Even the stealth fighter leaves a radar impression, its just very small and ignored by software 99.9999999999999999% of the time because the software ends up thinking its a bird and irrelevant.
If all aircraft were 'stealth' aircraft, the way radar is used would change and you'd be seen instantly. You're basically doing the 'Linux doesn't get viruses' argument for radar.
Point one: The signal comes from above, the antenna is on top of the aircraft. There is a 80-90 ton aircraft made of nice shielding materials like metal inbetween the likely source of the interference and the signal source, as well as in most cases 5 or 6 miles of vertical distance between the aircraft and the closest point of Earth. Its highly unlikely anyone on the ground is going to be doing any jamming of airliners at cruising altitudes, and just unlikely when you get close to the ground.
Point two: Radar can be easily jammed. Really, its easy as cake. To do it on a scale large enough to cause a problem you're going to have to build a large, easy to spot and notice structure and consume enough power to make people notice you're going to do so. To which the military has a very specially designed missile for just such an occasion. You won't just block one 'radial' either, it doesn't work that way, you cause enough background interference and the SNR is so bad that bounce off the aircraft thats being painted simply is lost in the noise. Think of it as trying use a parabolic microphone to hear a bird chirping a block away, while a marching band plays behind you 10 feet. Its really not hard for them to screw up your bird watching, but its also REALLY easy for you to figure out who is doing it so it just doesn't happen.
No, aircraft can be flown manually relatively easily. When you look at your GPS and it says you're in the middle of the atlantic and you can see Chicago and the great lakes below you, then you can simply ignore GPS and fall back to VOR, NDB, and finally good old fasioned visual navigation with landmarks, though it'd be a bit scary to do so in a large commercial craft if you were completely lost, but you wouldn't become 'completely lost' unless you were over open ocean. Either way, its a standard procedure to recover from.
To my understanding, only one man has flown the space shuttle manually in the atmosphere other than the last 2 minutes of the landing sequence, and thats argued to be a rumor started by Marines (the pilot was a Marine), the rumor goes on to say that even he said he wouldn't do it again. In short, the Shuttle flies itself and the pilot is just what they call the guy the sits in the front right chair, the commander being the front left.
They aren't the same class of craft, nor the same class of pilot for that matter.
You won't have full ATC coverage in the middle of the Atlantic. Aircraft use VHF pretty much exclusively, If radar can't reach you then its unlikely radio is reaching you either.
You wont' get anything new over the Atlantic.
Flights over the ocean relay messages between aircraft manually, pilot to pilot, over standard VHF 108-129mhz or whatever it is (its been a while, but its the 20-30mhz directly above standard terrestrial broadcast radio). They pass notes to the ground stations essentially. If they are lucky, it reaches the right ground station, but more often than not it doesn't. At this point its keyed into a system which takes the aircraft and who they are trying to communicate with and sends it electronically to the right ATC (whereever he might be). Traditionally this was then printed out on what looked like an old stock ticker for him to read and process and respond to, the same way, manual relaying by voice over the radio through other planes.
This caused major headaches during 9/11 as the amount of radio traffic and things that needed to be done got very intense. Pilots not only had to reroute because they couldn't enter the US, but while they are figuring that out, they were also relaying messages to others over the ocean inbound for the US to warn them of the same problem so they could start planning for it. All of this is being done by pilots who, now days, are very bad at manual navigation and rerouting because... they've grown dependent on GPS and radar guidance.
This really won't change anything at all directly. What this will do is provide money to update existing systems, and fix systems like ignorant radar installations that stop displaying aircraft that turn off their transponder even though the aircraft is clearly in controlled airspace the radar operator is responsible for. So... while the entire premise of this story and what its going to do are utterly wrong, it will possibly make things better anyway just in the upgrades. Of course, it'll also bring in a whole new batch of bugs that will bring up this discussion again in another 50 years.
Welcome to progress... new day, new technology, same bugs.
All 'radar' for this discussion is active. Passive radar is something used at SETI.
Radar systems can derive altitude, position, speed and bearing from a couple of sweeps. Transponders augment this information by sending back what the aircraft knows about itself, in general aviation we use 'mode c' transponders which respond with an ID number and an altitude, thats it. Some software that is used in ATC doesn't try to figure out the extra info without a transponder because they didn't care, its too older, too slow, or the equipment isn't accurate enough to figure it out. All of these instances are going to be older radar systems that should be patched or replaced. These sort of problems never go away, any new system will have its own unique set of issues with bad implementations just like radar.
I assure you however, radar is more than capable of pinpointing your location, speed, and bearing without any transponder at all. Altitude being the hardest to get, the other 3 I can do in my head after 2 sweeps of the radar beam.
