U.S. Flight Regulators Consider Whether To Allow Or Bar In-Flight Wi-Fi Calls

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Dec 10, 2016.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Federal regulators are trying to decide whether to allow or ban Wi-Fi calls on flights. Why stop there? Let’s also get rid of babies, snorers, tall people, etc.

    The Transportation Department first started taking public comment on the overall issue of in-flight phone calls two years ago, and many of the comments were negative. But Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi-based calling, have become ubiquitous under today's technology. So federal regulators are taking a proactive position and looking to clarify onboard phone-calling rules that weren't historically part of the equation: a calling ban was originally based on fears that cell-based calls could interfere with a plane's flight instruments. What's more, airlines in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are now offering fliers voice communication services. Some US airlines are offering phone service to premium customers, too. In response, the Transportation Department is suggesting that, at a minimum, consumers have a right to know if Wi-Fi calling would be allowed on a passenger's particular flight.
     
  2. steakman1971

    steakman1971 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,433
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Flying is usually annoying as is. I've sat by really fat people spilling over into my space, the SBD person (no, you are not sneaky - I wish I could increase the air speed from the vent), crying baby, smelly person (deodorant and soap are our friends), snorer, religious converter, etc. Might as well add in the phone talker next. I really want to hear your personal info.
     
    d50man likes this.
  3. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,385
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Praying to God they ban them.
     
  4. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    I think aircraft should have no wifi, electronic access or ports that access ANY computer within an aircraft. It's not needed...and the risk vs. reward isn't even measurable, but I'm paranoid.
     
  5. tunatime

    tunatime 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,011
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    That stuff shouldn't be connected to any aircarft systems.
     
  6. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,417
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Yeah, I have no problem with it being there, but it needs to be on a physically separate network from anything else on the plane.

    Anyone who has paid for WiFi access on a plane - however - will tell you that the concept of WiFi calling on them is laughable at best.

    I found service coverage to be so bad on my last coast to coast flight that it wasn't worth my money.

    I got bursts of coverage here or there, but it wasostly useless, and a total waste of my money.
     
  7. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    I was on a flight to Paris last year. The wifi actually allowed me to see other users...and from the screen in front of me I could see altitude, direction, geo-location and speed. If the feed is coming to me...Something can be sent the other way as well. IOTs integrated into ANY transportation system, even if purely informational, is a BAD BAD move that could result in extremely bad things. Passengers should be completely airgapped from the plane at all times.
     
  8. Sufu

    Sufu [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,004
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Not sure if serious. That's pretty standard on most international flights I've been in...even on domestic long haul flights you get to see those.

    You should try flying in cargo if you want to be airgapped from all happenings on on the flight. I don't see how the infotainment system that shows basic direction and speed is such a bad thing. I'd assume that this system is physically separated from the aircraft controls too. Afaik you would need physical network access to monitor and or access these systems anyway. Now, if the on-board wifi had access to these critical systems, then yeah I'd agree with you it would be a really stupid idea.
     
  9. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    The infotainment system has to be getting in-flight data from somewhere. You don't think they are connected in any way? Where is the data coming from?

    I've been involved in many development cycles involving equipment with web and supervisory control integrations. You would be surprised how much is actually connected and how little of a concern security is. Granted...I have never been involved in a project with commercial transportation or aircraft...So you may be correct. I'm basing my statement off of prior experience...and prior experience has made me paranoid.
     
  10. Weenis

    Weenis I said WEENIS, not...

    Messages:
    4,807
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Things are not often designed securely in things like you probably worked on because there was no requirement or money to implement it.

    As for the data we're talking about here.. that data is readily available if you have any gps chip. It's not incredibly difficult data to get, you could get that data simply by turning your gps on. So it's not like this infotainment system needs to be connected to avionics to have access to that data. From an information perspective... that being said, all this information is publicly available from things like flight-aware. It's not like someone trying to get this data from nefarious means would need to put someone on the actual plane and relay data back... you can get it damn close to real time. Planes also fly predictable routes
     
  11. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Please ban! I don't want to be forced to listen to some blabbermouth the entire flight.

    And for that matter, they need to have "children" sections of the aircraft, the same as they used to have smoking sections. Noise pollution is a real thing, and anyone traveling with a child under 6 years old should get to enter the airplane first but also accordingly be in the very very very back of the airplane behind a closed door that is reasonably well insulated.
     
