The pilots could just have a switch to "knock out" all the passengers in a few seconds, so in the event of an attempted hijack, they could do this, and drop the hijackers into the hold, to freeze to death;-)
Who's going to be flying the plane whilst the pilots are in the back working out which passengers they need to manhandle into the cargo hold? Anything which can do this is also going to "knock out" all the flight attendants too. The people best able to actually identify the hijackers are going to be amongst the unconcious.
Why would they bother disabling it? Threats are for more effective for coercing 'favors' from the authorities and we would be handing a lot of easy hostages to determined terrorists. How would it look for the FAA to allow gruesome death (and worse) to befall little girls on board the flight?
Sounds like a variation on "Die Hard 2". Which is the problem with all these attempts to address "movie plot" senarios. If you don't guess right then the system is utterly useless. The newspaper really needs to talk to someone like Bruce Schneier before running this kind of story.
Someone commented to say "just lock the cabin door". Coupled with a globaly policy (much like the UK hostage policy) that captains will not be subject to blackmail (e.g. "open the door or i'll shoot people"), then this could become a much more effective - not to mention cheaper - solution.
Without the associated risks of enabling the plane to be externally controlled and/or an auto pilot system which cannot easily be disabled (even when it is doing something which affects the safety of the aircraft, such as ignoring TCAS warnings or flying directly into a storm.) Also the plane can itself make quite an effective weapon against any hijackers if it should suddenly happen to encounter some "turbulance".
True....but the idea of this system is that it can only be activated from the plane and once activated it can't be disabled from the plane. For terrorists to remotely hijack a plane they would have to have someone on the plane to trigger the system.
But you only need to get one terrorist on a plane to activate the system. Rather than several. It may even be possible to trick a passenger into doing something to activate the system.
If this system ever comes online then hijackers will simply plan and figure out a way to disable the system. Its easier said than done, and probably very costly, but if you get the right hackers you can break into (almost) any system.
Assuming they can't find a way to use it to convert planes into remotly targeted guided missiles. It's probably easier to recruit for other than a suicide mission and you have trained operatives still available afterwards.
Many planes have landed safely or close to it only due to the help of a passenger in the cockpit
It the case of United 232 that "passenger" happened to be a highly experienced pilot for that type of aircraft. On other other hand Helios 522 crashed. Possibly had the flight attendant (who was a private pilot) been able to gain access to the cockpit sooner lives would have been saved. As it was he was faced with the very difficult task of flying an unfamiliar aircraft which was rapidly running out of fuel.
Not saying I am for this system (way too much room for abuse imo); And I much rather opt for heavier enforced cockpit-doors and an inability for the pilots to open those doors for the entire flight.
You are aware that there has been a post 9/11 crash where locked cockpit door may well have been a contributing factor. As well as incidents which could have been a lot worst had it not been possible for people to get between the cockpit and the rest of the cabin. The possible benefits and risks of any such idea need to be very carefully considered. The idea of making planes remote controlled has all sorts of potential risks not limited to making it easier to turn airliners into cruise missiles. How is this system going to handle a TCAS alert or a "go around" on landing. A machine might well be stupid enough to cause a CFIT which any human pilot would avoid. What happens if there is a technical malfunction of the plane? Or if the thing comes on when it shouldn't and the pilots try to regain control of the plane? (e.g. is this system really impossible to switch off, even with all of the main generators offline.)
Apart from there is no such thing as a secure wireless system. Other governments with super computers are a real threat.
No doubt there are non government entities which are better in the espionage business than some governments.
The conspiracy theorists will have a field day each and every time a plane crashes for what ever reason it crashes.
The really ironic thing is that multiple hijackers (especially of multiple planes) actually requires a conspiracy. (Just about any remotely credible explanation of 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", just because one is trumpted by the US Government does not make it otherwise.) With this kind of system available non conspiracy theories actually become credible.
Some corporate executive finds out they can make a million dollars selling the access codes, come on, for your typical corporate executive, that is not even a decision, the only question the corporate executive would ask, is how many access codes do you want.
Being digital dosn't matter so much as the fact that the average person (at least in the "developed world") can move information, representing music and video recordings, at a cost which is trivial (and a speed which is typically quicker than carrying a piece of media in a vehicle capable of travelling at several times the speed of sound).
and the protection schemes are busted almost as fast as they're made.
Most likely only "second raters" are working on creating them. Because any actual "experts" know better than to attempt the impossible...
It doesn't matter how many Congresspersons, Senators, Members of Parliament, Prime Ministers and bureaucrats prostitute themselves, the business model that the movie and music industries have used is going extinct.
