Internet Access 10 Kilometers High Up In The Air

NICE!! by rkv · 2005-03-20 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

if they made it a bit cheaper it would be better though?

Re:NICE!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The typical price of the ticket is $600 economy to $3000 business... does another $30 for internet access really matter.
Re:NICE!! by magarity · 2005-03-20 04:31 · Score: 5, Informative

if they made it a bit cheaper it would be better though?

They have to make a trade off between making it so more people can afford it versus the relatively slow connection. If you're going to pay any noticable amount for such a small time frame as a single flight then you want to get your money's worth. If too many people use it then it slows to a crawl. Then everyone complains. Keeping the price high is a way of ensuring there is a reasonable amount of bandwidth to the few who do pay.
Re:NICE!! by mqx · 2005-03-20 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

if they made it a bit cheaper it would be better though?

Sure, and it be better if high-end computing servers were cheaper too, but really: a global plane based relatively high speed internetwork is not cheap to build and run: we're talking about fitting equipment into planes, trials and testing, satellite bandwidth, the cost of satellite services, etc. This is not inexpensive.

I actually think $30 is not too bad for what you're getting. It's not for everyone, but it's within the reach of many people, considering many of us think nothing about easily spending $30 on a restaurant meal.

Not only this, but international airlines are not actually loaded with revenue that they could absorb the cost of this service into existing price you pay, and really, I wouldn't want my mother (a non internet user) to pay higher trans-atlantic fares so that she can subsidise web browsers: user pays!

I'm sure we'll see the service expand and improve in the future, but for now, it's a fairly decent start. I'm not on a 6 figure salary, yet I'd have no problems paying for this service on the 2-3 12+ hour flights I make per year.
Re:NICE!! by rkv · 2005-03-20 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

well if the mobile phone companies can convince the FCC that mobile phones can be used in the air then this 30$ service would'nt be necessary as high speed broadband connection would be available :D. so ya i still think its too much.
Re:NICE!! by Oopsz · 2005-03-20 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

You think your mobile will work over the north atlantic? and what are your data roaming charges going to be in munich/montreal/melbourne?
Re:NICE!! by Taladar · 2005-03-20 05:46 · Score: 1

If you would't use Internet you would probably read a book or magazine or two which are not exactly free (as in beer) either.

--
Linux is not Windows
Re:NICE!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:12 · Score: 0

(as in beer) has really become a sort of OSS twitch, hasn't it. Can I offer you some beer for free (as in beer)?
Re:NICE!! by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

For someone who just wants to dick around surfing the web, it's an expensive optional luxury. It's not insanely exhorbitant, but someone who's just bored might think twice. If they're on a tight budget, they won't even seriously consider it. It's not like it's that hard to wait ten to fifteen hours to get back online (for most people =)). It's not like you'll be able to play WoW or HL2 anyway, with that kind of latency.

For someone who needs internet access to work while they're inflight, it's invaluable, and pays for itself a few times over (at least).

Eventually the price might come down enough for one to use this service recreationally without wincing at the price. However, satellites are expensive and satellite time is expensive. So you're looking at either cheap ubiquitous satellites at some time in the future, or some scheme to squeeze more bandwith out of a scarce resource.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:NICE!! by XFilesFMDS1013 · 2005-03-20 07:41 · Score: 2, Funny

considering many of us think nothing about easily spending $30 on a restaurant meal.

Okay, only someone on /. would connect the ability to access to web and eating, together, both as things that "must be done".
Re:NICE!! by KanSer · 2005-03-20 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

30$ is not bad for a trans-atlantic hop. I've done San fran to Frankfurt on Lufthansa many many times, and while the service is impeccable, those 10 hours sure would go easier with a net connection.

For any of Lufthansa's long haul flights 30$ is very reasonable. The next logical step would be to wire up every seat with an ethernet port (which I imagine this service provides) and set up a LAN. Think about the new A380s, formerly the A3XX or the 400-800 seat true double decker planes.

800 people, lets say San Fran to Frankfurt or Munich, what do you think the odds are that at least 20 people have a laptop with some games. Hello, wouldn't fragging at 35,000 feet be awesome? Even better if the plane hosted old-school games (doom 2, quake 1) so people wouldn't need to all have it installed.
--
- MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
Re:NICE!! by N3koFever · 2005-03-20 07:56 · Score: 1

I've been in hotel rooms where you get 3 hours of access for £10 ($19.20), so I'd say that $30 for what could be a 16-hour flight is a bargain. Especially when it's something as insanely boring as a long-haul flight.
Re:NICE!! by badasscat · 2005-03-20 08:12 · Score: 1

Eventually the price might come down enough for one to use this service recreationally without wincing at the price.

When did people become so friggin' cheap when it comes to air travel? It's thirty dollars. When you're flying 10 or more hours, I would not even think twice about paying that amount for a guarantee that I would never be wanting for something to do.

You must be the kind of guy who's responsible for the lack of meal service on domestic flights these days - who needs to pay an extra five bucks, right? "I never pay more than 99 cents for my food!"

How much do you pay for a transatlantic plane ticket? It's usually between $300-$500, depending on where you're going. Trans-Pacific from somewhere like New York to Tokyo, you're lucky if you can hit $500 (you can, but you need to know a good travel agent) - it's usually $1,000 or more depending on the season. You're "wincing" at thirty dollars tacked on to that? You'd rather sit and watch badly edited, b-grade, second-run Hollywood movies?

I'd gladly pay for this, and I hope more airlines offer it in the future (ANA or JAL, please - those are the two airlines I fly most often).
Re:NICE!! by timshead · 2005-03-20 08:54 · Score: 1

Actually the price of satellite services isn't really that expensive as long as the plane is over land. They can use the array of land earth satellites already in orbit that are available for commercial usage. That's what most cruise ships use to provide high-speed access. Now if you're out over the ocean you'd be forced to use the geosynchronous satellites which of course are much higher up in orbit, hence less actual satellites, much higher latency, and soaring costs. My bet is the airlines stay away from using them for now.
Re:NICE!! by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 09:04 · Score: 1

Well, you certainly live up to your name. (second definition)

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:NICE!! by aspx · 2005-03-20 09:20 · Score: 1

I don't know, I don't think I want people watching me download porn. Is a dark private basement provided with my $30?
Re:NICE!! by ceejayoz · 2005-03-20 09:51 · Score: 1

I think the point was you could easily have a meal for $4 at home if you made it yourself.
Re:NICE!! by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · 2005-03-20 10:31 · Score: 1

Throw in some whiskey (one of the North American varieties) and you have yourself a deal.

--
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Re:NICE!! by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2005-03-20 10:33 · Score: 1

Fort Lauderdale has free wireless internet covering the airport. I did play WoW while waiting in line to board my flight though a couple of weeks ago, so that's a start...

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Re:NICE!! by blippo · 2005-03-20 10:34 · Score: 1

I was on a SAS flight with boeing's connexion and it was actually using a WLAN.

There are only power outlets for chargers in business though.
Re:NICE!! by loraksus · 2005-03-20 19:08 · Score: 1

That must of have gotten you a couple strange looks, imagine trying to play cs_747 while sitting at the terminal...

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/

If you need slashdot on a plane... by PyWiz · 2005-03-20 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

...you might be addicted.

--
-py

Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

OK several million geek points out of ten,
but LEARN TO RELAX
There's nothing so important that it can't wait
until you get on the ground, check into your
hotel (or get home) and have some "me" time.
Then you'll be in a fit state to make mature
judgements.
The worst thing about business today is the
twitch decisions and responses people make
when they're tired/jet-lagged/drunk/caffeine o-d'd
Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

And while we are at it, LEARN TO LINE WRAP. Trust the browser to do it for you, man. The worst thing about the internet today is reading horribly formatted text when your stoned/wasted/bored.
Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:23 · Score: 0

anyone ever take the are you addicted to wikipedia? if you can edit from 10km up is now officially one of the options.
Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 06:27 · Score: 1

The worst thing about the internet today is reading horribly formatted text when your stoned/wasted/bored.

Not much joy in it when you're sober, either.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Infirmo · 2005-03-20 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

The worst thing about the internet is text formatting?

Hmmm... I would have thought the worst things were the poorly informed opinions most people have, their deadly committment to those poorly informed opinions, and the average inability to spell common words.

But I will forget all about those, now that I have heard the truth. It's the text formatting.
Re:If you need slashdot on a plane... by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 08:58 · Score: 1

The OP said the worst thing today is formatting. He'll probably change his mind tomorrow.

For now, let's compromise and say that the worst thing today is poorly formatted opinions. Tomorrow we'll go with what you said, and throw in "with not enough white space" at the end.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

Ob Simpsons... by HungSoLow · 2005-03-20 04:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"The government don't control the skies... you could live in a balloon!!"

Re:Ob Simpsons... by Finuvir · 2005-03-20 05:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"That's it!"
"Hear that Mom? She's as dumb as me!"

--
Why is anything anything?

Scandinavian Airlines have this already by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:26 · Score: 0

Scandinavian Airlines have had this too for some time on their very nice and quiet(!) Airbus flights from Seattle to Scandinavia (Copenhagen). I hope all you Microserfs out there go SAS!

Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by flowerp · 2005-03-20 04:27 · Score: 3, Funny

If cou can pay $30 for Internet, try paying $30 for smoking. Let's see how far that will get you.

--
--- Eat my sig.

Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by oniony · 2005-03-20 04:37 · Score: 1

There was some guy that invented some device (a helmet if I remember correctly) that prevented the smoke from his cigarette escaping -- instead it was filtered from the air. He tried using it on a flight once and, despite his careful explanation, was forced to extinguish.

Now I'm not pro- nor anti-smoking but if it doesn't affect the other passengers I fail to see why it is not allowed.

--
Powered by onion juice.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by thebes · 2005-03-20 04:42 · Score: 1

Because it is a flame on an airplane. See the problem?
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Jicksta · 2005-03-20 04:52 · Score: 1

In today's society on an airplane, even if had to smoke four packs a day, I certainly wouldn't want to pull out a lighter during a flight, much less use it.

You're liable to get a stun-gun fired into your chest, spend the rest of the flight in handcuffs in the back of the plane, and face criminal charges when you land-- thanks to these guys.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by magarity · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Because it is a flame on an airplane. See the problem?

Plenty of people smoked like chimneys from the days of the Ford Tri-Motor to the day before the bans went into effect. I don't think there are any cases of planes crashing or otherwise coming to harm because of cigarettes. It's just a case of a confined area with nowhere for the smoke to go except in everyone else's nose. As a non-smoker, I have to say that if smokers were willing to wear an enclosed helmet to smoke on planes, I'd be all in favor of it. Mainly for the comic relief value, but hey...
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:03 · Score: 0

your habit is bad for yourself and more importantly bad for other people. that's why it's gradually being made illegal. get over it.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-03-20 05:04 · Score: 1

Now I'm not pro- nor anti-smoking but if it doesn't affect the other passengers I fail to see why it is not allowed. 1) How are the flight people supposed to know if the his helmet even works?
2) It's FEDERAL LAW. No one smokes on an airplane, period. Are they supposed to just throw away the law because some addicted nut pulls out a helmet?
3) Unless the helmet is a full-blown bubble over his head, I find it extremely unlikely the helmet captures 100% of the smoke.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Richard_at_work · 2005-03-20 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I dont think the safety rules are over the top. You are at 37,000 feet, if you have any sort of emergancy at that altitude its going to take you time to get on the ground, and then evacuate the aircraft, so its a case of limit dangers to only those necessary. Why endanger the aircraft needlessly jsut to pander to someones personal addiction, because thats what it is?
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by M1FCJ · 2005-03-20 05:06 · Score: 1

I'm a non-smoker and I can tell you if a person is a smoker or not. They do smell like a dog without a nose.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by M1FCJ · 2005-03-20 05:09 · Score: 1

to pander to the people who claim they can smell it once they find out somebody is smoking (just to be anal)
You got that wrong, we can smell and you stink. :) Then we ask you, politely, "are you a smoker?" and you say "yes" and we say "you stink", you say "you're saying that 'cause I just told you that I smoke", we say "no, you stink" and so on.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LordoftheWoods · 2005-03-20 05:09 · Score: 1

It burns oxygen?

Probably a non-issue, but thought I'd throw it out there.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by anonicon · 2005-03-20 05:11 · Score: 3, Funny

"2) It's FEDERAL LAW. No one smokes on an airplane, period. Are they supposed to just throw away the law because some addicted nut pulls out a helmet?"

Depends. Are we talking about the Lesser Helmet of +5 Charisma for 8,000GP, or the Greater Helmet of +10 Charisma for 24,000GP?

>;-)
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-20 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

i think its more likely that a dodgy phone battery or something like that could cause a dangerous fire, if you drop a cigarette on your clothes, it takes a while to burn a hole - if you didn't notice it before, youve noticed it now because your now in pain. Unless your wearing one of those 80's shell suits, you'l be fine and so will everybody else (80's shell suits are illegal to sell in the uk now because theyre a fire hazard.

A small fire would be very easy to put out anyway, im sure the trolly dollies are trained to use a fire extinguisher. how many times (when smoking used to be allowed on planes) did people used to set fire to things with cigarettes?

i would pay an extra 10% of the price of my ticket to sit in a smoking area because im scared of flying, it'd help calm me down. (i flew home from spain on 11-sept 2004, i was sure i was going to die, even though there was very little chance)
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-20 05:15 · Score: 1

i accept that smoking smells, but i was talking about wearing one of those helmet things the parent of your parent was talking about.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by EpsCylonB · 2005-03-20 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

A small fire would be very easy to put out anyway, im sure the trolly dollies are trained to use a fire extinguisher. how many times (when smoking used to be allowed on planes) did people used to set fire to things with cigarettes?