  12. tunatime

    tunatime 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,011
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    If you want to take down a plane ther are a million ways to do it. hacking into the wifi to take over a plane is probably not one of them.
     
  13. drakken

    drakken [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,196
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    The radar cross section of a plane emitting a lot of wifi emi is larger than a plane limiting it's emi. You can see planes landing on nextrad.

    I think more planes have been shot down over the years than taken over by passengers. Those number are really low compared to the number of accidents people die in driving to work. The problem with plane crashes, is that they tend to blow up when they hit the ground throwing hot burning metal through the air. Jet fuel is basically gas and diesel mixed together and when the two sides of the metal smack together with the fuel between they both spark and crush the fuel into detonating. Which is why if the plane can get down close enough to slide along the ground the wings are usually torn off and the center line of the air craft slides or rolls forward or bounces away from the wings which is were the fuel is on a commercial jet.

    As far as people around you, the weight of the seats comes into play and the spacing. Jets used to have more space but people wanted cheaper flights. Sitting on a southwestern flight leaves me sore and needing to walk around, flying on biz class or better in a 747 or bigger gives you more elbow room, more leg room and nicer seats. Fly first class it is two seat on each side with some really big jets have three seat on each side of the isle, you relax into your seat, it may as well be a sofa. Fly leer and same seats only that is all that is the plane, unless it is a private jet then their a short love seats and couches. Depends since most of those are not regulated.

    As far as saying if you can use wi-fi or not really the question you want to start with is why regulate it? Is it because it is distracting to the passengers? Is is going through emi out of of the plane making it more likely to have a plane for lighting to follow back? Do the short range and long range radios take interference from it?

    When I flew commercial back in 1996 on British air ways we had to turn off all electronic devices. I still think it was to get people to realize we where taking off and to prepare themselves that the air plane was going wheels up. The last time I flew I could leave my phone in airplane mode and read books on it but devices like the kindle could stay on wifi through the air plane's sat com and download books. I thought it was funny. I made phone calls by swiping my credit card through those cheap plastic receivers a number of years ago. I was setting up someone to pick me up at the air port and the women next to me asked if they were really phones and if it was safe to use a credit card in them. I said I had no idea if it was safe but I did not want to stand around the air port while my friend did her hair and makeup before simply swinging by the air port to pick me up. She called her mom after talking to me. You hear the other person's conversation and people on the other end don't usually understand that.
     
  14. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    [​IMG]
     
    Sufu and tunatime like this.
  15. Johnx64

    Johnx64 My poof SuX

    Messages:
    7,162
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Let each airline decide what they want.
     
  16. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    With Trump assuming office, that concern may be a thing of the past. Ultra cheap domestic flights may become a niche that is no longer necessary, as it is replaced by high speed rail, just as China has done.

    China has absolutely revolutionized their transportation infrastructure of late (including world leading mega-ports) and it has been a boon to their economy, and we may be late to the show, but better late than never.

    And in fact, now is the perfect time, as interest rates are lower than they have ever been before, so its absolutely primed for large scale investment in our future.

    Trains don't have to worry as much about weight, as once they are up to speed they don't have to constantly fight gravity, and making trains longer doesn't really hurt fuel economy either (in fact, all else equal, a long body is more aerodynamic than a shorter one). That means you can enjoy larger seats, with heavier materials like memory foam, with more leg room, and without needing to worry about leaving the house two hours before your flight in order to get past the TSA.

    Planes will still have a role to play, especially over water, but how amazing would it be to be able to jump on a train from Houston and get to San Antonio or Dallas on the cheap in comfort at 250mph. And there's some peace of mind knowing that next-gen trains are going to be far greener than jet aircraft can ever hope to be. We can also remove a lot of the 18-wheelers off the road using a high speed rail system as well, as you can have a few cargo cars and not just passenger cars on trains. So rather than have a truck clogging up our roads and damaging our highways or airplanes full up for next-day air package flights, we do that with more efficient trains as well.

    We were the first nation in the world to have a mega-rail system, and its time for us to have pride in being on top and number one again with the world's largest and fastest hyper-loops. :)
     
    farscapesg1 and harsaphes like this.
  17. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    They are, at least if they're like the rest of the infotainment systems. You get a newer PC-12 or Socata TBM 900 and you want in-flight entertainment, phone calls, et al. and you can buy it. Some systems have GPS chips, and calculates from there but nothing goes near the flight systems on an input. The systems in "big iron" just are, well, usually bigger themselves.

