and even if you are caught, just turn it off at that point and you face no consequences. So there's absolutely zero risk to violating the prohibition, if you aren't a complete ******* moron.

So yes, I would definitely call that not effective.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2022, 02:02 PM   #75
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not effective because it's almost impossible to identify violators.
So, let me see if I understand this correctly.

Arresting, charging and jailing burglars is not an effective enforcement for breaking the burglary laws because some burglars cannot be identified.

Arresting, charging and jailing murderers is not an effective enforcement for breaking the murder laws because some murderers cannot be identified.

Arresting, charging and jailing fraudsters is not an effective enforcement for breaking the fraud laws because some fraudsters cannot be identified.

Got it

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The examples you cite are all people who were

1. completely stupid about flaunting their violation, and
2. chose not to comply when commanded.
Because you should only arrest stupid people who get caught and won't stop breaking the law when told to stop... yeah, that make perfect sense

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You can trivially violate the prohibition with basically no risk of getting caught, and even if you are caught, just turn it off at that point and you face no consequences. So there's absolutely zero risk to violating the prohibition, if you aren't a complete ******* moron.

So yes, I would definitely call that not effective.
You can trivially stop in a no stopping zone with basically no risk of getting caught, and even if you are caught, just move on when told to do so, and you face no consequences. Yeah.. OK, why have no stopping zones then?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2022, 02:40 PM   #76
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So, let me see if I understand this correctly.
You clearly don't.

Quote:
Arresting, charging and jailing burglars is not an effective enforcement for breaking the burglary laws because some burglars cannot be identified.
Your risk of getting caught for such crimes is significant, and if caught, your punishment is significant.

Your risk of getting caught for leaving your cell phone on in a plane is essentially zero, if you aren't actively alerting people about it. And there is no punishment, provided you turn it off after getting caught.

Do you really not understand how that's different?

Imagine if it was almost impossible to catch burglars, and if you somehow managed to do it, they could get off without punishment by giving the stuff back. Can you understand why that would be less effective enforcement than what we currently have?

Quote:
You can trivially stop in a no stopping zone with basically no risk of getting caught, and even if you are caught, just move on when told to do so, and you face no consequences. Yeah.. OK, why have no stopping zones then?
Because having people move when told to do so is the entire point. It isn't actually to prevent people from stopping at all, because it doesn't really matter if people stop for a short period in a no stopping zone. And people do it all the time, don't they? So that kind of proves my point.

In contrast, the point of the prohibition on cell phone use on planes isn't to make them hang up if they're annoying their fellow passengers by talking too loud. If it was, then it would be a lot more effective for that goal.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2022, 08:36 PM   #77
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your risk of getting caught for such crimes is significant, and if caught, your punishment is significant.

Your risk of getting caught for leaving your cell phone on in a plane is essentially zero, if you aren't actively alerting people about it. And there is no punishment, provided you turn it off after getting caught.

Do you really not understand how that's different?
Now that you have moved goalposts, it makes more sense

Enforcement is the the act of compelling observance of, or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation. If you are caught with your phone on in an aircraft, you are told to turn it off... THIS is enforcement
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2022, 05:54 AM   #78
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Now that you have moved goalposts, it makes more sense
I never moved the goalpost, you aren’t understanding what I was saying.

Quote:
Enforcement is the the act of compelling observance of, or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation. If you are caught with your phone on in an aircraft, you are told to turn it off... THIS is enforcement
Again, the odds of getting caught are negligible, and the consequences are nothing. So… not effective. Compliance is almost entirely voluntary, not enforced. To be effective, enforcement needs either high odds of detection, or high consequences if you are caught, if not both.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2022, 11:47 AM   #79
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,316
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I never moved the goalpost, you aren’t understanding what I was saying
What you were saying made no sense

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, the odds of getting caught are negligible
Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
and the consequences are nothing.
Correct, but also irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So… not effective.
Wrong.

Its effective because you do what you are told... this is called "enforcement" - the act of compelling observance of, or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Compliance is almost entirely voluntary, not enforced.
Wrong.

If you don't comply, actions are taken against you... this is called "enforcement" - the act of compelling observance of, or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.

If you refuse to comply, further actions can be taken against you such as removal from the aircraft, arrest and charges... these are called "consequences" - something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
To be effective, enforcement needs either high odds of detection, or high consequences if you are caught, if not both.
Wrong.

Detection has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement. Detection is the act of discovering something, in this case, discovering a passenger has their cellphone switched on. While it is true that there is no effective method of detection, it is not true that there is no method of effective enforcement. The flight attendant tells you to turn off your phone... that is enforcement (the act of compelling observance of, or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation), and it is usually 100% effective, very few people refuse.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2022, 12:14 PM   #80
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Detection has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement.
Wrong. You cannot enforce what you cannot detect. It's a necessary prerequisite. Without detection, enforcement is impossible. This is so detached from reality that if you cannot even understand that, then there's really no point in proceeding any further.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.