Ya know, I completely misread the piece. Two of four bearings failed, implying two shafts, not four. That's what I get for R'ing TFA. Durp.
But again, if one seal per shaft blew (presumably, the one at the water side, which implies poor design as the Navy have seen leaks in this area before) that's both shafts out. You'd guess the AIMs are set up so if their current consumption hit a certain threshold the system would assume a stalled motor and cut supply, so not matter how the bearings failed, it was likely to trip something.
It's not entirely clear if it's the AIMs that failed, or if something else sized up the shafts first.
The article states that two of four bearings on the driveshaft(s) that connect the AIMs to the propulsion system (reads, gearbox and screws) failed due to water ingress. If that's two shafts per propulsion set (AIM, gears and screws) and one on each side blew, then yeah, thats going to put you dead in the water.
What is not clear is if there are multiple shafts that can load balance AIM torque across to the propulsion set equally, or two shafts per AIM, each going to a port and starboard gearbox/screw. Whats even less clear is the redundancy. In either of the above setups there is at least two shafts available, why can't these things make it home on one shaft if the system was indeed supposed to be redundant? Even a stanking old B-47 can limp home on one.
..Until such a time as the compounds and materials that garbage is made from starts to decompose down to their basic elements (like heavy metals, dioxins and other nasties) due to erosive, UV and other breakdown processes, at which time it becomes, you guessed it, toxic waste. Or are you still under the infantile presumption that all the things in the world are made from rainbows and unicorn shit as opposed to chemicals and capitalism?
This counterargument is bad. You need to stop parroting this quote.
The framing of this counterargument accepts the basic premise that the only people who have something to hide are "bad people", and that if you're not a bad person then you won't have anything to hide.
You need to engage with this presumption that the only people who have something to encrypt are pedophiles.
The best free speech analogy is not this "hurr I have nothing to say" retarded horse shit, but a defense of hate speech on the basis that the sword that defends good free speech (political dissent, etc...) must necessarily defend objectionable speech. This context means that, yeah, pedophiles use encryption, and we object to that, but we can't defend our need to encrypt things we all agree need to be encrypted without also defending pedophiles.
And that's a shitty trade-off and we all feel bad about it, but it's not ambiguous or up for debate; there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.
This counterargument is bad. You need to stop repeating this quote.
The framing of this counterargument accepts the basic premise that the only people who have something to hide are "bad people", and that if you're not a bad person then you won't have anything to hide.
You need to engage with and defeat this presumption that the only people who have something to encrypt are pedophiles.
The best free speech analogy is not this "hurr I have nothing to say" retarded horse shit, but a defense of hate speech on the basis that the sword that defends good free speech (political dissent, etc...) must necessarily defend objectionable speech. This context means that, yeah, pedophiles use encryption, and we object to that, but we can't defend our need to encrypt things we all agree need to be encrypted without also defending pedophiles.
And that's a shitty trade-off and we all feel bad about it, but it's not ambiguous or up for debate; there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.
The kiosks, in addition to supporting encrypted Wi-Fi connectivity for hundreds of HotSpot 2.0-enabled devices within 150 feet of them, will each include two USB charging ports, a red 911 button to contact emergency services
a red 911 button to contact emergency services
Don't you think that just maybe a little detail like that might have been covered..?
Vision cuts to wide shot of a massive LAN game Hundreds of players all rhythmically swaying side to side in time with the gun on screen to avoid eye/ear disconnect
Bendix cannot sell aviation radio systems unless they are tested and ticketed by the aviation authority of the country in question. So we legislate the same way for drones. A manufacturer must have X Y Z features (with a good mind to making any measures as unhackable as possible, or more realistically, unhackable to 90% of the population) or it is not allowed to be imported or sold in the countries market, period. Buyers do not assume the risk of being caught with unregistered kit, the legislation can be broadcast in such a way that it educates flyers about airspace and separation safety, and if operators are indeed found to be in breach by hacking around measures designed to keep the hobby safe, then 10 tonnes of solid, legislated rape can be dropped on their heads. This also has the effect of encouraging manufacturers to build the systems in and build them well, lest they find they suddenly loose access to a market.
Yes, there will be grey/back imports but again, this is about setting up a workable framework that will be effective 95% of the time.
And yet, they just became my manufacturers of choice, because they are actively trying to do something about airspace incursions and in doing so, are opening peoples eyes to the potential dangers ("we are imposing these restrictions because x y z") of flying in close proximity to things they shouldn't.
