Re:Cached Server Plan Sounds Awful (Score 1)

>The cached server approach seems to be a really,
> really bad idea.

Coincidentally, it's the lowest bandwidth means
of providing content [since bandwidth from a plane
is costly and storage on a plane is relatively
cheap.]

> I guarantee the server's cache isn't going to
> have what I want on it.

Tell your airline what you want to see.

> Some email connectivity may be better than none
> at all, however. I suspect that once the
> technology is in place customer demand and
> preference will eventually force the airlines to
> switch over to providing true real-time internet
> connecions.

We are plausibly years away from ``true real-time
internet connecions'' [sic] of any usable speed.
NATS is vulnerable to atmospherics, SATCOM is
not ubiquitous and no one's yet found a way to
catapult packet-carrying caribou reliably.

> But if Terzen is able to sell their junk . .

Tenzing. Not Terzen. Like the sherpa.

> Having said all that, I'd want to buy into
> Terzen's IPO and then sell out 6 months later
> and short the stock as much as I could. Their
> technology sucks and long-term is doomed to
> failure.

Everything is doomed to failure in the long-term.