Just joking, but when did you last hear of DiskKeeper? I haven't heard a peep since NT4 days.
Executive Software is alive and well even though their product was integrated with Win2k etc. I think Microsoft is licensing their product rather than having bought them out. They claim on their site that you still need their product even with the integrated disk defragmenter and they provide additional features with their product. They also make other products besides DiskKeeper.
Just a thought... but we have been working with qmail/qmail-scanner/clamav/spamassassin... integrating clamav & spamassain into qmail-scanner makes it a little less memory bloat and pretty flexible. Combine that with the lazydog install and you have a pretty robust combination... we are not at 15K users but we are getting there quick and while it is not a good as rav... it gets the job done.
Lazydog? What's that? Google does not seem to know and I have never heard of it. Is it some package that makes it easier to install qmail and integrate these products? If so it might be useful to link...
Words not to use in your posts, on pain of flamewar:
virii
vi
emacs
Microsoft
SCO
free/libre/speech
free/gratis/beer
Open Source
Free Software
Lameness filters
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 4.6). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.9).
Your logic is faulty. If they don't have to buy an av app to create spyware they also don't need to buy an av app to write an av app. That is all true. However, that is not how Microsoft works.
Microsoft tends to wait until someone else develops a product and builds a market before buying that company and taking over their product. That is what they did in this case. They bought an antivirus company with an established customer base. This may mean they will want to sell av software or that they want to integrate it with the OS.
The problem with your spyware app scenario is that they would have to come up with an app people want or can't get rid of that contains their spyware. In this case they would have teh perfect application for spyware in that it must phone home, will not work if you don't keep updating or paying a subscription, and is designed to scan all of your files. In addition, it uses a database of simple signatures to identify what files are infected with viruses and those files are deleted/quarantined. It would be a simple matter to include signatures that will match mp3s the RIAA does not want you to have, or have the virus scanner, while scanning the registry, check for known stolen serial numbers and then quarantine/delete Word or somesuch.
Granted, the most likely thing they are going to do would be to simply try and integrate virus protection. But nothing MS does is simple. Besides, they have been trying to get the functionality of testing for pirated MS products into Windows for years and have been continuously foiled by privacy advocates. When MS Update first rolled out, it quietly sent information about all applications on your computer, along with personal info, to an MS database. Microsoft tried to claim they weren't doing that and were caught in a lie. That is why they had to change it. Recently it has been claimed they are trying to sneak this into Windows Update again.
Microsoft has a history of taking good things and making them bad. For instance their recent integration of msn messenger and windows media player, on one side are good because these are features that one would expect with a decent system, but bad because they cannot be expunged in order to use something else/ stop using them. Likewise the problem with IE. I initially thought it was good to finally get a browser with the OS, and even the explorer integration made sense to a point. But then when IE started being a problem in that updating security meant maintaining IE, and IE became the source for most of the security problems in Windows, I saw how the integration was going awry. And again you cannot rip IE out of windows, at least not in a supported fashion, and the 98lite folks probably run into all kinds of problems getting any updates from Microsoft.
People who try to compare this to RedHat are missing the point, really. Yes, RedHat comes with everything under the sun and gets praise for it whereas Microsoft gets lambasted for adding things. Yes if you install "everything" in redhat with the newbie install you used to end up with 5000 exploitable daemons running by default (I understand this is "fixed" now but it has been awhile since I installed RedHat anywhere). However, you can pick and choose whether to install these things and whether they run. You have control over them running (unlike windows where another poster related his frustration over trying to stop XP's msn from running) or not and how they run. You can use web browsers to view files in Linux, but they do not control anything else in your system, just browsing. This is the difference. If Microsoft simply included IE/MSN/WMP with the OS there would be far less objection. But when they integrate these things in ways where they take over control and cannot be taken out it irks people because Microsoft is once again telling you what to do with your computer.
I think that is the most important thing to remember about Microsoft. People give OSS developers a hard time about
No need to reinstall crap that sucks! get a linux cd for free and install to your heart's content. I bet you could get graphics + mozilla and have 300-500MB left over for whatever you desire, if you choose packages wisely.
