This is the point. Making big curved mirrors is expensive, so they use lots of straight pieces of glass to make a nice downwards focussing concave effect. So you take a new building with refelctive film on the windows, and you have a pretty good concentrator. Luckily not a very good one because there is a structure in Spain that gets to 4 figure temperatures.
The idea is automatic convoying. It is very unlikely that the car in front of you comes to a dead halt. The issue is that you do not know what is happening in front of that car. People are studying the idea that the leading car will relay information to the trailing cars so that the instant it begins to brake, so do all other cars in the virtual convoy. Such systems can also allow for all kinds of interactions, so a car on the nearside lane on a two lane road can be permitted to pull out to overtake by adjusting the speed of the trailing cars to make a gap and maintain separation.
One of the biggest issues is good intervehicle communications which also means that they cannot send misleading information that could lead to crashes.
Alexander needs to go, yesterday. He's more inept than Ballmer.
No serving general should ever be given so much power over a civilian agency and the population as a whole. Soldiers are very good at military campaigns but they are not so good at managing by consent and they are used to protecting the state and projecting its will. To work effectively, a general has to stop being a general outside the military, especially when turning their agency against civilians. Instead, the better model is that of "policeman", to serve the people over the state.
The method posted requires, access to the car interior to get at the OBD2 port. Hopefully you would have set off the ultrasonic alarm before then.
The device shown is way overpriced, essentially you just need a custom OBD2 device. Just a bit of googling and I managed to find one for a fraction of the price.
I think these guys are able to breakin without access to the OBD2 port, probably by interception of the RFID signals.
For hardware I started with an 11/40, and then went through the range down and up. I got used to pulling and shuffling cards and even removing the wire-wrapped NPR jumper but the software was fun. For the software , we started with a monstrosity called DOS/BATCH, I went on to RSX-11M, RSX-11S (a paired down version of 11M for hard realtime), RT-11 and RSTS/E and ended up on RSX-11M-plus. The latter was a really cool multiprocessing capable O/S. The best thing is that for M and M-plus, they had to give you the kernel source so you could configure it (which was down to conditional assembly and lots of macros).
I was writing drivers and having fun. MACRO-11 was great. I used a heavily modded set of macros to provide a C like structure called SMAC and was using home-brewed structured exception handling by burying stuff in the stack frame, a bit like a VAX does. This gave me the ability to unwind quite gracefully. At one stage I managed to get hold of a copy of Unix, but we were commercial and it was hideously expensive at the time so couldn't use it for anything. The point being that a PDP-11 with EIS/CIS had a really nice instruction set and was easy to hold in the mind so I am fairly certain that a competent assembler programmer could write better code than most of the compilers. The instruction set was truly orthogonal so that all addressing modes worked whether it was real memory or registers.
The original PDP-11 standard Fortran would churn out pseudo code. This would be a list of addresses into the library with a link via R4, something like jmp @(r4)+. This was slow but actually quite elegant (easy to switch amongst the innumerable hardware variants via choice of library), but it was hard work to link because the entire program was external references. F4P cost a relative fortune though and I didn't get to use it until a time working at Digital.
I have passed long days in electromagnetic testing room, and I can say that you will be surprised by what can happens with complex and highly programmable electronics !
I had to work on a navigation system some years back, I didn't have to spend time in the "bubble" but colleagues did. We certainly did have people who were very aware of RF design and cross talk issues as we had a TEMPEST rated room as they had also been working on secure digital comms.
Your "demonstration" prove that a software modification can open up the frequency range.
True, but it is hard as the radio in a phone tends not to be open software. A USRP would be much better but then you need amplification and power. You are inside a metal tube and you need to get inside an antenna on the outside which is designed to go off when it receives a burst from a 50KW radar. The transponder squirts data back using something like 20w or so. It would be hard to overwhelm that from inside the plane. I would agree that if you hold up to a window, you could get some power outside (a phone does work on a plane on the ground up to a certain height, it is just a weak signal).
