The F-22 hasn't been flown because we haven't been involved in a conflict where air superiority was a requirement of the mission. If/when that happens, like in a conflict with Russia, China, Iran, or...who knows, Germany could go all batshit crazy again and start invading other countries, the F-22 will be used.
As for the F-35, it's not flying combat sorties yet, because it's still in the testing phase. In another couple years, once it's ready, it will more than fulfill the roles it's intended to fulfill.
Of course it will -- because it's operating specs keep getting downgraded to match the capabilities of the plane. When the specs get reduced to "Must park on runway with its nose pointed in the general direction of the enemy", then it will be in full compliance with its required specs.
If the current operating specs were put out to bid today, what would the proposals look like?
Amazing you havent learnt the strange habit of waking up 2 minutes before the alarm is due to go off , simply so you can turn it off before it rudely shocks you awake?
The dog usually wakes me up a few minutes before the alarm goes off (not on purpose of course, she's just poking me in the face with her cold nose to see if maybe I'm already awake), but whether you wake up before the alarm or not, you still have to turn it off. And it's easier to turn it off while the alarm is sounding since the "Off" button is right on the screen - no need to unlock it and then navigate to the alarm app.
If your alarm is shocking you awake, you should try a different alert tone, mine starts softly and gradually gets louder so I can turn it off before it wakes my wife. I haven't been shocked awake by an alarm for at least a decade when I got a Sony Dream Machine alarm clock that gradually increases the volume of the alarm.
Touching an inanimate object made of glass and plastic each morning and night is nothing new -- well before the days of smart phones (or even cell phones at all), I used to have a manual alarm clock that I'd have to set each night and turn off each morning. So this "strange intimacy" with our gadgets has been going on for 50 years or more.
Since it was a 12 hour clock, it wasn't possible to reset the alarm when it went off at 7am in the morning or else it would go off again at 7pm, so one had to set it each night.
Now my smartphone is my alarm, and it's better in that I don't have to set it at night, but it's still the first thing I touch in the morning since I have to stop the alarm.
There is very little to learn. We already had ground simulations of the flight, and they were generally unsatisfactory. Humans cannot sit in a tin can for two years and retain sanity. That alone overwhelms all the other issues, of which there are many
Russia, the EU and China conducted a joint simulation with mission lengths of 15, 105 and 520 day durations. After the 520 day mission:
The 520-day final stage of the experiment, which was intended to simulate a full-length manned mission, began in 3 June 2010 and ended on 4 November 2011.[8][9][10] This stage was conducted by a six-man international crew, consisting of three Russians, a Frenchman, an Italian/ Colombian and a Chinese citizen.[10] The stage included a simulation of a manned Mars landing, with three simulated Mars-walks carried out on 14, 18 and 22February 2011.[11][12] The experiment ended on 4 November 2011, with all the participants reportedly in optimal physical and psychological condition.[10]
In January 2013, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that four of the six crew members had considerable problems sleeping, and some avoided exercise and would hide away from the others, in behaviour compared to animal hibernation.[13]
Insomnia and exercise avoidance doesn't sound all that unsatisfactory. Though I don't think it's possible to truly simulate a mission to Mars here on Earth when the participants know that if things go very bad, they are just an escape hatch away from help. I think the only way to do a true simulation would be if the participants really thought that they were in a space capsule, which is pretty hard to do when gravity gives it away.
They had 6000 volunteers for the long mission - I suspect that an actual mission to mars will result in many more volunteers, despite the risks.
Build an automated city on Mars first. A habitat is needed so that people can land there and have something waiting. It would be even better if the automated city were busy harvesting water and splitting it into H2 and O2 for the return trip.
Before you do any of that, get international agreement that contamination of Mars is acceptable. Once humans land there, it's inevitable.
An "Apollo 8" for Mars just seems like a really bad idea.
Who's willing to pay for it? This guy is willing to fund a non-stop trip to mars and back, sounds like he just wants to see some man (and woman) reach mars before he dies.
If you want to fund an automated city on Mars, go for it - build a compelling case and shop the idea around to some billionaires and see if you can get it funded. That's probably easier than getting politicians to give NASA enough funds to do it.... or worse, trying to build an international coalition of national space agencies to do it.
