"You first. Have a nice swim with the giant squid. Let me know how that turns out if you come back."
Yeah, because it's not like we have protective devices that have been used to study other dangerous aquatic animals. That's why we have no footage of sharks in the wild right?
"at the very base of quantum physics is the measurement problem: when a measurement is made, the many quantum possiblities of particles collapse into one actuality. so far, no one has any explanation of what determines which possibility becomes the actuality, and some physicists believe the choice is made by the conscious observer."
Yeah, well in Britain the conscious observer is the Government, and they've decided you're fucking guilty.
They're available in a way. Many older BBC programmes are shown on channels like UKTV Gold - which isn't freely available. So basically we've paid for the BBC to produce this content, now they've sold it to be shown on a different channel which we have to pay to receive. Bastards.
So in the hypothetical tinfoil hat situation you describe, Microsoft intentionally disables Windows on the many thousands of HP computers worldwide. Complaints fire off, lawsuits follow, HP and Microsoft spend tens to hundreds of millions, anti-trust litigation occurs against Microsoft in all affected countries. Something that large would be enough to destroy the confidence of both home consumers and big business - HP is a big-seller in the workstation market. Microsoft would be fucked. So would HP probably. You and your brethren can sing and dance in the streets that the Great Evil has been slain. Hurrah!
As far as the Wal-Mart thing goes, if it's truly a case of intentional hobbling and not a legitimate situation where proprietary laptop video drivers simply aren't available for other operating systems (video driver support is a common problem with many laptops in my experience) then you should be complaining like hell to Walmart and/or Microsoft.
The perpetrator in your little tirade here is Microsoft, not HP. While HP aren't angels themselves if Microsoft are committing illegal anti-competitive acts then the lawsuits should be against Microsoft for those acts, not against a single PC vendor under a law which seems completely ridiculous and won't solve any of the issues you've listed. If anti-competitive issues are truly the issue then they should be dealt with head-on, not treated like some half-assed game of Whack-A-Mole against the PC vendors for whatever obscure law they can find.
But the fact is I'm not required to buy that particular sandwich everywhere. I can buy different sandwiches elsewhere and if I really want I can even buy the bread and fillings separately.
What this HP thing is, is more like suing McDonalds because you can't buy a bun by itself there. They keep telling you there's a supermarket down the road where they're available, but no, you say you want their buns and only theirs. Is it wrong for them to dictate what they put on their own menu?
Note: I've already acknowledged in another reply to this article that the difference in licencing between the PC and the OS (any OS!) is perhaps a stumbling point which might hold some merit to the separation issue. However I don't think most of the people responding to the original article in favour of the lawsuit have even considered that. Most are just happy to jump on the "Bash Microsoft, Bash HP, Bash the evil corporations, Goooooo LINUX!" bandwagon and I have little doubt that many of these same people would change their mind in an instant if the situation were a Linux-only PC vendor being sued for the same reasons. I'm not saying that necessarily applies to you, but it's something to think about...
Why would offering Windows for free change anything? As I understand it this has nothing to do with the cost of Windows, it's simply a matter of product bundling. The same restrictions would and should apply with any other OS.
And bear in mind I'm not saying that HP aren't breaking French law here, they very well might be. I'm just pointing out that the law is probably bullshit.
Well I've never really been trying to support HP's assertion that a PC and an OS are inseparable products, merely that they are complementary products that are implicitly linked at least in terms of the consumer mindset.
Ragardless of that, I think the EULA argument is probably the only one I've heard that makes any real sense. I have to agree that products with separate licencing/terms should be available separately, however could it not then result in HP effectively striking a new deal with Microsoft somehow linking their hardware with the Windows licence? Surely in many ways that's the kind of thing that MS has been pushing for with their post-9x OS'es anyway? I suppose that's a different problem that'll need to be dealt with in time.
Is there a lack of consumer choice? A lot of people seem to be citing that as a reason to agree with the lawsuit. I haven't ever tried to buy an OS-less PC in France so I can't say one way or the other but why is there a lack? Some people are saying it's because of Microsoft's lock-in style deals with PC distributors, but then surely that should be a case for going after Microsoft for anti-competition violations, not trying to force a single distributor to change their product line. Besides that, what's to stop a Linux/non-OS PC distributor entering the market and selling their PCs anyway? Sorry but I see the perceived "lack of choice" as an issue for the free market to resolve, not any government. Since reading the replies to this article I'm half tempted to try and start my own non-Windows PC business since from all the lack of choice posts it appears to be a pretty significant market which for some reason nobody else is taking up.
