Yes, and no. The mail oil port on the side of Saudi Arabia is within range of coastal missile batteries fired from Iran. Hormuz is just the easiest point to secure. Iran can move batteries around and still threaten a huge swath of water. It's enough to serve as a hesitation for any ships trying to use that waterway. The US Navy cannot have ships deployed all across it to ensure that no trade vessels are susceptible to Iranian attack. Further, retaliatory strikes from the US against such shore batteries might prompt Iran to conduct an invasion of Iraq necessitating that the US Navy and Air Force adopt a defensive stance.
The straight of Hormuz is very narrow and most of Iran's missile weaponry can reach across it. When Iran says they will close it, it means they will attack any ship entering it without permission, damn whatever Oman might think. If it wasn't a credible threat, a portion of the US Navy wouldn't be based out of the region explicitly to protect trade traffic passing through that area.
As the other poster noted, when you have a downlink that's shooting out live video feeds, the people on the ground need to have access to that data in near real time and you're not going to run every soldier that -might- be using the link through a SECRET/TOP SECRET security clearance check before allowing them to have access to it. Then you have to redistribute the keys to all those soldiers whenever they get swapped out. It's a logistical nightmare that doesn't net you much of a benefit in light of the below...
What the US is observing in real time is of limited usage. Without knowing the location of the observer, a top down view of a place can be very difficult to make useful, especially depending on how close the view is. Without readily discernible landmarks identifying buildings from other buildings it can be extremely difficult to discern where you're looking. As an example, get someone to pick a point in the city you live on the closest zoom level on Google Maps. Don't use any street names. Now try to ID where you're looking at. Further, just seeing what is being observed isn't 100% indicative of the intentions of the observer's actions and knowing that they view the streams has potential applications in the realms of disinformation. For instance, if we knew some insurgents were monitoring the downlink and were holed up in a building we could station a net around the build then use the drone to watch the building and wait for them to flee into more open terrain and be caught by the net.
It does, but that port only handles about 20% of their oil exports and is, IIRC, around 60-70% of capacity. There may also be an issue where each port is designed to handle different types of oil so even if the Red Sea port had surplus capacity, it may not be able to serve the oil that normally flows out via the Hormuz. Regardless, choking off that trade route WILL see a severe drop in Saudi exports.
128bit full AES for SECRET 192bit full AES for TOP SECRET
IE, something that isn't going to be broken by China or Russia any time soon without a huge flaw in the software which lets them work around it. The only value from the drone is going to be in materials engineering, wing design... basically physical traits of the craft rather than any of the logical control mechanisms.
If the Iran's caused it, it would have had to been a disruption of some sort to avoid much damage to the drone. While we know that the downlink from drones tends to be unencrypted (for good reasons) the C&C structure is going to be encrypted and according to the standards set by the NSA, that's going to be 128bit full AES encryption if access to them is SECRET clearance or 192bit full AES encryption if it's TOP SECRET. Basically, you aren't going to crack it unless there's a flaw in the implementation that restrict the key space to a crackable realm or there's a code flaw that lets you ignore and get around that security.
I think anyone here would agree that hacking and taking control of the drone has far more serious implications than simply disrupting it to push it into a fail-safe mode.
Auto-landing is a high suspicion. That mode would probably circle lazily to the ground and the damage to drone is at the edge of one of the wings which would be consistent with such a landing if that wing was the inner facing wing. Additionally, none of the images show the underside which would give a pretty large indication of the mode of landing. There's also some damage that suggests the wings were separated but that could have been done by Iran after getting to it in order to move it.
Forget the fact that they are one of the largest oil exports. Don't ignore the fact that they can close the Straight of Hormuz which would choke off the oil supply coming out of THE LARGEST oil supplier.
Surprisingly yes. So far the claims from the US coalition have been that the drone was lost somewhere over western Afghanistan and not in Iran. The truth of that statement can be called into effect but it would be like flying a remote controlled helicopter around your yard that crashed into your neighbor's yard.
I'm just glad i got my family and myself set before the flood so I can simply wait it out. All I have left on the SATA front is a 640Gb and an 80Gb, the 80Gb will be going in the spare office box I keep for clients and the 640Gb in it will be going in the new box I'm building my GF for Xmas. I don't even want to know what a 640gb 7200RPM SATA would cost me right now, probably more than the quad core CPU AND the 4Gb of RAM I bought for this new build put together!
Only on Slashdot would you hear someone talk about getting themselves set before a flood and be talking about hard drives.
The vast majority of sites that do not charge users money are supported by ads. One example of a site with no ads (Wikipedia) is not an argument that all web sites have a moral obligation not to show ads.
You haven't looked at wikipedia lately, have you?
Hint: Wikipedia has a banner at the top of every fucking page begging for donations. It's an ad. NoScript blocks it if you don't permit wikimedia.
