Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Entertainment Games

Japanese Airlines Ban DS, PSP 145

Posted by Zonk from the this-will-last-about-five-minutes dept.
Gamespot is reporting that Japanese Airlines such as Japan Airlines and ANA have banned the use of wifi-capable game devices, including the DS and PSP, over 'safety concerns'. From the article: "A law banning on gaming systems with wireless capabilities came into force on Monday, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Japan's transport ministry has concluded that the electromagnetic waves from the wireless networks can interfere with aircraft navigation systems, so it's no Nintendogs for passengers flying with Japanese airlines. The new law also bans wireless computer mice, and headphones that have not been provided by the airlines, although the use of electric razors, calculators, and cassette players is permitted, readers may be relieved to know."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japanese Airlines Ban DS, PSP More

Japanese Airlines Ban DS, PSP

Comments Filter:
  • Just in time for Microsoft to announce a hand-held without wireless capabilities! Sure, it'd be opportune... but I doubt I'm the only one who wouldn't buy it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dintech ( 998802 )
      Also there's nothing worse than flying a red-eye while surrounded by kids playing pokemon at high volume. Victory!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by edwdig ( 47888 )
        Try a red eye that's got an entire troup of girl scouts with a large supply of pixie sticks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by dintech ( 998802 )
          I think maybe Hell is something like that. A never ending late night, long haul flight with a bunch of kids making loads of noise while all the adults try to sleep.

          No so bad if you're Gary Glitter...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          There's something strangely... arousing... about what you just said.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by aliquis ( 678370 )
          Please bring me a plane filled of japanese girl scouts.
  • "Sir...sir we need you to get off the plane. We arrived twenty minutes ago and we have to take off for the next flight. I don't care if you're almost to level 47, get off the plane!"

  • Wireless computer mouses have also been banned aboard flights, along with headphones that are not provided by the airlines.
    If airlines ban even wired headphones, then why does this remind me of the roughly 70% or larger gross margin that movie theaters take on candy (e.g. $0.88 Wal-Mart candy sold for $3.00)?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CRiMSON ( 3495 )
      You mean the headphones they hand out free? Not sure how you can fleece someone with a free product. I've been on 4 different airlines in the past year and the headphones were always free to use.
      • The headphones handed out for free by airlines are horrible. I always use my own which sound great, and actually FIT.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Gwala ( 309968 )
        A lot of US airlines make you pay like $2.00 for them. American is a particularly guilty offender.
        • Yes, they may charge you 2 bucks for the headphones, but they are "yours to keep". I think it's reasonable then.
          However, their 5 dollar sandwiches and 2 dollar bottles of water are a wee bit too much.

          Grump

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by pthor1231 ( 885423 )
            Why? That food is "yours to keep" as well. They don't make you shit it out or vomit it back up before you get off the plane.
          • But why would I WANT $2 headphones when they totally suck and I already HAVE headphones that are awesome?

            Many airlines (such as United) charge you $4 or so for the "movie" and either give you the headphones or allow you to use your own. Not being allowed to use your own would really suck.
        • Yeah but they haven't banned bringing your own.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        Some airlines (particularly African airlines) would charge international passengers a small "fee" for using a set of headphones, around one or two US dollars or English pound notes. People would get around this by buying adaptors for converting a set of standard headphones to the connectors used by the airplane headphone system.
    • Sorry, but I fly on noisy commercial turboprops a lot (EMB 120 Brasilias), and I wear noise canceling headphones starting the instant those loud bastards start up. Many regular passengers do. I don't plug them into my ipod until the "OK to start your electronic devices" announcement. I've never had any question from a flight attendant. They're all wearing hearing protection too.
      • Do they work passively/off sound energy, or with their own power source, or not properly until they're plugged in??

        • Do they work passively/off sound energy, or with their own power source, or not properly until they're plugged in??
          They run off a single AA cell. Bose.
  • whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

    • Re:well, (Score:4, Insightful)

      by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:08PM (#20839573)
      whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

      That idea can get pretty silly. For instance Peanut butter can kill people with severe allergies, ought we ban all peanut butter in public places? Bee stings can kill certian people, ought we ban bees? A CD could presumably kill someone in exactly the right circumstance ought we ban CD's? A Scarf could kill someone too (and have killed many children), it's only a small inconvenience to go without one so ought we ban scarves?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by walt-sjc ( 145127 )
        This is the nanny society we live in. In fact, many schools DO have a total ban on peanut butter just for that reason. Having a "peanut free" table instead would discriminate against the poor kids suffering with a peanut allergy. Yes, even at a high school, where the kid with the allergy should have enough sense not to eat another child's food by that age. I've lived with severe allergies my entire life, but a total ban on anything like that is insane.