IMHO, the tech for exploring Mars has to come from the mining industry. Yes. Mining. Start with ultra-automated mines on Earth. Then, Mars-adapt that technology and send it there. Ditto for construction. Come on miner/builder-bots guys, build us some Mars bots and get 'em on the job.
I don't know if you've seen earthbound ultra-automated mining but it's typically built of very heavy steel, not something you can easily get to Mars until asteroid mining is available (and this research is in-progress). Mines on earth of more interested in replacing human labor with machines so use big machines to process large quantities of materials.
The sleeping quarters are going to look like a Jackson Pollock under the blue lights! Seriously, how do you cum on someone's face in zero G? If I'm doing it "doggy" and pull out right before I fire my huge load like a rocket, will the force blow me into the wall and hurt my back? And I mean, seriously, unless there is some kind of environment vacuum system to suck all the cum and sweat and other liquids out of the room space, by a few months into this thing, the whole place will be filled with free-floating globs of cum and pussy juice. On second thought, I'M IN!
I don't know if you've spent much time with a girl, but after a few weeks of constant contact with no breaks and no showers, there's not going to be a whole lot of sex going on.
The ship comes back with an extra passenger or two..
I don't think any responsible parent would attempt to conceive a child in high-radiation conditions. They'll probably use implantable birth control to prevent any unwanted "accidents".
This is just a publicity stunt. How many rockets has Tito launched? How many manned orbits around the Earth have been completed by his "team"? If you try to fly with this clown, you will just get blowed up on the launch pad, or if it makes it out of the atmosphere it will loose navigation and you will drift until you die. What fun. If this was so easy to do, someone else would have done it by now.
I think that he'll have test fired some rockets (or buy them from someone who has). And it's not like navigation relies on a GPS sitting on the dashboard of the space craft - I'm sure NASA would even be happy to give some course correction help, they've got lots of real rocket scientists that will be watching the project closely if it ever takes off (pun intented).
Even if the mission goes 100% to plan, the cancer risk alone is probably a death sentence for the two passengers.
It's right there in the article:
The expected total radiation exposure is below NASA’s accepted lifetime limit for a middle-aged crew, Dr. Clark said. Clark expects that radiation exposure would result in a 3% excess cancer risk over the crew’s lifetime.
You may dispute the numbers (but I don't see how you could, given that the details of the spacecraft aren't known), but I think many people would be willing to take that risk - smokers probably face worse cancer odds than that.
Hardware encryption offers superior security to software encryption. That said it's not easy to generate entropy so if you do use software encryption you better have a source of entropy.
Hardware encryption is only superior if you (or someone you trust) can inspect the software.
For all you know, they use your passphrase to decrypt an hardcoded decryption key that's the same on all drives, so if you put your hard drive into someone else's enclosure, their passphrase will decrypt your data.
While I don't think they are doing anything so blatantly stupid, unless you can see the software, you don't know. A number of big-name "secure" USB drives had a big security flaw that was almost exactly like that.
Anologue is better than digital. Hardware is better than software. Also you have to read about and study the hardware fairly well before choosing the product. Those products you list all suck. The Aegis Padlock Pro does not have those problems by design.
But how do you know that? Were you sitting in on the design meetings?
For all you know, Aegis gave a list of back-door decryption keys to the Department of Homeland Security, just in case they need to access a terrorists drive. Maybe next year you'll be saying "Aegis products suck, their drives were full of back doors". Maybe Aegis is just a shell company run by the NSA to make people think that they are buying "secure" drives, but in actuality they are easily read by the government.
I have more faith in open source software because even though I'm not a security expert and can't validate the software myself, I trust that there's no global coalition of open source security software experts that are are all conspiring to steal my data - if there's a vulnerability in the code, it will be found and can't be kept secret.
Truecrypt is a software encryption implementation. Hardware encryption is superior to software encryption because at least with hardware encryption there is less room for error. Software usually has bugs, one bug in any implementation and its broken. Side channels also can defeat software trivially. Software also isn't usually good at generating entropy so you wont have a good source of that either. Unless you compiled it yourself you can't trust the person who compiled it or the compiler itself not to have a bug or backdoor.
