Obviously for the victim or his family it would be terrible, but once the scandal broke that the explosives had been planted on him by operatives there would no longer be any armed thugs in airports around the world, and we'd all be treated with a little more respect. Here's hoping that Slovakia's little experiment has a similar effect.
Stop backpedaling. This has nothing to do with property rights. Even if you *own* the man-made structure you're required to keep safe distance from it.
It's really not such an uncommon mistake.. there was a time where owning land meant you owned the airspace above it, but the airplane demonstrated how terrible that idea was, so it was crushed.. now if only the same lesson could be learned about copyright.
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he/she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.
Specifically, in United States v. Causby the Supreme Court held that although Causby had the right to use the airspace above his property, he had no right to exclude others from using the airspace. As such he was unable to prevent the Airforce from flying over his property and upsetting the egg production of his chickens.
If you can't see the military use for a humvee that can jump a ditch you've got the worst case of failure of imagination ever known. Please report to IBM for recruitment.
Licensed pilots are free to fly over anyone's property.. the only air space restrictions are for safety or national security. When applying for a pilot license (or hell, even a driving license) there is an assumption of your right to fly. The requirements are simply there for minimum safety.. there's no "oh, we don't like you so we're not going to let you fly" or "actually, we've given out too many commercial pilot's licenses this year, so come back next year."
Umm.. have you considered that maybe you're the moron?
Seriously, where did you get the idea that "more telescopes" was the solution? Presumably the academic community - who are advocating more optical telescopes specifically. More optical telescopes certainly wouldn't hurt, but it's a terrible way to search for asteroids and its an even worse way to determine their orbital parameters. See that paper above I linked to? Try reading it sometime.. then try reading some more of the literature. Come back when you have a clue. kthxbye.
We simply don't know how much of a threat asteroid impacts will be in the next 50 years because we are woefully unprepared. The evidence we have is that they are a very high risk and potentially catastrophic, so we should be spending more to measure that risk.
Yes, agreed. It really wouldn't be that expensive of a mission, under $650M.. the best candidate at the moment is Osiris-Rex proposed for the Discovery program in 2004 and 2006. It was recently selected as a New Frontiers mission. The mission would include mapping the asteroid, identifying resources that could be used in human exploration, and studying the potential for asteroids to impact Earth. They haven't yet selected an asteroid..
Well then we definitely don't have enough information to choose a method.
There's certainly capabilities that we should be thinking about acquiring. At this point in time the only demonstrated technology we have is flying a very low-mass probe to the asteroid and slamming into it. This will have little to no effect on the orbit of the asteroid - certainly not enough for mitigation. So if we want to have any hope of diverting an asteroid in the future we need to improve our capabilities now.
They most certainly did not say that. The abstract says that current estimates have MASSIVE error margins and that without more data we can't be sure of the current predictions.. I know its not exactly an easy read but it's right there on the page.
We'll know more in 2012/2013 when radar returns can be collected. Anyone who says that there is "no chance", "nearly no chance" or anything other than "we don't have enough data yet" is just trying to stem public panic by treating you like a child. Read the scientific papers, make your own decision and for god sakes, don't criticize the people we may be calling on to save lives in the future.
The fact is, asteroid detection systems (let alone mitigation systems) globally are woefully inadequate. We need at least a dozen radar telemetry satellites in solar orbit and improvements in the deep-space-network to handle that kind of data through-put. Total cost is likely in the tens of billions, and most of that will go on the telescopes, not the radar sats, and traditionally that's the most starved part of all national budgets diverted to space.
The claim is that quantum cryptographic systems are not susceptible to some of the attack vectors that public key cryptography systems are susceptible to... primarily, key factoring... the fact that all cryptographic systems share some attack vectors doesn't invalidate that claim.
Your interpretation of reality isn't truth.. got that?
The researchers did not break this device to expose anyone's snake oil.. they just demonstrated a flaw with the expectation that it would be fixed, improving the device.
If the device was using traditional public key encryption they could have done the exact same attack.
Sigh. If I use ssh to connect from my linux machine to yours and you say "ha! I've broken your ssh connection because I can sniff your pty." I'll just say congratulations, kick you off my linux machine and go back to using ssh.
0 ms: User see on the screen his car moving left, 200 ms: User press "D" to move his car right. 201 ms: OnLive process the "D" and send the message to the server. The message is on the home router. 251 ms: OnLive server receive the "D" command. 301 ms: OnLive server generate the next frame.