In some cases the business model is dead, but the "corpse" is still moving around. One important thing is that the business models involved have been closely connected to copyright law ever since such laws were invented...
So the US should just go away. And quit feeding people. And quit giving medicine away. And just go away. I bet they will like us more as they starve to death.
It might not be a bad thing for these resources to be deployed first in the US. Somewhere like New Orelans maybe... Also a lot of "foreign aid" from the US (and other rich countries) isn't in any way humanitarian. Instead it's money and weapons to support some rather unpleasent governments, which may lead to requirements for humanitarian aid. There are plenty of starving people in the world who arn't being fed by the US, but who are under threat from weapons paid for by the US taxpayer.
And Canada is a huge net exporter of TALENT to the US. Without Canadian talent there would be noticeably less decent material from the US to copyright (the likes of Tom Green notwithstanding). There has to be some discretion and tact used here...there is an unfortunate amount of anti-American sentiment in Canada, and those in the Canadian entertainment industry tend to posses more than their share of that sentiment.
Where you have filming taking place in Canada with mostly Canadian actors and crew how much US involvment is actually needed in the first place? It would be quite a nightmare for the US industry if US broadcasters ended up buying the same series they are buying now from Canada...
The crucial thing here is who you are referring to when you say "they". "They" the American people? Copyright law isn't even on the political radar for the vast majority of American citizens
From the POV of the average person copyright probably became "broken" some time ago. All of the subsequent extensions in term and scope don't make it any less broken.
(for those who even have a political radar, seeing that the US has among the lowest voter participation rates in the free world)
Things like the domination of two (in some ways quite similar) big political parties of all areas of politics as well as voting systems which cannot be verified or audited may well have something to do with this. Whereas Canada has a multi party system with a fairly open voting system. This means that votors have a better chance of finding a candidate who actually represents their views and a high degree of certainity that their vote actually gets counted.
You're missing the point big time. Yes, the US is a huge exporter of copyrighted materials, but Canada is a huge importer of copyrighted materials. The US could never afford to lose Canada as a customer, which means that they can't dictate shit about anything.
Also Canada (and Candians) do not have to get this material from the US. There's also the issue that quite a bit of the material in question is already mostly produced in Canada, so it probably wouldn't be that difficult to make it entirely Canadian and have Canada sell it to the rest of the world (including the US).
However, I don't think it's the industry's decision how much legislation should be applied to be considered protection. That's the local authority's job. Another problem is the roundabout way the industry attempts to strongarm other countries into doing their bidding. Sure, submit your proposals to the government of said country asking for what you want, but it's disgusting to use your local government to strongarm the foreign government into passing laws for you.
Especially since any government perporting to be democratic should be putting the interests of it's own people before those of foreign corporations. (This is something the US has historically been very poor at respecting.)
Saying that just because a film was made outside the U.S. means that it should be under no protection is asinine.
Thing is that Canada already has copyright laws. Since copyright laws are ment to be a compromise between various groups of people having a law which only takes account of the views of one of these groups is effectivly broken.
you right but in the situation i described, the robber had access to the house before the owners did. It would be likely that the robber had access to the gun and ammo before they could get to it when returning home.
Except that the gun wouldn't be that much use to it's owner it it wasn't kept on (or very near) to their person. About the only reason for them to have left it in the house would be some kind of "gun control" law"... It's not as if the robber teleported into the house so as to avoid being present in a "robber free zone" outside.
If another country tried to pressure American policy and were told to "F*** themselves", then the pressure was not founded in a source that couldn't be obtained elsewhere. If Canada doesn't want to play ball in the anti-piracy arena, the movie industry should cease exportation of American movies to Canada.
In which case the only people who would be hurt would be the companies selling the movies. Canadian residents (including "corporate people") could then obtain them by any means possible. Whilst the companies might still get some money of "grey imports" it would most likely be far less than if they sold directly to Canada.
The movie industry, however, is simply losing out to other modes of entertainment: TV, games, and the internet.
The TV industry also has problems. Possibly because in quite a few cases it is either the same companies or same owners involved.
Movie downloads are not lost sales, they are for the most part people who would only bother with the movie if it's free (otherwise they might tape it when it comes on TV.) There's also (possibly quite large) group of people downloading because they can't get it otherwise.
The problem with piracy is not lost sales, but deluded accountants counting imaginary dollars.
Except that they don't tend to actually put these on the real balance sheets.
This DMCA crap is no different, and given the current quality of American movie productions, I'm perfectly fine if they decide to not show them in Canada, most of them suck anyway, especially given the cost of a ticket these days.
