Slashdot Mirror


The Pirate Bay Plans Servers In the Sky

1sockchuck writes "The Pirate Bay says it plans to deploy servers on airborne drones several kilometers above international waters. The site said it was experimenting with servers using Raspberry Pi, a credit-card sized Linux computer. April Fools come early? Torrent Freak says the plan is real. It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing."

329 comments

  1. I've seen that movie... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny
    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I've seen that movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first hing I thought of was this game.

    2. Re:I've seen that movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It couldn't have been as bad as this was. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1695403/

    3. Re:I've seen that movie... by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who would have thought Skynet would first be created in the sky

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    4. Re:I've seen that movie... by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Damn, I'm going to have to call up my friends and tell them we've got a new ut2k4 mod to try out.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:I've seen that movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I die and they lay me to rest
      Gonna go to the place that's the best
      When I lay me down to die
      Goin' up to the server in the sky
      Goin' up to the server in the sky

    6. Re:I've seen that movie... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      > and it sucked.

      Years ago, there was a skydiving competition team lead by Al Krueger (I think), although missing part of his arm and had to use a prosetic (one of those clasp hooks) he was an avid parachutist with thousands of jumps. Every team needs a name, they called themselves "Capt Hook and the Sky Pirates." OK so I'm getting offtopic, sorry cannot come up with a car analogy.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:I've seen that movie... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Who would have thought that your post has fuck all to do with the post you're replying to?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:I've seen that movie... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      My server's fans are powerful enough to fly, but the 2U units just aren't light or aerodynamic enough. Plus I cant get an IEC cable long enough.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:I've seen that movie... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Who would have thought this post could go so long without being modded flamebait?

      But I admit to liking your sig.

  2. Search warrants not needed... by Aryden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they'll just get shot down or have an "accident".

    1. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $1000 server in the sky vs $1,000,000 cruise missile

      Cruise missile wins.

      US Taxpayer loses.

    2. Re:Search warrants not needed... by f3rret · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cruise missiles aren't intended for an Anti-air role...

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    3. Re:Search warrants not needed... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I don't think the cruise missile would be a good weapon of choice against an airborne target.

    4. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ironically, such an action by the RIAA/MPAA in international waters would technically be an act of piracy.

    5. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      even worse $25 server in the sky, USA has 10'000 missiles MAX (10 billion worth) and all it takes is to sacrifice 10'000 Raspberry Pi ($250'000 worth)

    6. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Any drone that has a Raspberry PI as its payload is probably not all that expensive. I imagine they could get another back up in short order or have enough redundancy that shooting enough of them down would be a non-trivial problem. Well, shooting enough of them down without causing any collateral damage, at least. You can't exactly be firing guns into the air (or straight down from the air, as from a chopper or plane) anywhere near a coastline or city without some risk of a bullet or missile going stray and causing collateral damage. EWAR might be right out as well for fear of interfering with maritime navigation or accidentally firing a super-powered interference beam and clipping something like a hospital or airport control tower.

    7. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Garnaralf · · Score: 2

      Most likely either a RIM-156 or a RIM-162, depending on the range. The RIM-156 range is about 100 nautical miles, and the RIM-162 is about 50 nautical miles. That, or they'd just shoot it down with a fighter jet.

    8. Re:Search warrants not needed... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So would an act of anti-piracy that's also an act of piracy cancel itself out?

    9. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      These are meant to be in INTERNATIONAL waters - far from any coastline and thus, collateral damage. Unless some unlucky bastard happened to be directly under the falling debris...

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    10. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we plan to program them with collective intelligence.
      They will replicate themselves at a steady rate, increasing bandwidth based on demand.

      Every time they are shot down, the collective will improve to better withstand the attack. Nothing can possibly go wrong.

    11. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cost? I think the OP's point stands.

    12. Re:Search warrants not needed... by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Er, yes, plus the cost of the thing carrying it - likely to be in the $10k to $100k region at a rough guess. Or haven't you noticed that the Raspberry PI doesn't, erm, fly?

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    13. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most likely either a RIM-156 or a RIM-162, depending on the range. The RIM-156 range is about 100 nautical miles, and the RIM-162 is about 50 nautical miles.

      That, or they'd just shoot it down with a fighter jet.

      Ladies and gentlemen, Mister Tom Clancy!

    14. Re:Search warrants not needed... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      ...all it takes is to sacrifice 10'000 Raspberry Pi ($250'000 worth)

      ...bbbbut, 10000 that's the entire production run! I don't think raspberry pies were intended to serve as cheap skeet shooting targets...

    15. Re:Search warrants not needed... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My first torrent share to it will be a remake of Norman Greenbaum's Spirit in the Sky, instead it'll be Server in the Sky.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    16. Re:Search warrants not needed... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 0

      Iran recently showed us how easy it is to take control of a drone and land it wherever you'd like. In this case, perhaps they'd be landed somewhere in the arctic or at the bottom of the atlantic?

    17. Re:Search warrants not needed... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A fighter jet would be way overkill - they could just send out a boat with a minigun.

    18. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      ":Or haven't you noticed that the Raspberry PI doesn't, erm, fly?"

      You are not throwing it hard enough.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Search warrants not needed... by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles. They're original purpose was for the U.S. Navy to defend itself from incoming Russian airplanes at ~200 miles range. They should be able to kill a drone plane too, as long as it's large enough to get a radar lock.

      There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto). Of course that would be overkill for a drone. ;-)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    20. Re:Search warrants not needed... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Iran recently showed us how easy it is to take control of a drone and land it wherever you'd like. In this case, perhaps they'd be landed somewhere in the arctic or at the bottom of the atlantic?

      iran didn't show jack shit. what they(riaa) could do, is that they could jam gps around the area where there's these things flying. yeah, that'll work just fine, fuck civilian aviation and maritime.

      HOWEVER.. how the fuck are they going to get network to the things and back? fucking expensive satellite equipment and transfers? custom radio? that's the tricky part. a system that would fly with air currents and solar is a mild problem compared to that.

      and indeed shooting them down would be a bit tricky, well, maybe they could target their aa guns on the radio signals or something. sitll an awful lot of trouble to go through for some shitty civilian case.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re:Search warrants not needed... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Good point. The first drones my company worked on were just model airplanes bought out of a catalog, and then modified for extended range and self-piloting. They cost $300 plus modification costs, so Piratebay might be using a drone of similar low-cost specification.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:Search warrants not needed... by alphatel · · Score: 1

      Skyware, the new threat.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    23. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, since it would be an act of anti-copyright-infringement vs an act of piracy. But I'm sure the media will agree with you since it sounds catchy.

    24. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting a bead on a target a couple km up with a minigun...

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    25. Re:Search warrants not needed... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The bulk of America's cruise missiles are subsonic for treaty reasons. Therefore, they are not meant to be used to shoot down aircraft. I think you mean the Standard class missiles on American ships, which are surface to air rockets not cruise missiles.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    26. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    27. Re:Search warrants not needed... by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      $1000 server in the sky vs $1,000,000 cruise missile

      Cruise missile wins.

      US Taxpayer loses.

      Why would you need to shoot it down? It has to land sometime. Simply seize it for illegal operations.

      This is all academic, because this silly scheme isn't going to happen anyway. It's a desperate bolt from the galaxy move on the part of the Pirate Bay. Their time is about up, and they know it.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    28. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    29. Re:Search warrants not needed... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      $1000 server in the sky vs $37 20mm round.
      20mm round wins.
      Pirates lose and go "ARRGGGHHHH my server."

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    30. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Americano · · Score: 1

      $1000 server in the sky vs. $85k AIM-9 Sidewinder. Value proposition gets much more attractive.

      $1000 server in the sky vs. $2-4 (per round) M61 Vulcan gatling gun (20mm x 120 mm): At prices like these, you can't afford NOT to shoot them down!

    31. Re:Search warrants not needed... by nadszyszkownik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ballmer, is that you?

    32. Re:Search warrants not needed... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh please there are long-loitering atmospheric research drones that are well under $10k a piece. Basically high-end RC planes.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    33. Re:Search warrants not needed... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Perhaps governments could grant certain privately-owned ships the ability to conduct counter-pirate operations with legal approval. They could be called something like "privateers"...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:Search warrants not needed... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Eh, depends on the altitude. If we're talking thousands of feet (like 2000+) then I imagine it's going to take more than 1 shot to the a moving target.

      But a better post would be.

      Server in the sky via drone? $1,000
      20mm round? $37
      Hearing pirates around the globe scream CR@P in unison? Priceless

    35. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      new pirate bay public service announcement: "you wouldn't shoot an airships out of the sky..."

    36. Re:Search warrants not needed... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles. They're original purpose was for the U.S. Navy to defend itself from incoming Russian airplanes at ~200 miles range.

      You're talking about Talos? Talos wasn't a cruise missile - it was an anti-aircraft missile. Cruise missiles fly aerodynamically (using wings), while Talos flew a semi ballistic trajectory using a ramjet rather than more usual rocket engines. Not to mention that cruise missiles, by definition are designed to attack surface targets... The closest thing ever deployed in an anti-air role was the USAF's BOMARC.
       

      There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto).

      Well, no. Tomahawk had no ASW role, nuclear tipped or otherwise - you've got it confused with (the non nuclear) Harpoon, which was briefly but seriously considered for attacking surfaced cruise and ballistic missile submarines.* (The Soviets had several classes of both that required the submarine to surface to launch.) Not that nuclear tipped Tomahawks have any sensors for attacking ships or planes anyhow, all they have is an inertial guidance system and TERCOM (terrain matching radar). There's a reason why the nuclear tipped variant was called the TLAM-N... that stood for T omahawk L and A ttack M issile.- N uclear.

