To hell with humanity.

There seems to be no shortage of debate over the various merits and weaknesses of 2-5-2 seating in comparison to 3-3-3 on the Boeing 777. I have to admit I’ve never been on a plane with 2-5-2 seating and that it’s been a while since I faced 3-3-3. But there’s little doubt in my mind that it’s nothing less than scandalous when airlines take it a step further and squeeze in 3-4-3 (Emirates, KLM, Air France, I’m talking to you). How many times did I have to get hit by the meal trolley on that seven-hour flight from Dubai to Geneva? Did I really have to pick up my carry-on suitcase and carry it on its side just to make it fit through the aisle?

Qatar Airways has very rightly pointed out the merits of using 3-3-3 seating on its 17-hour flights to Buenos Aires via Sao Paulo. Its advantages over 3-4-3 sardine class are blatant enough, but how does it fare compared to 2-5-2? While the five in the middle seem claustrophobic, and the unfortunate passenger in the middle of all middle seats is unlikely to leave the aircraft smiling, it’s not particularly hard to see why airlines almost universally adopted 2-5-2 in the days before AVOD. Single travelers can make themselves comfortable in the window seats or in the aisle seats next to them, while couples can avoid the awkwardness of having a stranger next to them. I also couldn’t help but notice that, in my last trip on Air France’s 777-200’s (which, fortunately, are configured in 3-3-3 rather than 3-4-3), the curvature of the Boeing Signature Interior means it is virtually impossible for the passenger in the aisle seats in the threes next to the windows to reach the air conditioning vents.

Right now I’m considering the rather limited and expensive options I have in getting myself to college in August, almost all of which will involve flying on a 777 - whether I’ll end up flying to Detroit on a Delta -200LR with 3-3-3 seating, to Chicago via Tokyo on an American -200ER in 2-5-2, or to Newark on a United -200ER that could come in either configuration depending on my luck. I don’t know which configuration to look for. 2-5-2 should serve me well as a single traveler, but I’ll be feeling pretty bad for the poor guys in the middle of the fives - especially as you can almost guarantee a full house on a flight in August. Either way, I’m glad as hell none of these three carriers offer 3-4-3 sardine class on their 15-hour polar flights to wherever their hubs are.

Eurosport: “Ferrari’s problems run deeper than Alonso made it look. Lest it be forgotten that he had to fend off the visibly-quicker Williams of Pastor Maldonado in the latter stages of the race but fortunately in the Spaniard Ferrari have the one man who can best minimise the damage of having a less than competitive car.”

And in the Venezuelan, Williams have the one man who can best maximize the damage of having a very competitive car.

A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.

a) How do you judge this man’s actions (assume there are no ethical problems with meat eating!)?

b) Should his poultry lovin’ be prevented (assuming we know about it) or should he be punished for it? [Note: if you think that either or both of these things should occur then you should answer ‘Yes’; only answer ‘No’, if you think neither of these things should occur.]

c) Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for people to have secret sex with dead chickens. In the other, people don’t in the normal course of events have intercourse with frozen poultry. Are both these customs okay morally speaking or is one of them bad and morally wrong?

Source: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo9.php