Of course given current Canadian copyright law if these companies refused to sell them in Canada. Then any Canadian resident could obtain them by "other means" perfectly legally.
If Canada wants access to US movies and music then they have to play by our rules. If Canada doesn't like the rules then they don't have to follow them. Likewise there is nothing forcing the US movie and music industry to sell in markets that don't follow the rules.
Not sure about US music. But the US motion picture industry appears to do quite a bit of filiming in Canada. To the point where if you took all the Canadians out of the production there wouldn't be that much left...
Mine is always the firefight with M-16s.
After firing 800 rounds with one magazine, the actors start talking to each other calmly.
Even funnier if they'd completly failed to hit anything. The M-16 is designed to be a fairly accurate weapon, even when fireing on fully automatic, IIRC modern M-16's don't even have a full automatic setting.
Try this, fire 4 rounds from an AR-15(or M-16 if your lucky) with no earplugs.
Now try to hear ANYTHING.
That'll be why firing ranges tend to come with ear (and eye) protection.
Ok, I don't know exactly what they're shooting, but at the NRA HQ range (an indoor range with a falling-water-over-concrete backstop), I see sparks from many people's rifle rounds hitting the wall.
It probably depends on the concrete or more specifically the agregate in it. Some rocks will produce sparks when struck or compressed.
AKA. Mythbusters.
The "Hollywood special" from a few moths back.
Indeed numbers 1 and 4 have been extensivly covered on Mythbusters. 8 hasn't but is extensivly debunked elsewhere. One which Mythbusters has covered, which isn't on the list is that bullet holes in planes cause explosive decompression. So they could have gone for a list of 10, rather than 9. Also number 5 isn't entirely correct. You may in some cases be able to jump a gap in a bridge, so long as there is a ramp on the approach to it. The situation where you definitly can't is where the bridge deck is no higher than the road.
And I know that owning a gun in that situation would probably have meant the robber would have used it to control the situation.
Or it could have ment a dead robber who's estate was paying for the householder's carpet. What "gun control" advocates miss is that criminals will always be able to get hold of weapons. Quite a few multiple shootings have happened in "gun free zones".
Slashdot Mirror
The pilots could just have a switch to "knock out" all the passengers in a few seconds, so in the event of an attempted hijack, they could do this, and drop the hijackers into the hold, to freeze to death ;-)
Who's going to be flying the plane whilst the pilots are in the back working out which passengers they need to manhandle into the cargo hold? Anything which can do this is also going to "knock out" all the flight attendants too. The people best able to actually identify the hijackers are going to be amongst the unconcious.
Why would they bother disabling it? Threats are for more effective for coercing 'favors' from the authorities and we would be handing a lot of easy hostages to determined terrorists. How would it look for the FAA to allow gruesome death (and worse) to befall little girls on board the flight?
Sounds like a variation on "Die Hard 2". Which is the problem with all these attempts to address "movie plot" senarios. If you don't guess right then the system is utterly useless. The newspaper really needs to talk to someone like Bruce Schneier before running this kind of story.
Someone commented to say "just lock the cabin door". Coupled with a globaly policy (much like the UK hostage policy) that captains will not be subject to blackmail (e.g. "open the door or i'll shoot people"), then this could become a much more effective - not to mention cheaper - solution.
Without the associated risks of enabling the plane to be externally controlled and/or an auto pilot system which cannot easily be disabled (even when it is doing something which affects the safety of the aircraft, such as ignoring TCAS warnings or flying directly into a storm.) Also the plane can itself make quite an effective weapon against any hijackers if it should suddenly happen to encounter some "turbulance".
True....but the idea of this system is that it can only be activated from the plane and once activated it can't be disabled from the plane. For terrorists to remotely hijack a plane they would have to have someone on the plane to trigger the system.
But you only need to get one terrorist on a plane to activate the system. Rather than several. It may even be possible to trick a passenger into doing something to activate the system.
If this system ever comes online then hijackers will simply plan and figure out a way to disable the system. Its easier said than done, and probably very costly, but if you get the right hackers you can break into (almost) any system.
Assuming they can't find a way to use it to convert planes into remotly targeted guided missiles. It's probably easier to recruit for other than a suicide mission and you have trained operatives still available afterwards.
Many planes have landed safely or close to it only due to the help of a passenger in the cockpit
It the case of United 232 that "passenger" happened to be a highly experienced pilot for that type of aircraft.
On other other hand Helios 522 crashed. Possibly had the flight attendant (who was a private pilot) been able to gain access to the cockpit sooner lives would have been saved. As it was he was faced with the very difficult task of flying an unfamiliar aircraft which was rapidly running out of fuel.