In the case of RealPlayer/QuickTime/WinAmp the installer lets you choose if things get changed. The default application used to open thinsg is really one of the less insidious things that gets changed. I find that security settings in IE or random registry keys get changed all the time by Windows Update and suchlike. Can you remember every registry key you had to change by hand to prevent viruses/ add security? Do you have time to check every single one every time you go to a microsoft site to check for updates? Should you? And yes you can just use Mozilla for *a browser* but the internet settings/security are still handled by IE, unless you don't run Windows.
I saw a similar expose. They also said that these companies do not always tell people the outcome of their application. They also do not always market the successful patents. Often they know what you sent them is not patentable or is patented already, but they do not tell you and still collect the fees.
Ah but the old saying goes "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." That old saw is not just intended to get lawyers more money; in fact it goes for lawyers as well (perhaps double). The layman can learn things in a law library but Lawyers have better access to the law and better familiarity therewith. Also judges are lawyers and apt to be prejudiced against untrained legal arguments, especially when the trained lawyers can turn them around on a dime.
It may be better than nothing, but that is like saying trying to use books to learn to rebuild an engine in your car because you have no money for a mechanic (or a new engine) is better than nothing. In some cases it could be worse than nothing. An extreme case was Colin Fergusen's criminal trial. You would think that a guy caught red-handed using a submachine gun on a crowded NYC subway had little to lose (I thought so anyway) but we would be wrong. He actually managed to make things worse for himself.
A lawyer provides seperation (you can't cross-examine yourself!), confidentiality, and expertise. You can tell a lawyer everything and they can choose what to tell the court and what might cloud the issue. They can prevent you from sticking your foot in your mouth and falling into traps. IANAL, but I would think even convincing a friendly law student to help you pro bono would be better than representing yourself.
Both parties seem to act in similar ways. Essentially if they are the minority party they:
1) let the other party pass a bunch of extremist laws
2) ???
3) Profit!
Then once the public reacts by putting the once-minority party back in the majority, that party becomes the one passing extremist laws, then it goes round and round.
The one thing both parties seem to agree on (with their actions, not their words) is that the average american has too much money and freedom, and they should take action to correct this problem. That and increasing their power/immunity to consequences for their actions have been their primary goals for far too long.
Crime, Terrorism, and Warfare tend to breed right-wing behaviour. If people feel threatened with war, they will naturally crave more security (and a bigger defense budget). If people feel their lives and property are threatened by criminals, they wil naturally crave more stringent police action. If immigrants start flying planes they were taught to fly on student visas obtained over the internet into buildings, the people will naturally crave a curb to immigration.
In such a climate, ideas like fencing off the country from the world, blowing up anyone that looks sideways at us, and locking away (or killing) "those responsible" become very popular ideas and ideas like relaxed immigration laws, more rehabilitation in prison systems (read usually as making things easier on inmates), and making peace with everyone become less popular. It does not help when the politicians in power (and the media) encourage the idea that "liberal" ideas are inherently detrimental to security.
Actually both of those have been made. I don't know whether they are patented though. The solar-powered flashlights use solar power to charge batteries, though...
Then maybe the USPTO should dump some of its dead weight and/or hire some out-of-work computer professionals. Heck 90k a year is more than I make now!:P
But no blockbuster has the original TV series. They might have the movie and the miniseries, but that is different. Then again the movies/miniseries is probably enough to get up to speed, unless they actually do pick up from where the tv series left off or use stuff from there, which they may do. Too bad no one made a dvd of the series...
I guess what I meant was to ask whether you experienced the same thing if the phone was not vibrating. If it happened there, I would check to see if it happened when the ringer was not on. The reason I ask is that it is possible that the interference was electromagnetic (indeed it is most probable) rather than radio interference.
