Assuming it even has any real "secrets". According to Wikipedia's article on the RQ-170:
Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided 'highly sensitive technologies' due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology.
(quote was from well before this loss, BTW). Most of the tech Iran doesn't have is likely to be in the electronics, and those are not easy to reverse engineer (things like the AESA radar system). China and Russia already have most of those. They might wanna take a look just for any new ideas or design differences, but it's not like these things are F-22s or anything.
Yes, it is supposed to make you feel better. The US military is forbidden from acting on US soil, and had it been owned by them, this would have been clearly illegal and a violation of US law. As it is, the drone was used after armed men chased a sheriff who was serving a legally-issue warrant away. Violation of rights: hells no, not in THIS case (they could have used a helo to do the same thing. Only reason this is a story is "oh noes, the drones!"). Could it become one? Sure.
Profit is inherent in the concept of trade. Two people agree to an exchange because both value what they receive more than what they had. In a very real way, a fair trade involves both parties profiting. In different ways, true, but profit nevertheless. This drives trade, and has for thousands of years. For producers, they generally receive the profit as money. Intel is a producer.
If this fact did not hold, trade would not create profit, there would be no incentive to trade or produce, and the entire system of production would collapse. Incidentally, this is also why Marxist Communism doesn't work... or one reason, anyways.
If we exist in a police state, jury nullification will do nothing whatsoever, as if it works then it isn't a a police state. If it doesn't work, then it is a police state... but again, nothing happens. Jury nullification is only good for overturning specific unjust laws, not for reversing the course of the entire nation.
Not too surprising. The IRS just takes our money. I can respect that, to a degree. Congress not only takes it, they also spend it, and then tell us how we can and cannot spend whatever is left over. And then they form the TSA to molest us and take naked pictures of us in airports.
Well, considering the quality of most off-the-shelf stuff, yeah, I kinda do (/jk... mostly)
However, my point was if a hacker in his mother's basement can get a mostly working version together, the actual manufacturers of the phone who knows it in intimate detail and have absolutely every last specification and driver for it (and source), and probably have access to early preview copies of ICS in many cases, should have no trouble in making a "perfectly" working version in nearly the same timeframe. Not 6 months later, as often happens.
Of course, then people might have less incentive to buy the *new* device that does have the latest and greatest, but maybe I'm just being cynical.
This is true. OEM's also have considerably more and (presumably) more knowledgeable people working on the problem. My point was, if hackers on the Internet can get it working, paid software engineers should be able to get it working well. Maybe my expectations are just too high though.
Oh, and OEM ROMs often contain bugs that it should be unacceptable for an OEM to release... but still, fair point.
And yet, custom ROM makers already have (mostly) working Android 4.0 firmware for several devices. What you say is true, to some extent, but in reality it shouldn't take nearly as long for them to get the upgrade working as it does. Also, many devices use the same hardware (partially), so it's not like common drivers don't exist in the majority of cases.
On the other hand, almost anyone can say something if given enough words. The ability to be pithy is highly valued, historically and in today's society. How many famous quotes do you know or have often heard that are much longer than a tweet?
Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.
The area wiped out by the Banqiao Dam accident was ~ 34 by 9.3 miles (over 300 sq miles), and created temporary lakes as large as 4,600 square miles, flooding thousands more. It would be easier to have a 100 sq mile safety zone around a nuclear plant, then to have no dwellings down-river from a dam. Especially since dams need to be built in specific areas. Nuclear plants have certain requirements too (water for cooling, for example) but are much more flexible where they can be built.
Cleanup is easier, true. You even have a nice flattened surface to rebuild on.
I think you might have misread what I said. What I meant was that they have the constitutional power to enforce copyright. They do not have the power to do so in a way that violates other parts of the constitution. I do not have enough information to say whether this case was unconstitutional enforcement or not, and don't have the inclination to bother researching it further.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Posted in reply to another comment, but it bears repeating. Again, they appear to have been wrong about copyright being infringed in this case, but they DO have the power to enforce it. Right there, in the main body of the US Constitution. Article I, section 8 if interested.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Oh hey look at that.