Inside the plane, RF goes by coax. Data goes by different means, usually twisted pair. Either way, the data wiring goes from the front-end in the cockpit to the avionics bay which is located underneath the cockpit (so no long cable runs). The FMS does not fly the plane (it acts more as a top-level monitoring system), there are other computers that worry about that.
If you have read the publication subject of this article, you will see that aircraft manufacturers have actually not worried at all about vulnerability.
Please remember that planes ship with standard flight control systems only. Cockpits and avionics are selected by airlines based on different options. It would be quite hard to try out every variant. However flight test has a big increase in general RF "crud" in the fuselage as you have multiple high performance logging and telemeter systems with cabling all over the place.
In the end, it seems that if you want to cause chaos, just get an airband radio and claim to be Frankfurt Radar or something.
It seems that the aircraft industry is about as security conscious as the car industry.
Not really.
Aircraft typically carry different ways of getting the same vital information, passenger aircraft must do so. Equipment in former times was very unreliable, so essentially the plane must carry two (or more) of everything. Critical components, may have the "A" and "B" computers programmed by different teams or even using different architectures. They also carry a human, who may notice if their are strange instruments.
Drones are a different matter and do seem to be spoofable.
Except that TIS-B is not wired into TCAS at the moment. In fact, I have not heard of any use of ADS-B for air to air, just air to ground. Separations are controlled via time slots outside controlled air space and inside controlled airspace, by ground controller using good old fashioned PPI displays. Yes, those displays are "enhanced" by information from ADS-B but many smaller or older aircraft don't have it.
A good demonstration of this was the issue about Nexus 4s being able by accident, to transmit a little bit on LTE (only one frequency) and only because the LTE frequencies were enabled by accident in the software. Unless there are antennas designed, the signal would be weak as hell even if you can get it out of the phone. Then you have to get the signal out of the fuselage which is normally working, more or less, as a Faraday cage to an antenna pointing at the ground or a satellite. The vulnerability that worries aircraft manufacturers (about mobile phone use) is the fact that ageing RF cabling and connectors may have faulty shielding.
Yes, the antennas are fixed but the ILS can be tweaked and often had to be (worked a long time ago at a place that built ILS equipment). They are supposed to be self maintaining using ground mounted calibration antennas but every so often an aircraft has to check the slope out by probing the ILS envelope (flying deliberately off the glide path) under VFR conditions. However, on top of the glide slope, there are radar altimeters (on the plane) and marker beacons (on the ground).
They get their power from France (Mostly nuclear) and Switzerland (lots of Hydroelectric). When the LHC is running, it can take the same sort of power as the whole of Geneva. I am not sure how they procure their power, but given the mild winter, power has been a lot cheaper than expected unfortunately the decision to extend the run was made some months ago and they may already have locked in the price.
A big collider takes a lot of money and politicking to get started. It is a massive engineering project (the LHC was lucky, the detector chambers were new but the ring was inherited from the LEP). The CERN people already talk about what is next because they know they must start thinking now.
As for cosmic rays, yes they are incredibly powerful but undirected. You can't guarantee that the interesting particles will come into your detector any anyway, you normally end up with secondary collisions at best as the interesting particles interact at higher altitudes. Yes, you could fly a big detector, but they are extremely big and heavy,
I was involved in establishing one of the first major Electronic Markets in Germany. The country was quite decentralised with regional financial centres so we made sure that everyone communicated with the exchange (situated in Frankfurt) at the same speed. We even had line simulators to ensure that users in Frankfurt saw similar response times to users in Hamburg.
Now exchanges are more or less forced to join the race for the bottom by offering co-lo services (rackspace in the Exchange) where you are just a LAN switch away from theeExchange infrastructure. If you don't support that, the alleged "liquidity" moves to another exchange. Inside the machines, the algorithms are now run on the graphics cards (cheap multiprocessing) so they can run evven faster. Others use custom signal processing hardware.
Users actually issuing buy or sell orders to hold are never that close, the decision making happens within the institution not in the Exchange building. The "algo" machines just act as a man in the mmiddle driving prices to their advantage. Also, the algo traders are imposing a massive load on the order book and matching code within the exchange's systems. generally speaking the systems were chosen for reliability rather than pure speed.
