Fiat currency.

It's a structural mismatch.  The conservative's life revolves around family, business, and social organizations with expectations that the government will provide the basic services that his tax dollars go for.  The liberal's life revolves around the government and using government to impose liberal values on the citizenry.  Conservatives view education as a means to provide "wealth creation" to the country, liberals view education as a means to indoctrinate the populace and therefor should be captured as a liberal tool.  The two views are diametrically opposed but unfortunately we're destined for defeat unless we adopt some of the liberal tools.  

Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" is a worthy read on the same subject.  

I had the misfortune of watching CNN International anchor interview John Lott on the recent shooting and gun control.  It was amazing how condescending and rude she was, she continually badgered and interrupted him despite his best efforts to be civil.   I guess that's to be expected but none the less I wanted to through TV out the window.  I like to sample various media to get a flavor for the coverage but this reiterated to me why I don't trust CNN or many of the other outlets.

Glock 17 or 19 for self defense, 22 semi-auto for overall utility and economy.  I've been through 26 years of military training and realized that when the pressure is on, simplicity rules.  The Glock doesn't have a conventional safety so there's one less step to shoot, critical in a high stress situation.  Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the 9mm capacity (with hollow points) outweigh the greater power of the 40 or 45.  Ultimately, your index finger is the safety so formalized training is the most important factor.

If my behavior is any guide, people using caller ID don't answer the phone or hang up shortly after answering.  So the question is: who answers their phone when pollers are calling?

Amazing, I talked myself into defending the FAA!  I guess I have Ricochet to blame for that.

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the results would be the same if 100% were turned on.  Bottom line for me is "if it's not broke, don't fix it".  We have an amazingly safe aviation system so changing it requires some cost/benefit analysis.  I love my e-gadgets as much as anyone but I view the small cost of forgoing them for brief periods outweighed by the safety factors.  I find it funny when some expert pronounces with certainty that this doesn't affect that.  I've been flying for 25 years and have an engineering degree and all I know for certain is that I hear cell phone static over the radios, occasionally something creates a queertron hiccup in electronic/computer systems, and animal instincts take over in emergencies.  Usually none of this is a factor but maybe the cell static blocks out the "traffic 12 o'clock, turn right immediately" call, or the tatooed, pierced nimrod in the exit row has his Bose noise canceling headset on when the evacuation order is given.  I'm pretty confident I know what to do, but my safety relies on others actions as well.  

I'm not defending the FAA decision making, just guessing at their rationale based on experience in the industry.  Take off and landing phases rely on ground based navigation systems that require high levels of precision and reliability to conduct instrument approaches and departures.  Flight at altitude doesn't require that level of precision.  A momentary instrument anomaly while on an instrument approach is grounds for initiating a go-around.  If it happens too often it throws the whole terminal area traffic flow into chaos.  

Take off and landing phases have the highest potential for accidents, that's why you can wear them above 10,000' but are prohibited below that altitude.  

My point was that they didn't hear the emergency briefing, not that they kept wearing their headphones during the emergency.  The larger point was the liability issue, if the airlines don't error on the side of safety, they're the ones with the deep pockets that will end up paying.  

To play devil's advocate again, let's imagine the following scenario:  The peeps in the emergency exit rows are talking on their cell phones or listening to their iPods during the emergency brief and takeoff/landing.  The jet has some sort of emergency requiring evacuation in a confusing, possibly smoke filled environment.  The exit row peeps are confused as to how to open the doors, people trample them, people die in the evacuation.  Who suffers the inevitable financial liability?  The exit row peeps?  The FAA?  I think after it's all gone through the legal ringer the airline gets the hit.  Everyone loves to bash the airlines yet the provide reliable, affordable service to unprecedented numbers of people.  Everyone loves to imagine Pan Am, china and silver wear service but only want to pay Greyhound fares.  As a commercial airline pilot, I'd love to fly in a Pan Am age but the reality is that the current deregulated structure has provided significant economic benefits to the US.  I think the small inconvenience of forgoing "Words with Friends" during takeoff/landing is a small price to pay for insuring continued provision of the record aviation safety.

Agreed, hard to say what 200 cell phones would do to nav/com equipment.  The airplane technology will always lag cell phone technology due to the financial and regulatory burdens in upgrading aircraft equipment vs rapid cell advances.

The riskiest phases of flight are takeoff and landing, that's why headphones and electronics aren't supposed to be used then.  The danger lies in them becoming projectiles and the ability to pax to hear emergency directions.  My opinion is the risk to navigational equipment is minimal.

I'm as attached to my electronic devices as anyone but the small inconvenience of reading a magazine/book for takeoff and landing outweighs the annoyance of my seat mate's yakking and the potential danger of all those iPads becoming unguided missiles in the event of an emergency maneuver/action during takeoff or landing.  

As a commercial and former military pilot I'll play devil's advocate.  Cell phones do cause static interference over the radio even while not in active use.  It's immediately obvious someone has there cell phone on due to the distinctive static.  The other issue is in the case of an emergency, pax wearing headphones won't hear emergency directions and all those iPads become projectiles in the event of violent maneuvers.