Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Apple Entertainment

Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment 198

Posted by samzenpus
from the would-you-like-an-apple-product-with-your-meal? dept.
OzPeter writes "Jetstar will start renting out of pre-loaded iPads as a form of inflight entertainment instead of the more typical seat back video system. No word in the article on how or if they will handle Wi-Fi connections, but interestingly it does mention that they will be usable during takeoff and landings — something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment

Comments Filter:
  • Aircraft electronics (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:09AM (#32417286) Homepage

    Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.

    The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

    • by EdZ (755139) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:12AM (#32417306)
      On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

        If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear. There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.

        As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkP

        • by arielCo (995647) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @10:00AM (#32417832)

          On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

          If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.

          I guess the GP meant "too old to be properly shielded, modern enough to have lots of electronics", not a DC-3 ;). The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me the Boeing 737-400 [wikipedia.org] started flying in 1985 and had a full glass cockpit.

          those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.

          If anything, a PCB with discrete components has longer exposed copper (a requisite for EM induction) than an IC measuring 4x4 mm doing the same function. "They don't make them like they used to" is wholly untrue in this field.

          There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.

          They're hard to mess with from outside the cigar tube; they weren't designed to deal with random EMF inside it, other than their own.

          As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

          Of course they're revising their safety standards, and they start with a popular device. Just to nitpick, the switching DC-DC converter in a laptop and the little inverter for the CCFL backlight can be some noisy buggers.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by paeanblack (191171)

            The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments.

            The real problem is that a cellphone at 10,000ft over an urban area can see a crapton of cell towers. The system wasn't originally designed to have one phone talking to 500 towers while moving at 450 knots. That the inter-cell traffic to constantly hand off that phone and coordinate everything put a huge strain on the system.

            Also, the airlines didn't want cellphones competing with their existing Airphone at $5/min

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

          Of course it does. Remember, the iPad is magic. The ThinkPad/Palmcorder aren't.

          Very few airplanes are properly shielded against magic.

      • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:42AM (#32417628)

        On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded.

        Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.

        No one takes low altitude sight seeing flights in a 747.

        Its not like the high power radio transmitter towers to the east of timmerman and north of mitchell airport in Milwaukee somehow magically know they are supposed to interfere with the light planes but not the big planes. Theres no little eyeball on the top of the tower.

        Light planes are pretty simple. You screw up the fuel management system on a major jetliner, you get big problems transferring fuel from tank 7 to tank 18 and weight and balance get all screwed up, now is engine 3 feeding out of tank 2 or is that cross connected to tank 9 again? In comparison, on the old 172 I flew in the 80s (eek) the fuel management system was an emergency shut off valve from the overhead tanks, a left/right/both tank selector switch, and an electric backup fuel pump with a circuit breaker and a switch. And a fuel gauge meter than was about 1/2 inch square and could not be read more accurately than "full, empty, or somewhere in between". It was so old it had a mechanical carb instead of a fuel injection system.

      • So they monetized it on their own, probably after testing it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fotbr (855184)

      More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text. I find it ver yfrustartaing to be presented with a video to teach/explain something when simple text would do. Maybe hte reason those damn young ones on your lawn don't pay attention is because there's nothing useful being expressed.

        Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the spee

      • I flew to Dubai on Emirates a few years ago, they had the seat-back screen entertainment systems with about 200 music albums, films and games loaded in.

        It was the only flight I have ever been on where they didn't mind you sticking the headphones on during taxi once the safety briefings had finished - it was kind of cool having "Back In Black" by AC/DC at full volume in my ears during take off. :-)

        • by Altima(BoB) (602987) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:24AM (#32417438)

          And if you build your own flying combat suit (perhaps with a red and gold color scheme...) you can listen to it every time you take off!

          • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

            by pandrijeczko (588093)

            Stop with the Iron Man associations already!!!

            The Iron Man movies weren't bad (from someone who's not really a fan of superhero movies except stuff written by Alan Moore) and it was kind of nice to see AC/DC get to do the soundtrack for IM 2 - but I'm in my 40s, not that much younger than Angus and the boys themselves, and really cannot be doing with standing amongst hordes of screaming kids with their parents at the next AC/DC concert just because they saw the movie.

            Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallic

            • Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.

              Wait, you make a comment like that and you claim that YOU are the mature one?

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by pandrijeczko (588093)

                I said "old", not "mature" - and Metallicock are "Mastered As Puppets" by their corporate lords... plus all their "music" sounds like each band member is racing to finish each song first.

                There, out of my system now, switching back to "mature" mode...

        • by AndrewNeo (979708)

          I've never had a problem wearing headphones with the on-flight audio system on any flight I've been on, inside the US.

          • I think that's the difference - on UK flights, officially you can turn on MP3 players and computers when the seat belt lights go off after the aircraft has completed the steepest part of its climb. However, I normally start switching stuff on (without undoing my seatbelt) as soon as the attendants get up from their seats to start messing around with trolleys and none of them have ever said anything to me about it.

            • by AndrewNeo (979708)

              I'm pretty sure it's the same here in the US - that when the seatbelt lights go off, you're allowed to use electronics again. What I was referring to is being able to use the armrest audio (not all planes seem to have this, anymore) during taxiing and takeoff, since it's built into the plane, which would still prohibit me from listening to the flight attendant's safety instructions (despite having heard it plenty of times before)

      • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:20AM (#32417402)

        More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.

        Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.

        If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.

        • by fotbr (855184)

          Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.

          • Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.

            And if not, I'd want to know the name of the band that's so good that it can keep me distracted during a plane crash.

        • by eharvill (991859)

          Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.

          If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.

          They should ban sleeping on planes as well... ;-)

          • by rhsanborn (773855)
            Which is what I do during take-off and landing because I can't have my laptop out. The alternative is to read my paper book, which is strangely allowed while my e-reader isn't, nor are other hand-held electronics...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        As if anyone these days needed the instructions: I'm pretty sure 99.999% of fliers are already familiar with the procedures, there's an illustrated card on the back of every seat, and people can pretty much rely on common sense.

        Not that any of that is worth shit when the plane plows into the ground at 160 kmph, and you have lim(0) chance of survival with or without having listened through the lecture.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 5pp000 (873881) *

        I distinctly recall that, in the days when analog cassette players were still around but digital devices had appeared, the instruction to turn off devices for takeoff and landing applied only to the digital ones -- use of cassette players was specifically allowed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NoPantsJim (1149003)
      Actually, in a roundabout way, it does have to do with safety.

      Takeoff and landing are the times in flight most likely to result in an accident. If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.

      Most people in the aviation business know this is the real reason.
      • If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.

        Not important... the point is this: if your plane crashes and rescue workers are sorting through the debris & body parts, would you want to be found with an airplane seat stuck in your skull, or with an iPad stuck in your skull?

        Keeping in mind that the reality distortion field surrounding an Apple product makes anyone look cooler, the choice is clear: you'll look better with a iPad stuck in your skull. That $10 premium looks like a small price to pay for the privilige, doesn't it? (Apple fanboy or no

      • by YouWantFriesWithThat (1123591) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:38AM (#32417592)
        i am not flying the plane.

        there is no amount of concentration on my part that is going to help when the plane banks sharply on take off, slams into the ground, and begins cartwheeling through a cornfield spewing burning jet fuel while rows of seats tear off the floor and fall out of holes in the plane.

        but if i could listen to music, at least i wouldn't have to hear everyone else screaming as i burned to death in an aluminum tube
        • Not all commercial aviation accidents rule out the possibility of survival.
          • I don't recall any recently (or indeed ever) where having earphones in and an mp3 player running at the time would have affected matters.

            Survival in a commercial airliner accident comes from two things.
            1. Pure dumb luck. Nothing else will have you alive and mobile after any significant incident.
            2. Being willing and physically able to trample/force your way clear when the wreckage stops moving. If you don't need to do this then it wasn't a significant accident (or you're nine years old and Dutch(See aspect 1

    • by RedLeg (22564) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:32AM (#32417524) Journal

      The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

      The reasons have EVERYTHING to do with safety, just not the way most people think.

