Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

64kbps @ 40,000 ft.

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds dept.

Technology 232

jumpstop writes "The NYT Technology section reports that 64kbps is now available on business jets. Sure, you can read your email and surf the web, but can you blast away at Wolfenstein?"

cancel ×

232 comments

Mile High Club (4, Funny)

Squareball (523165) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367778)

Wow so this could bring a new kinda mile high club.. Cyber Sex at 40,000 feet ;)

Re:Mile High Club (1)

discstickers (547062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367977)

You need 64k to cyber?

Re:Mile High Club (2)

EvilAlien (133134) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368247)

... its all about the throughput of the big pipe, baby. They lied when they told you "size doesn't matter".

Re:Mile High Club (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368004)

Yeah, now you can join the club all by yourself. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are at our cruising altitude of 35,000 feet and the captain has just turned the pr0n filter off."

precision in language (4, Funny)

tps12 (105590) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367796)

The NYT Technology section reports that 64kbps is now available on business jets.

I would also like to announce that 56mph is now available in my house.

Also, as a special favor, I am offering 92 degrees Celsius to any interested parties.

+1, Funny (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367831)

I rarely say this, but this made me laugh.

This deserves to be moded up, not down. Idiot mod.

Re:precision in language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367960)

rofl.

thank you, i needed that.

Teen sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367966)

I don't know about you but as a mature 30-year old guy, I must admit I really hate it when I see a pimply faced teen guy clumsily kissing a red hot teen girl.

What these marvellous teen girls really need is an experienced guy to show them the ropes. No sweaty grabbing on the backseat of a cheap car, but luxurious hotel rooms, hours of foreplay and oral sex and glorious sex all night long.

So, if any teen girls are reading this, please dump those 17-year old losers and get yourselves a real man.

Re:Teen sex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368148)

Nah, what they need is someone like me, not a pimply faced teenager nor a crotchety old fart like you. You see, I'm 25, so I have plenty of experience (real kinky stuff too) _and_ I can go for a lot longer than an hour without getting tired or having to change my Depend's (tm).

Re:Teen sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368205)

If you're not taking off your Depends, you can't be doing it properly.

Re:precision in language (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368029)

Yes - it's just another example of how technologically illiterate journalists are.

Re:precision in language (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368170)

I don't get it.

Re:precision in language (2)

Dr Caleb (121505) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368259)

Could I have Blue please?

Flying business class? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367799)

And just how many of us can actually afford flying in the business class?

Every fucking business trip I take I have to travel in the least expensive class. But then again, I am working for the government.

Re:Flying business class? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367816)

Dude, they said Business Jet, not Business Class.

Re:Flying business class? (2, Insightful)

edyu (259748) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367834)

I think a lot of people like me either fly on business by free upgrade or mileage upgrade. It's always better for the service to be at least available so it may trickle down to the economy class in time. Although that is only when there is a business reason to do so.

Re:Flying business class? (1)

casio282 (468834) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367875)

I believe the article is referring to "business class", but rather private jets.

"The first market is corporate jets, but the builders hope to sell the system to airlines, too.

Re:Flying business class? (3, Informative)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368272)

As others have said, we're talking about private jets, not business class commercial aviation.

For information on the cost of chartering your own private jet, check out skyjet.com [skyjet.com] . The bottom line is that if you can fill the jet (capacities of roughly 8-20), it costs roughly the same as first class airfare for all the passengers.

