Why even have an airgapped network? They are all infected just like every other network. - That's the conclusion you should reach if you actually assumed airgapped networks are infected.
Which is what the story poster was asking. There was no need for yum or apt.
If you read what the story poster wrote, he/she was asking about software packages that allow patches to be uploaded to servers where customers could download them, *and* how to distribute them on airgapped machines.
the software packages I am recommending are versatile package management systems (dpkg, rpm), that also come with tools for distribution of packages (apt, yum).
Once the software update package files are passed the airgap, they still need to be installed. If one were to set up an apt/yum server on the airgapped network, it would make updating lots of machines much easier.
So no apt/yum are not necessary. I am *recommending* them as tools that provide potential benefits over the situation that would exist without them.
It does when you know the context of the situation. The reason to have an "offline" or "airgapped" machine is so that it is not able to be hacked into from other untrusted computers on the network (i.e. the internet).
A computer can be completely isolated from other computers, but if you believe this makes the computer secure, then 2 computers talking to each other over an isolated network is also secure.
The distinction between "computers" is artificial anyway. You can have multiple systems running in the same chassis and power supply, and storage, or multiple virtual machines running on the physical machine, etc. The only distinction that actually matters is which parts of a system are trusted or isolated from untrusted systems (e.g. isolated from the internet).
Since there is no advantage to having a computer be isolated from all other computers as opposed to just having a network that is isolated from untrusted networks, it makes sense to treat an "offline" computer as one that is just not connected to the internet for purposes of security and administration.
It's implicit that GP is not talking about.rpms and.debs, but rather the yum and apt files.
I have read this sentence 5 times, and I still have no idea what you are talking about.
And yes, you can run an airgapped intranet (I've done it myself for classified data),
congratulations
but it pushes back the question one level.
How do you get said updates onto the airgapped network?
How do you get anything on to an airgapped network? You don't have many options which makes this easy. Write once optical media (e.g. CDR, DVDR, BDR), provides the most security, as it prevents one avenue for data to escape the airgapped network (presumably the reason for the airgap in the first place).
To a person who has run an airgapped intranet for classified data, I would have assumed that part was obvious.
Furthermore, from the description, it is the customer is the one dealing with the data crossing the airgap. What I am suggesting is that the format of the data crossing the airgap should be.rpm or.deb files. They can install those packages directly, or put them on an intranet server and have the updates applied with yum or apt.
First of all you can install.rpm and.deb packages without being "online". Secondly you can be "airgapped" (i.e. not connected to the internet), and still install software using yum and apt from a server on an intranet, and actually this is quite convenient as it allows you to install software updates on many different machines simultaneously.
Maybe you should be more knowledgeable before you decide to act like a prick.
1. That anyone who kidnaps your family and threatens to harm your family has the ultimate goal of harming your family. Obviously there is no point in cooperating with anyone whose ultimate goal is to hurt your family, but why assume that? If anything it's probably safe to assume the opposite is true.
2. Only having "direct control" over a situation warrants any sort of decision making. (e.g. what is the point in applying for a job, since you have no direct control over whether you will be hired).
the most productive thing I can do at this point is attempt to secure a rescue without giving the people I am dealing with any further advantage by cooperating with them.
Plenty of people in this exact situation cooperate with the perpetrators, and end up getting their family members back. In fact getting them back through a rescue attempt is far more likely to result in their death. It is not blind hope that people decide to cooperate with kidnappers, it is based on evidence of previous success.
. I have ZERO assurance from them that they won't harm my family regardless, and even though it might seem like I would have nothing to lose by cooperating with them
You absolutely have something to lose by cooperating with them. You also have something to gain (your family). And if they are good at what they do, they will make that abundantly clear.
in the end, doing what they say would still leave them with more of an advantage than they would have had otherwise,
Sure if you do it wrong. Why do any kidnapping victims ever get let go? Why don't the captors *always* just keep them even after ransom has been paid?
, so in actuality, by *NOT* cooperating, I am actually maximizing my ability to subvert them.
False assumptions lead to often lead to false conclusions.
I'm not saying it never yields a desirable result.... only that overall, it has the best chance of yielding the most desirable result.