Just because it looks like "hardware" doesn't mean that it's not software - I'm certain that this device isn't running on a hardwired FPGA, so it's running software. Why don't you trust software compiled by someone else, but you trust software hidden away in a hardware device that's been compiled by someone else?
The difference between hardware and software is that when the software embedded hardware is broken, it's not always possible to fix it - not all devices allow firmware updates.
You keep mentioning entropy as a big weakness of software, but there's no evidence that this device has a hardware random number generator (and why would it for an event that takes place maybe once in its lifetime), so it gets entropy the same way your computer does. By combining data from a number of "random" sources (hardware clock, timing hardware interrupts, etc).
Encryption software needs to be inspectable and verifiable in order to be trusted with anything worth protecting. Closed-source software burned into the firmware of a USB drive does not meet that requirement.
That said, somebody make a programmable USB drive with open source encryption that can be flashed to it (probably with a fused write protect) and *that* would be a compelling product.
Hardware encryption offers superior security to software encryption. That said it's not easy to generate entropy so if you do use software encryption you better have a source of entropy.
Hardware encryption is only superior if you (or someone you trust) can inspect the software.
For all you know, they use your passphrase to decrypt an hardcoded decryption key that's the same on all drives, so if you put your hard drive into someone else's enclosure, their passphrase will decrypt your data.
While I don't think they are doing anything so blatantly stupid, unless you can see the software, you don't know. A number of big-name "secure" USB drives had a big security flaw that was almost exactly like that.
Mobile providers will provide the TEXT (ie.low bandwidth) version of wikipedia free of charge, via a regular mobile data channel. They will not be providing Wikipedia via text message (SMS).
That would make more sense, but the Wikimedia blog also says SMS (and USSD, similar to SMS with a 183 character message limit):
Every modern Android based phone can run the Wikipedia app or any of the variants. Given that wireless access is needed to get the text message, I fail to see how that is an improvement over access to the actual pages and full content.
Are you trolling, or for real? Yes, "feature phones" are very popular in many parts of the world not everyone can afford a $600 (or even $100) Android phone.
This article is about large scale, municipal water purification. For portable/emergency water purification, see portable water purification. For industrial wate
Or, if they edit out the disambiguation preamble:
Water purification is the process of removing undesirable chemicals, biological contaminants, suspended solids and gases from contaminated water. The goal is to
Google figured out that a computer that runs only cloud based stuff isn't such a good idea. But, since Chrome OS doesn't have native apps, they had to hack those native apps into Chrome, where they run "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS. As a demonstration of how great this technology is, Google hacked an entire open source office suite into Chrome.
That certainly does explain why you'd want to buy a Chromebook that costs more than an ultrabook or an Air.
It almost sounds like Google wrote the summary... except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
Quickoffice isn't open source - it's a proprietary IOS and Android app... Google bought the company last year.
I'd be more impressed if they *did* port Openoffice/Libreoffice to Chrome.
You didn't RTFC. I didn't miss that part, I explicitly mentioned it. My question was fairly specific and was not answered in TFA. Thanks for proving the "33% of Slashdot responses are from dickheads" law, though.
So you understand the original problem, understand the weakness of an ASP having the same privileges as the 2-factor protected password, and you say it's working as designed and any fix would just be a "design improvement".
I think that's exactly what Google told the people that disclosed the bug 7 months ago, that everything was working according to design. A weakness is a weakness, even if it was designed that way, that doesn't mean it isn't a weakness or that it shouldn't be fixed.
I don't think you understand. How could Google identify one device from another?
By using the unique password to identify the device?
Presumably Google has a password hash stored somewhere that they use to authenticate the device. If it matches password hash 1, then it's your phone, if it matches password hash 2 then it's your tablet.
They could also use unique usernames, but that may be harder for the user. user+myphone@gmail.com for the user's phone, user+mytablet@gmail.com for the user's tablet. But some software will probably get confused and not understand that the authentication username is not the user's email address.
Since the regular password as been changed to require an additional two-factor password they of course had to come up with this ASP idea for services where you cannot provide a two factor authentication and of course these have to be more powerful than the password that you now changed into a two factor. How can this be a surprise at all?
Why does a device password have to be more powerful than my main two-factor protected password?
