Yep, that's slashdot... We take an article about sports celebrities and legal issues surrounding rights of privacy and... manage to make a linux joke. A funny one too. Gotta love it:)
I oversimplified my description. You'd need to do a challenge-response system so that the server sends a random hash, it's hashed with the password on the client, which is returned, hashed with the salt value, and compared with the stored value in the database hashed with the random value
Stored value = Pass Hash + Salt Hash Client value sent = Pass Hash + Random Hash Compared values = Pass Hash + Random Hash + Salt Hash.
In addition, even if you didn't do it this way and just hashed the password (which I agree isn't as good as the above), then you still can't just send values from the DB because remember that the DB's values are salted, so are != the pass hash alone.
But if the box is rooted, again, even this approach won't save you because as was mentioned, the box can send malicious web code to the client to execute which will send the plaintext password to wherever the hacker wants it.
Yep, especially #2. Orbital dynamics means your not going just sweep stuff up in the same orbit you are in.
A fun way to see this all demonstrated is a little iPhone game called "Osmos", you're a mote have to go along and try to absorb smaller motes. Many of the scenarios involve a "sun" that everything is orbiting around. It quickly forced me to remember my school day courses on orbital dynamics and how to do a Hohmann transfer, etc. It's decent entertainment (and no I'm not the developer)
But as you'd see in the game, you need to be in a more eccentric orbit and sweep through other orbits if you want to pick other stuff up. And the delta V's involve lead direct to the parent's points #3 and #5... they will go right through the net.
And you're done... Just wait for the passwords to come rolling in.
Any rooted machine that handles the user's actual password can be coerced into giving it up. So limit what machines see that password. Have your web client hash the password before if goes to the host (even when it's a secure connection). That would help, though the client machines should be easiest to hack, but at least it takes longer to get the right password.
Because by Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-30.pdf, page 19), "U.S. PSYOP forces will not target U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances"
The internet causes a problem in this regard, as obviously it's designed so that all of it accessible from everyplace else (generally speaking). So while it's possible to put a server someplace that is firewalled to only send/relay info from a range of IP addresses, the military can't do that with Twitter; if they started putting PSYOPS on Twitter, it'd be accessible to US citizens, would could then be considered 'targeted'.
Of course, these restrictions are by executive order, not US law, and they apply to the US Military only.
Side note: on the next page, it spells out copyright issues as an area of concern... don't want to get sued by the MPAA in the middle of WW III because you broadcast a video of Mickey Mouse without permission...
1- 1,000 people in country "X" are upset at the government, and stage protests 2- Government in country "X" decided to cut the internet off to prevent coordination of bigger protests 3- 100,000 console gamers in country "X" can no longer play their saved games, consoles become useless 4- 100,000 console gamers get very mad and very bored 5- Suddenly 101,000 people are protesting for a change in government.
But how embarrassing is it to how to leave the secure nuclear targeting center facility with cool security, fancy badges, and lots of plasma screen TV's, and have to leave to go to some random coffee stop to get imagery of Tel Aviv...
Let's make a huge assumptions that this IP restriction actually works...
What must it be like to download and use a piece of software that you can use but your own government isn't allowed to use? Takes a way some of the perception of the gov'ts power I'd imagine. A bit emasculating even. Which of course might be the reason the USG is allowing this to proceed. A sanction that is truly against the government, not the people.
Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.
Actually, believe it or not, the SEC is the good guys here... The SEC thinks that companies that you can buy shares in should be honest about their financial situation. So they've made it mandatory to disclose said financial stuff. And they put in a caveat for little business with under 500 investors so the paperwork doesn't drive them out of business.
So Goldman Sachs, whose pure motivation was, and still is, to make money off the deal, and undoubtedly knows the actual financials behind FB, tried to figure out a way to sell to US investors without having to disclose said financial stuff, which would probably cause them to lose $$$. But in the end, they figured that this time, trying to get around the SEC's rules wasn't worth the risk, so they are bypassing US completely. I'm guessing there have been some serious behind-closed-doors between with the SEC, and I'm guessing some serious threats were made.
So if my assumptions about motivation are corrent, it's the SEC that's basically putting up a shield to prevent US investors from buying a $50B load of twat. The rest of the world may not be so lucky. I certainly won't touch it (if I had enough $$$ to play)
Of course, after Facebook shares have quadrupled in price in the next 5 years, I'll always have a record of this post on the internet I can look back on and cry...
