I remember that for the show Gold Rush the production crew actually used a balloon to lift their aerial camera, with a small propeller in back to control where they flew. That thing was damn quiet, though given how much gas they needed to get it about sixty feet above the ground it was quite large.
The vast majority of people flying quadcopters don't already do illegal stuff.
Or at least the vast majority of people flying quadcopters aren't getting caught flying them illegally, and it's really easy to fall astray of the existing FAA regulations. Did you know it's illegal to fly over crowds? Or within a certain range of airports? Or during a number of events where the FAA may institute temporary no-fly zones? Or flying over 200ft AGL? Or for commercial purposes (unless for every quadcopter you operate you register for a special, expensive, exemption with the FAA that requires filing a very detailed disaster recovery plan, and registering for a tail number and operation requires the presence of two people, one of which must be holding an active pilot's license with the FAA, and the copter may never leave your line of sight)? Or that "commercial" use includes posting to YouTube as they monetize their videos (even if you're not)? I think there's a fairly sizeable number of people who may have unintentionally violated on of those, or other, rules about unlicensed aircraft operation.
Nobody is gonna read regulations, it's just gonna be more paperwork nobody give a shit about...
You mean like how nobody bothers to look at the driver's manual their first time ever taking a drivers' license exam? They just say "screw it," and drive unlicensed? You think the majority of American motorists are driving that way?
The problem isn't that the majority people doing illegal things with quadcopters aren't acting maliciously, but are acting in ignorance. It's just like licensing people to drive: it forces them to learn the rules of the road, so fewer people will be ignorant of them.
It's not supposed to stop criminals from doing illegal things. It's supposed to make sure the vast majority of people flying quadcopters don't unintentionally do something illegal by forcing them to read the relevant regulations, and provide a way to hold people accountable if they do not act legally.
Just like drivers and vehicle licences. Those regulations don't stop people from operating a vehicle illegally, but it does provide a system to punish people who do.
not to mention actual violent crime they should crack down on
Like murder for hire? And child exploitation rings? You do know entities involved in those things use the Dark Web to contact each other and organize, right? I mean, Dread Pirate Roberts used it to organize his hits.
Not just the new ones - even some of the older games are being ported to linux now
That's why I mentioned "Borderlands 2," which was retroactively ported. Gearbox is a hell of a developer, though, continuing to provide support to their games (and ports) long after they've disappeared from shelves, so I wouldn't expect this to be the norm for your AAA titles like "Call of Duty."
though probably only en route to the promised Steambox.
I see no indications of that. The filter in Steam reads "Linux+SteamOS" implying that the two aren't to be split. And after all, it's just Debian. No reason to think these games wouldn't operate under any other Debianesque system, as they currently do.
Where did I imply it was bad? I said if it did it would be "one less reason for me to use Windows." How does that not imply I'd like to see Media Composer run in Linux, if it gives me less incentive to continue using Windows?
That article is from 2008 (seven years isn't exactly "nearly" a decade in my book) and reflects an issue specifically involving causes of crashes for Windows Vista about a year after the OS came out. And you'll notice that while Nvidia is the largest single contributor to that pie, less than 30% of crashes were their fault. And, actually, if you read the original article from which Engadget derived their story this is a study from specifically around the launch of Windows Vista, not its entire lifecycle. And the data is very vague, as they say in the article, "in theory, NVIDIA's proportion of total driver crashes could be inflated by a relatively small handful of systems with severe driver issues." So this statistic is actually pretty useless without additional data.
That also doesn't indicate anything having to do with non-system-crash related issues, such as non-fatal crashes or poor system performance. It's also reasonable to assume that Nvidia has since fixed that issue with Windows Vista, as I don't remember there being any kinds of crashing plagues involving Nvidia hardware in Windows 7, 8, 8.1, or even 10 Technical Preview.
and most of the time ATI cards have a better performance/price ratio too, as you can see in most articles, including tomhardware's "best graphics card for the money" series (90% or so have been ATI cards for as long as I remember).
From when, and in what categories? I'm not denying that AMD makes a good graphics card and they have delivered, and do deliver the most bang for your buck at certain price points, but your claim is flimsy at best since Tom's updates these almost quarterly, as GPU manufacturers release new hardware throughout the year, and across several performance/price points. So naturally when AMD releases a new GPU they're likely to take the top spot in the high performance category, just as it's likely that when Nvidia releases a new GPU they might take the top spot.