I agree that the argument, at least as he worded it, was a stupid one to make from a technical and legal point of view, however from the practical view of selling to Joe Averáge it's probably correct. The unfortunate truth is that PC and OS are one and the same for the average consumer. If HP ever did sell a Windows-less PC and gave it the same marketing as their Windows ones (for fear of being sued again) they'd probably end up being savaged by fools complaining that they'd been a mis-sold an incomplete or incompatible computer because it doesn't play Half Life 2 or because "it doesn't go to the screen with the clouds when I switch it on" to put it as someone once said to me.
HP aren't forcing you to buy your computers from them though are they? Any other company can choose to sell a PC without an OS and you can then choose to buy it from them - HP aren't the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers. In fact I presume HP must be bigger on consumer PCs in France than in the UK because if you asked me to list 10 popular PC retailers I don't think HP would make it on.
Bottom-line: It's all about choice. HP have a choice to put whatever OS they want on their systems, and you have a choice whether to accept that or take your business elsewhere.
Nobody's saying you can't buy a PC without an OS. You just can't buy one from HP.
Surely this is where that capitalism thing is supposed to come in? If there's a market for PCs without an operating system, whether the reasons be price, quality of software, or anything else, then surely it's just a case of someone setting up shop and giving the people what they want. And I agree with you, I honestly believe there is a market for Windows-less/OS-less PCs. What I don't agree with is that anyone should be forcing a company to produce that product via lawsuits. Surely consumers should be "forcing" it by making it clear that anyone who sells that product is going to be getting a sale out of them.
If the charge was that HP were in some way preventing others from producing a non-Windows PC in some anti-competitive way then I'd be all for this lawsuit. But it's not and as far as I'm concerned HP can sell what they want with whatever they want installed on it as long as they don't try and stop me or anyone else from doing the same.
A DVD is media for the DVD player. It's not the same argument and you know it.
As for the other two, I think the only point you're proving is that while maybe computers and OSes could be sold separately, the fact that there are no doubt companies in France that sell TV/DVD combos and toys including batteries without the option to remove one or the other who are not being sued just goes to show that this is a farcical attempt to gouge some money out of HP.
I guess there's a good chance I'll get modded down for the heinous crime of coming out in favour of Microsoft here, but why should HP be sued for not selling a computer without an OS? It's like suing a company for selling a pen that comes with a cartridge. Sure, the pen could be sold without one and the buyer could get them separately, possibly even cheaper, but the fact is that the majority want to buy a pen and use it as-is. The same goes for computers.
I think HP should sell PCs that come with other OSes (or even no OS at all) - simply because I think there is a market worth taking there. However I don't think it's for any government or "consumer group" to try and force this on a company.
To look at it another way, there are plenty of PC manufacturers that solely sell PCs with DVD writers, monitors, keyboards and/or mice. Just like an OS, none of those things are *needed* in the strictest sense, yet nobody seems to be up in arms (or rather up in lawsuits) about that.
While I've greatly enjoyed watching the anti-trust decisions go against Microsoft in the EU in recent years, it seems that those legitimate victories for consumer rights are now being turned into a witch-hunt by various organisations in Europe who see the anti-MS sentiment as a means to get their hands into Microsoft's very deep pockets.
The trouble with all these spin-offs is that if they keep things the same they're just labelled as tired and unoriginal, yet if they change too much they'll almost certainly piss off the hardcore fans of the original and find themselves with a show less popular than if they'd started from scratch. It's not impossible to do, but it's a balance delicate enough that in all likelihood it'll be fucked up.
The problem lies from returning too quickly to the franchise. ST:TNG came 18 years after ST:TOS, that's why it worked. It gave the old fans some time away from the show and allowed a new set of potential fans to arrive who had never experienced it before. The same applies to Battlestar Galactica. Doctor Who went to shit in the 80's after the BBC desperately trying to squeeze it for everything it's worth. After ~15 years it's returned and is more popular now then ever. Right now I'd rather see a new series of something like Doomwatch or Blake's 7 than yet another cash-in of Star Trek/Star Wars/Stargate/Babylon 5/Whatever. Or better yet, how about an entirely original sci-fi series? That'd be nice.
