Hey! Free things!

Cool, but is is really practical?

I think for what this will cost, we could retrofit almost all the dams in the US with hydroelectric generation capability, even on the small streams, and generate cheaper, more reliable electricity. No new construction. No navigation hazards. No potential environmental impacts. And, as an added bonus, some of the aging dams would be upgraded in the process.

Better bang for the buck if you ask me.

Actually, this is VERY exciting.

BeOS was (is) an outstanding desktop OS, and had there been more applications available, there would probably be as many BeOS forums/techsites as there are Linux sites.

They are spending all their time working the OS instead of doing something simple like updating the web page.

Actually, this is really not all that different than how a person navigates around an unfamiliar building or place. Locate a landmark, then make a reasonable assumption based on that landmark. If you are looking for suite 310 in an office building, odds are it is on the 3rd floor, and somewhere near suite 309 and 311. If you see suite 307, and no other signs, you have a pretty good chance of finding a doorway marked 310 three doors to the right. There are exceptions, and there is where the confidence factor for each cell comes in.

Actually, I'd like to be the first to vote for Sonny, the exploding battery.

Why the surprise. It is just another form of DRM

OK, let's be serious here.

The FAA is a government agency. Do you really believe that they give a flying crap (pun fully intended) about your mental health?

Really, if less people flew, it would actually make their job easier. One would think that they would want you to avoid flying.

Are you serious? When is the last time you saw a seat back phone? And, when you did, was anyone on the plane actually using it?

For the most part, GE Airphone service has been a HUGE financial disaster. Do you really think that anyone would lobby to continue pissing away money like that?

Let's start with a few facts.

1. There is a LOT more then just voice communications and radar signals hitting an airplane. Cell phone frequency bands may or may not have harmonics that could interfere with navigation, data communications, etc... Until a device is proven to not be a problem, it is assumed that it will be.
2. The ban is only partly an FAA regulation. The FCC is very much involved with it as well. The FAA just takes jurisdiction because they regulate the airlines.
3. Can you receive a signal at 30,000 ft, while moving 500 mi./hr.? Yes you can. Will you be able to use it? Yes, you can. Do the cell companies want you to use it? No they do not. Why not you ask? Because the amount of overhead required to switch phones from cell to cell at that speed would cripple the network. Then no one would be able to make a call.

When you are driving or walking while on the cell phone, you are not moving from one cell to another too rapidly. Let's say you are driving about 50 miles an hour. On flat ground, you could be on the same cell antenna for almost the whole hour. (More realisticly 10-15 minutes) Then you would switch to the next strongest signal when you reached the limits of that cell. At 500 miles an hour, you would be switching once every ten minutes at a minimum. (More like once a minute or so.)

Every time a single cell phone switches from one cell to another, there is overhead involved. Identification and registration of the phone, transfer of the calling number, etc... If 1/4 of the people on an 80% full 737 were talking on a cell phone, that would be around 24 simultanous calls. Which would mean about 24 simultanous bursts of overhead hitting the cell network every minute or so. Multiply that by the number of planes in that vicinity, add in the walkers, drivers, bus riders, etc... and you are looking at a denial of service attack.

Additionally, do you really think the FAA cares about whether you enjoy your flight? Air traffic control, and airline regulations have ZERO to do with passenger comfort.