I don't know about planes but cigarettes that aren't extinguished properly is one of the biggest causes of house fires.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by lukatmyshu · 2005-03-20 05:17 · Score: 1

One of my friends from college was on an international flight with his father. Who was allergic to smoke. The people on the flight refused to stop smoking ... and the guys father passed away. If someone shows up on a flight with some contraption on his head that "claims" to filter smoke ... how do you know it actually works? Just because you can't see anything? Cigarette smoke is deadly ... just because you have an addiction you can't quite doesn't mean that you can potentially endanger the lives of everyone around you (especiallly if you're in a confined space)
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-20 05:23 · Score: 1

maybe if you go to sleep with one in your hand, i dont know.

ive never died from dropping a fag on my shirt.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Richard_at_work · 2005-03-20 05:29 · Score: 1

i think its more likely that a dodgy phone battery or something like that could cause a dangerous fire, if you drop a cigarette on your clothes, it takes a while to burn a hole - if you didn't notice it before, youve noticed it now because your now in pain. Unless your wearing one of those 80's shell suits, you'l be fine and so will everybody else (80's shell suits are illegal to sell in the uk now because theyre a fire hazard.

Smoking is the second biggest cause of housefires in the UK and the primary cause of fire related deaths at home in the US (Source). Dodgy phone batteries 'or something like that' dont even appear on the list.

A small fire would be very easy to put out anyway, im sure the trolly dollies are trained to use a fire extinguisher. how many times (when smoking used to be allowed on planes) did people used to set fire to things with cigarettes?

That makes it OK then lets just let small fires happen because they can be put out.

i would pay an extra 10% of the price of my ticket to sit in a smoking area because im scared of flying

You are flying in a very small, tight, enclosed metal tube. The entire aircraft would be the 'smoking area'.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by JonyEpsilon · 2005-03-20 05:39 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm confused. Are you talking about smoking or slashdot ?
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-20 05:41 · Score: 1

let the non-smokers have a window open (joke)

although a solid door would stop the smoke getting to the non-smoking section, especially with air filters in both sections.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:44 · Score: 0

and if you was smoking your chances of dieing would be higher....
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by 4Lancer.net · 2005-03-20 05:45 · Score: 1

So does breathing - everyone, hold your breath for the duration of the flight!

--
All your searching needs (and free money!) - 4Lancer.net
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2005-03-20 05:47 · Score: 2, Funny

ive never died from dropping a fag on my shirt.

Was that your GNAA post?

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Richard_at_work · 2005-03-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, and the first time that door stops people evacuating the aircraft resulting in deaths.....
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:52 · Score: 0

to pander to over the top fire safety rules

Ok, consider this scenario: You're in an enclosed, pressuried metal cylinder. There's a pressure leak. The pressure leak is automatically detected by sensors which release and turn on those oxygen masks over the seats. Now add a lit cigarrette to this picture...
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by wasted · 2005-03-20 05:53 · Score: 4, Informative

...I don't think there are any cases of planes crashing or otherwise coming to harm because of cigarettes.

I think (not totally sure) that the cause of the lavatory fire in Air Canada 797 on June 2, 1983, could have been a cigarette.

I couldn't find a good linkable reference, but I think the 25 fatalities on an Ilyushin 18B at Guangzhou-Baiyun airport in 1982 was also caused by a fire started by a cigarette.

Another example (July 11th, 1973) can be found here.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-20 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

You have a problem and you need help. You are trying to justify smoking on a plane. You can't go a few hours without a smoke? People are doing a favor for your life, how many tmes has it been proven that smoking kills you, and kills you quickly. I'm so glad my city is banning smoking, you people contribute nothing but ill effects to the rest of society. Take a hint and try to quit, its a dirty disgusting habit that shortens your life. It doesn't even calm you until you've become addicted to it. Stop trying to jsutify your actions and instead correct them. Don't force your smoke on other passengers or employees of the airport. If you want to kill yourself, confine it to your house.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:01 · Score: 0

Wait a minute. You don't think people can smell you? Seriously?
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:26 · Score: 0

Go fuck yourself. Thanks.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by thedustbustr · 2005-03-20 06:27 · Score: 1

your habit is bad for yourself and more importantly bad for other people. that's why it's gradually being made illegal. get over it.

If someone freely chooses to engage in activities that are bad for their own health, it is their right to do it, to the extent that it is not bad for the health of others. If my own right to smoke in smoking-designated areas is revoked due to fucktards like yourself, I will be one angry motherfucker.

--
This sig is false.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:28 · Score: 0

Well, that's the second anti-smoking post you've made on this thread. You really are a whining little prick, aren't you?
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by forkazoo · 2005-03-20 06:39 · Score: 1

And, amazingly, there aren't any posts from the people who have died from smoking related fires... I guess it must be impossible!
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-20 06:43 · Score: 1

my point was, ive managed to live through a small hole in my shirt before, and im sure others have too.

Im not the type to smoke after pouring petrol all over my carpets though. i have no idea how people manage to set fire to their house using a single fag.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Jeremi · 2005-03-20 07:08 · Score: 2, Funny

ive never died from dropping a fag on my shirt.

I did, once. Fortunately they offer 20,000,000 hours of free dial-up AOL access here in hell.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by domc · 2005-03-20 07:10 · Score: 1

Actually, smoking has never been proven to kill anybody (through 1st or 2nd hand smoke). Scientists have been trying to prove it for years, but they have only been able to prove the opposite.

Here is some interesting info on smoking:
Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!

Dom
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:13 · Score: 0

smoking should only be allowed if you're using your own air. and on an airplane, you're definitely not.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by rocketfairy · 2005-03-20 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow, smokers contribute nothing to society? Take that, Winston Churchill!
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Storlek · 2005-03-20 07:30 · Score: 1

What exactly does a dog without a nose smell like?

--
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Mr.+Underbridge · 2005-03-20 07:46 · Score: 1

If someone freely chooses to engage in activities that are bad for their own health, it is their right to do it, to the extent that it is not bad for the health of others. If my own right to smoke in smoking-designated areas is revoked due to fucktards like yourself, I will be one angry motherfucker.
So I assume you're willing to forego any social health benefits in whatever country you live (including medicare/medicaid in the US)? Because as long as we're all paying for your dumb ass, we get a say.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by DCowern · 2005-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1

The solution is simple. Put the emergency exits in the non-smoking area. The smokers were all going to die of cancer and lung/heart disease anyway. =)
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by SidV · 2005-03-20 08:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, how about not rinning my life.

You lead your life, I'll lead my life.

How would you feel iff I forced you to smoke.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by MerryGoByeBye · 2005-03-20 08:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Only on Slashdot can the previous post get modded "interesting". Funny on its own, of course, but on the other hand tragic, as it shows just how little the mods pay attention.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by nacturation · 2005-03-20 08:35 · Score: 1

ive never died from dropping a fag on my shirt.

What do you say if someone comes up and asks you if they could bum a fag?

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 08:36 · Score: 0

Oh come on, it's my choice to smoke and I don't give a shit if you don't like it. Cars polute air even more, but I'm sure you will not "quit" driving if I asked you. If you want to kill yourself, go drive in your house.
Regards,
Smoker
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-20 08:39 · Score: 1

I have no problem with you leading your life as long as your actions don't imapct me. If you want to kill yourself keep it in your house. By smoking anywhere in public you are contributing carcogens to the rest of society. Your actions are negatively affecting us, while we are not negatively affecting you.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 08:40 · Score: 0

Smoking and smokers SUCK... I cant wait until Europe wakes up and allows us non-smokers an opportunity to eat out and not get poisoned.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-20 08:42 · Score: 1

The negative effects of smoking were not known nearly as well then. Anyone in any position of authority who still smokes knowing all of the horrible things that go along with it is in no way a responsible person and deserves to be no where but in the slums of society.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 08:45 · Score: 0

hee hee
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-20 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about you're in severe denial. I can't believe you would even argue a point like that, are you nuts? Its been proven time over time again that the things you inhale are the same chemicals responsible for many forms of cancer. The main ingredient in many rat poisons is used in cigarettes.

The following isn't necessearily directed at you, but just to smokers in general: Please stop living in denial, I'm trying to save your life here. I'm not being a dick or telling you how to live, I've just seen way too many people die from smoking and unfortunately many were very close to me. I've never met you and never will but I do care about your life. Take good advice when you hear it, you won't regret quitting, but you will regret continuing.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by SidV · 2005-03-20 08:56 · Score: 1

I could argue all those points, for instance stress (From holier than though people telling everyone hpow to lead their life) can cause as much damae as any carcinogen. And second hand smoke has been shown to not have any serious impact, Executive summary aside the EPA report showed an statistically insignifigant impact from second hand smoke.

But it's not important, the fact of the matter live and let live. I have no problem with people making certain areas non-smoking, but at the same time they cannot ban it across the board. Here in NH it's left up to the resteraunt owner, for example, which allows for a decent distribution of smoking and non.

The majority of public places are non-smoking now, but apparently that isn't enough. If the non-smoking nazis (Hitler enacted the first anti-smoking polices http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html) would let up and consider it a battle won, while still allowing smoking in some reas, that would be fine, but not until smoking is band worldwde will they stop.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:23 · Score: 0

Your actions are negatively affecting us, while we are not negatively affecting you.

Just by flying over my house in a plane spewing out tons of exhaust into the atmosphere is not affecting me? piss off...
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by domc · 2005-03-20 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most of the dangers of smoking come from smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigatettes (like Marlboro, Camel, etc). The chemical process used to make light cigs are the origin of the huge lists of chemicals contained in cigarettes.

Also, smoking too much (more than a pack a day) is bad for you. I believe that over-smoking is directly related to 'light' cigarettes. You'll find that most two-pack-a-day smokers are smoking lights. Constant nicotine craving because the dose is too low.

I only smoke high-quality tobacco, with no gunpowder in the papers, with no filters (what do they have to put in cotton to make it not burn?), and I roll my own. I believe that this practice is much safer than smoking mass-produced cigarettes. In fact, if I have to smoke commercial cigs, I find that I begin to feel ill after about two packs (4 days).

I always tell other smokers to take some tobacco out of their cigarette, and eat it. They are usually disgusted by the nasty chemical taste. Then, I give them some of my tobacco to eat, and they always respond with something like "This tastes good enough to put on top of a salad". Then I tell them that this good-enough-to-eat tobacco costs an order of magnitude less than what they are paying for their nasty cigs.

So, in my belief, it is not the act of smoking that is dangerous, it is the act of smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigarettes. Kind of like eating McDonalds vs. a nice buffalo burger. It always pays to go with the highest quality option. And, in this case, the highest quality option is also the cheapest (much like Open Source).

My motto is: If you wouldn't want to eat it, why would you want to smoke it!

Dom
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by pipingguy · 2005-03-20 09:50 · Score: 1

Smokers have become the officially-approved whipping boys in English-speaking western society. It's no longer OK to criticize any identifiable social group, but smokers are fair game for vilification, discrimination and personal attacks.

I fully realize that smoking is "not good for you" and don't encourage anyone to take it up, but the convenient persecution (which feeds the puritanical mindset) has gone too far.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by pentalive · 2005-03-20 09:55 · Score: 1

Probably commenting on the sig is of topic...

In Apple's "1984" commercial the bad guys (big brother and all) were loving the "garden", Apple was represented by the flying hammer that was bashing the restrictive big brother.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-03-20 10:17 · Score: 1

In Apple's "1984" commercial the bad guys (big brother and all) were loving the "garden", Apple was represented by the flying hammer that was bashing the restrictive big brother.
Yes, I know -- hence the irony that Apple and its fans have become what they mocked in the original ad.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by M1FCJ · 2005-03-20 10:26 · Score: 1

Nope, as a child of smoking parents, I can't stand the smell.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:16 · Score: 0

I'm not a smoker myself, but what really gets me annoyed are people who make outrageous claims like "smokers contribute nothing to society". They choose to smoke, just as you choose not to smoke.

Get a life!
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by qsi · 2005-03-20 11:50 · Score: 1

The crash landing of a Varig 707 in 1973 was due to a fire probably started in the aft lavatory by a cigarette. 123 people died.

See

here, here, and here

(Scroll down or search for cigarette on the latter page).

--
---

Felix qui potest rerum cognoscere causas
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by hunterx11 · 2005-03-20 11:57 · Score: 1

Fast food bad for you too, and nobody is suggesting suing or taxing or regulating it...
Fuck. I guess it's only a matter of time until /. is outlawed, too.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by murphj · 2005-03-20 12:27 · Score: 1

I'm so glad my city is banning smoking, you people contribute nothing but ill effects to the rest of society.

You mean except for a shitload of tax dollars. Good luck trying to replace them when you ban cigarettes.

--
SONY. Because caucasians are just too damn tall.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by ediron2 · 2005-03-20 12:50 · Score: 1

You have a problem and you need help. You are trying to justify smoking on a plane. You can't go a few hours without a smoke? People are doing a favor for your life, how many tmes has it been proven that smoking kills you, and kills you quickly. I'm so glad my city is banning smoking, you people contribute nothing but ill effects to the rest of society. Take a hint and try to quit, its a dirty disgusting habit that shortens your life. It doesn't even calm you until you've become addicted to it. Stop trying to jsutify your actions and instead correct them. Don't force your smoke on other passengers or employees of the airport. If you want to kill yourself, confine it to your house.