Yeah, let's dump all our aircraft, tanks, submarines, nuclear weapons, and ships because some soldiers got shot by AK-47's. Clearly the AK-47 is the ultimate weapon and will win all wars from now until the end of time.
Or maybe, just maybe, local insurgents killing soldiers on the ground in a country they're occupying has no relevance whatsoever to this topic. Maybe aircraft aren't meant to kill every enemy of the US in one foul blow. The ability to destroy any building, vehicle, or person whose location is known might just be enough to make aicraft like the F-35 worth investing in. You know, assuming someone with an AK-47 hasn't got there first and destroyed it with those new Bunker-Buster-Bullets I'm sure the Russians are about to release...
I for one welcome our new assault rifle wielding overlords.
By using a set of three planes that are mostly the same instead of half a dozen completely different ones it should in theory lower costs in terms of a better economy of scale on the planes and their parts and a lower cost of training for pilots, mechanics, etc.
It's nothing but talk anyway. With the current situation in Britain and our Fifty Or So Strikes approach to law enforcement it's more likely to be an ASBO preventing offenders from "committing anymore piracy, please".
Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour. Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".
Not that our legal system has left me disillusioned or anything...
"Sorry, I don't give two shits about their country, if it dissolves into civil war, or dissolves into thin air. I bet most Americans don't."
So what do you think going into a country promising liberation, tearing down a regime and destroying the status quo, and then running away when it comes time to rebuild because a handful (yes a handful) of American lives are lost is going to do? Do you think the Islamic fundamentalists who've been preaching war on the West will turn around and say "oh, let's leave them alone now"? No, all it will accomplish is installing a new, possibly even more anti-Western regime in Iraq and leave the Iraqi people as a massive reservoir for terrorist recruitment as they'll (quite rightly) feel betrayed by the Western armies that came in, shot the place up, and then left them to pick up the peices amidst nationwide strife. Again.
It's exactly your kind of thinking that is one of the greatest fuels for the fundamentalist cause. The idea that the relatively tiny amount of American lives that will be lost stablising Iraq are worth more than the many many thousands of arabs who will die if coalition forces pull out too soon is nothing short of racist. Why would you expect some kid growing up under the thumb of an oppressive regime in the Middle East to turn away from a cause that demands the wanton murder of Westerners when you have no greater respect for the lives of his people?
"The only consequence is that country B's inhabitants are pissed off, because some argument their country's leader had with another country's leader, led to their toys getting confiscated."
That's exactly the point. Country B's inhabitants get pissed off, and knowing that they wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for leader B, leader B loses support and either gives in to country A's demands or is eventually overthrown by his own pissed off people.
Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.
Maybe in-flight hijacking would become less effective, however instead large-scale, co-ordinated hijackings would become a matter of storming the building and taking control of potentially dozens of planes at once. Of course those buildings would be high security. But then think how many times "high security" buildings have been breached in recent years. Airports, nuclear power plants, government buildings (here in the UK at least) have all been exposed multiple times by various people or groups.
There's also the possibility of remote hijacking by someone managing to hack the system, whether through breaking the system or buying their way in.
None of this is meant as a case against remotely piloted planes, I don't think it's necessarily a more dangerous situation than we have currently. I'm just trying to point out that this doesn't actually remove any weaknesses, it merely moves them elsewhere. As long as we have planes there'll be someone or something flying them, and that will always be a target.
It's all well and good blocking this stuff being exported from the U.S. and the EU to North Korea, but there are plenty of other countries from which they can import the same basic stuff. The real test is whether China will impose trade sanctions and, more importantly, enforce them. Right now it's all well and good saying NK can't get all this stuff from America or Europe but then it's not such a big deal when China's right next door selling their own brand of knock-offs cheaper and just as good.
Of course China doesn't want North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, probably more so than any western nation, so maybe they will enforce trade sanctions. Maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless whales are made out of metal then yes. I'm talking about anti-shark cages (probably reinforced) here, not some fruity chainmail suit.
"You first. Have a nice swim with the giant squid. Let me know how that turns out if you come back."
Yeah, because it's not like we have protective devices that have been used to study other dangerous aquatic animals. That's why we have no footage of sharks in the wild right?