        • I doesn't matter if the kid has sense not to eat other people's food. A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

          • Re:well, (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:00PM (#20840475) Homepage
            Yeah, you know what? Anyone that allergic ought to be wearing a fucking surgical mask. Hundreds of people - whether adults or children - should not have to change their eating habits for one person. Peanuts are not only tasty but they're nutritious as well. I'd certainly rather kids be enjoying some peanuts at lunch rather than some of the crap served by, and present in, public schools...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by British ( 51765 )
              Why don't we just solve the peanut allergy kid problem altogether by making a special private school for kids with peanut allergies? We could call it the Planters school. They would have a statute of Mr. Peanut in the courtyard. At the end of the year, they can pull it down like Saddam's statue in Iraq.

              Or we can just let evolution take its course. Really, if your are defeated by a legume...

          • Re:well, (Score:5, Informative)

            by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:12PM (#20840693) Homepage
            A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

            Myth. Peanut allergies can be severe, but never that severe. If you were in a peanut processing facility, or the person a few seats over was smashing hundreds of peanuts into peanut butter, maybe. Just eating peanuts is going to produce an infinitesimally small amount of dust. The likelihood of inhaling even a single particle of dust in that scenario approaches zero, and is not far from the likelihood of inhaling a piece of peanut dust that was picked up on the wind from a chinese peanut factory and blown around the world and directly into your mouth. They are both statistically implausible. And even if it were to happen, a single piece of peanut dust is not enough, in any recorded case of peanut allergy, to cause even a noticeable reaction.

            Enough peanut allergens can actually be transferred through saliva (kissing) to cause a mild reaction in the severely allergic but even that is very infrequent, and I can't find a single case of death as a result (No, the death of the Quebec girl had nothing to do with her peanut allergy, contrary to the media reports, it was a cigarette-induced asthma attack)
            • I know someone who has this kind of peanut allergy, and he really dislikes the smell of peanuts. As far as I know, it doesn't cause a reaction per se, but he really hates the smell of peanuts or peanut butter, even if it's just one person eating it near him. I figure it may cause a very mild immune response, which is why he hates the smell. (Prior to his first reaction, he liked peanut butter.)

              • I was nauseated by most of the smells that could be found in my high school cafeteria.

              • I figure it may cause a very mild immune response, which is why he hates the smell.

                Or it could simply be the taste system (of which the olfactory sense is a part of) is doing the job it's supposed to do, by making him avoid something which is deadly for him. A bit like most people learn to avoid putting their hands on hot stoves.

        • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:well, (Score:4, Insightful)

            by AcidLacedPenguiN ( 835552 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:04PM (#20840561)
            I believe there was a man who went by the name of Darwin who would have something to say about this.

            • I believe there was a man who went by the name of Darwin who would have something to say about this.

              Indeed: there must be some mighty fine upside for such a dangerous condition if it still persiss in the gene pool. I wonder if allergic people have stronger immune systems in general - after all, allergy is caused by an overly strong immunal reaction ? Perhaps allergic people are the ones best able to resist illness and therefore help ensure that the human race and society survives epidemics, such as the

          • Then those people should probably be wearing masks. Seriously. If you life is at stake, would YOU take the chance that someone forgot about the ban and brought in a PB&J? Or had a snickers bar?

          • Re:well, (Score:5, Funny)

            by mchale ( 104743 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:30PM (#20841035)
            Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking about peanuts is potentially fatal.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by bentcd ( 690786 )
              Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even being on the same planet as a peanut is potentially fatal.

              Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking in a language that has a word for peanut is potentially fatal.

              Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even the existence of the idea of something that may be vaguely peanut-shaped is potentially fatal.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rxmd ( 205533 )
            Some people have peanut allergy allergies so severe that even being in the same room with a person with peanut allergy is potentially fatal.
      • Hey I dont know about you but if wireless signals from said devices do/can cause issues with flight instrumentation I'd rather just play it safe. That being said I'd like to actually see studies on this.. maybe some tests have everyone on the play have a ds and playing mario kart wirelessly against each other while the plane is on the ground.

        • Hey I dont know about you but if wireless signals from said devices do/can cause issues with flight instrumentation I'd rather just play it safe.