Talk about maximum irony, coming from someone named LnxAddct .
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Jookey · 2005-03-20 13:07 · Score: 1

I agree that second hand smoke causes cancer. but your car exauhst also causes cancer. So if I cant smoke outdoors than you shouldent be able to drive your car outdoors. If you want to drive your car in your own private garage thats fine by me, but don't pollute my air. Dont tell me that driving is a nececity. No one forced you to live 15 miles from your work. Why should I be required to go home to smoke when all you have to do is stand up wind of me.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-20 13:28 · Score: 1

I have absolutely no problems raising taxes to not only make the air healthier for me but for those too ignorant to realize the harmful side affects of smoking. I already pay for homeless shelters, welfare, and section 8 housing none of which I'll ever use (assuming something drastic doesn't happen) and the last 2 tend to bring down neighborhoods due to abuse. Many are arguing that driving cars is worse, but the fact that there is mass transportation is a leading factor as to why society has progressed as far as it has. Driving is much more necessary and there is tons of reasearch on making it better for the environment. Smoking is voluntary and contributes nothing to anyone. Some people are just so ignorant that the government must protect them from themselves.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Kevin+Mitnick · 2005-03-20 15:29 · Score: 1

holy shit! they should have arrested those guys for murder!
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by revrendjim · 2005-03-20 16:17 · Score: 1

The current President of the United States and the one before him, are both smokers. Cigars count as "smoking."

Just sayin'
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 20:12 · Score: 0

Smoking seems to be strongly discouraged. Some guy got locked up without even trying to smoke a cigarette. Apparently smoking your shoes is also frowned upon.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 22:05 · Score: 0

Smoking does NOT calm you down. Nicotine is a *stimulant*
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by VanillaDeath · 2005-03-20 22:06 · Score: 1

But studies show that people are less likely to die by a makeshift flame thrower aimed at their face in a commercial airline than by lung cancer ;P

--
- Wilson
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by EvilJoker · 2005-03-21 01:29 · Score: 1

You sure about the effects of secondhand? Most organizations that lobby against 2nd-hand smoke rely on the EPA study that was thrown out in federal court for violating scientific method.

I'm not saying 2nd-hand smoke is safe, just that your assumption is unproven.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by EvilJoker · 2005-03-21 02:15 · Score: 1

And nobody ever feels better after smoking a joint or having a drink. Both are depressents, yet they can have a very stimulating effect.

Besides, even if nicotine won't calm you down, smoking might.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by thedustbustr · 2005-03-21 03:50 · Score: 1

I don't smoke; however, if I should choose to in the future, I better be able to. And you're right, medicare and medicaid need tremendous reform.

--
This sig is false.
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by not-real-sure · 2005-03-21 05:57 · Score: 1

Actually US smokers do alot more for the community then non-smokers. A good 45% of the cost of cigarettes goes to taxes in my state. Those taxes go into the general budget for the state and get used to make new roades build new schools and provide after school care for thousands of children. If we smokers topped smoking things would get really shitty really fast in country. So shut your fucking trap and let me force my extra tax dollars on you and everyone else.

--
My Doom. The gift that keeps on giving
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by LnxAddct · 2005-03-21 06:48 · Score: 1

Actually, all of the legal battles and expenses of keeping your ignorant asses alive far out costs anything that you give back. Regardless, I'd be more then willing to raise taxes if it meant saving hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Sometime people are so stupid that the government must protect them from themselves. If you still smoke in this day and age with all the knowledge about it then you are a moron.
Regards,
Steve
Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights? by 0BoDy · 2005-03-29 06:12 · Score: 1

Only on slashdot.. someone posts off-topic and spawns a whole thread until someone is actually maked 'funny' for resoponding to same off-topic post.

--
Can I be a Luddite too?

tcptraceroute by Barbarian · 2005-03-20 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Remember that some providers give UDP packets low priority. I'd be more impressed if he'd run tcptraceroute.

Re:tcptraceroute by drdink · 2005-03-20 04:43 · Score: 1

Windows uses ICMP ECHO for tracerouting.

--
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
Re:tcptraceroute by king_ramen · 2005-03-20 04:44 · Score: 1

traceroute uses ICMP and not UDP. It is HIGHLY unlikely you'd see any noticable QoS difference (which basically only kicks in with congestions) after seeing the 600ms added by the satellite link clearly dominates the timescale.

--
----- Refactoring is the reason why man does not mistake himself for a god.
Re:tcptraceroute by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 16:40 · Score: 1

traceroute uses ICMP and not UDP
man traceroute ... -I Use ICMP ECHO instead of UDP datagrams.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

ungrateful? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:28 · Score: 0

erm //

'I'm going to Tokyo in May and crying that Northwest won't have this.'

a tad ungrateful? i'd just be happy to be visiting the land of the rising yen.

Boeing technology by thammoud · 2005-03-20 04:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

A link to the real provider to this technology.
http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/

Re:Boeing technology by Abstract_Me · 2005-03-20 04:35 · Score: 4, Funny

The article says its slow and expensive but the connexionbyboeing website advertises it being fast and cheap! which one do i beleive?!
Re:Boeing technology by magarity · 2005-03-20 04:35 · Score: 4, Funny

I find it quite amusing that Connexion by Boeing is being used on an Airbus.
Re:Boeing technology by MathFox · 2005-03-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Informative

If you've read the connexionbyboeing website a bit better: The plane has an 1 Mbit connection (or better). Unfortunately the data is routed via a satellite, so the link has pretty high latency.
One of my friends has downloaded a Knoppix CD on one of his transatlantic flights.

--
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Re:Boeing technology by Abstract_Me · 2005-03-20 04:54 · Score: 1

In korea sarcasm is for the elderly.
Re:Boeing technology by daviddennis · 2005-03-20 05:11 · Score: 1

Depends on your definition of expensive, of course.

For instance, Apple's Xserve RAID is often considered inexpensive because it's about a third the price of other RAID solutions for similar storage space. It's still over $10,000 for a loaded configuration, so most people wouldn't think of it as that cheap. But people who need it just might.

Right now, you can get from LAX to Frankfurt, Germany with one stop for $454 tourist class. There are some lucky souls willing to pay $11,825 for a first-class ticket, non-stop.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the fortunate fellow who paid $11,825 for first-class is going to consider a $30 charge "inexpensive" (although if I had to guess, I'd assume it's included in first class anyway).

In other words, the meaning of the word "cheap" is pretty elastic depending on who you are. I doubt that Boeing executives make many tourist-class flights :-).

D
Re:Boeing technology by ZorinLynx · 2005-03-20 05:26 · Score: 1

I've always found it odd that first-class tickets are so outrageously priced. You'd think if someone is smart enough to become rich, they'd be smart enough not to throw away so much money on a first-class ticket.

If more rich folk were smart enough to not shred their money in this fashion, perhaps first-class tickets wouldn't be so outrageously priced?

Hmm. Makes ya wonder. }:)

-Z
Re:Boeing technology by Oopsz · 2005-03-20 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why? Boeing will fit their addons to a bombardier business jet if you pay them to. Airplanes are just too darn expensive for boeing to be able to use internet access as leverage.
Re:Boeing technology by mzwaterski · 2005-03-20 05:38 · Score: 1

Seem to me that the grandparent meant that another company is willing to pay Boeing (their competitor) to provide a service on their flights.
Re:Boeing technology by Oopsz · 2005-03-20 05:39 · Score: 1

You can get FC tickets for far cheaper than that. You'd be surprised what fares you can get if you search for them.
Re:Boeing technology by BigGerman · 2005-03-20 05:42 · Score: 1

If you got your big money by actually working for it (started a biz, banker, broker, bigtime writer, doctor, lawyer,..) it is your TIME that counts.
That is why I'd pay first class price to be able to travel without getting worn out in coach because I would be able to do some real work on the plane and be able to get to productive work faster AFTER the plane ride.
Re:Boeing technology by magarity · 2005-03-20 05:43 · Score: 1

It's amusing because the competition between Boeing and Airbus is exceptionally bitter. Once an airline acquires a given aircraft, of course, the manufacturer is powerless to prevent them from installing parts or services from the competitor. This is a bit like a BMW with Onstar.
Re:Boeing technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:46 · Score: 0

Lufthansa is not Airbus, is it?
I guess Lufthansa if flying both Airbus and Boeing.
Re:Boeing technology by Oopsz · 2005-03-20 06:06 · Score: 1

Well, car manufacturers can leverage services like OnStar (If you want the security of onstar, you have to buy our vehicles!), but airplanes cost tens of millions of dollars; a service that, at most, nets $30 per passenger who uses it, per flight (neglecting the actual cost of service to the airline) just doesn't factor in to a buying decision.
Re:Boeing technology by babble123 · 2005-03-20 06:31 · Score: 1

I've got three words for you: "third party payer". I wonder how many people flying first class are actually paying out of their own pocket, rather than having somebody else pay for their travel.
Re:Boeing technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:37 · Score: 1, Funny

This is a bit like a BMW with Onstar.
OnStar might be a good thing to install in airliners.
OnStar voice: How may I help you?
Flight attendant: We're in real trouble here. We've got a hole in the cockpit, the copilot was sucked out of the plane, and the pilot's been blinded. Nobody on board knows how to land the plane. We need help!
OnStar voice: No problem. Well send out a service plane and drop you a new pilot on a rope. They should be at your location within an hour.
Re:Boeing technology by WaterDamage · 2005-03-20 06:49 · Score: 1

From my understanding the internet service is available only on Lufthansa's BOEING fleet of airplanes like the 747. I haven't seen the service offered on thier Airbus fleet.
Re:Boeing technology by Jeremi · 2005-03-20 06:55 · Score: 1

a service that, at most, nets $30 per passenger who uses it, per flight

Don't forget to factor in the value of the extra tickets bought by geeks who now seek out your airline so they can have their internet fix during the flight...

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Boeing technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:18 · Score: 0

Then how do you explain the topic starter posting from an A340?
Re:Boeing technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 12:25 · Score: 0

>if more rich folk were smart enough to not shred their money in this fashion, perhaps first-class tickets wouldn't be so outrageously priced?

or maybe econnomy would be more expensive?
Re:Boeing technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 21:29 · Score: 0

More likely...

OnStar: OnStar, how can I help you?

Pilot: I got up to use the lavatory and locked myself out of the cockpit.

OnStar: No problem sir, I can open that for you.
Re:Boeing technology by mferrare · 2005-03-21 03:10 · Score: 1

Maybe he doesn't know his planes that well. They're both 4-engined long-range airliners that seat about the same number of people.

--
Why would anyone want to use a text editor that is not vi?

Is $30 really that bad? by Demonspawn · 2005-03-20 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I havn't flown in a LONG time, so I don't know what the price would be for a long flight like the ones that have this service. I realize compared to the prices of ground service it's horably expensive (vs. a month long contract), but thinking of it as an 'add on' to the ticket, what percentage of the ticket cost is it? If you are dealing with a $300 ticket, then it's only a 10% rider.

Of course, if you are taking one of those $59 flights I see advertised, you'd be thinking the cost is insane.

Re:Is $30 really that bad? by antiaktiv · 2005-03-20 04:36 · Score: 1

Cheap flights are generally short flights. This would really only be interesting on a long haul 6 hours+ flight, that are quite expensive to begin with. Still, I wouldn't pay $30 for a couple of hours of internet access. I really like the power outlets a lot of airlines are introducing though. On longer flights, like the ones I fly between Sweden and California fairly often, my laptop has a painfully short battery life.
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:40 · Score: 0

Check out the pricing.

Looks like $30 is for the long flights over 6 hours. Only $15 for flights under 3 hours.
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by thammoud · 2005-03-20 05:03 · Score: 1

The rates from the Boeing website:

Pricing

Connexion by Boeing has created two attractive pricing packages that offer affordable choice and flexibility for your time in the air. All pricing shown in US dollars.

Internet Flight
Complete and unlimited freedom to use our service at any time during your flight leg. Sign in and out as often as you like.

$14.95 for service on short-haul flights under 3 hours
$19.95 for service on medium-haul flights between 3 to 6 hours
$29.95 for service on long-haul flights over 6 hours

Internet Minutes
Metered access for your flight leg. Go online for 30 minutes to use your e-mail or chat with friends back home. After 30 minutes, each additional minute is only $0.25. If you plan on going online more than once, or for longer periods, our unlimited Internet Flight package will offer a better value.

$7.95 initial fee for service on short flights under 3 hours
$9.95 initial fee for service on medium and long flights over 3 hours

Method of Payment
You can use your credit card or bill your use of our service through your voice and data provider. On select airlines, you may also be able to pay with your frequent flyer miles.
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by sultanoslack · 2005-03-20 05:29 · Score: 1

I fly these Lufthansa routes fairly often and you're looking at ticket prices of $600 - $900, generally. Granted, you're generally already paying a bit extra to fly Lufthansa (about $50 - $100 more than competitors, generally), but they've got some of the best service to be found with any major international carrier.

