以前有提到飞行中不允许使用手机通讯，因为威胁飞行安全；现在又传出不允许使用Wi-Fi网络，这又是为哪般呢？
“Aircraft bomb finds may spell end for in-flight Wi-Fi.” That’s the headline on a New Scientist story about last week’s discovery of bombs packed into laser-printer cartridges which were sent from Yemen and apparently intended to blow up airplanes. The point of the story is that terrorists might use in-flight Wi-Fi to communicate from the ground with a cell phone that had been rigged to trigger a bomb aboard a plane, a possibility so risky that it might lead to the abolishing of in-flight Wi-Fi, period.
“航空炸弹有可能宣告中止在飞行中使用Wi-Fi”这是一则刊载于新科学家报上有关从也门起飞的航班上，发现藏在激光打印机碳粉盒里有意图炸毁客机的炸弹新闻的标题。事件的焦点在于恐怖分子可能从地面采用手机Wi-Fi来触发实现设置在飞机上的炸弹，这种威胁有可能导致在短期内中止航班上使用Wi-Fi。
The article doesn’t really live up to the headline: The closest it gets to evidence that Wi-Fi “may” be banned is a reference to an alarmed explosives expert saying it might be too dangerous.
该文中并没有明显验证标题的文字：其中提到“有可能”禁止Wi-Fi的证据，不过是对一位警觉的炸弹专家认为太过危险的引用。
Seems like a ludicrous overreaction to me. The in-air Wi-Fi I’ve used-Gogo-requires the user to log in and enter a CAPTCHA, and while I don’t discount the possibility of terrorists being smart enough to build a Wi-Fi-based bomb triggering device that can autonomously log into an in-flight network designed to be accessed by humans, it seems like it would require an awful lot of work on their part. Wouldn’t a plain old-fashioned timer produce much the same results with far less effort and technical knowledge required, and less likelihood that the device would fail or be detected?
在我看来，这种过度反应很滑稽。我所使用过的Gogo()的航空Wi-Fi要求用户登录并输入一个CAPTCHA()（验证码），当然我不否认恐怖分子有这个能力来制造一个基于Wi-Fi触发炸弹的装置，同时还能人为匿名访问航班上的网络；这显然需要他们非常大的工作量。难道（采取这种方法就比）一个不需多大力气与技术便可以达到同样效果，简单老实的定时器更稳定或难以检测出来吗？
[译者注：Gogo是一种提供在航班上使用的Wi-Fi互联网接入服务。CAPTCHA一种由计算机随机生成的英文数字等字符串验证码（也可以是图形），旨在验证用户为人，而非计算机或其他非人的自动化程序等。]
Remember when a bunch of news organizations suggested that laptops might be banned from airplanes, period? Let’s hope this theory is just as solid as that one…
还记得前段时间许多新闻组织建议在飞机上禁止使用手提电脑的情况吗？希望前面提到的观点能与这同样站得住脚吧……