On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 11:56 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Well, there's a TINY little hole in your logic here...
[J.A. Terranson wrote:]
Scale of distance is the only difference. Either you support the system or you don't. I don't: I either drive to jobs (charging for mileage) or I pass on them, rather than take part in the police state that is todays air system. You have the very same choices. The argument eveyone is making here is that it is too much of an inconvenience (financial or otherwise), *not* to fly. Sorry, but that's just pure self-serving BS.
For one, Flying can easily be a requirement, not an option. But that's besides the point here.
The real point is that some Super-JAT could (5 years from now when there are ubiquitous highway checkpoints) argue that "walking from NYC to Boston may be difficult but it IS possible". Or of course (after Tenent's vision for the internet is realized) "You could simply Fedex those files, you don't need to use the internet"
Agreed, if you want or need to get between cities faster than land-based travel will allow, flying is in fact a requirement. That was, in fact, my point. (Would anyone actually resort to walking between NYC and Boston?) As an aside, I often jokingly used the phrase "the only broadband connections we would have would be UPS and FedEx" back in the days when DSL and cable modem connections were not as ubitiquous (yes I know satellite is also an option but it's $DEITY-awful slow and only usable for the most basic of needs). However, regulation of the Internet such that couriers would be the only feasible way to move large amounts of data around (burned to CD or DVD as the case may be) is not a joking matter in the least. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>