Military radar on the other hand is capable of doing things like (the don't, but could!) showing you a picture of the aircraft profile as viewed by the radar and then using that to identify based on range, profile, calculated mass and speed, exactly what type of aircraft it is, what its configuration is, is it carrying external stores, is it flying in a manner that indicates its loadout. Yes military radar is FAR more powerful and accurate, but the radar on my boat can do everything you're talking about if it were pointed at the sky rather than the surface. The only thing a transponder truely provides that can't be inferred from other info is an ID so that if radar sigs get FAR too close (like near miss sort of situations) the system (and operator) can still figure out which ones which.
Whats important to note about all this is... Radar works within radio communications range, using GPS isn't going to change anything because... if radar can't paint you, you also can't really transmit your position to ATC, or even communicate with them in the first place. For locations where you are outside of radar range you are almost ALWAYS communicating with controllers via relays off other aircraft. When flying over the Atlantic between Europe and the US, when the planes are off radar they are communicating by passing messages along to other aircraft on the same route they are on. They pass notes until it can make it to a ground station (probably not even the right one!) where it is then typed up and relied back out to a printer at the proper ground station, sitting next to a guy who is responsible for the fly. He may not get to talk to them for hours, yet he has to control them in their flight across the ocean. GPS won't do any good here as the idea of relaying lat/long/alt/bearing over the radio is simply unworkable. And being that when the radio works to talk to ground, you're almost certainly within radar range (or will be in the next 30 seconds anyway) then its really not worth the effort.
Interestingly enough, those things effect the current system almost exactly equally.
Solar storms are more likely to effect the power grid powering the radar than the military, EMP resistant sats built for nuclear war.
Terrorists could 'hack' the system, but doing it on any useful scale would require them to construct a rather large and obvious transmission system, that would also be very easy to take out. The USAF has a system designed for it, probably the Navy too, its called a HARM anti-radar missile. One can be deposited to any location on the globe in under an hour with the exception of a few inland locations in places like russia and china, which clearly aren't going to be a terrorist threat to us. Curve of the Earth and line of sight prevents you from building anything too far away from your target.
Hacking/Cracking - uhm, this is the same thing as the last one really
Satellites are easy to replace, there are a few extra, and a complete constellation isn't even required for coverage. Whats more important here is simply that the US military would be devastated by the lack of GPS, you don't have any worry about it going away. If it goes away, you won't be worried about aircraft running into each other, you'll probably be more concerned with surviving whatever disaster has managed to cripple the world that bad. Likely you'll be dead and it won't matter, as anything thats going to seriously effect the GPS constellation is likely going to render the planet uninhabitable by humans. You're essentially talking about nuclear war and direct attacks on the sats, or some sort of cosmic event with enough energy to damage the well shielded GPS sats... that amount of energy is going to do A LOT of damage on the ground across the entire planet as well. Its more likely the sats will survive and we won't.
Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.
You could still do 3 a minute in clear weather, you'd loose bad weather for that tight of spacing, no radar would effectively slow the pace at a large airport so much that it'd effectively be closed and you'd have to reroute aircraft without radar. That would be a very nasty mess since most pilots today in large aircraft are far too dependent on electronic positioning via GPS rather than actually using traditional VFR navigation technics.
IFR however requires no radar and is perfectly valid at uncontrolled airports which have no radar or control tower.
IFR rules require insturments in the aircraft and signal generators on the ground, but not radar in anyway. You just need beacons to follow on the ground and the equipment in your craft to detect them.
I'm going to assume you are European, as thats typically the only geographic area ignorant enough to make such a statement...
We have single states (equivalent to what Europeans refer to as countries) that are nearly half the size of the entire continent you live on. I could drive from one end of your content and back, and still have driven a shorter distance than to my brothers house. I could drive from Iraq to Spain in probably less time than to my brothers house (just looking at the map, probably not true do to several large seas and mountain ranges in the way).
Our 'inefficient cars' are because we use them to travel large distances and don't feel like doing it in a card board box thats not big enough for us to actually fit in without a leg hanging out the window. You have bullet train rides between countries that are shorter than my wifes daily drive to work. We are one of the largest countries in the world, no shit we have a big foot print. You can fit almost your entire continent in about 3 of our states combined... out of 50. We can literally drop your entire continent in areas of the united states that no one visits and we wouldn't even notice you there until we drove through or the smell started whafting out to the rest of us. Flying in the US is still cheaper than driving longer distances, naturally, thats not surprising otherwise why would their be an airline industry? Our fuel isn't taxed to all hell and back because we have designed ourselves to be a nation that drives. Most of Europe on the other hand does its best to prevent people from driving because you simply couldn't handle all of your citizens driving. Too many old cities with small roads, too many roads that simply couldn't handle the traffic of that many cars. You are a urban population. 90% of your people live in a handful of cities so public transportation is amazingly cheap per person since its all so confined. We are not, we are a rural population. The majority of our people are scattered across the nation in little villages and towns.
In short, you have no concept of living anywhere except your little neck of the woods. You are what Europeans typically like to refer to a 'ignorant American', except replace American with European and pull that big stick of smug out of your ass cause you're just showing everyone how clueless you are.
