Talk:IP over Avian Carriers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IP over Avian Carriers article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Possible Applications

While the new "Possible Applications" represents a slight improvement, it still needs to be cleaned up or removed. It needs to be more explicitly claim (in a sourced fashion) that this would never be implemented in practicality. The current tone is more akin to going into the Dihydrogen monoxide article and talking about how many deaths were due to the substance. Such tidbits would be true, but they would not be encyclopedic. --Bletch 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a joke. The article makes clear that it's about a joke. If you think that that section, specifically, needs to reiterate that the topic is a joke, that's fine, and if you make edits to that effect, that's wonderful; but I think it's very reasonable for an article about a joke to include factual information supporting the joke, even if the factual information isn't enough to turn it intoa non-joke. —RuakhTALK 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the fact that the information in question is factual isn't the point. The problem is with how it is presented in a such a straight faced manner that reading it, one might suspect that it might in fact it be a practical method. Wikipedia articles about jokes cannot themselves be structured as jokes themselves. Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? I've attempted to rephrase the paragraph as a direct comparison of bandwidth, rather then the tougue-in-cheek crap that is currently there. On a side note, does this really qualify as a [fictional telecom protocol]? Sounds like that the protocol exists; even if its a totally unpractical protocol its still not fictional. --Bletch 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? That's a very good point. In real life, pigeons don't have hands, so couldn't perform the three-way handshake properly. ;-)
In all seriousness, though, I think your recent edit was a big improvement. :-)
—RuakhTALK 22:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

In its current state, tI think there can be no confusion. In any case, this is an editing matter, not one for speedy deletion. DGG 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of course they'd take Internet Protocol

If IP is used, a large TCP window would be useful. (j.engelh 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

It might also be desireable to use a larger MTU than the original implementation's 150. --Nibios 16:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup (1500). Problem is, IIRC, that the MSS can only be 64K max :-/ -j.engelh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengelh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

The article shouldn't treat the subject seriously, because it wasn't intended seriously. I'm editing the intro to reflect this. Chris Cunningham 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USB keys and pigeons =)

How about equipping the pigeons with a couple of USB-keys? Say one 4gb dongle for each leg!

8 gb delivered in 6000 secs is a competitive bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.71.253 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't really implement the IP protocol. It'd be a modification of it.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Think of the pidgeons!

Anyone know what happened to the pidgeons that didn't arrive? Are there any comments on the expense of pigeons as the transfer medium? 55% media faliure per transfer would be bad if it happened to anything else :D SirEelBiscuits (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No one knows. All I know is that they were never seen again.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)