It can route around 'damage' as long as an undamaged route exists.
If you control -all- the border routers, then you can easily isolate yourself from all or a portion of the internet. Of course you have to be able to be completely able to stand alone (DNS servers, etc) to make that work, and have all your critical capabilities inside your 'border'.
Probably in many businesses, productivity would increase in the event of a cyber attack...
1A- How much was left?? TONS of stuff. Same thing in Desert Storm. And that was -with- a plan. Imagine if the military just was told to leave one day?
2A- No issue with states doing it vs federal, but don't see any inherent reason that 50 state governments doing the same thing would be inherently better than a single federal one. The transition is the problem. You can't just stop giving out SSN's without drastic impact, and to give the states a chance to figure it out will take time, and then there's that painful inertia thing again.
3A- I think the line-item veto is the way to go, especially in the current fiscal state we're in. Then the rest is easy and doesn't require the pain and willpower we described.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the theory of what you are proposing; peace, less waste, balanced budget. I was just trying to show why it's harder than it looks to actually get done.
In the "BIG" company, the problem is your definition of "my network". Just who exactly ones the ENTIRE network? The CIO? Sure. So the CIO personally approves each server and VLAN connection? Not likely.
In the government, it's not one network, it's hundreds of networks. Even within the same department, AD Domains don't trust each other, so there is no 'owner'.
So let's say your network is set up according your described rules. That's fine, no rogue servers on your network. Great work. Let's say you've got 1 big-ass data center, and 2 satellite sites. Big bosses come down and want to do an audit. Their criteria means you list the big-ass center. Great. 2 years later they do another audit. Now the criteria has changed. OK, now you list all 3 three.
Slashdot goes nuts because they think you are an incompetent admin who didn't have a clue about the "rogue servers" on your network that weren't reported last time.
OK, I'll give you some straight answers as to why that's not going to happen, even if you were president tomorrow:
1- End the Wars. Actually, the wars are ending. But let's say tomorrow is your first day in office. Your order is "Redeploy all the units". The CJCS says "Yes, sir". First they need some time to come up with a plan on how to do what you want. So MINIMUM 60 days. Ever tried to get a family of five in the car for a 5-day road trip?? How many hours did that take? OK, now multiply that by 50,000. Moving a force the size of what we have is not a small feat when it's in a land-locked country halfway around the world and we can't just drive down to the coast and hop on a boat. So to make sure it's done right and we don't give $20B worth of stuff to the Taliban when we leave, a plan is a good thing. So then they come back with the plan, and say it will be 18 months. You lose your mind and say you want it done NOW (you are the President after all!). The CJCS brings in his Intel guys, who give you an hour long brief on the complexities and fragilities of the Afghan society, and how just leaving out of the blue will destroy all the progress made thus far, result in thousands of Afghan deaths due to the resulting civil war, create a resurgence of the Taliban, etc.. Most presidents at this point realize that these are ACTUAL lives that hang on their personal decision (think the picture of Kennedy in the Oval Office during the Cuban Missile Crisis). No longer an armchair exercise, they realize that there has to be a logical framework for the withdrawal. But like Iraq, it happens, because you are the boss. Just on a timeline tempered with reality and experience. Common Sense Ending...
But for arguments sake, let's say you are fanatical about this (you are the President after all!). You give direct that every available mode of logistics will be used immediately to remove US troops from Afghanistan. OK fine they say, and leave. The CJCS hands in his resignation, as his advice is no longer useful to you. Political mayhem ensues, stuff gets leaked to Congress/the Press, and you spend so much of your time dealing with that you can't keep track of the withdrawal. You threaten to fire all not obeying your orders, those below you come with briefings showing how they are making progress as best they can, you don't have a clue how logistics works, so you don't know if they are lying or not. So you fire a couple just for good measure... briefings get more and more 'controlled'. Troops end up taking about 24 months to withdraw because of all the mess you made. So let's say you veto the spending bill. Great idea! Resources are what drives DC. So now there is no funding for the war effort. Pentagon comes to a grinding halt. Problem is that there are still troops in the field (remember land-locked Afghanistan?), who are now dying because of lack of ammunition that you refused to buy them. Pictures of dead GI's come back home. Oh wait, now suddenly your veto gets overridden by Congress. But you aren't done yet, you use yet more executive power to stop spending any DoD funds. More GI's die. Congress has now had enough, so has the American people, and you are the first to be Impeached/Convicted. And the Brits aren't fond of you either (remember it's a Coalition over there)
(The next 2 are easier)
2- End of Department "X". Which one? Defense? Education? State? Health and Human Services? Yep, you can slay an entire department as President. Problem is that in most areas of government, there is SOME good being done. So it's pretty unlikely you can just kill the whole thing without crippling a vital service people need. OK, no problem... we'll just carve out the fat, right? Trouble is that it's very hard to estimate how many people any department really needs if you aren't in that department (just how many people does it take to keep track of Social Security Numbers, I don't have a clue) And almost no one is coming to come brief you that they need fewer people (a
Technically the term "order" would only apply to the military branches of the DoD, which are enforceable by military law.