D

Flying first class with decent net connection (2, Funny)

Kasmiur (464127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367802)

And I still cannot get first post:-(

mod parent down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367849)

thx

Re:mod parent down (1)

Kasmiur (464127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368165)

Geez man its a joke

er (2, Redundant)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367804)

but can you blast away at Wolfenstein


not if your latency still sucks :)

Re:er (2, Funny)

morgajel (568462) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367898)

somehow I don't think they'll let you bring BFG's on board- the security guards I saw didn't exactly seem like they would be able to comprehend the difference:)

(btw, I know BFG isn't wolfenstein, so humor me)

Castle Wolfenstein for Apple II (2, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367963)

not if your latency still sucks :)

The blurb didn't state which Wolfenstein or which 64 kbps. For all we know, it could be referring to "Castle Wolfenstein" for the Apple II family. The Apple II's disk drive operated at a maximum sustained speed of (you guessed it) 64 kbps (with any OS more recent than Apple DOS 3.3 such as Diversi-DOS, ProntoDOS, or ProDOS).

Re:er (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368059)

Nah, I mean you're flying at 300 mph, that kind of speed must be reflected in the latency.

Re:er (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368295)

yeah, you may notice hues not being quite correct, due to Doppler effects on your gameplay...

Thank you Mr. Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368317)

but can you blast away at Wolfenstein

not if your latency still sucks :)


I think that was the point of him mentioning a multiplayer online game.

for luser tin hat types... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367806)

SPEED demons, the kind who like corporate jets that do 500 knots at 40,000 feet, are reaching the point where they can cruise the Internet at that altitude as well -- and at speeds comparable to a deskbound computer's.

This month Honeywell, the satellite service provider Inmarsat and the French electronics company Thales demonstrated a system in which fliers with laptops can be linked, by an Ethernet LAN or wireless connection, to an antenna on top of the fuselage, allowing speeds of up to 64 kilobits per second.

Laptop users need a network card or a wireless modem. The system, called Swift 64, is fast enough to handle streaming video or video conference calls using standard equipment.

The first market is corporate jets, but the builders hope to sell the system to airlines, too. The companies did not give a price but said it would depend partly on how much equipment was already on board. Many planes already have some satellite communication gear for passenger seat-back telephones and for the cockpit crew to use to communicate with the airline or maintenance base.

Boeing has a competing product that is in service on 11 corporate planes, and Lufthansa is hoping to offer it on a Boeing 747 late this year or early next year. Boeing and Lufthansa have not worked out how they will charge customers. Communications experts say they could charge by the minute or the bit.

A spokesman for Connexion by Boeing, the subsidiary that produces the system, said it would allow the use of palmtop-based e-mail service in addition to laptops, and speeds far higher than the Swift 64 system, 20 gigabits per second.

Tenzing Communications, a Seattle company partly owned by the European plane maker Airbus, also provides a slower satellite-based service on a handful of airlines.

Honeywell's demonstration plane, a Cessna Citation, a twin-engine business jet that carries two crew members and as many as eight passengers, carries an antenna about the size and shape of a surfboard.

Planes with long over-water routes often carry satellite antennas; older antenna models are steered mechanically to keep them pointed toward the satellite as the plane banks, climbs and descends. The one on the Honeywell plane is steered electronically. On a recent demonstration flight from Dulles Airport near Washington, the antenna was pointed at a satellite in orbit over Brazil that transmitted back to a ground station in Connecticut.

On the demonstration flight, a user of a Dell Latitude CPx found that the Web site of the Federal Aviation Administration popped up on the screen so fast that the system's performance was nearly indistinguishable from that of a desktop in a corporate office.

Such speed offers white-knuckle fliers new possibilities: for example, it took no time at all to download a 238-kilobyte aviation safety manual.

Communications experts say they could charge by th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367998)

We needed "communications experts" to tell us that?

Re:for luser tin hat types... (4, Funny)

realdpk (116490) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368163)

Such speed offers white-knuckle fliers new possibilities: for example, it took no time at all to download a 238-kilobyte aviation safety manual.

I would hope they'd have such a manual on the aircraft already.

Huh? (2, Insightful)

Quixote (154172) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367807)

Hate to break it to you guys, but the dot-com days are over. How many of the slashdot crowd can afford to take a spin in a "business jet" ?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367952)

No business jet, but I did make it out of the dot-com boom/bust with a new private pilot license and my very own single engine 4-seat airplane. I'd love to be able to get real-time weather and DUATS access while in flight at an affordable price.

