×

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!

More On Airplanes And Internet

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the the-data-friendly-skies dept.

News 192

fonixmunkee writes "as a sometimes-traveler for work, and a huge nerd, I am always excited about news like this. it appears that some airlines may start offering internet access next year when you need to get that internet fix at 35,000 feet. I was pleased when they started selling wireless internet in airports, so this is another welcomed suprise for techie travlers. apparently they want to use satellite to get high-speed connections to the planes in the air. pretty cool. " Too bad Northwest isn't going to have it for my DTW -> NRT -> KUL -> PER for CALU.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

FP For Katie!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897756)

FP for you, baybee!

Re:FP For Katie!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897765)

Aftenposten!

Re:FP For Katie!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897831)

Katie is a cumslut.

First post (0, Funny)

Klerck (213193) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897758)

First first post from an airplane!

Re:First post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897762)

HA HA KLERCK! You fucking whore! You lose to AC, as always!

YOU FAIL IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897870)

perhaps you can use an airplane to fly to a country (perhaps soviet russia) in which failing the first post is tolerated
YOU FAIL IT!

the obligatory post (0, Redundant)

hashinclude (192717) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897935)

Imagine a beowolf cluster over wireless of these (at 10K + altitude!)

Enough already.

Neat! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897766)

Hey this will only cost 99.99 a minute! What a steal!

YOU'VE UNLEASHED THE FUCKING FURY (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897767)

Who the hell is Yngwie Malmsteen?

Re:YOU'VE UNLEASHED THE FUCKING FURY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897793)

A swedish born guitarist very popular in Japan. He plays extraordinarily fast music in Harmonic Minor scales, and gets a lot of shit for it. The, music, is, in fact quite a lot of fun actually.

(From Everything2)

I can see the use on transcontinental flights.. (5, Interesting)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897769)

I haven't flown in a while, do they also offer power connections for your laptop?

Cuz a 12+ hour flight wouldn't be very much fun after your backup batteries die.

And remember, the foldable tray will stop your willie from overheating:)

Re:I can see the use on transcontinental flights.. (5, Funny)

darkov (261309) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897836)

And remember, the foldable tray will stop your willie from overheating:)

But that may be counteracted by the porn you are downloading. The tray is handy either way, though.

Power connection (3, Interesting)

Richard Kirk (535523) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898056)

I would rather have a power connection than the internet connection. Usualy, there is plenty I want to do on a laptop, without getting an internet connection, and all the sysadmin fun and games that can involve. Sometimes I have almost flattened my laptop batteries waiting for the plane, just cleaning up my files and doing those jobs that you never get around to if there is anything else to do.

PS. The folding tray may stop your todger from doing a Hindenberg, but the little magnetic catch may zorsch your hard disc.

In flight electronics (3, Interesting)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897771)

I've always wondered why airlines got the policy that using a portable cd player or radio in flight is dangerous while laptops aren't.

At least that's the situation on all domestic flights I've taken. I've got a suspicion that they want to compete with trains etc. for business customers and therefore don't give a damn about their own rules.

Re:In flight electronics (1)

HFShadow (530449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897777)

Thats only during take off and landing, laptops are also to be off then. I got into a fight with a stewardess when she saw me resting my gps against the window during take off tho, she didnt seem too impressed with my arugment "Its not a cell phone though!"

Re:In flight electronics (4, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897884)

If only they wouldn't think I was a terrorist with my yagi antenna pointed out the window scanning traffic below and surfing other people's sessions...

Re:In flight electronics (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897940)

I wouldn't try that trick now. They'll probably assume you're using the GPS for evil purposes to know when to strike or something like that.

I asked if I could turn one on in February and the head passenger herder guy barked a firm "no" at me. He gave some BS excuse about FAA regs. Yeah, OK, whatever, it's up to the pilot anyway. He didn't even ask on my behalf.

So, I did it anyway, but I left it in my bag, and just held the bag on my lap for a few minutes. It got enough of a signal long enough to get a position fix and speed - 505 mph. That was all I wanted to see, so I put it away.

