The Pet Peeve Thread.

[BtEO]

You're reading far too much into my words. Stop projecting your opinions of the opinions of people arguing from around my position onto me.

My original suggestion you quoted not meant to imply that the hypothetical smoker under discussion was not aware of any decrease in sense of smell. They may well be fully aware, that still doesn't change the fact that they may not be aware (because of said decrease) of how big the difference in air quality between a smoke-filled bar and one where smoking is banned is.

At any rate at no point did I consider or try to suggest that a smoker who does not know all the possible side-effects, short-term or long-term, of their habit is unintelligent. The closest was my anecdotal experience that people are more likely to notice smell returning than its loss; merely a comment that the loss is supposedly more gradual than the return and that it would seem easier to notice something that wasn't there before than to pinpoint what's missing specifically when under a general dulling of senses; this fits in with my not realising what smells were missing from a bar atmosphere when masked by smoke^[1], just assuming that was the default, then realising it wasn't once the smoke was removed.

p.s. IQ certainly doesn't enter into it as IQ is better described as a capacity, the learning skills needed, for intelligence or knowledge.

And I kinda forgot about this:

Is smoking illegal even in private aircraft? What about regulations in other countries?

I don't know about private aircraft, but I don't think there are many (any?) countries that still allow smoking in commercial aircraft. I just don't see the point in commercial airplanes having the no smoking sign designated by a light.

My point sorta being that aeroplanes may be manufactured without a specific market in mind. Were some still going into situations where there might be a value in toggling this option it doesn't make sense to manufacture two versions of the plane just for the sake of removing a lightbulb and a switch.

---

[1] Granted sweat and spilled beer are among the fragrant aromas previously subdued but I don't believe there's considered to be any risk from my breathing in those versus immersing myself for a few hours in cigarette smoke.

[collegestudent22]

Is smoking illegal even in private aircraft? What about regulations in other countries?

I don't know about private aircraft, but I don't think there are many (any?) countries that still allow smoking in commercial aircraft. I just don't see the point in commercial airplanes having the no smoking sign designated by a light.

Given that in some areas, it is illegal to smoke in your own home, I don't doubt they have (or attempted to have) made it illegal to do so in your plane. Enforcement, on the other hand, would be incredibly difficult.

In addition, this argument about the smell of smoke in bars is rather irrelevant. You really don't have the right to force an establishment to ban smoking in bars because you don't like the smell.

[The Cid]

And I kinda forgot about this:

You realize that "this" was a setup for that half-assed joke about when the pilot might turn off the no smoking light, right?

My point sorta being that aeroplanes may be manufactured without a specific market in mind. Were some still going into situations where there might be a value in toggling this option it doesn't make sense to manufacture two versions of the plane just for the sake of removing a lightbulb and a switch.

The planes I'm thinking of probably are manufactured with specific markets in mind--commercial carriers in major, developed nations, where smoking bans are standard. But again, it was the setup for a bad joke. Still, I would think that private buyers who wish to own their own 747 are probably going to have theirs modified anyway, so removing static no-smoking signs shouldn't be a problem. At this point we're splitting hairs though.

[Deacon]

the difference in air quality between a smoke-filled bar and one where smoking is banned

Yes it's a big difference, and I applaud it. Then again I live in a place where it's possible to be outside a lot.

Were some still going into situations where there might be a value in toggling this option it doesn't make sense to manufacture two versions of the plane just for the sake of removing a lightbulb and a switch.

Not only that but it's not uncommon for aircraft to be sold used to poorer carriers around the world. And they decided a long time ago that they liked having the blazing no smoking light going at all times. Hell they still tell you at the beginning of EVERY flight in the US! They want very badly for you to know, mister.

[Deacon]

I would think that private buyers who wish to own their own 747 are probably going to have theirs modified anyway, so removing static no-smoking signs shouldn't be a problem.

They generally have standard configurations and layouts you choose from when ordering a batch for ommercial airline use. That said, it's an FAA regulation. You can probably appreciate how hard it is to move the FAA off something, especially when they look at it and say what harm does it do by remaining in place?