    What? You thought airplanes were designed normally? The ARINC 429 can be set to operate in multiple ways, but the most common in this situation is output only. In other words: The system can't be hacked because it is "deaf, dumb, and blind" on that port. So even if you were to tear out the display, and start shorting wires, the worst you could do is burn out that particular port. Any particular port being burned out is not going to affect the GPS unit.

    Or you can just use a dedicated GPS box because they exist as well, but hey, weight.
     
  18. sean.b

    sean.b Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    you guys ever tried to get a signal on a flight, just out of boredom? it literally doesnt happen 99.98% of the time. occasionally i'd see a blip and try to text, and it'd fail to send every time.

    so if you think they're just letting everybody have free reign to do nothing but chat for 3 hours in a confined space - for FREE - you're wrong. im sure they'd put a local service emitter on each plane and charge like you would see done on cruise ships. yes, annoying as fuck that its there, but it'd be kind of nice to have as an option for an emergency or extraneous circumstance.
     
    Inglix_the_Mad likes this.
  19. LigTasm

    LigTasm [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,975
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Discrete outputs from the nav systems that interface with the infotainment system are no risk, they don't transmit signals two ways. You're in more danger of someone ripping panels off and cutting wires than someone hacking into the flight controls tbh. The networks for entertainment are all interconnected but none of it is connected to the data bus for the planes systems, the only thing in common is power and a couple of discrete inputs for those kind of data, the rest is a closed system.
     
  20. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011

    Thanks for setting me straight guys. Good to know. When I see an interface I see a target...but just having a single one-way output makes sense...and is a smart way to go about it. I'm glad our aerospace engineers are a hell of a lot more cautious than most. lol
     
  21. LigTasm

    LigTasm [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,975
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Yeah I used to be an avionics installer. I worked with lots of those systems, its pretty well built and very redundant.
     
  22. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,841
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011

    Tokyo to Osaka is faster on a Shinkansen which stops three times, than a plane which stops once lol.
     
  23. Darunion

    Darunion 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,741
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Wouldn't be any different than when passengers talk across people or the isle. Obnoxious people will always be that, doesn't matter if they have better devices or not.
     
  24. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    And the real kicker, is that it carries 150 million passengers a year. Thirteen trains per hour in each direction from what I looked up... can you imagine the logistics of trying to safely land, taxi, unload, load, and take off planes that close to one another? No competition!
     
    Wierdo and N4CR like this.
  25. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,841
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    From memory population of Tokyo grows by 10m each work day, then back down again... that's the sheer level of commuting there. Planes are hellishly inefficient unless you're going international. We need centralised high speed train systems in every country, maglev or similar, they are just as crucial as roads and telephones and electricity were at the start of the century.
     
    jtm55 and Ducman69 like this.
  26. rhexis

    rhexis [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,098
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    i fly a lot and cannot imagine even in business class how awful it would be hearing phone conversations. however if they must do this make it expensive. 10 bucks per minute. at least that way only truly business critical calls would happen.
     
  27. Grahamkracka

    Grahamkracka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,052
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    If your fatass cannot be contained by the seat, then you should be banned. That should be considered before any communication ban.
     
  28. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Measure the width of the chairs in your home and your workplace. You probably won't find any under 20" wide. The airlines have reduced the airplane seat from 18" in the 1960s to 16" now. Yes, Americans are getting fatter, but the airlines share half the blame on that issue.
     
  29. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    This is actually a real issue.

    Because lifting every pound matters to the fuel used, and how many passengers can fit, its completely unfair to charge a 90 pound Vietnamese teenage girl the same as a 380 pound Samoan male.

    And lets say you have 200 passengers. That's 18,000 lbs of meat vs 76,000 lbs, a massive difference.

    So a simple solution would be to offer different size/weight-class seats. Small, Medium, Large, X-Large seating, with escalating prices accordingly. You can be forced to buy an X-Large seat if you weigh over a certain weight, but a small passenger could also choose to upgrade to an X-Large seat for the extra room if desired.

    That would be a fair solution, so you pay based on how much meat you are asking the airline to transport, while giving consumers the option on how big a seat they want if they don't NEED the seat because of the girth of their ass.
     