If you read further, you will find that most of the anomalies were produced in an uncommon frequency. Also, they used the signal generators in ways that cell phones do not use them (cell phones do not generate a continuous signal at the highest power possible, neither do they typically produce taht signal at the levels which had to be used to generate the anomalies).
Honestly it would have been a simple matter for them to test real cell phones in a real 747. What they did was take instruments that might be used in a plane and place them on a table and then place an antenna near the equipment. Even then at the most commonly used frequencies they did not have the anomalies they describe, and again only by increasing the power of the signal to unrealistic levels and producing a continuous bombardment did they get the results they describe. Therefore the report overstates the results. The press release is even more inflammatory and misleading.
They are claiming the the normal use of cell phones in the cabin of commercial aircraft will cause the malfunctions they describe, when their own tests would seem to indicate that even in the cockpit that would not happen. I think that is the worst of it, really. What they claim is the reverse of the results of their experiments, which were flawed anyway.
For the record, air marshalls existed long before two years ago. Term Deputy US Marshals existed in the 70's and were assigned to the Anti-Air Piracy Service. The article in Time about consequences, etc. was misleading. The individuals mentioned were on loan from another agency. Their behavior reflects poorly on the originating agency rather than the TSA. It's the originating agency's fault for not putting fresh agents on detail. Anyway, their guns were *not* openly available. They *were* stowed in bags under the seat. If you didn't know that the guy sitting next to you was a marshal, you wouldn't know what was in his bag, would you? The only people on that plane who know who a marshal is are the flight crew.
The story made it sound like the guns were visible. There were multiple incidents to choose from. Then again, journalists are prone to spreading wild tales and there is a lot of confusion. The GWB administration has not made it any easier by trying to give the impression in the press that they invented the idea of Air Marshals.
As for your assertion that only the flight crew were to know who the air marshals were, that is probably true now, and should be true, but it has not always been true. I have talked with people who said they were introduced to the air marshals on their flight before takeoff, and one of the 2001 reports on air marshals said they had complained about having to wear suits which made them stick out (eg they looked like stereotypical secret service agents). That is clearly no longer always the case and probably reflects on bugs in teh system initially.
For the matter of air marshals enforcing seatbelt laws, etc., who are you kidding? You haven't even been on a plane in close to two years. What they do is prevent someone from going apeshit.
In one of the articles I referenced, passengers were held at gunpoint to prevent them getting up out of their seats. Essentially you are right that they are there to keep order, but what ends up happening is that if you give a flight attendant any grief about following the rules, the air marshalls are going to arrest you. To be fair, I do not have a problem with them keeping order on airplanes. I do have to wonder, though, if a case of diareah is really worth someone losing their right to vote.
Unless you work for El Al, you're in no place to comment on how anyone in the Air Marshal service should act.
Spoken like a True American(tm). Look, regardless of how many times Our Illustrious Government wants to wipe their ass with the constitution I have a right to comment on anything I feel like commenting on. When that includes spending my money to protect my ass from being on a plane that is flying into a building I work in, it goes quadruply so. I think the expansion of the Air Marshal program is a good idea. I do think, however, that what is being done is not nearly enough, and that it is wrong that they are being relegated to the equivalent of traffic cops when they should be hunting murderers (much like the normal police in this country). Nevertheless, as I said before, if you wanted better policing of these rules, you now have it.
How much was the UKCAA paid for their report by the FAA FCC Airline XYZ Phone Co ABC???
Well, the UK CAA appears to be approximately equal to the US FAA but of course its jurisdiction is the UK. As for how this was paid for, well, the first sentence in teh Executive Summary gives a clue:
This report covers activities that respond to CAA Safety Intervention Task 01/10:Sponsor research to identify the susceptibility to interference from commonly used transmitting devices of vulnerable avionic equipment.
So essentially some of the CAA budget is to fund research like this. The research can't have received much funding, however, judging from the laboratory setup in the pictures at the end of the pdf report. These people did not even use a real plane cockpit or anything. All of the instruments they used were bare and placed on a wooden bench. As for wiring harness, well, get a load of the tangle of wires on the floor!