The UK uses paper and pencil. Candidates may personally supervise counting or their agents can. Funnily enough, the Federal Republic of Germany (pop about 80m) does fine with paper and pencil and usually, there is a single, transferable vote type system so more complicated as you have take into account people's secondary choices.
Funnily enough, Nokia Maps on the better S60 feature phones was very good, performing much better than much of the competition, particularly if you had the content installed locally.
It wasn't the board, it was some US based institutional investors who also saw an ailing MSFT (WP had little interest from platform builders and as for the rest, they were hardly high-growth now) and thought they could put the two together. If major shareholders tell you that they are unhappy, your board tends to listen. The issue is that Nokia had never bothered that much with the US market. They had some stuff there, but mostly they were selling to the rest of the world. Nokia was having major issues with their MeeGo project, but their dumb and feature phones were still selling. Yes, smartphones were a weak point but were less of a problem than the R&D costs. They even had the high-end sorted with the Vertu brand (now sold off). Their US funders didn't really get it.
At the time, I would have said, persist with MeeGo at a lower staffing level but roll out an Android phone. People may complain that the market was crowded, but Nokia had a very good hardware rep, both on the RF modules and overall quality.
Now, it would be more difficult and it all comes back to the investors. Who now would want Nokia as anything other than a long-term gamble? There is that spin-off that is trying to launch a MeeGo phone. If they become successful, then of course, bring them back into the Nokia fold, but that would still need some serious strong-arming of their investors.
DSLR Controller does a lot of this already for an Android phone or tablet plugged in via USB to a Canon EOS Camera. Canon do have a WiFi attachment which serves the pictures as files (I guess, like Nikon) but at $1K+, it is far from cheap.
This is the SVR not the FSB. The SVR is the main organisation doing extra-territorial activities while the FSB is domestic only. The two organisations retain connections but are under different management.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the point. Making big curved mirrors is expensive, so they use lots of straight pieces of glass to make a nice downwards focussing concave effect. So you take a new building with refelctive film on the windows, and you have a pretty good concentrator. Luckily not a very good one because there is a structure in Spain that gets to 4 figure temperatures.
The idea is automatic convoying. It is very unlikely that the car in front of you comes to a dead halt. The issue is that you do not know what is happening in front of that car. People are studying the idea that the leading car will relay information to the trailing cars so that the instant it begins to brake, so do all other cars in the virtual convoy. Such systems can also allow for all kinds of interactions, so a car on the nearside lane on a two lane road can be permitted to pull out to overtake by adjusting the speed of the trailing cars to make a gap and maintain separation.
One of the biggest issues is good intervehicle communications which also means that they cannot send misleading information that could lead to crashes.
No serving general should ever be given so much power over a civilian agency and the population as a whole. Soldiers are very good at military campaigns but they are not so good at managing by consent and they are used to protecting the state and projecting its will. To work effectively, a general has to stop being a general outside the military, especially when turning their agency against civilians. Instead, the better model is that of "policeman", to serve the people over the state.
The method posted requires, access to the car interior to get at the OBD2 port. Hopefully you would have set off the ultrasonic alarm before then.
The device shown is way overpriced, essentially you just need a custom OBD2 device. Just a bit of googling and I managed to find one for a fraction of the price.
I think these guys are able to breakin without access to the OBD2 port, probably by interception of the RFID signals.
For hardware I started with an 11/40, and then went through the range down and up. I got used to pulling and shuffling cards and even removing the wire-wrapped NPR jumper but the software was fun. For the software , we started with a monstrosity called DOS/BATCH, I went on to RSX-11M, RSX-11S (a paired down version of 11M for hard realtime), RT-11 and RSTS/E and ended up on RSX-11M-plus. The latter was a really cool multiprocessing capable O/S. The best thing is that for M and M-plus, they had to give you the kernel source so you could configure it (which was down to conditional assembly and lots of macros).