  30. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    That's, pardon me, foolish. Does no one remember when they had phones on the back of the seats? My family had a friend with a job who made "telephone" calls from a special phone. There was no apocalypse of loud conversation, partially because of technical limitations.

    If everyone were to calm down, people wouldn't be making too many calls. I'd be more worried about the constant texts, due to audio alerts, because the audio quality at 30k' plus is going to be terrible. Texts, on the other hand, are low bandwidth. Even then, it's not going to be a big deal because, if they're lucky, 5 people (on a big plane, with the bandwidth limitations of satellite internet) might get acceptable quality for a voice call. If you've ever had a reason to pay for the internet service on a flight, the best speed I've gotten is similar to 14.4kbps/28.8kbps modem, with a lot of resends/latency. You start trying to stack more than a couple calls, even with that limited bandwidth, and you're going to go nowhere fast. This isn't something that's easily solved either, as it's satellite communication (with it's own inherent latency on top of whatever other limitations) not a land line where you can just order another line.

    So the real apocalypse should have already happened. "Text" messaging is much more resilient to high latency and packet loss. Personally, I fly on a corporate jet once in a while and nobody really uses the phone anyway - it's all messaging.
     
  31. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    The designers, and the FAA, start with the premise that the average adult is 170lbs (77.11kg) in weight. Personally I'm more irritated by shoulder width than seat width, but I'm 5'11" and 165lbs-175lbs.

    I think we need to quit pretending that being overweight is ok. I think we need to give people enough time (especially people with more limited means) time to cook healthier meals. I think we need to make it so it's easier (and cheaper) for people to buy fresh ingredients instead of pre-processed sugar-laden crap. Oh, and it'd be nice if people had time to actually spend outside of work to be active.

    I know I'm lucky because I have the ability to afford all of those things.
     
  32. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    But mainly because of the price. "Hey Mom, I'm calling you from the plane! Uh, I gotta hang up, this is like $5 a minute, bye!"
     
  33. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Haven't you been paying attention the past 8 years? All of those things are patriotically incorrect.
     
  34. ruffbytes

    ruffbytes Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    447
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    I want all electronics that make noise on airplanes banned because people are inconsiderate.

    Where's MY safe space, ya know?
     
  35. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Unemployed people, that have all the time in the world, tend to spend far more money on fast food than it would cost to get a can of corn, a can of green beans, some potatoes, and raw chicken, because they are lazy.

    Tap water is way cheaper than coke or diet coke, and yet we see our lower class guzzling the latter, just like potatoes are a hell of a lot cheaper than their weight in potato chips.

    Adults aged 35-49 in the US watch on average over 33 hours of television per week, according to Nielson, with the average American watching over 5 hours of TV a day.

    The idea that people work too much or don't have the money to afford inexpensive food in low enough calories to be healthy (means LESS food, not more) is, well, nonsense.

    People eat too many calories, not because they can't afford to eat less calories (eating four slices of pizza instead of one costs less), but because it feels good.

    People don't exercise, not because they don't have the time to run 30 mins on the treadmill, but because they are lazy.

    Most Americans don't work nearly as long as Vietnamese or Thai, and yet make a far higher per capita GDP, and yet Vietnamese and Thai are not generally obese. Its purely a cultural issue, and the idea that if you gave lazy people that lack discipline more free time and subsidized food that they would be healthier, is, IMO, not going to happen. People need a kick in the ass.
     
  36. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    You are just a fountain of badly conceived notions:

    And here's #1: Unemployed people are always lazy. Go to a store, try to buy anything fresh. I mean that literally, as in just a fresh seasonal vegetable. Now canned is the next step, but considering that you can buy a "complete meal" (a can of vegetables costs just less than a $1, fresh chicken is a couple bucks per pound, et al.) for less than $3 on sale and it's easy to see why people buy the frozen crap on sale. I got 4lbs of "crap" (a low end cut, but good for making fajitas and such) steak for 13.50 (short date, on sale) and I'm shopping at a mainstream store (Pick N Save aka Kroger) not Whole Foods or something similar. That makes the steak $3/lb, and chicken bought the same way isn't much better. Now I have the space to separate it, the bags to freeze it, and the freezer space to store it. A poor person might not have all those luxuries. As far as canned vegetables, not perfect but better - right? Not always but let's look at cost - probably about $.75 a can if grabbed on sale. So let's say that's all there is and each meal mean price works out to be about $3.50. That's no cheaper than a frozen dinner but could be, if the frozen or prepacked meals are picked up on sale, more expensive.