Really, at that point the $30 doesn't make much of a difference. The things that you have to consider is that these flights are around 6-10 hours and most folks don't have batteries that last that long. You only get power jacks in business class. Also, depending on your laptop size, many won't fit on the tray in front of the seats (mine won't, but it's a large Fujitsu-Siemens model).
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by FidelCatsro · 2005-03-20 05:33 · Score: 1

In a comparitive way as to the cost of food and wine then its not really that bad atall , what is $30 in food a meal and a couple bottles of wine which i would have otherwise paid to suffer the flight .
On the other hand the food and drink on airplanes is Completly overpriced and well im sure you can figure out the problems with the ethics of pricing it so high to a captive audiance

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:23 · Score: 0

Well from doing my fair share of flying (i got a girl friend in washington state and i like in west virginia) and a non stop flight is about $200-300. i would pay well more than $30 for internet access, so long as i had the power to keep my laptop running. i would enjoy posting to slashdot or wikipedia from the air. something to do you know. i mean it is a 6hr flight. last time i passed the time with spam letters (check it out great book no end to the laughs) but i think it made some neighbor passengers nervous (constant laughing) so some time spent reading some sites and typing stuff here or other places, would need to find a few more bbses though. a couple chat rooms and the flight would be over pretty quick. although for now i guess my options are to write a bot to cache some sites or download the copy of wikipedia that they have saved in a single downloadble file. next time i think i will spring for a bit in one of those booths they have at the airport so you can connect to the internet. but they either dont have those or i dont have the wireless card to use the free wifi access.
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by vrmlguy · 2005-03-20 10:43 · Score: 1

First of all, I've never been on a flight that charged for a meal or a soda, although some of the food has been of such low quality that I'd have welcomed a chance to buy something better.
Booze, otoh, is usually expensive, but even then there are ways aroung it. It's been a while since I flew AirFrance, but as recently as the spring of 2002 they would give everyone a complimentary bottle of red wine and unlimited baguettes. A bit harder is to get bumped into first class where the booze is free, but to do that consistently usually requires that you fly so much that the people at the gates greet you by name (and, I guess, that you not be an asshole). And then there are the once-in-a-lifetime techniques: I once had a Delta ticket agent give me a fistful of complimentary drink coupons because my wife and I were adopting internationally; on the trip home, I was able to give a coupon to every new father on the flight (Moscow to NYC, known as the Baby Express because it's the flight that all the new parents take).

--
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Re:Is $30 really that bad? by FidelCatsro · 2005-03-20 18:08 · Score: 1

That is far more plesant than my recent experiances with airlines ,(see my journal)Perhaps im a tad bitter with the companys and airports right now . It definantly seems like its only the low cost companys that cause problems , from now on im not skimping on my tickets

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

Sheesh, there goes more non-availability time by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:29 · Score: 0

Dammit, I don't need to be connected all the time, and now businesses will make their employees be on-line during flights working, bah!

Mile High Club? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:29 · Score: 5, Funny

For all the slashdot geeks flying on Lufthansa, this also gives you the opportunity to join the mile high club - solo!

Re:Mile high club? by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 06:47 · Score: 1

I take it you've never heard of the Solo Squadron?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Mile High Club? by Garabito · 2005-03-20 06:59 · Score: 1

Only if you don't mind people seeing you entering with a laptop into the lavatory.
Re:Mile high club? by tritonic · 2005-03-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Unless you can get a couple of the stewardesses involved too...
Re:Mile High Club? by LordP · 2005-03-20 12:45 · Score: 1

Cyber Mile High Club

Person A: So, where are you at the moment?
Person B: Flying Luftansa, seat 3B
Person A: Really?! I'm in seat 10D! Wave your hand!
Person B: ...

--
Nothing is so smiple that it can't be screwed up.

streaming movies.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:29 · Score: 0

In reference to: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/03/20/1417233.shtm l?tid=186

would it be possible for the airlines to gain access to this sat. network and stream on request movies to the passenger? might make a nice change to those "crappy" films you refered to

Re:streaming movies.. by luvirini · 2005-03-20 04:49 · Score: 1

Some of the newer inflight enteetainment systems seem to allready be quite nice. I recently flew an Emirates flight in economy and you could select from 15 movies, about 20 games, 30+ radio channels, couple dozen Audio books and some others. All the movies were fully rewindable, stoppable and so on. Defnitely enough stuff for atleast few flights.
Re:streaming movies.. by knightri · 2005-03-20 05:20 · Score: 1

I flew from Newark to Brazil non-stop on Continental and they had the same amneties you speak of. Many movies and radio stations, though the sudden drop of about 15 feet in one storm we went through wasnt comforting

--
'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'

VoIP by NetStatic · 2005-03-20 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would be interesting, once the latency goes down a bit, if you could run VoIP over the connection, bringing cheap(er) phone services. Those Verizon Airphones are really expensive.

--
sig on vacation

Re:VoIP by NickisGod.com · 2005-03-20 04:35 · Score: 1

It would be interesting, once the latency goes down a bit, if you could run VoIP over the connection, bringing cheap(er) phone services. Those Verizon Airphones are really expensive.

Maybe using simplex.

Satellite = Latency.
Re:VoIP by melonman · 2005-03-20 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny

once the latency goes down a bit

What, when the speed of light increases a bit? I'm typing this on a terrestial satellite connection, and that's about the latency you get.

You can do VoIP over this sort of connection, you just have to get used to the fact that there's about a second's lag, and, if you can hear yourself on the remote speakers, a 2-second echo.

Here's part of my traceroute...
3 firewall (192.168.1.1) 3.067 ms 7.553 ms 12.684 ms
4 172.31.254.253 (172.31.254.253) 4.062 ms 5.199 ms 6.160 ms
5 172.16.128.19 (172.16.128.19) 631.013 ms 583.867 ms 1562.693 ms
6 172.16.64.61 (172.16.64.61) 1658.335 ms 1537.707 ms 1099.666 ms
7 172.16.100.1 (172.16.100.1) 1156.839 ms 1302.108 ms 1372.232 ms
8 iamrt01p.idc.aramiska.net (172.16.101.254) 794.488 ms 528.926 ms 569.041 ms
9 213.181.59.142 (213.181.59.142) 602.372 ms 606.007 ms 732.337 ms
10 cbu-pcbru11-pecbru21-pos31.car.belbone.be (213.181.59.198) 707.791 ms 782.617 ms 619.338 ms
11 so-6-1-2-bcr1.bru.cw.net (206.24.147.189) 743.572 ms 759.283 ms 732.355 ms
12 so-5-1-0-dcr2.par.cw.net (195.2.10.34) 906.991 ms 770.496 ms 628.550 ms
13 as0-dcr1.par.cw.net (195.2.10.161) 904.086 ms 658.604 ms 1547.670 ms
14 so-0-0-0-dcr1.was.cw.net (195.2.10.117) 670.472 ms 822.322 ms 698.954 ms
15 dcr1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net (206.24.238.17) 620.367 ms 654.039 ms 711.492 ms
16 dcr2-loopback.SanFranciscosfo.savvis.net (206.24.210.100) 848.040 ms 795.551 ms 879.444 ms
17 bhr1-pos-0-0.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net (208.172.156.198) 1360.829 ms 994.331 ms 758.175 ms
18 csr1-ve240.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net (66.35.194.34) 1306.824 ms 1061.993 ms 861.418 ms
19 66.35.212.174 (66.35.212.174) 1148.671 ms 1076.630 ms 696.751 ms
20 slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) 983.516 ms 1103.163 ms 778.011 ms

--
Virtually serving coffee
Re:VoIP by Jononon · 2005-03-20 05:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Please, God (or Bill, or whoever), let this never come to pass. "I'm on the 'plane" "I said 'I'M ON THE PLANE'"
Re:VoIP by hanssprudel · 2005-03-20 06:19 · Score: 1

4 172.31.254.253 (172.31.254.253) 4.062 ms 5.199 ms 6.160 ms
5 172.16.128.19 (172.16.128.19) 631.013 ms 583.867 ms 1562.693 ms
6 172.16.64.61 (172.16.64.61) 1658.335 ms 1537.707 ms 1099.666 ms

Does this imply that 172.16.128.19 is the IP of the sattelite? Am I the only one who finds that pretty damn cool?
Re:VoIP by melonman · 2005-03-20 06:50 · Score: 1

I'd always assumed it was the base station in Benelux. I didn't get the impression that there was a whole lot of packet manipulation going on in the satellite, but I may well be wrong.

--
Virtually serving coffee
Re:VoIP by Garak · 2005-03-20 07:19 · Score: 1

At the speed of light it takes 500-600ms to travel up to the satellite and back down to the earth station.

--
God, root, what is the difference?
Re:VoIP by melonman · 2005-03-20 07:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are also a cluster of problems connected with how satellite connections handle character data. The satellite hop is converted from IP packets to something streaming, and then the packets are rebuilt at the other end. That process (the details of which I don't pretend to understand) works very well for streaming data, and very badly for a couple of typed characters a second. The worst case I have come across is ssh, which can lag by 5 seconds on occasions, which I think is either because some of the handshaking takes several exchanges of packets or because the Earth station waits in the hope that a few more packets will come along to fill its "bucket". FTPing a load of small files is pretty bad too, because the handshaking for each file takes several seconds.

--
Virtually serving coffee
Re:VoIP by kidoman · 2005-03-20 17:37 · Score: 0

I hope i am correct.... but latency does not relate in any way to speed.

While it is true, that having a slow connection (bandwidth wise) means larger latencies, but having a large latency does not mean small bandwidth.

What happens is that interactive traffic suffers in 2 way sat connections because each party is waiting for acknoledgements. However when one way commn is done, like downloading large files (via HTTP or FTP), the connection is super. The first byte takes 800 ms to arrive, but the rest of the data is already on its way. So after 800 ms, the speed increases manifold. The `net' is in abeyance for a few secs thats all...

Moreover, sat does not deal with packets differently, its just interactive traffic that suffers.

--
~~bada bing, bada bang, bada bong and voila~~

I'll stick with the crappy movie... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:30 · Score: 0

...or some good old-fashioned chill time. $30 for 1 second of latency to check some boring email or add to the surfing I spend too much time doing on the ground? No thank you.

Re:I'll stick with the crappy movie... by Necr0maN · 2005-03-20 06:44 · Score: 1

Just being able to brag on IRC about the fact that you are on a plane by itself is worth the price.

Re:--let the flaming begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:30 · Score: 0

What's even worse is that he's a smoker.

Skynet anyone? by Billy_D_Goat · 2005-03-20 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Would this be any relation to Skynet perhaps? Flynet: Skynet's little sister.

Re:Skynet anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:46 · Score: 0

Side note: Actually Skynet is/was a Belgian ISP ran by the national telco.
Re:Skynet anyone? by Guppy06 · 2005-03-20 07:03 · Score: 1

No no, Skynet will be born out of Bittorrent! Don't you remember anything about the end of T3:The Evils of P2P?
Re:Skynet anyone? by Wouter_T · 2005-03-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Lufthansa is part of the Star Alliance. Please make silly star wars jokes, kthxbye.
Re:Skynet anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 10:26 · Score: 0

I want the Millenium Falcon... :whaa:
And is the HyperDrive (from Star Wars) a SuperDrive on steroids?

0wned! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, you should have updated you XP to SP2 before putting you IP address on /. dude!

Now let us see if we can crank up the volume and start playing back those interesting "documentaries" you've got in:

c:\Program Files\Accounting\Private\Pervysnsluts_2004_njr_rel .avi

Re:0wned! by Dolda2000 · 2005-03-20 06:06 · Score: 1

Considering what netblock he was on, you can try mine as well:
192.168.1.254
That should be about as easy to reach.
Re:0wned! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 23:23 · Score: 0

Hahaha. Simple password...
OMG! 3Tb of Pr0n.
I'd l33ch it but it's all the same stuff I've got...

Heh by tmasky · 2005-03-20 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder who's insecure laptop is going to join the Mile High club first.

Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:47 · Score: 0

fscked at 30K feet?
Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:37 · Score: 0

I wonder who's insecure laptop is going to join the Mile High club first.

I wonder who is insecure laptop? What? Ohh... you mean "I wonder whose insecure laptop..."
Re:Heh by darkov · 2005-03-20 05:48 · Score: 0, Troll

If I download pr0n on my laptop, during the flight, do I join some sort of club?

--
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Re:Heh by tmasky · 2005-03-20 05:55 · Score: 1

If you simply download it, then no. However, if you preview it mid-flight, you could possibly join the "share a cell" club =)

Mwuhahahahha by evil-osm · 2005-03-20 04:34 · Score: 2, Funny

ping -f -s1460 172.16.64.1

--

E.

Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker

Re:Mwuhahahahha by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

ping -f -s1460 172.16.64.1

Um, you do know what network 172.16 is in, right? Next will you be launching a DOS against 127.0.0.1?

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Mwuhahahahha by magarity · 2005-03-20 04:38 · Score: 1

ping -f -s1460 172.16.64.1

Congrats on flooding your own router with packets it doesn't know where to send.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by evil-osm · 2005-03-20 04:43 · Score: 1

It was intended as a joke, not really expecting someone to analize it, or even try it.

--

E.

Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
Re:Mwuhahahahha by sethadam1 · 2005-03-20 04:43 · Score: 1

Nice work.

172.16 is a private class B IP address, like 10.x.x.x is class A and 192.168.x.x is class B. You've just unleashed a packet storm on your own subnet that will never pass the first router.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by BLAG-blast · 2005-03-20 04:43 · Score: 3, Funny

ping -f -s1460 172.16.64.1
Nooooooooooooooooooooo! That's my IP address dude!

