you SOB
nah public school
nah public school
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Protip: Read the OP and any article linked in the OP before making wild pronouncements. Do not rely on what your mom thinks she heard on Fox.
Fuck Israel
fox = the truth
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. = selective left-wring coveragekrazed wrote:
fox = the truth
Fox News = selective right-wing coverage
Pick your poison
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Any of those would be preferable to your mom.-Sh1fty- wrote:
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. = selective left-wring coveragekrazed wrote:
fox = the truth
Fox News = selective right-wing coverage
Fuck Israel
regurgitating what someone told you when they heard half of a story on fox = the truth
What shifty's mom says is apparently a big enough deal to people in this thread to threaten to derail it completely. Can we drop it?
But I suppose while it's slightly off-topic...
Also: *Constitutional monarchy.
But I suppose while it's slightly off-topic...
Constitutional republic is more apt.Macbeth wrote:
The. U.S. is a democratic republic. You can have a constitution and still be a *monarchy or something else.
Also: *Constitutional monarchy.
i'll derail shiftys mum
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
No kidding. Industrial control systems (as opposed to just SCADA systems) are remarkably vulnerable to this shit--google Illinoiswater treatment plant and you should get a nice "how you doin'". It's not potential. It's real. You connect up these legacy systems to the internet for ease of admin and you basically open them up to all kinds of nastiness. The have to have all kinds of ports open, don't work well with IDS/IPS, and often break when you patch the on which they run.Uzique wrote:
no shit, dumbie. but it's the technology and its potential that is frightening. infecting low level UNIX machines that are built without any operating system and are only used as automation. the fact that hacking/viruses can infect technology at that root level means that now, theoretically at least, everything from power-plants to dams to water cleaning facilities can be industrially sabotaged.FEOS wrote:
No. Stuxnet was built to fuck with one thing: Iranian-spec Siemens centrifuges. If it weren't the places where it showed up outside of Iran would've been fucked up, too.Uzique wrote:
cybargs, the thing is with stuxnet... is that it can fuck pretty much anyone. if the israelis used stuxnet in the west it would still fuck us as hard. stuxnet represents a frightening new level of electronic/cyber-warfare that has opened a whole potential can of worms for world security. i wouldn't say being badly affected by a brand new, incredibly intricate form of computer warfare means that iran are a bunch of backwards goat-herders. you could use the same thing on a power station in the UK and we'd be fucked, too.
But those are characteristics generic to control systems. Your comment was specific to the Stuxnet capability...and was wrong. Dumbie.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
See comment you replied to.Cybargs wrote:
China's been trying to hack into DoD on a daily basis.FEOS wrote:
Those are unclassified networks, attached to the internet. You're comparing apples and armchairs.Macbeth wrote:
There are news stories about DoD computers getting comprised every few months. Hell, in the early days random hackers were able to do it pretty famously.
It is just like every other means of causing damage- a matter of will power.
Again. See comment you replied to.Uzique wrote:
also this isn't my opinion, this is coming from a tech essay that i read somewhere in a proper academic journal. if i remember it i'll be sure to dig it up. but i am not conjecturing or speculating here (i don't know anything about computer security so why would i?)FEOS wrote:
Those are unclassified networks, attached to the internet. You're comparing apples and armchairs.Macbeth wrote:
There are news stories about DoD computers getting comprised every few months. Hell, in the early days random hackers were able to do it pretty famously.