      * That's why Harpoon has that climb-and-dive terminal attack trajectory, as a leftover from that role... because submarines are much bigger targets from above than the side. Turned out that was also a useful feature for attacking smaller patrol craft (Harpoon's other original target) and it confused the anti-missile systems of the day, so it was retained even after the ASW role was dropped.

    37. Re:Search warrants not needed... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Or the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry could just buy anti-aircraft artillery and mount it on a ship flying no flag or flying a flag of convenience. It's in international waters so they can shot them down for the price of bullets rather than missiles and with no repercussion.

    38. Re:Search warrants not needed... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      and indeed shooting them down would be a bit tricky, well, maybe they could target their aa guns on the radio signals or something. sitll an awful lot of trouble to go through for some shitty civilian case.

      Indeed, surely the RIAA would just dispatch their fleet of battleships.

    39. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA - and links. And think on it some.

      What good would a network drone be, in international waters? How would the signal get to where there are actually... you know... *people*?

      "...The Pirate Bay team told TorrentFreak. We were further informed that the first drone will probably fly above international waters."

      [ http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-attacks-censorship-with-server-drones-120318/ ]

      I would take that to mean the *first* try - i.e., a testing platform - would be safer over the water both for the drone and for whatever it might hit below, should it crash and burn.

      Just because they're pirates doesn't mean they're not concerned with hurting people accidentally, no?

      I also note that while a ten or twenty dollar gatling gun round has an apparent comparative financial leverage against a thousand dollar drone, the platform needed to get that gun in range of a "kilometers-high" drone cost averages out to about $30,000/hour to fly, plus parts. Assuming it could even find a well designed drone: stealth construction ain't all that secret, these days.

    40. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost of a bullet? $5. Win for tax payers. Or they can simply use a laser, which IS available for various airframes. Or they can simply jam the hell out of it. Or they can provide false GPS signals. Or they can EMP it (no, doesn't require a nuke). Or... All of which are cheap and extremely cost effective. Hell, honestly all it would take is a jet flying in the general area for these things to come apart and fall to earth.

      You don't get out much do you?

    41. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      If they start getting shot down on a regular basis, balloons might be a good option for a super cheap flight platform.

    42. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If someone buys them out I'm quite sure they'll make more. As an OEM that's the kind of problem you want to have.

    43. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or, they could just keep sending up a bunch of cheap weather balloons, drones, and other flying devices that are small enough to avoid detection by most systems and redundant enough to provide a continual intelligence net. You could probably do each one for around $80-$125, giving you $105-$150 total for each. Put up 1,000 of these, and you've got decent coverage for a large area area for a month or so, for around $120,000.

      This gives the same price as your single carrier solution, with much better short-term resiliency. Still seems pretty expensive to me though; they'd have to be making a LOT of profits on something to afford to maintain this for any length of time.

    44. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much it would cost to put that 20m round in position.

    45. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're talking about Talos? Talos wasn't a cruise missile - it was an anti-aircraft missile.

      ENOUGH of your Thalmor propaganda. Talos was a man, and now he's a god. Period. The end.

    46. Re:Search warrants not needed... by glop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, if you go for the Raspberry Pi+helium balloon, your server could be 100$ as Amazon sells 50$ "meteorological" balloons (30 feet diameter with 15 pounds of lift).
      I researched the topic because it seemed cool and safe for kids.
      Apparently there are many amateurs who send balloons into near space, notably amateur radio geeks. The field is not new according to Wikipedia (they quote examples in the 60s) but I think it might get a lot more popular as cool payloads are becoming affordable.
      Some guys have 300km long Wifi links, so you could talk to your balloon in real time with the right antennas.
      You can get cameras, cell phones, small micro servers, flash storage (hard drives are supposed to die at relatively low altitude).

      And the thing is, the US government might want to send those to Iran and Syria. So they may pay startups to develop this, adapt TOR and whatnot. But this new frontier seems so obvious for people who love freedom (whatever their definition of it) that we can only expect the Chaos Computer Club, the Pirate Bay and others to get into this too.

    47. Re:Search warrants not needed... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      as long as it's large enough to get a radar lock

      Key point, a drone carrying a RaspberryPi could be very small, smaller than many seabirds.

    48. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rwven · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the IP "value" that is being served off these "$1000" servers in the sky. If the owner of said missile (wouldn't be a cruise missile or anywhere near $1M in value) can be convinced that the value of the loss due to the drone is worth the missile cost....it's game over.

    49. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rwven · · Score: 1

      There are SAMs that are FAR cheaper than $1M... Could easily be launched by any equipped navy vessel that happens to be in the general vicinity.

    50. Re:Search warrants not needed... by lightknight · · Score: 2

      So much damage done to our freedoms, to our lives, for the sake of a few dollars, which in time will not be worth anything.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    51. Re:Search warrants not needed... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Loading them up with an AI and a replicator. That could work.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    52. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is all academic,

      Why?

      because this silly scheme isn't going to happen anyway.

      Ah. I see.

      It's a desperate bolt from the galaxy

      Wow, cool!

      move on

      Sure, sure. Moving on. Ehm... on what?

      the part of the Pirate Bay.

      Oh, step on their parts? :-/ By the way, what time is it?

      Their time is about up,

      OK, that probably goes for my time as well, then.

      and they know it.

      That's great, because we're supposed to meet here at quarter past up and I don't want them to be late.

    53. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Attacking a vessel in international waters would probably be actual piracy...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    54. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Key point, a drone carrying a RaspberryPi could be very small, smaller than many seabirds.

      So a shotgun should be sufficient.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    55. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      My first torrent share to it will be a remake of Norman Greenbaum's Spirit in the Sky, instead it'll be Server in the Sky.

      My preference would be to name the servers "Ghost Riders". (For some reason I got that song mixed up with the Doors' 'Riders on the Storm', so I'm sure there's another option in there somewhere).

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    56. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Because they'll just get shot down or have an "accident".

      As long as sending them up is cheaper than shooting them down, we'll be winning.

    57. Re:Search warrants not needed... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Key point, a drone carrying a RaspberryPi could be very small, smaller than many seabirds.

      So a shotgun should be sufficient.

      Sure, if you've got a pattern tight enough to hit something a mile up.

      Or, if you're chasing it down with a conventional aircraft and pointing your 12 gauge out the window, bear in mind that the mini-drone is probably cruising a good 30 knots below your stall speed.

    58. Re:Search warrants not needed... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And, think of the cottage industry that collects the raining hardware and recycles it...

    59. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mangu · · Score: 1

      Ironically, such an action by the RIAA/MPAA in international waters would technically be an act of piracy.

      The US Congress could allow them to do it, by granting a Letter of Marque and Reprisal

    60. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      The Aegis system has an array of surface to air ordinance. The RIM-67, for example.

      Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.

      --
      -
    61. Re:Search warrants not needed... by black3d · · Score: 1

      They don't need to do any such thing. Under international law, any craft (boat, plane, balloon, etc) at sea in international waters falls under the legal jurisdiction of its port of origin. Taking drones out to sea and launching them is legally no different to flying them over Stockholm.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    62. Re:Search warrants not needed... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much it would cost to put that 20m round in position.

      Well, if you're talking about cheap drones with 20mm guns shooter down cheap drones (and thus begins a cheap-drone-arms-race) then that's both neat and frightening.

      Heck, it would probably start with .22's and go to 9's and 45's. Little mini dog fights.

      Problem being, anything can be made or had... but the instant things start being massed produced it's harder. Anyone can probably make (or find someone to make) a little portable tank. Like a battle-bot the size of a dog, but it fires shells.

      But if people start mass-producing these suckers, it's only a matter of time before idiots start using them to "protect their home." Next thing you know, dogs are being killed and people are being hurt/killed/etc.

    63. Re:Search warrants not needed... by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.

      The MAFIAA has managed to commandeer foreign policy and the entire justice system, who says they won't succeed with the military? All they have to do is drop a "credible" tip that the TPB is supporting t*****rists and the job's as good as done.

    64. Re:Search warrants not needed... by f3rret · · Score: 1

      There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles. They're original purpose was for the U.S. Navy to defend itself from incoming Russian airplanes at ~200 miles range. They should be able to kill a drone plane too, as long as it's large enough to get a radar lock.

      Did not know this, do you have any links with information on specific models?

      There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto). Of course that would be overkill for a drone. ;-)

      This I did know, there were also nuclear tipped torpedos around for a while, as well as regular AA missiles with nuclear tips although as I understand it once the "massive bomber strike" tactic became irrelevant due to missiles these were phased out.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    65. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air currents and solar power. I can't recall the name of it, but the USA had run a test not long ago where an unmanned drone powered only by solar kept itself in the air for a full year. It'd be flying above cloud level.

      So basically there's no reason it would have to land except for hardware failures (which include say... hard drive failure, or being shot down)

    66. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles.

      No there aren't. Surface to air missile != crusie missile.

    67. Re:Search warrants not needed... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're chasing it down with a conventional aircraft and pointing your 12 gauge out the window

      Flash Gordon could do it, on Jupiter, without the rivets shaking loose!

    68. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-air role...

      Unless they are All Mighty Cobalt bombs, causing a holy chain reaction in the atmosphere! No monkey shall stop us! All hail to the Holy Cobalt Bomb!
      --
      Méndez

    69. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I expect cheap flying hunter-killer drones pretty soon if they don't already exist. Hobbyists have been putting guns on RC helicopters for decades and the military has heavily armed expensive drones. Now the challenge is how cheap and light you can make a weapons platform that's sufficient for taking down a small drone. .17 Mach II would be vastly superior to .22 LR for the application; flatter trajectory, higher velocity, lighter ammo.

    70. Re:Search warrants not needed... by nightfell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because they'll just get shot down or have an "accident".

      So? Then make them shoot them down!

