> TomTom wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> What if a rogue pilot takes over the plane. Would not a
>>> reasonable person attempt to make contact with people outside the
>>> plane? Would that person be arrested for endangering to plane?
>>> Clearly not.
>>
>> Another poor example. Since 9/11, it is now clear that passengers
>> in a high-jacked plane have only three choices about how they will
>> die. They can be shot down, which is the least desirable, because
>> the passengers are then only chickens waiting to be slaughtered. They can
>> do nothing, and allow the high-jackers to crash the plane
>> for terrorist purposes, which is not good, and makes the passengers
>> accomplices by inertia. They can act to ensure that the
>> high-jackers' plans go wrong. That still means they all die, but it
>> makes an excellent point to wanna-be high-jackers.
>>
>> It's a poor example, because everyone on the plane is dead.
>
> How did you conclude that everyone on the plane was dead?
Poetic licence. What it means is that passengers act without concern for
themselves.
>>> Mobile phones use UHF frequencies and do *not* interfere with
>>> aircraft navigation systems. The issue is that whilst the
>>> interference is infinitesmally small it cannot be entirely
>>> dismissed - so the rule remains. In practice it is ridiculous.
>>
>> If this is so, it calls for massive civil disobedience in protest. We are
>> being lied to by governments and airlines. How shocking!
>>
>>
>
> How did you conclude that it calls for civil disobedience?
What else can we do when our governments require us to comply with laws
based on deliberate lies? But I mean, of course, only non-compliance with
those laws, not general revolution.