Re:Huh? (1)

martissimo (515886) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368188)

and the article does mention things like "The first market is corporate jets, but the builders hope to sell the system to airlines, too"

so, no most of us aint gonna be surfing the web in flight just yet, but the article does lead me to believe that it's coming

Registration required... (0, Redundant)

hexdcml (553714) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367814)

Anybody have the direct link to the story? Don't wanna sign up. :p Maybe a copy and paste would be nice.

Re:Registration required... (1)

datastew (529152) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367852)

Try gorwell1984 and gorwell1984. Found that one by searching old articles for registrations. There's probably more out there.

Re:Registration required... (1)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368058)

slashdot12345
slashdot12345

:-)

No, I didn't register it, someone posted that over the weekend (or sometime near like that, I honestly forget).

try this - complete with pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368003)

here [64.94.185.200]

is that fast enough (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367815)

to get first post from a plane?

PH1R55T AC P0ST!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367818)

That's RighT BizNatcheS

Re:PH1R55T AC P0ST!! (0, Offtopic)

Paladine97 (467512) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368196)

Not even close foo!

finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367820)

I can join the mild-high club.
www.whitehouse.com
nothin' but business.

not bad at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367821)

no your Quake clan can all travel together, or have a moving lan party. pretty sweet.

*WEAK* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367827)

Do we *REALLY* need to be that connected? I know I don't.. airline trips are sort of nice I get to pull away from the internet for a few hours atleast.. god damned.

Re:*WEAK* (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367892)

I don't know about you, but the plane trips I've taken have been some of the most boring periods of my life (running a close second to waiting in line at the DMV). Even with a new magazine in hand before the flight, I soon find myself wishing I could fall asleep rather than be completely and utterly bored. A little web browsing would definitely be a welcome distraction from staring at the back of the seat in front of me and feeling my life force slip away.

FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367828)

w00t

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367851)

w00t you didn't get it? GOOD GOING!

spoiled (1, Interesting)

theblacksun (523754) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367830)

We're all spoiled now a days. I remember blasting away at quake I and II, Starcraft and wonderful games over an unstable 36.6 dialup. I still managed to win some despite the lag.

Re:spoiled (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367944)

Yeah, though of course the dynamics of the game have increased dramatically : For instance I regularly play on a 16 player server in enormously complex environments with dynamic objects and 3D sound of all actions around you, versus the 2D+ Doom world against one other player (could you even jump in Doom? Could you crouch? You didn't even have to aim up and down but rather just had to point the right compass direction).

Compensation (0)

Jacer1099 (413942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367833)

the lower ping time yeilded by the faster connection doesn't make up for the lack of skill by thinner blood

though i could get my pr0n a bit faster than on my dial up :)

non (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367836)

mile high club takes on a new meaning with online porn

Each or between us? (5, Funny)

samael (12612) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367846)

Does the whole plane have a 64k connection?

Or are we all going to have to share it between us?

And what happens when the 15 year old in row 27 loads up Gnutella and uses _all_ the bandwidth?

Re:Each or between us? (5, Funny)

benwb (96829) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367971)

Sadly enough the dot com days are over, so there are probably not all that many 15 year olds tooling around in business jets anymore.

Re:Each or between us? (2, Interesting)

jsled (11433) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368141)

Seriously, though: what happens when the Outlook-constrained CEO next to me opens up his VPN and grabs his inbox, with the mind-bendingly-over-large PowerPoint attachment and video clips and copies of websites that the employees mail around [instead of sending just a pointer or link to].

My responsible limited-bandwidth network use will get lost in the noise. :(

Implementers of these technologies: please implement per-connection throttling.

Re:Each or between us? (3, Funny)

jfedor (27894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368149)

And what happens when the 15 year old in row 27 loads up Gnutella and uses _all_ the bandwidth?