Not only did they not use cell phones or planes for their experiment, but they also did not have the proper equipment to truly simulate cell phones. One of their stated limitations was: "Due to non-availability of a Tetra modulator,the tests at 412MHz were made using GSM modulation,this being considered as reasonably equivalent." Tetra being a type of cell phone network common in Europe, of course.
What is most inexcusable about this is if they had simply used real cell phones for their tests they would have a Tetra modulator (and all the other types they needed. They have no excuse in their apparent lack of real funding, as honestly they would have the authority to ground a 747 for any number of reasons while they did their tests, and cell phones are ubiquitous (they probably had some). Even if they wanted to go wider than that, they could have always partnered with cell phone companies to get what they needed. Besides, one fo the participants in this study was Vodafone who could easily have scared up a good sample of different cellular phones commonly in use in the UK. They needn't have worried about anything not in use in the UK since that is their scope in any case.
It is clear to me this study has numerous fundamental flaws, and its results are vastly overstated in the initial report and even moreso in the press releases and articles.
Typing "I love you" into the cell phone does not require making a call or even sending a text message. The man could have been changing any number of text message settings on his phone. Also, it could be apocryphal as the "thumbs up" in my bathroom story is claimed to have been.
The code they are releasing under NDA sounds like a honeypot to me. Anyone who reads that code can't work on parts of Linux that code might affect or comment on the validity of SCO's claims. Essentially it was an attempt to get rid of potential expert witnesses in defense of IBM and Linux developers at the same time. Of course IBM has its own linux Developers and Expert witnesses so they do not have to worry about that really.
If they had documented their build process exactly and still had access to the tools used to build, the binary could be checksummed. Of course I have found many corps do not meet these simple and basic criteria in their development procedures..
Slashdot Mirror
Just joking, but when did you last hear of DiskKeeper? I haven't heard a peep since NT4 days.
Executive Software is alive and well even though their product was integrated with Win2k etc. I think Microsoft is licensing their product rather than having bought them out. They claim on their site that you still need their product even with the integrated disk defragmenter and they provide additional features with their product. They also make other products besides DiskKeeper.
They're moderators on /. it's anyone's guess :).
Just a thought... but we have been working with qmail/qmail-scanner/clamav/spamassassin... integrating clamav & spamassain into qmail-scanner makes it a little less memory bloat and pretty flexible. Combine that with the lazydog install and you have a pretty robust combination... we are not at 15K users but we are getting there quick and while it is not a good as rav... it gets the job done.
Lazydog? What's that? Google does not seem to know and I have never heard of it. Is it some package that makes it easier to install qmail and integrate these products? If so it might be useful to link...
You're too lazy to link, they're too lazy to google... what's this world coming to?! :)
Words not to use in your posts, on pain of flamewar:
virii
vi
emacs
Microsoft
SCO
free/libre/speech
free/gratis/beer
Open Source
Free Software
Lameness filters
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 4.6). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.9).
???
Profit!
Your logic is faulty. If they don't have to buy an av app to create spyware they also don't need to buy an av app to write an av app. That is all true. However, that is not how Microsoft works.
Microsoft tends to wait until someone else develops a product and builds a market before buying that company and taking over their product. That is what they did in this case. They bought an antivirus company with an established customer base. This may mean they will want to sell av software or that they want to integrate it with the OS.
The problem with your spyware app scenario is that they would have to come up with an app people want or can't get rid of that contains their spyware. In this case they would have teh perfect application for spyware in that it must phone home, will not work if you don't keep updating or paying a subscription, and is designed to scan all of your files. In addition, it uses a database of simple signatures to identify what files are infected with viruses and those files are deleted/quarantined. It would be a simple matter to include signatures that will match mp3s the RIAA does not want you to have, or have the virus scanner, while scanning the registry, check for known stolen serial numbers and then quarantine/delete Word or somesuch.