There is no flame in your post, just ignorance. You aren't a tree loving hippie communist so much as you're just an idiot who has no concept of what life may be like outside his apartment. You are only a tree-loving hippie communist global warming conspirator in your own mind, it doesn't count when you have no choice but to do it that way because your civilization would fall apart over night if you didn't act that way. Anything Europeans do thats 'good' for the environment still doesn't make up for the damage done over the past few thousand years with your filthy cities and dumping sewage into your own water supplies.
Get off your high horse, you aren't nearly as special or bad ass as you think you are. Turns out, when it comes right down to it, people of the world are all pretty much identical, regardless of how much better than everyone else you think you are.
No, you really can't increase the density and maintain the same safety level. You get a false sense of being more safe because you have a 'more accurate position'... more accurate only if everything else in the system is working properly and there isn't a weird glitch that results in the GPS being off by miles (yes, it happens, regularly).
You still can't stick planes closer together over the ocean because you having a GPS on your aircraft doesn't help the guy who just flew into you. Great, you know YOUR position down to within meters, YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. You still have to communicate that position. You know what else doesn't work over long ocean routes? Radios, curve of the Earth prevents communication with land stations, just like it prevents them from painting them with radar...
So now you're going to have to add in some other type of communication methods so everyone in the general area can find out what other planes are around, so they can avoid them.
Basically, this does nothing but cost more money. You will not ever turn off radar, you'll always need it for when the GPS or communications fail. You're still going to need transponders or some sort of transmitters to relay the GPS info from the aircraft to everyone else.
You definitely don't understand how GPS works, its a safe bet you aren't a pilot and you clearly don't understand why aircraft spacing over the ocean is like it is. They can't see or communicate with each other easy, GPS does nothing at all to change that, they're still going to be relaying radio messages through each other to communicate with land based coordinators. Radar can't go away because its there to deal with many other situations that GPS simply can't deal with, like Aircraft that don't have all the equipment.
Most certainly can jump on Oracle! Redhate is friend of GPL. Oracle is commercial company who doesn't give everything away for free.
Oracle is evil because they don't want to give everyone a free ride. Redhat is good because... well, because GPL and Linux fan boys are generally fucking retarded, I can't come up with any other reason people are salivating to give them blowjobs.
The reality of it is, Oracle is just putting the nails in the Solaris coffin without actually saying thats what they are doing.
Yes, Oracle is cutting lots of 'free' as in money things out of Sun... in case you didn't notice Sun wasn't going to survive for long the way it was going, if Oracle doesn't do something to stem the flow of cash out of Sun then Oracle will simply be next. While I'm sure there are plenty of idiots here who think that would be a good thing, you'd be wrong for a number of reasons.
Of course, the only way this is acceptable to me is if they start releasing versions of Solaris that they put the time and effort into testing and securing before release. The worlds current software development model is 'sell the customer a beta app, patch it over time, and when its finally at a 'release ready' point you EOL it, release the NEXT beta version of the software and get everyone to upgrade!'
If they continue to sell incomplete/untested software and then start charging you to finish the beta program well, they'll get by with it for a while, but it'll just be known as the start of the final nail in the solaris coffin.
The general argument over the restrictions in GPL that bother people revolve entirely around the fact that GPL tries to make everything else exactly like itself.
If you want to use GPL you have to be GPL, nothing else is acceptable! No exceptions, and my god will the uber geeks with no life go off on you if you make one little mistake. You won't even know someone found a snippet of GPL code in your stuff before you've been DDoSed off the Internet.
GPL people are almost in entirety fanatical idiots. There are a few people and companies that aren't, but they are few and far between and for every good thing they do, there are 50 idiot things that GPL fanboys do to scare everyone else off.
Even Microsoft will let you use their code with other peoples code under different license agreements, they may not let their code be open, but they don't prevent you from using it just because you want to use some other open source block of code. Conversely, with GPL not only does all the code have to be open, it pretty much HAS to be GPL or a GPL derivative.
When Microsoft is more open and less restrictive than you are, then you need to take a deep breath and think before the next time you brag about how open or free your virus of a license is.
GPL isn't a license, its an infection, and thats the sticking point.
Exactly! If this project had only been BSD licensed, the developer could have just walked away with the code and never contributed anything back. Or heck - anyone could. Businesses should take note. Develop with BSD licenses so your competitors get your work for free! That's obviously the best way to do things and avoids all this "virus" GPL stuff.
Yep, that is exactly true, and you're a dumbass for thinking thats a bad thing.
Do you realize that the IP stack in systems we use today are ALL based on BSD licensed code? The fact that the Internet works as well as it does is because people could all use a common bit of code, in their own projects, without having to turn EVERYTHING ELSE over to the public.
Where do you think the original IP stack in Linux came from? Or Windows... or Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, BeOS, OS/2, Netware... probably anything else you can come up with...
