The MQ-9 Reaper is also known as a Predator-B. It is an evolution from the MQ-1 Predator (the "Predator-A"), but they do not have the same airframe. Their planform is similar, but easily distinguishable by the up- or down-sweep of the tail - MQ-1 is down, MQ-9 is up.
If those Powerpoint slides are legit, then someone inside the NSA is seriously negligent in proper portion marking of classified documents. That's a security violation right there.
I'd give mod points if I had them - thanks for the valuable counterpoint. For those of us who aren't up to date on all the various theories, research, and past work, your take really cuts through the sensationalism of TFA.
That's a rather overgeneralized mischaracterization of the ethic amongst those working in the Defense industry. You pre-suppose that what they are doing is wrong.
Here's the way I see it. Show me a largish country on this planet which does not have a military to defend itself, and I will consider your hypothesis that defense engineers are not needed. The fact of the matter is that countries which subscribe to the total pacifist code of ethics simply cease to exist because they're invaded and taken over by other countries. So if the choice is between nonexistence, and designing stuff to help protect and keep alive what I think is a pretty decent socio-political system, hell yeah I'll help design the weapons.
I wasn't attempting to characterize all, just some. And I have no idea where you get the idea I had a hypothesis that defense engineers aren't needed; I've been one myself for the past seventeen years.
There is certainly a sort of "mercenary" ethic amongst many defense engineers. As long as there are soldiers willing to pull triggers, there will be engineers willing to design the guns. As well as simple game-theory type reasoning - "I can take the pay for this job; but if I don't, they'll find someone else who will." I get the feeling the article author doesn't know and didn't really talk with any longtime defense engineers - professors can be quite removed from that world.
And this is to say nothing of the defense engineers who are actually gung-ho about their work.
Depends entirely on what you'd be selling, of course. Especially if it's an SUV. Unfortunately, the '80s and '90s Japanese compacts would still be modern enough to have electronic ignition, and vulnerable to this.
How can I shield my car against this? I'm willing to add up to 20lbs to do it.
Sell it and buy an antique from the pre-electronics era. Carburetor and points ignition. Although I assume most of them will be a wee bit more than a 20lb increase over a modern car...
"Heavier devices". The MP3 player "stowed" in my pocket does me a considerable amount of good. The noise cancelling headphones do me an even greater amount of good when stowed on my head in the 'on' position.
Conceded.
This is no change. There was never a prohibition against using wi-fi or bluetooth.
You are wrong.
Citation needed. The article states that bluetooth may continue to be used. And what's the point of wi-fi unless there's a nearby access point? And the only access point available at high altitude is necessarily provided by the airline, which they've already been doing for years.
This is a very specific exception to the rule against radio transmitters on board an aircraft. Except for the relatively recent addition of on-board wi-fi services, wi-fi and bluetooth have been prohibited while in flight.
Relatively recent? Like 2010? That's when I first started being offered access on Delta flights.
The airline you fly has been letting you bend the rules. The ones I fly are quite explicit in saying "you may NOT use short range".
"You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards." That's a direct quote from the linked FAA notice. Maybe your airlines were just implementing their own stricter rules?
Being insulting doesn't make you right, it only shows that you are overly sensitive when you get caught misreading something simple.
It was a direct response to your snarky tone implying I hadn't actually RTFA. Whether I misread it is another matter. I'm willing to call it even and debate it more civilly if you are.
The only real difference is not having to turn things off during the 10-15 minutes of takeoff and landing.
Plus being able to use wifi and bluetooth in general, and many other kinds of radio receivers. This change would legalize all the people who sneak GPS receivers on board to follow their flight. It would even legalize the use of scanners to listen to ATC. And many people would consider a change that removes the requirement to turn off noise cancelling headsets to be a major change to the rules since it was such a patently absurd side-effect of a relatively simple rule. It was, in fact, a detriment to safety, since people who were wearing noise cancellers plugged into the aircraft audio system were about the only ones who could hear any of the announcement made during takeoff -- like "assume crash positions".
Again, bluetooth and wi-fi have been allowed previously. Both as stated by the article and through the fact that planes offer wi-fi access. I hadn't considered GPS receivers, but for those who follow with them, well, cool. The main change I see here is the allowance of PEDs below 10k feet. This was never a big issue for me, really, so I admit downplaying it - of the ~100 times I've flown in the last ten years, my plane has been delayed on the tarmac for longer than ten minutes all of four or five times. And from past experience, I always bring along a good old paper book. I still don't see this as some grand revolutionary rule change, more of a minor increment. Once they allow actual cell connections (even if only for texting and not voice calls) and LTE/EVDO data connections, I'll throw my hands in the air and cheer with everyone else. And then hope that the technical hurdles can be overcome...