--
M0571y H@rml355.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by sethadam1 · 2005-03-20 04:45 · Score: 1

er...192.168.x.x is class C. Sorry for that typo.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by drdink · 2005-03-20 04:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Please stop propagating the myth of classful routing. 172.16.0.0 is neither class B, class C, or any other class. It is 172.16.0.0/12. This is CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing). Please see RFC 1519 about CIDR and RFC 3330 about 172.16.0.0/12 and other special use IP addresss.

--
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
Re:Mwuhahahahha by Evo · 2005-03-20 04:54 · Score: 1

Nice try. People like you are why filters are so frequently defined wrongly on routers these days.

The actual (RFC1918) private address spaces are:

10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)

Note that the 192.168/16 range was a range of class C space, not class B.. not that classes have really existed for a long time.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by thammoud · 2005-03-20 04:55 · Score: 1

Tracing route to 172.16.64.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms aliia [192.168.1.1]
deleted 2 for timeout
3 14 ms 11 ms 22 ms 68.87.227.13
4 21 ms 8 ms 9 ms 68.87.229.161
5 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 12.125.194.13
6 20 ms 28 ms 23 ms 12.123.4.230
7 22 ms 24 ms 22 ms tbr2-cl1.dtrmi.ip.att.net [12.122.10.133]
8 28 ms 21 ms 23 ms gar3-p390.dtrmi.ip.att.net [12.123.139.58]
9 26 ms 27 ms 24 ms 172.16.64.1
Re:Mwuhahahahha by saskboy · 2005-03-20 05:01 · Score: 1

" 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms aliia [192.168.1.1]"

I just hacked that network, you didn't even have a firewall or anything!

Sw33t!!!

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by sethadam1 · 2005-03-20 05:03 · Score: 0, Redundant

Gee, thanks for correcting me!!

I bet you're a loty of fun at parties, huh?
Re:Mwuhahahahha by sethadam1 · 2005-03-20 05:06 · Score: 1

You'll note my reply to myself where I said that 192.168 is class C.

Explain to me why *I'm* the problem with routers? Because a post to Slashdot didn't include that specific information? Whatever.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by Kent+Recal · 2005-03-20 05:56 · Score: 1

Dood. 77. *gasp*
Re:Mwuhahahahha by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:12 · Score: 0

try again. 192.168.0.x is class C. 192.168.x.x would be a class B network.
Re:Mwuhahahahha by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 16:07 · Score: 0

imagine installing a wireless sniffer at 10.000m!
Their service use the standard WiFi.. and without WEP encription! a highly vulnerable combination!

This can open a new era of war-driving.. or war-flying! :-D

Mwuhahahahha!!!
Re:Mwuhahahahha by smeenz · 2005-03-20 19:17 · Score: 1

Couldn't have said it better myself.
It's amazing, given how long the routers of the internet have been doing CIDR how many people are still hooked on the ideas of address classes.

Re:--let the flaming begin! by neithian · 2005-03-20 04:36 · Score: 1

haha, yeah he should stop. :\

In-flight pr0n by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:36 · Score: 0

So now you can access http://www.domai.com/ at cruising altitude, excuse yourself to the lavatory, and join the Self-Mile-High Club. Awesome.

Back in September... by beebware · 2005-03-20 04:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

When I went to Tokyo from Heathrow, London, UK via Munich, Germany - the Munich to Tokyo flight (all the route was by Luthansa German Airlines), they had wireless internet access by Boeing Connexions. If you look out at airport (Munich had them in September when I flew), you may be able to get a $10 free internet access voucher. Just a quick note: The internet access is WiFi, so you will need an appropriate Wifi card - I took plenty of network cables, but my Wifi card for my laptop was "faulty" so I didn't have any internet access :( . It's worth also pointing out that at least in "cattle class" (I can't say for Business or First class), there are NO charging points, so make sure you have plenty of battery power.

Re:Back in September... by magarity · 2005-03-20 04:43 · Score: 1

It's worth also pointing out that at least in "cattle class" there are NO charging points,

Be more selective about what flight you take. Older planes have none, but most newer ones have 12v adapters in CC every third row or so. Pick your plane and pick your seat and you can have power in the cheap section.
Re:Back in September... by joe52 · 2005-03-20 06:08 · Score: 1

If you really care check out seatguru for maps of the seating on a number of major airlines, including the locations of power ports.

Note that they are generally DC ports like the ones in a car so you'll most likely need a car adapter or a seperate inverter to use them.
Re:Back in September... by Marton · 2005-03-20 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative

They (Lufthansa) have AC outlets in business class (and of course in first), it accepts a European or a non-grounded US plug. They even have USB outlets for charging a PDA...

They also have a CAT-5 connector right next to the USB port. It does not seem to be hooked up to anything meaningful though.

The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by europrobe · 2005-03-20 04:39 · Score: 0

currently on an A-340 ltn02r03-vlan25.connexionbyboeing.net

Anyone else smelling something fishy? I have a hard time believing he's really on an Airbus plane...

--
Score:-1, Wrong

Re:The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by psyconaut · 2005-03-20 04:45 · Score: 1

It's a Boeing *satellite* service. Boeing don't just make planes, f00l! ;-)

-psy
Re:The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by Tx · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not just for Boeing aircraft. From the connexion web site:

Installation
The system can be installed on any aircraft with a seating capacity of 100 or more during a scheduled maintenance interval. Connexion by Boeing is currently working with aircraft manufacturers to develop the capability for in-line production installations.

--
Oh no... it's the future.
Re:The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by Richard_at_work · 2005-03-20 05:01 · Score: 1

If you dont believe him, there here ya go:

Connexion by Boeing airborne Internet in airline service
Its primarily EU airlines that have so far started using Connexion, while the US airlines lag far behind, so its no surprise that it would be in use on Airbus aircraft.
Re:The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by dr_pump95 · 2005-03-20 10:01 · Score: 1

It's strange that the Asia/Pacific airlines haven't jumped on it, given the typical length of flights. Coming from Australia, the shortest useful hop is to Singapore (around 7 hours) and the most frequent is to LA (14 hours). Makes US$30 seem quite reasonable, especially compared with the airport hot-spots that typically charge US$8-9/hour.
Re:The new Boeing/Airbus consortium by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 17:14 · Score: 1

It's strange that the Asia/Pacific airlines haven't jumped on it, given the typical length of flights.

Like Singapore Airlines, China Airlines, Japan Airlines, and ANA? From what I can tell, they readily outnumber the European airlines that have it running. Which is not a surprise since they outdo the European airlines in everything else too (okay, to be fair, China Airlines mainly only outdoes them in crashes, but the others...).

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

pw3n3d by _ph1ux_ · 2005-03-20 04:39 · Score: 1

OH Man, those ping times are really gunna get me fragged!!

This is a cool service, but farking expensive. I would only use this when on a work flight where I can expense the cost. Thats a months worth of DSL in most places.

I'd rather stick to playing games on my flights - the only problem with that is that I usually end up bringin 5 extra batteries for my D600, which adds up to a few pounds. and games like HL2 on this machine mean I have to change the battery much more often.

Wow! by LiquidCoooled · 2005-03-20 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Step 11 on the traceroute was really interesting.

11 581538 ms 582667 ms 6659876 ms mgs.nasa.mars.net

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 0

I can't believe you got modded "Interesting" for an obvious joke. Slashdot mods kick ass.
Re:Wow! by LiquidCoooled · 2005-03-20 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Interesting?

omg, you slashdot mods are smoking something - it was humour not reality.
Move your hands away from the mod controls and step out of the vehicle.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Latency? by powerline22 · 2005-03-20 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Funny, someone from Apple was a bit bored during one flight, so they fired up iChat AV and had a videoconference at 30,000 feet, and it was fine.

Re:Latency? by goosman · 2005-03-20 07:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, here's a link of a collegue who used the VRVS videoconferencing application on one of his flights. http://www.vrvs.org/Announcements/Plane/VRVS_in_th e_air.html

LAN Party at 30k FT by jackb_guppy · 2005-03-20 04:41 · Score: 0

My veiw is get some freinds together have fragfest at 30k FT, since we are now allowed to have wireless active.

You may run into problems with the sound turned up and Air-Marshal in the new row.

Re:LAN Party at 30k FT by LiquidCoooled · 2005-03-20 04:59 · Score: 1

Even with headphones on, when somebody jumps out and frags you, your screams and shouts about the abuse with a plasma rifle are sure to cause a stir.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:LAN Party at 30k FT by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 14:30 · Score: 0

Bring a couple parachutes with you while you're at it :P

OMG you /.ed Luftunsa by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:42 · Score: 0

You Bastards!!

sharing? by cbc1920 · 2005-03-20 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

What's to stop someone from purchasing the access and then sharing it with everyone on the plane through an ad-hoc wireless bridge? (except for those pesky regulations)

Re:sharing? by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-03-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Nothing. But would you show up for a flight, wanting/needing a connection inflight, and expecting some total stranger to ad-hoc to everyone? Or would you pay for your own, and know that you will have a connection.
That might work between friends, but I wouldn't rely on some random stranger's kindness to a) make it available, and b) not to log all my traffic.
Re:sharing? by Penguin · 2005-03-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Oh my God, you have undermined their whole business plan!

--
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
Re:sharing? by Keamos · 2005-03-20 06:22 · Score: 1

Terrorist!
Re:sharing? by pluggo · 2005-03-20 07:11 · Score: 1

But would you show up for a flight, wanting/needing a connection inflight, and expecting some total stranger to ad-hoc to everyone? Or would you pay for your own, and know that you will have a connection.

However, what if you buy the $30 connection, then offer it to others with laptops for $5-10 a pop? Some might find the $30 too expensive but go for it at a lower price, and you could recoup your loss with 6 people at $5 a pop.

That might work between friends, but I wouldn't rely on some random stranger's kindness to a) make it available, and b) not to log all my traffic.

So you know all the people whose machines route your packets now? Don't use ssl or gpg? I don't even trust the people I KNOW with my data... so I encrypt it when it's in transit if it's sensitive. I don't see much reason to trust a stranger at an ISP any more than a stranger on a flight.

--
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
Re:sharing? by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-03-20 07:29 · Score: 1

No, i don't personally know all the individuals behind all the machines my packets go through. But I do try to minimize/restrict who they are. That's why I don't use my anon neighbors completely open USR8054.
Some anon geek on a flight offering $5 net access would be the perfect geek to sniff all the packets going through. Some/most would be encrypted, but you know not all of them would be. Some of the people here are thinking of exactly that...:)
I trust a business more than I'd trust some random stranger. We do it every day. Would you give your credit card to some random guy, and say "Go use this and pay for our lunch"? Yet we do that all the time at restaurants, because there is some recourse if anything goes tits up.
Re:sharing? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:52 · Score: 0

Haven't any of you travelled? Many hotels have systems in place to prevent this. I tried hooking up an airport base station to some of them - no luck. Only one client can use it. I, thinking i was clever, tried Mac OS X Server running on my PB to set up dns caching, dhcp, nat, the works. It still rejected me. My powerbook had full internet connectivity, but my clients (another powerbook) would always get the hotel login window. Once I used that login window, the other computer got shut out. It could be MAC address filtering over ethernet, but either way it totally sucked :) I even tried built in mac os x's "share interface: over interface: " and sharing ethernet over airport, no go. Of course, i'm sure there is some level of clevery hackery to get around this (mac address spoofing + some other stuff probably), but 99% of customers who are clever enough to say "huh, at home i can just say share ethernet with airport, let me give this to my kids" won't be able to hack around these sorts of systems.
Re:sharing? by 8282now · 2005-03-20 19:57 · Score: 1

I recommend SQUID. Or rather proxying the outbound connections as the ap will (in a captive portal environment) be set to filter by mac addy.

Reply to my own comment Re:Mwuhahahahha by evil-osm · 2005-03-20 04:45 · Score: 1

It was intended as a joke, not really expecting someone to analize it, or even try it. Laugh it up folks, relax its Sunday! :)

--

E.

Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker

Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 04:47 · Score: 1, Informative

Lufthansa is one of the most wretched airlines in the sky (unless you're in the front of the plane), so don't cry too much. Basically Lufthansa is a European-style low-cost carrier (zero service, zero amenities, treat the customers like something that got stuck on their shoes on the way into work) with high-cost carrier fares (and a slightly lucrative business and first-class trade that has nothing to do with their horrid economy class offering).

Addicted to net access though I am, I'd take Northwest with a good book over Lufthansa with wifi any day of the week. At least I'll have someplace to put my legs, will be served something approximating edible food, and I won't be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from being yelled at by the flight attendants for 12 hours.

Anyway, good airlines, like Singapore Air also offer Conexion and fly from the US to Japan (e.g., SQ11, LAX-NRT), so you can have it both ways.