That is also not true. I am saying that every situation should be analyzed, and you are saying it doesn't matter what the situation is, the best solution is to not cooperate in all situations.
It's not terribly unlike it how it is statistically better to switch doors when Monty Hall gives you a choice to do so after opening one of the prize doors that you didn't pick.
It is nothing like the Monty Hall problem other than the applicability of "probability". The Monty Hall problem is a 1 player game.
This if anything is like game theory where there are more than 2 players. You can both win, you can both lose, you can win and they can lose, you can lose and they can win, and society as a whole can win or lose.
The goal of the kidnapper is to get the ransom payer on their side to the detriment of society. The kidnapper wants the money or drugs or whatever. The kidnapper usually doesn't care that much if the victim lives or dies (but may). The ransom payer wants their loved one back (and so does the loved one). Society wants the kidnapper to be caught 1st, and the victim to live second.
The US government did make a decision, but *you* decided 'no longer being allowed to buy the insurance you don't agree with is a good thing'. You ought to own your opinions if you're going to bother having them.
You asked me "But who are you to decide that for someone else?". If we are talking about deciding which things are a good thing, that is deciding something for myself. Surely I am entitled to have opinions on what is good or bad, without being accused of making decisions for other people.
That said, I absolutely own my opinion. But I don't have the authority to make decisions for other people. The US government does. And I happen to agree with them having that authority in this case.
People are losing their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA, because their old policies don't cover all this nonsense like drug counseling and stuff like that.
Before the ACA, "losing your health insurance" meant something entirely different. Insurance companies did not have to cover pre-existing conditions, and could deny coverage to people. As profit seeking entities, it was not in their best interest to cover people that were sick, the only thing that *mdae* insurance companies cover sick people, was a law that prevented insurance companies from dropping people as long as they had purchased insurance before they were known to be sick and did not let their coverage lapse. This is why it was so important to not let your coverage lapse if you were sick. Otherwise, your only option would be to get hired by a company with a group plan, which is not really a viable option for many people with debilitating illnesses.
After the ACA, insurance companies can not deny coverage to people for pre-existing conditions. What this means is that you don't actually need insurance right now. You can buy insurance *after* you get sick. And since people without insurance now must pay a penalty, they are actually paying for their own insurance either way (unless they are poor).
It is no longer possible for people to be stuck in this position of not having insurance and not being able to buy it.
I don't want to pay for drug counseling. If I'm going to make the effort to not do drugs, I don't want to have to pay for it. Some people, in fact, can't pay for it.
Too fucking bad. Maybe you don't want to pay for child leukemia, because you are not a child with leukemia. Maybe other people don't want to pay for whatever you have. Once you start letting people pick and choose what kinds of things they want covered, then that's how people end up not being covered.
Lots of people become addicted to drugs who never intended to become addicted to them. Many of those people were not even acting irresponsibly. There are lots of people who became addicted to opioids from pain killers prescribed by doctors who did not realize how addictive they were.
Secondly, even if you were blessed with above average willpower to resist the temptation of drugs, and feel no empathy or duty to help those less fortunate, I feel no empathy for you being denied the right not to be forced to help people.
There is always something to see, even if there is nothing to see. Just having a reference point like a star or the ocean, or bits of clouds, to help my brain make more sense of the motion my body is experiencing helps a lot.
The more things that are consistent the better in terms of visual information matching sensational information, going in a direction that seems appropriate (i.e. forward).
Anything that helps break the sensation that I am just being tossed around in an aluminum container, with no idea what's going to happen next for the next 15 hours. I know consciously that I have no control when in an airplane, but it's important to trick my subconscious.
I have no idea how high it is. I'm pretty sure I am not the only person, and I am definitely sure that everyone is not like me.
But as I said, I can deal with it if I have to. I won't have a panic attack or anything. I am just saying that the small amount of increased safety is not worth sitting backwards for me.
Even if sitting backwards was a guarantee of a 100% certainty that I would not die on the plane ride, I probably still wouldn't do it, because I am not worried about dying on the plane ride anyway. I'd be pretty angry at myself on the way down in a fiery fuselage, but I don't think that's very likely.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you? I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
Well I suspect even if ~50% of the population didn't like sitting backwards, then the 50% backwards facing train carriage would still be ok. Maybe the threshold is closer to 25% because people also like sitting next to their families and friends.