They ALL start with the BSD socket API. So yes, I'm quiet happy that the BSD license gets 'abused' the way it does. Thats an example of open source working properly.
GPL is used to force other people to do your work for you basically. If they fix your bugs, you get the changes, but you at that point can just sit around and slurp down their changes. GPL tries its best to make everything it touches GPL, thats not a license, thats a fucking virus, have yourself a glass of perspective and soda.
BSD code helped create the Internet. GPL wouldn't exist without BSD code crutching up everything that supported GPL to getting where it is today. You'd do well with a history lesson or 20.
You're modded funny, but ignorant is far more accurate.
Really? it doesn't restrict anything? So I'm free to use GPL code in a closed source game without giving out the source?
Do you know what the word restriction means?
You realize the only 'license' without restrictions is public domain, right?
And finally... have you seen a diff of Nexuiz compared to the quake code base? No? I didn't think so... of course you're clearly ignorant so why did I bother to respond... oh yes, I'm bored...
If you want to be safe, don't use GPL license for your software, you're going to have to deal with a bunch of pains in the asses in the future if you ever want to do anything different from a license perspective.
GPL steps on its own foot so often its not even funny, do you realize what extremists GPL supporters have become?
Do youself a favor and use a license for your code that actually does have an open spirit rather than a built in virus.
Whats the difference between DRM and GPL? GPL is DRM for developers, otherwise they are the same, a bunch of bullshit restrictions tacked on by someone who wants to pretend they're doing you all sorts of favors, but in the end aren't really giving you anything of value while effectively limiting your actions.
These people are referred to as either Idiots or Cluebies.
They qualify as an idiot if they were around during the time rootshell.org got owned, and cluebies if they started being Linux fan boys after that time. Either way, ignorant is valid term for describing them.
If you can't make Windows secure, it really is your fault. It can certainly be made on par with any other OS currently on the market with equal functionality, but it'll take some effort.
The problem here isn't the devices, its the user actually.
If you're trying to SSH to a server on your blackberry, you are in the most simplest terms I can come up with, an idiot.
No one is that important, nothing you do is that important. If you have to use your blackberry to fix a problem because you are so far away from a normal computer and there is no one else that you can call to fix the server than... you have clearly fucked up on several occasions.
They are PDAs... PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANTS... they help you organize and carry info with you. You didn't try to write on the cards in your rolodex WHILE they were in the rolodex did you? Thats essentially what you're bitching about here.
In case you haven't noticed, the PDA fad... isn't exactly a fad. I know 2 people right now that I can think of that don't have smart phones, and they are both over 60 years old, one of them wants a smart phone. I'm not real sure how everyone including freaking homeless people on the street owning one makes it a fad, but whatever, you're clearly disconnected from reality.
Your PDA isn't a replacement for your computer, its a device that allows you to do things in a restricted situation. If you try to use it like a full PC then you deserve the pain you get, stupidity isn't something I feel sorry for.
Yea, its good to listen to people who don't actually know what they are talking about.
My DVR is Windows 7 Ultimate, recording 4 SD and 2 HD streams at a time, with XBox360's functioning as extenders.
There isn't a better home media management system out there for the general public.
The reason Apple is doing well is because they are seeing these things. Its nice that he came up with an 'exception' so he could be right, but the simple fact of it is that its just an excuse for 'no one else is managing to pull it off so it must have been a fluke.
If you listen to people like this and believe them just because they have more experience or have made a name for themselves, you will no doubt spend most of your time missing the mark. All in all though, not real sure why you would listen to some random person just because they were giving a talk at a conference.
I guess being a tool still isn't illegal so feel free to continue.
I agree, a tar pipe is the best way to go, but do a drive image, not the data itself first.
Then do the data afterwords, just in case there are some sort of problem with the image.
This is computer archeology essentially, doing your absolute best to maintain the original data in its exact form will result in the most history being saved.
Then you can do other cool things like trying to get it to boot in emulators and suck to manipulate the system without the possibility of damaging the original device
Hard drives almost always die due to bearing failure at this age, more specifically, lubricants turning to glue essentially.
If that hasn't happened, he's probably pretty safe, its probably all gone!
Either way, removing the drive to put in something else most certainly increases the chances of problems, and while unlikely, the Xenix driver in Linux may have some quirks dealing with an FS that old. The Xenix driver certainly isn't one of the more well tested fs drivers.
With what really is an archological find from a geek perspective, I wouldn't take any risks at all, and like everyone else suggests, if the system is bootable, serial it off FIRST, as an image if at all possible. Verify the image is valid and consistent on a Linux machine before you do anything else to the original hardware.
What actually hasn't been hit on yet and to me is a big one... if it boots, don't turn the damn thing off!
Get some of the hard disk lube moving around, or start working some dry capacitors and you're likely not to have a high number of boots left, especially if this thing has been sitting for an extended period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
OHOHOH aren't you a bad ass ...
no, not really.