I was writing drivers and having fun. MACRO-11 was great. I used a heavily modded set of macros to provide a C like structure called SMAC and was using home-brewed structured exception handling by burying stuff in the stack frame, a bit like a VAX does. This gave me the ability to unwind quite gracefully. At one stage I managed to get hold of a copy of Unix, but we were commercial and it was hideously expensive at the time so couldn't use it for anything. The point being that a PDP-11 with EIS/CIS had a really nice instruction set and was easy to hold in the mind so I am fairly certain that a competent assembler programmer could write better code than most of the compilers. The instruction set was truly orthogonal so that all addressing modes worked whether it was real memory or registers.
The original PDP-11 standard Fortran would churn out pseudo code. This would be a list of addresses into the library with a link via R4, something like jmp @(r4)+. This was slow but actually quite elegant (easy to switch amongst the innumerable hardware variants via choice of library), but it was hard work to link because the entire program was external references. F4P cost a relative fortune though and I didn't get to use it until a time working at Digital.
I had to work on a navigation system some years back, I didn't have to spend time in the "bubble" but colleagues did. We certainly did have people who were very aware of RF design and cross talk issues as we had a TEMPEST rated room as they had also been working on secure digital comms.
True, but it is hard as the radio in a phone tends not to be open software. A USRP would be much better but then you need amplification and power. You are inside a metal tube and you need to get inside an antenna on the outside which is designed to go off when it receives a burst from a 50KW radar. The transponder squirts data back using something like 20w or so. It would be hard to overwhelm that from inside the plane. I would agree that if you hold up to a window, you could get some power outside (a phone does work on a plane on the ground up to a certain height, it is just a weak signal).
Inside the plane, RF goes by coax. Data goes by different means, usually twisted pair. Either way, the data wiring goes from the front-end in the cockpit to the avionics bay which is located underneath the cockpit (so no long cable runs). The FMS does not fly the plane (it acts more as a top-level monitoring system), there are other computers that worry about that.
Please remember that planes ship with standard flight control systems only. Cockpits and avionics are selected by airlines based on different options. It would be quite hard to try out every variant. However flight test has a big increase in general RF "crud" in the fuselage as you have multiple high performance logging and telemeter systems with cabling all over the place.
In the end, it seems that if you want to cause chaos, just get an airband radio and claim to be Frankfurt Radar or something.
Good point. And not only that, information is flowing into the pilot from multiple sources, visual clues, ATC and multiple instruments.
Not really.
Aircraft typically carry different ways of getting the same vital information, passenger aircraft must do so. Equipment in former times was very unreliable, so essentially the plane must carry two (or more) of everything. Critical components, may have the "A" and "B" computers programmed by different teams or even using different architectures. They also carry a human, who may notice if their are strange instruments.
Drones are a different matter and do seem to be spoofable.
Except that TIS-B is not wired into TCAS at the moment. In fact, I have not heard of any use of ADS-B for air to air, just air to ground. Separations are controlled via time slots outside controlled air space and inside controlled airspace, by ground controller using good old fashioned PPI displays. Yes, those displays are "enhanced" by information from ADS-B but many smaller or older aircraft don't have it.
Nope.
A good demonstration of this was the issue about Nexus 4s being able by accident, to transmit a little bit on LTE (only one frequency) and only because the LTE frequencies were enabled by accident in the software. Unless there are antennas designed, the signal would be weak as hell even if you can get it out of the phone. Then you have to get the signal out of the fuselage which is normally working, more or less, as a Faraday cage to an antenna pointing at the ground or a satellite. The vulnerability that worries aircraft manufacturers (about mobile phone use) is the fact that ageing RF cabling and connectors may have faulty shielding.
Yes, the antennas are fixed but the ILS can be tweaked and often had to be (worked a long time ago at a place that built ILS equipment). They are supposed to be self maintaining using ground mounted calibration antennas but every so often an aircraft has to check the slope out by probing the ILS envelope (flying deliberately off the glide path) under VFR conditions. However, on top of the glide slope, there are radar altimeters (on the plane) and marker beacons (on the ground).
I don't live in the UK anymore bit isn't NI capped? Isn't it also paying for other things as well such unemployment, etc?
