I want a kit that will keep the stock body and switch, but replace the reflector and bulb assembly with a large cluster of LEDs, as bright of brighter than it was before.
Anybody else want one? LEDs are neat, but until someone comes out with an LED light as invincible as a Maglite, I'm not switching. It would be great to have the best of both worlds.
True dat. If a 100 lb metal tank hits your head at 400 mph it doesn't matter if it's flamming. That's just more reason to not have a tank of compressed hydrogen in your car. Pellets man. It's all about the pellets.
Yeah, the tank *could* kill you, if it was flying through the air, by itself, but really do you think they're not going to bolt them down?.
Just point the neck away from the passengers, and bolt the damn thing down.
Just about any energy storage mechanism is dangereous if you don't take proper precautions. Try shorting out your car battery sometime. Or poking a hole in your fuel rail, then driving your car around.
Spam is a curse but how is this different that the social conservatives that do the same thing to doctors and employees of woman's clinics?
Spam directly affects us. They are making first contact, by doing so (& refusing to stop) throwing down the gauntlet.
Those doctors are just doing their jobs, which have nothing to do with the conservatives. The anti-abortion lunatics are not actually affected by abortions, they just don't like the idea of them. Huge difference.
It's the difference between going after someone who is leaving dog poo on your doorstep vs. someone who is reading a book you don't like in the privacy of their own home.
If you're going to comitt a crime, is breaking gun control laws going to be a big concer of yours?
Gun control legislation only applies to law-abiding citizens. With the amount of guns already out there , it's complete idiocy to think otherwise.
I also never said that everyone should have guns. People should be able to get one, but they shouldn't be forced to. Of those that have guns, yes there will be a possibility for accidents. By your reasoning we should ban cars too. If everyone has car, we're going to have a whole bunch of vehicular accidents every year, so the whole point becomes moot. Right?
See how nonsensical that is? Everything has a cost. That's a given. They idea is to make the benefits greater than the cost.
There is always the POSSIBLITY that I may have a gun. The higher this possibility is, the less likely you are to try and 'jack my car. Gun control laws (the stupid, clinton style ones; There are actually many which I agree with) reduce this possibility.
Besides, criminals would wear vests? Mmmmkay. Right. Because they're all so worry about the consequences of their actions? Or maybe because they typically have their #$%& together and think things through?
That argument is nonsense. Using that logic, I could say that there is no point to bank vaults, crimnals will just get shaped-charge explosives.
Nothing is going to elimate crime, but it is possible to reduce it.
Your SUV amd "chipped" key arguments are just as nonsensical. Maybe you can compare the situation to eating a burrito as well?
I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus
You are an idiot. Self-defense is bogus? (And you want to forget about statistics and real events, because they'll prove you wrong.)
You honestly think that you should be prohibited from defending yourself and your family? And you think making self-defense harder doesn't make crime easier?
People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.
Way to miss the point jackass. THE POINT IS:
IF I HAVE A GUN YOU ARE LESS LIKELY TO TRY AND COMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME, THEREFORE CRIME GOES DOWN.
It's one thing to have a different opinion than someone else. It's a totally different thing when you want to force your opinion on an entire population, without even the slightest bit of concern for its validity.
A software product being closed source does not necessarily mean you will have the money to fight lawsuits. Nor does a software product being open mean that you won't (think Redhat).
As for "not knowing because it's closed source", that doesn't seem to be helping Microsoft defend themselves does it?
Just like if SCO tried this crap on Apple, Apple would have more money to defend itself in court.
Like I said, the issue is how much money you have. You do realize that Apple's product contains open source code?
Open Source's greatest feature and worst flaw is that it's free and open. Because there's next to no profit in it, software authors have next to no protection from getting sued.
And if I create a piece of proprietary software, I'm somehow magically protected?
This is not an open vs. closed issue. It is a big guy vs. little guy issue.
I think this guy's physics teacher was referring to gyroscopic effects.
I highly doubt these matter, even at highway speeds. I doubt even more that they have anything to do with what side of the road we drive on.
It seems like downforce would always increase faster than gyroscopic effects (f = c * v^3), so there is no speed at which these effects would become a serious consideration. (Unless you were driving in a vacuum).