Granted, the most likely thing they are going to do would be to simply try and integrate virus protection. But nothing MS does is simple. Besides, they have been trying to get the functionality of testing for pirated MS products into Windows for years and have been continuously foiled by privacy advocates. When MS Update first rolled out, it quietly sent information about all applications on your computer, along with personal info, to an MS database. Microsoft tried to claim they weren't doing that and were caught in a lie. That is why they had to change it. Recently it has been claimed they are trying to sneak this into Windows Update again.
Microsoft has a history of taking good things and making them bad. For instance their recent integration of msn messenger and windows media player, on one side are good because these are features that one would expect with a decent system, but bad because they cannot be expunged in order to use something else/ stop using them. Likewise the problem with IE. I initially thought it was good to finally get a browser with the OS, and even the explorer integration made sense to a point. But then when IE started being a problem in that updating security meant maintaining IE, and IE became the source for most of the security problems in Windows, I saw how the integration was going awry. And again you cannot rip IE out of windows, at least not in a supported fashion, and the 98lite folks probably run into all kinds of problems getting any updates from Microsoft.
People who try to compare this to RedHat are missing the point, really. Yes, RedHat comes with everything under the sun and gets praise for it whereas Microsoft gets lambasted for adding things. Yes if you install "everything" in redhat with the newbie install you used to end up with 5000 exploitable daemons running by default (I understand this is "fixed" now but it has been awhile since I installed RedHat anywhere). However, you can pick and choose whether to install these things and whether they run. You have control over them running (unlike windows where another poster related his frustration over trying to stop XP's msn from running) or not and how they run. You can use web browsers to view files in Linux, but they do not control anything else in your system, just browsing. This is the difference. If Microsoft simply included IE/MSN/WMP with the OS there would be far less objection. But when they integrate these things in ways where they take over control and cannot be taken out it irks people because Microsoft is once again telling you what to do with your computer.
I think that is the most important thing to remember about Microsoft. People give OSS developers a hard time about
No need to reinstall crap that sucks! get a linux cd for free and install to your heart's content. I bet you could get graphics + mozilla and have 300-500MB left over for whatever you desire, if you choose packages wisely.
In the case of RealPlayer/QuickTime/WinAmp the installer lets you choose if things get changed. The default application used to open thinsg is really one of the less insidious things that gets changed. I find that security settings in IE or random registry keys get changed all the time by Windows Update and suchlike. Can you remember every registry key you had to change by hand to prevent viruses/ add security? Do you have time to check every single one every time you go to a microsoft site to check for updates? Should you? And yes you can just use Mozilla for *a browser* but the internet settings/security are still handled by IE, unless you don't run Windows.
I saw a similar expose. They also said that these companies do not always tell people the outcome of their application. They also do not always market the successful patents. Often they know what you sent them is not patentable or is patented already, but they do not tell you and still collect the fees.
Ah but the old saying goes "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." That old saw is not just intended to get lawyers more money; in fact it goes for lawyers as well (perhaps double). The layman can learn things in a law library but Lawyers have better access to the law and better familiarity therewith. Also judges are lawyers and apt to be prejudiced against untrained legal arguments, especially when the trained lawyers can turn them around on a dime.
It may be better than nothing, but that is like saying trying to use books to learn to rebuild an engine in your car because you have no money for a mechanic (or a new engine) is better than nothing. In some cases it could be worse than nothing. An extreme case was Colin Fergusen's criminal trial. You would think that a guy caught red-handed using a submachine gun on a crowded NYC subway had little to lose (I thought so anyway) but we would be wrong. He actually managed to make things worse for himself.
A lawyer provides seperation (you can't cross-examine yourself!), confidentiality, and expertise. You can tell a lawyer everything and they can choose what to tell the court and what might cloud the issue. They can prevent you from sticking your foot in your mouth and falling into traps. IANAL, but I would think even convincing a friendly law student to help you pro bono would be better than representing yourself.
Both parties seem to act in similar ways. Essentially if they are the minority party they:
1) let the other party pass a bunch of extremist laws
2) ???
3) Profit!