    I'm guessing you don't shop for very many fresh ingredients.

    People don't look by weight, they (at best) look by meal. We live in a fast paced, everything right now, society. Potatoes are kind of hard for the average person to turn into a right now meal. Society has moved from a "take time to eat dinner" to "do 5 other things" instead. I don't defend soda, but would like to point out that it can be purchased - in quantity - for less than .02 per fl oz if a store brand or .02 per fl oz for a brand item. That's crazy cheap compared to 20 years ago, much less 40.

    Using Nielsen is like using polls that just call landlines - inaccurate. But let's say that they are watching 33 hours of tv a week, just for the sake of argument. That kind of flies in the face of people working more hours, an average of 47 hours per week for US adults, and that's WITHOUT commute times. Now in bumfark nowhere commute times are nothing flat. In any medium sized metro, not NY or Chi-Town or LA mind you, you're looking at a minimum of 30 minutes each way of commute IF you own your own vehicle. Public transit times will be longer on average, as will biking or walking for equal distance. So commutes are another 5 hours per week. So now we're up to 52 hours a week, not terrible. Oops, forgot about those darn kids. We gotta do minor stuff for them, pick ups and such in most areas but we'll group it all together in a minimal time of 1 hour per day so that's 5 hours per week. Now we're up to 57 hours without TV. Oh, crap, we forgot about shopping and getting petrol. We'll just slap that together into 2 hours per week with transit times, and now we're up to 59 hours. That's without any incidental travels, and assumes that people are generally either at home, work (school), or shopping AND everything is nearby. So 90 odd hours a week before sleep. That's doing NOTHING else that people tend to do - even socialize. It's also assuming some very rosy numbers in other areas and not counting stuff like hygiene.

    You really just want to brand everyone you dislike as a lazy f#ck.

    The problem is perception mate. You can buy a "complete meal" for yourself for less than (or close to equal) the cost of the ingredients. Now in some ways this is awesome. I'm not one of those people who doesn't see the awesome power of what we've done to make hunger far more rare than at the beginning of the 20th century. That being said, we've hit that point by making it so cheap to stuff good tasting garbage into our bodies that we've (logically) started to fatten up. It wasn't a big deal (no pun intended) until about the start of the 1980's. Still, you can go look at the "food revolution" and track America's growing sedentary behavior AND waistlines with high-calorie / low nutrition convenience foods.


    And because it's no more expensive (and still can be less expensive) than buying fresh ingredients and cooking. Way less time as well. I mean, microwave a frozen chicken sandwich for 2 minutes. Hey, it's not breaded - it's grilled! - so it's healthy. Heck it says healthy choices on the box! Never mind it's about 10 times the sodium if you made it yourself, plus three times the sugars, but it's only 1 min flip and another minute to be done! Compare that to 30 minutes (minimum!) of prep/cooking plus dishes, time for the oven to heat up, et al.

    Hey, this is a healthy choices steamer microwave meal I picked up for $1.99 on sale! These are on sale quite regularly, nauseatingly enough, but they are far from actually healthy as their name implies. Now they might be healthier than the hungry man meal for (on sale) $2.99, but they are nowhere near actually healthy or nutritious.

    Well, and I didn't add this in before, but let's break this down and you can add it to the numbers above. Let's assume we are not factoring in times changing clothes and whatnot. So to exercise for 30 minutes on a treadmill (not remotely enough activity in any given day mind you) will take you about 60-90 minutes plus the gym costs. That's factoring in travel times. Now that's ignoring the whole sweat thing which makes people want to wash up, childcare, et al. Let's say we just take imaginary kids for a walk. Well, it's going to have less effect if you have younger kids. Even if you go for an hour, younger kids tend to be - well - erratic, making it a fit of start/stop/start. If you're single this might not mean shiat to you, but as someone who went through two infants in a section of the country with colder weather, yeah - winter walking doesn't happen as often after work with any kid under 6.

    Again, you just want to brand everyone who disagrees with you a lazy f#ck.