Once the actually proved in court that the code was distributed illegally, you would have to stop using it. If you didn't stop, you could be held liable (just like you couldn't keep the stolen wheels).
The cool thing about Linux in this situation, is that the day the offending code is revealed, it will probably be removed from the kernel. By the time a verdict is reached, it should be a simple matter of running apt-get, emerge, up2date, or whatever else your distro uses.
Here's a question though.....What about embedded Linux?
You seem to have a very curious of capitalism. How is a single company controlling and entire market and illegally using that advantage to manipulate other markets capitalism?
Capitalism requires competition, and markets.
Don't like the product? Don't buy it.
Need the product, but don't like all of the included features? Try the "Install/uninstall Windows Components" tab and remove thine offending app.
Leave the friggin' courts out of it.
His analogy was way off base. His comparison was way too extreme. That's what I was pointing out. The comparison was deliberatly extreme to make it appear likely that one could have to pay damages if SCO wins.
A better analogy would be:
IBM steals the rims off SCO's jag. IBM sells them to me through their well known, well respected custom shop.
This is the type of situation where your proverb doesn't apply. IBM stole the wheels, not you, and you had no way to know that they were stolen (nor were you obligated to check).
As I said in my post, even if SCO wins, it doesn't necessarly mean they own the rights to the code in question. Next, even if it turns out they own the copyright, chances are they can only go after the people who distributed (copied) the code. That's why it's called copyright instead of useright. Even if they can find a way around this, there are still other issues: their distribution of the code under the GPL, their deliberate refusal to lessen the amount of "damage" being caused, etc.
The chances of an end user needing to pay SCO anything are VERY tiny.
Go ahead and force MS to sell those in the EU a copy w/o WMP. Now EU users will be forced to pay $30 to $40 to Real, Music Match, Quicktime, etc. to get the same functionality they get for free with WMP.
You don't get it. Do you really think WMP, IE, etc are all free? THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF WINDOWS!
Microsoft has been doing the same thing for many years. Anyone remeber Stacker?
They find a successful add-on software application and build it into the OS. Since it comes with the OS, their competition dies, and they just raise the price of Windows a Little.
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins....
on
HavenCo In Trouble?
·
· Score: 1
You'd probably get shot.
Sealand was founded by a WWII vet.
You wouldn't be the first one to try though. Years ago, some guys from Geramny came over and took over the island, and held his son hostage. Prince ? then rented a helicopter, got some guns and took the island back by force. He held the Germans captive until Germany sent diplomats to negotiate for their release.
Basically, I wouldn't try it if I were you.
All the above info is from memeory, so it's probably not 100% accurate.
Of course Microsoft will produce white papers that show Microsoft winning! Why would they possibly do otherwise? They're a *company*, not a *charity*.
Holy crap dude! Do you honestly believe that? Just because they're a company, there should be no sense of ethics whatsoever?
I don't care if I'm dealing with a corporation or a person, I expect a certain level of integrity. If I don't see it, I don't want to do business with them.
There are plenty of other businesses out there that actually WILL tell you if a competitor's product is better for your needs. They will try hard to sell you their product, that's their job. But, if a competitor's product is really better suited for your needs, they'll tell you. The key phrase here is "business relationship." They value their relationship with you as a customer (and their own reputation) highly. Dishonest information from a vendor can be expected, on occasion, but should hardly be a foregone conclusion.
I wish there was a -1, uninsightful.
And how insightful is your post? First you say that these comparisons will always have MS winning. Then you say that these comparisons will be good for Linux. WTF!?
Let's say we both are car manufacturers. I set up a group to review our cars and publish reports where mine always come out ahead. I don't care if you fix eveything my report says is wrong, I can always change the basis for comparison. As long as I give my car five stars and yours two, it's good for me and bad for you. Saying "Well at least they're paying attention to you" is silly.
Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".
How exactly is this insightful?
His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.
You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.
Doesn't this line along give away the post as a troll? There's no end of story. Even if SCO wins the case against IBM, there's nothing saying the will be able to collect damages from anyone else, especially since they have refused to disclose the infringing code. (They were knowingly adding to the damages through their own actions.) Heck, despite what SCO says, it seems the only suit they have filed is about their contract with IBM. Even if IBM did break this contract, it doesn't mean CO owns the copyright to the code.
