Talk:3169: EPIRBs

First comment. >"would not be in an operable state when packaged in transit" .... I dunno EPIRBs, but EZ-Pass sent my transponder "live", it tracked ALL over NYcity (I never go there), and I got bills for like 13 bridges, tunnels, expressways. --PRR (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This also happened to me. At one point I needed a replacement for my EZ-Pass unit and managed to track the route it followed through NYC over the several monitored bridges the shipment crossed. Luckily the CS when I called, immediately recognized what had happened. MAP (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Is the caption implying that they've apologized multiple times for the same incident or that there have heen multiple incidents of this nature? The haphazardous unloading procedure shown makes me think it's the latter. 64.114.211.89 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"...drifting out into the harbor!" Is the ship not already in the harbor? I really dislike that use of "out into", it makes little sense. SDSpivey (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends upon your interpretation of the (unseen) port in question.

The harbour might just be considered the wide-open area, landward of any (natural or constructed) harbour-wall. Where the ship is, is at a dock-wall, might (together with the adjacent dock) be bounding a finger (one of several?) of waterway that's landward even of the primary open 'harbour' area, functionally considered different as a dock-basin.

Or, even simpler (by visual, if not words), the crate drops between ship and dock-wall, where the ship itself forms the boundary from the 'open harbour' that (without the ship) normally goes to the sea-wall. But, here, the possibility of the crate being washed around the end of the ship and being in the open harbour where you find other boats sailing/motoring through (or tied up to buoys, floating jetties, etc) is "...drifting out into the harbour". A opposed to being within easy reach to retrieve, once you've found the right harbourside equipment.

Unless it's been changed, since I last read it, the Explanation also had it rephrased as drifting out of the harbour (i.e. into the open sea, river, estuary or whatever-it's-a-harbour-off-of), though I had consciously decided not to change that. As it was functionally the logical end-result. 82.132.236.196 03:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If I have a bobcat sequestered in a room, waiting for a cardboard box and duct tape to be delivered, and someone accidentally opens the door, would it not be correct to say it is now out and into the house despite the fact that it was within the house before escaping the room? Another way to look at it would be a shortening of 'Oh no, the box is drifting out (of the port and) into (a part of) the harbor (that isn't the port)!', as both the speaker and listener both understand the context and origin of the box. 64.114.211.37 04:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)