Not saying I am for this system (way too much room for abuse imo); And I much rather opt for heavier enforced cockpit-doors and an inability for the pilots to open those doors for the entire flight.
You are aware that there has been a post 9/11 crash where locked cockpit door may well have been a contributing factor. As well as incidents which could have been a lot worst had it not been possible for people to get between the cockpit and the rest of the cabin.
The possible benefits and risks of any such idea need to be very carefully considered.
The idea of making planes remote controlled has all sorts of potential risks not limited to making it easier to turn airliners into cruise missiles. How is this system going to handle a TCAS alert or a "go around" on landing. A machine might well be stupid enough to cause a CFIT which any human pilot would avoid. What happens if there is a technical malfunction of the plane? Or if the thing comes on when it shouldn't and the pilots try to regain control of the plane? (e.g. is this system really impossible to switch off, even with all of the main generators offline.)
Apart from there is no such thing as a secure wireless system. Other governments with super computers are a real threat.
No doubt there are non government entities which are better in the espionage business than some governments.
The conspiracy theorists will have a field day each and every time a plane crashes for what ever reason it crashes.
The really ironic thing is that multiple hijackers (especially of multiple planes) actually requires a conspiracy. (Just about any remotely credible explanation of 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", just because one is trumpted by the US Government does not make it otherwise.) With this kind of system available non conspiracy theories actually become credible.
Some corporate executive finds out they can make a million dollars selling the access codes, come on, for your typical corporate executive, that is not even a decision, the only question the corporate executive would ask, is how many access codes do you want.
Assuming that blackmail isn't a cheaper option...
The digital cat's out of the bag,
Being digital dosn't matter so much as the fact that the average person (at least in the "developed world") can move information, representing music and video recordings, at a cost which is trivial (and a speed which is typically quicker than carrying a piece of media in a vehicle capable of travelling at several times the speed of sound).
and the protection schemes are busted almost as fast as they're made.
Most likely only "second raters" are working on creating them. Because any actual "experts" know better than to attempt the impossible...
It doesn't matter how many Congresspersons, Senators, Members of Parliament, Prime Ministers and bureaucrats prostitute themselves, the business model that the movie and music industries have used is going extinct.
In some cases the business model is dead, but the "corpse" is still moving around. One important thing is that the business models involved have been closely connected to copyright law ever since such laws were invented...
So the US should just go away. And quit feeding people. And quit giving medicine away. And just go away. I bet they will like us more as they starve to death.
It might not be a bad thing for these resources to be deployed first in the US. Somewhere like New Orelans maybe...
Also a lot of "foreign aid" from the US (and other rich countries) isn't in any way humanitarian. Instead it's money and weapons to support some rather unpleasent governments, which may lead to requirements for humanitarian aid.
There are plenty of starving people in the world who arn't being fed by the US, but who are under threat from weapons paid for by the US taxpayer.
And Canada is a huge net exporter of TALENT to the US. Without Canadian talent there would be noticeably less decent material from the US to copyright (the likes of Tom Green notwithstanding). There has to be some discretion and tact used here...there is an unfortunate amount of anti-American sentiment in Canada, and those in the Canadian entertainment industry tend to posses more than their share of that sentiment.
Where you have filming taking place in Canada with mostly Canadian actors and crew how much US involvment is actually needed in the first place? It would be quite a nightmare for the US industry if US broadcasters ended up buying the same series they are buying now from Canada...
The crucial thing here is who you are referring to when you say "they". "They" the American people? Copyright law isn't even on the political radar for the vast majority of American citizens
From the POV of the average person copyright probably became "broken" some time ago. All of the subsequent extensions in term and scope don't make it any less broken.
(for those who even have a political radar, seeing that the US has among the lowest voter participation rates in the free world)
Things like the domination of two (in some ways quite similar) big political parties of all areas of politics as well as voting systems which cannot be verified or audited may well have something to do with this.
Whereas Canada has a multi party system with a fairly open voting system. This means that votors have a better chance of finding a candidate who actually represents their views and a high degree of certainity that their vote actually gets counted.
You're missing the point big time. Yes, the US is a huge exporter of copyrighted materials, but Canada is a huge importer of copyrighted materials. The US could never afford to lose Canada as a customer, which means that they can't dictate shit about anything.
Also Canada (and Candians) do not have to get this material from the US. There's also the issue that quite a bit of the material in question is already mostly produced in Canada, so it probably wouldn't be that difficult to make it entirely Canadian and have Canada sell it to the rest of the world (including the US).