I don't see what the big deal is. You can just minimize your mailer or whatnot when you're not using it. Then again, I run my display at 1600x1200 and my secondary LCD panel at 1280x1024, so I can understand how it would be useful with lower resolutions.
Spoken like someone who hasn't used them very much. Once you've had virtual desktops long enough, you start to use them as seperate workspaces:
You keep your email, IM, etc on one. You keep slashdot on another one. You keep that design job you're doing on the third. You keep the materials database open on the fourth, etc. It just happens, or at least it did for me.
Virtual desktops make it easy to group windows, and then to switch between those groups. This allows you to work more efficiently.
Welcome to the reason Linux has taken so long to gain desktop market share--attitude.
That's weird....Linux has never given me attitude before.
Oh, you mean Linux users? Big deal. If you don't like the way random, anonymous people on the internet treat you, maybe you shouldn't rely on them for support. We sure do rely on random anonymous people to provide our IT support here at work.
Besides, Linux users are typically very nice as long as you respect the value of their time. If they want the output of 'cat/proc/whatever/' they are usually willing to walk you through it, but you have to be willing to invest the time to help them help you.
The people who complain about Linux users are typically lazy. Like those too lazy to read the FAQ or the mailing list archives before posting a question which has been asked a million times before. This disrespects everyone else on the list, by acting as if their time is worth less than yours. Of course it upsets people. Try posting on a car forum asking the same question that's been asked a hundred times before. They'll tell you to read the FAQ too.
This is not something that has to do with 'linux users', it's a common theme wherever you ask for free tech support.
the point is to allow the company to survive, so that they may support the lives of their employees.
In a properly functioning economy, that failure of a company should not mean its employees are unable to survive. If I start a business selling something no one wants, but employing lots of people, should my company continue to exist? Nope, it's not (as a whole) contributing to society, it's costing more value than it produces.
Again, I think we basically agree, I just have a problem with your semantics. It really bothers me when someone states that, beacuse a company employs people we should make sure it continues to exist so that those people have jobs.
That market should make those decisions (excluding special cases).
They are reusable. Just like current "dispoable" cameras are. You didn't really think they were throwing out all those working cameras after 24 exposures, did you?
Before sending the camera out, I'd create a pair of public/private keys. I store the public key on the camera, the private key at the camera store (or centrally, whatever, so long as it can be retrieved later during processing).
And....
W/O the private key, the data retrieved is worthless. Generate a new key set before sending it out again.
In this case, all I need to do to hack it is generate my own key before I start using it. You could possibly require the old key before adding a new one, and then it becomes a question of how securely you store the key. If the flash is a seperate chip from the processor, you can read out the key pretty easily. I could buy cameras, unlock them and sell them on ebay.
If the key is stored in the chip itself, it probably won't be changeable. This means it will be all the same key for every camera (most likely), or a different, unchangeable key for every camera (probably not worth the effort).
Putting the key on the chip itself is expensive, as it requires an ASIC (custom chip). I suppose if they did this, it's not worth the effort to hack, but that still leaves it far from "unhackable". Everything is hackable, it just a question of how much effort is involved.
It's possible to "hack" some smartcards without even depackaging the chip. Properly controlled transients on the clock and power lines can affect program execution, possibly causing the the chip to give out it's key. If that doesn't work, there's always depackaging the chip. If this is necessary, then they're set, but I still wouldn't call the system unhackable.
Right now, I think only the miltary has "unhackable" chips, and I doubt even their scheme is perfect (the chips self destruct).
Basically, I think you're scheme is a good start, but your subject of "PKI = unhackable" just isn't a good statement to make. It's like saying your encryption is "unbreakable". I wouldn't use it. In order for a system to be sufficiently sucure, you need to know exactly what's required to break it, and then you decide if that's enough. But I suppose I'm nitpicking.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want is a retrofit for Maglites.
I want a kit that will keep the stock body and switch, but replace the reflector and bulb assembly with a large cluster of LEDs, as bright of brighter than it was before.
Anybody else want one? LEDs are neat, but until someone comes out with an LED light as invincible as a Maglite, I'm not switching. It would be great to have the best of both worlds.
True dat. If a 100 lb metal tank hits your head at 400 mph it doesn't matter if it's flamming. That's just more reason to not have a tank of compressed hydrogen in your car. Pellets man. It's all about the pellets.