How exactly does this differ from the policies from now? Airplane-mode only, check. Turned off during take-off and landing, check.
Uncheck. On for take-off and landings, except for special cases when visibility is low and the low visibility navigation systems are not PED certified.
6. Properly stow heavier devices under seats or in the overhead bins during takeoff and landing. These items could impede evacuation of an aircraft or may injure you or someone else in the event of turbulence or an accident. My bad, I confused "stow" with "turn off." Because having it turned on does so much good if it's stowed.
Wi-fi allowed (if you want to pay the airline $20 for a couple hours' access), check.
Uncheck. Wi-fi and bluetooth allowed, with no requirement to pay the airline. I figure it will be interesting to run an open NAP and see how much data can be sniffed from devices trying to get a wi-fi connection. Or to spoof a lot of large online services to get login credentials. Fun.
This is no change. There was never a prohibition against using wi-fi or bluetooth. I've flown several airline which offer w-fi during flights in the past decade, usually with a hefty fee. You may use the WiFi connection on your device if the plane has an installed WiFi system and the airline allows its use. You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards.
Where's the big change?
/. commenter who hasn't bothered to read TFA, check. No change.
I read it, dingleberry. And stand by my claim of (essentially) no change. The only real difference is not having to turn things off during the 10-15 minutes of takeoff and landing. Woohoo. Unless it's a "large" device, wherein it must be stowed away, even if you leave the power on.
How exactly does this differ from the policies from now? Airplane-mode only, check. Turned off during take-off and landing, check. Wi-fi allowed (if you want to pay the airline $20 for a couple hours' access), check. Where's the big change?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how, but I'm still getting it by default as well. I imagine that someone, somewhere, is desperately working to change that.
Sounds like Xzibit pimped your phone...
I just figured that one of the rover's greebles fell off...
The MQ-9 Reaper is also known as a Predator-B. It is an evolution from the MQ-1 Predator (the "Predator-A"), but they do not have the same airframe. Their planform is similar, but easily distinguishable by the up- or down-sweep of the tail - MQ-1 is down, MQ-9 is up.
GA is privately owned by Neal Blue. There is no stock.
If those Powerpoint slides are legit, then someone inside the NSA is seriously negligent in proper portion marking of classified documents. That's a security violation right there.
Exactly. Being that I was DM, I lost none, but bagged plenty. "I crawl into the tunnel." "You're gone. No saving throw."
I'd give mod points if I had them - thanks for the valuable counterpoint. For those of us who aren't up to date on all the various theories, research, and past work, your take really cuts through the sensationalism of TFA.
Cousin, let's go bowlink!
Good post. Could not agree more.
That's a rather overgeneralized mischaracterization of the ethic amongst those working in the Defense industry. You pre-suppose that what they are doing is wrong.
Here's the way I see it. Show me a largish country on this planet which does not have a military to defend itself, and I will consider your hypothesis that defense engineers are not needed. The fact of the matter is that countries which subscribe to the total pacifist code of ethics simply cease to exist because they're invaded and taken over by other countries. So if the choice is between nonexistence, and designing stuff to help protect and keep alive what I think is a pretty decent socio-political system, hell yeah I'll help design the weapons.
I wasn't attempting to characterize all, just some. And I have no idea where you get the idea I had a hypothesis that defense engineers aren't needed; I've been one myself for the past seventeen years.
There is certainly a sort of "mercenary" ethic amongst many defense engineers. As long as there are soldiers willing to pull triggers, there will be engineers willing to design the guns. As well as simple game-theory type reasoning - "I can take the pay for this job; but if I don't, they'll find someone else who will." I get the feeling the article author doesn't know and didn't really talk with any longtime defense engineers - professors can be quite removed from that world.
And this is to say nothing of the defense engineers who are actually gung-ho about their work.
"The life of a violent Mexican carjacker is ALWAYS intense."
You're pre-emptively out of my yard, correct?
Depends entirely on what you'd be selling, of course. Especially if it's an SUV. Unfortunately, the '80s and '90s Japanese compacts would still be modern enough to have electronic ignition, and vulnerable to this.
How can I shield my car against this? I'm willing to add up to 20lbs to do it.
Sell it and buy an antique from the pre-electronics era. Carburetor and points ignition. Although I assume most of them will be a wee bit more than a 20lb increase over a modern car...