If my phone needs a device password to download email, why should that password also be able to change my password settings?
It would be a lot harder to hack in an entire autopilot/weapon deployment system for something which relies on humans than it would be to just use the existing framework which would exist for the drones. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be an order of magnitude more difficult because you're now doing something the original designers never intended.
The original designers never envisioned an autopilot on military aircraft? Autopilots are good enough now that they can even autoland on carriers.
And as I said to someone else here, what do you do when the enemy launches fighter jets against your now-autonomous drones? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use cruise missiles?
Tell the drones that it's ok to counterattack any aircraft that doesn't pass IFF verification? And tell your own forces that the drones are in offensive mode, so stay away.
Any kind of autonomous attack decision is abuseable in itsself for propaganda purposes. All the defender need do is place their radio jammer in a school. Signal out, drone jammed, counterattack launched, and by the next morning news channels around the world are running the story of how the US air force slaughtered hundreds of innocent children in a bungled attack.
If a pilot can recognize a school and avoid it, a drone can do the same thing.
But you DO need a 1000 foot 100k ton aircraft carrier to carry the nuclear power plant to run your magnetic rail guns.
An Ohio class nuclear sub is 500 feet long with a 16K ton displacement, so I don't think you need a 100K ton aircraft carrier to have nuclear power.
Besides, I don't think magnetic rail launchers would require nuclear power - you have a few minutes to charge the capacitors before launching the next plane. It's not a continuous fire machine gun. With 2 launchers, you'd have 4 minutes to charge each one while launching aircraft every 2 minutes.
a 1000 foot 100,000 ton aircraft carrier to service it.
That depends on how many drones you want...
Rather than having a few $15B aircraft carriers that carry a few hundred drones each, wouldn't they be better off with a couple dozen $1.5B carriers that carry 30 drones each? If you need more drones, send in more drone-carriers.
Slashdot Mirror
The F-22 hasn't been flown because we haven't been involved in a conflict where air superiority was a requirement of the mission. If/when that happens, like in a conflict with Russia, China, Iran, or...who knows, Germany could go all batshit crazy again and start invading other countries, the F-22 will be used.
As for the F-35, it's not flying combat sorties yet, because it's still in the testing phase. In another couple years, once it's ready, it will more than fulfill the roles it's intended to fulfill.
Of course it will -- because it's operating specs keep getting downgraded to match the capabilities of the plane. When the specs get reduced to "Must park on runway with its nose pointed in the general direction of the enemy", then it will be in full compliance with its required specs.
If the current operating specs were put out to bid today, what would the proposals look like?
Amazing you havent learnt the strange habit of waking up 2 minutes before the alarm is due to go off , simply so you can turn it off before it rudely shocks you awake?
The dog usually wakes me up a few minutes before the alarm goes off (not on purpose of course, she's just poking me in the face with her cold nose to see if maybe I'm already awake), but whether you wake up before the alarm or not, you still have to turn it off. And it's easier to turn it off while the alarm is sounding since the "Off" button is right on the screen - no need to unlock it and then navigate to the alarm app.
If your alarm is shocking you awake, you should try a different alert tone, mine starts softly and gradually gets louder so I can turn it off before it wakes my wife. I haven't been shocked awake by an alarm for at least a decade when I got a Sony Dream Machine alarm clock that gradually increases the volume of the alarm.
Touching an inanimate object made of glass and plastic each morning and night is nothing new -- well before the days of smart phones (or even cell phones at all), I used to have a manual alarm clock that I'd have to set each night and turn off each morning. So this "strange intimacy" with our gadgets has been going on for 50 years or more.
Since it was a 12 hour clock, it wasn't possible to reset the alarm when it went off at 7am in the morning or else it would go off again at 7pm, so one had to set it each night.
Now my smartphone is my alarm, and it's better in that I don't have to set it at night, but it's still the first thing I touch in the morning since I have to stop the alarm.