"at the very base of quantum physics is the measurement problem: when a measurement is made, the many quantum possiblities of particles collapse into one actuality. so far, no one has any explanation of what determines which possibility becomes the actuality, and some physicists believe the choice is made by the conscious observer."
Yeah, well in Britain the conscious observer is the Government, and they've decided you're fucking guilty.
Here's a suggestion: Don't try catching what may be an endangered animal until you can be sure you won't kill them in the process. Jackass.
They're available in a way. Many older BBC programmes are shown on channels like UKTV Gold - which isn't freely available. So basically we've paid for the BBC to produce this content, now they've sold it to be shown on a different channel which we have to pay to receive. Bastards.
So in the hypothetical tinfoil hat situation you describe, Microsoft intentionally disables Windows on the many thousands of HP computers worldwide. Complaints fire off, lawsuits follow, HP and Microsoft spend tens to hundreds of millions, anti-trust litigation occurs against Microsoft in all affected countries. Something that large would be enough to destroy the confidence of both home consumers and big business - HP is a big-seller in the workstation market. Microsoft would be fucked. So would HP probably. You and your brethren can sing and dance in the streets that the Great Evil has been slain. Hurrah!
As far as the Wal-Mart thing goes, if it's truly a case of intentional hobbling and not a legitimate situation where proprietary laptop video drivers simply aren't available for other operating systems (video driver support is a common problem with many laptops in my experience) then you should be complaining like hell to Walmart and/or Microsoft.
The perpetrator in your little tirade here is Microsoft, not HP. While HP aren't angels themselves if Microsoft are committing illegal anti-competitive acts then the lawsuits should be against Microsoft for those acts, not against a single PC vendor under a law which seems completely ridiculous and won't solve any of the issues you've listed. If anti-competitive issues are truly the issue then they should be dealt with head-on, not treated like some half-assed game of Whack-A-Mole against the PC vendors for whatever obscure law they can find.
But the fact is I'm not required to buy that particular sandwich everywhere. I can buy different sandwiches elsewhere and if I really want I can even buy the bread and fillings separately.
What this HP thing is, is more like suing McDonalds because you can't buy a bun by itself there. They keep telling you there's a supermarket down the road where they're available, but no, you say you want their buns and only theirs. Is it wrong for them to dictate what they put on their own menu?
Note: I've already acknowledged in another reply to this article that the difference in licencing between the PC and the OS (any OS!) is perhaps a stumbling point which might hold some merit to the separation issue. However I don't think most of the people responding to the original article in favour of the lawsuit have even considered that. Most are just happy to jump on the "Bash Microsoft, Bash HP, Bash the evil corporations, Goooooo LINUX!" bandwagon and I have little doubt that many of these same people would change their mind in an instant if the situation were a Linux-only PC vendor being sued for the same reasons. I'm not saying that necessarily applies to you, but it's something to think about...
Why would offering Windows for free change anything? As I understand it this has nothing to do with the cost of Windows, it's simply a matter of product bundling. The same restrictions would and should apply with any other OS.
And bear in mind I'm not saying that HP aren't breaking French law here, they very well might be. I'm just pointing out that the law is probably bullshit.
Well I've never really been trying to support HP's assertion that a PC and an OS are inseparable products, merely that they are complementary products that are implicitly linked at least in terms of the consumer mindset.
Ragardless of that, I think the EULA argument is probably the only one I've heard that makes any real sense. I have to agree that products with separate licencing/terms should be available separately, however could it not then result in HP effectively striking a new deal with Microsoft somehow linking their hardware with the Windows licence? Surely in many ways that's the kind of thing that MS has been pushing for with their post-9x OS'es anyway? I suppose that's a different problem that'll need to be dealt with in time.
Is there a lack of consumer choice? A lot of people seem to be citing that as a reason to agree with the lawsuit. I haven't ever tried to buy an OS-less PC in France so I can't say one way or the other but why is there a lack? Some people are saying it's because of Microsoft's lock-in style deals with PC distributors, but then surely that should be a case for going after Microsoft for anti-competition violations, not trying to force a single distributor to change their product line. Besides that, what's to stop a Linux/non-OS PC distributor entering the market and selling their PCs anyway? Sorry but I see the perceived "lack of choice" as an issue for the free market to resolve, not any government. Since reading the replies to this article I'm half tempted to try and start my own non-Windows PC business since from all the lack of choice posts it appears to be a pretty significant market which for some reason nobody else is taking up.