Until the current hysteria is forgotten, I'd advise leaving the GPS in your checked luggage.

Re:In flight electronics (1)

Duds (100634) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897783)

The way I've always been told you're fine using things like this once you're at altitude.

I've always been asked to turn off electronics for takeoff and landing.

Or yes, they're money grabbing sods :)

Re:In flight electronics (2)

buzban (227721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897872)

radios are verboten, i believe, since they involve *radio* signals, and there's the potential interference issue. CD players are allowed anytime above 10K feet.

Re:In flight electronics (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897967)

>radios are verboten, i believe, since they involve *radio* signals, and there's the potential interference issue.

Well, transmitting ones, sure.

But, IIRC, regular radios are banned because it isn't hard to get one that tunes to the aircraft band, and the _last_ thing the pilot needs during an emergency situation is a passenger putting their aircraft radio on speaker...

Not to mention that in most contries the people do _not_ have the freedom to listen to all of the airwaves without a license, so bringing a scanner on crossborder flights is a no-no. For example, in the US the cellphone range is banned, and in the UK pretty much anything that isn't shortwave, medium wave or long wave is banned (including TV).

Re:In flight electronics (2)

radish (98371) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897985)

Can you define "banned"? In the UK there's no problem buying unlocked scanners (unlike the US IIRC), they used to sell them in my local Tandy (Radio Shack). Of course they may be illegal to use, but I've never heard of that being the case.

Re:In flight electronics (2)

radish (98371) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897997)

Not in all cases. Some airlines ban CD players altogether, I forget which, but I think Al Italia may be one. I don't know whet their policy is on laptops as I haven't flown business with them (and I don't take laptops on holiday!).

Emergency procedures (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897779)

If you commit a crime via the Internet at 30,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, whose jurisdiction does it fall in?

Re:Emergency procedures (1)

LucidityZero (602202) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897852)

If you commit a crime via the Internet at 30,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, whose jurisdiction does it fall in?

IIRC, the laws the country you have left apply untill you land.

Re:Emergency procedures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897868)

I don't think that's right. I remember taking a flight to London when I was a teenager. I didn't get offered a drink the first time the stewardess came around, but the second time I did.

Re:Emergency procedures (1)

JohnRlI (199149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897877)

Well, current precedents being set would tend to indicate that regardless of local law concerning computer use you can be prosecuted wherever they want to prosecute you - ie wherever was affected by the crime. So in other words, you're screwed.

Re:Emergency procedures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897943)

Australia, just like everything else you do on the Internet.

Re:Emergency procedures (3, Informative)

RealUlli (1365) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897947)

I'd guess it's like with ships: You fall in the jurisdiction of the country that aircraft is registered in. Exceptions might be aircraft on the ground, or in national airspace...

Remember: a lot of ships fly flags of countries with very lax saftey laws - the only thing a country can do about one of those is keep it from entering its tree-mile-area (or was it 12-mile!?).

Example at hand: what the EU is doing now is trying to get its members to ban tankers they deem unsafe from their harbors - unfortunately only after one of those sank a couple of hundred miles off the coast of Spain with about 70000 tons of heavy oil aboard. Being banned, those tankers hopefully have no more reason to go near European waters...

Regards, Ulli

Re:Emergency procedures (3, Insightful)

Gandalf04 (447716) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897948)

Does it even matter whose jurisdiction the crime falls in?

If the crime is against anything/anyone in the US, they will come after you, no matter where you commited the crime. Just look at how the FBI handled the Russians.

Stop calling that a crime (2)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897954)

There hardly is such a thing as a computer crime. A crime is a possibly illegal bad action by which you physically harm one or more human or animal individual, like killing, or raping. Stealing may be in some cases, for instance stealing my paycheck will get me starving, stealing from the wal mart is not.