So we've gone from $20k per kg in 80s dollars to under $10k per kg in today's dollars. And if SpaceX delivers, we'll be hitting $5k per kg (in today's dollars), perhaps less.
Convert for inflation.. $20k 1980 dollars = $52k current $20k 1982 dollars = $45k current $20k 1985 dollars = $40k current $20k 1987 dollars = $38k current $20k 1989 dollars = $35k current
So at best, you're talking about around a 70-80% decrease in cost. SpaceX's cost would be about 85-90% lower than the 1980s.
Maybe I misunderstand the MTBF concept, but isn't the difference between 1,500,000 hours and 2,000,000 hours rather negligent? Unless this is some definition of hour that I'm not aware of I don't think it matters much to me if it takes 171 years or 228 years for the drive to fail...
As if it matters. This study doesn't indicate any long term damage only making the current crop of sperm impotent. Just dump a load and start to replenish stocks and the effect is gone.
And if you read your link, you would read the part about business associates having direct liability as of February 17, 2010. Your link validates all my statements, assuming you know what the lingo means.
Business Associate: A business which provides a service on behalf of a covered entity that can be provided access to PHI without requiring a patient's permission. PHI: Personal Health Information Covered Entity: A business entity that is directly covered by HIPAA. These are medical practitioners, health care clearinghouse, or health plan.
As I have stated numerous times in comments on this topic. This is most likely not a HIPAA violation. The lawfirm in question is a personal injury law firm. They were hired by the person whose PHI was released. The individual is not a covered entity under HIPAA thus anyone you hire to work for you is not a business associate. So there is no HIPAA violation unless the medical records were released to the law firm without the patient's permission.
How about this for you as well.
Let's say you hirer a law firm for a personal injury and you give them your medical information. This law firm also does work for a hospital in cases. If the law firm loses your PHI but not the PHI shared with it by the hospital, it's still not a HIPAA violation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and no. The mail oil port on the side of Saudi Arabia is within range of coastal missile batteries fired from Iran. Hormuz is just the easiest point to secure. Iran can move batteries around and still threaten a huge swath of water. It's enough to serve as a hesitation for any ships trying to use that waterway. The US Navy cannot have ships deployed all across it to ensure that no trade vessels are susceptible to Iranian attack. Further, retaliatory strikes from the US against such shore batteries might prompt Iran to conduct an invasion of Iraq necessitating that the US Navy and Air Force adopt a defensive stance.
The straight of Hormuz is very narrow and most of Iran's missile weaponry can reach across it. When Iran says they will close it, it means they will attack any ship entering it without permission, damn whatever Oman might think. If it wasn't a credible threat, a portion of the US Navy wouldn't be based out of the region explicitly to protect trade traffic passing through that area.
As the other poster noted, when you have a downlink that's shooting out live video feeds, the people on the ground need to have access to that data in near real time and you're not going to run every soldier that -might- be using the link through a SECRET/TOP SECRET security clearance check before allowing them to have access to it. Then you have to redistribute the keys to all those soldiers whenever they get swapped out. It's a logistical nightmare that doesn't net you much of a benefit in light of the below...
What the US is observing in real time is of limited usage. Without knowing the location of the observer, a top down view of a place can be very difficult to make useful, especially depending on how close the view is. Without readily discernible landmarks identifying buildings from other buildings it can be extremely difficult to discern where you're looking. As an example, get someone to pick a point in the city you live on the closest zoom level on Google Maps. Don't use any street names. Now try to ID where you're looking at. Further, just seeing what is being observed isn't 100% indicative of the intentions of the observer's actions and knowing that they view the streams has potential applications in the realms of disinformation. For instance, if we knew some insurgents were monitoring the downlink and were holed up in a building we could station a net around the build then use the drone to watch the building and wait for them to flee into more open terrain and be caught by the net.
It does, but that port only handles about 20% of their oil exports and is, IIRC, around 60-70% of capacity. There may also be an issue where each port is designed to handle different types of oil so even if the Red Sea port had surplus capacity, it may not be able to serve the oil that normally flows out via the Hormuz. Regardless, choking off that trade route WILL see a severe drop in Saudi exports.
Depending on how classified these drones are....
128bit full AES for SECRET
192bit full AES for TOP SECRET
IE, something that isn't going to be broken by China or Russia any time soon without a huge flaw in the software which lets them work around it. The only value from the drone is going to be in materials engineering, wing design... basically physical traits of the craft rather than any of the logical control mechanisms.
If the Iran's caused it, it would have had to been a disruption of some sort to avoid much damage to the drone. While we know that the downlink from drones tends to be unencrypted (for good reasons) the C&C structure is going to be encrypted and according to the standards set by the NSA, that's going to be 128bit full AES encryption if access to them is SECRET clearance or 192bit full AES encryption if it's TOP SECRET. Basically, you aren't going to crack it unless there's a flaw in the implementation that restrict the key space to a crackable realm or there's a code flaw that lets you ignore and get around that security.