.
Also, trains actually have to change direction, so it is not as practical to have all the seats facing forward all the time. In fact, I suspect that the reaosn it's 50/50, is so people like me can find a forward seat regardless of which way the train is going, otherwise it may have been cheaper to put all the seats the same way and have 100% of people going forward or 100% of people going backward.
The notion that they wouldn't harm them if I do what they say because the penalties would be harsher for them if they did is one to be highly skeptical of
I never said anything about penalties.
Is there any reason that I *should* take them at their word beyond clinging to an entirely blind hope that they might actually be honest criminals? Sure, it's *POSSIBLE* that they might not harm my family if I do what they say, but that's not really up to me... my family's fate lies not in *my* hands, but in those of criminals. It's not that my family itself that is a sunk cost at that time, but unfortunately any feelings I possess for them are, because those feelings are not going to help them.
So if there is a 1% chance of saving them, you'd say "Fuck it, there already dead", it's not even worth trying to deal with these criminals. I'm not willing to spend any more time, energy or money to get my family back, the expected value of the payoff is just not high enough."
If this is your attitude I'd say that you just don't value your family very much. Or at the very least, you don;t value them as much as you value other things in your life such as your time effort and money.
If my family were kidnapped by criminals I would do whatever was most likely to get them back, whether that was to go to the police, or not go to the police, or trust untrustworthy people, or not trust them, or try to raid their compound myself, etc.
My point is that it is irrational to assume that the criminals are irrational. They could be. But they could also be rationally self interested and a mutually beneficial arrangement could be found where I get my family back and they get whatever they want.
As I said, this is a pretty common scenario with kidnappers and ransom. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it doesn't. But to say that dealing with kidnappers never yields a desirable result is just false.
Not surprising... Emotions tend to cloud rational judgement. Are you familiar with the sunk costs fallacy?
Yes I am familiar with the sunk costs fallacy which has nothing to do with what I am saying.
And yes emotions can cloud judgement, but it is also the basis for our values. If you value you're family, it is not irrational to consider the possibility that criminals may in fact keep their word.
What would be irrational is to prematurely count your family as a sunk cost, simply because you don't feel comfortable dealing with criminals who *might* intend to kill them regardless.
For example, people are often able to recover their loved ones from terrorists for ransom. If these people love their family members, it is irrational to simply give up on them simply because the people holding their loved ones are bad people.
I feel like I am trying to explain love to a robot or something. Humans value other humans through an emotion called love, not unlike how your kind values properly formatted data files.
Some people love their families enough to try to save them, even if they are not 100% certain that the criminals they are dealing with are trustworthy.
If someone is willing to be so morally bankrupt as to do such a thing in the first place, why would you think they should be somehow morally obligated to be telling you the truth about not hurting your family if you do what they tell you?
The answer is contained within what you already said. If there is no trust in the person being coerced and the coercer, then the coerced really will have nothing to lose by going to law enforcement.
One easy way to destroy this trust is to do very things that you seem to be suggesting they will actually do (e.g. killing wives and kids despite cooperation, and/or not killing wives and kids despite lack of cooperation)
And no, criminals are not very reliable. But it doesn't take a lot of trust. Even a 50% chance or a 10% chance or a 1% chance of saving your wife and kids can be enough trust to foster cooperation.
Long story short, it is not in the interest of the criminal to punish people that cooperate. Whether ti's the actual government justice system, or a criminal pseudo justice system, the best way to incentivize behavior is clear and consistent enforcement.
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
They couldn't keep up the 24 hour coverage of MH370 for a few more months? And only *now* that this flaperon was found, they are all of a sudden want to cover MH370 cover it again?
Fuck you CNN, you had your chance and you blew it.
I lost a flaperon on my 777 the other day, and I didn't even notice until I was half way back to LAX. I have a replacement ordered through amazon, and I have prime so it should be here tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Why even have an airgapped network? They are all infected just like every other network. - That's the conclusion you should reach if you actually assumed airgapped networks are infected.
Which is what the story poster was asking. There was no need for yum or apt.