What you meant is "if you commit a misdemeanor"

Re:Stop calling that a crime (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898005)

>There hardly is such a thing as a computer crime. A crime is a possibly illegal bad action by which you physically harm one or more human or animal individual, like killing, or raping.

I'll call you on that one.

What say you use the internet to hack street lights so cars crash or hack the airport so planes crash (assuming these are connected to the internet. if not, insert computer at home connected to both internet and modem in between).

It certainly isn't impossible to physically harm others using the internet, and you'll be going to a criminal court for doing any of the above. For someone competent enough, I doubt it's even hard.

We have a winner! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898042)

Every once in a while I see a post on /. that's so myopic, so immature, so arrogant that it deserves a prize. This post claiming that there's no such thing as computer crime is a prime example.

What shall we call the award? The Slashdot Colonoscopy Award, for having your head that far up your own ass?

IPSky (5, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897780)


A plug for a mate IPSky [ipv6.garr.it] talks about the market and the issues and is a pretty good starting doc on this sort of stuff from a technical/management perspective. The interesting part of some of these elements is that it enables additional information to the pilots and potentially between planes. Getting the internet to the passengers is relatively simple, combining it with elements like TCAS [caasd.org] to reduce the risk of collisions and also to enable less reliance on Air Traffic Controllers in areas where they have no Radar coverage.

Re:IPSky (0, Offtopic)

LondonLawyer (609870) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897900)

>> The easiest way to get shot is to carry a gun -- Atticus Finch

Maybe then. Nowadays all you have to do is live in LA.

Two words - VoIP and Routers... (5, Insightful)

jason718 (634659) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897784)

Inflight internet access, especially at a flat rates, makes me wonder about the potential for using VoIP. If the latency introduced by the satellite connection doesn't completely negate its use, using VoIP software on a laptop connected to the airplane's Internet connection would offer considerably cheaper inflight calls.

Secondly, how long until we see groups of people smuggling on battery powered Linksys (et al) routers. $30 split a few ways is always cheaper...

Re:Two words - VoIP and Routers... (4, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897849)

Secondly, how long until we see groups of people smuggling on battery powered Linksys (et al) routers. $30 split a few ways is always cheaper..

It wouldn't be hard. Most of things draw DC from a power brick. RadioShack [radioshack.com] used to carry a power brick-type thing that would hold batteries in what would normally be the brick. And I imagine that there are or will be other third party solutions such as a rechargeable power brick for using routers with batteries before too long as portable, wireless high speed access becomes more and more important.

Re:Two words - VoIP and Routers... (3, Interesting)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897883)

And I imagine that there are or will be other third party solutions such as a rechargeable power brick for using routers with batteries before too long...

Hey, what about those fuel cells you have these days!?

:-)

Re:Two words - VoIP and Routers... (2)

buzban (227721) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897886)

If the latency introduced by the satellite connection doesn't completely negate its use, using VoIP software on a laptop connected to the airplane's Internet connection would offer considerably cheaper inflight calls.
couldn't be any worse than the phones they have on airplanes now....plus at $30, you'd save money if you only made a couple of calls. voice calls are like $5-10/min from a plane, and the quality is something akin to tin cans on a really, really long string that's got a few string repeaters in the middle... ;)

Re:Two words - VoIP and Routers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897953)

Assuming the airplane's service is wireless, then get a laptop with two card slots or one card slot and built-in wireless support. Put one of them in the mode to talk to the plane, and the other one in ad-hoc mode to talk to your friends.

Run some quick masquerading/NAT in the middle and you're done.

I've been tempted to fire up those prism2 drivers that look like an AP to see who will associate with me. All those people with wireless cards that are constantly looking for a network would be easy to grab.

The next big thing: rogue access points that aren't!

Re:Two words - VoIP and Routers... (1)

jason718 (634659) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898001)

Assuming the airplane's service is wireless, then get a laptop with two card slots or one card slot and built-in wireless support. Put one of them in the mode to talk to the plane, and the other one in ad-hoc mode to talk to your friends.