I think anyone here would agree that hacking and taking control of the drone has far more serious implications than simply disrupting it to push it into a fail-safe mode.
Auto-landing is a high suspicion. That mode would probably circle lazily to the ground and the damage to drone is at the edge of one of the wings which would be consistent with such a landing if that wing was the inner facing wing. Additionally, none of the images show the underside which would give a pretty large indication of the mode of landing. There's also some damage that suggests the wings were separated but that could have been done by Iran after getting to it in order to move it.
Forget the fact that they are one of the largest oil exports. Don't ignore the fact that they can close the Straight of Hormuz which would choke off the oil supply coming out of THE LARGEST oil supplier.
Surprisingly yes. So far the claims from the US coalition have been that the drone was lost somewhere over western Afghanistan and not in Iran. The truth of that statement can be called into effect but it would be like flying a remote controlled helicopter around your yard that crashed into your neighbor's yard.
I'm just glad i got my family and myself set before the flood so I can simply wait it out. All I have left on the SATA front is a 640Gb and an 80Gb, the 80Gb will be going in the spare office box I keep for clients and the 640Gb in it will be going in the new box I'm building my GF for Xmas. I don't even want to know what a 640gb 7200RPM SATA would cost me right now, probably more than the quad core CPU AND the 4Gb of RAM I bought for this new build put together!
Only on Slashdot would you hear someone talk about getting themselves set before a flood and be talking about hard drives.
The vast majority of sites that do not charge users money are supported by ads. One example of a site with no ads (Wikipedia) is not an argument that all web sites have a moral obligation not to show ads.
You haven't looked at wikipedia lately, have you?
Hint: Wikipedia has a banner at the top of every fucking page begging for donations. It's an ad. NoScript blocks it if you don't permit wikimedia.
If you're talking non-touching continents then it's still Europe and Asia.
The Dardanelles separates Europe from Asia and its narrowest point is 1.2km.
The Bosphorus separates Europe from Asia and its narrowest point is 700m.
a reduction of total amount of people on the planet
And yet people are obsessed with getting health care for themselves provided by others.
So we've gone from $20k per kg in 80s dollars to under $10k per kg in today's dollars. And if SpaceX delivers, we'll be hitting $5k per kg (in today's dollars), perhaps less.
Convert for inflation..
$20k 1980 dollars = $52k current
$20k 1982 dollars = $45k current
$20k 1985 dollars = $40k current
$20k 1987 dollars = $38k current
$20k 1989 dollars = $35k current
So at best, you're talking about around a 70-80% decrease in cost. SpaceX's cost would be about 85-90% lower than the 1980s.
$1 billion wasn't added to the economy. $1 billion was transferred to other companies and the government.
One data center per town* in the US!
*A town must have at least 50 employable residents to qualify for an Apple Data Center.
Maybe I misunderstand the MTBF concept, but isn't the difference between 1,500,000 hours and 2,000,000 hours rather negligent? Unless this is some definition of hour that I'm not aware of I don't think it matters much to me if it takes 171 years or 228 years for the drive to fail...
As more and more money is funneled to IP lawyers, that's less funding dedicated to investing in one's business! His assumption clearly makes sense!
As if it matters. This study doesn't indicate any long term damage only making the current crop of sperm impotent. Just dump a load and start to replenish stocks and the effect is gone.
The end of BCBC2 basically implies that Russia starts invading the US.
Presumably they use the cold fog so they can ID what you're "touching" by the heat of your hands.
Even better if these robots can assembled just as fast, but no faster, than a big dog can knock one down.
And dwarves. Dwarves build great structures haphazardly and with plans!
And Battlefield Bad Company 2....
And if you read your link, you would read the part about business associates having direct liability as of February 17, 2010. Your link validates all my statements, assuming you know what the lingo means.
Business Associate: A business which provides a service on behalf of a covered entity that can be provided access to PHI without requiring a patient's permission.
PHI: Personal Health Information
Covered Entity: A business entity that is directly covered by HIPAA. These are medical practitioners, health care clearinghouse, or health plan.
As I have stated numerous times in comments on this topic. This is most likely not a HIPAA violation. The lawfirm in question is a personal injury law firm. They were hired by the person whose PHI was released. The individual is not a covered entity under HIPAA thus anyone you hire to work for you is not a business associate. So there is no HIPAA violation unless the medical records were released to the law firm without the patient's permission.
How about this for you as well.
Let's say you hirer a law firm for a personal injury and you give them your medical information. This law firm also does work for a hospital in cases. If the law firm loses your PHI but not the PHI shared with it by the hospital, it's still not a HIPAA violation.