          Yeah. If airplane instruments are so pathetically fragile that a signal from battery-powered cell phone or Wi-Fi can cause them to fail, better take the train or boat.

      • If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

        That idea can get pretty silly. For instance Peanut butter can kill people with severe allergies, ought we ban all peanut butter in public places?

        The difference being, is the bodies that have to oversee air travel are required to be very conservative. They have to have strong evidence that "nothing will happen", as opposed to "no evidence that something might happen".

        There are so many different kinds of planes

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by adavies42 ( 746183 )
      It's a minor inconvenience to the public if we lock you up for the rest of your life on the off chance that you might someday, accidentally or deliberately, kill someone, hurt someone, or hurt someone's feelings. If it saves just one person's life, limbs, or dignity, how can it not be worth it?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kugala ( 1083127 )
      I'm not aware of any consumer equipment that's going to bring down a plane, or even cause major failures alone. However, many systems, and especially radios, are pretty susceptible to interference. While a cell phone may not accidentally cause your rudder to jam right, they DO often make noise on audio systems, and that could easily take a recoverable emergency to a deadly crash. What happens when the pilot doesn't hear the tower tell him the gear aren't down? For the 'convenience' of aimless chatter wi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by toolie ( 22684 )
      There is a bunch of anecdotal evidence about interference messing with functions on an aircraft. The last I read (a couple years ago) on the subject talked in detail about an incident in which the navigation system on a commercial plane was giving erroneous data when one of the passengers had their MP3 player on.

      In all the testing, nothing has been pinpointed. Interference concerns are why there is a ban on certain devices (most notable are RF emitters).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Voltageaav ( 798022 )
      You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it.
      • If you're flying with kids, I'd agree with you. If it's just you, read a book.
        • Laughable advice coming from someone with no reading comprehension...

          I can't read for more than 8 hours streight[sic]

      • You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it.

        Try a Gameboy SP. No, it's not as pretty as a PSP, but it has a lot of great games, and the batteries will last the whole trip.

  • haven't wireless devices ("that send or receive signals") been banned in North American airspace for years now? I would have thought that DS-like devices would have fallen under that category.
    • what about laptops with Bluetooth and wireless cards always on? I love Tech savvy Gov officials.....
      • Every laptop I've seen has the ability to turn off wireless features. What braindead laptop have you found that doesn't?
        • I was thinking along the same lines. Is there not way to turn off the wireless on a PSP/DS. Seems like it would save batteries.
    • Last time I flew they said to turn wireless features off, but didnt outright ban the device.

      The whole thing feels pretty silly to me, considering how much it costs to build an airplane you think they'd tack on an extra $15 worth of a faraday cage around important devices. For that matter, if it's really such a serious issue should the only thing stopping a ZOMG TERR'IST from taking down the plane with his noisy wireless interfering headphones be some small warning from the pilot before takeoff?

      Hint: they ar
      • I thought part of the point of a faraday cage was to not allow signals out as well. This would kind of nullify the point. Great, my radio isn't susceptible to interference anymore, but I can't hear shit on it either.

    • Re:Question for those who fly more then me.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by EtoilePB ( 1087031 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:47PM (#20841305)
      No. I just flew cross country (JFK/LAS) twice in the last four days. The speech says that anything with an internal transmitter must have that transmitter disabled but the devices themselves are allowed. In fact I was playing MarioKart on my DS Lite most of the way back from Vegas (and my boyfriend was playing Phoenix Wright on his).
  • Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? I mean, we've known for years that you shouldn't use wireless devices on planes, that's why they don't let you use cell phones while on the plane. This is just the logical extension. As we see an increase in the number of wireless devices available to the public, I am sure that we will see an increase in the number of devices that are banned on aircrafts. The only thing that bothers me is that I'm not allowed to carry more than one lighter on a plane...what if
    • Why exactly shouldn't we use wireless devices? I can think of a lot of good reasons--like not wanting to hear assholes chatting it up the whole flight (if possible), but from what I've read, there's no technical reasons cellphones shouldn't be able to be used--if you know more than I do, feel free to correct me.

      This article is kinda funny... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/25/memphis.air.snafu/ [cnn.com]
      • If this 'wireless' thing is such a big issue and the people see that there is no wire, they'll ask you to stop using it.

        Now, we being the ingenious lil monkies we are, can easily take a single black wire and electric tape it to the inside of the headphone and then to the device. It doesn't have to be molded or connected in any way shape or form to something useful, just a nice thick attachable cable that stewardess can see and identify and pass on by.