You setup some QoS rules at the router.

Or, you can just go and hit him in the head with something heavy.

-jfedor

On my next trans pacific flight... (2, Funny)

qurob (543434) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367850)



I can download the latest Slackware ISO!

Re:On my next trans pacific flight... (2)

jfedor (27894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368115)

Sure, if the flight is about 23 hours long. :)

-jfedor

boy i remember day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367853)

Grandpa, what was the net connection on planes like back in your day?
Well kid, in my day, we had to settle for 64kbps

Corporate espionage (1)

casio282 (468834) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367857)

Wireless networks on planes? Should open up a lot of opportunities for would-be corporate spies...a whole ad-hoc, heterogenous "network neighborhood" to plunder...and frequent flier miles to boot!

Re:Corporate espionage (0)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368060)

Yeah, those 30,000ft wardialers are getting to be a real problem.

Re:Corporate espionage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368246)

it's warDRIVER. and in this particular case, it would be warflyer.

could it be??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367859)

yes! yes, it could

Dont plan on playing Quake III while flying (1)

Kasmiur (464127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367864)

"On a recent demonstration flight from Dulles Airport near Washington, the antenna was pointed at a satellite in orbit over Brazil that transmitted back to a ground station in Connecticut. "

I imagine the ping your looking at will be from plane to satellite would be horrible. I know a few people with direct PC service get relivitly high pings that it makes playing online games horrible.

Though playing a flying game online with other people while your riding in a plane could be cool.
Or perhaps renting a jet to fly to a lan party while holding one on the jet during the trip would also be cool. too bad the only ones who would be able to afford this for a while is the PHB's and higher.

I play Quake III on flights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367902)

However, I use bots.

How about down here? (2)

DickPhallus (472621) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367865)

A spokesman for Connexion by Boeing, the subsidiary that produces the system, said it would allow the use of palmtop-based e-mail service in addition to laptops, and speeds far higher than the Swift 64 system, 20 gigabits per second.

Gotta hate this... pay big bucks and you get sweet speeds on a figgin' plane, while the unwashed masses down here still have crappy 56k in many places! Damn capitalist pigs!

I wonder if they'll charge big bucks for access, like they do with the phones on the planes?

Re:How about down here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367887)

Oh yeah heaven forbid you live in an old neighborhood or a part of down your phone provider doesn't provide DSL service to. You're housing area clearly isn't as 'up to date' as say... a -- business jet. IMAGINE THAT

Re:How about down here? (1)

Osiris Ani (230116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368275)

Gotta hate this... pay big bucks and you get sweet speeds on a figgin' plane, while the unwashed masses down here still have crappy 56k in many places! Damn capitalist pigs!

You hate it? I'm sorry; as soon as you're willing to lay down the big bucks required to establish such an infrastructure, then you, too, can get the sweet speeds... wherever and whenever you want them. Indeed someone has to pay for it.

When money can be exchanged for necessary technological goods and services, it would appear that the system works after all.

And in other news... (1)

apachetoolbox (456499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367872)

Cox Communications announced it will be dropping 'hard lines' in favor of the new long range 64k wireless network. "64k outa be enough for the neightborhood."

Re:And in other news... (3, Insightful)

BiggestPOS (139071) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367954)

And then again, you're an idiot. Cox is building QUITE the high speed network, and even before they were, I consistently max out my cable modem to the cap they put on it, no matter what time of day. 128Kilobytes per second isn't all THAT bad.

Imagine what this will cost (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367877)

The companies did not give a price but said it would depend partly on how much equipment was already on board. Many planes already have some satellite communication gear for passenger seat-back telephones and for the cockpit crew to use to communicate with the airline or maintenance base.

And you thought those seat-back telephones were expensive...

The real question..... (0)

SirLantos (559182) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367880)

is, do you really think that sombody who could afford this is actually any good at Wolfenstien?