      Just because someone *might* be able to thwart your plan doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. After all, from their point of view, what's better than having to shoot down a pirate blimp? Not having to shoot one down because the pirates were too coward to fly it!

      Or take it back one notch, why put up the servers in more traditional locations, if the authorities would just confiscate them?

      Fly the damned things. They *might* get shot down, but they probably won't. Either way, it's better to try and fail than to fail by default!

    71. Re:Search warrants not needed... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.

      The MAFIAA has managed to commandeer foreign policy and the entire justice system, who says they won't succeed with the military? All they have to do is drop a "credible" tip that the TPB is supporting t*****rists and the job's as good as done.

      They'll point out that the one drone is costing the American economy hundreds of millions of dollars a month and that a $1 million missile would be cheap by comparison.

      Maybe TPB could use dirty tricks? Put a pet on the drone and when it gets shot down PETA will go crazy?

    72. Re:Search warrants not needed... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Its said that being in orbit is very similar to throwing yourself at the Earth and trying to miss.v

    73. Re:Search warrants not needed... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Very true; TPB's time is almost up, but because they've obsoleted themselves. Did you know you can carry The Pirate Bay magnet hash collection around with 200MB of free USB stick space? You know how quickly you can replicate 200MB across the internet? What's that? You can store all those hashes in a distributed version control system like Git? And pull/replicate with only a couple lines of bash?

      Indeed, The Pirate Bay has put themselves out of a job as it were. I don't think they're going to cry that hard about it.

    74. Re:Search warrants not needed... by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Screw that, put an unborn fetus on the drone. Let's see them shoot that down.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    75. Re:Search warrants not needed... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.

      Not when the ground control station can be gotten at much more easily - or you just impound the vehicles on the ground... and the one in service is going to run out of fuel eventually.

    76. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Hillgiant · · Score: 1
      --
      -
    77. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can talk to it, but the balloon won't talk back...

    78. Re:Search warrants not needed... by grim4593 · · Score: 1

      How much fuel does it take to mobilize an M61 Vulcan (by sea or air)?

    79. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Durrik · · Score: 1

      Being that small won't pose a hazard. I can't find a good link to the development of anti-aircraft radar before world war II. But the development team got a message during the first field test from the field engineers: 'It tracked seagulls' or something like that, and it took them a while, trying to figure out what the field engineer meant, it being a top secret project and they thought the FE was being cryptic. No he was being completely open. The nearest link I could find to that story is: http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Oral-History:Lee_Davenport

      On another note, I'm not sure why the US would bother shooting a sea to air missile at the drone. Five inch flak shells are cheaper. I think that's one of the standard gun armaments the Navy carries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun

      All the Navy would have to claim is they were test firing the gun, and the drone just got in the way. Radar tracked shells are fairly accurate after the first one has been fired, and they would probably only need two of them, most likely they'd only need one. Much cheaper than expending a missile, and it would probably just hit the budget as: Ordinance expended during training. Just like a 5.56mm round fired out of a rifle.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    80. Re:Search warrants not needed... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, there does not exist a drone that can remain airborne for any reasonable length of time (as far as server uptime goes). As their server will have to return every 8 hours or so to a basis for refuelling, use a normal $0.2 bullet when it's on the ground.

      Or just confiscate it.

    81. Re:Search warrants not needed... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      All very true, but... if you're tracking seagull sized drones, you'll be tracking all the seagulls too, and a ship that carries a radar tracking 5" shell battery isn't all that cheap to deploy. Not saying the drones are all that cheap either, yet, but they will continue to drop in cost until they're sub $1K soon, a ship with a 5+ man crew will never cost less than $1K for a day at sea.

    82. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Balloons might help too.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    83. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Scary part: they're programmed in FORTRAN. (I think. My ex did software validation on GLCM and SLCM)

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    84. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " You know how quickly you can replicate 200MB across the internet? "

      As DNS TXT records? Pretty quickly.

      Oh, say, there's an idea.

      http://pirate.bay/ anyone?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    85. Re:Search warrants not needed... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      First, I can't imagine there'd be one, there ought to be a dozen or maybe a hundred. Second, they'd be pretty high up and over populated areas. You're not gonna be shooting bullets, shells or missiles over Antwerp or Kuching.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    86. Re:Search warrants not needed... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Suddenly all those hashes are just a zone transfer away.

    87. Re:Search warrants not needed... by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      No, that is horribly incorrect. If the entire point is loiter time (uptime in your parlance), then a helium inflatable HALL (high altitude Long loiter) drone with solar panels could easily achieve 2-3week flight times. EASILY. I could build this from local hobby shops, and have it flying by months end. Granted it's not on par with standard server uptimes, but then, I don't have a few million to invest in the project. I think I could achieve 100% uptime with an ongoing program releasing X number of drones to keep N in flight at all times, thereby providing at least 1 layer of redundancy. That even using only off the shelf solutions and doing no actual development on a HALL drone body and electronics package, or just buying one from Boeing/Raytheon/whoever.

    88. Re:Search warrants not needed... by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you mean by legally. The civil aviation authorities in Stockholm might have something to say about you flying a drone over their city. But they don't get much say once you beyond the economic boundary lines.

      Come to think of it, you might want to check where the international air routes are first, because if you knock down an airliner with your drone, international water or not, you are going to have a BAD day.

    89. Re:Search warrants not needed... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That's also why fighters are equipped with machine guns... :)

    90. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hearing pirates around the globe scream CR@P in unison? Priceless

      What does CRatP mean? I'm a fairly active "pirate" (~140GB up/day, woohoo!), so I'd like to know what I'm supposed to be screaming. Also, I don't recall having ever screamed before. Are you going to try to put your 20mm penis in my bottom or something?

    91. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Because all airborne drones must use the same command and control systems, right?

      I find it difficult to comprehend how a person could believe something so fundamentally stupid.

    92. Re:Search warrants not needed... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto). Of course that would be overkill for a drone. ;-)

      Not when that drone is pirating copyrighted materials, there is no such think as overkill for those dirty pirates.

      Signed,
      Your copyright overlords.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    93. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Old biplanes are very slow, but you wouldn't use a shotgun. No, no no. In fact, you'd have two of them, one with a CLICK WHOOP DING mechanical arm wielding a baseball bat and the other with DROOP WOOP oversized catcher's mitt.
      --
      Sqn Ldr DD

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    94. Re:Search warrants not needed... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wargasm pr0n aside, I can't see the expense of such ordinance being wasted on some kids downloading rips of Avatar.

      They'll spend any amount of our money to stop weed from crossing the border, why wouldn't they spend any amount of money to shoot down pirate bay drones? Both involve victimless crimes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    95. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Probably not that much - they're not incredibly large, I'm sure a bit of engineering work would allow them to be mounted safely on a mid-size boat.

    96. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

      How about "99 Red Balloons" ?

    97. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going off to the Server in the sky
      it's where I'm gonna go when I vi
      when I vi and I download some breasts
      gonna go to the place that's the best!

    98. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Drawsalot · · Score: 1

      Now, I want THAT kind of upstream bandwidth!

    99. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      anything with a rocket motor on the tail is gonna be overkill for a small aircraft that travels around 90kt at best. The chances of something travelling at over 1200kt hitting it or even detonating close enough (assuming non-nuclear) to cause any damage is somewhere between slim and none.

      For such small targets something like the Phalanx system is a: cheaper than a missile, b: more likely to hit the target since the launcher is sitting on the deck of a ship, and c: less likely to cause significant collateral damage.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    100. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      you're not going to isolate something which has the RADAR profile of a sparrow from a cloud of other things that have much larger RADAR profiles - such as clouds. Which, incidentally, are likely to have much larger electronic profiles, too. And infrared. IF it were possible to hit something that small with little to no collateral damage, then the police wouldn't be using microdrones to overfly scenes for risk of them being shot down by a kid with a .22 - those drones top at 1500 feet. Well within range of a powerful springer or PCP.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    101. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      or some unwashed native with a Stinger?

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    102. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I have one of those! Fires 6mm BBs, it's a 1/18 scale model of a Leopard 2 MBT with full range turret control and 2sec reload.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    103. Re:Search warrants not needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it need to be an accident?
      It can just be done, and outright acknowledged.

    104. Re:Search warrants not needed... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But how do you power the servers?

    105. Re:Search warrants not needed... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      That brings up a good question. Why don't we fill up all unused space in every plane with helium ? Surely that would improve fuel efficiency ?

    106. Re:Search warrants not needed... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I believe the idea is for the pirate bay ones to fly them over international waters... IE take off near the coast or a boat/barge/etc and have it fly around the Atlantic for a while... then return.

      As for idiots getting their hands on cheap mass-produced ones... well, if they're going to use them for harm anyway then I doubt violating air traffic rules over the countries/towns/etc are going to dissuade them.

  3. But if there aren't any clouds in the sky... by FreedomOfThought · · Score: 2

    But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB? This sounds like an interesting project, though... I would love to see it work for technology sake.

  4. Clear skies? by FreedomOfThought · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB? This sounds like an interesting project, though... I would love to see it work for technology sake.

    In all irony, though, if there were LOTS of clouds in the sky, how would the site perform then?

    1. Re:Clear skies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wish there was a -1 retarded mod because you, sir, are a fucking retard.

    2. Re:Clear skies? by hort_wort · · Score: 2

      In all irony, though, if there were LOTS of clouds in the sky, how would the site perform then?

      From your subject heading, I immediately thought "Lok Vah Koor!" This is also an answer to your question. ;)

    3. Re:Clear skies? by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB?

      We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, pirates were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

    4. Re:Clear skies? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      You know that message you got where it said you had posted the exact same message before and that you should try to be more original? The message that made you change the topic of your post to get around it? Well, for future reference that message is there to stop you looking like a total retard for posting exactly the same post twice in a row.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Clear skies? by FreedomOfThought · · Score: 1

      It said it failed to post and to start from the top. So I did, but it posted anyways. So, your "highly insulting" come back has just been rendered null. Otherwise, had I actually been that stupid, your outburst would have been spot on.