For everyone else, his "orders" are just the same as the direction any CEO gives. Can't send you to jail for not complying, can fire you, but only after all the other executive branch guidance (HR Policy) is followed, to include union agreements as applicable.
Now if Congress gives direction, the Executive Branch agrees, and the Judicial Branch doesn't strike it down, then you can go to jail for not complying, but again, that's no different than any US citizen.
Mod parent up! Not sure who thinks the above is a troll, but this is a clear point to discuss.
The Libyan authorities appear to be making a stand that this website, which as it is registered as a ".ly" website, is clearly within their scope to control (both from a technical and common sense perspective), violates the legal and ethical guidelines which their country is guided by.
While Sharia Law may be based on Islamic beliefs, the Libyan government is not run by clerics. The term people should be looking for is "separation of church and state", not "remove religion from government". There are two separate things.
So should we remove laws against murder in the West because "thou shall not kill" is based in a Judeo-Christian religion (gasp).
Most ethical frameworks around the world have their foundations in a set of religious beliefs. Some would argue that religions are created because of a need for an ethic framework. And any community, to be effective, needs to agree on an ethical framework to be effective.
Also note that the Libyan authorities are not on a typical true "nut-job" rant of attempting to impose -their- beliefs on the rest of the world. They are controlling only what is theirs to control. Now if they hosted a root nameserver and poisoned it to send the rest of the world's "unapproved by Libya" links to a black hole, that'd be a different thing.
From the offending server's website: "BRL volunteered to host one of the original root servers... to provide a root server for the MILNET in the event that MILNET had to be disconnected from the Internet."
The purpose of the G/H servers is not to support the greater good (that's a side benefit), but to ensure that the MILNET can function if the DoD cuts itself off from the rest of the internet.
And besides, If my math is correct, there are a total of 205 redundant root sites (http://www.root-servers.org/), so imagine going up asking for funding... [IT Guy] "General, we need money to add another redundant root server site, if all the sites go down the internet collapses!" [General] "That sounds bad! How many redundant sites are there now?" [IT Guy] "Only 205" [General]
> AAEFS is a an agency of the DoD and thus is an agent of the government
So by your logic the government is interfering with the government?
They've banned themselves from selling it, not anyone else. They also (like Walmart) choose not to sell porn in -their- stores. People are still free to own, obtain, etc both porn and Medal of Honor.
And further, the GameStops on US military bases will have a contractual vendor relationship with AAFES, so I would not be surprising if the pressure/demand came from AAFES themselves.
And I believe NEX/MCX are also now under the AAFES umbrella overall, but maintain an independent brand identity, so I think the demand would encompass all bases.
Though I think this change probably means an increase in sales to military because of the controversy.
There are good technical reasons why FDR data doesn't make sense to upload raw data automatically.
The pure FDR data is sampled at a high data rate, which varies according to model of FDR. The most modern systems also collect hundreds of data points at a time. This is discussed in the article, though I'd challenge some of their bandwidth calculations... the sample rates they quote seem very low (for modern systems), though I don't have my books in front of me.
What DOES make sense (and again, the article does address this), is having computing capability in the FDR (or outside of it, as it wouldn't need to be crash-worthy) that filters the data and ID's in real-time out-of-normal events and reports them. In fact, most airlines already use a system like this, but not for the purpose of crash monitoring, but to detect aircraft problems in flight and alert ground crew so they can they can be prepared to fix them before the pilots even know there was a problem.
The issue is that this uplink capability can't replace the on-board FDR recording capability. That black box must still be there, as during the crash sequence, there is a good chance your satcom/etc systems will fail before the final crash. So this can augment, but not replace.