There is very little to learn. We already had ground simulations of the flight, and they were generally unsatisfactory. Humans cannot sit in a tin can for two years and retain sanity. That alone overwhelms all the other issues, of which there are many
Russia, the EU and China conducted a joint simulation with mission lengths of 15, 105 and 520 day durations. After the 520 day mission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500#Experiment_stages
The 520-day final stage of the experiment, which was intended to simulate a full-length manned mission, began in 3 June 2010 and ended on 4 November 2011.[8][9][10] This stage was conducted by a six-man international crew, consisting of three Russians, a Frenchman, an Italian/ Colombian and a Chinese citizen.[10] The stage included a simulation of a manned Mars landing, with three simulated Mars-walks carried out on 14, 18 and 22February 2011.[11][12] The experiment ended on 4 November 2011, with all the participants reportedly in optimal physical and psychological condition.[10]
In January 2013, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that four of the six crew members had considerable problems sleeping, and some avoided exercise and would hide away from the others, in behaviour compared to animal hibernation.[13]
Insomnia and exercise avoidance doesn't sound all that unsatisfactory. Though I don't think it's possible to truly simulate a mission to Mars here on Earth when the participants know that if things go very bad, they are just an escape hatch away from help. I think the only way to do a true simulation would be if the participants really thought that they were in a space capsule, which is pretty hard to do when gravity gives it away.
They had 6000 volunteers for the long mission - I suspect that an actual mission to mars will result in many more volunteers, despite the risks.
Build an automated city on Mars first. A habitat is needed so that people can land there and have something waiting. It would be even better if the automated city were busy harvesting water and splitting it into H2 and O2 for the return trip.
Before you do any of that, get international agreement that contamination of Mars is acceptable. Once humans land there, it's inevitable.
An "Apollo 8" for Mars just seems like a really bad idea.
Who's willing to pay for it? This guy is willing to fund a non-stop trip to mars and back, sounds like he just wants to see some man (and woman) reach mars before he dies.
If you want to fund an automated city on Mars, go for it - build a compelling case and shop the idea around to some billionaires and see if you can get it funded. That's probably easier than getting politicians to give NASA enough funds to do it.... or worse, trying to build an international coalition of national space agencies to do it.
IMHO, the tech for exploring Mars has to come from the mining industry. Yes. Mining. Start with ultra-automated mines on Earth. Then, Mars-adapt that technology and send it there. Ditto for construction. Come on miner/builder-bots guys, build us some Mars bots and get 'em on the job.
I don't know if you've seen earthbound ultra-automated mining but it's typically built of very heavy steel, not something you can easily get to Mars until asteroid mining is available (and this research is in-progress). Mines on earth of more interested in replacing human labor with machines so use big machines to process large quantities of materials.
The sleeping quarters are going to look like a Jackson Pollock under the blue lights! Seriously, how do you cum on someone's face in zero G? If I'm doing it "doggy" and pull out right before I fire my huge load like a rocket, will the force blow me into the wall and hurt my back? And I mean, seriously, unless there is some kind of environment vacuum system to suck all the cum and sweat and other liquids out of the room space, by a few months into this thing, the whole place will be filled with free-floating globs of cum and pussy juice. On second thought, I'M IN!
I don't know if you've spent much time with a girl, but after a few weeks of constant contact with no breaks and no showers, there's not going to be a whole lot of sex going on.
The ship comes back with an extra passenger or two..
I don't think any responsible parent would attempt to conceive a child in high-radiation conditions. They'll probably use implantable birth control to prevent any unwanted "accidents".
This is just a publicity stunt. How many rockets has Tito launched? How many manned orbits around the Earth have been completed by his "team"? If you try to fly with this clown, you will just get blowed up on the launch pad, or if it makes it out of the atmosphere it will loose navigation and you will drift until you die. What fun. If this was so easy to do, someone else would have done it by now.
I think that he'll have test fired some rockets (or buy them from someone who has). And it's not like navigation relies on a GPS sitting on the dashboard of the space craft - I'm sure NASA would even be happy to give some course correction help, they've got lots of real rocket scientists that will be watching the project closely if it ever takes off (pun intented).
Even if the mission goes 100% to plan, the cancer risk alone is probably a death sentence for the two passengers.
It's right there in the article:
The expected total radiation exposure is below NASA’s accepted lifetime limit for a middle-aged crew, Dr. Clark said. Clark expects that radiation exposure would result in a 3% excess cancer risk over the crew’s lifetime.
