Subject:
|
Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:39:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
222 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> IOW, the threat of actual catastrophic failure in the air may be minimal,
> but the threat of litigation due to that certainly is not.
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
technologies of the aviation industry - nobody's life is in danger if the phone
technology proves less-than-adequate. Lots of lives depend on getting the
avionics right. This isn't to say that I'm against it happening. I don't
personally care about making phone calls, surfing the net, making a schedule on
my palm-pilot, etc, etc. when I'm flying, so its a moot point for me, other than
I expect that my life won't be endangered when someone else does it. IMO, *and
only in my opinion*, I'd say if a person can't unhook the gizmos for an hour or
five on a domestic flight, get a little bit comfortable, maybe read, look out
the window, or, even break out a pen and notepad, then said person is a bit too
dependent on his fancy gadgets. Just my opinion. I'm old-school, stone-age,
wished I had been old enough to really enjoy the 70's.
james
(1) Regarding telephones, I heard a piece on NPR about how Bell South is getting
out of the pay phone industry because there's little profit to be made there
anymore. Speculation is they'll be pretty much all gone in a decade.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