        Stewardess: Excuse me papa san, you can't use that headph

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by apdyck ( 1010443 )
        Well, I did a quick google search, and here's what I found [cmu.edu]. It would appear that cell phones and other wireless devices can cause issues with the GPS systems used in planes, which are critical for landing the aircraft. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but when I get on a plane I want to know that when I get off the plane, it won't be in a farmer's field or an ocean.
    • Thats strange...the last few times I rode on a plane, they wouldn't let me past security with even one lighter. I forgot one in my backpack, and the guard found it and made me toss it out.
    • I can see banning the use of the actual wireless communications features, but to ban the device outright even if the transmitter is turned off seems pretty stupid.

    • Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by toriver ( 11308 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @04:30PM (#20843721)
      That's a myth: Statistically there are usually some switched-on mobile phones on a plane, and those devices are anyway regulated for frequency bands other than the ones used by air traffic systems and the like.

      The real reason is that when you are in the air, they will try and contact - at their maximum power because of the distances involved - the multiple cell network stations the plane passes as it flies at a high speed. This screws with the switching system.

      So it's in the interest of the user to turn it off to preserve both battery power and their genetic material :) and in the interest of the cell phone companies to preserve network stability.

  • Screw You Japanese Airlines (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Next time I'll just WALK to Japan.

  • Ob. (Score:5, Funny)

    by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:13PM (#20839635)
    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30 [penny-arcade.com]
  • Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Danse ( 1026 )
      q[Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?]q
      Not sure about that, but I just had a stopover in Tokyo a couple days ago and it seemed like half the Japanese people in line for the plane were playing with a DS. It wasn't a JAL flight, but I figure their passengers are probably about the same. I think there's gonna be some real grumbling about this regulation, if not outright protest.
  • So Japan is banning headphones & handhelds while European carriers are adding mini cell towers and wifi to their planes?

  • Obligatory (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Protonk ( 599901 )
    Penny Arcade! [penny-arcade.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by node159 ( 636992 )
      ROFLMA... thank god someone with some sanity actually made a constructive comment on the issue :).

      Seriously the entire issue has always smelt of ass.
      • The reason you are asked to turn of your cell phone is not because it might down the plane (statistically there should be crashes caused by this by now), its because the cellphone negatively impacts the network by rapid switching and denying use of frequencies over a large area.
      • If this really is such a large and potentially hazardous issue (which it isn't

  • How enforcable is this ban? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:15PM (#20839683) Homepage Journal
    the DS and PSP are obviously easier to ban because everyone knows what they look like and that they have wireless, but for most electronics, can you really tell just by taking a look at them whether or not they have wireless? For example, some mp3 players have wireless, some don't. Other than perhaps Zune(and who actually has one of those?) and the iPod touch(which could be an iPhone in airplane mode once it reaches Japan :P) I doubt very many flight attendants could tell you on the spot whether or not a given device is wireless or not. So if they cannot enforce the ban, why have it at all? You are just going to make people angry without adding any safety.

    But this does make the environmentalist in me happy, maybe more people will take the train vs. a plane for domestic travel, and having lived in Europe, the US and Japan, I can say that the Japanese is by far the best. Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Babbster ( 107076 )
      Here's my problem with this banning: It would be a trivial exercise to teach flight attendants how to tell if the wireless is active on a Nintendo DS, and I assume that the PSP has a similar activity light. 30 minutes (or less) of training for its employees and they could avoid angering their game-playing customers - that sounds like a pretty good deal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )
      Because if plane tickets were more expensive than the shinkansen then the airlines would be totally screwed on domestic travel. Even a regular JR line's not all that bad if you don't have to go across the entire country. If you need to get from Tokyo to Kagoshima, sure.. well soon enough I think even that might change.

      I'll tell you, though, the wireless ban is BULL if it's for safety. I mean really, if they were at all unsure about how "safe" consumer wireless devices are, they wouldn't even let you take th

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by RailRide ( 737108 )

      But this does make the environmentalist in me happy, maybe more people will take the train vs. a plane for domestic travel

      It seems they are:

      "Airplanes are getting stuck in lots of traffic jams this summer, but Amtrak is on a roll. Ridership on the passenger rail system is up 6% so far this year, the biggest jump since the late 1970s. On the Acela Express, trains that run at higher speeds between Washington, New York and Boston, the number of riders has surged 20% over the past 10 months. That's enough new passengers to fill 2,000 Boeing 757 jets,"

      --Dan Machalaba, Wall St Journal August 23, as quoted from http://www.nation [nationalcorridors.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by moonbender ( 547943 )
      Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

      Not sure if this is true for anywhere else, but here in Germany fuel and energy is heavily taxed, which factors into the train ticket prices. Airplanes, however, are excempt. We pay about EUR 0.60 per liter of gas, the airlines pay EUR 0.00 per liter of kerosene. Compared to driving in a car, railway travel is somewhat competitive.