Even the stealth fighter leaves a radar impression, its just very small and ignored by software 99.9999999999999999% of the time because the software ends up thinking its a bird and irrelevant.
If all aircraft were 'stealth' aircraft, the way radar is used would change and you'd be seen instantly. You're basically doing the 'Linux doesn't get viruses' argument for radar.
Point one: The signal comes from above, the antenna is on top of the aircraft. There is a 80-90 ton aircraft made of nice shielding materials like metal inbetween the likely source of the interference and the signal source, as well as in most cases 5 or 6 miles of vertical distance between the aircraft and the closest point of Earth. Its highly unlikely anyone on the ground is going to be doing any jamming of airliners at cruising altitudes, and just unlikely when you get close to the ground.
Point two: Radar can be easily jammed. Really, its easy as cake. To do it on a scale large enough to cause a problem you're going to have to build a large, easy to spot and notice structure and consume enough power to make people notice you're going to do so. To which the military has a very specially designed missile for just such an occasion. You won't just block one 'radial' either, it doesn't work that way, you cause enough background interference and the SNR is so bad that bounce off the aircraft thats being painted simply is lost in the noise. Think of it as trying use a parabolic microphone to hear a bird chirping a block away, while a marching band plays behind you 10 feet. Its really not hard for them to screw up your bird watching, but its also REALLY easy for you to figure out who is doing it so it just doesn't happen.
No, aircraft can be flown manually relatively easily. When you look at your GPS and it says you're in the middle of the atlantic and you can see Chicago and the great lakes below you, then you can simply ignore GPS and fall back to VOR, NDB, and finally good old fasioned visual navigation with landmarks, though it'd be a bit scary to do so in a large commercial craft if you were completely lost, but you wouldn't become 'completely lost' unless you were over open ocean. Either way, its a standard procedure to recover from.
To my understanding, only one man has flown the space shuttle manually in the atmosphere other than the last 2 minutes of the landing sequence, and thats argued to be a rumor started by Marines (the pilot was a Marine), the rumor goes on to say that even he said he wouldn't do it again. In short, the Shuttle flies itself and the pilot is just what they call the guy the sits in the front right chair, the commander being the front left.
They aren't the same class of craft, nor the same class of pilot for that matter.
You won't have full ATC coverage in the middle of the Atlantic. Aircraft use VHF pretty much exclusively, If radar can't reach you then its unlikely radio is reaching you either.
You wont' get anything new over the Atlantic.
Flights over the ocean relay messages between aircraft manually, pilot to pilot, over standard VHF 108-129mhz or whatever it is (its been a while, but its the 20-30mhz directly above standard terrestrial broadcast radio). They pass notes to the ground stations essentially. If they are lucky, it reaches the right ground station, but more often than not it doesn't. At this point its keyed into a system which takes the aircraft and who they are trying to communicate with and sends it electronically to the right ATC (whereever he might be). Traditionally this was then printed out on what looked like an old stock ticker for him to read and process and respond to, the same way, manual relaying by voice over the radio through other planes.
This caused major headaches during 9/11 as the amount of radio traffic and things that needed to be done got very intense. Pilots not only had to reroute because they couldn't enter the US, but while they are figuring that out, they were also relaying messages to others over the ocean inbound for the US to warn them of the same problem so they could start planning for it. All of this is being done by pilots who, now days, are very bad at manual navigation and rerouting because ... they've grown dependent on GPS and radar guidance.
This really won't change anything at all directly. What this will do is provide money to update existing systems, and fix systems like ignorant radar installations that stop displaying aircraft that turn off their transponder even though the aircraft is clearly in controlled airspace the radar operator is responsible for. So ... while the entire premise of this story and what its going to do are utterly wrong, it will possibly make things better anyway just in the upgrades. Of course, it'll also bring in a whole new batch of bugs that will bring up this discussion again in another 50 years.
Welcome to progress ... new day, new technology, same bugs.
Uhm, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
All 'radar' for this discussion is active. Passive radar is something used at SETI.
Radar systems can derive altitude, position, speed and bearing from a couple of sweeps. Transponders augment this information by sending back what the aircraft knows about itself, in general aviation we use 'mode c' transponders which respond with an ID number and an altitude, thats it. Some software that is used in ATC doesn't try to figure out the extra info without a transponder because they didn't care, its too older, too slow, or the equipment isn't accurate enough to figure it out. All of these instances are going to be older radar systems that should be patched or replaced. These sort of problems never go away, any new system will have its own unique set of issues with bad implementations just like radar.
I assure you however, radar is more than capable of pinpointing your location, speed, and bearing without any transponder at all. Altitude being the hardest to get, the other 3 I can do in my head after 2 sweeps of the radar beam.