      The airlines and the FAA don't want passengers to be distracted or rows and aisles to be encumbered. Passengers need to be alert enough take direction from the aircrew (pilots + flight attendants) and free to maneuver in times of emergency. The most likely times for emergencies are during takeoffs and landings, hence the ban.

      It has nothing to with harmful interference with avionics, but with interrupting communications and encumbering maneuvering.

      Consider trying to get up and use the head from a window seat when the passengers in the row ahead have their seats reclined, and those on your row have tables down and laptops out. Add earphones in ears impeding hearing, and you get a mess in an emergency.

      Red

    • by e2d2 (115622)

      You sounds like an authority on the subject. What is your FAA AMT/AMTE certification# by the way? An ICAO equal will work too. I'd like to cite your expertise when I pull out my iPhone on the flight deck and start playing field runners.

      • by Dishevel (1105119) *
        Try not to be an idiot. Nobody here was talking about distractions on the flight deck. Go back under your bridge troll.
        • by e2d2 (115622)

          Pointing out that the OP was unqualified to make such statements is IMHO completely okay. So fuck you if you don't like it bitch. WTF you gonna do about it besides calling me a troll? Nothing oh yeah this is the fucking internet. Nothing. So fuck you.

        • by e2d2 (115622)

          Also I wasn't talking about distractions on the flight deck asshole. I was talking about interference with avionics. Can you prove they don't interfere? Oh yeah you can't All you can do is read a fucking article on the internet. You can every other arm-chair expert on this board. You fucking know it all huh. Well riddle me this Edward Nigma - is there a Faraday cage around the cabin or something? No? Well I guess it could effect the flight deck then huh? Turns out I actually did have a valid point and you a

    • by jittles (1613415) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:45AM (#32417666)

      That's not entirely true. They do not allow them during takeoff and landings because these are the most dangerous parts of the flight. If there is some sort of emergency the last thing they (and I) want is the guy in the emergency exit row to miss some important instruction because he was too busy watching a movie.

      Sure these emergencies are rare and unlikely to happen but I don't mind reading the magazine in the seat pocket for 10-15 minutes just to be on the safe side.

      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        And what if the guy in the emergency exit row missed some important instruction because he was too busy reading the magazine in the seat pocket?

        I say we staple the eyes of those in the emergency rows open, with some sort of spiked cage contraption to make sure they are always pointing their head at whatever it is that is so important.

        • by jittles (1613415)
          Well at least his/her hearing is theoretically unimpaired while reading the magazine and they miss that important instruction. Life happens, you just have to make reasonable rules.
        • by Dishevel (1105119) *

          >

          I say we staple the eyes of those in the emergency rows open, with some sort of spiked cage contraption to make sure they are always pointing their head at whatever it is that is so important.

          No. But if that fuckers is sitting there confused when I get to the exit row I am gonna just pop him in the head an get on with it my damn self.

          • by e2d2 (115622)

            Bullshit you will. I'd crack your fucking head wide open and laugh you fucking limp dick bitch. Fucking nerd hiding behind a keyboard gonna be a big man. I'd like to fist fuck your face to put you in your place.

            How's that for trolling mafucka?

      • by swb (14022)

        If there's an emergency and the guy in the exit row is doing *anything* other than opening the emergency hatch and exiting the plane I will be climbing over him to do his "job" for him, up to and including disabling him, so I can exit the plane.

        But let's face it, the "exit" row is really there because it has to be and so the airline can upcharge people who sit there for the precious inch or two of extra leg room. Otherwise the FAA would require the seats to actually be filled by physically fit people betwe

    • Plus anything that runs on magic doesn't interfere with aviation electronics anyhow.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Light aircraft that is not 50 years old also dont have a problem. I have done AV work at several of the Aircraft shops around here. Every one of them have told me that the phone and wifi myths are just that. Myths..

      Unless you are flying a 1958 Piper cub that has never had it's gear upgraded, you dont have a problem.

      Hell I have installed WIFI in Learjets that are 40 years old to support the Crestron 6X touchpanel to deal with the in flight entertainment.

      Their biggest gripe is Bluray players... needing

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      The reason they normally don't allow any devices, not even headphones, on takeoff and landing has very much to do with safety. It's so in a crash there aren't any random gizmos flying around the cabin, you're paying attention in the event of a problem, you're not tied up in cords, and you can hear instructions.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.