      That's not the only reason, but it's on

  • Intentional Transmitters (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:21PM (#20839791) Homepage
    Any RF transmitter has the potential to cause interference with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems. Besides the intended signal, transmitters also produce spurious outputs and noise at other frequencies. This can be a real problem for systems that deal with weak signals like GPS receivers. It doesn't take much power to jam a GPS receiver. A plane full of wifi devices could create an interference nightmare.
    • Speaking as a radio ham... Electric razors frequently emit FAR more RF spew than WiFi cards, orders of magnitude more, yet they're allegedly allowed.
    • Here's an idea..
      Put the GPS antenna outside of the metal airframe.
      RF gaskets on the doors and metallized glass windows and no RF gets out of the interior.

      If aircraft systems are so sensitive that consumer FCC certified gear can take them down,
      then why hasn't anyone with bad intent brought up a 100W wideband noise source and
      glitched out the ILS or nav gear?
      Because maybe it cant be done?
      Any aircraft certified system is going to have strict requirements for out of band filtering.
      The antennas are placed on the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Detritus ( 11846 )
        I've read reports of RFI to VOR and ILS systems, so it is a real issue. Portable radio receivers have been a known source of interference, via LO radiation, to aircraft communication and navigation systems for almost 50 years. These systems were not designed to be jam-resistant or spoof-resistant. Many military GPS receivers have those features, but those aren't the GPS receivers in civilian aircraft.
  • I took a flight to Greece from New York and my DS certainly saved the day. Coincidentally there was a guy across from me talking on his cell phone DURING the whole take-off and ascent. Now even that's definitely not allowed on a flight, but the attendants didn't seem to care. Well, it was just one guy, whereas on a Japanese flight about 70% of people probably carry a DS.

  • Inconsistent regulation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:26PM (#20839887)
    So, they ban wireless computer mice - but not laptops, which all have 802.11 wireless capabilities, and many of which also have bluetooth?


    They should ban transmission of RF - so your laptop/cellphone is fine as long as you turn off the radio part. I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.


    Amazing how people in government/management are all technically inept, isn't it?

    • I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.

      The psp can - it has a switch on the left hand side - or if its the new one its on the top.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )
      Since someone answered for the PSP, you can't turn of wireless on the DS. But it's only on when you are in pictochat or try to play a multiplayer game and it's indicated by a blinking power light.

      Thought if it DOES interfer with stuff in the plane I wouldn't want to trust people to not accidently turn it on or whatever. But then I don't understand why laptops are allowed, because what happens if someone had forgot to turn their wlan of? Same for mp3players, cameras and whatever.
  • So, nobody in Japan ever thought to bring and use a DS or PSP on a plane before today? How come planes weren't dropping out of the sky left and right? All of a sudden they interfere with navigation systems?

    Call me nutty, but, wouldn't it just make more sense to shield the instruments better? I mean, EM radiation and potential jamming isn't just something that exists only on the inside of the cabin.

  • Why the PSP? (Score:3, Informative)

    by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:31PM (#20839969)
    You can easily turn off the wireless with a switch.

    There isn't a switch in the DS, but it's not on unless you use a game that turns it on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fbjon ( 692006 )
      All games on the DS I've seen have a standard icon to mark actions that will activate the wireless, it's probably required. They usually ask to confirm if you want to connect to WFC as well, not sure about local play though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 )
        Local wireless is just going to another location in the game, at least for the ones I've played, and you have to explicitly download for single card play.

        If they're banning these, where it requires explicit user actions to kick off the wireless, then you need to ban computers as well.
  • Every plane i have ever been on, 10 in the last month, I have left my phone on. Somehow we haven't crashed. Somehow we haven't landed next to the runway rather than on it. Somehow we survived.
  • Am I the only one who's slightly worried about getting on a plane sporting a few million dollar's worth of navigation systems which can be defeated by a $129.99 piece of consumer electronics? I mean, it's not like this is blown out of proportion is it?

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close