They're quick to point out that it's not actually a cloak, either. Shades of the Holy Roman Empire...
Soylent Norris is possible, but it survives by eating YOU.
"Heavier devices". The MP3 player "stowed" in my pocket does me a considerable amount of good. The noise cancelling headphones do me an even greater amount of good when stowed on my head in the 'on' position.
Conceded.
This is no change. There was never a prohibition against using wi-fi or bluetooth.
You are wrong.
Citation needed. The article states that bluetooth may continue to be used. And what's the point of wi-fi unless there's a nearby access point? And the only access point available at high altitude is necessarily provided by the airline, which they've already been doing for years.
This is a very specific exception to the rule against radio transmitters on board an aircraft. Except for the relatively recent addition of on-board wi-fi services, wi-fi and bluetooth have been prohibited while in flight.
Relatively recent? Like 2010? That's when I first started being offered access on Delta flights.
The airline you fly has been letting you bend the rules. The ones I fly are quite explicit in saying "you may NOT use short range".
"You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards." That's a direct quote from the linked FAA notice. Maybe your airlines were just implementing their own stricter rules?
Being insulting doesn't make you right, it only shows that you are overly sensitive when you get caught misreading something simple.
It was a direct response to your snarky tone implying I hadn't actually RTFA. Whether I misread it is another matter. I'm willing to call it even and debate it more civilly if you are.
The only real difference is not having to turn things off during the 10-15 minutes of takeoff and landing.
Plus being able to use wifi and bluetooth in general, and many other kinds of radio receivers. This change would legalize all the people who sneak GPS receivers on board to follow their flight. It would even legalize the use of scanners to listen to ATC. And many people would consider a change that removes the requirement to turn off noise cancelling headsets to be a major change to the rules since it was such a patently absurd side-effect of a relatively simple rule. It was, in fact, a detriment to safety, since people who were wearing noise cancellers plugged into the aircraft audio system were about the only ones who could hear any of the announcement made during takeoff -- like "assume crash positions".
Again, bluetooth and wi-fi have been allowed previously. Both as stated by the article and through the fact that planes offer wi-fi access. I hadn't considered GPS receivers, but for those who follow with them, well, cool. The main change I see here is the allowance of PEDs below 10k feet. This was never a big issue for me, really, so I admit downplaying it - of the ~100 times I've flown in the last ten years, my plane has been delayed on the tarmac for longer than ten minutes all of four or five times. And from past experience, I always bring along a good old paper book. I still don't see this as some grand revolutionary rule change, more of a minor increment. Once they allow actual cell connections (even if only for texting and not voice calls) and LTE/EVDO data connections, I'll throw my hands in the air and cheer with everyone else. And then hope that the technical hurdles can be overcome...
How exactly does this differ from the policies from now? Airplane-mode only, check. Turned off during take-off and landing, check.
Uncheck. On for take-off and landings, except for special cases when visibility is low and the low visibility navigation systems are not PED certified.
6. Properly stow heavier devices under seats or in the overhead bins during takeoff and landing. These items could impede evacuation of an aircraft or may injure you or someone else in the event of turbulence or an accident. My bad, I confused "stow" with "turn off." Because having it turned on does so much good if it's stowed.
Wi-fi allowed (if you want to pay the airline $20 for a couple hours' access), check.
Uncheck. Wi-fi and bluetooth allowed, with no requirement to pay the airline. I figure it will be interesting to run an open NAP and see how much data can be sniffed from devices trying to get a wi-fi connection. Or to spoof a lot of large online services to get login credentials. Fun.
This is no change. There was never a prohibition against using wi-fi or bluetooth. I've flown several airline which offer w-fi during flights in the past decade, usually with a hefty fee. You may use the WiFi connection on your device if the plane has an installed WiFi system and the airline allows its use. You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards.
Where's the big change?
I read it, dingleberry. And stand by my claim of (essentially) no change. The only real difference is not having to turn things off during the 10-15 minutes of takeoff and landing. Woohoo. Unless it's a "large" device, wherein it must be stowed away, even if you leave the power on.
Yep. You think the anti-GM food hippies are bad, just wait til the anti-artificial blood vampires get their protests going...
How exactly does this differ from the policies from now? Airplane-mode only, check. Turned off during take-off and landing, check. Wi-fi allowed (if you want to pay the airline $20 for a couple hours' access), check. Where's the big change?
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.
Older American cars as well. 6V positive ground on my antique, and no computer. Heck, no electronics.
Bloomberg is way ahead of you.