I'd never give my money to a company that is arming idiots with tools that can interfere with airport operations, drop electrical grids and god knows what else. People will always whinge about being told they can't do something after the event, however if that something is clearly noted at point of sale as a limitation, they have the option of not buying it, or buying it and operating safely. More power to them.
I think it's much simpler than consideration, its sheer numb mindedness to the potential for disaster and a lack of understanding of aviation and aerodynamics, which anyone who has built a flyer from the ground up has an understanding and respect for. Rather than go on a new rant, let me quote a comment I made on this story last year.
That technology has been available for a few decades.
Yes it has. But there has been a fundamental shift in the accessability of the technology. A majority of this technology has historically been radio transmitters that cost hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars, recievers that cost similar, and models that actually require a solid understanding of aerodynamics to build, trim and fly. Dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to build it. An big investment of time, money, and a dash of pride meant that flyers protected their craft like a their first born. Flying near an airfield would be unspeakable; No way in hell do I want my toy wrecked by errant prop or jet wash! (..I guess it would suck if I brought an actual plane down as well.. I guess).
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
I disagree. Any spanner with a credit card and a desire to see their neighbours tits can go buy a ready to fly FPV drone cheap on eBay, hook it up to their smartphone, and get in the air in a second. No expensive equipment investment, no time invested in the build, no incentive to protect their flyer. THIS is the difference, and it has seen people who would never consider an RC aircraft suddenly snapping them up like the "toys" they are often marketed to be. So now you have a bunch of people who have no knowledge about aerodynamics or aviation generally who suddenly think "wouldn't it be sick to go fly this around an airport for lulz and photos", and suddenly we have the problems we are now seeing. Most fixed and rotary wing hobbyists I know have an inherent respect for their fellow flyers, be they scale or full size pilots. We all share the sky, and we'd rather not kill each other.
HISTORICALLY there has been close to zero risk (no such thing as zero risk, where there are humans involved, there is always room for something to fuck up) but now the technology is more accessable to the "pleb public", the risks of serious incident is and will continue to increase. As you have said, there have been next to no incidents historically, but as many have pointed out to you, the fact this story even exists to publish is a demonstration that the danger is indeed increasing. To ignore these factors is about as ignorant as using an absolute term like "zero actual risk" when there is no way for you to know what is and has happened globally in the past.. however many years of RC flying as a hobby.
These would be the sort of people I would be happy to see return their drone for a full refund. They are the cancer of the RC community. We have been buzzing plywood around for decades with nowhere near this much trouble, their exclusion from the hobby will be of zero consequence, and a relief to responsible flyers who are being thrown under the bus with the idiots.
The first thing I thought was "well, that will be the first and last time that person takes a security risk like that", but you're average Joe may never make the connection. I would call it a lesson in security, but again, it's not clear enough for most people to cotton onto.
Plugging in random USB sticks in your computer has never been more dangerous
I think the point of this hack is to catch people who pick up random sticks and see whats on them, something I would never, ever do. Nothing to do with needing physical access to the machine, the rube who picked the stick up is all the "access" you need. Someone up there has already made the suggestion of using them for corporate sabotage (Uber vs Lyft), scattering these things around the right place could cause all sorts of drama.
..Is completely, totally, irrevocably air gapped from the network, and not in a format which is easily machine readable? (considering that I type substantially more than I write anymore, my handwriting format is borderline "me" readable).
I see your point. A list of passwords in a book is are bad. Much better to put them into a globally accessible cloud behind a single point of protection (password). I know if I were in a basement somewhere out to ruin someones life the nondescript notebooks all around my mark's PC would be my first target.
My bigger concern would be liquid and/or dust ingress. The great thing about buttons is they are fixed onto an [flexable material] bed, which apart from supporting the button cap also forms an inside/outside world seal. An actual thumbwheel? not so much. Granted the housing which contains the thumbwheel mechanism can be sealed, isolating it from the gubbins proper of the phone, but I can't see a mechanical device (nor the encoder which reads its position, be it optical or push-button based) standing up to sweat, pocket lint, and all the other munge which inevitably builds up in these types of spaces over any appreciable period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, I completely misread the piece. Two of four bearings failed, implying two shafts, not four. That's what I get for R'ing TFA. Durp.
But again, if one seal per shaft blew (presumably, the one at the water side, which implies poor design as the Navy have seen leaks in this area before) that's both shafts out. You'd guess the AIMs are set up so if their current consumption hit a certain threshold the system would assume a stalled motor and cut supply, so not matter how the bearings failed, it was likely to trip something.
Perhaps is *should* have four driveshafts?
It's not entirely clear if it's the AIMs that failed, or if something else sized up the shafts first.