Which raises the question - what's the take on wireless network cards on airplanes? I think it would fall in the same controlled area as any other type of radio transmitting device. Has anyone been asked to remove their wireless card during the flight?

So... (2, Insightful)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897787)

we can use laptops, but not mobile phones, CD players, etc?
What gives?
Great idea, but bizarre....

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897897)

we can use laptops, but not mobile phones

So what about voice over IP and by-pass there silly rules about mobiles?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897789)

Planes invent YOU!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897817)

lamest post ever --The campain against lame /. posts

IN SOVJET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897794)

the trolls modded themselves up!!!

Re:IN SOVJET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897824)

even lamer post
--The campaign against lame /. posts
yes I can spell

Re:IN SOVJET RUSSIA THEY USE NJETSCAPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898009)

..AND INTERNJET exploder.

It is safe. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897795)

It is safe and permitted to user consumer electronics onboard aircraft with several exceptions. Wireless-radio communications devices are prohibited because they are naturally in the habit of emitting radio signals. Aswell devices are prohibited during take off and landing.

Operating Frequencys (1)

Poppa_joe (571379) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897797)

Does any one know what frequency this would operate at? I have always wondered exactly what frequency interferes with flight electronics and which ones don't. Do hand cell phones interfere with flight systems in reality or is this just a way of making you pay to use the ones built into the back of the seats? I have wondered about this for a while.

Re:Operating Frequencys (1)

HFShadow (530449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897804)

I had my phone in carry on and somehow it got turned on during the flight, didnt notice until we landed and i saw the battery was nearly dead (flight to europe + no nearby towers = higher transmit power = less battery life) Anyways, the plane didnt crash ;)

Re:Operating Frequencys (1)

Interfacer (560564) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897820)

Your cell phone doesn't work at 35000 ft because there is no carrier signal / antennae available. Interfacer

Re:Operating Frequencys (1)

Poppa_joe (571379) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897825)

That goes with out saying. But does using it at lower altitudes cause interference with other flight electronics?

Re:Operating Frequencys (5, Informative)

Sacarino (619753) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897885)

I work for a domestic carrier in the US, and one day while flying jumpseat to get to a conference we had one of the passengers sneak in a call on her cell phone, which somehow got into unsheilded wires and broadcast clear-as-day onto the aircraft's comm gear. It wasn't transmitting from us out to the world, mind you, but we could hear her conversation.

additionally, I've heard that the reason CDRoms and discman players and the like are banned is due to the frequency wandering those things emit when spinning up/down and the interruption it causes with precision approach gear. I dont know how true that is.

Re:Operating Frequencys (1)

InadequateCamel (515839) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897930)

It may have more to do with the fact that they don't want electronics running PERIOD. So rather than have to explain to every passenger that some devices are safe and some aren't, they just say "Sod it" and prohibit everything.

It just might prevent arguments like "But HAM radios aren't on the list, so I just figured I could talk to my trucker buddies as I flew overhead!"

Re:Operating Frequencys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898014)

But it's not just electronics, mate.

you can play your game boy advance all you want.... it's electronics that transmit excessive noise, intentional or otherwise.

That's why you can't use ham radio on board, or a NavComm Transceiver, or those stupid Motorola family channel radios.

...and I've got a quid that says a ham radio is indeed on the list.

Re:Operating Frequencys (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898017)

>Do hand cell phones interfere with flight systems in reality or is this just a way of making you pay to use the ones built into the back of the seats?

You shouldn't use your cellphone because it will DOS the provider's cell net. The nets aren't designed to hand over your call so fast and things get screwed up and you end up wasting a _lot_ more bandwidth than the cell provider wants you to.

All youI need now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897805)

...is a printer and no longer do you have to use your imagination to join the solo mile hile club :-)

But seriously, what would the point be of internet connection when you are flying? Other than reading news? Is email _really_ that important?

Re:All youI need now... (1)

UnknownBeetroot (633876) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897856)

Well, on those really long flights - transatlantic, or to western asia from where I am - I can imagine that it'd be slightly more entertaining than the in-flight movies.