20 Gb? (1)

Minuo (172787) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367885)

Anyone else notice that the article states that Boeing offers a 20Gb/s connection on 11 business jets and soon 747s?!?

<sarcasm>wonder how they accomplish THAT!</sarcasm>

"A spokesman for Connexion by Boeing, the subsidiary that produces the system, said it would allow the use of palmtop-based e-mail service in addition to laptops, and speeds far higher than the Swift 64 system, 20 gigabits per second. "

Re:20 Gb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367941)

That 20gbit/sec figure is incorrect. Connexion will be very fast, but definitely not in that ballpark. I don't know how they got that figure.

That's still faster than my 56K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367895)

If airlines can get a faster connection even while in air why can't us land users get a similar speed? Also, wasn't there some baud rate limit on phone lines set by the FCC? Is that why phone lines can't go faster than 56K?

The sky is falling! (2)

Cutriss (262920) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367932)

Sure, you can read your email and surf the web, but can you blast away at Wolfenstein?

No, but you can Slashdot the nonstop from Atlanta to New York!

Make a plane into a flying LAN (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367939)

Why don't they make planes into flying LANs, maybe with satellite access? this process is described in Tannenbaum's Computer Networking text book. It would be a lot more efficient than those shitty and wildly expensive "airphones".

karma whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367940)

Hey, where are the karma whoring posts for how to bypass the free registration at NYTimes.com?

In case you're interested, you can always go to asahi.com [asahi.com] to view the stories registration-free. This story can be found here [nytimes.com] .

WLANs don't bother the plane? (1)

bearbones (532127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367949)

So we can set up 802.11b networks on airplanes, but we can't use cell phones.

Re:WLANs don't bother the plane? (3, Informative)

nochops (522181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367967)

Contrary to popular belief, the main reason you can't use a cellphone in a plane is the altitude. A cell phone will register with any cell it can reach. On the ground, this isn't going to be a problem, but at 30000 feet, your phone could theoretically tie up many many cells with the same connection.

Re:WLANs don't bother the plane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3367982)

Do you see any cellphone towers up in the sky?

as far as WLAN goes.. well they're on different frequencies than most cellphones too, perhaps ones that *DON'T* interfere with flight instruments? hmmm..

Re:WLANs don't bother the plane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368175)

They wnat you to pay a lot for their own phone services, that's that?

My poor connection speed (1)

bruceg (14365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367964)

Sheesh! People are computing faster than I am, even at 40k feet. Our neighborhood still has the same copper that was put up in the early 60's. No connections over 31.6 :-(

Blast Wolfenstein (1)

philovivero (321158) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367970)

Well... duh. Of course you can blast away at Wolfenstein. You're right there next to the satellites, so your latency is nil.

(oh, btw... ;)

Only $10/kb (2)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367980)

But seriously... it costs like $3/minute to make US calls how much will it cost per minute/kb used?

Faster connections possible with same equipment. (3, Funny)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 12 years ago | (#3367997)

An airplane traveling at 50% of light speed in a straight line towards the broadcast satellite should be able to provide access speeds of up to 128 Kbps. Faster even, if you include the effects of time dilation.

Already approaching from the wrong direction (5, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368063)

Communications experts say they could charge by the minute or the bit.

Why not the flight? Or the day. I'd pay $15 to have a solid net connection on a 5 hour flight.

I'm looking at this from a passenger point of view, but I think we're eventually going to see (and need) net connectivity in the air.

And it should be cheaper then they think. Why go for a wired network in the plane at all? Pulling cables through a pre-existing airplane has to be expensive. A decent WAP which can handle 64 users at the same time and cover the entire cabin gives you a lan at ~$5-700 installed. Couple that with pre-existing antenneas, get a decent switch, and violla, you have internect connectivity in an average craft for a few thousand bucks.