The article states that two of four bearings on the driveshaft(s) that connect the AIMs to the propulsion system (reads, gearbox and screws) failed due to water ingress. If that's two shafts per propulsion set (AIM, gears and screws) and one on each side blew, then yeah, thats going to put you dead in the water.
What is not clear is if there are multiple shafts that can load balance AIM torque across to the propulsion set equally, or two shafts per AIM, each going to a port and starboard gearbox/screw. Whats even less clear is the redundancy. In either of the above setups there is at least two shafts available, why can't these things make it home on one shaft if the system was indeed supposed to be redundant? Even a stanking old B-47 can limp home on one.
One could simply turn it into a brick by lining one's pocket with Faraday mesh and "seeing how it feels in a pocket"..
..Until such a time as the compounds and materials that garbage is made from starts to decompose down to their basic elements (like heavy metals, dioxins and other nasties) due to erosive, UV and other breakdown processes, at which time it becomes, you guessed it, toxic waste. Or are you still under the infantile presumption that all the things in the world are made from rainbows and unicorn shit as opposed to chemicals and capitalism?
This counterargument is bad. You need to stop parroting this quote.
The framing of this counterargument accepts the basic premise that the only people who have something to hide are "bad people", and that if you're not a bad person then you won't have anything to hide.
You need to engage with this presumption that the only people who have something to encrypt are pedophiles.
The best free speech analogy is not this "hurr I have nothing to say" retarded horse shit, but a defense of hate speech on the basis that the sword that defends good free speech (political dissent, etc...) must necessarily defend objectionable speech. This context means that, yeah, pedophiles use encryption, and we object to that, but we can't defend our need to encrypt things we all agree need to be encrypted without also defending pedophiles.
And that's a shitty trade-off and we all feel bad about it, but it's not ambiguous or up for debate; there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.
This counterargument is bad. You need to stop repeating this quote.
The framing of this counterargument accepts the basic premise that the only people who have something to hide are "bad people", and that if you're not a bad person then you won't have anything to hide.
You need to engage with and defeat this presumption that the only people who have something to encrypt are pedophiles.
The best free speech analogy is not this "hurr I have nothing to say" retarded horse shit, but a defense of hate speech on the basis that the sword that defends good free speech (political dissent, etc...) must necessarily defend objectionable speech. This context means that, yeah, pedophiles use encryption, and we object to that, but we can't defend our need to encrypt things we all agree need to be encrypted without also defending pedophiles. And that's a shitty trade-off and we all feel bad about it, but it's not ambiguous or up for debate; there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.
Sure, you need all that storage for a "gaming" rig.
;)
The toilet paper roll on your desk is just for wiping your nose as well, right?
Is it bad that my first thought was "well, that will make a dent in Daesh's foothold"?
Civilians aside, it seems poetic that ISIS will literally be washed from the lands by their own stupidity.
The kiosks, in addition to supporting encrypted Wi-Fi connectivity for hundreds of HotSpot 2.0-enabled devices within 150 feet of them, will each include two USB charging ports, a red 911 button to contact emergency services
a red 911 button to contact emergency services
Don't you think that just maybe a little detail like that might have been covered..?
Has the new formatting of HaD had such a bad impact on readership (I no longer go there because of it) that they are now harvesting views via /.?
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such an obvious conflict gentlemen..
Give it time man, the threads now 4 pages deep. Ramesh has to be getting close to the end of his script by now!
He could prolly submit the story all over again and it would slide on through. I'd rather a dupe than an abortion..
Vision cuts to wide shot of a massive LAN game
Hundreds of players all rhythmically swaying side to side in time with the gun on screen to avoid eye/ear disconnect
This would be a fun sight to behold.
Exactly, and this is where legislation comes in.
Bendix cannot sell aviation radio systems unless they are tested and ticketed by the aviation authority of the country in question. So we legislate the same way for drones. A manufacturer must have X Y Z features (with a good mind to making any measures as unhackable as possible, or more realistically, unhackable to 90% of the population) or it is not allowed to be imported or sold in the countries market, period. Buyers do not assume the risk of being caught with unregistered kit, the legislation can be broadcast in such a way that it educates flyers about airspace and separation safety, and if operators are indeed found to be in breach by hacking around measures designed to keep the hobby safe, then 10 tonnes of solid, legislated rape can be dropped on their heads. This also has the effect of encouraging manufacturers to build the systems in and build them well, lest they find they suddenly loose access to a market.
Yes, there will be grey/back imports but again, this is about setting up a workable framework that will be effective 95% of the time.
