Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Military Deploys Skynet

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the have-you-seen-sarah-connor dept.

rowleyrw writes "The BBC are reporting, 'The British military is set to take one of its most significant steps into the digital age with the launch of the first Skynet 5 satellite. The spacecraft will deliver secure, high-bandwidth communications for UK and "friendly" forces across the globe.' It's not yet the Skynet of Terminator, but how long before it becomes self aware?"

12 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. With a name like Skynet... by StringBlade · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...what can go wrong?

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    1. Re:With a name like Skynet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What the hell is wrong with British people these days?

      "Pip-pip! What should we call our new military satellite system?"

      "Jolly good, ol' chap! Let us name it after a fictional military system that runs off the rails and destroys humanity!"

      "Good show! Jolly good! Time for crumpets and tea! After we install cameras in everyone's bottoms!"

      "Aaaah, yes! The bottom cameras will be smashing! They will also broadcast GPS to the government. What should we name them?"

      "Brilliant! Jolly good! Pip-pip! Let's call them AIDS! That's a catchy name!"

      "Smashing! Brilliant! Jolly good! Everyone will come to us to get AIDS! We will give them AIDS! AIDS in their bottoms! And they will feel happy and safe from terrorists now that they have AIDS!"

      "Don't you mean 'safe from terror'?"

    2. Re:With a name like Skynet... by malsdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

      ""Jolly good, ol' chap! Let us name it after a fictional military system that runs off the rails and destroys humanity!"

      Uh, the British Skynet system pre-dates the original terminator movie by about 15 years.

  2. Goddammit by jjthegreat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There has got to be a stop to these summaries ending with a question. Haha, terminator, we get it thanks. Next!

  3. Re:Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet it would be equivalent to about T-1000.

  4. Skynet is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note that this is the launch of Skynet 5. Skynet 1A was launched in 1969. See the Wikipedia article for more details.

  5. British Skynet by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Right, then, old chap: I'll need your clothing, your wellies, and your motorbike, if you please."

  6. No, I'm New Here by New+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, I'm New Here

    1. Re:No, I'm New Here by dswartz · · Score: 5, Funny

      So how many years have you been waiting to use that one?

  7. Did it strike anyone else by aztektum · · Score: 5, Funny

    That August 4th, 2007 is ten years from the date the movies specified? Coincidence. Or did the time travel just screw up everyone's memories?

    If you'll excuse me, I have a bunker in my backyard to finish.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  8. Re:Bandwidth by JacksonG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The published figure is approx 700 MHz of satellite bandwidth availible in total. The bandwidth of the individual trunks are subject to classificiation under the official secrets act. I actually worked on skynet5 and the list of bits of information that is classified is ridiculous but I can say that it's nowhere near as much bandwidth as you might think.

    J

    --
    I am not a Frog. I am a Free Womble!
  9. Re:Bandwidth by HarmlessScenery · · Score: 5, Informative

    I also worked on Skynet 4 and 5. I'd have to disagree with the comment that the amount of information that is classified is 'ridiculous'. When you're talking about a system that all UK operations will be reliant on, you can't be too careful. In most cases, individual snippets of information might seem 'relatively harmless' in isolation, but combined with other 'relatively harmless' snippets of information can quickly reveal exploitable attack vectors on the system.

    As for the available bandwidth within the system - it's actually quite a complicated problem. That was one of the areas I studied. Knowing the power and frequency bands available is not enough to be able to determine a maximum data throughput on each channel.

    Different types of communications traffic use up frequency and power resources with different efficiencies. So the maximum data throughput varies - a lot - according to actual real world use. You also lose resources due to intermodulation products - which again vary widely with usage patterns.

    So when JacksonG says 'nowhere near as much as you might think' - it's probably less than that too ;)