I have read the Constitution, TYVM. Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.
This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.
You mean like hydroelectric? (171,000 people dead from one accident, if you didn't click the link. I believe that is at least one order of magnitude more than have died, in totum, from nuclear accidents.) Other hydroelectric dams could kill at least that many again if they fail. Hydro failures are generally even more catastrophic than even the worst nuclear disasters have ever been. They also produce far more power than other renewable sources.
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
My recollection is that it was only the video feed returned from the drone that was unencrypted. The control signals sent to the aircraft were still encrypted. Even signal jamming is apparently a difficult way to disable the drone because it has a degree of autonomy.
This was my recollection too. I believe it was because the video signal was designed to be able to be seen by troops on the ground in the proximity of the drone, whereas the actual control is done from somewhere in Colorado (or similar). Obviously still should be encrypted, but makes a lot more sense when you realize inter-compatibility was the reason (again, not positive, but that was my recollection).
In this case, most likely the drone failed as the US says. I say that because Iran first claimed they "shot it down", then claimed they "overrode the signal" once it was found undamaged. They might have jammed the signal, but it seems far more likely that they are just utilizing a lucky situation for a PR boost.
Slashdot Mirror
Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided 'highly sensitive technologies' due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology.
(quote was from well before this loss, BTW). Most of the tech Iran doesn't have is likely to be in the electronics, and those are not easy to reverse engineer (things like the AESA radar system). China and Russia already have most of those. They might wanna take a look just for any new ideas or design differences, but it's not like these things are F-22s or anything.
Yes, it is supposed to make you feel better. The US military is forbidden from acting on US soil, and had it been owned by them, this would have been clearly illegal and a violation of US law. As it is, the drone was used after armed men chased a sheriff who was serving a legally-issue warrant away. Violation of rights: hells no, not in THIS case (they could have used a helo to do the same thing. Only reason this is a story is "oh noes, the drones!"). Could it become one? Sure.
Profit is inherent in the concept of trade. Two people agree to an exchange because both value what they receive more than what they had. In a very real way, a fair trade involves both parties profiting. In different ways, true, but profit nevertheless. This drives trade, and has for thousands of years. For producers, they generally receive the profit as money. Intel is a producer.
If this fact did not hold, trade would not create profit, there would be no incentive to trade or produce, and the entire system of production would collapse. Incidentally, this is also why Marxist Communism doesn't work... or one reason, anyways.
Yep... if the grinch had nuclear weapons and was bat-shit insane.
Yes, but only if you reverse the polarity first.
Look in the mirror., across the table at dinner or a business meeting.
I don't think that would help...
Only a "problem" depending on whose perspective you are looking at.
If we exist in a police state, jury nullification will do nothing whatsoever, as if it works then it isn't a a police state. If it doesn't work, then it is a police state... but again, nothing happens. Jury nullification is only good for overturning specific unjust laws, not for reversing the course of the entire nation.
...a pet rock will only sexually assault you if you want it to.
Huh. I must be buying the wrong kind of pet rocks.
Not too surprising. The IRS just takes our money. I can respect that, to a degree. Congress not only takes it, they also spend it, and then tell us how we can and cannot spend whatever is left over. And then they form the TSA to molest us and take naked pictures of us in airports.
Well, considering the quality of most off-the-shelf stuff, yeah, I kinda do (/jk... mostly)
However, my point was if a hacker in his mother's basement can get a mostly working version together, the actual manufacturers of the phone who knows it in intimate detail and have absolutely every last specification and driver for it (and source), and probably have access to early preview copies of ICS in many cases, should have no trouble in making a "perfectly" working version in nearly the same timeframe. Not 6 months later, as often happens.