I see that on windows 7 boxes they use at work, but no problems with AMD/ATI as of several years now (2D only).
That's why you aren't seeing any issues. AMD's Windows drivers tend to run quite well, once you get them installed. The trick is installing the drivers for their higher end hardware (as opposed to simple Rage-derived chipsets for workstations and servers). It can be a Sisyphusian task to upgrade the software some times.
So far, it looks like AMD/ATI is following through on years of pro-FOSS PR, and that is important to me because
there are just two main vendors in the graphics category.
Slowly it's becoming three, with Intel's HD Graphics and Iris hardware. It's still lower-midrange, but they're much closer to the big boys than they were back in the days of the GMA950.
Crimney, back in my day we had a paper and a pen! And when the paper crashed we had to abandon all our work and start over! We didn't have any of that "non-volatile" storage space beyond the pressed pulp!
Does anyone think the numbers are there to get any big gaming studio to do games for Linux?
Valve does. Hell, they've created their own Debian spin-off, SteamOS to try and woo developers away from Windows. And so far, I'd say they're doing a decent job as the number of games available on Linux has jumped since the announcement (let alone since the beta). Well reviewed titles like "Battleblock Theater," "XCOM: Enemy Unknown," "Super Meat Boy," "Borderlands 2," and "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel" are all available on Linux through Steam.
I am using Windows. I also use Linux. For me it's about the right tool for the job, and if Avid Media Composer ran in Linux then that would be one less reason for me to use Windows.
And either way, this story isn't about open source, it's about AMD's proprietary drivers. Says so in the summary.
Thats an easy one: just invoke DMCA. If we are not allowed to "circumvent security measures" -- no matter how pathetic -- than others should not be allowed to circumvent ours.
But they're not, as I understand it, circumventing the encryption. They're simply using it to track you by your cellular signal, as opposed to some other method that would require installing a program on your phone and activating GPS. It's closer to radio direction finding than snooping in on your phone calls (which is already easy enough to do, just get a warrant for a tap on your line).
My point was, though, since there are numerous examples of weaknesses in the phone system that no one should simply assume it's secure, or that any data transmitted across it is private. You're carrying a portable radio tower in your pocket, for crying out loud, broadcasting each and every bit for everyone in a certain area to hear. What's to stop anyone from setting up an unlicensed device and snooping in on your signals?
Oh wait: its "the bullies of the block" who are ignoring such stuff with impunity, and who's going to tell them that they should not be doing it ?
I never said they should be doing it, only that within the context of existing laws the devices themselves are legal, and that because of known problems with cellular phones no one should expect anything done with them to be private. It's like complaining that someone abused a security vulnerability on Facebook and leaked some private stuff: Facebook has a long history of privacy snafus, putting private information on there and expecting it to stay private and nothing to ever go wrong is the act of a dum-dum.
Well, the FCC has banned the sale of receivers capable of operating in cellular bands in the USA (never mind how trivially easy it is to bypass this feature).
No it hasn't. It regularly signs off on cellular equipment, it just requires a license to use it. They've also approved the use of IMSI catchers. It's unlicensed devices that the FCC has banned.
AMD's Linux drivers are catching up to, and beating, the Windows drivers? That shouldn't be hard, given that the Windows drivers are a steaming load of fetid moose crap. The drivers are the reason I switched back to Nvidia. Their Linux drivers may be proprietary and a little fidgity, and the FOSS Linux drivers may be worse than junk, but at least I don't have to nuke a whole system install just to upgrade Catalyst, and once they're installed the friggin' work!
I would assume they operate in the same frequencies as any given carrier, so potentially and of these frequencies depending on the carrier you're targeting.
could the RTL-SDR (software defined radio) dongle with the correct firmware and antenna pinpoint these as well?
I don't think so. If I understand it right, the way this detector works is by spotting discrepancies in the handoff between your carrier's tower and the IMSI catcher. Since your SDR isn't connected to the carrier there is no handoff. So the IMSI catcher would be indistinguishable from any other fixed tower, mobile tower, or microcell, as it is designed to be.
Isn't the tower handoff stuff all handled in the baseband firmware, though? I'd think that there would be memory limitations in current designs to prohibit that being feasible. And I'd also think that adding more memory wouldn't be feasible because handset manufacturers want tiny, low power components, and more memory and more complicated firmware logic might "blow their budget" so to speak.