The logical next step would be for them to offer charging points so people can actually use their laptops for a fair amount of time. And I don't really see equipment like this interfering with the airplane... sure, something that can fly through electrical storms is going to go haywire and spiral down when I switch on my laptop. Sure.

But gawd, it's going to make sitting next to people infinitely worse. Not just tinny music from your neighbours... but pretending to look away as they visit pron sites, watching crappy powerpoint presentations being put together by businessmen... hmm, maybe I've got those the wrong way round.

Pricing (4, Interesting)

tangledweb (134818) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897806)

They are talking $30 per leg.

I imagine that at those prices it will go the same way as inseat phones. One of the phone carriers is killing their $5 per minute service because there was on average 1.5 phone calls made per flight.

If you are carrying all that extra weight, you have to be able to get people to buy it or it is just going out backwards.

Re:Pricing (5, Insightful)

darkov (261309) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897857)

They are talking $30 per leg. I imagine that at those prices it will go the same way as inseat phones.

I dunno about you, but on a long (12-14 hour) international flight, I would happily pay that to relieve the boredom. And if you're travelling on business it's a small expense if it means you can be productive in some way, such as catching up on industry news, the competitors products, whatever. Like other monopoly players, the phone providers just priced themselves out of the market.

Re:Pricing (1)

snitty (308387) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897907)

They are talking $30 per leg. I imagine that at those prices it will go the same way as inseat phones. One of the phone carriers is killing their $5 per minute service because there was on average 1.5 phone calls made per flight.

$30 seams reasonable for longer flights, and who honestly can't stay unplugged for a 3 hour flight. Granted more and more work nowadays needs to be done connected to the internet, but a fiar amout dosen't and it can interfere with productivity. Perhaps all businesses should have a no internet hour every day.

Hrm (5, Funny)

houseofmore (313324) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897819)

I wonder if streaming porn all the way to Vegas will take the fun out of it once you're there.

Re:Hrm (2, Insightful)

thryllkill (52874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897850)

I'm sure there will be filters and such to keep that from happening. Not so you don't get to look at porn of course, but so that the kids in the seats around you don't look over your shoulder...

Isn't it aeroplane (2, Informative)

mab (17941) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897827)

Like the English and The Kiwi's spell it
as one of that last stories points out, they where the first [thestar.ca] :)

Re:Isn't it aeroplane (1)

houseofmore (313324) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897873)

No, it's "Flying Machine"!

And with Air New Zeland falling to bits in the sky [nzherald.co.nz] , it's barely that! =)

Re:Isn't it aeroplane (1)

mab (17941) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897927)

I like the bit about having a worse landing in Wellington. I remember landing there, coming into the runway at about 45 dregrees because of the wind. Oh the days. I will have to get back to wellington havn't been there for 11 years

Re:Isn't it aeroplane (1)

houseofmore (313324) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897959)

Ya, my first trip to Wellinton was by plane. I think I was the only newbie on the flight, 'cause I was the only one screaming in terror each time a wing looked like it was going to tear through the runway.

The next two times have been by car!

Secure? (2, Funny)

HugoQuixote (32615) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897837)

Wardriving at 30,000 feet...?

Hmmm... maybe we'll start to see crackers taking flying lessons.

Re:Secure? (5, Funny)

UnknownBeetroot (633876) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897871)

Wardriving at 30k feet...?

I have this insane vision of you getting a biplane next to this massive Boeing, leaning over with a stick of chalk and scawling symbols on th plane as pilots frantically call air traffic control about a possible hijacking...

Hah, for a second I typed 'Boeing' there as 'Boing'. Kinda... fits.