Because takeoff requires the most amount of power, it's not feasible there, and during taxi it's not really an issue.
However, you aren't -completely- off base, because some helicopters do have "screens" designed to prevent dust/rocks/etc from damaging the engine during takeoff/landing. That's kind of like what I'm sure you are picturing.
But helicopter engines aren't really Turbofan engines, they are gas turbine engines that power a transmission, and so can afford the tradeoffs that come with an EAPS system.... and for a variety of reasons, helicopters don't have the same birdstrike issues airplanes have.
At the speeds of a jet fighter (and even at the speeds of a slow prop transport), an average goose will penetrate the leading edge of the wing, destroy the bleed air duct (also metal) underneath, tear up the wiring, and sometimes damage the next layer of structure.
Look at the first stage fan blades in an engine next time you're boarding an aircraft (they are ones in front you can see). Those are the biggest, toughest, blades in the engine. They basically are strong enough to pull the entire aircraft forward. When a big fat bird hits one, they bend and break.
Now, the newest/biggest commercial engines have a remarkable ability to absorb birds without a problem, but the more 'finicky' engines on fighter jets are much more susceptable, and of course if you've only got one engine... that's a big deal.
So my point in describing the impact power that a bird has is to illustrate that for a 'screen' to be strong enough to stop a bird would also completely block any airflow, and those engines are HUGE vacuum cleaners, and if that airflow slows too much, something called a 'compressor stall' happens, and that's generally bad and scares the crap out of the passengers (flames shoot out of the back end of the engine, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that's slashdot... ... manage to make a linux joke. A funny one too. Gotta love it :)
We take an article about sports celebrities and legal issues surrounding rights of privacy and
I oversimplified my description. You'd need to do a challenge-response system so that the server sends a random hash, it's hashed with the password on the client, which is returned, hashed with the salt value, and compared with the stored value in the database hashed with the random value
Stored value = Pass Hash + Salt Hash
Client value sent = Pass Hash + Random Hash
Compared values = Pass Hash + Random Hash + Salt Hash.
In addition, even if you didn't do it this way and just hashed the password (which I agree isn't as good as the above), then you still can't just send values from the DB because remember that the DB's values are salted, so are != the pass hash alone.
But if the box is rooted, again, even this approach won't save you because as was mentioned, the box can send malicious web code to the client to execute which will send the plaintext password to wherever the hacker wants it.
Yep, especially #2. Orbital dynamics means your not going just sweep stuff up in the same orbit you are in.
A fun way to see this all demonstrated is a little iPhone game called "Osmos", you're a mote have to go along and try to absorb smaller motes. Many of the scenarios involve a "sun" that everything is orbiting around. It quickly forced me to remember my school day courses on orbital dynamics and how to do a Hohmann transfer, etc. It's decent entertainment (and no I'm not the developer)
But as you'd see in the game, you need to be in a more eccentric orbit and sweep through other orbits if you want to pick other stuff up. And the delta V's involve lead direct to the parent's points #3 and #5... they will go right through the net.
Good point!
The box is rooted, nothing you do matters. Just change the code...
CHANGE:
string pass = request("userspass")
if UNBREAKABLYGOODHASH(pass, salthash) = RetrieveSaltedDBpasshash(username) {
UserAuthenticated
}
TO:
string pass = request("userspass")
SendTheHackerThePassword(pass)
if UNBREAKABLYGOODHASH(pass, salthash) = RetrieveSaltedDBpasshash(username) {
UserAuthenticated
}
And you're done... Just wait for the passwords to come rolling in.
Any rooted machine that handles the user's actual password can be coerced into giving it up. So limit what machines see that password. Have your web client hash the password before if goes to the host (even when it's a secure connection). That would help, though the client machines should be easiest to hack, but at least it takes longer to get the right password.
Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook...
Because by Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-30.pdf, page 19), "U.S. PSYOP forces will not target U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances"
The internet causes a problem in this regard, as obviously it's designed so that all of it accessible from everyplace else (generally speaking). So while it's possible to put a server someplace that is firewalled to only send/relay info from a range of IP addresses, the military can't do that with Twitter; if they started putting PSYOPS on Twitter, it'd be accessible to US citizens, would could then be considered 'targeted'.
Of course, these restrictions are by executive order, not US law, and they apply to the US Military only.