Yeah, the tank *could* kill you, if it was flying through the air, by itself, but really do you think they're not going to bolt them down?.
Just point the neck away from the passengers, and bolt the damn thing down.
Just about any energy storage mechanism is dangereous if you don't take proper precautions. Try shorting out your car battery sometime. Or poking a hole in your fuel rail, then driving your car around.
Spam is a curse but how is this different that the social conservatives that do the same thing to doctors and employees of woman's clinics?
Spam directly affects us. They are making first contact, by doing so (& refusing to stop) throwing down the gauntlet.
Those doctors are just doing their jobs, which have nothing to do with the conservatives. The anti-abortion lunatics are not actually affected by abortions, they just don't like the idea of them. Huge difference.
It's the difference between going after someone who is leaving dog poo on your doorstep vs. someone who is reading a book you don't like in the privacy of their own home.
!!???
If you're going to comitt a crime, is breaking gun control laws going to be a big concer of yours?
Gun control legislation only applies to law-abiding citizens. With the amount of guns already out there , it's complete idiocy to think otherwise.
I also never said that everyone should have guns. People should be able to get one, but they shouldn't be forced to. Of those that have guns, yes there will be a possibility for accidents. By your reasoning we should ban cars too. If everyone has car, we're going to have a whole bunch of vehicular accidents every year, so the whole point becomes moot. Right?
See how nonsensical that is? Everything has a cost. That's a given. They idea is to make the benefits greater than the cost.
Right....because you can just treat the US and Germany as the same country, but with different gun control legistation.
If were going to make silly assumptions like that, perhaps you should rescearch Switzerland a litte...
They have fully automatic rifles in their homes, ya know.
This subject doesn't beak up into (a) and (b).
There is always the POSSIBLITY that I may have a gun. The higher this possibility is, the less likely you are to try and 'jack my car. Gun control laws (the stupid, clinton style ones; There are actually many which I agree with) reduce this possibility.
Besides, criminals would wear vests? Mmmmkay. Right. Because they're all so worry about the consequences of their actions? Or maybe because they typically have their #$%& together and think things through?
That argument is nonsense. Using that logic, I could say that there is no point to bank vaults, crimnals will just get shaped-charge explosives.
Nothing is going to elimate crime, but it is possible to reduce it.
Your SUV amd "chipped" key arguments are just as nonsensical. Maybe you can compare the situation to eating a burrito as well?
I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus
You are an idiot. Self-defense is bogus? (And you want to forget about statistics and real events, because they'll prove you wrong.)
You honestly think that you should be prohibited from defending yourself and your family? And you think making self-defense harder doesn't make crime easier?
People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.
Way to miss the point jackass. THE POINT IS:
IF I HAVE A GUN YOU ARE LESS LIKELY TO TRY AND COMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME, THEREFORE CRIME GOES DOWN.
It's one thing to have a different opinion than someone else. It's a totally different thing when you want to force your opinion on an entire population, without even the slightest bit of concern for its validity.
If SCO really does have a rabbit in their hat, why are their exectives selling their stock?
Anything "could" be a trick. Heck, you could be posting on a fake version of slashdot right now. Common sense says that's silly.
I bet you're a ton of fun. Everybody should live exactly the way you live right? Sheesh.
Are you powering you computer with a bicycle generator right now? That would be better for the environment you know. You'd get more exercise too.
Seriously though, I bet you'd love the winters up here on your bike.
You're missing my point.
A software product being closed source does not necessarily mean you will have the money to fight lawsuits. Nor does a software product being open mean that you won't (think Redhat).
As for "not knowing because it's closed source", that doesn't seem to be helping Microsoft defend themselves does it?
Just like if SCO tried this crap on Apple, Apple would have more money to defend itself in court.
Like I said, the issue is how much money you have. You do realize that Apple's product contains open source code?
Open Source's greatest feature and worst flaw is that it's free and open. Because there's next to no profit in it, software authors have next to no protection from getting sued.
And if I create a piece of proprietary software, I'm somehow magically protected?
This is not an open vs. closed issue. It is a big guy vs. little guy issue.
I think this guy's physics teacher was referring to gyroscopic effects.