Re:Secure? (1)

HugoQuixote (32615) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897920)

...Heck, every plane in the Virgin fleet should have an Elder symbol on it somewhere... ^_^ Boing! Huzzah for silly noises.

moron the billonlyUS stock markup FraUDs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897844)

of the FraUDuleNT softwar fairytail "economy". knot that any of you /.ers have a clue/care about, the phony payper liesense stock markup FraUDs that have drained your pareNTs future, out from under them, whilst singing a tune of "somewhere, over the rainbow".

butt stay tuned for even more major "restructuring" (that means that even old hardheaded J. Public is bailing, due to reports of minor unfairnessess in the accouNTing systerns) on wall street of deceit. they got US AGAIN J.. wake up.

Bob Chapman has served excerpts from THE INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER 14, DECEMBER, 2002 (#2) at The Toulouse-Lautrec Table. "The rats are abandoning ship. O'Neill and Lindsey don't want to be on watch when the market and the economy collapse and the gold manipulation cartel are broken. They are both members of the brotherhood so they are or have been participating in what has been going on in the Exchange Stabilization Fund and with the Working Group on Financial Markets. They are responsible and, with the President, stand to be blamed and rightly so. Although the real instigators were Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. This is not a Republican or Democrat contest, it is a joint operation of elitists. They know no party. Rubin and O'Neill ran the ESF. They all probably have visions of being dragged off by the people as was Benito Mussolini and sharing his fate. Quite frankly, it's all a disgrace. Traders all over the world are now talking about the stock, gold and silver markets being rigged. A London money manager who does business with one of the elitist Wall Street firms said banks are rigging the stock market. Exposure is what these culprits can't stand. It ends their game. That could be expedited by an audit of US gold reserves. It would be convenient if someone on the inside came forward and told us what really is going on, or if finally the media covered the truth. All we can do is keep informing the public and forcing the issue. It won''t be long before we prevail, because behind the scenes there is chaos and that has to be why these two insiders wanted out."

Re:moron the billonlyUS stock markup FraUDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897901)

-1? what the fud? that's about a plus 10, just for relevaNTs robbIE?

you aren't in these felonious stock markup/?pr?/accepting money for false advertising/accouNTability debacles, are you. we're sure not. we hope you're not. if you are, it's best to square up right away. mod me up robbIE, you know what's gooing on DOWn hear, doN'T you?

-1!@#$% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897915)

what's up with that? the guise from fuddles&fudstorm.con right in the announcer's booth wit you know robbIE. is VA lairy on the dole/viagra yet/still?

be faster to walk/use carrier pigeons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897858)

I DOWt anybuddy is going to be too excited about being able to check their email in flight, after waiting several hours, to get to the laptop disassembly counter, then several more hours to bored.

Notice who is doing this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897864)

It ain't any of the big US based aitlines. They don't want to innovate, just whine while Southwest eats them for lunch.

I swear, they're like the RIAA.

Internet Access In Places for years? (1)

johnraphone (624518) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897903)

They have been trying to do Internet access in planes for years; I won't be surprised if this ends the same fate. I think the problem is that not too many people will use it and that people are not willing to pay $30 per flighty for access for just a few hours. They could have a monthly fee that would be more feasible.
I wish them luck anyway.

In other news (3, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897911)

it was confirmed today that the reason for New Zealander Richard Pearse's crash and failure to claim first flight was caused by his modem cable reaching its elastic limit.

You might want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897912)

"Too bad Northwest isn't going to have it for my DTW -> NRT -> KUL -> PER for CALU."

Oooh. You might want to have that looked at by your doctor before it gets worse. In a few days, you could be ROTFLOL, IMNSHO, d00d.

Santa Claus (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897933)

This jovial Christmas game brought to you by The Hacker Underground!

SantaPukki alias Santa Claus needs your help! It is Christmas time and you need to help Santapukki to collect booze bottles. Use your arrow keys and try to stay on the roof ;) Click HERE [rancon.co.uk] to start the game!

Privacy, anyone ? (3, Interesting)

forged (206127) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897936)

Email in airplanes..... Great idea.

Now all three passengers behind my seat and my two neighbors will know the name of my wife and kids, what a great week-end I have had, how bad the food was, and how much money the deal closed.