I agree that the argument, at least as he worded it, was a stupid one to make from a technical and legal point of view, however from the practical view of selling to Joe Averáge it's probably correct. The unfortunate truth is that PC and OS are one and the same for the average consumer. If HP ever did sell a Windows-less PC and gave it the same marketing as their Windows ones (for fear of being sued again) they'd probably end up being savaged by fools complaining that they'd been a mis-sold an incomplete or incompatible computer because it doesn't play Half Life 2 or because "it doesn't go to the screen with the clouds when I switch it on" to put it as someone once said to me.
HP aren't forcing you to buy your computers from them though are they? Any other company can choose to sell a PC without an OS and you can then choose to buy it from them - HP aren't the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers. In fact I presume HP must be bigger on consumer PCs in France than in the UK because if you asked me to list 10 popular PC retailers I don't think HP would make it on.
Bottom-line: It's all about choice. HP have a choice to put whatever OS they want on their systems, and you have a choice whether to accept that or take your business elsewhere.
Nobody's saying you can't buy a PC without an OS. You just can't buy one from HP.
Surely this is where that capitalism thing is supposed to come in? If there's a market for PCs without an operating system, whether the reasons be price, quality of software, or anything else, then surely it's just a case of someone setting up shop and giving the people what they want. And I agree with you, I honestly believe there is a market for Windows-less/OS-less PCs. What I don't agree with is that anyone should be forcing a company to produce that product via lawsuits. Surely consumers should be "forcing" it by making it clear that anyone who sells that product is going to be getting a sale out of them.
If the charge was that HP were in some way preventing others from producing a non-Windows PC in some anti-competitive way then I'd be all for this lawsuit. But it's not and as far as I'm concerned HP can sell what they want with whatever they want installed on it as long as they don't try and stop me or anyone else from doing the same.
A DVD is media for the DVD player. It's not the same argument and you know it.
As for the other two, I think the only point you're proving is that while maybe computers and OSes could be sold separately, the fact that there are no doubt companies in France that sell TV/DVD combos and toys including batteries without the option to remove one or the other who are not being sued just goes to show that this is a farcical attempt to gouge some money out of HP.
I guess there's a good chance I'll get modded down for the heinous crime of coming out in favour of Microsoft here, but why should HP be sued for not selling a computer without an OS? It's like suing a company for selling a pen that comes with a cartridge. Sure, the pen could be sold without one and the buyer could get them separately, possibly even cheaper, but the fact is that the majority want to buy a pen and use it as-is. The same goes for computers.
I think HP should sell PCs that come with other OSes (or even no OS at all) - simply because I think there is a market worth taking there. However I don't think it's for any government or "consumer group" to try and force this on a company.
To look at it another way, there are plenty of PC manufacturers that solely sell PCs with DVD writers, monitors, keyboards and/or mice. Just like an OS, none of those things are *needed* in the strictest sense, yet nobody seems to be up in arms (or rather up in lawsuits) about that.
While I've greatly enjoyed watching the anti-trust decisions go against Microsoft in the EU in recent years, it seems that those legitimate victories for consumer rights are now being turned into a witch-hunt by various organisations in Europe who see the anti-MS sentiment as a means to get their hands into Microsoft's very deep pockets.
The trouble with all these spin-offs is that if they keep things the same they're just labelled as tired and unoriginal, yet if they change too much they'll almost certainly piss off the hardcore fans of the original and find themselves with a show less popular than if they'd started from scratch. It's not impossible to do, but it's a balance delicate enough that in all likelihood it'll be fucked up.
The problem lies from returning too quickly to the franchise. ST:TNG came 18 years after ST:TOS, that's why it worked. It gave the old fans some time away from the show and allowed a new set of potential fans to arrive who had never experienced it before. The same applies to Battlestar Galactica. Doctor Who went to shit in the 80's after the BBC desperately trying to squeeze it for everything it's worth. After ~15 years it's returned and is more popular now then ever. Right now I'd rather see a new series of something like Doomwatch or Blake's 7 than yet another cash-in of Star Trek/Star Wars/Stargate/Babylon 5/Whatever. Or better yet, how about an entirely original sci-fi series? That'd be nice.