They get their power from France (Mostly nuclear) and Switzerland (lots of Hydroelectric). When the LHC is running, it can take the same sort of power as the whole of Geneva. I am not sure how they procure their power, but given the mild winter, power has been a lot cheaper than expected unfortunately the decision to extend the run was made some months ago and they may already have locked in the price.
There is a black hole in Geneva. It is called the Paquis (drugs, street hookers, etc.).However it existed before CERN.
A big collider takes a lot of money and politicking to get started. It is a massive engineering project (the LHC was lucky, the detector chambers were new but the ring was inherited from the LEP). The CERN people already talk about what is next because they know they must start thinking now.
As for cosmic rays, yes they are incredibly powerful but undirected. You can't guarantee that the interesting particles will come into your detector any anyway, you normally end up with secondary collisions at best as the interesting particles interact at higher altitudes. Yes, you could fly a big detector, but they are extremely big and heavy,
I was involved in establishing one of the first major Electronic Markets in Germany. The country was quite decentralised with regional financial centres so we made sure that everyone communicated with the exchange (situated in Frankfurt) at the same speed. We even had line simulators to ensure that users in Frankfurt saw similar response times to users in Hamburg.
Now exchanges are more or less forced to join the race for the bottom by offering co-lo services (rackspace in the Exchange) where you are just a LAN switch away from theeExchange infrastructure. If you don't support that, the alleged "liquidity" moves to another exchange. Inside the machines, the algorithms are now run on the graphics cards (cheap multiprocessing) so they can run evven faster. Others use custom signal processing hardware.
Users actually issuing buy or sell orders to hold are never that close, the decision making happens within the institution not in the Exchange building. The "algo" machines just act as a man in the mmiddle driving prices to their advantage. Also, the algo traders are imposing a massive load on the order book and matching code within the exchange's systems. generally speaking the systems were chosen for reliability rather than pure speed.
The UK uses paper and pencil. Candidates may personally supervise counting or their agents can. Funnily enough, the Federal Republic of Germany (pop about 80m) does fine with paper and pencil and usually, there is a single, transferable vote type system so more complicated as you have take into account people's secondary choices.
Funnily enough, Nokia Maps on the better S60 feature phones was very good, performing much better than much of the competition, particularly if you had the content installed locally.
Yes, Nokia had plant in Germany and Eastern Europe as well as in Finland. Now all closed.
It wasn't the board, it was some US based institutional investors who also saw an ailing MSFT (WP had little interest from platform builders and as for the rest, they were hardly high-growth now) and thought they could put the two together. If major shareholders tell you that they are unhappy, your board tends to listen. The issue is that Nokia had never bothered that much with the US market. They had some stuff there, but mostly they were selling to the rest of the world. Nokia was having major issues with their MeeGo project, but their dumb and feature phones were still selling. Yes, smartphones were a weak point but were less of a problem than the R&D costs. They even had the high-end sorted with the Vertu brand (now sold off). Their US funders didn't really get it.
At the time, I would have said, persist with MeeGo at a lower staffing level but roll out an Android phone. People may complain that the market was crowded, but Nokia had a very good hardware rep, both on the RF modules and overall quality.
Now, it would be more difficult and it all comes back to the investors. Who now would want Nokia as anything other than a long-term gamble? There is that spin-off that is trying to launch a MeeGo phone. If they become successful, then of course, bring them back into the Nokia fold, but that would still need some serious strong-arming of their investors.
However after such "ticket-sales" expect a few higher ups to suddenly enjoy an upgrade to their lifestyles.
DSLR Controller does a lot of this already for an Android phone or tablet plugged in via USB to a Canon EOS Camera. Canon do have a WiFi attachment which serves the pictures as files (I guess, like Nikon) but at $1K+, it is far from cheap.
This is the SVR not the FSB. The SVR is the main organisation doing extra-territorial activities while the FSB is domestic only. The two organisations retain connections but are under different management.
The gun collection and shotgun appear to be a myth as probably were the grounds given the NZ law enforcement.