I agree with this, but in reality the time when you are leaving is not the time to be setting that up, it should have been set up on the very first day the person started - lets face it, you are *never* going to be able to document everything now, its a hopeless task. If you manage to touch on everything, then you will miss the little foibles that even you have forgotten (until the next time you have to touch that function yourself).
Not that unusual, most military aircraft are maximum takeoff weight restricted before fuel capacity restricted - put the important things on first (weapons, payload systems etc), load enough fuel to take off, deal with any emergencies and a climb to the tanker, and bobs your uncle. The MTOW doesn't apply if you are already airborn, you just have to stick to structural weight limits:)
AT&T aren't granted a license, they are sold a license for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars at a time, which substantially changes the argument and can hardly be claimed to be "in the public interest" in the first place.
Really, you are demanding a citation over fucking semantics?
Also, my citation never says the drone landed itself, it says that bad data may have caused the drones operator to land it inadvertently - if the bad data put the drones location elsewhere, the operator could have been entirely convinced they were landing the aircraft at a proper runway at a controlled airbase, when infact it was landing on random terrain.
And what happens when you put an aircraft down on random terrain? I shall leave that as an exercise for the reader, but typically it isn't good.
There are plenty of things in this discussion to take issue with, but if the wording in my post is one of those things for you, then I suggest you step back. There is plenty of evidence to show that the drone did not carry out a proper landing, and that evidence also strongly supports a crash - the drone has visible damage, it's undercarriage is never shown (it's always on a plinth, with the bottom shrouded) and one of the wings has been reattached.
After writing this, I have gradually come to the realisation that you may be one of those types of trolls who cry "citation needed" at every little thing, hoping the other party shuts up. Not me, I'm afraid.
And no, I don't need a citation for the terms I used.
So, Iran has satellites. Do they have the right transmitters etc onboard, are they in the right part of the sky etc, do they have the right orbital period etc? Having a satellite and being able to do anything with it are two entirely different things.
And what's to stop a plane trying to do a MITM attack? Well, apart from the encryption you mean? All sorts of things, such as the precision of position required, knowledge of control interfaces etc, lack of authentication etc.
Current generation drones are usually controlled by satellite feeds - the drone sends responses back to the controller via tight beam to the satellite, so it's still very stealthy and not very susceptible to interference or jamming as you need to get between the aircraft and satellite to jam it.
The Predator does broadcast surveillance footage unencrypted, but that's entirely different to it's control system, which is a directional satellite feed inaccessible from the ground (and encrypted). Surveillance footage is broadcast for the benefit of local ground forces, so they can get intelligence direct from the aircraft overhead in realtime.
Actually it's commonly accepted within the aviation community (professional, military and otherwise) that the Iranian claim has no basis, and the RQ-170 crashed after a control feed failure rather than being brought down by hacking.
All the current heavy bombers of the USAF have the ability to do the long range missions that the B-2 are famous for, and infect the B-1B regularly does (Libya is a good example).
However, doing those missions still requires a huge support infrastructure to be in place - even the B-2 doesn't carry the fuel load to enable it to hit Iraq from the continental United States without being refueled several times enrolee, which means you still need bases for the KC-135s (or the new replacement) within capable range for a refuelling hookup.
So yes, these new bombers will have the same reach as the current generation.
As I just posted in reply to your original post...
I highly doubt that anyone is going to be able to order one of these bombers from Amazon for the explicit purpose of hacking it. Regardless of how talented you are, you still need a substantial amount of access to something in order to ascertain its weaknesses.
In other words, would the PS3 still have been hacked if all the hackers had access to was the data flowing over the Internet connection for 8 hours at a time? I doubt it.
Good luck hacking something that you have no access to on a regular basis - seriously, I agree with you in that anything can be hacked, but you have to have a decent amount of access to something in order to actually discover the weaknesses, which I doubt can happen over the course of a single mission for one of these things (even assuming that the control interface link doesn't use rotating encryption keys).
Yes, we have reports of Taliban groups intercepting video streams from current surveillance drones, but there's no suggestion that they have access to the control links in any fashion.
Back in 2006 there were very very strong rumours that Apple was going to release a full screen video iPod and PDA - the rumour sites even had (fake) videos of the AV iPod playing video content, with someone using the on screen inputs to forward and rewind. Of course it was slated here on slashdot because "no one wants fingerprints on their screen!" etc.