I highly doubt these matter, even at highway speeds. I doubt even more that they have anything to do with what side of the road we drive on.
It seems like downforce would always increase faster than gyroscopic effects (f = c * v^3), so there is no speed at which these effects would become a serious consideration. (Unless you were driving in a vacuum).
Except when you're a terrorist, your goal is to create terror. If no one knows it was deliberate, then you have failed.
Exactly.
Once the actually proved in court that the code was distributed illegally, you would have to stop using it. If you didn't stop, you could be held liable (just like you couldn't keep the stolen wheels).
The cool thing about Linux in this situation, is that the day the offending code is revealed, it will probably be removed from the kernel. By the time a verdict is reached, it should be a simple matter of running apt-get, emerge, up2date, or whatever else your distro uses.
Here's a question though.....What about embedded Linux?
That's called capitalism... What's the problem?
You seem to have a very curious of capitalism. How is a single company controlling and entire market and illegally using that advantage to manipulate other markets capitalism?
Capitalism requires competition, and markets.
Don't like the product? Don't buy it. Need the product, but don't like all of the included features? Try the "Install/uninstall Windows Components" tab and remove thine offending app. Leave the friggin' courts out of it.
Do you even know what a monopoly is?
My reasoning was just fine.
His analogy was way off base. His comparison was way too extreme. That's what I was pointing out. The comparison was deliberatly extreme to make it appear likely that one could have to pay damages if SCO wins.
A better analogy would be:
IBM steals the rims off SCO's jag. IBM sells them to me through their well known, well respected custom shop.
This is the type of situation where your proverb doesn't apply. IBM stole the wheels, not you, and you had no way to know that they were stolen (nor were you obligated to check).
As I said in my post, even if SCO wins, it doesn't necessarly mean they own the rights to the code in question. Next, even if it turns out they own the copyright, chances are they can only go after the people who distributed (copied) the code. That's why it's called copyright instead of useright. Even if they can find a way around this, there are still other issues: their distribution of the code under the GPL, their deliberate refusal to lessen the amount of "damage" being caused, etc.
The chances of an end user needing to pay SCO anything are VERY tiny.
Go ahead and force MS to sell those in the EU a copy w/o WMP. Now EU users will be forced to pay $30 to $40 to Real, Music Match, Quicktime, etc. to get the same functionality they get for free with WMP.
You don't get it. Do you really think WMP, IE, etc are all free? THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF WINDOWS!
Microsoft has been doing the same thing for many years. Anyone remeber Stacker?
They find a successful add-on software application and build it into the OS. Since it comes with the OS, their competition dies, and they just raise the price of Windows a Little.
You'd probably get shot.
Sealand was founded by a WWII vet.
You wouldn't be the first one to try though. Years ago, some guys from Geramny came over and took over the island, and held his son hostage. Prince ? then rented a helicopter, got some guns and took the island back by force. He held the Germans captive until Germany sent diplomats to negotiate for their release.
Basically, I wouldn't try it if I were you.
All the above info is from memeory, so it's probably not 100% accurate.
Of course Microsoft will produce white papers that show Microsoft winning! Why would they possibly do otherwise? They're a *company*, not a *charity*.
Holy crap dude! Do you honestly believe that? Just because they're a company, there should be no sense of ethics whatsoever?
I don't care if I'm dealing with a corporation or a person, I expect a certain level of integrity. If I don't see it, I don't want to do business with them.
There are plenty of other businesses out there that actually WILL tell you if a competitor's product is better for your needs. They will try hard to sell you their product, that's their job. But, if a competitor's product is really better suited for your needs, they'll tell you. The key phrase here is "business relationship." They value their relationship with you as a customer (and their own reputation) highly. Dishonest information from a vendor can be expected, on occasion, but should hardly be a foregone conclusion.
I wish there was a -1, uninsightful.
And how insightful is your post? First you say that these comparisons will always have MS winning. Then you say that these comparisons will be good for Linux. WTF!?
Let's say we both are car manufacturers. I set up a group to review our cars and publish reports where mine always come out ahead. I don't care if you fix eveything my report says is wrong, I can always change the basis for comparison. As long as I give my car five stars and yours two, it's good for me and bad for you. Saying "Well at least they're paying attention to you" is silly.
Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".
How exactly is this insightful?