    6. Re:Clear skies? by FreedomOfThought · · Score: 2

      My sarcasm module has been a little off lately. My apologies. I actually meant to compare the clouds (nature) to the cloud (computers) but I suppose I couldn't have done much worse typing a "not-nearly-as-funny-as-I-thought" joke. I failed and you are now my master.

    7. Re:Clear skies? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Show of hands of people who think that in a few years, the Energy Lobby will put forth some legislation to block 'free power.'

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Clear skies? by Deathmoo · · Score: 1

      What like monty burns putting put up that thing to shade Springfield? LOL. They can't make gas cost less than $100/barrel (as if they want to) but I bet they could figure out the tech to "shade" the Earth quickly and cheaply.

      Up next, how much will you pay to keep breathing for a day? A month? A year? For your whole family, group discounts!

    9. Re:Clear skies? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Actually, given the way laws tend to mature, given enough time...you could be charged for all the resources you use while on this planet, including light, air, gravity...

      "Up next, how much will you pay to keep breathing for a day? A month? A year? For your whole family, group discounts!"

      Satire, I love it. But seriously, if it came down to this, I'd hit the 'reset' button for the planet myself. When I say reset, I don't mean mankind is sent back to the Stone Age; I mean I'd stop the Earth's dynamo, and let the effects of unshielded solar radiation purge the Earth. ^_^

      Still, I hold out a candle of hope for mankind, that they'll recognize the true enemies of their freedoms; although I am prepared to be disappointed (experience has taught me this much).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  5. Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you only need like 5,000 drones in the sky at any given time, and they have to be disposable so you don't land illicit material on sovereign territory?

    Sounds legit.

    1. Re:Erm... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Not too hard to do - just need enough money.

      Note: given the sheer amount of pollution, you should probably only do the following to prove a point, and little else.

      First, buy hundreds, if not thousands of cheap mylar helium balloons. Then, strap a tiny computer, a geek stick full of pirated material, a cheap wifi WAP /w antenna booster, and a battery pack to each bundle of balloons. Release them over the area by the hundreds over the west coast of a continent, doing so from pickup trucks at random locations. The mylar balloons last for well over a week, and (at least somewhat) reflect radar signals so that aircraft could avoid them if need be.

      Pros: They're too small to waste A/A or SAM weaponry on, if you knock one down there's hundreds more, and they can be launched with some modicum of stealth.

      Cons: Not certain how reliable any given one would be, they could be hijacked (though they could be hardened), and you'll have little control over their flight path. In aggregate, it'll be a bit pricey to do, and you'd have to buy your helium a little at a time to avoid notice.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Erm... by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'd go with a small wind and solar power generator with a battery pack. Then you wouldn't have to worry about them becoming dead-in-the-sky (dits).

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    3. Re:Erm... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd suggest just under 100 of them. Be sure they're reflective of light in the 630-740nm range.

    4. Re:Erm... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the Associated Press, July 15, 2013:

      Faced with an ongoing budget crisis for the next school year and pressure from federal mandates to increase education about copyright law and the life-imprisonment mandatory minimum sentence violations carry, the local high school is offering a $10 bounty for each piracy-supporting balloon brought in with a functioning computer. School officials have announced that through a partnership with an unnamed sponsor, each mylar balloon (the so-callen "floating sanity") will bring in approximately $20 for the school, and the school will keep the computers as well.

      In an Interview last Tuesday, school district superintendent Ben Dover extolled the benefits of the program. "We see this as a win/win situation, very likely to ease the pain of the budget deficiencies. We get an influx of new computers, and additional monetary assets as well." he said to a room of reporters and concerned parents. "If, as rumors have suggested, the computers are unable to run Windows 9 Bloat Edition, we can still sell them off to help cover the cost of licensing both installations of our grading software.

      Sources close to the issue say that there are some concerns, however, as the partnership contract has some unusual conditions. According to one anonymous source, the contract specifies that all term papers and homework assignments completed by students will become the sole property of the partner, who will then charge licensing fees to the school and teachers before they will be able to grade the students' work, costing the school up to $500 per assignment, or more if the work will be used as a class example.

      A spokesperson for the partner, who has asked to be addressed only as Dick, has denied such allegations. "That's preposterous," he told reporters, "our license fees aren't nearly that low."

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Erm... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Not too hard to do - just need enough money.

      Yeah, but as with just about everything, it's the "getting enough money" part that makes up the bulk of the "hard part."

    6. Re:Erm... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      No points to mod you up, but I thought it was funny.

      But then I'm old enough to remember the song.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Erm... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

      Sorry - I didn't get down to your post before putting mine in. And your post was way better...

  6. I guess when they crash... by tscheez · · Score: 4, Funny

    they really *crash*.

    --
    Supplies!
    1. Re:I guess when they crash... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      They can crash without crashing, although a serious crash might cause a crash.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:I guess when they crash... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      Yo dawg, I herd you liek crashing, so we put a server in your airship so you can crash while you crash!

    3. Re:I guess when they crash... by jokkebk · · Score: 1

      They can crash without crashing, although a serious crash might cause a crash.



      Good point, I was already concerned that crash could cause downtime!

      On a more serious note, I wonder how they are going to connect to internet from these servers - maybe a ground station serving as relay link? If so, how is this any better than having the whole server in that ground station?
      --
      http://codeandlife.com
    4. Re:I guess when they crash... by edave22 · · Score: 1

      yo dawg i herd you like servers

  7. Pirating must pay really well by s_p_oneil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pirating must pay really well. I can't imagine how much it would cost to manage those servers and keep them up there 24/7.

    1. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Troke · · Score: 1

      If it needs a hard reboot, staff needs a really tall ladder.

    2. Re:Pirating must pay really well by the_leander · · Score: 1

      I imagine you could do it relatively cheaply if you used a helium balloon. Need to fix it, go out there on a boat, swap over the electronics package, let it go back up. If it's done right it could make for some very interesting developments.

      --
      regards, the_leander
    3. Re:Pirating must pay really well by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could install robot fingers positioned over the power buttons. Although if they can be controlled remotely, the MPAA will try to hack into the fingers. ;-)

    4. Re:Pirating must pay really well by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      A single weather balloon will carry a raspberrypi, so the airborne part is the easy part. The difficult part is the ground station that has to track and manage the things.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    5. Re:Pirating must pay really well by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2

      How do you keep the helium balloon from being blown around by the winds? If you can't do that, you can't keep it over international waters.

    6. Re:Pirating must pay really well by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Weather balloons are blown around by the wind, which tends to be pretty fast (and consistent) high up where there are no trees or mountains to slow it down, so they wouldn't stay where TPB wants them (over international waters) for very long.

    7. Re:Pirating must pay really well by the_leander · · Score: 1

      Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope, but I imagine if you wanted to get fancy you could rig up some gps gear and a couple of propellers powered by solar electricity and batteries...

      --
      regards, the_leander
    8. Re:Pirating must pay really well by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope

      So the MAFIAA could just sail there, and reel them in...

      But with 'loons the point is moot anyways: dart guns are much cheaper than cruise missiles with much less potential for collateral damage...

    9. Re:Pirating must pay really well by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      They probably don't intent on creating such ground station, as it would defeat the porpouse of lifting the servers. If you want to contact a baloon, you can use an RF kit.

      But I don't understand why they plan to keep the servers at internationa waters. Shouldn't they get near coast to be useful? And wouldn't it be simpler to just put the servers up there, and forget about them?

    10. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then whenever the server's firewall blocks an attack by the MPAA, these fingers could rotate in the direction of the signal and perform a rude gesture.

    11. Re:Pirating must pay really well by the_leander · · Score: 1

      The alternative might be to try to do a Radio Caroline... But that would be a lot harder to maintain and comes with the added issue of storms causing your vessel to run aground/sink.

      Ultimately though, no matter what the solution, if someone is determined enough, they'll get you. Consider that the MAFIAA basically bullied the Swedes into breaking into a server farm and confiscating the pirate bay servers.

      Here's hoping garlic routing takes off. After that, it's game over for all this rubbish.

      At least until they outlaw that...

      --
      regards, the_leander
    12. Re:Pirating must pay really well by pclminion · · Score: 2

      Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope

      Exactly how big of a balloon are you planning on having, because it will need to lift the weight of thousands of feet of rope. Unless you thought all that rope just magically floats there in the sky.

    13. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent PDU with remote outlet switching?

    14. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what kind of uptime statistics these things will have.

    15. Re:Pirating must pay really well by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Fly it high enough so that it doesn't matter, perhaps? In the U.S., the FAA defines the upper limit of controlled airspace as 60,000 feet above mean sea level. Weather balloons are capable of flying at nearly twice that altitude.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    16. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      They've actually been doing this every year since 2004 but everybody keeps forgetting about it!

    17. Re:Pirating must pay really well by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Lol. Perhaps that's what the MAFIAA thinks -> the pirate have all this money, and they don't want to share.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    18. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the related news, after several decades of anti Pirate Bay activities it was revealed that the Pirate Bay was always a well-funded academic project for creating the alien invasion proof version of da internet. The government resistance was in fact all foxnews. Your bolgporter is shocked and gratefulled by this revelation as it really saved the @time when the aliens did invade.

    19. Re:Pirating must pay really well by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope

      Exactly how big of a balloon are you planning on having, because it will need to lift the weight of thousands of feet of rope.