That all sounds good to me, but remember that the client and the server have a synchronized clock and the button press is timestamped, so when the server gets the message the game is rewinded back to that timepoint, the command is applied and the game is fast forwarded to "now".
321 ms: OnLive server compress the frame, and send it to the client. The data is on the server router (80KB) (322 ms: User press "A" to move his car to the left.)
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this new command.. maybe you're trying to imply that the user has seen that his command hasn't occurred after 122ms and is now trying something else? Or did you just want to make the example more difficult? I'll just ignore this, as there is no way the user has noticed anything after 122ms and the example is hard enough already.
371 ms: Home router receive the data. 471 ms: Onlive download the whole 80KB of data.
wtf? what's that 100ms for?
472 ms: Onlive uncompress the 80KB of data has 1024x768x16 bits of video data (??) ( compression: 153.6 % )
wtf? 1 ms to uncompress?
482 ms: Data is rendered on the screen on the next retrace. What the user see: User see his car to collide, press D to move right, wait 322 ms and nothing occur, press A to move left. 482 ms after the first keystroke, the car move right.
Ok, I'll ignore the move left bit as I still have no idea wtf you're trying to show with that. The user takes 200ms to react to what's on the screen, what makes you think he's going to notice the lack of change 122ms after pressing the button? Even if he does notice he's going to require at least another 200ms to press that button right?
I think your roundtrip time should be something more like 400ms, but whatever, here's the summary:
0ms The user sees something happen on the screen. 200ms The reacts to the something on the screen by pressing a button. 482ms The screen updates to what it would be displaying now if the processing had been done locally.
To evaluate how well the OnLive service works all we need to know is how fast a local gaming system would react to user commands. Let's be *really* harsh and say the local gaming machine could react in 50ms to the user's input. This, btw, is complete non-sense and the OnLive marketing will tell you that it is more like 200ms, but let's be harsh here.. the result of using the OnLive system is that the user sees 230ms of "it's not going!" and then it goes.. and it goes like they had a local system. The perception will be a "jump", if there's any perception at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what would be awesome? If that happened.
Obviously for the victim or his family it would be terrible, but once the scandal broke that the explosives had been planted on him by operatives there would no longer be any armed thugs in airports around the world, and we'd all be treated with a little more respect. Here's hoping that Slovakia's little experiment has a similar effect.
Yes.. testing of security systems.. madness.
This could get someone killed.
Oh really?
How do you figure?
Stop backpedaling. This has nothing to do with property rights. Even if you *own* the man-made structure you're required to keep safe distance from it.
It's really not such an uncommon mistake.. there was a time where owning land meant you owned the airspace above it, but the airplane demonstrated how terrible that idea was, so it was crushed.. now if only the same lesson could be learned about copyright.
No.. he's not.
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he/she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.
Specifically, in United States v. Causby the Supreme Court held that although Causby had the right to use the airspace above his property, he had no right to exclude others from using the airspace. As such he was unable to prevent the Airforce from flying over his property and upsetting the egg production of his chickens.
If you can't see the military use for a humvee that can jump a ditch you've got the worst case of failure of imagination ever known. Please report to IBM for recruitment.
Licensed pilots are free to fly over anyone's property.. the only air space restrictions are for safety or national security. When applying for a pilot license (or hell, even a driving license) there is an assumption of your right to fly. The requirements are simply there for minimum safety.. there's no "oh, we don't like you so we're not going to let you fly" or "actually, we've given out too many commercial pilot's licenses this year, so come back next year."
Wow.. I didn't know we needed your permission Nazi AC.
Umm.. have you considered that maybe you're the moron?
Seriously, where did you get the idea that "more telescopes" was the solution? Presumably the academic community - who are advocating more optical telescopes specifically. More optical telescopes certainly wouldn't hurt, but it's a terrible way to search for asteroids and its an even worse way to determine their orbital parameters. See that paper above I linked to? Try reading it sometime.. then try reading some more of the literature. Come back when you have a clue. kthxbye.
There's no statistics required.
We simply don't know how much of a threat asteroid impacts will be in the next 50 years because we are woefully unprepared. The evidence we have is that they are a very high risk and potentially catastrophic, so we should be spending more to measure that risk.
I do happen to know what I'm talking about, thanks.
You're just a dick.
Be careful what you say there... you might just debunk the nuclear boogie man. An Apophis sized impact is said to be equivalent to about 1000 H-bombs.
Sigh. The whole paper is about the errors in estimation and how inaccurate the parts you are selectively quoting are.