If you read what the story poster wrote, he/she was asking about software packages that allow patches to be uploaded to servers where customers could download them, *and* how to distribute them on airgapped machines.
the software packages I am recommending are versatile package management systems (dpkg, rpm), that also come with tools for distribution of packages (apt, yum).
Once the software update package files are passed the airgap, they still need to be installed. If one were to set up an apt/yum server on the airgapped network, it would make updating lots of machines much easier.
So no apt/yum are not necessary. I am *recommending* them as tools that provide potential benefits over the situation that would exist without them.
It does when you know the context of the situation. The reason to have an "offline" or "airgapped" machine is so that it is not able to be hacked into from other untrusted computers on the network (i.e. the internet).
A computer can be completely isolated from other computers, but if you believe this makes the computer secure, then 2 computers talking to each other over an isolated network is also secure.
The distinction between "computers" is artificial anyway. You can have multiple systems running in the same chassis and power supply, and storage, or multiple virtual machines running on the physical machine, etc. The only distinction that actually matters is which parts of a system are trusted or isolated from untrusted systems (e.g. isolated from the internet).
Since there is no advantage to having a computer be isolated from all other computers as opposed to just having a network that is isolated from untrusted networks, it makes sense to treat an "offline" computer as one that is just not connected to the internet for purposes of security and administration.
It's implicit that GP is not talking about .rpms and .debs, but rather the yum and apt files.
I have read this sentence 5 times, and I still have no idea what you are talking about.
And yes, you can run an airgapped intranet (I've done it myself for classified data),
congratulations
but it pushes back the question one level.
How do you get said updates onto the airgapped network?
How do you get anything on to an airgapped network? You don't have many options which makes this easy. Write once optical media (e.g. CDR, DVDR, BDR), provides the most security, as it prevents one avenue for data to escape the airgapped network (presumably the reason for the airgap in the first place).
To a person who has run an airgapped intranet for classified data, I would have assumed that part was obvious.
Furthermore, from the description, it is the customer is the one dealing with the data crossing the airgap. What I am suggesting is that the format of the data crossing the airgap should be .rpm or .deb files. They can install those packages directly, or put them on an intranet server and have the updates applied with yum or apt.
First of all you can install .rpm and .deb packages without being "online". Secondly you can be "airgapped" (i.e. not connected to the internet), and still install software using yum and apt from a server on an intranet, and actually this is quite convenient as it allows you to install software updates on many different machines simultaneously.
Maybe you should be more knowledgeable before you decide to act like a prick.
Freudian slips aside, my point is that if you are already willing to buy a Tesla, you probably want a big metal dick, I mean snake, I mean charger.
Why not just save tens of thousands of dollars and get a Carolla.
I guess technically I should have said "dpkg/apt"
The webserver could be offline as well (i.e. intranet).
I feel like I must be missing something important...
1. That anyone who kidnaps your family and threatens to harm your family has the ultimate goal of harming your family. Obviously there is no point in cooperating with anyone whose ultimate goal is to hurt your family, but why assume that? If anything it's probably safe to assume the opposite is true.
2. Only having "direct control" over a situation warrants any sort of decision making. (e.g. what is the point in applying for a job, since you have no direct control over whether you will be hired).
the most productive thing I can do at this point is attempt to secure a rescue without giving the people I am dealing with any further advantage by cooperating with them.
Plenty of people in this exact situation cooperate with the perpetrators, and end up getting their family members back. In fact getting them back through a rescue attempt is far more likely to result in their death. It is not blind hope that people decide to cooperate with kidnappers, it is based on evidence of previous success.
. I have ZERO assurance from them that they won't harm my family regardless, and even though it might seem like I would have nothing to lose by cooperating with them
You absolutely have something to lose by cooperating with them. You also have something to gain (your family). And if they are good at what they do, they will make that abundantly clear.
in the end, doing what they say would still leave them with more of an advantage than they would have had otherwise,
Sure if you do it wrong. Why do any kidnapping victims ever get let go? Why don't the captors *always* just keep them even after ransom has been paid?
, so in actuality, by *NOT* cooperating, I am actually maximizing my ability to subvert them.
False assumptions lead to often lead to false conclusions.
I'm not saying it never yields a desirable result.... only that overall, it has the best chance of yielding the most desirable result.