      There's no need to limit yourself to just one balloon, or put all the lift at the top. Use one (15lb lift) balloon for the payload, and attach another balloon for every 15lb of cable. By stringing the balloons along the cable you also help to reduce the stress on the cable, particularly toward the top end.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    20. Re:Pirating must pay really well by pclminion · · Score: 2

      This plan seems more feasible and cheaper by the minute!

    21. Re:Pirating must pay really well by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Weather balloons are blown around by the wind, which tends to be pretty fast (and consistent) high up where there are no trees or mountains to slow it down, so they wouldn't stay where TPB wants them (over international waters) for very long.

      I could see Russia, China or North Korea shooting these down if they float over their territory (assuming they are spy devices).

      In Russia, they will reverse-engineer the device and float them over the West.

      In China, they will treat it as a breach of the great firewall and launch a hack-counter-attack on the West.

      In North Korea, a child will find it, hook it up, and suddenly learn about the.. movies... the West has.

    22. Re:Pirating must pay really well by the_leander · · Score: 1

      Why does it need to be thousands of feet in the air? 12 nautical miles is the limit for territorial waters and to be visible on the horizon at that point you'd need a little over 100 metres of whatever rope/cable/cord you're using to get there.

      One question I'd have though is how it'd connect to anything else... Laying cable is expensive, especially for marine environments and would probably qualify as being in whatever country the cable was laid off. Satellite? Trying by Wifi or wimax seems impractical due to the amount of power required to boost the signal enough to have it be picked up over 12 miles, even with line of sight. Whatever you use, the single biggest problem you're going to have is lifting the transceiver set regardless of whatever you're using as a tether.

      --
      regards, the_leander
    23. Re:Pirating must pay really well by the_leander · · Score: 1

      100 metres should be 100ft... or 30m...

      --
      regards, the_leander
    24. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rope? spectra or PVDF fishing line. you only need a few kilograms of that.

    25. Re:Pirating must pay really well by rs79 · · Score: 1

      How do you keep the helium balloon from being blown around by the winds? If you can't do that, you can't keep it over international waters."

      Quadracopter. They can fly through windows sideways, keeping a balloon in place isn't rocket science.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    26. Re:Pirating must pay really well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could well work...if you can register a vessel under a flag which would not buckle under pressure.

      Undoubtedly, there would eventually be a 'legal' solution that would eventually enable our 'democracy'
      to raid such a vessel!

    27. Re:Pirating must pay really well by MrCain · · Score: 1

      How do you keep the helium balloon from being blown around by the winds?

      Magnets. Though, admittedly, I don't know how the fuck they work.

    28. Re:Pirating must pay really well by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's fine if the weather is always calm, but at sea it often isn't. Then there's the issue of how you power it.

  8. Brings a whole new meaning to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Server Crashed"

  9. Stratovision by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's been done before with Stratovision. The model doesn't work with current fuel sources and repair times.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:Stratovision by vlm · · Score: 1

      Two new ideas:
      1) solar powered glider (doesn't have to get anywhere fast, just has to stay up)
      2) a legal service could be mounted on random jet passenger craft.

      GOOG or APPL should buy wireless bandwidth and mount the nodes on passenger planes.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Stratovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The servers don't really need much energy. The platform would be a solar plane that flies above the clouds and captures enough energy by day to stay up through the night. And then you add less than 100g of computer hardware that consumes less than 10W, both a small fraction of the mass and energy consumption of the plane. The whole thing should be cheap enough that you can keep sending new ones up for a week while they keep getting shot down.

    3. Re:Stratovision by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You still need huge batteries, that weight a lot and push your craft down. Ok, you could in theory exchange some battery charge for altitude, I've never made the calculations to discover if that is usefull.

      Keeping a transmiter up there capable of any reasonable amount of bandwidth is hard.

    4. Re:Stratovision by Americano · · Score: 2

      The whole thing should be cheap enough that you can keep sending new ones up for a week while they keep getting shot down.

      Is this because an autonomous solar powered plane is cheap to build, launch, and manage?

    5. Re:Stratovision by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      1) solar powered glider (doesn't have to get anywhere fast, just has to stay up)

      I was thinking about this just the other day. With advancements in battery, materials and solar tech, I wonder if it would now be possible for a solar-charged motor-sailplane to stay up for Pathfinder-like lengths of time? Charge and soar, use the motor to climb back up, repeat...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Stratovision by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      What about maintainance. The plane may be able to power itsself indefinatly, but things will break down. Bearings fail, components come loose, thermal cycling cracks PCB tracks. How long can it be made to run between servicings?

    7. Re:Stratovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can probably make it last long enough for it to be shot down instead of crashing on its own.

    8. Re:Stratovision by lightknight · · Score: 1

      *winks* Economies of scale...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:Stratovision by Americano · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see what you mean - we'll lose money per-unit, but make it up in volume! I'm on board with this plan.

    10. Re:Stratovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not a blimp? Fill it up with some artificially-cheap helium, and let it float. Weather balloons can be had for $50, though you'd need some engineering to turn one of them into a motorized dirigible.

  10. What's next? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    Pirate satellites? Are we going to see SOPA 2.0 giving the government the authority to shoot down private satellites?

    1. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      No, but we are going to see a lot of fighter pilots trained by the MAFIAA to shoot down these drones. Since they are in international waters there is no law from stopping the copratocracy from purchasing the resources to take them down.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    2. Re:What's next? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because there's no law stopping you from shooting down a passenger jumbo jet flying over international waters, right?

    3. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that most nations will have something to say about the selling and operation of military aircraft. I think that mounting some .50 cal machine-guns in merchant vessel a reasonable thing to do in pirate (the other kind) ridden waters but is still forbidden.

    4. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirate satellites? Are we going to see SOPA 2.0 giving the government the authority to shoot down private satellites?

      From the summery:

      The Pirate Bay says it plans to deploy servers on airborne drones several kilometers above international waters.

      Exactly what government are you talking about?

    5. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying, be careful what you download on long international flights.

      Seriously though, there are international treaties against murder of innocent civilians and what not so I think that would be a pretty powerful force for NOT shooting down manned jets or passenger planes. However since these are unmanned drones I don't think those same laws apply. It might be construed as an act of war, but between whom? Two corporations? Which side of that equation do you think the bought and paid for governments of the world are going to fall into?

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    6. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I worked for a company whose CEO recently died in a plane crash. This CEO personally owned a F-16 which he routinely flaunted and flew at air shows and what not. He bought this piece of hardware as a private individual. It was not armed AFAIK, but that is a simple thing to remedy. Also, it's not like large caliber guns are hard things to come by in certain countries. The attacking jets don't have to be launched from the US.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    7. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a sign 'baby on board'. If they blow it up, argue there was a child on board.... Yes, it was terribly irresponsible. But today is a tragic day. Think of the children! Jail the corporate terrorist!

    8. Re:What's next? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Well if the flying servers (servlets?) carry a flag then it could possibly be criminal. Just find a country with a strong position on destruction of property to fly under.

    9. Re:What's next? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "there are international treaties against murder of innocent civilians"

      Define innocent.

      Because with the current state of US laws, almost nobody is innocent. And the few that are, politicians are working hard to fix that loophole.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Non combatants is what I should have said I suppose.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    11. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same one that tried SOPA 1.0 to give themselves the authority to shut down private websites?

      Hint: Corporate States of America

    12. Re:What's next? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The US government already threatened to shoot down any satellites of one of the GPS-clones (Galileo?) if they used a band that wouldn't be affected by current GPS jamming technologies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:What's next? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yep a lot of hyper-rich guys own "civilianized" fighter jets as toys. That said if they tried to even outfit them as originally intended, they'd find themselves buried under an avalanche of legal problems before they even get off the ground.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:What's next? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Russia seems to be a good choice, considering their reputation in the hosting market...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:What's next? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      No, but we are going to see a lot of fighter pilots trained by the MAFIAA to shoot down these drones. Since they are in international waters there is no law from stopping the coprolites from purchasing the resources to take them down.

      There. FTFY

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    16. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      What exactly is keeping them from flying them to Somalia and getting the retrofit there? If these are just drones, it's not like the jet has to be armed with a batch of missiles, just a machine gun.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    17. Re:What's next? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh sure it could be possible to fit the planes with weapons on the black market if you keep it very secret, but the minute any military gets word of a vigilante fighter on the loose it's going to bring a lot of attention at the very least. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the US government turned a blind eye for the MAFIAA.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:What's next? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      That said I wouldn't be surprised if the US government turned a blind eye for the MAFIAA.

      That was my original point before we got off on a tangent. Thanks for putting us back on track.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    19. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non combatants is what I should have said I suppose.

      Define [non combatant].

      Because with the current state of US laws, almost nobody is [a non combatant]. And the few that are, politicians are working hard to fix that loophole.

      It's funny, your statement didn't actually add anything to dispute your parent post. No wait, it's sad.

    20. Re:What's next? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Just add a kitten to each payload, do you think the government will dare to shoot it down? Think of the internet rage that it would cause.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  11. silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships... by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    lots of problems with servers in the air... much easier to put servers on ships in int'l waters... like pirate radio...

  12. Why not a balloon? by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Seems like it would be cheaper than drones.

  13. Rough design by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I assume we're looking at:

    • Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy
    • Satellite modem for data comms
    • Thunking great sat dish on the back of it - not good for aerodynamics
    • GPS navigation with auto-navigation to keep it in the right place
    • Stabilised platform for the sat dish with something to auto point it at a satellite
    • Some very-low-power, very-low-weight server

    I guess there are more compact antennas available, but they're likely to be both more expensive and more power-hungry than a dish.

    Any sort of real server iron is going to cause both weight and power-consumption problems.

    The main challenge is going to be to get enough solar panels fitted to the thing to both keep it flying and keep it talking.

    Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat. And since presumably TPB's finances don't run to aircraft carriers, that introduces challenges all it's own.