Side note: on the next page, it spells out copyright issues as an area of concern... don't want to get sued by the MPAA in the middle of WW III because you broadcast a video of Mickey Mouse without permission...
1- 1,000 people in country "X" are upset at the government, and stage protests
2- Government in country "X" decided to cut the internet off to prevent coordination of bigger protests
3- 100,000 console gamers in country "X" can no longer play their saved games, consoles become useless
4- 100,000 console gamers get very mad and very bored
5- Suddenly 101,000 people are protesting for a change in government.
The Cloud... a tool for democracy...
But how embarrassing is it to how to leave the secure nuclear targeting center facility with cool security, fancy badges, and lots of plasma screen TV's, and have to leave to go to some random coffee stop to get imagery of Tel Aviv...
Let's make a huge assumptions that this IP restriction actually works...
What must it be like to download and use a piece of software that you can use but your own government isn't allowed to use? Takes a way some of the perception of the gov'ts power I'd imagine. A bit emasculating even. Which of course might be the reason the USG is allowing this to proceed. A sanction that is truly against the government, not the people.
Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.
Actually, believe it or not, the SEC is the good guys here...
The SEC thinks that companies that you can buy shares in should be honest about their financial situation.
So they've made it mandatory to disclose said financial stuff.
And they put in a caveat for little business with under 500 investors so the paperwork doesn't drive them out of business.
So Goldman Sachs, whose pure motivation was, and still is, to make money off the deal, and undoubtedly knows the actual financials behind FB, tried to figure out a way to sell to US investors without having to disclose said financial stuff, which would probably cause them to lose $$$.
But in the end, they figured that this time, trying to get around the SEC's rules wasn't worth the risk, so they are bypassing US completely. I'm guessing there have been some serious behind-closed-doors between with the SEC, and I'm guessing some serious threats were made.
So if my assumptions about motivation are corrent, it's the SEC that's basically putting up a shield to prevent US investors from buying a $50B load of twat. The rest of the world may not be so lucky. I certainly won't touch it (if I had enough $$$ to play)
Of course, after Facebook shares have quadrupled in price in the next 5 years, I'll always have a record of this post on the internet I can look back on and cry...
Their safeguards were never down. -A- safeguard was down. HUGE difference.
It can route around 'damage' as long as an undamaged route exists.
If you control -all- the border routers, then you can easily isolate yourself from all or a portion of the internet. Of course you have to be able to be completely able to stand alone (DNS servers, etc) to make that work, and have all your critical capabilities inside your 'border'.
Probably in many businesses, productivity would increase in the event of a cyber attack...
1A- How much was left?? TONS of stuff. Same thing in Desert Storm. And that was -with- a plan. Imagine if the military just was told to leave one day?
2A- No issue with states doing it vs federal, but don't see any inherent reason that 50 state governments doing the same thing would be inherently better than a single federal one. The transition is the problem. You can't just stop giving out SSN's without drastic impact, and to give the states a chance to figure it out will take time, and then there's that painful inertia thing again.
3A- I think the line-item veto is the way to go, especially in the current fiscal state we're in. Then the rest is easy and doesn't require the pain and willpower we described.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the theory of what you are proposing; peace, less waste, balanced budget. I was just trying to show why it's harder than it looks to actually get done.
In the "BIG" company, the problem is your definition of "my network". Just who exactly ones the ENTIRE network? The CIO? Sure. So the CIO personally approves each server and VLAN connection? Not likely.
In the government, it's not one network, it's hundreds of networks. Even within the same department, AD Domains don't trust each other, so there is no 'owner'.
So let's say your network is set up according your described rules. That's fine, no rogue servers on your network. Great work. Let's say you've got 1 big-ass data center, and 2 satellite sites. Big bosses come down and want to do an audit. Their criteria means you list the big-ass center. Great. 2 years later they do another audit. Now the criteria has changed. OK, now you list all 3 three.
Slashdot goes nuts because they think you are an incompetent admin who didn't have a clue about the "rogue servers" on your network that weren't reported last time.
OK, I'll give you some straight answers as to why that's not going to happen, even if you were president tomorrow:
1- End the Wars. Actually, the wars are ending. But let's say tomorrow is your first day in office. Your order is "Redeploy all the units". The CJCS says "Yes, sir". First they need some time to come up with a plan on how to do what you want. So MINIMUM 60 days. Ever tried to get a family of five in the car for a 5-day road trip?? How many hours did that take? OK, now multiply that by 50,000. Moving a force the size of what we have is not a small feat when it's in a land-locked country halfway around the world and we can't just drive down to the coast and hop on a boat. So to make sure it's done right and we don't give $20B worth of stuff to the Taliban when we leave, a plan is a good thing.