It is just like every other means of causing damage- a matter of will power.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
More like F22 stealth tech.Cybargs wrote:
just like China's J-20 had "nothing to do with F117 stealth tech" lol.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
If you were that serious about reverse engineering it, I would imagine you would keep it secret / hidden, develop something awesome from it then claim you came up with it all by yourself?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They are programmed to return to their base and land when they go lost comm. Not find a nice airfield in adversary space and put down nice and easy. Alternately, they go into an orbit, trying to reacquire the signal until they run out of fuel and auger into the ground. In either case, it wouldn't end up in one piece, smaller than actual size, with a different paint job, on bad guy TV.RAIMIUS wrote:
That thing is in an steady-state spin. You don't get there unless you enter a stall while uncoordinated.M.O.A.B wrote:
Especially given how mountainous Iran is.FatherTed wrote:
flying wings are pretty unstable lol. and regardless, even in a glide (still uncontrolled) it's going to be going pretty fucking fast when it hits the ground. even at a shallow angle, i'd imagine it'd take some obvious damage
The one in the OP resembles an aircraft before it leaves the factory, where its still got the primer on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byS2UcA1QKk
Internet rumor has it that some modern UAVs are programmed to do things like orbit or autoland when they go lost comm. I don't know how accurate that is, or which systems it would be installed on, but it seems reasonable to me.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yes but in the article that Uzique mentioned he read and that I have read, it says that stuxnet can easily be adapted to fuck with all sorts of shit.FEOS wrote:
No kidding. Industrial control systems (as opposed to just SCADA systems) are remarkably vulnerable to this shit--google Illinoiswater treatment plant and you should get a nice "how you doin'". It's not potential. It's real. You connect up these legacy systems to the internet for ease of admin and you basically open them up to all kinds of nastiness. The have to have all kinds of ports open, don't work well with IDS/IPS, and often break when you patch the on which they run.Uzique wrote:
no shit, dumbie. but it's the technology and its potential that is frightening. infecting low level UNIX machines that are built without any operating system and are only used as automation. the fact that hacking/viruses can infect technology at that root level means that now, theoretically at least, everything from power-plants to dams to water cleaning facilities can be industrially sabotaged.FEOS wrote:
No. Stuxnet was built to fuck with one thing: Iranian-spec Siemens centrifuges. If it weren't the places where it showed up outside of Iran would've been fucked up, too.
But those are characteristics generic to control systems. Your comment was specific to the Stuxnet capability...and was wrong. Dumbie.
Of course. If it's reverse engineered and tweaked for another, very specific, ICS implementation elsewhere...it will impact that specific instantiation of that system. But then it wouldn't be Stuxnet any longer. It would be some derivative thereof. Just another ICS hack in the wild.coke wrote:
Yes but in the article that Uzique mentioned he read and that I have read, it says that stuxnet can easily be adapted to fuck with all sorts of shit.FEOS wrote:
No kidding. Industrial control systems (as opposed to just SCADA systems) are remarkably vulnerable to this shit--google Illinoiswater treatment plant and you should get a nice "how you doin'". It's not potential. It's real. You connect up these legacy systems to the internet for ease of admin and you basically open them up to all kinds of nastiness. The have to have all kinds of ports open, don't work well with IDS/IPS, and often break when you patch the on which they run.Uzique wrote:
no shit, dumbie. but it's the technology and its potential that is frightening. infecting low level UNIX machines that are built without any operating system and are only used as automation. the fact that hacking/viruses can infect technology at that root level means that now, theoretically at least, everything from power-plants to dams to water cleaning facilities can be industrially sabotaged.
But those are characteristics generic to control systems. Your comment was specific to the Stuxnet capability...and was wrong. Dumbie.
What was so ingenious about Stuxnet wasn't what it did, it's what it didn't do: it didn't effect anything else it infected. It was very specific, very targeted, almost self-aware (inb4skynetreference). I'm not so sure that aspect of it can be so "easily adapted" .
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Foxdie!FEOS wrote:
Of course. If it's reverse engineered and tweaked for another, very specific, ICS implementation elsewhere...it will impact that specific instantiation of that system. But then it wouldn't be Stuxnet any longer. It would be some derivative thereof. Just another ICS hack in the wild.coke wrote:
Yes but in the article that Uzique mentioned he read and that I have read, it says that stuxnet can easily be adapted to fuck with all sorts of shit.FEOS wrote:
No kidding. Industrial control systems (as opposed to just SCADA systems) are remarkably vulnerable to this shit--google Illinoiswater treatment plant and you should get a nice "how you doin'". It's not potential. It's real. You connect up these legacy systems to the internet for ease of admin and you basically open them up to all kinds of nastiness. The have to have all kinds of ports open, don't work well with IDS/IPS, and often break when you patch the on which they run.
But those are characteristics generic to control systems. Your comment was specific to the Stuxnet capability...and was wrong. Dumbie.