Yes, agreed. It really wouldn't be that expensive of a mission, under $650M.. the best candidate at the moment is Osiris-Rex proposed for the Discovery program in 2004 and 2006. It was recently selected as a New Frontiers mission. The mission would include mapping the asteroid, identifying resources that could be used in human exploration, and studying the potential for asteroids to impact Earth. They haven't yet selected an asteroid..
Well then we definitely don't have enough information to choose a method.
There's certainly capabilities that we should be thinking about acquiring. At this point in time the only demonstrated technology we have is flying a very low-mass probe to the asteroid and slamming into it. This will have little to no effect on the orbit of the asteroid - certainly not enough for mitigation. So if we want to have any hope of diverting an asteroid in the future we need to improve our capabilities now.
They most certainly did not say that. The abstract says that current estimates have MASSIVE error margins and that without more data we can't be sure of the current predictions.. I know its not exactly an easy read but it's right there on the page.
Indeed. There's a lot of exciting lotteries out there and we've got tickets in all of them.
This is everything currently known about the orbit of 99942 Apophis.
http://aeweb.tamu.edu/aero489/Apophis%20Mitigation%20Project/Predicting%20Earth%20Encounters.pdf
We'll know more in 2012/2013 when radar returns can be collected. Anyone who says that there is "no chance", "nearly no chance" or anything other than "we don't have enough data yet" is just trying to stem public panic by treating you like a child. Read the scientific papers, make your own decision and for god sakes, don't criticize the people we may be calling on to save lives in the future.
The fact is, asteroid detection systems (let alone mitigation systems) globally are woefully inadequate. We need at least a dozen radar telemetry satellites in solar orbit and improvements in the deep-space-network to handle that kind of data through-put. Total cost is likely in the tens of billions, and most of that will go on the telescopes, not the radar sats, and traditionally that's the most starved part of all national budgets diverted to space.
further hardening the strongest element in a security system does not provide additional security
Of course it does. You're taking a rule of thumb and holding it up as gospel while completely misunderstanding the purpose of it.
So you're saying that you failed logic.
The claim is that quantum cryptographic systems are not susceptible to some of the attack vectors that public key cryptography systems are susceptible to... primarily, key factoring... the fact that all cryptographic systems share some attack vectors doesn't invalidate that claim.
Gah, this is so frustrating.
Your interpretation of reality isn't truth.. got that?
The researchers did not break this device to expose anyone's snake oil.. they just demonstrated a flaw with the expectation that it would be fixed, improving the device.
If the device was using traditional public key encryption they could have done the exact same attack.
Sigh. If I use ssh to connect from my linux machine to yours and you say "ha! I've broken your ssh connection because I can sniff your pty." I'll just say congratulations, kick you off my linux machine and go back to using ssh.
Stop being a dick.
Kind of an important first step to improving the entire chain is to improve individual steps in the chain.
In any case, both you and the article miss the point, the attack site protected by any form of cryptography is the middle, not the ends.
*facepalm* please go back to Fox News.
Ok, nice timeline, a few points though.
That all sounds good to me, but remember that the client and the server have a synchronized clock and the button press is timestamped, so when the server gets the message the game is rewinded back to that timepoint, the command is applied and the game is fast forwarded to "now".
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this new command.. maybe you're trying to imply that the user has seen that his command hasn't occurred after 122ms and is now trying something else? Or did you just want to make the example more difficult? I'll just ignore this, as there is no way the user has noticed anything after 122ms and the example is hard enough already.
wtf? what's that 100ms for?
wtf? 1 ms to uncompress?
Ok, I'll ignore the move left bit as I still have no idea wtf you're trying to show with that. The user takes 200ms to react to what's on the screen, what makes you think he's going to notice the lack of change 122ms after pressing the button? Even if he does notice he's going to require at least another 200ms to press that button right?
I think your roundtrip time should be something more like 400ms, but whatever, here's the summary:
0ms The user sees something happen on the screen.
200ms The reacts to the something on the screen by pressing a button.
482ms The screen updates to what it would be displaying now if the processing had been done locally.
To evaluate how well the OnLive service works all we need to know is how fast a local gaming system would react to user commands. Let's be *really* harsh and say the local gaming machine could react in 50ms to the user's input. This, btw, is complete non-sense and the OnLive marketing will tell you that it is more like 200ms, but let's be harsh here.. the result of using the OnLive system is that the user sees 230ms of "it's not going!" and then it goes.. and it goes like they had a local system. The perception will be a "jump", if there's any perception at all.