For god's sake they still don't let you use an iPod until you're over 10,000 feet as though it will crash the plane if you do or that altitude is magic. They know better, but it's still a regulation because some electronic device somewhere could in theory cause a little bit of interference with this one plane or two somewhere.

[collegestudent22]

For god's sake they still don't let you use an iPod until you're over 10,000 feet as though it will crash the plane if you do or that altitude is magic. They know better, but it's still a regulation because some electronic device somewhere could in theory cause a little bit of interference with this one plane or two somewhere.

It could not, even in theory. The magnetic field from even a hundred iPods a few meters from the cockpit wouldn't be strong enough to do anything to even a semi-modern plane - it would be about the same as your phone's GPS preventing it from receiving calls. The problem, if it ever existed, arose from much smaller planes and unshielded analog instrumentation - specifically analog compasses and magnetic fields. Now, navigation systems in commercial jets are entirely GPS based, so this problem no longer could exist.

Furthermore, even if it did cause some issues, it would interfere with the instrumentation panels. These are entirely unnecessary upon takeoff, as far as I can tell. One doesn't need navigation when it is obvious that you have to accelerate towards the end of the runway and pull up.

[ampersand]

I'd like to hear from an actual certified pilot. Like maybe Martin?

[Deacon]

Hear from him about what?

[collegestudent22]

Do you honestly think that a certified pilot such as Martin is going to have a better understanding of electronic signal interference than a senior in a discipline of engineering that has to deal with the same issue in class on a regular basis? Crosstalk just isn't an issue with modern electronics, unless you are talking about wires placed very close to each other, or integrated systems. Using digital signals alone severely reduces the problem.

In reality, the ever-present problems of noise, distortion, and loss are the issue, and these aren't really changed at all by a few electronic devices being used in the plane.

Really, expecting your iPod to interfere with the function of the plane would be identical to expecting the guy next to you to have problems with his laptop, and the guy a couple of rows ahead of you to be unable to use his phone.

[Andy]

There will be a day coming where there will be either a statewide or national ban of smoking in public facilities.

We have such a law in Argentina, which tends to drive tourists crazy.

Peeve: People who yell obvious things at you while you're playing video games. Example, running from gaurds and friend yells "Find cover! Get to the roof and find cover!" I know, shut up, I'm trying to climb a wall, just shut up and let me concentrate.

Gotta admit: I'm guilty of that. But I do it to the NPCs too, or just shows/movies in general. "JUST KISS HER ALREADY, YOU IDIOT!"

[Deacon]

I kiss all the characters so as to not be thought an idiot. It does mean my TV has a lot of smudges on it, though.

[collegestudent22]

There will be a day coming where there will be either a statewide or national ban of smoking in public facilities.

We have such a law in Argentina, which tends to drive tourists crazy.

Public facilities, or "public" facilities - which are actually private places like bars and stadiums? Because the latter would definitely make me not want to visit Argentina. And I can't smoke, even if I wanted to - asthma.

[Andy]

Public facilities, or "public" facilities - which are actually private places like bars and stadiums? Because the latter would definitely make me not want to visit Argentina. And I can't smoke, even if I wanted to - asthma.

"Public" facilities - though they usually give a damn when it comes to open spaces, especially stadiums. Certain details of the law change from province to province (just like in USA has the state by state cases), but it's pretty much nation wide.

If you aren't going to visit any country with a law you don't like, CC22, I wonder how much world is left for you to travel to... XD

I kiss all the characters so as to not be thought an idiot. It does mean my TV has a lot of smudges on it, though.

And now I'm picturing Homer Simpson hugging the tv. "Let's never fight again."

[Deacon]

<3

[collegestudent22]

If you aren't going to visit any country with a law you don't like, CC22, I wonder how much world is left for you to travel to... XD

I could still be persuaded to visit. I would just have to find a damn good reason.

That's why he wanted to join the military. See foreign lands, not know anything about the customs and rules and simply kill people you don't like. It's win-win

Hardy har har.