Then once the public reacts by putting the once-minority party back in the majority, that party becomes the one passing extremist laws, then it goes round and round.
The one thing both parties seem to agree on (with their actions, not their words) is that the average american has too much money and freedom, and they should take action to correct this problem. That and increasing their power/immunity to consequences for their actions have been their primary goals for far too long.
Crime, Terrorism, and Warfare tend to breed right-wing behaviour. If people feel threatened with war, they will naturally crave more security (and a bigger defense budget). If people feel their lives and property are threatened by criminals, they wil naturally crave more stringent police action. If immigrants start flying planes they were taught to fly on student visas obtained over the internet into buildings, the people will naturally crave a curb to immigration.
In such a climate, ideas like fencing off the country from the world, blowing up anyone that looks sideways at us, and locking away (or killing) "those responsible" become very popular ideas and ideas like relaxed immigration laws, more rehabilitation in prison systems (read usually as making things easier on inmates), and making peace with everyone become less popular. It does not help when the politicians in power (and the media) encourage the idea that "liberal" ideas are inherently detrimental to security.
Oh what a novel idea...
Actually both of those have been made. I don't know whether they are patented though. The solar-powered flashlights use solar power to charge batteries, though...
Then maybe the USPTO should dump some of its dead weight and/or hire some out-of-work computer professionals. Heck 90k a year is more than I make now! :P
6. There is NO step six!
There is no step 6! Never! I will show you in one hour! The infidels who say there is step 6 .. God will roast their stomachs in hell!
I now inform you that you are too far from reality.
But no blockbuster has the original TV series. They might have the movie and the miniseries, but that is different. Then again the movies/miniseries is probably enough to get up to speed, unless they actually do pick up from where the tv series left off or use stuff from there, which they may do. Too bad no one made a dvd of the series...
If you let them make a VI, RMS will wonder why they did not include emacs and blast NBC's lack of commitment to Free Software. nano nano!
I guess what I meant was to ask whether you experienced the same thing if the phone was not vibrating. If it happened there, I would check to see if it happened when the ringer was not on. The reason I ask is that it is possible that the interference was electromagnetic (indeed it is most probable) rather than radio interference.
If you read further, you will find that most of the anomalies were produced in an uncommon frequency. Also, they used the signal generators in ways that cell phones do not use them (cell phones do not generate a continuous signal at the highest power possible, neither do they typically produce taht signal at the levels which had to be used to generate the anomalies).
Honestly it would have been a simple matter for them to test real cell phones in a real 747. What they did was take instruments that might be used in a plane and place them on a table and then place an antenna near the equipment. Even then at the most commonly used frequencies they did not have the anomalies they describe, and again only by increasing the power of the signal to unrealistic levels and producing a continuous bombardment did they get the results they describe. Therefore the report overstates the results. The press release is even more inflammatory and misleading.
They are claiming the the normal use of cell phones in the cabin of commercial aircraft will cause the malfunctions they describe, when their own tests would seem to indicate that even in the cockpit that would not happen. I think that is the worst of it, really. What they claim is the reverse of the results of their experiments, which were flawed anyway.
For the record, air marshalls existed long before two years ago. Term Deputy US Marshals existed in the 70's and were assigned to the Anti-Air Piracy Service. The article in Time about consequences, etc. was misleading. The individuals mentioned were on loan from another agency. Their behavior reflects poorly on the originating agency rather than the TSA. It's the originating agency's fault for not putting fresh agents on detail. Anyway, their guns were *not* openly available. They *were* stowed in bags under the seat. If you didn't know that the guy sitting next to you was a marshal, you wouldn't know what was in his bag, would you? The only people on that plane who know who a marshal is are the flight crew.
The story made it sound like the guns were visible. There were multiple incidents to choose from. Then again, journalists are prone to spreading wild tales and there is a lot of confusion. The GWB administration has not made it any easier by trying to give the impression in the press that they invented the idea of Air Marshals.