    Server reliability is going to become a major issue. If you have no way of recovering the thing then you'll need to treat them as disposable - when one fails, crash it into something and replace it with another one. Unless your budget is large, you'd better hope that doesn't happen too often.

    And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Rough design by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      TL;DR summary? INTERNATIONAL waters are not usually governed by the FAA, and these guys are not likely to live in the USA either.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    2. Re:Rough design by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Way to read a comment before you respond...

      The problem with certification is not where they lurk, but where they are launched. Either you need somewhere with land to launch them, or you need an aircraft carrier, or you need to be able to launch them without a runway. The carrier is expensive. If the thing is a solar powered aircraft, vertical takeoff is unlikely to be feasible. So you're left with something land-based, which means either certification form the relevant authority (and lots of these just rubber-stamp FAA certs) or doing it clandestinely.

      See my point?

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    3. Re:Rough design by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy

      There is the option of gliding at night and making sure you have enough altitude to last through the night.

      Would you want satellite comms? Surely you only need to communicate with a ground station and other drones.

      Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat.

      Don't see this as a problem. Many countries will start allowing pilotless drones, so if this is based off a standard civilian design, no special license will be required. Remember, there are other aviation authorities than the FAA. I'd have thought the American authority would be the last group they would apply to.

      Even if it is launched of a boat, some types of pilotless drones are launched by throwing.

      And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.

      I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.

    4. Re:Rough design by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.

      That's if they're registered, which I don't consider likely. It's much easier and cheaper to just get them airborne before they piss anyone off

    5. Re:Rough design by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You have not played to model aircrafts, did you?

      Launching them is the easy part. If they are solar powered, they'll probably have quite powerfull motors (since those are both cheap, light, and efficient) capable of vertical take-off, or if you don't want that, you can always sling-shot them. Also, a carrier for small planes is smaler, and not that expensive.

      Besides, several countries permit operations of uncertified UAVs.

    6. Re:Rough design by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Easier plan would be to put the radios on a boat-drone.

    7. Re:Rough design by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      You could use model rocket engines for initial launch with a drop-away platform pretty easily. Similar to a shuttle launch... just need enough to get it up enough for the solar engines to take it from, and enough clear sky to ascend to a cruising altitude.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  14. saw that movie on cable by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    They're going to put Philip Seymour Hoffman in a blimp in the stratosphere?!!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:saw that movie on cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're finally making The Splendiferous Zeppelin Escapades of Filliam H. Muffman?

  15. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically the weather should be more stable in the sky if they set it up properly.

  16. why not? by alienzed · · Score: 1

    Once solar panels can provide enough power for the drones to stay aloft indefinitely this seems feasible.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  17. Pi in the sky by FreeSpeechForTheDumb · · Score: 2

    This whole plan is a little too "Pi in the sky" for me ...

    1. Re:Pi in the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole plan is a little too "Pi in the sky" for me ...

      ELO?

      Someone suggested balloons instead. How about solar powered zeppelins. Any light weight long lasting rechargeable batteries yet? They ever get good printable/paintable solar cells yet?

    2. Re:Pi in the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Alan Parsons will do a song about it?

  18. I've heard this song before by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hast du etwas Zeit fuer mich
    Dann singe ich ein Lied fuer dich
    Von 99 Luftboxens
    Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont
    Denkst du vielleicht g'rad an mich
    Dann singe ich ein Lied fuer dich
    Von 99 Luftboxens
    Und dass sowas von sowas kommt

    99 Luftboxens
    Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont
    Hielt man fuer Ufos aus dem All
    Darum schickte ein General
    'ne Fliegerstaffel hinterher
    Alarm zu geben, wenn's so war
    Dabei war'n da am Horizont
    Nur 99 Luftboxens ...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:I've heard this song before by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Off-topic? Seriously? I found it relevant and kind of funny, actually.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    2. Re:I've heard this song before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait... is that 99 bottles of beer in german?

    3. Re:I've heard this song before by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      99 red balloons in english, there is an english version of the song

      1983 cold war era antiwar song

      german pop group called nena

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:I've heard this song before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ach! Nena! After all these years, I still love you!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nena

  19. Internet in a box by na1led · · Score: 1
    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  20. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had it with these mf'ing servers on this mf'ing ship!

  21. That's nice and all... by Sydin · · Score: 1

    But I was under the impression that drones do eventually need to be refueled and repaired? Which means these things need to come back through national waters and national airspace, where they suddenly fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country they're in to be refueled. Not to mention whoever is doing the refueling is putting themselves at risk. It won't be hard to track where the piracy drone is heading to for its maintenance. Sounds like a fun idea in theory, but I'm not to sure about the practice.

    1. Re:That's nice and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives a new meaning to 'up time'

    2. Re:That's nice and all... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Maybe TPB plans to create/acquire its own aircraft carrier. It would fit with the pirate image, after all. Maybe they could purchase the USS Enterprise, which is about to be decommissioned.

    3. Re:That's nice and all... by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't sell her (except to a museum or similar organisation) even if they had the money. Not to mention they'd need to fit her with new reactors.

  22. Connectivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, TFA conveniently neglects to mention how they plan to get an accessible IP address.
    Who wants to be their ISP? And how long do you think that'll last?

  23. traceroute by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This wouldn't do them a whole lot of good. The key to shutting them down isn't getting physical access/jurisdiction to them in some country, but shutting down their link to the internet. Like with any pirate, if you know where their home port is, you can easily cut them off there. Never mind radar and satellite imaging; all you'd need is traceroute and a someone in the country it leads to who is willing to sign a legal order to disable their internet access.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:traceroute by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      Like with any pirate, if you know where their home port is

      Their home port is 127.0.0.1:80 - feel free to DDoS them off the net!

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    2. Re:traceroute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like with any pirate, if you know where their home port is, you can easily cut them off there...

      Proof that the "This sounds clever, therefore it must be clever" theory isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    3. Re:traceroute by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      This is why the end game will be to move to a "distributed darknet", and an easy way for average people to get there. Nothing to shut down then, but the entire network.

      Of course bandwidth caps would be an option then.. but that is about the only way to get to it short of laws that ban darknets totally.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:traceroute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't I use a dgram-port for DDos? Like 53?

  24. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

    And Skynet is born.

  25. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by defnoz · · Score: 1

    This was my first thought - what's the advantage of an aircraft rather than a ship (or buoy)? Two or three strategically placed should minimise the chances of weather putting the service offline. Also - using Raspberry Pi? I'm not in IT, but I'm thinking that the server power and bandwidth required by TPB is in the order of "quite lots".

  26. Another idea by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

    We could set up our network of orbiting drones as node relays and create our own internet. Take that AT&T!

    It would work great until AOL launched their own drone, which would be the size of the Hindenburg, immediately swamping the other nodes with traffic and requiring users to type all in caps.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  27. Solar powered servers epoxied to walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with TBP is that they only provide torrents, not seeds.

    I have been thinking over seed servers - what BitTorrent calls a downloader - that would have no moving parts, be very small, easily disguised and solar powered.

    You'd glue then to the outside of a building within range of 802.11. You'd need an alternative way to access them remotely in case the SSID or password ever changes.

    Do raspberry pis work with USB storage? a four gig commodity stick is about six bucks.

    1. Re:Solar powered servers epoxied to walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd glue then to the outside of a building within range of 802.11. You'd need an alternative way to access them remotely in case the SSID or password ever changes.

      This is trivial -- you can either install the aircrack-ng suite and a small amount of scripting to automate cracking WEP, or play by the rules and program it for two networks -- the internet connection, plus an encrypted net that your laptop is a softap base station for. You pull up, and if it's lost it's main connection, it'll connect to you as soon as it sees a beacon.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Drone Wars have started!

    1. Re:Yay! by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Begun, the Drone Wars have.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Yay! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Begun, the Drone War has.

      FTFY.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  30. Nifty ideas by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    You can't but love the concepts these guys come up with, all just for the sake of piracy. Didn't they a couple of years ago have a plan of buying their own island. It's a pity it didn't pan out (can't recall the reason), it would have been interesting to see where it would have led things.

    1. Re:Nifty ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't but love the concepts these guys come up with, all just for the sake of piracy. Didn't they a couple of years ago have a plan of buying their own island. It's a pity it didn't pan out (can't recall the reason), it would have been interesting to see where it would have led things.

      Yeah, they didn't end up buying sealand, but they're present there now anyways:

      thepiratebay.se

  31. Now I know why..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was unable to purchase a Pi when they went on sale.. The Pirate Bay crashed the two resellers buying theirs....

  32. Uplink? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would the server uplink with the rest of the Internet? It would have to connect either by long range wireless or satellite link. For wireless, you'd need a ground station in a nation, also satellites usually fall under the jurisdiction by the nation they are launched by. To shut them down, the RIAA/MPAA/others would just need to petition whichever country the access is coming through to pressure them into cutting the link. There is no truly independent option for connecting to the web.

    The only thing this will do is help protect the server from being confiscated.

    I think the easier solution, assuming that the data on the server is not that important (assuming if it's going on drones that there are already countless backups of it), would be to just create cheap throw away servers, then install them in a redundant network in various countries. By the time the legal process goes through to seize one of them, just setup another one elsewhere and wait for the slow progress of the law to catch up to it again. I'm sure some of the people behind The Pirate Bay, are competent enough to setup dummy accounts and stuff to ensure that even if one of the throw-away servers are seized, that they can't be traced back to them.

  33. Makes no sense to me by AC-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't think of any reason to do this (other than an elaborate April fools), to make these servers available to the internet they will need to either connect to ground infrastructure somewhere directly or rely on a wireless service provider (cellular or satellite).