And yet, they just became my manufacturers of choice, because they are actively trying to do something about airspace incursions and in doing so, are opening peoples eyes to the potential dangers ("we are imposing these restrictions because x y z") of flying in close proximity to things they shouldn't.
I'd never give my money to a company that is arming idiots with tools that can interfere with airport operations, drop electrical grids and god knows what else. People will always whinge about being told they can't do something after the event, however if that something is clearly noted at point of sale as a limitation, they have the option of not buying it, or buying it and operating safely. More power to them.
That technology has been available for a few decades.
Yes it has. But there has been a fundamental shift in the accessability of the technology. A majority of this technology has historically been radio transmitters that cost hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars, recievers that cost similar, and models that actually require a solid understanding of aerodynamics to build, trim and fly. Dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to build it. An big investment of time, money, and a dash of pride meant that flyers protected their craft like a their first born. Flying near an airfield would be unspeakable; No way in hell do I want my toy wrecked by errant prop or jet wash! (..I guess it would suck if I brought an actual plane down as well.. I guess).
The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.
I disagree. Any spanner with a credit card and a desire to see their neighbours tits can go buy a ready to fly FPV drone cheap on eBay, hook it up to their smartphone, and get in the air in a second. No expensive equipment investment, no time invested in the build, no incentive to protect their flyer. THIS is the difference, and it has seen people who would never consider an RC aircraft suddenly snapping them up like the "toys" they are often marketed to be. So now you have a bunch of people who have no knowledge about aerodynamics or aviation generally who suddenly think "wouldn't it be sick to go fly this around an airport for lulz and photos", and suddenly we have the problems we are now seeing. Most fixed and rotary wing hobbyists I know have an inherent respect for their fellow flyers, be they scale or full size pilots. We all share the sky, and we'd rather not kill each other. HISTORICALLY there has been close to zero risk (no such thing as zero risk, where there are humans involved, there is always room for something to fuck up) but now the technology is more accessable to the "pleb public", the risks of serious incident is and will continue to increase. As you have said, there have been next to no incidents historically, but as many have pointed out to you, the fact this story even exists to publish is a demonstration that the danger is indeed increasing. To ignore these factors is about as ignorant as using an absolute term like "zero actual risk" when there is no way for you to know what is and has happened globally in the past.. however many years of RC flying as a hobby.
These would be the sort of people I would be happy to see return their drone for a full refund. They are the cancer of the RC community. We have been buzzing plywood around for decades with nowhere near this much trouble, their exclusion from the hobby will be of zero consequence, and a relief to responsible flyers who are being thrown under the bus with the idiots.
3. Flight computer no longer receiving location data.
4. Drone does not take off.
Even if this is not the current config, it will be once the makers realise this is what people are doing.
Because this would be a perfect minigame for it.
The first thing I thought was "well, that will be the first and last time that person takes a security risk like that", but you're average Joe may never make the connection. I would call it a lesson in security, but again, it's not clear enough for most people to cotton onto.
Plugging in random USB sticks in your computer has never been more dangerous
I think the point of this hack is to catch people who pick up random sticks and see whats on them, something I would never, ever do. Nothing to do with needing physical access to the machine, the rube who picked the stick up is all the "access" you need. Someone up there has already made the suggestion of using them for corporate sabotage (Uber vs Lyft), scattering these things around the right place could cause all sorts of drama.
:(
Also, that poor thinkpad
The vehicles aren't going to be used on the job, but as a promotional tool to help raise money for the families of fallen police
The vehicles are a flash way to promote a charitable cause, and a bridge between petrol heads and police, nothing more.
But instead use something which
..Is completely, totally, irrevocably air gapped from the network, and not in a format which is easily machine readable? (considering that I type substantially more than I write anymore, my handwriting format is borderline "me" readable).
I see your point. A list of passwords in a book is are bad. Much better to put them into a globally accessible cloud behind a single point of protection (password). I know if I were in a basement somewhere out to ruin someones life the nondescript notebooks all around my mark's PC would be my first target.
My bigger concern would be liquid and/or dust ingress. The great thing about buttons is they are fixed onto an [flexable material] bed, which apart from supporting the button cap also forms an inside/outside world seal. An actual thumbwheel? not so much. Granted the housing which contains the thumbwheel mechanism can be sealed, isolating it from the gubbins proper of the phone, but I can't see a mechanical device (nor the encoder which reads its position, be it optical or push-button based) standing up to sweat, pocket lint, and all the other munge which inevitably builds up in these types of spaces over any appreciable period of time.
Screw your diamond encrusted case, I'll take mine with Brilliant Pebbles please.