Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] in flight broadband wireless

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] in flight broadband wireless
  • Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:58:59 -0400

David, with a little more practice and some grey hairs you could become an accomplished curmudgeon. You've got the right mix of insightful comment and grumpy extraneality, all you need are some wrinkles, strands of silver among the gold, and a well-cultivated "harrumph!"
You rock!

TaB

David R. Matusiak wrote:

in the "ME! ME! ME! culture" that has been cultivated over the past 50-80 years, i would have to agree. this is a fantastic invention for people so consumed with their own life and interests that they fail to take a moment and consider those around them.

so how do you achieve "quiet time" when the dork next to you is streaming and giggling to "Shake Shake Shake your booty?" oh, they are wearing headphones.

heh. we all know that you cannot hear what is playing on other peoples headphones, right?

or perhaps the more vilifying example of some perv streaming the nastiest teen bestiality porn right next to your child or granny. that sounds like a nice 14 hour flight.

when will the time come that we ask "Just because we can do it, does it mean that we should?"

lastly, my point about the radio frequency interference was mostly in jest. i presented it because i was always so pissed off that they wanted me to turn off my dinky little walkman because it was some type of "threat." i knew that claim was B.S. when i was 13 and i still know it today. i just find it hypocritical that for years the airlines perpetuated this myth that any electronics on the flight caused instant crashes and now suddenly they have found a way to make money off of it, "so... uhhh... disregard that thing we said about the plane crashing. huh huh."

and i *don't* think you are in the minority. i think you are part of the majority -- folks who want everything they desire, whenever they want it, all of the time, regardless of the costs.

selfishness = societal discord

On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 01:51 PM, Bill Geschwind wrote:

I might be in the minority here, but I don't see this particular service
as a "bad thing." In the article it stated that 50 to 80 passengers per
flight used the service on planes that seat up to 250 passengers. This
is a service that is being offered for you to use if you want it, but
you always have the option of not using it if you don't want to. I have
been on several very long flights before where I would have welcomed
another source of entertainment, and provided that this service was
reasonably priced, I probably would have used it.

Since this service was designed by Boeing, I am confident that it was
tested to ensure that it will not interfere with the other onboard
systems to an extent that it will cause a plane to crash. If it does
prove to cause catastrophic interference with the operation of the
aircraft, you can bet that it will be ripped right back out in a
heartbeat before the planes will be allowed to go back up again.

Do I NEED to be online 24/7/365? No. But I like having the option of
being online whenever I want to, and when I want quiet time I can just
turn the stuff off.

Even though I might not have agreed with the content of this
"rant/display of opinion," I do welcome it and hope that you keep 'em
coming.

- Bill


---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site! http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page