Of course, then people might have less incentive to buy the *new* device that does have the latest and greatest, but maybe I'm just being cynical.
"Three"? Wow, didn't know NASA interns were that kinky...
This is true. OEM's also have considerably more and (presumably) more knowledgeable people working on the problem. My point was, if hackers on the Internet can get it working, paid software engineers should be able to get it working well. Maybe my expectations are just too high though.
Oh, and OEM ROMs often contain bugs that it should be unacceptable for an OEM to release... but still, fair point.
And yet, custom ROM makers already have (mostly) working Android 4.0 firmware for several devices. What you say is true, to some extent, but in reality it shouldn't take nearly as long for them to get the upgrade working as it does. Also, many devices use the same hardware (partially), so it's not like common drivers don't exist in the majority of cases.
On the other hand, almost anyone can say something if given enough words. The ability to be pithy is highly valued, historically and in today's society. How many famous quotes do you know or have often heard that are much longer than a tweet?
Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.
"Yet" being the key word.
The area wiped out by the Banqiao Dam accident was ~ 34 by 9.3 miles (over 300 sq miles), and created temporary lakes as large as 4,600 square miles, flooding thousands more. It would be easier to have a 100 sq mile safety zone around a nuclear plant, then to have no dwellings down-river from a dam. Especially since dams need to be built in specific areas. Nuclear plants have certain requirements too (water for cooling, for example) but are much more flexible where they can be built.
Cleanup is easier, true. You even have a nice flattened surface to rebuild on.
I think you might have misread what I said. What I meant was that they have the constitutional power to enforce copyright. They do not have the power to do so in a way that violates other parts of the constitution. I do not have enough information to say whether this case was unconstitutional enforcement or not, and don't have the inclination to bother researching it further.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Posted in reply to another comment, but it bears repeating. Again, they appear to have been wrong about copyright being infringed in this case, but they DO have the power to enforce it. Right there, in the main body of the US Constitution. Article I, section 8 if interested.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Oh hey look at that.
I have read the Constitution, TYVM. Again, they may have been wrong in this case about copyright being infringed, but they do have that power.
This is why nuclear is a bad option. It's ridiculously expensive because of the risks, massive redundancy needed and of course spent fuel storage for centuries. It will be necessary for another 50-100 years unfortunately but we'll get off it as renewable sources and battery tech gets better. They simply don't have the risks that nuclear will always have.
You mean like hydroelectric? (171,000 people dead from one accident, if you didn't click the link. I believe that is at least one order of magnitude more than have died, in totum, from nuclear accidents.) Other hydroelectric dams could kill at least that many again if they fail. Hydro failures are generally even more catastrophic than even the worst nuclear disasters have ever been. They also produce far more power than other renewable sources.
I have a civil right to an Internet domain? Don't remember that from the Constitution...
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
Captured US Drone Destroyed By US Drone Strike in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Breaking News: Iran now in possession of two US drones, a spy drone and a predator drone...
Good luck capturing the cruise missile that comes next...
My recollection is that it was only the video feed returned from the drone that was unencrypted. The control signals sent to the aircraft were still encrypted. Even signal jamming is apparently a difficult way to disable the drone because it has a degree of autonomy.
This was my recollection too. I believe it was because the video signal was designed to be able to be seen by troops on the ground in the proximity of the drone, whereas the actual control is done from somewhere in Colorado (or similar). Obviously still should be encrypted, but makes a lot more sense when you realize inter-compatibility was the reason (again, not positive, but that was my recollection).
In this case, most likely the drone failed as the US says. I say that because Iran first claimed they "shot it down", then claimed they "overrode the signal" once it was found undamaged. They might have jammed the signal, but it seems far more likely that they are just utilizing a lucky situation for a PR boost.
And, apparently, managed to get some cushions in place to prevent any landing damage.
Though there were a few places on the wing where the plaster^h^h metal was dinged.