    If they're relying on a wireless internet provider they could just shut access to the servers off, if it's connected to ground infrastructure (which would of course need to go through 3rd party internet providers as well) then access can just be cut off from there instead. They may as well, if using miniature low cost servers, just create small self powered self contained servers that can be hidden at multiple locations.

    Or, are they suggested that to access The Pirate Bay you will now need your own dish antenna to contact the server drones directly? :)

  34. Yeah, but the PR is free by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    They have no intention of actually launching this, anymore than they're going to put servers on Sealand. But the announcement gets them lots of free PR.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  35. Cloud computing in the clouds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What goes up.....
    Unless these drones have nuclear reactors in them, they have to come down some time?
    This seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.. what is the point, the purpose of this?
    If they are afraid of being blocked or their assets being frozen, the military can shoot down drones, and governments
    can still block RF traffic. I don't see any advantage.

    1. Re:Cloud computing in the clouds? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Well, at lot of even home-grown ones can be 100% automated to fly a path pretty darn well. I think there was a story about one going super far (trans Atlantic?) made by some students on the cheap.

      So you have it fly around a path, and either via timer or sensor... have it return to a specific landing place by the shore where someone can refuel it / maintain it, etc.

  36. Wouldn't the MAFIAA just take out the base station by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these raspberry birds need to link to a base station somewhere (or how else would would customers communicate with them). And this station needs to be on firm ground, in some jurisdiction, and be connected via some backbone to the rest of the internet. Quite a number of potential points of failure to lean on without ever needing to take a single bird down.

  37. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    lots of problems with servers in the air... much easier to put servers on ships in int'l waters... like pirate radio...

    Just be careful to not put them anywhere near Somalia...

  38. DO NOT WANT by psydeshow · · Score: 1

    Oh great, that's all we need: an excuse to weaponize copyright enforcement.

    I'd rather the MPAA and RIAA didn't have anti-drone drones, thank you very much. Please keep your servers in datacenters or come up with a better plan, like distributing them over millions of peoples' iPhones.

  39. BoiOIoiOIoiOIoiOIoiNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True or not, it definitely gave me a nerd/brain boner.

    1. Re:BoiOIoiOIoiOIoiOIoiNG by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The way you make it
      I can't believe it
      I ain't never seen a plan...like...that
      The way you show it
      It makes geek's peepee go....DADOINGDOINGDOOOIIIIING!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  40. Offtopic? People don't like '80s German pop music? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    What's wrong with Nena?

    OK, How about 70s American pop music? Norman Greenbaum:

    When I die and they lay me to rest
    Gonna go to the place that's the best
    When I lay me down to die
    Goin' up to the server in the sky

    Goin' up to the server in the sky
    That's where I'm gonna go when I die
    When I die and they lay me to rest
    Gonna go to the place that's the best

    Prepare yourself, you know it's a must
    Gotta have a friend in Jesus
    So you know that when you die
    He's gonna recommend you to the server in the sky ...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  41. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

    Putting it at a higher altitude lets the radio reach farther, presumably. I doubt you'd want to use commercial wi-fi for this since the range would only be on the order of hundreds of feet without a good directional antenna.

  42. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    They've recently moved to serving magnet links only, which makes it far easier to host. Still a lot easier to just place on some old ship. Add solar panels on every surface and you might have a decent option, if you manage to keep power consumption in check and secure some sort of downlink

  43. Biodegradable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be neat if they could make it using biodegradable components too, so when the crash and/or fall apart from weather conditions they won't add to the trash in the ocean.

    1. Re:Biodegradable? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Is there anything like styrofoam that's biodegradable? There are already RC planes made of various forms of it. Still you can't get away from the battery and electronics...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  44. This brings a lot of new insights... by scsirob · · Score: 1

    ... Server down means a hole in the ground

    ... Hardware or software crash, can become really dangerous, wear tinfoil hats

    ... Blue Sky of Death

    ... Penguins can fly!

    ... DDOS (Distributed Drones, Open Skies)

    ... In-flight Data Corruption

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:This brings a lot of new insights... by zill · · Score: 1

      Penguins can fly!

      2012 will be the year of Linux in the sky.

  45. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing

    Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!

    He would, but his stuff would just get pirated on the Pirate Bay, so he doesn't figure it's worth it.... :)

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  46. Powered by wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right. "Plan is real" right up to the moment when someone at least guesstimates (a) power required to keep that thing airborne for any reasonable amount of time (b) power required to maintain high-speed datalink and compares that to (c) power available from batteries, fuel or similar and (d) cost of batteries, fuel or similar. And no, "solar power" is not the answer. In few years, this may be achievable with large solar-powered blimps. But small drones running Raspberry Pi? Bah. Don't smoke that shit.

    1. Re:Powered by wtf? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think TPB comes up with these wacky plans once in a while as sort of a sci-fi concept to demonstrate how hard it could be made to take a site offline at the hardware level. It could be possible but it wouldn't be cheap or easy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  47. Ridiculous .... by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    Why not find a deserted or uninhabited Island in the Pacific and simply build a low cost, low power data center there. If you use processors like ARM or Atom that don't require additional cooling, you could probably engineer and build something to withstand the climate and you can make use of abundant sunshine for power with a battery backup of marine deep cycle batteries. Add a satellite uplink to the internet and the problem (in theory, at least) is solved. Placing servers on an airborne platform is certainly not without risk. You have extreme conditions of wind, cold, and varying temperatures. Finally, how do you keep the servers up there as what goes up must and eventually will, come down. Helium is infeasible as a lighter than air medium, hydrogen could work. You also have the technical difficulty of keeping it in an orbit that is over international waters. While an interesting engineering challenge, it would make more sense to build a datacenter on an uninhabited island in international waters.

    1. Re:Ridiculous .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desert island wouldn't work, they would just attack the uplink. At least with a drone it could be moved to another country with coastal radio/cellular access.

      When this falls through, TPB will end up moving to i2p/freenet/tor and be hosted...everywhere.

    2. Re:Ridiculous .... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      The "uninhabited island" thing is legally infeasible, ask libertarians (not the very nuttiest ones though, like the Seasteaders who didn't get the memo).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Ridiculous .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand ?

    4. Re:Ridiculous .... by spasm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While there are plenty of uninhabited islands out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_island), with few exceptions they're all recognized as being part of some nation's sovereign territory which means, by definition, they're not "in international waters". The two sort-of exceptions are Antarctica and the Svalbard archipelago. Svalbard has some quite delightfully weird legal history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty) which makes going there and setting up 'commercial activity' rather less restricted than it might otherwise be, is still part of the Kingdom of Norway and subject to most of its laws. Antarctica is pretty much do whatever you want (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty) as long as it's not military. But while you might be able to set up a data center in either of those places, good luck with your internet connection.

      Which brings me to my second point - "add a satellite uplink.." Who owns the satellites? Which country are they based in, and whose laws are *they* subject to? The number of comsat service providers is pretty small, and all of them have governments as major customers and in many cases part- or full-owners. Running your piratebay server on some rock off Antarctica is all well and good, but when your comsat service is cancelled because a national government took the carrier to court (or just threatened to), all you have is a disconnected server sitting on a cold rock.

      This is the problem with all such 'remote island' schemes. The remote island still has to connect to the internet, and the more remote it is, the less connections you can afford to have, and the easier it is for someone to have you cut off. Better to have ten thousand redundant copies of whatever you're trying to make available floating around the internet than stick one copy on an easily disconnected island somewhere.

    5. Re:Ridiculous .... by DarkAce911 · · Score: 1

      Let's take this the other way then, how about a Pirate Satellite? Launch a microsat into orbit and let everyone relay thru it.

    6. Re:Ridiculous .... by spasm · · Score: 1

      Now we're talking :)

  48. Planes? Why not balloons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not deploy servers in high altitude balloons? Wouldn't that at least save on fuel? And the technology is relatively cheap as well!

  49. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    It'd be simpler to just use Sealab's emergency radio beacon.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  50. I've played that game.... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. In other words, a Sky Net by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Yes, this will go well.

  52. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its a true fact: using "herp a derp" to ridicule someone's post lowers your iq by 20%.

  53. Yea.. Good Luck With That... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about weather? Wind, Snow, Rain... Birds flying into them or like others said a missile accidentally detecting it and collides with it...

    So will it use solar power? Wind power? and how long will the battery last when the sun goes down?

    What if the thing goes offline? Where you will find it? If it falls into the ocean (that is if its flying over the pacific), how will they find this server?

    This wont happen. I call this BS!

  54. I'm on a boat. by metrometro · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the Seastedding people to chime in here.

  55. uhhhhhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does everyone assume they will need to be "shot down"?
    Consider that wireless already sucks, all that's needed to jam the things is likely an extension cord and a microwave with no door pointed up.

  56. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as opposed to a false fact...

  57. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    He it's not just one Raspberry Pi, it's a cluster of them, and with their minimalist site design and recent massive reduction in storage costs, their biggest problem is probably database performance.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  58. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Hmm, starting your post with 'Herp a derp' and quoting something that the post you replied to did not say (the summary did), while mocking the grandparent for saying it? I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there's a significant chance that you might be an idiot.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  59. Re:Wouldn't the MAFIAA just take out the base stat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or just put the main server, which would communicate to the greater internet via satellite, in a watertight room with a medium sized nuclear reactor, and sink it to the bottom of the ocean. The reactor could operate for nearly half a century, assuming it was built well.

    Where to get the nuclear rector? Go to hireapirate.com and ask them nicely to steal a submarine! How could this go wrong?

  60. Small independent local networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment is somewhat applicable but also somewhat "disconnected" from the discussion.

    I would like to see lots and lots of small "local networks" similar to the old Bulletin Board System of yester year.

    1) An individuals or small group would act as a "private isp" using wireless networks and local servers.

    2) Each of these local networks would be similar to a "intranet" network inside a small to medium sized company.