So then they come back with the plan, and say it will be 18 months. You lose your mind and say you want it done NOW (you are the President after all!). The CJCS brings in his Intel guys, who give you an hour long brief on the complexities and fragilities of the Afghan society, and how just leaving out of the blue will destroy all the progress made thus far, result in thousands of Afghan deaths due to the resulting civil war, create a resurgence of the Taliban, etc.. Most presidents at this point realize that these are ACTUAL lives that hang on their personal decision (think the picture of Kennedy in the Oval Office during the Cuban Missile Crisis). No longer an armchair exercise, they realize that there has to be a logical framework for the withdrawal. But like Iraq, it happens, because you are the boss. Just on a timeline tempered with reality and experience. Common Sense Ending...
But for arguments sake, let's say you are fanatical about this (you are the President after all!). You give direct that every available mode of logistics will be used immediately to remove US troops from Afghanistan. OK fine they say, and leave. The CJCS hands in his resignation, as his advice is no longer useful to you. Political mayhem ensues, stuff gets leaked to Congress/the Press, and you spend so much of your time dealing with that you can't keep track of the withdrawal.
You threaten to fire all not obeying your orders, those below you come with briefings showing how they are making progress as best they can, you don't have a clue how logistics works, so you don't know if they are lying or not. So you fire a couple just for good measure... briefings get more and more 'controlled'. Troops end up taking about 24 months to withdraw because of all the mess you made.
So let's say you veto the spending bill. Great idea! Resources are what drives DC. So now there is no funding for the war effort. Pentagon comes to a grinding halt. Problem is that there are still troops in the field (remember land-locked Afghanistan?), who are now dying because of lack of ammunition that you refused to buy them. Pictures of dead GI's come back home. Oh wait, now suddenly your veto gets overridden by Congress.
But you aren't done yet, you use yet more executive power to stop spending any DoD funds. More GI's die. Congress has now had enough, so has the American people, and you are the first to be Impeached/Convicted. And the Brits aren't fond of you either (remember it's a Coalition over there)
(The next 2 are easier)
2- End of Department "X". Which one? Defense? Education? State? Health and Human Services? Yep, you can slay an entire department as President. Problem is that in most areas of government, there is SOME good being done. So it's pretty unlikely you can just kill the whole thing without crippling a vital service people need. OK, no problem... we'll just carve out the fat, right? Trouble is that it's very hard to estimate how many people any department really needs if you aren't in that department (just how many people does it take to keep track of Social Security Numbers, I don't have a clue) And almost no one is coming to come brief you that they need fewer people (a
Technically the term "order" would only apply to the military branches of the DoD, which are enforceable by military law.
For everyone else, his "orders" are just the same as the direction any CEO gives. Can't send you to jail for not complying, can fire you, but only after all the other executive branch guidance (HR Policy) is followed, to include union agreements as applicable.
Now if Congress gives direction, the Executive Branch agrees, and the Judicial Branch doesn't strike it down, then you can go to jail for not complying, but again, that's no different than any US citizen.
Mod parent up! Not sure who thinks the above is a troll, but this is a clear point to discuss.
The Libyan authorities appear to be making a stand that this website, which as it is registered as a ".ly" website, is clearly within their scope to control (both from a technical and common sense perspective), violates the legal and ethical guidelines which their country is guided by.
While Sharia Law may be based on Islamic beliefs, the Libyan government is not run by clerics. The term people should be looking for is "separation of church and state", not "remove religion from government". There are two separate things.
So should we remove laws against murder in the West because "thou shall not kill" is based in a Judeo-Christian religion (gasp).
Most ethical frameworks around the world have their foundations in a set of religious beliefs. Some would argue that religions are created because of a need for an ethic framework. And any community, to be effective, needs to agree on an ethical framework to be effective.
Also note that the Libyan authorities are not on a typical true "nut-job" rant of attempting to impose -their- beliefs on the rest of the world. They are controlling only what is theirs to control. Now if they hosted a root nameserver and poisoned it to send the rest of the world's "unapproved by Libya" links to a black hole, that'd be a different thing.