You may dispute the numbers (but I don't see how you could, given that the details of the spacecraft aren't known), but I think many people would be willing to take that risk - smokers probably face worse cancer odds than that.
Hardware encryption offers superior security to software encryption. That said it's not easy to generate entropy so if you do use software encryption you better have a source of entropy.
Hardware encryption is only superior if you (or someone you trust) can inspect the software.
For all you know, they use your passphrase to decrypt an hardcoded decryption key that's the same on all drives, so if you put your hard drive into someone else's enclosure, their passphrase will decrypt your data.
While I don't think they are doing anything so blatantly stupid, unless you can see the software, you don't know. A number of big-name "secure" USB drives had a big security flaw that was almost exactly like that.
Anologue is better than digital. Hardware is better than software. Also you have to read about and study the hardware fairly well before choosing the product. Those products you list all suck. The Aegis Padlock Pro does not have those problems by design.
But how do you know that? Were you sitting in on the design meetings?
For all you know, Aegis gave a list of back-door decryption keys to the Department of Homeland Security, just in case they need to access a terrorists drive. Maybe next year you'll be saying "Aegis products suck, their drives were full of back doors". Maybe Aegis is just a shell company run by the NSA to make people think that they are buying "secure" drives, but in actuality they are easily read by the government.
I have more faith in open source software because even though I'm not a security expert and can't validate the software myself, I trust that there's no global coalition of open source security software experts that are are all conspiring to steal my data - if there's a vulnerability in the code, it will be found and can't be kept secret.
Truecrypt is a software encryption implementation. Hardware encryption is superior to software encryption because at least with hardware encryption there is less room for error. Software usually has bugs, one bug in any implementation and its broken. Side channels also can defeat software trivially. Software also isn't usually good at generating entropy so you wont have a good source of that either. Unless you compiled it yourself you can't trust the person who compiled it or the compiler itself not to have a bug or backdoor.
Just because it looks like "hardware" doesn't mean that it's not software - I'm certain that this device isn't running on a hardwired FPGA, so it's running software. Why don't you trust software compiled by someone else, but you trust software hidden away in a hardware device that's been compiled by someone else?
The difference between hardware and software is that when the software embedded hardware is broken, it's not always possible to fix it - not all devices allow firmware updates.
You keep mentioning entropy as a big weakness of software, but there's no evidence that this device has a hardware random number generator (and why would it for an event that takes place maybe once in its lifetime), so it gets entropy the same way your computer does. By combining data from a number of "random" sources (hardware clock, timing hardware interrupts, etc).
Encryption software needs to be inspectable and verifiable in order to be trusted with anything worth protecting. Closed-source software burned into the firmware of a USB drive does not meet that requirement.
That said, somebody make a programmable USB drive with open source encryption that can be flashed to it (probably with a fused write protect) and *that* would be a compelling product.
Hardware encryption offers superior security to software encryption. That said it's not easy to generate entropy so if you do use software encryption you better have a source of entropy.
Hardware encryption is only superior if you (or someone you trust) can inspect the software.
For all you know, they use your passphrase to decrypt an hardcoded decryption key that's the same on all drives, so if you put your hard drive into someone else's enclosure, their passphrase will decrypt your data.
While I don't think they are doing anything so blatantly stupid, unless you can see the software, you don't know. A number of big-name "secure" USB drives had a big security flaw that was almost exactly like that.
Mobile providers will provide the TEXT (ie.low bandwidth) version of wikipedia free of charge, via a regular mobile data channel. They will not be providing Wikipedia via text message (SMS).
That would make more sense, but the Wikimedia blog also says SMS (and USSD, similar to SMS with a 183 character message limit):
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/02/22/getting-wikipedia-to-the-people-who-need-it-most/
...pioneering a program to give mobile users USSD & SMS access to Wikipedia.
Every modern Android based phone can run the Wikipedia app or any of the variants. Given that wireless access is needed to get the text message, I fail to see how that is an improvement over access to the actual pages and full content.
Are you trolling, or for real? Yes, "feature phones" are very popular in many parts of the world not everyone can afford a $600 (or even $100) Android phone.
SMS is the most expensive way to send data to mobiles by orders of magnitude. Not sure this solves much of a problem.