    3) These networks would be off the global network.

    4) Large numbers of these small networks would reduce the influence of the PTB (powers that be) that try to control the internet.
    ( It is much harder to control millions of targets vs a handful of targets.)

    5) It might be possible to interconnect these networks with an independent communication system say based on laser diodes.
    I picture modifying cheap gigabit ethernet servers, and have lasers and sensors connected to act as the wiring between these servers.
    ( this is not as far fetched as one might think)

  61. Power Does Not Add Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have spent a year building a drone with parts from DIYdrones and 3 local hobby stores. Getting anything that would stay aloft for any length of time and then power "100Mbps per node up to 50km away" just does not seem to add up.

    Just the keeping it aloft for any time at all (days not hours) seems like real work and in order for it too be a service weeks would be more like it. Then you want to power what I would think would be a pretty impressive antenna and radio to get the bits in and out.

    However, a mesh of drones circling an island somewhere does sound like a recipe for a Bond film. Maybe they are just working out a screen play and plan on JOINING Hollywood.

  62. Re:Wouldn't the MAFIAA just take out the base stat by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Nobody said they had to move entirely to flying servers, the current hosting seems to be working fine. Imagine the lulz when the MAFIAA goons learn of these things! It'd be worth it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  63. Response to shoot-downs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next they will have to form a military force to respond to illegal shoot-downs in international waters or enter into treaties with countries with a navy and air force.

  64. Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Might need a few airborns for use as wireless relays, but I agree: A drone boat is much easier for the server end.

  65. Dearest douchebag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The #1 rule of Slashdong trolling is to reply to the end of the highest reply chain thereby keeping your post from being buried under tonnes of comments. YOU, sir, are a m-o-r-o-n. Amen.

  66. small problem by superwiz · · Score: 1

    what's to prevent them from getting shut down?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  67. Phil Karn, Where Are You? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a job for Ham Radio, no? Two-way communication between the drones and multiple packet radios would be difficult to shut down.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  68. Additional connotations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The term "Uptime" suddenly has new meaning.

  69. Too many days at sea... by Jack+Kolesar · · Score: 1

    Think those pirates dun lost their mind.

  70. Odd idea by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    This idea seems pretty silly. Why not just put the same servers on a boat in international waters?

  71. This is utterly ridiculous by scottbomb · · Score: 1

    Unless they're planning on buying their own satellite and use something a heck of a lot more powerful than a Raspberry Pi, this cannot work. How exactly do they plan to connect to an ISP? Through a 4G cellphone tower or a satellite ISP? Not exactly server-grade bandwidth there. And how exactly do they plan to use a Raspberry PI as a server to handle thousands of requests every second? I can't believe this is being seriously discussed by anyone.

  72. Re:Wouldn't the MAFIAA just take out the base stat by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The base station would essentially be a router - no content on it, neither legal nor illegal. The court case for taking it down would be very interesting indeed, and might get some big players (backbone providers or anyone else running routers for a living) worried enough to chip in on the defending side.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  73. International Waters by tagallag · · Score: 1

    Why not use a cruise ship like this slashdot story pointed out years ago. http://developers.slashdot.org/story/05/04/20/2251203/offshoring-to-a-ship-in-international-waters

    1. Re:International Waters by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      The Europeans (particularly the UK, Holland and Norway) have been making life difficult for offshore operations since 1966. Refer to the ongoing saga of Radio Caroline.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  74. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by Adriax · · Score: 1

    Better than a political fact.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  75. Re:Offtopic? People don't like '80s German pop mus by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Funny

    The mods saw that it wasn't in English, couldn't be bothered to translate it, and are philistines who wouldn't know good music if it filled their vagina with bacon and then sent an Alsatian to go eat it.

  76. Hey. man.. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    Hey man, great sky crime!

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  77. Reads like randomly generated story copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one made it to the front page over the one about the Pirate Bay using server hardware based on Lego Mindstorms running the new Linux kernel.

  78. Bandwidth by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

    Connectivity provided by a 300-mile-long cat5 cable.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
  79. Balloons might make more sense by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Have the guy from "Up!" manage the servers.

    Just kidding, I know the entire thing is a bs PR stunt.

  80. Does Sealand have broadband...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

  81. Lucy in the sky with HASH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they could broadcast hash tables to a rather
    unstoppable base of P2P users.
    Once a day, with the announced broadcast over Twitter.
    Once it's updated, it would be quite persistent.

  82. No Network Required by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    The entire Pirate Bay set of magnet links, descriptions, and maybe comments could fit on a flash drive. When the plane lands, update with a new version by plugging in a new drive. With magnet links, the rest is handled by the torrent network.

  83. mafIAA always finds a way by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    When Napster came around, some of us foolishly thought the beast was slain, that they couldn't prevent people from sharing music with each other, so easy was it to copy.

    They simply shut down the central organization. In retrospect, that was an obvious move.

    Then decentralized filesharing came around, and we again thought that we had won.

    They went after the individuals, went after the indexing services AND started trying to rewrite the laws to make it possible to block things. That is/will provide the money and drive to start censoring the web, along with "think of the children!"

    I worry if Piratebay starts using rasberry pi to play this game of cat and mouse that the mafIAA will respond by 1. redoubling their efforts to censor the web and 2. pass laws saying that hardware manufacturers are liable for copyright infringement their customers do. The big guys will be exempt if they bake heavy DRM right into the hardware, but organizations like Rasberry pi get shut down. The result being a loss of open source and increase in DRM.

  84. "In the cloud" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing.

    Oh, the pun-pain!....on a Monday even

  85. Gives me some ideas by PenguinJeff · · Score: 1

    Small subs that go down deep enough to avoid the turbulence at the surface but shallow enough that it could use solar power and use sonar for communications. People could drop mics and speakers in the sea for a water based internet even. Or even blimps from an air tube (along with needed wires) tether that the under water subs could use as an antenna. and refill the blimps with hydrogen from electrolysis. The blimps could probably be used for the solar array as well.

  86. As the Beatles would say: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Lucent in the Sky with Diamonds

  87. getting the raspberrys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..will be the most difficult part.

  88. push it to the cloud by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    I wish there was a -1 retarded mod because you, sir, are a fucking retard.

    you want more clouds they help you virtualize

  89. If it's in the sky you can build an antennae by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    and connect to it.

  90. Whatever anyone says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys just rock - and their longevity in the face of all the attacks by MAFIAA is the stuff legends are made of!

  91. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by cffrost · · Score: 1

    It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing

    Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!

    He would, but his stuff would just get pirated on the Pirate Bay, so he doesn't figure it's worth it.... :)

    I'd rather read something written by someone who's motivated by having something to say, not some self-important hack motivated by delusions of getting rich quick. In any event, pirates tend not to distribute utter garbage in quantity, regardless of the original medium. In my case, I'd rather use my bandwidth to upload many copies of a useful textbook than any number of some trashy romance novels.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  92. Give it up, this never works. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Internet pirates keep thinking of extranational territory as some sort of promised land of milk and honey: if they can just get their data outside national boundaries, they'll be golden. They are wrong. A series of international treaties ensures that your vehicle always falls under the jurisdiction of one state or another. The Law of the Sea says that ships fall under the jurisdiction of the nation whose flag they fly, and failing to fly a flag is a domestic crime. The Outer Space Treaty says that spacecraft fall under the jurisdiction of the nation that launched them. And the Tokyo Convention says that crimes aboard aircraft fall under the jurisdiction of the nation they're registered in. (And failure to register an aircraft is typically a domestic crime.) Not sure the Tokyo Convention applies specifically to copyright violations or to unmanned aircraft, but at this point it's a universal international relations principle: your citizens' vehicle, your nation's problem.

    Give up your dreams of escaping state control by leaving state borders. Your only hope is to fight within the state, rather than trying to run from it.

  93. Why in the Sky? by Drawsalot · · Score: 1

    It would be far easier for them to hookup with the script-kiddies that are running the bot-nets and distribute their links redundantly across them. With thousands and thousands to shut down, it would take the authorities forever to get rid of that copy of "Mamma Madea's Big Happy Family".

  94. Blimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heyyyyy they should use Blimps for servers, they can stay airborne for much less fuel right?

  95. This is mechanically possible by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    I've been doodling for years, designs of a solar powered small aircraft that could potentially stay aloft forever - given enough storage density (ie lithium ion battery or something even denser), and efficient enough PV arrays, motors, fans and wings it's doable with a small payload which itself could also be powered off the same system. Back when I started these doodles NiMH was just coming into mainstream, but that was still too heavy (didn't stop laptop makers using NiMH for internal power sources, though), it was the one point of frustration that stopped me from prototyping anything. That and the very inefficient glass plated PV cells, whereas now we have formable film PV which can be used as a single layer skin for wing surfaces. OK, it's not very strong, but does it have to be? We're not sending these things into combat, we just want them to stay aloft.

    As a demonstration of how light an aircraft can be; back in school I built a dumb glider from some styrofoam laminate I found in a storage bin. This had an eight foot wingspan, was six feet long and used spars made from the same material to reinforce the full fuselage - just to make sure it kept its shape under its own weight and that it didn't detach itself from the wing. In all it weighed less than six pounds (with a small weight in the nose) and when ideal conditions presented (zero wind, slightly overcast), it went for a test flight.

    From a two handed running launch the thing flew just shy of 120m and made a soft belly landing.

    Pretty good for an unpowered, hand-launched school project. Wonder what it would have done with a propulsion pack that these days would easily weigh about as much as the nose weight?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  96. Re:CLOUD COMPUTING!!! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing

    Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!

    He would, but his stuff would just get pirated on the Pirate Bay, so he doesn't figure it's worth it.... :)

    You're only being so snarky because this sort of stuff goes right over your head.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.