That is also not true. I am saying that every situation should be analyzed, and you are saying it doesn't matter what the situation is, the best solution is to not cooperate in all situations.
It's not terribly unlike it how it is statistically better to switch doors when Monty Hall gives you a choice to do so after opening one of the prize doors that you didn't pick.
It is nothing like the Monty Hall problem other than the applicability of "probability". The Monty Hall problem is a 1 player game.
This if anything is like game theory where there are more than 2 players. You can both win, you can both lose, you can win and they can lose, you can lose and they can win, and society as a whole can win or lose.
The goal of the kidnapper is to get the ransom payer on their side to the detriment of society. The kidnapper wants the money or drugs or whatever. The kidnapper usually doesn't care that much if the victim lives or dies (but may). The ransom payer wants their loved one back (and so does the loved one). Society wants the kidnapper to be caught 1st, and the victim to live second.
The US government did make a decision, but *you* decided 'no longer being allowed to buy the insurance you don't agree with is a good thing'. You ought to own your opinions if you're going to bother having them.
You asked me "But who are you to decide that for someone else?". If we are talking about deciding which things are a good thing, that is deciding something for myself. Surely I am entitled to have opinions on what is good or bad, without being accused of making decisions for other people.
That said, I absolutely own my opinion. But I don't have the authority to make decisions for other people. The US government does. And I happen to agree with them having that authority in this case.
People are losing their health insurance as a direct result of the ACA, because their old policies don't cover all this nonsense like drug counseling and stuff like that.
Before the ACA, "losing your health insurance" meant something entirely different. Insurance companies did not have to cover pre-existing conditions, and could deny coverage to people. As profit seeking entities, it was not in their best interest to cover people that were sick, the only thing that *mdae* insurance companies cover sick people, was a law that prevented insurance companies from dropping people as long as they had purchased insurance before they were known to be sick and did not let their coverage lapse. This is why it was so important to not let your coverage lapse if you were sick. Otherwise, your only option would be to get hired by a company with a group plan, which is not really a viable option for many people with debilitating illnesses.
After the ACA, insurance companies can not deny coverage to people for pre-existing conditions. What this means is that you don't actually need insurance right now. You can buy insurance *after* you get sick. And since people without insurance now must pay a penalty, they are actually paying for their own insurance either way (unless they are poor).
It is no longer possible for people to be stuck in this position of not having insurance and not being able to buy it.
I don't want to pay for drug counseling. If I'm going to make the effort to not do drugs, I don't want to have to pay for it. Some people, in fact, can't pay for it.
Too fucking bad. Maybe you don't want to pay for child leukemia, because you are not a child with leukemia. Maybe other people don't want to pay for whatever you have. Once you start letting people pick and choose what kinds of things they want covered, then that's how people end up not being covered.
Lots of people become addicted to drugs who never intended to become addicted to them. Many of those people were not even acting irresponsibly. There are lots of people who became addicted to opioids from pain killers prescribed by doctors who did not realize how addictive they were.
Secondly, even if you were blessed with above average willpower to resist the temptation of drugs, and feel no empathy or duty to help those less fortunate, I feel no empathy for you being denied the right not to be forced to help people.
There is always something to see, even if there is nothing to see. Just having a reference point like a star or the ocean, or bits of clouds, to help my brain make more sense of the motion my body is experiencing helps a lot.
The more things that are consistent the better in terms of visual information matching sensational information, going in a direction that seems appropriate (i.e. forward).
Anything that helps break the sensation that I am just being tossed around in an aluminum container, with no idea what's going to happen next for the next 15 hours. I know consciously that I have no control when in an airplane, but it's important to trick my subconscious.
I have no idea how high it is. I'm pretty sure I am not the only person, and I am definitely sure that everyone is not like me.
But as I said, I can deal with it if I have to. I won't have a panic attack or anything. I am just saying that the small amount of increased safety is not worth sitting backwards for me.
Even if sitting backwards was a guarantee of a 100% certainty that I would not die on the plane ride, I probably still wouldn't do it, because I am not worried about dying on the plane ride anyway. I'd be pretty angry at myself on the way down in a fiery fuselage, but I don't think that's very likely.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you? I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
Well I suspect even if ~50% of the population didn't like sitting backwards, then the 50% backwards facing train carriage would still be ok. Maybe the threshold is closer to 25% because people also like sitting next to their families and friends.
