Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (16659)	9/11/2000 5:50:17 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

PCSTEL, you seem to think I don't like profits or some weird whacked-out idea like that. I assure you I like profits maximized. It's how to get the most money in the shortest time which is the question. If you let a bunch of people use their phones on the plane and it costs you nothing to do so, that's a big benefit to the passengers. How to capture some profits from that benefit is the problem. They don't actually need the airline to do anything except agree that it's okay. Yes, the airline has to demonstrate that Globalstar phones won't crash 747s. Big deal! That should take about 10 minutes to prove. Get three 747 pilots to rev up the engines, turn on the radios and stuff, then fire up 20 Globalstar phones on board and see if the pilots can spot their fuel guage showing empty or their horizon tilting left, or their radio going scratchy or the flaps going down. If they can't notice anything, then, unsurprisingly, they can probably assume that people won't get brain cancer and the plane won't crash if people make or receive calls on their Globalstar phones. Whether they approve the phones or not, there will be Globalstar signals coming in from satellites, so the planes will have to be slightly resistant to that frequency. It's a bunch of malarkey and to compare using Globalstar phones to showing that engine failure risks for 10,000 kilometre trips over ocean is okay with two engines is silly. Engine failure is a serious risk with aircraft. Without engines, the planes go downhill. They can even crash. Anyway, where do you get the "Progress before Profits" nonsense, which you seem to think is desirable [idealistic]? Enterprise should have maximum profits. The less the profit, the less the value of the enterprise. Pretty simply really. Monster profits are a GOOD thing. The bigger the better. Giving customers cheap benefits is what business is about. The winning businesses give the most benefits for the least price and the most profit. It's quite straightforward. If by the mere act of saying "Sure, you can use your Globalstar phone" a company can generate twice the number of passengers, then that's a good deal. Inspecting bags in case somebody has a concealed phone and running up and down aisles to check who is using a phone to ensure they pay a toll would NOT be a cost-effective way of charging for the benefit of getting a simple approval from the FAA. Just exactly how would you get people with a handset to pay for the use of their phone on your plane? Same with a cruise ship! "Dear Passengers, before you board this ship, we require to check all your luggage to ensure you don't have a concealed Globalstar phone which you might use while on a cruise". Whacked out mate!!! Hey, how about charging people who pull out a calculator and use it? You could inspect their shirt pockets and watches to ensure they don't have a calculator ASIC concealed. Hey, charge them for wearing a watch!!! For decades they have been wearing watches without paying and the synchronized ticking or emr from the quartz crystals could be interfering with the ground proximity warning detector system. Get the FAA to approve electric watches. Or get everyone to turn their watches off before takeoff. Mqurice