301–310 of 675 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that an American thing? Absolutely paying for the water here.
On planes? Seriously? Where?
No food and no water. Most recent data point: April 2023, Standard Economy (not Basic Economy). International, 4.5 hours flight (Germany to Tenerife) (and back). The flight had a LH code, although operated by Eurowings which according to Wikipedia is a wholly owned subsidiary of LH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurowings).
When my son was younger - maybe 9 or 10 or so, we were on a plane and he was using his phone and I looked over his shoulder and realized he was on the internet... but I hadn't paid for an internet plan. I said, "son, how are you using the internet?" He said, "oh, a kid at school showed me - if you go here" (he opened up the wifi settings where the DHCP assigned IP address is) "and start changing the numbers, eventual…
A few years ago I was on a Southwest flight and had OpenVPN running because I forgot to turn it off. I was able to access the Internet through my tunnel without paying for access. I guess at the time they were only port blocking common ports (80, 443, 53 etc) if you didn't pay. They have since closed that hole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi fellow Alaska frequent flier. So about that! There's this iOS app called Flightly that does a brilliant little hack where the app updates itself in (almost) real time on the "free messaging" plan. The way it works (according to a friend) is that their servers send your phone a push notification every couple of minutes from take-off until landing, containing some serialized info such as lat,long,alt,eta,etc. And th…
I had an idea to use Facebook messanger as a proxy. Specifically to use the cheap messaging plan on a cruise ship for real internet access. My home computer would be a gateway that monitors fb and fetches/returns websites. I never even tried because it just sounds like a violation of multiple ToSes. Not to mention message size limitations, throttling, my fb messages being pages of encoded text, etc. I feel like it wo…
When my son was younger - maybe 9 or 10 or so, we were on a plane and he was using his phone and I looked over his shoulder and realized he was on the internet... but I hadn't paid for an internet plan. I said, "son, how are you using the internet?" He said, "oh, a kid at school showed me - if you go here" (he opened up the wifi settings where the DHCP assigned IP address is) "and start changing the numbers, eventual…
I used to travel a lot for work and just refused to pay for WiFi. This was good in airports and coffeeshops when you still had to pay to connect.
Now it's hardly needed, but I could see how it would be helpful where there's still a cost to connect.
When my son was younger - maybe 9 or 10 or so, we were on a plane and he was using his phone and I looked over his shoulder and realized he was on the internet... but I hadn't paid for an internet plan. I said, "son, how are you using the internet?" He said, "oh, a kid at school showed me - if you go here" (he opened up the wifi settings where the DHCP assigned IP address is) "and start changing the numbers, eventual…
When my son was younger - maybe 9 or 10 or so, we were on a plane and he was using his phone and I looked over his shoulder and realized he was on the internet... but I hadn't paid for an internet plan. I said, "son, how are you using the internet?" He said, "oh, a kid at school showed me - if you go here" (he opened up the wifi settings where the DHCP assigned IP address is) "and start changing the numbers, eventual…
That's an amazing anecdote! The state of "open Wi-Fi" security is actually really sad. I'm not aware of an easy way for the airline to actually do better than this! I suppose they could use Opportunistic Wireless Encryption [1] and bind session authentication to that (i.e. authenticate a given OWE session, not a given MAC address) if the device supports it, as at least modern Apple devices do? But I have no idea how…
In case of in-flight Wi-Fi, the credentials/QR code can be printed on the boarding pass, or available in the app (the app caches it in advance while it's still on the ground, so when in the air you can use those credentials to connect).
This doesn't cover 100% of use-cases but it would at least cover a big one (a significant amount of public Wi-Fi is "value add" to another service - whether restaurants, hotels, flights, etc where there's an existing channel to provide one-off wi-Fi credentials over), it's a shame nobody deploys this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to do the same thing at hotels. Still often works. nmap -sn 192.168.0.1-255 To find everyone on the network, then start spoofing each of their MACs until you find one that works
I’ve never been at a hotel that charged for WiFi - is that a US thing?
“According to this data, the plane’s altitude was only fluctuating by about 20-30 feet. This is more stable than I expected!” Autopilots are very good and they are servoing to the pressure altitude. Many pressure altitude encoders used in modern aircraft (for example to drive altitudes that transponders report to SSR radar or via ADS-B) have 25 ft encoding resolution. That 25ft resolution is likely what is being seen…
A plane going up and down 20-30 feet seems like it would be very unpleasant. Considering that there's longitude and latitude, isn't it more likely that the altitude is coming from GPS, which is notoriously inaccurate with regards to elevation?
At cruise altitude, you're moving along at 500 mph, which is 777 feet per second. So going from +30 feet to -30 feet in a minute is just an adjustment of only about 5 degrees. You'd barely feel it, even walking down the isle. An acceleration of 33 ft/sec per sec is 1 g.
You experience greater changes in vertical motion on any flight you go on.
*edit: units
The speed unit looks more like knots than mph.
I'm not so sure. The same data packet claims that the flight has 2h 25m of flight time left to cover 1167 miles. That works out to 483 mph, which is pretty close to the stated 487 and might be explained by some padding added to the time to account for taxiing. Unless that 1167 figure is in a different unit it doesn't even come close to working out at 487 knots ground speed.
The blog says the destination was Oakland. The Oakland International Airport is at 37°43′17″N 122°13′15″W. The data packet also contains the current lat and long of the flight as 40.201 and -100.755 respectively. Plugging that in to a distance calculator [2] gives 1163 miles, 1010.6 nautical miles, or 1871.6km. So the distance value of 1167 appears to be miles.
At 487mph covering 1163 miles would take 2.3963039014 hours or ~2h23m. If the speed is knots then it would be 2.08233112598 hours or ~2h5m at 560.4296mph. So mph makes the most sense given an estimated time of arrival of 2h25m.
So I think you are right, the distance appears to be miles and the speed MPH. This makes sense for an in-flight infotainment system on a US domestic flight.
The difference between 1167 and 1163 can probably be explained by the fact that the plane is 6.5 miles in the air traveling at 8 miles per minute and we don't know update interval or if the distance is in the air or on the ground.
[1]: https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Oakland_I...
[2]: https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/latitude-longitude-dist...