tritium
His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity?
Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane.
If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
This story sounds familiar... [0]
Yes, I get that electronic signaling is electronic signaling, and none of it is actually different, at the transmission layer. It's just more DSP and more fast fourier transforms under the hood.
Yes, technical barriers can be eroded with adapters and facades, but it's an added cost to attack, and reduces detective work in that you have to know someone to jump the learning curve and enter the attack envelope. That means detective work can happen within a smaller social graph, and that alone becomes a deterent from sharing information, because everything becomes need-to-know, and insider awareness is a give away for inside jobs.
It's also easier to stamp out, and ostracize insiders, if they have loose lips or have a tendency to lend and give away the car keys.
Not everything needs to be as cheesy as Encryption DRM for optical movie disks and video games. For critical infrastructure safety is important enough to warrant independent military-grade safe guards.
Do military protocols fail? Yes, we have the enigma machines sitting in enough museums to prove it.
This in not an XKCD "too many standards can be solved with one more standard" concept. Isolation and specialization can be effective defense concepts.
Otherwise, you'll always have some goon plugging in a wi-fi router, rigging it to a sat phone with a modem, all just to play quake with their friends, while they idle on some crane barge, or wherever their stuck, bored on some hurry-up-and-wait project plan.
Even then, you'll still have wonder about silicon bugs, or tempest and row-hammer style attacks, for anything software ever touches, when a given industry fails to identify such threats themselves.
I don’t think there’s anything to fix here, when the real problem is adults with the power to vote, can have their votes swayed by Saturday morning cartoons, because all they ever look at are Saturday morning cartoons.
Perfect for storing a quantity of high resolution “unique numbers” which you might need to recall at some point, when you want to match them up with other oddly similar (but not precisely equal) high resolution unique numbers.
I hear that you can convert images to “unique numbers” using a technique known as “lossless compression” but that stuff’s all way above my pay grade.
In fact, these ideas might only make sense under circumstances where there is literally nothing to do for really, really long periods of time, waiting around in tight quarters until you’re able to unbuckle and move freely. In other words during space travel.
I hope that’s where this is going. Any other setting or context for application of such technologies doesn’t make any normal amount of sense. And this fits, since space travel isn’t exactly normal yet.
My intuition tells me Carmack and Zuckerburg have discussed this WRT rocket ships and outer space. And that combination of subject matter, legitimate credibility, intellect and wealth is the only thing that makes sense, to justify such a bet.
Nonetheless, there's nothing preventing a system bus from reporting that a virtual device exists, even if there's no physical hardware to match. Besides, as soon as you plug a headset into the audio jack, the microphone becomes available.
The primary benefit is that remote control can be effective from around the world and outer space.
This is countered by the reality that your command might get bounced off a satellite, even if you’re across the room from the device you’re controlling remotely.
The converse additional problem is that you could be standing next to a device on the north pole, and someone from antarctica could override you.
We haven’t become sophisticated enough about this level of remote control yet, to mitigate these undesirable side effects of extended range remoting via internet tunnels.
Jupiter almost has an octagon on it's north pole (and nearly a pentagonal version on it's south pole), similar to Saturn's northern polar hexagon!
It makes absolutely no sense to the end user, acting as possessor or potentially a reseller of an object, since the very premise implies that an owner should not be provided total control over their device, that it's never really "theirs", and that a vendor should retain the capacity to take a "sold good" away from the owner, under the guise of expected behavior, built as designed, effectively converting a sale into a rental, in time, perhaps after statutes expire.
It's effectively a back door for manufacturers, so that they can count on well-made products not lasting forever, not in museums, not for resale, not for nostalgia.
A rebate usually requires the full retail price to be paid up front, with the cost savings deferred to a seperate transaction, often paid by the vendor, when there’s a retail supply chain intervening between purchaser and the supplier.
This includes phones, cars, self-driving cars, watches, farm equipment, computing devices and anything marketed as an IoT appliance.
One glitch, as minor as an improper system time, and you’re dead in the water.