Military radar on the other hand is capable of doing things like (the don't, but could!) showing you a picture of the aircraft profile as viewed by the radar and then using that to identify based on range, profile, calculated mass and speed, exactly what type of aircraft it is, what its configuration is, is it carrying external stores, is it flying in a manner that indicates its loadout. Yes military radar is FAR more powerful and accurate, but the radar on my boat can do everything you're talking about if it were pointed at the sky rather than the surface. The only thing a transponder truely provides that can't be inferred from other info is an ID so that if radar sigs get FAR too close (like near miss sort of situations) the system (and operator) can still figure out which ones which.
Whats important to note about all this is ... Radar works within radio communications range, using GPS isn't going to change anything because ... if radar can't paint you, you also can't really transmit your position to ATC, or even communicate with them in the first place. For locations where you are outside of radar range you are almost ALWAYS communicating with controllers via relays off other aircraft. When flying over the Atlantic between Europe and the US, when the planes are off radar they are communicating by passing messages along to other aircraft on the same route they are on. They pass notes until it can make it to a ground station (probably not even the right one!) where it is then typed up and relied back out to a printer at the proper ground station, sitting next to a guy who is responsible for the fly. He may not get to talk to them for hours, yet he has to control them in their flight across the ocean. GPS won't do any good here as the idea of relaying lat/long/alt/bearing over the radio is simply unworkable. And being that when the radio works to talk to ground, you're almost certainly within radar range (or will be in the next 30 seconds anyway) then its really not worth the effort.
Interestingly enough, those things effect the current system almost exactly equally.
Solar storms are more likely to effect the power grid powering the radar than the military, EMP resistant sats built for nuclear war.
Terrorists could 'hack' the system, but doing it on any useful scale would require them to construct a rather large and obvious transmission system, that would also be very easy to take out. The USAF has a system designed for it, probably the Navy too, its called a HARM anti-radar missile. One can be deposited to any location on the globe in under an hour with the exception of a few inland locations in places like russia and china, which clearly aren't going to be a terrorist threat to us. Curve of the Earth and line of sight prevents you from building anything too far away from your target.
Hacking/Cracking - uhm, this is the same thing as the last one really
Satellites are easy to replace, there are a few extra, and a complete constellation isn't even required for coverage. Whats more important here is simply that the US military would be devastated by the lack of GPS, you don't have any worry about it going away. If it goes away, you won't be worried about aircraft running into each other, you'll probably be more concerned with surviving whatever disaster has managed to cripple the world that bad. Likely you'll be dead and it won't matter, as anything thats going to seriously effect the GPS constellation is likely going to render the planet uninhabitable by humans. You're essentially talking about nuclear war and direct attacks on the sats, or some sort of cosmic event with enough energy to damage the well shielded GPS sats ... that amount of energy is going to do A LOT of damage on the ground across the entire planet as well. Its more likely the sats will survive and we won't.
You could still do 3 a minute in clear weather, you'd loose bad weather for that tight of spacing, no radar would effectively slow the pace at a large airport so much that it'd effectively be closed and you'd have to reroute aircraft without radar. That would be a very nasty mess since most pilots today in large aircraft are far too dependent on electronic positioning via GPS rather than actually using traditional VFR navigation technics.
IFR however requires no radar and is perfectly valid at uncontrolled airports which have no radar or control tower.
IFR rules require insturments in the aircraft and signal generators on the ground, but not radar in anyway. You just need beacons to follow on the ground and the equipment in your craft to detect them.
I'm going to assume you are European, as thats typically the only geographic area ignorant enough to make such a statement ...
We have single states (equivalent to what Europeans refer to as countries) that are nearly half the size of the entire continent you live on. I could drive from one end of your content and back, and still have driven a shorter distance than to my brothers house. I could drive from Iraq to Spain in probably less time than to my brothers house (just looking at the map, probably not true do to several large seas and mountain ranges in the way).
Our 'inefficient cars' are because we use them to travel large distances and don't feel like doing it in a card board box thats not big enough for us to actually fit in without a leg hanging out the window. You have bullet train rides between countries that are shorter than my wifes daily drive to work. We are one of the largest countries in the world, no shit we have a big foot print. You can fit almost your entire continent in about 3 of our states combined ... out of 50. We can literally drop your entire continent in areas of the united states that no one visits and we wouldn't even notice you there until we drove through or the smell started whafting out to the rest of us. Flying in the US is still cheaper than driving longer distances, naturally, thats not surprising otherwise why would their be an airline industry? Our fuel isn't taxed to all hell and back because we have designed ourselves to be a nation that drives. Most of Europe on the other hand does its best to prevent people from driving because you simply couldn't handle all of your citizens driving. Too many old cities with small roads, too many roads that simply couldn't handle the traffic of that many cars. You are a urban population. 90% of your people live in a handful of cities so public transportation is amazingly cheap per person since its all so confined. We are not, we are a rural population. The majority of our people are scattered across the nation in little villages and towns.
In short, you have no concept of living anywhere except your little neck of the woods. You are what Europeans typically like to refer to a 'ignorant American', except replace American with European and pull that big stick of smug out of your ass cause you're just showing everyone how clueless you are.