Agreed.
From the offending server's website: "BRL volunteered to host one of the original root servers ... to provide a root server for the MILNET in the event that MILNET had to be disconnected from the Internet."
The purpose of the G/H servers is not to support the greater good (that's a side benefit), but to ensure that the MILNET can function if the DoD cuts itself off from the rest of the internet.
And besides, If my math is correct, there are a total of 205 redundant root sites (http://www.root-servers.org/), so imagine going up asking for funding...
[IT Guy] "General, we need money to add another redundant root server site, if all the sites go down the internet collapses!"
[General] "That sounds bad! How many redundant sites are there now?"
[IT Guy] "Only 205"
[General]
> AAEFS is a an agency of the DoD and thus is an agent of the government
So by your logic the government is interfering with the government?
They've banned themselves from selling it, not anyone else. They also (like Walmart) choose not to sell porn in -their- stores. People are still free to own, obtain, etc both porn and Medal of Honor.
And further, the GameStops on US military bases will have a contractual vendor relationship with AAFES, so I would not be surprising if the pressure/demand came from AAFES themselves.
And I believe NEX/MCX are also now under the AAFES umbrella overall, but maintain an independent brand identity, so I think the demand would encompass all bases.
Though I think this change probably means an increase in sales to military because of the controversy.
There is, to be fair, a difference between respecting IP (or not), and monitoring all your internal VPN data traffic.
There are good technical reasons why FDR data doesn't make sense to upload raw data automatically.
The pure FDR data is sampled at a high data rate, which varies according to model of FDR. The most modern systems also collect hundreds of data points at a time. This is discussed in the article, though I'd challenge some of their bandwidth calculations... the sample rates they quote seem very low (for modern systems), though I don't have my books in front of me.
What DOES make sense (and again, the article does address this), is having computing capability in the FDR (or outside of it, as it wouldn't need to be crash-worthy) that filters the data and ID's in real-time out-of-normal events and reports them.
In fact, most airlines already use a system like this, but not for the purpose of crash monitoring, but to detect aircraft problems in flight and alert ground crew so they can they can be prepared to fix them before the pilots even know there was a problem.
The issue is that this uplink capability can't replace the on-board FDR recording capability. That black box must still be there, as during the crash sequence, there is a good chance your satcom/etc systems will fail before the final crash. So this can augment, but not replace.
They also discuss adding a capability to comb through the complete raw data (you can just download it on landing as another route). Yep, great idea, but already being done by many airlines.
See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aviationservices/brochures/Airplane_Health_Management.pdf
And in fact, the military is using the FDR data to check their pilot's proficiency as well as the aircraft performance:
See http://www.navair.navy.mil/PMA209/_Documents/MFOQA_101_20090224.ppt
Because takeoff requires the most amount of power, it's not feasible there, and during taxi it's not really an issue.
However, you aren't -completely- off base, because some helicopters do have "screens" designed to prevent dust/rocks/etc from damaging the engine during takeoff/landing. That's kind of like what I'm sure you are picturing.
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/eaps1.html
But helicopter engines aren't really Turbofan engines, they are gas turbine engines that power a transmission, and so can afford the tradeoffs that come with an EAPS system.... and for a variety of reasons, helicopters don't have the same birdstrike issues airplanes have.
To the people that matter (the drivers)
So that's why it's the crew chief's name that gets painted on the side, huh...
At the speeds of a jet fighter (and even at the speeds of a slow prop transport), an average goose will penetrate the leading edge of the wing, destroy the bleed air duct (also metal) underneath, tear up the wiring, and sometimes damage the next layer of structure.
Look at the first stage fan blades in an engine next time you're boarding an aircraft (they are ones in front you can see). Those are the biggest, toughest, blades in the engine. They basically are strong enough to pull the entire aircraft forward. When a big fat bird hits one, they bend and break.
Now, the newest/biggest commercial engines have a remarkable ability to absorb birds without a problem, but the more 'finicky' engines on fighter jets are much more susceptable, and of course if you've only got one engine... that's a big deal.
So my point in describing the impact power that a bird has is to illustrate that for a 'screen' to be strong enough to stop a bird would also completely block any airflow, and those engines are HUGE vacuum cleaners, and if that airflow slows too much, something called a 'compressor stall' happens, and that's generally bad and scares the crap out of the passengers (flames shoot out of the back end of the engine, etc)