Either that, or maybe the caustic qualities have something to do with it? I'm not sure of the chemical aspects of the exhaust, but that part is also mentioned in conjunction with the debris accumulation.
They also negotiate a rebate.
The level of energy at work, required to cause harm like that would have to operate on the level of two sonar pings from hell, fortunitously converging to form a node with appropriate geometry to harm a watermelon-sized organ.
We know that blasts from high explosives can transmit brain damaging pressure waves through durable vehicular armor, and there aren’t many other sources of energy known to send opportunistic signals through mediums, quite like that.
If I needed to surreptitiously send an accoustic message to an audience positioned at a distance, I might need to use a very powerful source, with a locally inaudible signal that only incidentally becomes audible when crossing other signals, but...
Such a transmission would probably only be effective up to the horizon, and require line-of-sight reception. Provided that the distance for line-of-sight access up to the horizon is about 25-ish miles, depending on topography, and the loudness required for that kind of reach, generating two beams (as powerful as noises produced by attenuated explosive blast waves) seems like it would require some pretty heavy equipment. Like room-sized equipment.
Think about what it takes to push a sound wave several miles, like a ripple across a pond, and what that sounds like up close. Race tracks, rock concerts, passenger jets. These things all readily occupy a three meter cube, at least. Not to mention that the fidelity of such loud noised is very low, and blurred by the intervening air, the further away you get, meaning any digital packet-based transmission would require really coarse, slow bandwidth.
That rules out a lot of sneaky carry-on luggage sized equipment, for generating such signals. Which points, maybe, to no less than two off-site phased-array tone generators forming crossed noise beams for receipt by someone.
Still a lot of mystery to suss out, and a lot of gray areas to speculate upon. And I’m tossing a lot of assumptions into the mix, like whether there was deliberate intent at all, and whether side effects were emergent or not. And while there’d be limits and ceilings based on line of sight, that doesn’t rule out scale of equipment or range of activity.
The only takeaway is that brain damage at a distance requires a lot of intense energy, usually explosive, although deleterious explosive energy and associated noise can scale from sizes relative to something as small as fire crackers and .22L rounds on up.
Similar to bitcoin's story: no one knows who built it, but gee, it's so useful... ~shrug!~
Military ships can be difficult to sink, and willfully sinking them might not always be an option. So if the ship is captured, and held long enough to put warheads in the hands of a dangerous people, the weapons could disappear and appear in the hands of someone looking to extract a ransom to return them unused.
With submarines, this is not the case, even if the bottom of the ocean isn’t always unreachable. At least the bottom of the ocean sufficiently complicates salvage, past a certain depth.
The ATC commentary suggests a fast relative speed, in reference to other traffic only. So, in the 600MPH to 700MPH region, it would be going faster than most air traffic, but wouldn’t cut the noisy wake of a sonic boom overflight, which means, in my mind it wasn’t going “very fast” or fast enough to put it in the same league as what qualifies for fast for any fighter or other fast military plane.
The “large” description is also vague, but suggesting as big as a passenger jet is my estimate. Perhaps not freakishly large like a KC-10 Extender, C-5 Galaxy or a C-17 Globemaster III [0,1,2]. Large, in aviation, often means “not a 2 passeneger Cessna,” to evoke not scale relative to other humans, but scale of catastrophe if it fell into a neighborhood or if a pilot had to think about colliding with such a thing, which would “win.”
That said, the white paint job sounds uncharacteristic of military/government (especially skunkworks) operations, and the expanding attention of the incident, points to unexpected events.
Another hypothesis is high level leadership asking questions about actual preparedness for something that fits the profile of a sudden terrorist hijacking incident, based on peered civil aviation inputs alone, along with an undisclosed fire drill.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extend...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
The black hole wouldn’t be older than the universe. The black hole is just older than the last, most recent big bang, and the big bang doesn’t explain anything anymore.
It’s disproven as an event of creation. The big bang just becomes different parlance for turtles all the way down.
Where do I sign up?