There is no flame in your post, just ignorance. You aren't a tree loving hippie communist so much as you're just an idiot who has no concept of what life may be like outside his apartment. You are only a tree-loving hippie communist global warming conspirator in your own mind, it doesn't count when you have no choice but to do it that way because your civilization would fall apart over night if you didn't act that way. Anything Europeans do thats 'good' for the environment still doesn't make up for the damage done over the past few thousand years with your filthy cities and dumping sewage into your own water supplies.
Get off your high horse, you aren't nearly as special or bad ass as you think you are. Turns out, when it comes right down to it, people of the world are all pretty much identical, regardless of how much better than everyone else you think you are.
No, you really can't increase the density and maintain the same safety level. You get a false sense of being more safe because you have a 'more accurate position' ... more accurate only if everything else in the system is working properly and there isn't a weird glitch that results in the GPS being off by miles (yes, it happens, regularly).
You still can't stick planes closer together over the ocean because you having a GPS on your aircraft doesn't help the guy who just flew into you. Great, you know YOUR position down to within meters, YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. You still have to communicate that position. You know what else doesn't work over long ocean routes? Radios, curve of the Earth prevents communication with land stations, just like it prevents them from painting them with radar ...
So now you're going to have to add in some other type of communication methods so everyone in the general area can find out what other planes are around, so they can avoid them.
Basically, this does nothing but cost more money. You will not ever turn off radar, you'll always need it for when the GPS or communications fail. You're still going to need transponders or some sort of transmitters to relay the GPS info from the aircraft to everyone else.
You definitely don't understand how GPS works, its a safe bet you aren't a pilot and you clearly don't understand why aircraft spacing over the ocean is like it is. They can't see or communicate with each other easy, GPS does nothing at all to change that, they're still going to be relaying radio messages through each other to communicate with land based coordinators. Radar can't go away because its there to deal with many other situations that GPS simply can't deal with, like Aircraft that don't have all the equipment.
Most certainly can jump on Oracle! Redhate is friend of GPL. Oracle is commercial company who doesn't give everything away for free.
Oracle is evil because they don't want to give everyone a free ride. Redhat is good because ... well, because GPL and Linux fan boys are generally fucking retarded, I can't come up with any other reason people are salivating to give them blowjobs.
The reality of it is, Oracle is just putting the nails in the Solaris coffin without actually saying thats what they are doing.
Yes, Oracle is cutting lots of 'free' as in money things out of Sun ... in case you didn't notice Sun wasn't going to survive for long the way it was going, if Oracle doesn't do something to stem the flow of cash out of Sun then Oracle will simply be next. While I'm sure there are plenty of idiots here who think that would be a good thing, you'd be wrong for a number of reasons.
Of course, the only way this is acceptable to me is if they start releasing versions of Solaris that they put the time and effort into testing and securing before release. The worlds current software development model is 'sell the customer a beta app, patch it over time, and when its finally at a 'release ready' point you EOL it, release the NEXT beta version of the software and get everyone to upgrade!'
If they continue to sell incomplete/untested software and then start charging you to finish the beta program well, they'll get by with it for a while, but it'll just be known as the start of the final nail in the solaris coffin.
You do realize GPL is a software license right?
Ignorant fanboy.
The general argument over the restrictions in GPL that bother people revolve entirely around the fact that GPL tries to make everything else exactly like itself.
If you want to use GPL you have to be GPL, nothing else is acceptable! No exceptions, and my god will the uber geeks with no life go off on you if you make one little mistake. You won't even know someone found a snippet of GPL code in your stuff before you've been DDoSed off the Internet.
GPL people are almost in entirety fanatical idiots. There are a few people and companies that aren't, but they are few and far between and for every good thing they do, there are 50 idiot things that GPL fanboys do to scare everyone else off.
Even Microsoft will let you use their code with other peoples code under different license agreements, they may not let their code be open, but they don't prevent you from using it just because you want to use some other open source block of code. Conversely, with GPL not only does all the code have to be open, it pretty much HAS to be GPL or a GPL derivative.
When Microsoft is more open and less restrictive than you are, then you need to take a deep breath and think before the next time you brag about how open or free your virus of a license is.
GPL isn't a license, its an infection, and thats the sticking point.
Yep, that is exactly true, and you're a dumbass for thinking thats a bad thing.
Do you realize that the IP stack in systems we use today are ALL based on BSD licensed code? The fact that the Internet works as well as it does is because people could all use a common bit of code, in their own projects, without having to turn EVERYTHING ELSE over to the public.
Where do you think the original IP stack in Linux came from? Or Windows ... or Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, BeOS, OS/2, Netware ... probably anything else you can come up with ...
They ALL start with the BSD socket API. So yes, I'm quiet happy that the BSD license gets 'abused' the way it does. Thats an example of open source working properly.
GPL is used to force other people to do your work for you basically. If they fix your bugs, you get the changes, but you at that point can just sit around and slurp down their changes. GPL tries its best to make everything it touches GPL, thats not a license, thats a fucking virus, have yourself a glass of perspective and soda.
