Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published August 20, 2000
Re: Boeing amendment places burden on air passengers, by Martin Dyckman, Aug. 13.
This story only told parts of the truth that fit consumer advocate Ralph Nader's arguments. In fact, no one knows how long an aircraft will fly, as long as it is properly maintained.
Douglas, now part of Boeing, delivered its first DC-9s with a 10-year service promise. Many of those planes are still flying safely 30-plus years later. Douglas tried to find out just how long an airliner might last by testing a DC-9 a few years ago, simulating 30 years of landings, the most stressful moment of flight for landing gear and wings. That plane was still going strong, undamaged, after 35 years of simulated landings.
An airplane is X-rayed and probed just like a human at a health check every few years. An airplane is routinely overhauled every five years or so, as prescribed by federal air authorities. As a matter of fact, an airliner is as good as completely rebuilt, with many new parts. This includes both instruments and wiring, and even ribs and fuselage skin. Airplane engines go through roughly the same overhaul schedule.
Some planes, like the venerable DC-3, are still flying some 60 to 70 years after they were built. Engines may have been upgraded to more fuel-efficient versions.
An airline will try to keep an airliner in service until it doesn't make economic sense anymore to keep maintaining or retrofitting new parts. And an airline wouldn't let an airliner fall apart; it would be unsafe and would probably no longer meet federal standards. Without meeting those federal standards, an airplane could not be relicensed to keep flying. Without a routine inspection, a car could not be relicensed, either.
Letting an airplane go to seed would be tantamount to destroying assets. No airline shareholders would allow that. Aircraft are properly maintained, among all else, to improve their resale or turn-in value.
-- John A. Herbert, Spring Hill
I've been following the issue of copyright protection on the Internet with great interest. The Aug. 13 column Overprotection of copyright defeats its original purpose: Progress, is the most spurious argument I have yet read.
For those who think all intellectual property should be free for the betterment of mankind, allow me to pose a few questions.
How many millions of dollars do you think drug companies will spend on research if they know their ideas can be pirated without protection in a relatively short time? They not only need to make their costs back, but they need to make a profit. If their protection is weakened, they will have only two choices: cease expensive research and development or charge a whole lot more for their drugs to make up their costs before so-called generics can reach the market.
How much money do you think any manufacturer will spend on research and development without protection? How much more are you willing to spend to enjoy the fruits of their progress so they can recoup in a short time?
How many new recordings do you think will appear in record stores if record companies know that they have only a week to make costs and profits before the recording shows up for free on Napster? How many recording companies will still be in business? How much would they have to charge to stay in business?
How many books do you think novelists such as Grisham, Sandford and King will write if publishers go broke because the books are being pirated? If the artists don't get paid and have to get "regular" jobs?
I'm a novelist. I write four books a year to support myself. If my publishers fold, if I can't even cover my overhead (books,computers, printers, faxes, research, phones, etc.) how many books am I going to write while working as a secretary? How many books are you going to be able to read if the only place you can find them is on the Internet, for free?
The weakening of copyright law will, frankly, throw us back into the dark ages. And anyone who doesn't believe that doesn't understand a basic fact of humanity: The creators, thinkers, inventors, and artists need to eat, too.
-- Sue Brown, Wesley Chapel
Re: Enrich the curriculum, letter, Aug. 13.
The letter highlights one of the pitfalls of teaching religion as a separate subject in our public schools.
The letter writer advocates the teaching of Bible history, as if the Bible is the only religious document worthy of discussion. What about the Koran of the Muslim faith? Or the Torah of the Jewish faith? There are also Hindus and Buddhists, both of which have rich, enduring documents of faith, older than most other religions added together. Would we not be degrading their faith by singling out the Christian Bible for study?
The study of religions is, and should be, an important element in learning the history of the world and should be taught in the context of how they affected the growth of the civilization in which they appeared. As no history of China would be complete without an in-depth discussion of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, no history of Western civilization would be complete without a discussion of Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
Tolerance is gained by understanding the beliefs of others, not judging one to be more "right" than another. Gandhi, in my opinion, said it best: "Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal?"
Faith, and the history behind that faith, on the other hand, should be instilled through one's family and their church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever, not the public schools, where children of all faiths gather for a more general education. We should never forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . " This was a realization by white, mostly Anglican men that their faith was not the only faith and that there was room in this great country for all who sought freedom.
-- Richard De Berry, Gulfport
I congratulate you for your comments (Faith versus fact, editorial, Aug. 8) regarding what is becoming a very disturbing trend on how one views science. The first day of my Organic Evolution class at USF each fall semester, I tell my class that they can believe anything they want.
For example, they can believe the world is flat; there is no evidence to support that view, and lots of evidence to reject it, but nevertheless, as individuals, they could believe it.
Beliefs are personal. Science is based on evidence. Science advances by testing ideas about how some pieces of evidence may be related to other pieces of evidence. Darwin's theory of evolution is not the perfect explanation about how life evolved on Earth, but it does explain huge amounts of evidence that suggest that all living things were derived from a common ancestor. The evidence for the general process is overwhelming, the details are being discovered. The disturbing trend is that those who hold basic religious beliefs that vehemently oppose Darwinism are encouraging the rejection of all science. The distinction between faith and fact seems less obvious now than at any other time since Darwin published his remarkably insightful book.
-- Henry R. Mushinsky, professor of biology, University of South Florida, Tampa
Re: Religious revolution in the Bible Belt, by Hastings Wyman, Aug. 13.
It is absurd and simply incorrect to imply that if a citizen votes or raises an issue based on religious or any other principles, he or she is somehow prejudiced, intolerant or, worse yet, bigoted. This convoluted style of reasoning indicates that all persons of principle and reason are negatively prejudiced and at least intolerant. This would, I fear, include nearly all of us out here -- North, South, East and West -- wouldn't it?
This may be a "war tactic" for the Democratic Party, but it seems more like voter intimidation to me -- ethically questionable although conflicted, but a real turn-off nonetheless. One would think that in the year 2000, we could do better than this.
I will vote, and I hope that every eligible voter does, based on his or her own convictions, reasons and principles -- religious or otherwise. This is liberty. This is, after all, our election, and it has never been more evident that all of us need to vote. How about simply because it's our civic right and duty?
About this particular kind of voter intimidation on religious principles, someone needs to call foul. I am.
-- Lokelani L. Turley, Madeira Beach
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.
They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.