Maybe to the end user, but I thought SMS was essentially free to the carrier since they piggyback in control packets that would be sent anyway.
Sounds useful:
SMS to Wikipedia: "water purification"
This article is about large scale, municipal water purification. For portable/emergency water purification, see portable water purification. For industrial wate
Or, if they edit out the disambiguation preamble:
Water purification is the process of removing undesirable chemicals, biological contaminants, suspended solids and gases from contaminated water. The goal is to
Google figured out that a computer that runs only cloud based stuff isn't such a good idea. But, since Chrome OS doesn't have native apps, they had to hack those native apps into Chrome, where they run "almost as fast" as they would if they were proper applications under a real OS. As a demonstration of how great this technology is, Google hacked an entire open source office suite into Chrome.
That certainly does explain why you'd want to buy a Chromebook that costs more than an ultrabook or an Air.
It almost sounds like Google wrote the summary... except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.
Quickoffice isn't open source - it's a proprietary IOS and Android app... Google bought the company last year.
I'd be more impressed if they *did* port Openoffice/Libreoffice to Chrome.
You didn't RTFC. I didn't miss that part, I explicitly mentioned it. My question was fairly specific and was not answered in TFA. Thanks for proving the "33% of Slashdot responses are from dickheads" law, though.
So you understand the original problem, understand the weakness of an ASP having the same privileges as the 2-factor protected password, and you say it's working as designed and any fix would just be a "design improvement".
I think that's exactly what Google told the people that disclosed the bug 7 months ago, that everything was working according to design. A weakness is a weakness, even if it was designed that way, that doesn't mean it isn't a weakness or that it shouldn't be fixed.
I don't think you understand. How could Google identify one device from another?
By using the unique password to identify the device?
Presumably Google has a password hash stored somewhere that they use to authenticate the device. If it matches password hash 1, then it's your phone, if it matches password hash 2 then it's your tablet.
They could also use unique usernames, but that may be harder for the user. user+myphone@gmail.com for the user's phone, user+mytablet@gmail.com for the user's tablet. But some software will probably get confused and not understand that the authentication username is not the user's email address.
Since the regular password as been changed to require an additional two-factor password they of course had to come up with this ASP idea for services where you cannot provide a two factor authentication and of course these have to be more powerful than the password that you now changed into a two factor. How can this be a surprise at all?
Why does a device password have to be more powerful than my main two-factor protected password?
If my phone needs a device password to download email, why should that password also be able to change my password settings?
It would be a lot harder to hack in an entire autopilot/weapon deployment system for something which relies on humans than it would be to just use the existing framework which would exist for the drones. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be an order of magnitude more difficult because you're now doing something the original designers never intended.
The original designers never envisioned an autopilot on military aircraft? Autopilots are good enough now that they can even autoland on carriers.
And as I said to someone else here, what do you do when the enemy launches fighter jets against your now-autonomous drones? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use cruise missiles?
Tell the drones that it's ok to counterattack any aircraft that doesn't pass IFF verification? And tell your own forces that the drones are in offensive mode, so stay away.
Any kind of autonomous attack decision is abuseable in itsself for propaganda purposes. All the defender need do is place their radio jammer in a school. Signal out, drone jammed, counterattack launched, and by the next morning news channels around the world are running the story of how the US air force slaughtered hundreds of innocent children in a bungled attack.
If a pilot can recognize a school and avoid it, a drone can do the same thing.
But you DO need a 1000 foot 100k ton aircraft carrier to carry the nuclear power plant to run your magnetic rail guns.
An Ohio class nuclear sub is 500 feet long with a 16K ton displacement, so I don't think you need a 100K ton aircraft carrier to have nuclear power.
Besides, I don't think magnetic rail launchers would require nuclear power - you have a few minutes to charge the capacitors before launching the next plane. It's not a continuous fire machine gun. With 2 launchers, you'd have 4 minutes to charge each one while launching aircraft every 2 minutes.
a 1000 foot 100,000 ton aircraft carrier to service it.
That depends on how many drones you want...
Rather than having a few $15B aircraft carriers that carry a few hundred drones each, wouldn't they be better off with a couple dozen $1.5B carriers that carry 30 drones each? If you need more drones, send in more drone-carriers.