Err, what if one of the three happened to be an executive from a competitor ? Think about it for a minute :)

And I think that most people will not want to watch pr0n on my screen throughout the flight either !

Re:Privacy, anyone ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898036)

There's this nifty thing called encryption. You should try it sometime.

Re:Privacy, anyone ? (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898069)

Solution:

One [secure-it.com]
Two [canhamcameras.com]

Homemade: Buy a pair of fishing glasses, place polarizing filter over laptop screen. IIRC, you should be able to darken the laptop screen yet still see it fine with the glasses. YMMV, and I may not be describing this just right (but this product was once manufactured -- it may involve removing the polarizing filter that is already on your LCD instead).

Make for a nice return flight (1)

Timid_Monkey (125284) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897937)

I'm heading to Kenya for the holidays to visit a sister studying in Nairobi. It would be a great present from Northwest to find my flights back (NBO->AMS->DTW) allow for it!!

More on Lufthansa's deal... (3, Informative)

mudpuppy (24015) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897951)

Sky's the Limit for Cisco Aironet Wireless LAN Technologies [cisco.com] "Any traveler with a laptop computer or portable device equipped with a Wi-Fi compliant NIC card or enabled with Wi-Fi embedded inside will be able to log onto the wireless network. As part of the service, Lufthansa will also operate a 10 Mbps Ethernet wired network onboard for those passengers without wireless-capable computers. With 380 seats, a typical Lufthansa 747 has as many network connection sites as a mid-sized company. "

Internet connection by Boeing on a Airbus ??? (1)

Uzull (16705) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898040)

Would be interesting to see if the system can be installed in a Airbus aircraft, as Lufthansa has a lot of those presently on routes over the Atlantic
Soon (2007) there will be A380 with upto 470 seats. The story will become even more interesting

money (1)

aggieben (620937) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897963)

Wireless in airports is expensive (upwards of $1 a minute in the few that I've seen it). I can't imagine what they'll charge for internet access in an in-flight airplane. It's going to be horrendous, and thus as useless to me as the wirless in the airports. Ho-Hum.

Hmmmm... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 11 years ago | (#4897970)

Is it that what nerds refer to when they say that they are in the 10-mile high club?

Re:Hmmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898071)

10-mile club, eh

That would be 52,800ft.

WTF are you doing at FL520? Flying an AWACS?

It's been done (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4897972)

Almost ten years ago, I worked for InFlight Phone Corp., which offered dial-up connectivity (19.2K, which was fast for the time) from commercial flights, along with digital voice phone, faxes, games, etc. Each seat had an embedded PC, talking to a file/radio server buried in the cargo bay.

The system actually worked, and was installed in over 100 planes (mostly USAir). Unfortunately, it cost enormously more to set up and operate the system than customers were willing to pay, and the company went out of business.

Years later, I was on a plane that still had the system installed (but turned off). The rumor around the office was that it cost $250K to remove the now-dead system from a plane, and the airlines weren't willing to foot the bill, so the dead system stayed in planes for years to come.

Hm... (1)

debilo (612116) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898033)

Too bad Northwest isn't going to have it for my DTW -> NRT -> KUL -> PER for CALU.

Yeah, and don't forget, like, your OAD that is attached to your BDT sticking out of your ROR pointing to your BRD for LITH [sciencenews.org] .

Interesting quote from the article (2, Insightful)

mikehunt (225807) | more than 11 years ago | (#4898062)

"That price sounds about right to Rob Vollmer, 32, a principal in Crosby-Vollmer International Communications, a Washington-based public-relations firm.

Vollmer, who has flown 140,000 miles this year, does so much work by e-mail that he sometimes feels compelled to surreptitiously check messages during flights with a wireless Palm device, though it's prohibited."

I believe the correct word here is illegal!!!

The clock has now started ticking Mr. Vollmer, expect the Feds to be banging on your door very soon!

Imagine... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898074)

...a beowulf squadron of those...

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4898090)

This will never happen? Why? Terrorism.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...