However, I don't think it's the industry's decision how much legislation should be applied to be considered protection. That's the local authority's job. Another problem is the roundabout way the industry attempts to strongarm other countries into doing their bidding. Sure, submit your proposals to the government of said country asking for what you want, but it's disgusting to use your local government to strongarm the foreign government into passing laws for you.
Especially since any government perporting to be democratic should be putting the interests of it's own people before those of foreign corporations. (This is something the US has historically been very poor at respecting.)
Saying that just because a film was made outside the U.S. means that it should be under no protection is asinine.
Thing is that Canada already has copyright laws. Since copyright laws are ment to be a compromise between various groups of people having a law which only takes account of the views of one of these groups is effectivly broken.
you right but in the situation i described, the robber had access to the house before the owners did. It would be likely that the robber had access to the gun and ammo before they could get to it when returning home.
Except that the gun wouldn't be that much use to it's owner it it wasn't kept on (or very near) to their person. About the only reason for them to have left it in the house would be some kind of "gun control" law"... It's not as if the robber teleported into the house so as to avoid being present in a "robber free zone" outside.
If another country tried to pressure American policy and were told to "F*** themselves", then the pressure was not founded in a source that couldn't be obtained elsewhere. If Canada doesn't want to play ball in the anti-piracy arena, the movie industry should cease exportation of American movies to Canada.
In which case the only people who would be hurt would be the companies selling the movies. Canadian residents (including "corporate people") could then obtain them by any means possible. Whilst the companies might still get some money of "grey imports" it would most likely be far less than if they sold directly to Canada.
The movie industry, however, is simply losing out to other modes of entertainment: TV, games, and the internet.
The TV industry also has problems. Possibly because in quite a few cases it is either the same companies or same owners involved.
Movie downloads are not lost sales, they are for the most part people who would only bother with the movie if it's free (otherwise they might tape it when it comes on TV.)
There's also (possibly quite large) group of people downloading because they can't get it otherwise.
The problem with piracy is not lost sales, but deluded accountants counting imaginary dollars.
Except that they don't tend to actually put these on the real balance sheets.
This DMCA crap is no different, and given the current quality of American movie productions, I'm perfectly fine if they decide to not show them in Canada, most of them suck anyway, especially given the cost of a ticket these days.
Of course given current Canadian copyright law if these companies refused to sell them in Canada. Then any Canadian resident could obtain them by "other means" perfectly legally.
If Canada wants access to US movies and music then they have to play by our rules. If Canada doesn't like the rules then they don't have to follow them. Likewise there is nothing forcing the US movie and music industry to sell in markets that don't follow the rules.
Not sure about US music. But the US motion picture industry appears to do quite a bit of filiming in Canada. To the point where if you took all the Canadians out of the production there wouldn't be that much left...
Sometimes I think the US should just leave the rest of the planet alone.
Only "sometimes" things might well be a lot better for people (including those in the US) if this happened most of the time.
Mine is always the firefight with M-16s.
After firing 800 rounds with one magazine, the actors start talking to each other calmly.
Even funnier if they'd completly failed to hit anything. The M-16 is designed to be a fairly accurate weapon, even when fireing on fully automatic, IIRC modern M-16's don't even have a full automatic setting.
Try this, fire 4 rounds from an AR-15(or M-16 if your lucky) with no earplugs. Now try to hear ANYTHING.
That'll be why firing ranges tend to come with ear (and eye) protection.
Ok, I don't know exactly what they're shooting, but at the NRA HQ range (an indoor range with a falling-water-over-concrete backstop), I see sparks from many people's rifle rounds hitting the wall.
It probably depends on the concrete or more specifically the agregate in it. Some rocks will produce sparks when struck or compressed.
How about the myth that protagonists have limitless stamina?
Or firearms which carry limitless ammunition. Which is sent up in "Hot Shots", where IIRC a shooter ends up burried in shell casings.
AKA. Mythbusters. The "Hollywood special" from a few moths back.
Indeed numbers 1 and 4 have been extensivly covered on Mythbusters. 8 hasn't but is extensivly debunked elsewhere.
One which Mythbusters has covered, which isn't on the list is that bullet holes in planes cause explosive decompression. So they could have gone for a list of 10, rather than 9.
Also number 5 isn't entirely correct. You may in some cases be able to jump a gap in a bridge, so long as there is a ramp on the approach to it. The situation where you definitly can't is where the bridge deck is no higher than the road.
And I know that owning a gun in that situation would probably have meant the robber would have used it to control the situation.
Or it could have ment a dead robber who's estate was paying for the householder's carpet.
What "gun control" advocates miss is that criminals will always be able to get hold of weapons. Quite a few multiple shootings have happened in "gun free zones".