No such product emerged that year, but the iPhone and iPod Touch turned up the following year, in almost the exact same rumoured format as the previous year. And now, most smart devices are the same...
My point? Some people will always see the negatives in something, regardless of how successful it ends up being.
The "Breach of the Peace" offence is a huge overbear to cover the example given (and its a true example), a court binding the defendent over to not do what they were doing is exactly what is needed - and that is what an ASBO is.
Similarly, simply dropping money on the ground does not a paedophile make, and its certainly not covered under child protection laws regardless of whether the intention is to attract children or not - there has to be an intention to do something further.
The order would be placed on them, so it is in effect wherever they are - unless they remain outside of UK jurisdiction until no one cares about the violation anymore.
They don't have a "fair share" as they aren't running a charity. All costs need to be covered by the product and nothing else.
It's perfectly acceptable that the consumer pays for the rebuild, just as it is that they get to pay for the R&D in a new product, or the repayment of the initial investment to build the factory.
The problem with your example is that it's well documented that there was a thriving black market in Britain during the second world war, and those willing to pay the butcher the price he wanted for the "extra" sausages he had acquired would eat better than those who couldn't.
You need a better book store - at my local chain (Waterstones), there is about 50 meters of shelf space given over to scifi and fantasy, with about half of it being scifi. At both of my local independents, there is about 20 meters of shelf space for scifi and fantasy, again with a good leaning toward scifi.
I have no trouble picking up a new scifi book these days.
Actaully, this might be a good place to ask - does anyone know the name of a scifi series based around humanity being enslaved by an ancient alien race who created a huge empire out of thousands of enslaved races, with the series starting as the very last member of that master race dying and the rest of the series involving a civil war within the now leaderless empire? The main characters were a male and a female, with the male going on to revolutionise tactics within the fleet.
I read it ages ago but can't remember what its called.
Slashdot Mirror
The Police have been covered by the RIAA since the 1970s...
Ars is covering it...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars ...with lots of nice links.
I agree with this, but in reality the time when you are leaving is not the time to be setting that up, it should have been set up on the very first day the person started - lets face it, you are *never* going to be able to document everything now, its a hopeless task. If you manage to touch on everything, then you will miss the little foibles that even you have forgotten (until the next time you have to touch that function yourself).
Not that unusual, most military aircraft are maximum takeoff weight restricted before fuel capacity restricted - put the important things on first (weapons, payload systems etc), load enough fuel to take off, deal with any emergencies and a climb to the tanker, and bobs your uncle. The MTOW doesn't apply if you are already airborn, you just have to stick to structural weight limits :)
AT&T aren't granted a license, they are sold a license for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars at a time, which substantially changes the argument and can hardly be claimed to be "in the public interest" in the first place.
Really, you are demanding a citation over fucking semantics?
Also, my citation never says the drone landed itself, it says that bad data may have caused the drones operator to land it inadvertently - if the bad data put the drones location elsewhere, the operator could have been entirely convinced they were landing the aircraft at a proper runway at a controlled airbase, when infact it was landing on random terrain.
And what happens when you put an aircraft down on random terrain? I shall leave that as an exercise for the reader, but typically it isn't good.
There are plenty of things in this discussion to take issue with, but if the wording in my post is one of those things for you, then I suggest you step back. There is plenty of evidence to show that the drone did not carry out a proper landing, and that evidence also strongly supports a crash - the drone has visible damage, it's undercarriage is never shown (it's always on a plinth, with the bottom shrouded) and one of the wings has been reattached.
After writing this, I have gradually come to the realisation that you may be one of those types of trolls who cry "citation needed" at every little thing, hoping the other party shuts up. Not me, I'm afraid.
And no, I don't need a citation for the terms I used.
So, Iran has satellites. Do they have the right transmitters etc onboard, are they in the right part of the sky etc, do they have the right orbital period etc? Having a satellite and being able to do anything with it are two entirely different things.
And what's to stop a plane trying to do a MITM attack? Well, apart from the encryption you mean? All sorts of things, such as the precision of position required, knowledge of control interfaces etc, lack of authentication etc.
Depends on the aircraft - the F-111 is respected for it's internal fuel capacity, and then they shove external tanks on the bloody thing :)
That would be quite a feat, considering the orbital dynamics involved.