      The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

      Not entirely true. There are documented cases where cellphones have caused navigational systems to lose lock - notably a Samsung phone caused the onboard GPS to lose lock, amongst other things. The following article has some research the IEEE did a few years ago to that effect. It's a bit dated given how far te

    • Further, I can't believe that they would confiscate nail clippers and bottles of mouthwash larger than 6 oz. at the gate, but let you bring on an electronic device that you bought at Radio Shack that can cause the avionics to fly you right into a mountain.

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:11AM (#32417298)

    The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.

    • by ktappe (747125)

      The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.

      BS. They allow you to hold heavy hardback books in your hands during takeoff/landing. Also if they didn't want these items flying around they'd be banned the whole flight because there is always a danger of turbulence.

    • by dunezone (899268)
      Not sure this is the reason for cell phone bans but as a result I don't have to hear the person next to me or somewhere in the cabin talk on the phone the whole flight.
      • Not sure this is the reason for cell phone bans but as a result I don't have to hear the person next to me or somewhere in the cabin talk on the phone the whole flight

        If it's so important to you that you need this level of control over the behavior of the people sitting near you then perhaps you shouldn't have left home.

        • If it's so important to you that you need this level of control over the behavior of the people sitting near you then perhaps you shouldn't have left home.

          I'm sure you would just love to have a teenager yapping it up for a whole 3 hour ride next to you, after the 5th OMG and like about 20 likes I bet you would pray for the days with no cell phones on planes.

          • I'm sure you would just love to have a teenager yapping it up for a whole 3 hour ride next to you, after the 5th OMG and like about 20 likes I bet you would pray for the days with no cell phones on planes.

            Earplugs are amazing things. They have the primary benefit of blocking out ALL of the things you are complaining about, but they also have the secondary benefit of telling the person next to you that you are not interested in a conversation. You act as if someone can't just start yapping your ear off if

    • by jonwil (467024)

      No, the real reason is that takeoff and landing is the most dangerous part of the flight and if something goes wrong, they dont want people distracted by gadgets.

  • I just have to wonder if the standard rates for 'luxury-IT' will apply. You know the rates, they are so high that for physical items, you are reaching the point where you can just buy the item at retail and then sell it on Ebay and still do better. The price for 'consumable' services will be so high that even though they have scared off most of their potential customers, that one guy who either doesn't care, or has to buy it makes up the cost for the hundreds who were driven off by the price.

    Yes, I'm also

    • This is why I intend to get a smartphone with a cheap, low-throughput data plan and then tether for internet when traveling.

    • by xaxa (988988)

      On Sunday EasyJet offered to loan me a PSP for the flight -- I think it was about £8.

      That wouldn't be unreasonable on a several-hundred-dollar flight (says the AC above, anyway), but when the flight is only £40 and a couple of hours I'll just doze or stare out of the window. (And look forward to food at home, since a sandwich was also £8.)

  • I parsed that as

    Rent an iPad For Infant Entertainment

  • by gb7djk (857694) * on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:21AM (#32417416) Homepage
    The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered. It *is* true that in pre CE certification days, certain mobile equipment did have some unfortunate spurii, but CE testing got rid of all of them decades ago. Which means that we are left with either a) the cabin crew need to demonstrate who's boss or b) the airlines don't want equipment flying about if there is any nasty tail waving or bumps during take off or landing.
    • So does the US, afaik. I wonder how this will play with the "everything must be stowed during take off and landing to prevent your hiding a bomb in your lap" directive in the US.

    • by Chardish (529780)

      "Delicate navigation equipment?" Yeah, right. Would you feel comfortable piloting an aircraft that could be turned around or taken down by an 8-year-old kid's Nintendo DS?

    • by xaxa (988988)

      The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing.

      They also ban having the window blind shut, your seat tray table lowered, your seat reclined, talking during the safety demonstration, having the cabin lights on during take-off or landing when it's dark, and probably loads of other things that I'm not really aware of (as a passenger).

      Not all safety considerations are technical.

    • by Mr_Silver (213637)

      The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered.

