Great idea to help "military intelligence"
Ignoramus27261
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Apparently, the drones are capturing so much video information, that
the military has to hire thousands of analysts who watch those
videos closely.
I have a suggestion.
First, let me digress and mention the fact that my site algebra.com
has hundreds of volunteer math tutors who help students for free. They
do so just because they like to (and they like the thank you
letters). Some people are true addicts and do dozens of questions per
day.
In light of this, I would think that there are at least thousands of
bored American patriots, with plenty of time on their hands, who would
want to help the military fight the war.
And the suggestion is to let them watch the current videos, as
captured by drones, and comment on the activities that they
observe. There is a few very basic things that could be done to ensure
that "wrong people" do not interfere with military operations: they
can be assigned to people on a random basis, without them knowing the
actual area where the videos are being taken, and second, more than
one volunteer wuld be assigned per video (so that purposely "not
noticing" some acttivity would not be helpful to terrorists). Third,
every signin would have a reputation, based on how they agree with
other observers.
Some very basic security like requiring an SSN and income from latest
IRS form 1040, would also cut down on the number of potential
disrupters.
The volunteers, obviously, would simply highlight current goings on
and recommend a military analyst to have a second look. They would not
be authorizing strikes or anything like that.
I would think that with the actual quality of drone video, some very
basic instruction should be enough to prepare people for the job at
hand.
All that it really requires is a streaming website, database system,
and a authorization system.
What'cha think?
i
Ignoramus27261
that the payoff to our enemies, from participating in this
"dronetube", would be minimal.
i
TwoGuns
27261.invalid> wrote:
> Read this:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drone.html?hp=&pagewante...
Sounds like a good idea to me. Common sense ideas like this could save
the country billions and make us all safer.
DL
Ignoramus27261
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Common sense ideas like this could save
> the country billions and make us all safer.
> DL
Thanks.
I know for sure that I would be personally participating, if admitted.
i
William Wixon
"Ignoramus27261" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.27261.invalid> wrote in message
news:_pqdnc5VpsgOHdfW...@giganews.com...
sounds cool iggy, good/great idea. :-) of course they won't do something
that makes sense and saves money. (i'm not saying that to be discouraging,
just a sympathetic remark.) reminds me of the "ground observers" of WWII
(which i'm told my grandfather participated in.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Observer_Corps
Jim Wilkins
27261.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-01-11, TwoGuns <R-D-Lora...@neb.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a good idea to me. Common sense ideas like this could save
> > the country billions and make us all safer.
> > DL
>
> Thanks.
>
> I know for sure that I would be personally participating, if admitted.
>
> i
Not so sure here. I have some experience in security and still try to
maintain situational awareness and take notice of anomalous behavior.
But even in one's own culture it's very easy to misinterpret what you
see - I've called the cops on a real estate agent and a business owner
cleaning up on the weekend, and considered it one Sunday afternoon
while sitting in the car and eating lunch. A string of alert men was
entering the back door of a nearby office building a minute apart,
each glancing around first rather than staring straight ahead as most
people do. I drove casually past the front to check the office list on
the sign and noticed "Emergency Preparedness" on one. Later I found
out that they were TSA agents planning an exercise at the nearby
airport.
I would have no clue of the significance of say four Afghans riding in
the back of a pickup truck. I know they face Mecca to pray but very
little else of their normal habits, which is necessary in order to
recognize abnormal ones. The clues are subtle, like driving past good
parking spaces, and when they know they may be watched they make
changes. I think observers would need quite a bit of training.
Open in front of me is an Air Force manual for volunteer ground
observers from 1955, to train them to tell Soviet bombers from the
flood of routine air traffic. It looks like a week or two of evening
classes would be needed to teach the details of aircraft and the
reporting system, and then a fair amount of practice before the false
alarm rate dropped. The British system in WW2 didn't start off too
smoothly.
#217734
TwoGuns
So what if it does take a volunteer forty or fifty hours to train? One
instructor could probably teach the basics to a class of twenty to
thirty or so. Helluva lot cheaper than paying 30 Government workers
full salary and benefits. Maybe that would be a good program for
unemployed folks that want to do something.
DL
technomaNge
>
> All that it really requires is a streaming website, database system,
> and a authorization system.
>
> What'cha think?
All that stuff if easy, just ask the SETI folks.
There is a ebook site (Gutenburg?) that asked for
folks to proofread scans of books and return them
to their main server.
You got a good idea, Ig.