-raju1kabir, 50000 miles in 2005 and counting

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by Crouchy · 2005-03-20 05:29 · Score: 1

I have flow Lufthansa from England to Germany to Italy several times, and the service was brilliant (plenty of wine, good service and food fine). I haven't flown Lufthansa international, but I would be prepared to bet it is better it is no worse than Northwest (or as we call it Northworst).
I had the unfortunate pleasure to fly Northworst from Amsterdam to India, is has to be one of the most crapiest airlines flights I have ever taken! It was on a old crapy Douglas class plane (one pathetic movie for whole trip, no choice of selecting another movie as it is one big screen for 20 people with the screen out of focus). I only managed to get served one drink from India to Amsterdam (and the same on my return trip). The food served from Nothworst wasn't worth contemplating (cold hotdog, yippeee)
My favorite airlines is Singapore Airlines, United Emerates.
I have two major international trips schedule for this year (one work the other home to catch up with parents), and believe me it won't be Northworst (or KLM for partnering such a crap airline). Might give Malaysian Airlines on my Australian holiday (has been given a few good reports from friends).
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by uradu · 2005-03-20 05:37 · Score: 1

You must be thinking of Delta, because those were my exact experiences flying them to Europe the last two times. I was actually actively insulted and yelled at. Can't say I ever experienced that sort of thing on Lufthansa, and the planes were nicer than the MD-11 cattle cars. I'm not sure how many people will share your opinion of Lufthansa. I'd put them up there with SAS and Qantas.
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

Hmm, I heard different stories about the comfort on Lufthansa planes, and I found for example this.

Source: Aviation Health Institute, December 2001 AVERAGE LEG ROOM IN ECONOMY CLASS* Figures in inches -
Monarch Airlines 28
JMC 28
Gulf Air 28
Flying Colours 28
Britannia 28
Airtours 28
Air 2000 28
Ryanair 29
Go 29
Easy Jet 29
Virgin Atlantic 30
Qantas 30
Delta 30
Caledonian 30
United Airlines 31
KLM 31
Iceland Air 31
British Airways 31
Singapore Airlines 32
Lauda Air 32
Emirates 32
Cathay Pacific 32
British Midland 32
Austrian Airlines 32
Aer Lingus 32
Alitalia 33
Thai Airways 34
Malaysian 34
Lufthansa 34
Japan Airlines 34
American Airlines 34
Air New Zealand 34
Air France 34
Air China 34
Air Canada 34

Seems to me, that at least 4 years ago Lufthansa was rather at the top in terms of leg room...

Anyway, good airlines, like Singapore Air also offer Conexion

Yes, but you have two inches less leg room... :)
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 06:09 · Score: 0

Almost any flight to India is going to be awful; you can't blame Northwest for that. They do seem to be running those old DC-10s into the ground, but on the other hand Lufthansa doesn't do seatback video either that I've seen. At least Northwest has it on its new planes, and they went all-out, video-on-demand with dozens of movies.

Malaysia Airlines is excellent, more or less on par with Singapore. More legroom, nicer staff, but the in-flight entertainment isn't quite as good.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 06:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seems to me, that at least 4 years ago Lufthansa was rather at the top in terms of leg room...

A lot has happened in 4 years, and most of it has been various flavors of European airlines going downhill under intense price pressure from the LCCs. I don't think LH has any planes with 34" seat pitch anymore. You're lucky if you get 32". Check SeatGuru for up-to-date info.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by ShadowBlasko · 2005-03-20 06:24 · Score: 1

"My favorite airlines is Singapore Airlines, United Emerates."

Singapore Airlines... rocks. period. Right down to the orchids in the bathrooms. (orchid fan)

Great service.. Incredible (in many ways) flight attendants, good food. It's like a mini vacation on the way to your destination.

Although, Alaskan was a blast to fly on.. Almost empty flight from Portland to LAX, and the flight attendants whipped squirtguns out of the drink carts and had a squirtgun fight during the flight. (I was used as a human shield, but .. well. .it was worth it in the long run.)

Oh how I miss the days before 9/11

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by Crouchy · 2005-03-20 06:32 · Score: 1

BA, Emerates is quite good from England to India (Northwest isn't). That old saying goes once bitten, twice shy.

Thanks for the recommendation on Malaysian Airlines, might make my 20 hour flight from Uk to Melbourne all that more pleasurable.

I also recommend BA, due to everyone having there own headset on all international flights and there food and service is quite acceptable.
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:15 · Score: 0

You are right.

You're lucky if you get 32".

According to Lufthansa, they are now at 32".
Re:Not being on Lufthansa is nothing to cry about by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 10:40 · Score: 0

You have flown from England to Germany and from Germany to Italy, but you haven't flown internationally? How is that possible, I wonder? :-)

Re:--let the flaming begin! by schestowitz · 2005-03-20 04:47 · Score: 0

Okay, here's my opinion: Mistake #1: not erasing that first line which identifies the use of Windows Mistake #2: not omitting "napping, paperbacks or crappy movies" which indicates high tolerance for the dullest and most superficial activities.

--
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive

Chaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:48 · Score: 0

"...if only they'd let me have a cigarette..."

Suggest you pick up a tin of chewing tobacco.
Some brands package the tobacco in little cloth pouches so you don't have to worry about bits of tobacco competing with the spinach and red pepper stuck in your teeth.

personal preference is a novel with read time equal to flight time and a radio for keeping up with ATC.

tears will get your ass kicked in Japan by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:49 · Score: 0

quit crying you pussy.

Smoking sucks. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:50 · Score: 1

Whatever discomfort you experience during an airline flight is small retribution for the choking, gagging, and wretching you and your fellow smokers inflicted on your non-addict fellow passengers before the airline smoking law was imposed.

Re:Smoking sucks. by pluggo · 2005-03-20 07:17 · Score: 1

Whatever discomfort you experience during an airline flight is small retribution for the choking, gagging, and wretching you and your fellow smokers inflicted on your non-addict fellow passengers before the airline smoking law was imposed.

Well, I smoke, and I agree, it does suck. However, I never made anybody choke or gag on an airplane before any law was passed; hell, I've never even been on an airplane. If I was, though, I'd like very much to be able to have a cigarette, or smoke my pipe even.

The plane is already pressurized; if they created a separate chamber, couldn't that make it so the non-smoking section has different air than the smoking section? You could charge the smokers more money to defray the cost of the construction, much like they're charging people $30 a pop for net access to pay for the satellite equipment and such. And there are cigarettes that don't produce much smell or smoke at all; Eclipse http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/, for instance.

Eh, screw it. I'll just pop the window open and hang my head out. It'll be fine.

--
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
Re:Smoking sucks. by Travy.b · 2005-03-20 16:14 · Score: 1

Whatever discomfort you experience during an airline flight is small retribution for the choking, gagging, and wretching you and your fellow smokers inflicted on your non-addict fellow passengers before the airline smoking law was imposed.

Ok then. From now on each time I sit near some fat tart with WAY to much perfume on (which I am allergic to) or some bloke who think Calogne is a scent that is meant to be smelt half a mile away I'm gonna complain the same way everyone else does about smokers.
Smoking may cause an offensive smell to a lot of people, but so does the multitude of 'cosmetic' products out there
Re:Smoking sucks. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 22:25 · Score: 0

You do that. At least the perfume does not harm you, like your disgusting smoke harms me

good price by PerlDudeXL · 2005-03-20 04:50 · Score: 1

USD 30 is more than ok for a long flight (6+ hours). if you can't be without internet on a flight within europe you need counseling ;)

Lufthansa (or any other airline) would need to pay me per hour if they allow others to smoke. Good thing it's banned.

The only time I could lose in HALO and... by IronChefMorimoto · 2005-03-20 04:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Playing HALO PC multiplayer from 30K feet kind of gives me immunity from "no0b" accusations, seeing as I'm a l337 airborne hax0r with this service. Sadly, I will get my ass kicked with those pings, but, by god, I'll be a pioneer of the Mile High Gaming Club.

IronChefMorimoto

P.S. - Wait a minute. I suck at HALO PC multiplayer on the ground.

Smoking "rights" by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 04:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

The problem with smoking "rights" is that the activity denies others rights: smoking is an activity typically forced on those nearby. Now, if you paid $30 to everyone in a 20 foot radius for the violating of forcing them to smoke every time you abuse tobacco by burning it, you might get somewhere. Everyone might win in this situation!

Until then, stop whining about being denied the "right" to force other people to consume deadly airborn carcinogens. If you need tobacco so bad, get some chew.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Smoking "rights" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:15 · Score: 0

i bet you dont even use motor vehicles because of the "deadly airborn carcinogens", and i am sure your house have some exotic air filtering system.

and please, stop using computers, they make use of some nasty chemicals too that can get airborne.

better, go live in the florest but dont start any fire to cook or heating, it produces deadly airborn carcinogens too.
Re:Smoking "rights" by znu · 2005-03-20 06:13 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that if anyone wanted to run an internal combustion engine in the same small enclosed space where I was trying to breath, I wouldn't be too happy about that either.

--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Re:Smoking "rights" by General+Melchett · 2005-03-21 02:18 · Score: 1

This argument falls apart when there's a smoking section invloved

Offtopic, but.. by CdBee · 2005-03-20 04:52 · Score: 1

... Great SIG.

Does it ever work? - it had me puzzled for a while because I couldn't click on it...

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Re:Offtopic, but.. by rbarreira · 2005-03-20 06:35 · Score: 1

There are loads of people with lame sigs like that one :)

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F

0mG Dd0$ mah B0i3nG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 0

That traceroute is priceless, but makes me wonder what happens next time I'm on one of these flights and a scriptkiddy in the next row annoys someone with a botnet.

Thought he was pretty cool... by ari_j · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

C:\Documents and Settings\Marton>tracert www.slashdot.org

Man, I thought he was leet until I saw that. What a shame.

That said, I really don't think this is cost-justified for most people. $30 for the flight to slowly read e-mail and such, things that you can just as easily (and more quickly) do on the ground before or after the flight. There certainly exist situations in which this is worth the money, but the cool factor alone doesn't cover it, at least not for me.

Re:Thought he was pretty cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:02 · Score: 0

Man, what are you SAYIN'? Windows 2000 kicks some serious ass! Especially if you get it free :P

Air Radio by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 04:53 · Score: 1

"a radio for keeping up with ATC."

What/where do you fly that lets you listen to the radio? Always, when I fly, they say no radio ever. Or are you just ignoring the stewardess' demands?

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Air Radio by xyzzy · 2005-03-20 05:29 · Score: 1

On United, channel 9 on the in-flight entertainment system is usually a patch-in to ATC, at least on domestic (US) flights. There may be a few other airlines that do this as well.

This could make air travel pay off! by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 04:55 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Pay $30 for email in airplane
2. Login and check email
3. Receive Nigerian offer to give you $15,000
4. Profit!

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:This could make air travel pay off! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:49 · Score: 0

10 posts (so far) in one thread? dude, turn off the computer and go outside... :P

Re:--let the flaming begin! by SengirV · 2005-03-20 04:56 · Score: 1

I know it's not terribly exciting, but I rather enjoy napping.

To each their own I guess.

--

Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

Flying halo by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 04:57 · Score: 1

"Playing HALO PC multiplayer from 30K feet kind of gives me immunity"

Eventually, Microsoft will have its own airline with X-boxes built into every seat. Watch out for the blue turbulence of death, however.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Flying halo by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:27 · Score: 0

Otherwise known as the sea, when the plane's operating system crashes. /rolls eyes

A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1000 by agraupe · 2005-03-20 04:58 · Score: 1

So what's an extra $30 dollars? Since I'm training to be a pilot, I'm hoping that, by the time I have enough hours to captain longhauls, they have this in the cockpit :)

Cigs by Quiet_Desperation · 2005-03-20 04:59 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You can smoke all the evil death cylinders you like... out on the wing.

And I have yet to understand this terrible drive to be productive during flights. I had to fly six times last year for work, and I made them put me on Jet Blue so I could zone out to DirecTV. It's bad enough I have to travel 1000s of miles for my employers, so I'm going to take some relaxation time in between those vast annoyance factories called airports. Yeah, I'm talking about YOU, Logan Airport, and your goddamned tunnel closure that dumped me into downtown Boston, recently voted the least navigable city on the continent, and no detour signs and airport signs that have no connection to reality.

And my damn boss wouldn't pay me time and a half for taking one flight on 9/11, although the nearly empty plane gave me a whole row seats to myself. I had one monitor set to the plane position on a map, another to a ballgame and the third to something on the History Channel. And then I lay back with my Bose noise cancelling headphones. Now that's the way to fly!

Flamebait by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Beware, Joe Camel is moderating today. I was modded down for saying something similar.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Flamebait by Ohreally_factor · 2005-03-20 07:17 · Score: 1

Oh, you pure air pussies make me want to puke. Or maybe cough up a bit of lung. Look, wuss, I'm from Los Angeles, where we say, "If you can't see it, how can you be sure you're really breathing it?"

I'd call you more bad names, but I've got to go hack up some mucus.

=)

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

!!! NSFW !!! -nt by AndreyF · 2005-03-20 05:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

no text

get a thinnet client by way2trivial · 2005-03-20 05:03 · Score: 1

get a ce device with 800X600 or better resolution, and terminal services..

get a smartpanel... like a viewsonic v150

5-11 hr batterylife- runs YOUR desktop over wifi
the aforementioned airpanel ONLY runs remotedesktop (without hacks) but ce devices run other apps when not connected as well..

add a HMD with it's own powersupply, and have 10-20 hrs battery life..

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Slashdot on a Plane by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Flight Attendant: "Sorry, sir. After you posted that message about the iPod on Slashdot, Cowboy Neal notified us to mod you down. You can't sit in first class anymore. Please find a seat in coach. Oh, and if you do it again? You will have to sit on the wing with the other gremlins. Gremlins? That is what we call trolls here. Look outside and you will see a few right now GNAA'ing on the wings."