How are the devices illegal? The FCC has approved their use. The devices are legal. It's the use that can be illegal. There has never really been a reasonable assumption of privacy with cell phone communications, hasn't been since people were picking up phone calls with baby monitors. And it's been long known that the encryption used in signal encryption is weak. If you have a âoereasonable assumption of privacyâ while using a cell phone then I suggest you do some research and reconsider your assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but they can't feign ignorance of the law in an attempt to avoid punishment when they act irresponsibly.
I remember that for the show Gold Rush the production crew actually used a balloon to lift their aerial camera, with a small propeller in back to control where they flew. That thing was damn quiet, though given how much gas they needed to get it about sixty feet above the ground it was quite large.
Or at least the vast majority of people flying quadcopters aren't getting caught flying them illegally, and it's really easy to fall astray of the existing FAA regulations. Did you know it's illegal to fly over crowds? Or within a certain range of airports? Or during a number of events where the FAA may institute temporary no-fly zones? Or flying over 200ft AGL? Or for commercial purposes (unless for every quadcopter you operate you register for a special, expensive, exemption with the FAA that requires filing a very detailed disaster recovery plan, and registering for a tail number and operation requires the presence of two people, one of which must be holding an active pilot's license with the FAA, and the copter may never leave your line of sight)? Or that "commercial" use includes posting to YouTube as they monetize their videos (even if you're not)? I think there's a fairly sizeable number of people who may have unintentionally violated on of those, or other, rules about unlicensed aircraft operation.
You mean like how nobody bothers to look at the driver's manual their first time ever taking a drivers' license exam? They just say "screw it," and drive unlicensed? You think the majority of American motorists are driving that way?
The problem isn't that the majority people doing illegal things with quadcopters aren't acting maliciously, but are acting in ignorance. It's just like licensing people to drive: it forces them to learn the rules of the road, so fewer people will be ignorant of them.
Just like drivers and vehicle licences. Those regulations don't stop people from operating a vehicle illegally, but it does provide a system to punish people who do.
Like murder for hire? And child exploitation rings? You do know entities involved in those things use the Dark Web to contact each other and organize, right? I mean, Dread Pirate Roberts used it to organize his hits.
No, but you can prevent its effects by using a lightning rod.
You're welcome to start paying to visit each and every website you want to see any time now.
It's implied with the name "Catalyst." The FOSS drivers have never been referred to as "Catalyst" except in momentary errors.
That's why I mentioned "Borderlands 2," which was retroactively ported. Gearbox is a hell of a developer, though, continuing to provide support to their games (and ports) long after they've disappeared from shelves, so I wouldn't expect this to be the norm for your AAA titles like "Call of Duty."
I see no indications of that. The filter in Steam reads "Linux+SteamOS" implying that the two aren't to be split. And after all, it's just Debian. No reason to think these games wouldn't operate under any other Debianesque system, as they currently do.
Where did I imply it was bad? I said if it did it would be "one less reason for me to use Windows." How does that not imply I'd like to see Media Composer run in Linux, if it gives me less incentive to continue using Windows?
Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. But then again I guess that's why you're an AC.
That article is from 2008 (seven years isn't exactly "nearly" a decade in my book) and reflects an issue specifically involving causes of crashes for Windows Vista about a year after the OS came out. And you'll notice that while Nvidia is the largest single contributor to that pie, less than 30% of crashes were their fault. And, actually, if you read the original article from which Engadget derived their story this is a study from specifically around the launch of Windows Vista, not its entire lifecycle. And the data is very vague, as they say in the article, "in theory, NVIDIA's proportion of total driver crashes could be inflated by a relatively small handful of systems with severe driver issues." So this statistic is actually pretty useless without additional data.
That also doesn't indicate anything having to do with non-system-crash related issues, such as non-fatal crashes or poor system performance. It's also reasonable to assume that Nvidia has since fixed that issue with Windows Vista, as I don't remember there being any kinds of crashing plagues involving Nvidia hardware in Windows 7, 8, 8.1, or even 10 Technical Preview.
From when, and in what categories? I'm not denying that AMD makes a good graphics card and they have delivered, and do deliver the most bang for your buck at certain price points, but your claim is flimsy at best since Tom's updates these almost quarterly, as GPU manufacturers release new hardware throughout the year, and across several performance/price points. So naturally when AMD releases a new GPU they're likely to take the top spot in the high performance category, just as it's likely that when Nvidia releases a new GPU they might take the top spot.