My pleasure.
http://infosecisland.com/blogview/20203-US-Confirms-Iran-Did-Not-Hack-RQ-170-Stealth-Drone.html
Really, did anyone believe the Iranian claim?
Current generation drones are usually controlled by satellite feeds - the drone sends responses back to the controller via tight beam to the satellite, so it's still very stealthy and not very susceptible to interference or jamming as you need to get between the aircraft and satellite to jam it.
The Predator does broadcast surveillance footage unencrypted, but that's entirely different to it's control system, which is a directional satellite feed inaccessible from the ground (and encrypted). Surveillance footage is broadcast for the benefit of local ground forces, so they can get intelligence direct from the aircraft overhead in realtime.
Actually it's commonly accepted within the aviation community (professional, military and otherwise) that the Iranian claim has no basis, and the RQ-170 crashed after a control feed failure rather than being brought down by hacking.
Do you really take Iranian claims at face value?
All the current heavy bombers of the USAF have the ability to do the long range missions that the B-2 are famous for, and infect the B-1B regularly does (Libya is a good example).
However, doing those missions still requires a huge support infrastructure to be in place - even the B-2 doesn't carry the fuel load to enable it to hit Iraq from the continental United States without being refueled several times enrolee, which means you still need bases for the KC-135s (or the new replacement) within capable range for a refuelling hookup.
So yes, these new bombers will have the same reach as the current generation.
As I just posted in reply to your original post...
I highly doubt that anyone is going to be able to order one of these bombers from Amazon for the explicit purpose of hacking it. Regardless of how talented you are, you still need a substantial amount of access to something in order to ascertain its weaknesses.
In other words, would the PS3 still have been hacked if all the hackers had access to was the data flowing over the Internet connection for 8 hours at a time? I doubt it.
Good luck hacking something that you have no access to on a regular basis - seriously, I agree with you in that anything can be hacked, but you have to have a decent amount of access to something in order to actually discover the weaknesses, which I doubt can happen over the course of a single mission for one of these things (even assuming that the control interface link doesn't use rotating encryption keys).
Yes, we have reports of Taliban groups intercepting video streams from current surveillance drones, but there's no suggestion that they have access to the control links in any fashion.
Back in 2006 there were very very strong rumours that Apple was going to release a full screen video iPod and PDA - the rumour sites even had (fake) videos of the AV iPod playing video content, with someone using the on screen inputs to forward and rewind. Of course it was slated here on slashdot because "no one wants fingerprints on their screen!" etc.
No such product emerged that year, but the iPhone and iPod Touch turned up the following year, in almost the exact same rumoured format as the previous year. And now, most smart devices are the same...
My point? Some people will always see the negatives in something, regardless of how successful it ends up being.
The "Breach of the Peace" offence is a huge overbear to cover the example given (and its a true example), a court binding the defendent over to not do what they were doing is exactly what is needed - and that is what an ASBO is.
Similarly, simply dropping money on the ground does not a paedophile make, and its certainly not covered under child protection laws regardless of whether the intention is to attract children or not - there has to be an intention to do something further.
The order would be placed on them, so it is in effect wherever they are - unless they remain outside of UK jurisdiction until no one cares about the violation anymore.
Why should they?
Yes I saw those, and no they are not the same as having categories for genres.
They don't have a "fair share" as they aren't running a charity. All costs need to be covered by the product and nothing else.
It's perfectly acceptable that the consumer pays for the rebuild, just as it is that they get to pay for the R&D in a new product, or the repayment of the initial investment to build the factory.
The problem with your example is that it's well documented that there was a thriving black market in Britain during the second world war, and those willing to pay the butcher the price he wanted for the "extra" sausages he had acquired would eat better than those who couldn't.
Brilliant, thats the one - thankyou :)
You need a better book store - at my local chain (Waterstones), there is about 50 meters of shelf space given over to scifi and fantasy, with about half of it being scifi. At both of my local independents, there is about 20 meters of shelf space for scifi and fantasy, again with a good leaning toward scifi.
I have no trouble picking up a new scifi book these days.
Actaully, this might be a good place to ask - does anyone know the name of a scifi series based around humanity being enslaved by an ancient alien race who created a huge empire out of thousands of enslaved races, with the series starting as the very last member of that master race dying and the rest of the series involving a civil war within the now leaderless empire? The main characters were a male and a female, with the male going on to revolutionise tactics within the fleet.
I read it ages ago but can't remember what its called.