BSD code helped create the Internet. GPL wouldn't exist without BSD code crutching up everything that supported GPL to getting where it is today. You'd do well with a history lesson or 20.
You're modded funny, but ignorant is far more accurate.
Really? it doesn't restrict anything? So I'm free to use GPL code in a closed source game without giving out the source?
Do you know what the word restriction means?
You realize the only 'license' without restrictions is public domain, right?
And finally ... have you seen a diff of Nexuiz compared to the quake code base? No? I didn't think so ... of course you're clearly ignorant so why did I bother to respond ... oh yes, I'm bored ...
Really? Show me the statistics for the code base showing others contributions compared to the actual project author ...
What? Don't have any? Just making shit up?
Yea, I thought so too.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head.
If you want to be safe, don't use GPL license for your software, you're going to have to deal with a bunch of pains in the asses in the future if you ever want to do anything different from a license perspective.
GPL steps on its own foot so often its not even funny, do you realize what extremists GPL supporters have become?
Do youself a favor and use a license for your code that actually does have an open spirit rather than a built in virus.
Whats the difference between DRM and GPL? GPL is DRM for developers, otherwise they are the same, a bunch of bullshit restrictions tacked on by someone who wants to pretend they're doing you all sorts of favors, but in the end aren't really giving you anything of value while effectively limiting your actions.
The problem here isn't the devices, its the user actually.
If you're trying to SSH to a server on your blackberry, you are in the most simplest terms I can come up with, an idiot.
No one is that important, nothing you do is that important. If you have to use your blackberry to fix a problem because you are so far away from a normal computer and there is no one else that you can call to fix the server than ... you have clearly fucked up on several occasions.
They are PDAs ... PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANTS ... they help you organize and carry info with you. You didn't try to write on the cards in your rolodex WHILE they were in the rolodex did you? Thats essentially what you're bitching about here.
In case you haven't noticed, the PDA fad ... isn't exactly a fad. I know 2 people right now that I can think of that don't have smart phones, and they are both over 60 years old, one of them wants a smart phone. I'm not real sure how everyone including freaking homeless people on the street owning one makes it a fad, but whatever, you're clearly disconnected from reality.
Your PDA isn't a replacement for your computer, its a device that allows you to do things in a restricted situation. If you try to use it like a full PC then you deserve the pain you get, stupidity isn't something I feel sorry for.
Yea, its good to listen to people who don't actually know what they are talking about.
My DVR is Windows 7 Ultimate, recording 4 SD and 2 HD streams at a time, with XBox360's functioning as extenders.
There isn't a better home media management system out there for the general public.
The reason Apple is doing well is because they are seeing these things. Its nice that he came up with an 'exception' so he could be right, but the simple fact of it is that its just an excuse for 'no one else is managing to pull it off so it must have been a fluke.
If you listen to people like this and believe them just because they have more experience or have made a name for themselves, you will no doubt spend most of your time missing the mark. All in all though, not real sure why you would listen to some random person just because they were giving a talk at a conference.
I guess being a tool still isn't illegal so feel free to continue.
The sky may be the limit, but if the thing feels like it hasn't dug itself out of its own grave yet, no one will give a shit.
I have a 105MB WD IDE drive in my desk draw and I've seen 10MB ide drives sold as replacements for failed equipment.
However, I'd say its highly unlikely its an IDE drive as they were very rare at that size.
I agree, a tar pipe is the best way to go, but do a drive image, not the data itself first.
Then do the data afterwords, just in case there are some sort of problem with the image.
This is computer archeology essentially, doing your absolute best to maintain the original data in its exact form will result in the most history being saved.
Then you can do other cool things like trying to get it to boot in emulators and suck to manipulate the system without the possibility of damaging the original device
There were, you'll likely find several 'I owned one' posts following up. The certainly werent' common, but they did exist.
Hard drives almost always die due to bearing failure at this age, more specifically, lubricants turning to glue essentially.
If that hasn't happened, he's probably pretty safe, its probably all gone!
Either way, removing the drive to put in something else most certainly increases the chances of problems, and while unlikely, the Xenix driver in Linux may have some quirks dealing with an FS that old. The Xenix driver certainly isn't one of the more well tested fs drivers.
With what really is an archological find from a geek perspective, I wouldn't take any risks at all, and like everyone else suggests, if the system is bootable, serial it off FIRST, as an image if at all possible. Verify the image is valid and consistent on a Linux machine before you do anything else to the original hardware.
What actually hasn't been hit on yet and to me is a big one ... if it boots, don't turn the damn thing off!
Get some of the hard disk lube moving around, or start working some dry capacitors and you're likely not to have a high number of boots left, especially if this thing has been sitting for an extended period of time.
UFS != FFS, sorry.
They are different, even if one is compatible with the other.
I suppose you say FAT and NTFS are the same too?