That's why you aren't seeing any issues. AMD's Windows drivers tend to run quite well, once you get them installed. The trick is installing the drivers for their higher end hardware (as opposed to simple Rage-derived chipsets for workstations and servers). It can be a Sisyphusian task to upgrade the software some times.
Slowly it's becoming three, with Intel's HD Graphics and Iris hardware. It's still lower-midrange, but they're much closer to the big boys than they were back in the days of the GMA950.
Crimney, back in my day we had a paper and a pen! And when the paper crashed we had to abandon all our work and start over! We didn't have any of that "non-volatile" storage space beyond the pressed pulp!
Valve does. Hell, they've created their own Debian spin-off, SteamOS to try and woo developers away from Windows. And so far, I'd say they're doing a decent job as the number of games available on Linux has jumped since the announcement (let alone since the beta). Well reviewed titles like "Battleblock Theater," "XCOM: Enemy Unknown," "Super Meat Boy," "Borderlands 2," and "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel" are all available on Linux through Steam.
And either way, this story isn't about open source, it's about AMD's proprietary drivers. Says so in the summary.
But they're not, as I understand it, circumventing the encryption. They're simply using it to track you by your cellular signal, as opposed to some other method that would require installing a program on your phone and activating GPS. It's closer to radio direction finding than snooping in on your phone calls (which is already easy enough to do, just get a warrant for a tap on your line).
My point was, though, since there are numerous examples of weaknesses in the phone system that no one should simply assume it's secure, or that any data transmitted across it is private. You're carrying a portable radio tower in your pocket, for crying out loud, broadcasting each and every bit for everyone in a certain area to hear. What's to stop anyone from setting up an unlicensed device and snooping in on your signals?
I never said they should be doing it, only that within the context of existing laws the devices themselves are legal, and that because of known problems with cellular phones no one should expect anything done with them to be private. It's like complaining that someone abused a security vulnerability on Facebook and leaked some private stuff: Facebook has a long history of privacy snafus, putting private information on there and expecting it to stay private and nothing to ever go wrong is the act of a dum-dum.
No it hasn't. It regularly signs off on cellular equipment, it just requires a license to use it. They've also approved the use of IMSI catchers. It's unlicensed devices that the FCC has banned.
Now, that's not to say that the use of these devices is entirely appropriate, and there are examples of cases where their use has been potentially illegal, but that doesn't make the devices themselves illegal.
AMD's Linux drivers are catching up to, and beating, the Windows drivers? That shouldn't be hard, given that the Windows drivers are a steaming load of fetid moose crap. The drivers are the reason I switched back to Nvidia. Their Linux drivers may be proprietary and a little fidgity, and the FOSS Linux drivers may be worse than junk, but at least I don't have to nuke a whole system install just to upgrade Catalyst, and once they're installed the friggin' work!
I would assume they operate in the same frequencies as any given carrier, so potentially and of these frequencies depending on the carrier you're targeting.
I don't think so. If I understand it right, the way this detector works is by spotting discrepancies in the handoff between your carrier's tower and the IMSI catcher. Since your SDR isn't connected to the carrier there is no handoff. So the IMSI catcher would be indistinguishable from any other fixed tower, mobile tower, or microcell, as it is designed to be.
Isn't the tower handoff stuff all handled in the baseband firmware, though? I'd think that there would be memory limitations in current designs to prohibit that being feasible. And I'd also think that adding more memory wouldn't be feasible because handset manufacturers want tiny, low power components, and more memory and more complicated firmware logic might "blow their budget" so to speak.
How are the devices illegal? The FCC has approved their use. The devices are legal. It's the use that can be illegal. There has never really been a reasonable assumption of privacy with cell phone communications, hasn't been since people were picking up phone calls with baby monitors. And it's been long known that the encryption used in signal encryption is weak. If you have a âoereasonable assumption of privacyâ while using a cell phone then I suggest you do some research and reconsider your assumption.
Yeah, but you don't need more than 1024 IPs when almost everyone in the nation is restricted to using an intranet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Must not have done well in physics class? Back in my day we learned how Pi was derived in geometry!
Less, actually. Most are 2048 bit, not byte.