      Not to mention that if a turned on piece of electrical equipment could bring down a plane, it would instantly become a banned item and you've have to pack it in the hold.

    • by Jeng (926980)

      It's just all about safety.

      Instead of having half the plane full of people chatting on their phones on take-off the airline would prefer them praying for their lives.

  • Jetstar (and other budget airlines) already rent out entertainment units rather than having in seat units.

    I highly doubt that the devices will be used during take off and landing, not least because the cabin crew won't have time to distribute them until after take off and will collect them before landing.
  • by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:46AM (#32417678) Homepage

    Airliners already have very robust inflight DVR systems that make something like a stuffed 500G Archos moot. Throwing an iPad into the mix doesn't really add anything. If this sort of rental would be seen as anything as redundant then the airline in question is already far behind the curve. I'm not sure I would trust them to get the content end of things right with the iPad.

    This sounds like a lame marketing stunt.

    • Wait, are you that mythical person that actually LIKES the music and movie selection aboard airplanes? I suppose next you're going to tell us the food is fine cuisine and the seats are spacious!
    • by xaxa (988988)

      Cheap airlines (round here, anyway) have as little equipment on the plane as necessary -- presumably to save weight (and hence money). There's no entertainment system. Ryanair doesn't even have an in-flight magazines, or a seat pocket -- the safety information is instead printed on a sticker on the seat in front.

      Some (e.g. EasyJet) already rent out PSPs for games or films.

    • by jonwil (467024)

      This is a low cost carrier that doesn't have an inbuilt entertainment system.

      Many low cost carriers are using portable gadgets as entertainment rather than installing inbuilt systems as its cheaper to do that. (mainly because it also allows them to charge money for the entertainment more easily than with built-in systems)

      Although I know of one low cost carrier that has installed individual seat back TV screens with credit card readers and you can buy access to a number of different channels from a local pay

    • Indeed it's a marketing stunt, any sane people would rather have their own equipment back.

      There are already cheaper touch enabled netbooks with real keyboards and all, this is indeed another case of "Less space than a nomad".

      The iPad might be an inferior product but that won't stop Apple to shove it into everybodies hype spot.

  • Actually there is a reason.
    No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
    But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
    Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ktappe (747125)

      Actually there is a reason [for turning off electronics during takeoff & landing]
      No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
      But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
      Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.

      Two problems with that theory:
      1) Anyone able to afford an airline ticket is able to afford real electronics instead of homebrewing.
      2) Anyone independent enough to homebrew a device is also independent enough to not turn it off during takeoff & landing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hotsauce (514237)

      But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.

      You must have been under a rock for the last few decades. Every electronic device is made in the "third world". They've been handing us our collective asses, if you haven't noticed.

  • Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.

    • by jdgreen7 (524066)

      Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.

      That's why I bought a folio-style case with adjustable stand for mine so you can leave it propped up at a reasonable angle, making it a nice hands-free device while watching a movie or reading a book. The popular response to that is "Why not just get a netbook, since that stands up on its own already?!" Well, the iPad just does a lot of things very well that I want it to do, and with a 10+ hour battery life (generally much longer if just reading an ebook), I haven't found a better device yet. Plus, it c

  • Most of the accidents happen during take-off or landing. In case something happens, the captain may need the full attention of the passengers to inform or instruct them. If people sit using notebooks, listening to music, watching movies etc, this will become very much less effective.

    Additionally, if a plane crashes, the less stuff lying around the better. Notebooks can become projectiles, earphone cords can become a hindrance for evacuation, and having your hands full is just generally a bad idea. Bannin
  • I didn't RTFA, but the summary states the iPads are pre-loaded. If I buy a copy of a game and install it on a computer, I can't then rent out that computer and let someone else play the game, can I? How would that be different from buying a copy of a movie and then renting it out? Typically rental copies are purchased differently from sale copies for movies. I assume the same is true of games? Not to insinuate in any way that the company is doing anythign illegal - perhaps they've jumped through those
  • Considering iPads are not very good (so I heard) at networking, this [wordpress.com] may not become a problem.

  • spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics

    That's all about stupidity, nothing else.

"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller

Working...