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

how do the packets get to the ground? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:14 · Score: 0

... do they fly?

planes did in fact crash... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · 2005-03-20 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

There have been many fires in aeroplanes due to smoking. I believe a Boeing 707 even crash landed near Orly (Paris) in the 70s because of that. The pilots were the only ones that didn't asphyxiate.

Re:planes did in fact crash... by magarity · 2005-03-20 05:49 · Score: 1

My bad; I asked Jeeves if there were any smoking related aircraft accidents and he didn't seem to understand the question so I just assumed there weren't many if any.

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by ari_j · 2005-03-20 05:20 · Score: 1

Yes, they should have Internet access from the cockpit by 2035. ;)

The smokers forced the ban by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I remember when it was allowed. Smokers routinely smoked in the non-smoking section, and threw burning trash on the floor of the plane.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:The smokers forced the ban by zzlevo · 2005-03-20 09:22 · Score: 1

When they smoked in the non-smoking section it was easy to tell them to stop, even though it usually meant that they were angry with you afterwards. What really was annoying was when smokers had seats in the non-smoking section and went to the smoking section for a smoke. Then they came back to the non-smoking section, stinking almost as bad as if the cigarette was still lit. I can imagine that the smokers that abode to the rules were annoyed by that as well.
Re:The smokers forced the ban by StuWho · 2005-03-20 12:00 · Score: 1

Insightful! Something tells me this was not the poster's intention.

--
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
Re:The smokers forced the ban by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 22:28 · Score: 0

>seats in the non-smoking section and went to the smoking section for a smoke

we were called 'winners' lol

Smoking kills by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 05:23 · Score: 0

Smoking guns kill!

Such a silly analogy by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:23 · Score: 1

Your analogy might fit a little if it was anywhere comparable. When was the last time someone insisted on running a gasoline combustion engine at a restaurant in order to "relax"?

Lighting fires just so you can breath the smoke for the fun of it does seem to be an odd recreational activity. As long as the smoke stays with you, I have no problem with it. Go ahead, wear the helmet :)

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Tell me about it! by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:25 · Score: 4, Funny

"And while we are at it, LEARN TO LINE WRAP. Trust the browser to do it for you, man"

Tell me about it
There is this one AC
Who types every troll
like this. It makes them
all look like Haiku.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Tell me about it! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 08:57 · Score: 0

no
i
dont.

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by agraupe · 2005-03-20 05:30 · Score: 1

I am hoping it goes a bit faster than that... and remember, not all longhauls are on airlines. I could, conceivably, be a corporate pilot on a Gulfstream V, BBJ, or ACJ, which all have overseas range, much sooner.

Airplane smoking helmets by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-20 05:31 · Score: 1

"but i was talking about wearing one of those helmet things the parent of your parent was talking about."

Those airplanes are crowded enough, but imagine it with a bunch of people in the seats wearing giant bubble "Great Gazoo" helmets. Then there is the problem of when you go to sleep, and the jerk in the seat next to you tapes over the filter's outside air vent. You peacefully pass away without a struggle.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

coverage by rillian · 2005-03-20 05:36 · Score: 1

I tried this flying from Frankfurt to Vancouver last year. It was great for the first couple of hours, but the connection stopped working somewhere around iceland.

I don't know if it was a technical problem or a coverage issue with the latitude, but I was very very disappointed. $30 for 10 hours is expensive. $30 for 2 hours is insane.

Re:coverage by Marton · 2005-03-20 07:15 · Score: 2, Informative

You should try to get a refund for your $30 then. :)

For what it's worth, they were *supposed* to have Internet flying in to New York from Frankfurt as well. WiFi worked, and I got the pages served from the onboard portal, but clicking the purchase link (that takes you to a server on the ground) resulted in "Page cannot be displayed" errors. Or "The operation timed out" errors in Firefox. Of course, the stewardess could not really help me. I told her that even though their onboard WiFi is up, the satellite link seems to be down. She said they'd be showing a movie very soon on how to use the Internet.

So yes, the technology is there, and sometimes it works. And when it does, it's great. When it doesn't - well, they'd better have an onboard network admin as well.

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by hawaiian717 · 2005-03-20 05:37 · Score: 1

A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1000 No, it won't. I just priced Omaha, Nebraska to Munich, Germany on Orbitz, April 10 returning April 17, and was quoted $759 on Air France (some flights are codeshare segments operated by Delta).

--
End of Line.

Mile high club? by Linker3000 · 2005-03-20 05:39 · Score: 1

Just to confirm that masturbating to online porn at 10Km (33,000ft) does *NOT* qualify you for membership of the mile-high club.

--
AT&ROFLMAO

Satellites by HermanAB · 2005-03-20 05:41 · Score: 1

Well duh, considering how high the satellites are, service can only get better with altitude...

--
Oh well, what the hell...

Re:Satellites by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:15 · Score: 0

I think you need a lesson on how satellites work. Thee higher you go - does NOT mean you will get "better reception". Obvously from air to ground you can easily get 500 mi line of
sight...

Although not recommended because of the ban on FM radios, but it's impossible to "hang on" to a station for much longer then the duration of a typical rock tune, because it's a junble of a shitload of FM stations all crowded into your FM radio.

Then, long range AM stations often fade, because of ETHER SUCK, as the antenna sucks in all the signal until it fades into nothing.

Profit! by Gudlyf · 2005-03-20 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Pay the $30 fee for your in-flight connection.
Connect your own pocket wireless AP to your laptop.
Offer the rest of the plane access to your AP for $10.
Profit! (?)

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

Re:Profit! by Guppy06 · 2005-03-20 07:05 · Score: 1

You forgot:

3.5. Get anal-probed by federal agents on the ground for operating a transmitter and/or receiver aboard an airplane.
Re:Profit! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:06 · Score: 0

how do you suppose the official access operates?
Re:Profit! by Guppy06 · 2005-03-20 09:22 · Score: 1

So do you tune out that whole portion of the flight attendant's spiel where they tell you that FAA regulations prohibit you from using any equipment that can send or receive a signal while onboard the airplane?
Re:Profit! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:24 · Score: 0

I doubt very seriously if you can get away with this. AP's spit out a lot more RF then the cards in your laptop. The FAA has very strict regulations on devices capable of transmitting RF.

The reason why FM radios are banned, is because some of the older ones have "local oscillators" that can transmit on the Aircraft band. FM ends at 108... Local oscillators operate
10.7 Mhz above that ---- OOOPS - right in the aircraft
band...

And of course computers transmit RF also.

But setting up an AP (whch I'm sure is going to spit out 10 times stronger signal) is certainly going to be Noticed.

Being inside an airplane -- (A long sylindrical metallic wave guide) means you need only a tiny amount of power to hit
every point on the inside of the plane.

I'm betting the AP's built for oparation on the inside of a plane,
won't even need a 10th of the power an AP puts out.
Re:Profit! by raju1kabir · 2005-03-20 16:55 · Score: 1

So do you tune out that whole portion of the flight attendant's spiel where they tell you that FAA regulations prohibit you from using any equipment that can send or receive a signal while onboard the airplane?

You mean like the wifi card that is required in order to use the service in the first place?

I think I see the revenue model now.

1. Advertise in-flight wifi

2. Charge for it

3. Don't bother actually providing the service

4. When people complain, ask them how they know it doesn't work, and if they say it's because they tried, turn them over to the Feds for operating a transmitting device aboard a plane

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by agraupe · 2005-03-20 05:43 · Score: 1

Oh... I'm sorry... 760 dollars. My point still holds that $30 dollars isn't much more, and I was thinking in Canadian dollars... so, $55 to $1000 or $30 to $760. Either way, it's hardly a huge expense.

As the Photon Flies by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-20 05:44 · Score: 1

I remember when mcmurdo.gov used to reply to pings - from Antarctica. They had a 500ms latency to NYC. The plane/ground hop should be faster over radio than that distance over fiber, because it's truly straight line, and without optoelectronic routers every few miles. And my early 1990s McMurdo pings were over (largely) copper, which doesn't even move signals at lightspeed. Half a second is long enough for packet radio to travel 150,000Km. Why does this system need so much latency, when it's at most 12,000Km between routers?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:As the Photon Flies by drxray · 2005-03-20 06:19 · Score: 1

It goes via geostationary satellite(s)...

--
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Re:As the Photon Flies by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-20 06:34 · Score: 1

Still means a maximum of 19,000Km between hops, which is .063s. More hops to bend around the Earth's surface would be shorter between hops. No, for some reason, the packets are spending a lot more time in the radio (and nearby) routers, like 10-100x as much as in the wired routers. But that network is simpler. Maybe it's really lossy, and there's a 100x retransmittal rate?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:As the Photon Flies by drxray · 2005-03-20 07:00 · Score: 1

Geostationary orbit is at ~36000 km above sea level. ~72000 km round trip. 0.24 seconds. Therefore a there-and-back again ping is ~half a second.

If you don't trust Wikipedia, you can check it yourself. F=G*M*m*r^-2 and all that.

--
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Re:As the Photon Flies by Marton · 2005-03-20 07:23 · Score: 2, Informative

The technology is satellite based. If they're using geostationary satellites (and I don't see why they wouldn't) then you have to deal with a fair bit of latency. Your ping goes to the satellite, then to the ground, then to the satellite, then to the plane. This is 4x an Earth-satellite distance, and geostationary satellites are on an orbit about 35,000 kilometers high.

35,000 x 4 = 140,000 kilometers. Even the light can only cover 299700 kilometers per second - there you have your .5 second delay.
Re:As the Photon Flies by Garak · 2005-03-20 07:33 · Score: 1

They are connecting through a satellite thats way out in geosynchronous orbit. It takes 500-600ms to travel out to the satellite and back at the speed of light. These satellites are 35,786km from the surface of the earth, the earth's radus is only 6378km. That distance is almost like going around the earth twice at the surface.

--
God, root, what is the difference?
Re:As the Photon Flies by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-20 07:49 · Score: 1

I see how there's more legs in a single hop due to satellite relaying. But I don't get how there's 4 legs: I'd think it would go ground -> satellite -> plane. Wat's the extra satellite -> ground leg you mention?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:As the Photon Flies by drxray · 2005-03-20 08:06 · Score: 1

a ping goes there and back, as does, say, requesting a webpage and having it delivered to your computer:

computer arrival time
on plane 0 sec
satellite 0.12
slashdot 0.25
satellite 0.38
on plane 0.5

--
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Re:As the Photon Flies by Marton · 2005-03-20 08:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, ping and tracert measure round-trip time. So it is plane->satellite->ground->satellite->plane.
Re:As the Photon Flies by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-20 08:24 · Score: 1

Right - ping times are *round-trip*. Gotta reread the Stevens book again, when I have a spare month :).

--
--
make install -not war

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by hawaiian717 · 2005-03-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Ah yes, in Canadian Dollars, that would probably make more sense. The point of your post is actually one that I agree with; $30 for Internet access on a transoceanic flight isn't that unreasonable in the context of the cost of the trip itself.

Though, if you are in a major city, such as New York, a ticket to a major city in Europe should be notably less even than the US$759 I mentioned (which is why I did a search from a smaller city like Omaha), especially if you travel during the off-season.

--
End of Line.

Productivity? by FooledYouI'mAScript · 2005-03-20 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do we need to be more productive? Seems we do well enough. Grab a Neal Stephenson paperback, order the alcoholic beverage of your choice, and enjoy some down time. Barring, of course, overweight people and/or children in the adjacent seats.

Re:Productivity? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:31 · Score: 0

Unless you mean pre-Cryptonomicon, you won't be finishing this on the flight. :P

TROLL by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:01 · Score: 0

TROLL

No. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:23 · Score: 0

No, you're wrong. It's a class C address regardless of the third octet - 192.168..x is still class C. Just because the third octet isn't specified doesn't imply the mask is 255.255.0.0.

By default, 192.anything is class C.

630ms? wow, I want that! by MrJones · 2005-03-20 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm on the ground and I always get a 650-700ms to slashdot.org :)
Why? Well, Telco monopoly is still present in my country. We have to Internet fiber to the outside world. Nice uh?

Anyway, I wondering if the router in the plane runs Linux

--
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt

cough by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:29 · Score: 0

> Now if only they'd let me have a cigarette I could actually be productive too.

Yeah, 'cause Lord knows you don't want to miss out on that time to poison your lungs and those of the people around you. I know that was high on the list of items on my last performance review.

For everything else by Jurph · 2005-03-20 06:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Plane Ticket to Germany: $750
Internet Access in the Air: $30
GMail Account: Free

Having Slashdot publish your story before you land:
Priceless.

The best things in life are free; for everything else, there's someone stealing your slogan.

northwest by cyberwave · 2005-03-20 06:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Northwest is the worst way to fly to Japan. Japan Airlines is the ONLY way to go. Trust me on this--I've tried both extensively myself, and consumer reports shows that northwest is one of the worst airlines, experience wise, though they migh have good prices.

Re:northwest by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:00 · Score: 0

Completely agree. I flew to Beijing with NW and it was the worst flights I had ever had in my life. The flight attendents are unhelpful, the food is crappy (well, that was expected), and everything has this odd slave-ship feeling to it when you are flying coach ("First class is now turning on their personal entertainment systems, coach fliers can watch a movie in two hours").

When I returned to the Minneapolis hub at the end of my trip, I had this uncanny encounter in the terminal mall where I passed this girl on a cellphone. She was talking to someone on the other side, saying "Yeah, we're never flying Northwest again. That was the worst trip ever."

I turned my head over and looked her straight in the eye, smiled, and did a thumbs-up.