Wi-fi is already becomming the standard at airports (even though current coverage stinks). Why not partner with one of the many wi-fi providers popping up? I don't subscribe to any of them, but if I found out that my subscription to boingo would keep me connected at the airport, in the plane, and the hotel when I landed, I'd sign up in a second.

Re:Already approaching from the wrong direction (1)

mikeage (119105) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368262)

A decent WAP which can handle 64 users at the same time and cover the entire cabin gives you a lan at ~$5-700 installed.

<NITPICK>
That's quite a price difference... where can I get the wireless network for $5? I assume you mean $500-700 ;)
</NITPICK>

Wolf != multiplayer!!! (1)

kirkb (158552) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368068)

Sure, you can read your email and surf the web, but can you blast away at Wolfenstein?

Probably not, considering that Wolfenstein wasn't multiplayer. Try Doom :)

Re:Wolf != multiplayer!!! (2)

The Night Watchman (170430) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368198)

Actually, the new version, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, is multiplayer [activision.com] . It's a pretty sweet game, and it even runs under Linux [wolfensteincenter.com] . Now if only multiple copies of the game can be used to build a Beowulf cluster...

What Office Does this guy work in? (1)

billnapier (33763) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368080)

On the demonstration flight, a user of a Dell Latitude CPx found that the Web site of the Federal Aviation Administration popped up on the screen so fast that the system's performance was nearly indistinguishable from that of a desktop in a corporate office.

Man, if I only got 64kbps at my office, I would be talking to our network admin! 64 kbps reminds me of the days of sharing a 56k dial-up internet connection among 30 people. Now that was slow...

Arrested? (5, Funny)

tarsi210 (70325) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368083)

can you blast away at Wolfenstein?

And if you did, would you get arrested or attacked by the passengers for wielding a weapon?

Maybe arming pilots with a plasma rifle would be a good thing. Or maybe they just need Jabber:

SkieHighPil0t: Help! We're being hijacked!
Sl33pyGrndCtrl: Thanks, SkieHighPil0t, but I'm away from my computer right now. Leave a message! :)

This is old news (2)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368096)

I have had 87564 kb/s in my bat plane for years.

YAWN

.

Already been done at 128 KBPS (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368105)

This has already been achieved using the GlobalStar constellation:

http://www.qualcomm.com/press/pr/releases2001/pr es s27.html

Wolfenstein (2)

kwishot (453761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368119)

We played Wolfenstein on 2400 baud modems back in the day, what would stop us from playing on 64k? =)

If you're talking about RTCW on the other hand....
=)

Aviation safety manual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368142)

....and at second page, it is written that usage of RF stuff is dangerous to plane saaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....

Biz Jets at Beyond the Speed of Light (1)

Quirk (36086) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368144)

64kbps... time travel back to the era of kilotonne 'portable' pcs with glowing green screens... imagine if you will.

+ 100g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3368206)

..of coke to enjoy the boring trip (shit I'm really bored of flying all the time).

Now with 300bps MORE! (1)

ebmedia (527536) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368225)

I just flew back from Dayton to LA on a nice Delta jet, but in coach. The lil GTE AirFones proudly screamed at me "NOW, HIGHER DATA RATES!" Flipping through Sky magazine, I found that top speed is 9600bps.. rock! Now I can play LORD in the air!

(legend of the red dragon... fuck yeah)

Retarded (0)

First_In_Hell (549585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368248)

This is so stupid. Like everyone mentioned above, the only people using this will be tight assed business execs. All these morons (mostly sales people, truly the bottom of the workplace barrel) do is check e-mail 19 hours a day anyway , they could manage that with only a 2400 baud modem and not notice the difference.

Me and my brok ass hard core gamers are never going to fly on an "executive" type jet anyway, so what difference does it make if you might get pings of 678 on Wolfenstein.

Jetstream (4, Funny)

africanswallow (556130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3368271)

Actually, I heard that the 64kbps is the net of the 56kbps you get going west against the jetstream over the Pacific and 72kbps going with.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...