.
Also, trains actually have to change direction, so it is not as practical to have all the seats facing forward all the time. In fact, I suspect that the reaosn it's 50/50, is so people like me can find a forward seat regardless of which way the train is going, otherwise it may have been cheaper to put all the seats the same way and have 100% of people going forward or 100% of people going backward.
The notion that they wouldn't harm them if I do what they say because the penalties would be harsher for them if they did is one to be highly skeptical of
I never said anything about penalties.
Is there any reason that I *should* take them at their word beyond clinging to an entirely blind hope that they might actually be honest criminals? Sure, it's *POSSIBLE* that they might not harm my family if I do what they say, but that's not really up to me... my family's fate lies not in *my* hands, but in those of criminals. It's not that my family itself that is a sunk cost at that time, but unfortunately any feelings I possess for them are, because those feelings are not going to help them.
So if there is a 1% chance of saving them, you'd say "Fuck it, there already dead", it's not even worth trying to deal with these criminals. I'm not willing to spend any more time, energy or money to get my family back, the expected value of the payoff is just not high enough."
If this is your attitude I'd say that you just don't value your family very much. Or at the very least, you don;t value them as much as you value other things in your life such as your time effort and money.
If my family were kidnapped by criminals I would do whatever was most likely to get them back, whether that was to go to the police, or not go to the police, or trust untrustworthy people, or not trust them, or try to raid their compound myself, etc.
My point is that it is irrational to assume that the criminals are irrational. They could be. But they could also be rationally self interested and a mutually beneficial arrangement could be found where I get my family back and they get whatever they want.
As I said, this is a pretty common scenario with kidnappers and ransom. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it doesn't. But to say that dealing with kidnappers never yields a desirable result is just false.
Not surprising... Emotions tend to cloud rational judgement. Are you familiar with the sunk costs fallacy?
Yes I am familiar with the sunk costs fallacy which has nothing to do with what I am saying.
And yes emotions can cloud judgement, but it is also the basis for our values. If you value you're family, it is not irrational to consider the possibility that criminals may in fact keep their word.
What would be irrational is to prematurely count your family as a sunk cost, simply because you don't feel comfortable dealing with criminals who *might* intend to kill them regardless.
For example, people are often able to recover their loved ones from terrorists for ransom. If these people love their family members, it is irrational to simply give up on them simply because the people holding their loved ones are bad people.
I feel like I am trying to explain love to a robot or something. Humans value other humans through an emotion called love, not unlike how your kind values properly formatted data files.
Well we can be pretty sure it's not in the Pacific Ocean.
I would not be happy on a plane with no windows, even if the seats where facing forward.
Some people love their families enough to try to save them, even if they are not 100% certain that the criminals they are dealing with are trustworthy.
I sure hope I am not related you.
If someone is willing to be so morally bankrupt as to do such a thing in the first place, why would you think they should be somehow morally obligated to be telling you the truth about not hurting your family if you do what they tell you?
The answer is contained within what you already said. If there is no trust in the person being coerced and the coercer, then the coerced really will have nothing to lose by going to law enforcement.
One easy way to destroy this trust is to do very things that you seem to be suggesting they will actually do (e.g. killing wives and kids despite cooperation, and/or not killing wives and kids despite lack of cooperation)
And no, criminals are not very reliable. But it doesn't take a lot of trust. Even a 50% chance or a 10% chance or a 1% chance of saving your wife and kids can be enough trust to foster cooperation.
Long story short, it is not in the interest of the criminal to punish people that cooperate. Whether ti's the actual government justice system, or a criminal pseudo justice system, the best way to incentivize behavior is clear and consistent enforcement.
zero... according to my logic
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
They couldn't keep up the 24 hour coverage of MH370 for a few more months? And only *now* that this flaperon was found, they are all of a sudden want to cover MH370 cover it again?
Fuck you CNN, you had your chance and you blew it.
PS nobody will ever re-use a flight number like MH 370 ever again.
Lightning never strikes twice....
I lost a flaperon on my 777 the other day, and I didn't even notice until I was half way back to LAX. I have a replacement ordered through amazon, and I have prime so it should be here tomorrow.