I think that if an airline like Northwest ever does offer an internet sevice during flights, it will be only for first class. Obviously, since they suck so much.

Sorry if that was off topic. I had to say something.
Re:northwest by really? · 2005-03-20 07:52 · Score: 1

It could well be, but when I can fly for 30~50% less than the next airline, who cares. It's only a few hours, and I just make sure I am tired before the flight, so I go to sleep as soon as I get on; well, not before telling the host/hostess that I don't want to be woken up for the "food".

--

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Re:northwest by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-21 08:15 · Score: 0

I remember once I had to scream on the top of my lungs EXCUSE ME! because those fucking asshole fligh attendants literally walked by 5 or 6 times, all the while I had my little light on.

Clever sig by s7uar7 · 2005-03-20 06:34 · Score: 1

I wonder how many people fall for it?

traceroute is a measure of latency by rminsk · 2005-03-20 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Traceroute is a measure of latency and not a measure of bandwidth. Traceroute just sends one packet at a time with an ever increasing hop count. It would be nice to see some bandwidth tests.

Tried it last Sept by vigour · 2005-03-20 06:38 · Score: 1

I was lucky to be on a flight from Frankfurt to Narita (Tokyo) back in Sept when they first introduced it. The normal price was something like 15 for 30 mins, I can't remember. Either way they gave me a coupon so I gotta use it for free for 30mins.

Pretty sweet being able to email your mates from thousands of metres above Siberia :P

You needed a wireless network card though, so it would have annoyed the hell out of me if I didn't have one. The speed was great enough for someone used to being on a dial-up (the wonders of modern Ireland -> the story on the digitisation of the projectors in Irish cinemas is hilarious)

If you use a graphical traceroute by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 06:57 · Score: 0

Can you track your flight?

Not allowed to use your own by jago25_98 · 2005-03-20 07:21 · Score: 1

as that of course, could intefere with the plane's electronics....

am I being cynical? ;)

--
A blog I run for the wealth

rebroadcast? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 07:22 · Score: 0

What if you pay the $30 and get the signal, and then rebroadcast in the plane using HostAP?

You could even run your own DNS caching etc.

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by ari_j · 2005-03-20 07:25 · Score: 1

As a UND Computer Science graduate, I just figured it was my prerogative to make a joke at the expense of all prospective aviators. :P But you'd have to fly a very ritzy corporate jet to have Internet access from the cockpit, I'd think.

please be considerate towards others when flying by idlake · 2005-03-20 07:48 · Score: 1

Now if only they'd let me have a cigarette I could actually be productive too.

Yeah, and everybody else wouldn't be. People, be a bit more considerate on flights: it's hundreds of people in a little tin can.

If you have a cough or cold, get medicine beforehand so that you don't cough or sniffle, both to reduce noise and to reduce infectivity. Get a face mask if you can't control it in order to protect those around you. If you do need to make noise related to bodily functions, go to the toilet.

If you have children that might make noise, make sure they are tired before you get on the plane, get them toys, and get them pacifiers (or chewing gum or whatever). Everybody might agree that your children are really cute at the airport, but when people are tired and uncomfortable on an airplane, your children will seem like little monsters to them when they scream, run around, whine, or cry.

Conversations are a great way to pass the time, but please keep them hushed and subdued during "quiet time".

Re:Reply to my own comment Re:Mwuhahahahha by calebtucker · 2005-03-20 07:50 · Score: 1

...not really expecting someone to analize[sic] it, or even try it...

You're new here, aren't you?

--
My sig can beat up your sig.

Damn by Mettra · 2005-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1

And I was sure it was 10km high on ground level.

From the Department of Redundancy Department.

MORE carcinogens in recycled atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 08:27 · Score: 0

When smoking was allowed the air quality was better in the non-smoking part of the plane.
The reason?They brought fresh air into the plane and blew stale air out.
Smoking ban was aboon to the airlines bottom line as now everyone breathes and rebreathes the same air all during the flight.This saves fuel costs to a significant degree.
Expect the lawsuits over recycled air to start in about 10 years from the flight attendants first.
Ironic isn't it?

Ummm by Danathar · 2005-03-20 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Think about it...

Fire....pressurized cabin....no place to run (20,000 feet up).

Do you need a smoke THAT bad

Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 19:19 · Score: 0

Fire....pressurized cabin....no place to run (20,000 feet up)

The cabin is pressurized to the equivalent of something like 2000 meters above sea level. There's enough oxygen to survive in an airliner cabin, but less than most other places inhabited by humans...

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 09:03 · Score: 0

Q: How can you tell if there's an aviator at your party?

A: Don't worry, he'll let you know.

Line wrapping by wasted · 2005-03-20 09:05 · Score: 1

The worst thing about the internet today is reading horribly formatted text when you're stoned/wasted/bored.

Yes, I hate badly formatted text. I can't speak for these guys, though.

Not cheap ?!? by Old+Wolf · 2005-03-20 09:22 · Score: 1

$30 for several hours of wireless internet? Not cheap?
Last time I visited a web page for 10 minutes on my cell phone it cost me $11. And here you are getting internet access for proper computers for a fraction of the price.
I guess it serves me right for living in a country with an unregulated monopolistic telecommunications provider :(

Re:Not cheap ?!? by saur0n · 2005-03-20 10:30 · Score: 1

Where do you live? The US?

Thanks by StikyPad · 2005-03-20 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Thanks for posting the IP address of the plane.

Sincerely,
Al Hackeera

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

$30 not cheap? by Leebert · 2005-03-20 09:28 · Score: 1

It is not cheap ($30 for the duration of a flight)

I paid $18 to make a 3 minute call on a flight two weeks ago.

I think it's quite reasonable, actually. After having just been on a 7-hour flight home (BWI) from London, I would have done this in a heartbeat.

Airbus flight computer by Asdex · 2005-03-20 10:17 · Score: 1

> They also have a CAT-5 connector right next to the USB
> port. It does not seem to be hooked up to anything
> meaningful though.

They don't run a DHCP server.
But have you tried to access network 10.254.254.x?
10.254.254.100 should be the primary aribus flight computer, 10.254.254.101 the backup computer. If the pilot has forgotten to change the default password, you may find some default passwords at google.

Firewall? by mrogers · 2005-03-20 10:23 · Score: 1

Are you behind a firewall? It would be cool to run a webserver on a transatlantic flight, although if you do so I don't recommend you post it to Slashdot. ;-)

How about $30 for shot of thorazine and I'll pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:03 · Score: 0

Rather than everyone else on the plane having to ingest carcinogens from your cigarette smoke, I'd happily pay $30 for the flight attendant to give you a shot of thorazine so the rest of us don't have to listen to you whine about your addiction.

How about $30 for a shot of thorazine? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:08 · Score: 0

Rather than everyone else on the plane having to ingest carcinogens from cigarette smoke, I've often thought it would be wonderful if the airlines would sell shots of thorazine for $30 a shot. I'd even happily treat a smoker to a shot if they thought that was too expensive.

Here... by leonbrooks · 2005-03-20 11:08 · Score: 1

...scratch this: [ ]

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Provided that he keeps the helmet on... by leonbrooks · 2005-03-20 11:15 · Score: 1

...for the entire flight, I have no problem with that.

Nothing so annoying as smokers who:

gather at the very edge of no-smoking areas, typically at doorways, so you're guaranteed to get inundated in smoke and tar in the way through; or
stub out a cigarette, walk back in to the building and breathe bitumen into your face; or
smoke in an enclosed area (e.g. under an awning to keep out of the rain) and/or with lots of other smokers and re-enter the building radiating burnt foulness from every square inch of their hair and clothing.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Provided that he keeps the helmet on... by sawak · 2005-03-20 23:57 · Score: 1

You forgot one: 4. blow smoke in your face while you are standing in queue infront of an ATM machine, so you can choose between either holding your breathe or leaving your position in the queue.
Re:Provided that he keeps the helmet on... by kintarowins · 2005-03-21 00:06 · Score: 1

Non smokers always bitch about second-hand smoke. However I must say the smoke I breath from my cigarette is fucking awesome man. Don't like second-hand smoke? Take up smoking.
Re:Provided that he keeps the helmet on... by verus+vorago · 2005-03-21 06:21 · Score: 1

The new anti-smoking legislation in Queensland, Australia explicitly forbids smoking in doorways. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/atods/tobaccolaws/out door/entrances.asp

Now if only they would stop people smoking while walking down the road...

maybe it's just me... by argStyopa · 2005-03-20 11:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

But is it so wrong that there is a place where you CAN'T get email, CAN'T be contacted, CAN'T be responsible to work?

As someone who flew to 5 countries in the last 4 weeks, and has spent about 50% of his time traveling since 12/26/04, the only thing that stops it from totally sucking is the fact that I can "power down" while flying and have some quiet time.

My boss hears it's only $30 more for me to be 'connected' all this time, and guess who's going to be held responsible to make sure those 'urgent' emails get a response next time I'm between Iceland and Minneapolis?

I don't see this as such a wonderful thing. :(

--
-Styopa

Nerd by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:26 · Score: 0

I bet you're a loty of fun at parties, huh?

Dude, you tried to correct someone else's post about numeric IPs, and now you're whining because someone else did the same to you and was better at it? Dork, meet geek. Geek, dork.

Re:Nerd by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 11:55 · Score: 0

Lets see youre on /. pointing out that the this dude was corrected by the first dude. geek, dork... meet dweeb.

The average smoker... by leonbrooks · 2005-03-20 11:27 · Score: 1

...claims to smoke a pack a day and actually smokes two. Your call. (-:

In other news, yes, I believe the additives make the problem much worse, like so many food additives, however smoking is such an unnatural act in the first place. Only Cash McCall would want to reduce his food to cinders before ingesting it.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Inciteful by SirSnapperHead · 2005-03-20 12:08 · Score: 1

Winston Churchill is to blame for the original mess in Iraq, when Britain created that country, and wondered (before being PM) why anyone would have a problem with gassing the natives before dividing up the state.

All anyone recalls to point to his greatness are the one or two 'great' speeches he gave, which were written for him.

The Brits are great at puffing up a man who in reality was a monster:

"[I advocate] using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [and] against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment. [I do not understand] the squeamishness about the use of gas [...] We cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier."

- Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State at the British War Office, authorising RAF Middle East Command to attack rebelling Iraqis with chemical weapons, 1919

--
It's the year of Linux! To celebrate I have x free hotmail accounts to give away

Re:Inciteful by wassana · 2005-03-20 14:05 · Score: 1

"[I advocate] using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [and] against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment. [I do not understand] the squeamishness about the use of gas [...]"

Good editing there. Churchill was talking about tear gas.

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

source
Re:Inciteful by SirSnapperHead · 2005-03-20 20:30 · Score: 1

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Don't really need to edit do I? You say he was only talking about tear gas. Why is that? Oh - that's right - your quoting the arguments off www.winstonchurchill.org - a worthy site for sourcing critical, harsh analyses of this controversial figure - right?

--
It's the year of Linux! To celebrate I have x free hotmail accounts to give away

Traceroute? Better to have a VC... by lonoak · 2005-03-20 12:08 · Score: 1

Check these photos.

Generaly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 14:02 · Score: 0

They pass out drunk

I'll pay... by nighthawk127127 · 2005-03-20 14:47 · Score: 0

Heck, I'd pay $30 for a "+5 - Funny" moderation.

--
10100111001

Copyright Piracy and International Waters.... by AKosygin · 2005-03-20 15:44 · Score: 1

If you are flying over International waters, how does that affect Copyright Laws? Since you are not technically in any nation, people gamble in International waters and such.

So, can the MPAA or RIAA sue you, or would it be really difficult?

HAcking in the skies !-) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-20 15:56 · Score: 0

imagine using your notebook with a wireless sniffer at 10.000m! I understand the service use the standard WiFi.. and without WEP encription, a highly vulnerable combination!
This can open a new era of war-driving.. or war-flying! :-D

GGR

Misplaced disgust by tickticker · 2005-03-20 17:04 · Score: 1

I'll remember you the next time I'm choking on some assnuts exhaust in traffic.

--

This sig smokes half a pack a day

LAN... by SEWilco · 2005-03-20 20:16 · Score: 1

Do you have to pay $30 to plug in, or is flight time LAN party time?

Re:A longhaul ticket will set you back at least $1 by NateTech · 2005-03-20 22:53 · Score: 1

As one who already is a pilot, and trained to fly professionally but didn't go into it as a career...

If you have time to surf from the cockpit, you aren't doing your job properly.

There's destination weather to check, PIREP's to file (no one does this, and it's damn useful to other pilots), engine and systems gauges to check and double-check, Jepp charts to update/file/get out for the approach you're about to fly, and of course... monitoring the autopilot (i.e. FLYING THE DAMN PLANE).

You're paid to be a professional in a job that requires your full attention. Keep your wireless off on your laptop and your head where it belongs. You're responsible for 100-300 people in a high-speed hollow aluminum tube, flyboy.

--
+++OK ATH

LEO Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-21 06:08 · Score: 0

As low earth orbit satellites are only 140 kilometres up isnt it possible that we will start using them so we can have lower latency at times when satellite is the only option?

More technical information on Connexion By Boeing by bdipert · 2005-03-30 08:51 · Score: 1

http://www.edn.com/article/CA341449.html
Written by yours truly. Any and all feedback always welcomed!

Slashdot Mirror

Internet Access 10 Kilometers High Up In The Air

366 comments