What was so ingenious about Stuxnet wasn't what it did, it's what it didn't do: it didn't effect anything else it infected. It was very specific, very targeted, almost self-aware (inb4skynetreference). I'm not so sure that aspect of it can be so "easily adapted" .
wotFEOS wrote:
More like F22 stealth tech.Cybargs wrote:
just like China's J-20 had "nothing to do with F117 stealth tech" lol.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
If you were that serious about reverse engineering it, I would imagine you would keep it secret / hidden, develop something awesome from it then claim you came up with it all by yourself?
inane little opines
Look at the two jets side by side. The J20 bears a more than passing resemblance to the F22.Shocking wrote:
wotFEOS wrote:
More like F22 stealth tech.Cybargs wrote:
just like China's J-20 had "nothing to do with F117 stealth tech" lol.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
How'd they get their hands on that tech? I figured they were just trying to imitate the exterior off of picsFEOS wrote:
Look at the two jets side by side. The J20 bears a more than passing resemblance to the F22.Shocking wrote:
wotFEOS wrote:
More like F22 stealth tech.
inane little opines
I'm sure that's a large part if it. They likely don't have the RAM tech down. It's not like the stealth tech is über-secret...it is all derived from a Russian mathematician, after all.Shocking wrote:
How'd they get their hands on that tech? I figured they were just trying to imitate the exterior off of picsFEOS wrote:
Look at the two jets side by side. The J20 bears a more than passing resemblance to the F22.Shocking wrote:
wot
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They'll figure it out sooner or later anyway, but I suppose the F-22 is going to be the top fighter till well in the 2020s. It's impressive how far ahead you guys are in aviation tech. I reckon it's a bit worrisome that there's so few of them though, quality is one thing but if that means you can't really afford to lose them that poses a problem.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure that's a large part if it. They likely don't have the RAM tech down. It's not like the stealth tech is über-secret...it is all derived from a Russian mathematician, after all.Shocking wrote:
How'd they get their hands on that tech? I figured they were just trying to imitate the exterior off of picsFEOS wrote:
Look at the two jets side by side. The J20 bears a more than passing resemblance to the F22.
inane little opines
Where have you been?Shocking wrote:
They'll figure it out sooner or later anyway, but I suppose the F-22 is going to be the top fighter till well in the 2020s. It's impressive how far ahead you guys are in aviation tech. I reckon it's a bit worrisome that there's so few of them though, quality is one thing but if that means you can't really afford to lose them that poses a problem.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure that's a large part if it. They likely don't have the RAM tech down. It's not like the stealth tech is über-secret...it is all derived from a Russian mathematician, after all.Shocking wrote:
How'd they get their hands on that tech? I figured they were just trying to imitate the exterior off of pics
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
My landlord is being a dick and cut off my internet so I have to bounce back and forth between uni library / mums house to do school work mostly, don't get to check in here often now.Jay wrote:
Where have you been?Shocking wrote:
They'll figure it out sooner or later anyway, but I suppose the F-22 is going to be the top fighter till well in the 2020s. It's impressive how far ahead you guys are in aviation tech. I reckon it's a bit worrisome that there's so few of them though, quality is one thing but if that means you can't really afford to lose them that poses a problem.FEOS wrote:
I'm sure that's a large part if it. They likely don't have the RAM tech down. It's not like the stealth tech is über-secret...it is all derived from a Russian mathematician, after all.
inane little opines
Well, yeah, that's the plan...FEOS wrote:
They are programmed to return to their base and land when they go lost comm. Not find a nice airfield in adversary space and put down nice and easy. Alternately, they go into an orbit, trying to reacquire the signal until they run out of fuel and auger into the ground.RAIMIUS wrote:
Internet rumor has it that some modern UAVs are programmed to do things like orbit or autoland when they go lost comm. I don't know how accurate that is, or which systems it would be installed on, but it seems reasonable to me.
lol-Sh1fty- wrote:
No you shut up
The U.S. has handed Iran vital military information and technology on a silver platter. Common sense dictates you do whatever you can to get that kind of thing away from your enemy that could use it later against you or develop something better from your work.
fucking mong
stick to playing war simulation games and stop thinking about geopolitics
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Relax.-Sh1fty- wrote:
No you shut up
The U.S. has handed Iran vital military information and technology on a silver platter. Common sense dictates you do whatever you can to get that kind of thing away from your enemy that could use it later against you or develop something better from your work.
The really cool shit doesn't get put in an oversized R/C toy and flown into Badguyistan.
No, the really cool shit stays up in orbit, on satellites or drone-shuttles (X-37 is it?).
For most of the stuff I'm guessing is on a drone, it's not the end item that's a State Secret - it's the manufacturing process used to make it.
Really clear optics? Yeah - Da Vinci would've understood them. Tricky part is how to make them.
Ditto with circuitry, radar absorbent materials, etc.
As another example;
Copy the F-117 bomber shape and airfoil profile - fine.
Without the aerodynamic how and why of what it takes to make an unstable shape fly, you're not getting off the ground.