As for your assertion that only the flight crew were to know who the air marshals were, that is probably true now, and should be true, but it has not always been true. I have talked with people who said they were introduced to the air marshals on their flight before takeoff, and one of the 2001 reports on air marshals said they had complained about having to wear suits which made them stick out (eg they looked like stereotypical secret service agents). That is clearly no longer always the case and probably reflects on bugs in teh system initially.
For the matter of air marshals enforcing seatbelt laws, etc., who are you kidding? You haven't even been on a plane in close to two years. What they do is prevent someone from going apeshit.
In one of the articles I referenced, passengers were held at gunpoint to prevent them getting up out of their seats. Essentially you are right that they are there to keep order, but what ends up happening is that if you give a flight attendant any grief about following the rules, the air marshalls are going to arrest you. To be fair, I do not have a problem with them keeping order on airplanes. I do have to wonder, though, if a case of diareah is really worth someone losing their right to vote.
Unless you work for El Al, you're in no place to comment on how anyone in the Air Marshal service should act.
Spoken like a True American(tm). Look, regardless of how many times Our Illustrious Government wants to wipe their ass with the constitution I have a right to comment on anything I feel like commenting on. When that includes spending my money to protect my ass from being on a plane that is flying into a building I work in, it goes quadruply so. I think the expansion of the Air Marshal program is a good idea. I do think, however, that what is being done is not nearly enough, and that it is wrong that they are being relegated to the equivalent of traffic cops when they should be hunting murderers (much like the normal police in this country). Nevertheless, as I said before, if you wanted better policing of these rules, you now have it.
How much was the UKCAA paid for their report by the FAA FCC Airline XYZ Phone Co ABC???
Well, the UK CAA appears to be approximately equal to the US FAA but of course its jurisdiction is the UK. As for how this was paid for, well, the first sentence in teh Executive Summary gives a clue:
This report covers activities that respond to CAA Safety Intervention Task 01/10:Sponsor
research to identify the susceptibility to interference from commonly used transmitting
devices of vulnerable avionic equipment.
So essentially some of the CAA budget is to fund research like this. The research can't have received much funding, however, judging from the laboratory setup in the pictures at the end of the pdf report. These people did not even use a real plane cockpit or anything. All of the instruments they used were bare and placed on a wooden bench. As for wiring harness, well, get a load of the tangle of wires on the floor!
Not only did they not use cell phones or planes for their experiment, but they also did not have the proper equipment to truly simulate cell phones. One of their stated limitations was: "Due to non-availability of a Tetra modulator,the tests at 412MHz were made using
GSM modulation,this being considered as reasonably equivalent." Tetra being a type of cell phone network common in Europe, of course.
What is most inexcusable about this is if they had simply used real cell phones for their tests they would have a Tetra modulator (and all the other types they needed. They have no excuse in their apparent lack of real funding, as honestly they would have the authority to ground a 747 for any number of reasons while they did their tests, and cell phones are ubiquitous (they probably had some). Even if they wanted to go wider than that, they could have always partnered with cell phone companies to get what they needed. Besides, one fo the participants in this study was Vodafone who could easily have scared up a good sample of different cellular phones commonly in use in the UK. They needn't have worried about anything not in use in the UK since that is their scope in any case.
It is clear to me this study has numerous fundamental flaws, and its results are vastly overstated in the initial report and even moreso in the press releases and articles.
Typing "I love you" into the cell phone does not require making a call or even sending a text message. The man could have been changing any number of text message settings on his phone. Also, it could be apocryphal as the "thumbs up" in my bathroom story is claimed to have been.
The code they are releasing under NDA sounds like a honeypot to me. Anyone who reads that code can't work on parts of Linux that code might affect or comment on the validity of SCO's claims. Essentially it was an attempt to get rid of potential expert witnesses in defense of IBM and Linux developers at the same time. Of course IBM has its own linux Developers and Expert witnesses so they do not have to worry about that really.
If they had documented their build process exactly and still had access to the tools used to build, the binary could be checksummed. Of course I have found many corps do not meet these simple and basic criteria in their development procedures..