So, according to this article, the killer things about the iPhone appear to be its interface (touchscreen? well, my PDA does that - the "gestures" thing is admittedly a ways off), and the fact you can browse the web on it... which my non-smartphone SE K750 does just fine over a WAP or GPRS connection. I can even look up recipes on Google as well! And run the Gmail app. And play music, if I really wanted to on a phone. And so on.

Yep, paying $US600 for a pretty interface and bugger all extra functionality sounds like a poor bargain indeed. But if you want the web-browsing "feature", any mid-range and up phone in the last 5 years would give you precisely that (albeit on a smaller screen, unless you sprung for a smartphone with more real estate).

For me, the last straw was the requirement to have ALL of my fingers printed. Having two printed on a trip to Hawaii last year was insulting enough, but being assumed to be a criminal right from the start was too much.

Not only is the fingerprinting requirement ridiculous, but the fact that the US doesn't allow transit passengers is annoying in the extreme. Even if you're flying "directly" from Auckland to London eastwards, you have to get off the plane in LA or Honolulu and go through the entire immigration routine. What for? To get on another plane for another 16 or so hours. It must have an impact on aircraft turn-around times as well.

For that reason, I haven't flown eastwards to Europe for the last 10 years. I won't be flying to the US at all now. All I want to know is if you still get fingerprinted at the Canadian border if you travel via road (if you're not a Canadian or US citizen).

Leaving aside those of us who wonder about a "free" country's policies in that area, what about the impact on the US itself? Headlines have been yelling that tourism is down 17% since "9/11". No, it's not since 9/11, it's since the stupid and escalating security regime that's been put in. I don't see that travel to other regions of the world (other than perhaps the Middle East, again) has declined by a sixth. Surely tourism operators in the US are not happy with this massive erosion of their margins?

Personally, being an agnostic, I wouldn't attend the synagogue at all, unless it was for a special event (and not just the usual high holidays). It is not my religion, and if the LW wants to bring the children up as Jewish, that is her perogative, and her *responsibility*, not his. Unless an action or lack thereof would actively undermine the LW's aim, I fail to see why her husband needs to participate in these rites (leaving aside the small household-based ones, like lighting candles - where he doesn't need to pray... or wear a kippah).

However, if he does attend the synagogue or another specifically religious event, he should wear a hat or whatever is required out of simple respect. Perhaps he would be more amenable to doing that if he wasn't being dragged along to the synagogue constantly for the sake of being seen to participate (badly). As another commenter pointed out, the LW could generally attend the synagogue with the children and other male (and presumably Jewish) relatives.

Tray tables need to be up, window shades open, laptops and iPods put away. It's not about electronic interference, it's about the need for a speedy egress and situational awareness should anything happen.

Uh huh. I can somewhat understand that situational awareness is improved when you're not jacked-in to your Pod - bugger about those deaf passengers, eh? - but I fail to understand what difference it makes if I'm encrossed in reading my book... whether on my PDA or in hardcopy. Sure, ban radio transmissions throughout the flight and insist that anything that can't fit into the seat-pocket be stowed for takeoff and landing (ie. laptops). As for the rest of it, let's be realistic.

geowalk, have you actually tried doing anything physical with large boobs? Or even average ones? Forget about being "free" and all that bollocks - it bloody hurts when they bounce around if you do anything more than walk at a moderate pace. I'm not even going to mention the times of the month where it's painful just stepping off the kerb.

Personally, I'd rather be "free" from unnecessary pain. And if there is any evidence at all about bras potentially causing tumors, I think we'd all be interested in seeing it.

That's a crackup that someone would seriously believe that airlines would dump fuel by rote to make the landing "lighter". As Patrick mentions, fuel = $$$, and given the number of hoops we jump through in Oz to get pilots flying the shortest routes possible to, er, save fuel, you can bet they want to hang onto as much as possible.

As for the rationale of landing a lighter plane, well, it took off a while back with a heavier load. Getting the plane back on the ground is the easy part.

Anonymous, "one hundred and seventy people from 17 countries" is perfectly correct English (although having one number spelled out and the other as digits could be seen as odd). Where are you from?