Yeah, Bush clearly wasn't involved with this at all. And why does everyone keep blaming him for this "Iraq" thing? Man, that Bush guy is just SOOOO a scapegoat.
Yeah, let's dump all our aircraft, tanks, submarines, nuclear weapons, and ships because some soldiers got shot by AK-47's. Clearly the AK-47 is the ultimate weapon and will win all wars from now until the end of time.
Or maybe, just maybe, local insurgents killing soldiers on the ground in a country they're occupying has no relevance whatsoever to this topic. Maybe aircraft aren't meant to kill every enemy of the US in one foul blow. The ability to destroy any building, vehicle, or person whose location is known might just be enough to make aicraft like the F-35 worth investing in. You know, assuming someone with an AK-47 hasn't got there first and destroyed it with those new Bunker-Buster-Bullets I'm sure the Russians are about to release...
I for one welcome our new assault rifle wielding overlords.
The UK doesn't have any F-117's and never will. Anyway, the JSF family of planes are intended to replace a number of others:
F-35A: F-16, A-10
F-25B (STOVL): Harrier, F-18
F-35C: F-18
By using a set of three planes that are mostly the same instead of half a dozen completely different ones it should in theory lower costs in terms of a better economy of scale on the planes and their parts and a lower cost of training for pilots, mechanics, etc.
The Joint Strike Fighter isn't the F-22, it's the F-35.
It's nothing but talk anyway. With the current situation in Britain and our Fifty Or So Strikes approach to law enforcement it's more likely to be an ASBO preventing offenders from "committing anymore piracy, please".
Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour. Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".
Not that our legal system has left me disillusioned or anything...
"Sorry, I don't give two shits about their country, if it dissolves into civil war, or dissolves into thin air. I bet most Americans don't."
So what do you think going into a country promising liberation, tearing down a regime and destroying the status quo, and then running away when it comes time to rebuild because a handful (yes a handful) of American lives are lost is going to do? Do you think the Islamic fundamentalists who've been preaching war on the West will turn around and say "oh, let's leave them alone now"? No, all it will accomplish is installing a new, possibly even more anti-Western regime in Iraq and leave the Iraqi people as a massive reservoir for terrorist recruitment as they'll (quite rightly) feel betrayed by the Western armies that came in, shot the place up, and then left them to pick up the peices amidst nationwide strife. Again.
It's exactly your kind of thinking that is one of the greatest fuels for the fundamentalist cause. The idea that the relatively tiny amount of American lives that will be lost stablising Iraq are worth more than the many many thousands of arabs who will die if coalition forces pull out too soon is nothing short of racist. Why would you expect some kid growing up under the thumb of an oppressive regime in the Middle East to turn away from a cause that demands the wanton murder of Westerners when you have no greater respect for the lives of his people?
"The only consequence is that country B's inhabitants are pissed off, because some argument their country's leader had with another country's leader, led to their toys getting confiscated."
That's exactly the point. Country B's inhabitants get pissed off, and knowing that they wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for leader B, leader B loses support and either gives in to country A's demands or is eventually overthrown by his own pissed off people.
Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.
Maybe in-flight hijacking would become less effective, however instead large-scale, co-ordinated hijackings would become a matter of storming the building and taking control of potentially dozens of planes at once. Of course those buildings would be high security. But then think how many times "high security" buildings have been breached in recent years. Airports, nuclear power plants, government buildings (here in the UK at least) have all been exposed multiple times by various people or groups.
There's also the possibility of remote hijacking by someone managing to hack the system, whether through breaking the system or buying their way in.
None of this is meant as a case against remotely piloted planes, I don't think it's necessarily a more dangerous situation than we have currently. I'm just trying to point out that this doesn't actually remove any weaknesses, it merely moves them elsewhere. As long as we have planes there'll be someone or something flying them, and that will always be a target.
It's all well and good blocking this stuff being exported from the U.S. and the EU to North Korea, but there are plenty of other countries from which they can import the same basic stuff. The real test is whether China will impose trade sanctions and, more importantly, enforce them. Right now it's all well and good saying NK can't get all this stuff from America or Europe but then it's not such a big deal when China's right next door selling their own brand of knock-offs cheaper and just as good.
Of course China doesn't want North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, probably more so than any western nation, so maybe they will enforce trade sanctions. Maybe.
Well hey it's no +1 karma on Slashdot but I get by.