 | | AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
An article in Wired News today: (URL) strikes me as really odd is that this LA lawyer is expecting to use precedent (not yet?) set in lawsuits against handgun manufacturers, to be applied towards cell phone manufacturers after future air crash (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) It can be devilishly difficult to properly shield devices. This difficulty is why some electronic products aren't licensed for home use because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay the expense of shielding it properly and then testing it. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) True, but how about the FCC's current strategy of restricting EM emissions to certain frequency ranges? Does the noise that spills out of a Palm Pilot or even a cell phone really cover a wide range of frequencies? However, I believe that the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
|
(...) I don't have any strong opinions in this matter, but I'll just toss out my main reaction when I read your post. I think that there is quite a qualitative difference between phasing in wireless phone technology (1) and revamping the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