His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.
You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.
Doesn't this line along give away the post as a troll? There's no end of story. Even if SCO wins the case against IBM, there's nothing saying the will be able to collect damages from anyone else, especially since they have refused to disclose the infringing code. (They were knowingly adding to the damages through their own actions.) Heck, despite what SCO says, it seems the only suit they have filed is about their contract with IBM. Even if IBM did break this contract, it doesn't mean CO owns the copyright to the code.
I don't see what the big deal is. You can just minimize your mailer or whatnot when you're not using it. Then again, I run my display at 1600x1200 and my secondary LCD panel at 1280x1024, so I can understand how it would be useful with lower resolutions.
Spoken like someone who hasn't used them very much. Once you've had virtual desktops long enough, you start to use them as seperate workspaces:
You keep your email, IM, etc on one. You keep slashdot on another one. You keep that design job you're doing on the third. You keep the materials database open on the fourth, etc. It just happens, or at least it did for me.
Virtual desktops make it easy to group windows, and then to switch between those groups. This allows you to work more efficiently.
Welcome to the reason Linux has taken so long to gain desktop market share--attitude.
/proc/whatever/' they are usually willing to walk you through it, but you have to be willing to invest the time to help them help you.
That's weird....Linux has never given me attitude before.
Oh, you mean Linux users? Big deal. If you don't like the way random, anonymous people on the internet treat you, maybe you shouldn't rely on them for support. We sure do rely on random anonymous people to provide our IT support here at work.
Besides, Linux users are typically very nice as long as you respect the value of their time. If they want the output of 'cat
The people who complain about Linux users are typically lazy. Like those too lazy to read the FAQ or the mailing list archives before posting a question which has been asked a million times before. This disrespects everyone else on the list, by acting as if their time is worth less than yours. Of course it upsets people. Try posting on a car forum asking the same question that's been asked a hundred times before. They'll tell you to read the FAQ too.
This is not something that has to do with 'linux users', it's a common theme wherever you ask for free tech support.
the point is to allow the company to survive, so that they may support the lives of their employees.
In a properly functioning economy, that failure of a company should not mean its employees are unable to survive. If I start a business selling something no one wants, but employing lots of people, should my company continue to exist? Nope, it's not (as a whole) contributing to society, it's costing more value than it produces.
Again, I think we basically agree, I just have a problem with your semantics. It really bothers me when someone states that, beacuse a company employs people we should make sure it continues to exist so that those people have jobs.
That market should make those decisions (excluding special cases).
They are reusable. Just like current "dispoable" cameras are. You didn't really think they were throwing out all those working cameras after 24 exposures, did you?
Flaw:
Before sending the camera out, I'd create a pair of public/private keys. I store the public key on the camera, the private key at the camera store (or centrally, whatever, so long as it can be retrieved later during processing).
And....
W/O the private key, the data retrieved is worthless. Generate a new key set before sending it out again.
In this case, all I need to do to hack it is generate my own key before I start using it. You could possibly require the old key before adding a new one, and then it becomes a question of how securely you store the key. If the flash is a seperate chip from the processor, you can read out the key pretty easily. I could buy cameras, unlock them and sell them on ebay.
If the key is stored in the chip itself, it probably won't be changeable. This means it will be all the same key for every camera (most likely), or a different, unchangeable key for every camera (probably not worth the effort).
Putting the key on the chip itself is expensive, as it requires an ASIC (custom chip). I suppose if they did this, it's not worth the effort to hack, but that still leaves it far from "unhackable". Everything is hackable, it just a question of how much effort is involved.
It's possible to "hack" some smartcards without even depackaging the chip. Properly controlled transients on the clock and power lines can affect program execution, possibly causing the the chip to give out it's key. If that doesn't work, there's always depackaging the chip. If this is necessary, then they're set, but I still wouldn't call the system unhackable.
Right now, I think only the miltary has "unhackable" chips, and I doubt even their scheme is perfect (the chips self destruct).
Basically, I think you're scheme is a good start, but your subject of "PKI = unhackable" just isn't a good statement to make. It's like saying your encryption is "unbreakable". I wouldn't use it. In order for a system to be sufficiently sucure, you need to know exactly what's required to break it, and then you decide if that's enough. But I suppose I'm nitpicking.