    You do realize that Viet and Thai people are technically limited to 48 hours per week. Now that's often broken (then again in the US it's not uncommon for people to work more than 47 hours) by business. Also, if you go to a Thai or Viet store it will cost more for pre-processed junk food. Street vendors haven't been completely displaced by fast food joints. Quite often the street vendors are cheaper than McDonalds, and with fresher ingredients, still the change is happening. Let's take a stroll over to India, one of the most populous countries, and poor. Tiffin meals not McDonalds (and I don't mean to be picking on them - they're just the most popular franchise) make up a large portion of the meals everyday, and they still have growing obesity rates. Let's take a stroll over to China, which is experiencing a "revolution" in consumerism. They are fine in rural areas, where there is low junk food market penetration, but the obesity rate is starting to skyrocket in the cities. Again, work hours and junk food.

    I never finished about the Viet above - they are starting to see growing rates (alarmingly so) of childhood obesity. Honestly, the same goes for Thailand. So your comparison is kind of bull-puckey in two ways.
     
  37. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    That's okay, I've been labeled by right-wing keyboard infantry as a commie, terrist-loving, fascist, muslin supporter for opposing the so-called Patriot Act, along with other legislation written by pants-pissing cowards. I also was labeled a white supremacist (joke's on you, I'm a Native American/White mix!) hate peddler by the SJW crybaby brigade of the left for the crime of disagreeing with them.
     
  38. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    I didn't say unemployed people are always lazy, but I used it as an example. And who the hell needs to be eating steak? That's a luxury, and if anything doctors always warn you to not eat too much red meat.

    They have complete meal canned soups that are crazy cheap and nutritious from healthy choice. I know, because I buy them in bulk from Costco to save money, and they have plenty of protein. Canned is cheaper than fresh, but is fine. I usually eat canned corn and beans and the like for convenience too, as it doesn't go bad. Brown rice in bulk from the Chinese stores are also dirt cheap as a carb, as are potatoes that last a long time.

    If you don't eat too many calories, you're not going to become obese. Eating less costs less. And point is, you often see poor people spending a fortune on food, drinking coke instead of tap water, and ordering from Dominoes pizza instead of throwing together some rice, a can of mixed veggies, and chopping up some chicken. Face it, the "poor people are fat because they can't afford to eat less" argument is bunk.

    Most people are fat because they eat too many calories and they don't exercise enough, and that's by choice and out of laziness and lack of discipline. Poor life choices, not poor economically.
     
  39. Inglix_the_Mad

    Inglix_the_Mad Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    332
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    I'm guessing you think steak means sirloin, ribeye, or tenderloin. There are many cheaper cuts of steak, and really they don't cost anymore than chicken if you buy it short date. You probably also think every cut of meat is a filet or that mussels are expensive.

    Also, you think healthy choice soups (or any general canned soup) is healthy? Have you seen the amount of sodium (and other items) you're consuming? If you're a pilot, change that now. That will kill your blood pressure (and it all adds up) to say the least.

    Vary your protein sources, and watch your vegetables. Canned vegetables are better than none, but the best is fresh and canned soup veggies are reduced to garbage. Fresh soup is good, if you don't over cook or over salt it to death.

    Also, again, poor people think in per meal. That heathy choice steamer microwave dinner (which is just as terrible as canned soup) is cheap and quick. Skip the rice, unless you actually need the carbs.
     
  40. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    None of what you are saying now contradicts my point, poor people are not inherently fat because they don't have time to exercise and can only afford food that will make them fat.

    Eating less calories costs less, all else equal, and there are a plethora of foods that are healthier and less expensive than the KFC, dominos, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Potato Chips, Oreos, Skeddy and butter and the like that many poor that are fat eat. And as was shown, the average American still spends many hours daily watching TV, when 30 mins a day of just running is enough exercise to prevent obesity when combined with not eating too many calories, so the idea that people don't have enough time in the day is also nonsense.

    I don't care to argue about ideal nutritional profiles, I'm just addressing your original comment that if people worked fewer hours or were given handouts that they wouldn't be obese.

    BTW, my coworker is a body builder, and every morning he just eats unseasoned egg whites from a carton mixed with oatmeal. Costs next to nothing. For lunch and second lunch he eats canned mixed veggies with brown rice and boiled chicken. I don't usually see what he eats for dinner, but in any case he eats really cheap and is friggen hercules... and yes, he works 40-50 hours a week.