Anyone know how to get this started?
technomaNge
--
Due to anticipated high turnout in 2010's election,
the Electorial College has scheduled:
Nov. 1, 2010 All Independents vote.
Nov. 2, 2010 All Republicans vote.
Nov. 3, 2010 All Democrats vote.
Stuart Wheaton
This sort of distributed labor thing has been getting a bit of attention
lately. There was a group using donated time to search Aerial photos
for evidence of Steve Fossett's crash site. A friend of mine is
associated with "Galaxy Zoo" which is using volunteers to classify
thousands of items found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. As I
understand the way these systems work, random images are presented to
the viewer, they either tag the pic for what they think it shows (Galaxy
Zoo), or they flag it as meriting a second look (Fossett). In both
cases, several people see each image, and a consensus is built about the
contents. A disrupter would only get themselves labeled as unreliable
for too many false positives or too many missed calls.
If there is a task, like finding roads, trails, and dwellings over a
large area, you could flash pictures at people, if 5 people mark a
picture as interesting, it pops up on the intel officer's desk. The
software could be set up so that once a picture was tagged, it could
ramdomly show up in more queues, to rapidly determine if it needed more
attention.
Stuart
Bill Noble
operational security - we don't know what's on those planes, or what the
exact capabilities are, and neither do our enemies - implementing this idea
would reveal all of that, and more. that would be a very bad thing, no?
Ignoramus27261
Their capabilities are already compromised. So at this point, the gain
is much bigger than an imaginary security compromise.
Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software
to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially
providing them with information they need to evade or monitor
U.S. military operations.
Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed
insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an
unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes'
systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as
SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to
regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar
with reports on the matter.
The State of U.S. Intelligence
* Drone Kills a Leader of Al Qaeda,
Dec. 12, 2009
* Terrorists Are Likely Testing Cyber Attacks,
Nov. 19, 2009
* U.S. Spy Efforts Have Improved,
Sept. 17, 2009
* White House Cybersecurity Czar Steps Down,
Aug. 4, 2009
* Cyber Blitz Hits U.S., Korea,
July 9, 2009
* Troubles Plague Cyberspy Defense,
July 3, 2009
* U.S. Cyber Infrastructure Vulnerable to Attacks,
May 6, 2009
U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to
take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their
flights. Still, the intercepts could give America's enemies
battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from
certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine
which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.
The drone intercepts mark the emergence of a shadow cyber war within
the U.S.-led conflicts overseas. They also point to a potentially
serious vulnerability in Washington's growing network of unmanned
drones, which have become the American weapon of choice in both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration has come to rely heavily on the unmanned
drones because they allow the U.S. to safely monitor and stalk
insurgent targets in areas where sending American troops would be
either politically untenable or too risky.
The stolen video feeds also indicate that U.S. adversaries continue to
find simple ways of counteracting sophisticated American military
technologies.
U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered the problem late last year
when they apprehended a Shiite militant whose laptop contained files
of intercepted drone video feeds. In July, the U.S. military found
pirated drone video feeds on other militant laptops, leading some
officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran
were regularly intercepting feeds.
Intelligence reporter Siobhan Gorman discusses how hackers were able
to gain access to U.S. military drones, and what type of information
insurgents accessed.
Related Intelligence Videos
* U.S. Intelligence Detects Cyber Spies
* Obama's Cyber Czar Resigns
* New Military Command to Combat Cyber Spies
Journal Community
* Vote: How will the discovery that Iraqi militants intercepted
U.S. Predator drone transmissions affect U.S. strategy and security?
In the summer 2009 incident, the military found "days and days and
hours and hours of proof" that the feeds were being intercepted and
shared with multiple extremist groups, the person said. "It is part of
their kit now."
A senior defense official said that James Clapper, the Pentagon's
intelligence chief, assessed the Iraq intercepts at the direction of
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and concluded they represented a
shortcoming to the security of the drone network.
"There did appear to be a vulnerability," the defense official
said. "There's been no harm done to troops or missions compromised as
a result of it, but there's an issue that we can take care of and
we're doing so."
Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working
to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been
completely resolved.
Some of the most detailed evidence of intercepted feeds has been
discovered in Iraq, but adversaries have also intercepted drone video
feeds in Afghanistan, according to people briefed on the matter. These
intercept techniques could be employed in other locations where the
U.S. is using pilotless planes, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,
they said.
The Pentagon is deploying record numbers of drones to Afghanistan as
part of the Obama administration's troop surge there. Lt. Gen. David
Deptula, who oversees the Air Force's unmanned aviation program, said
some of the drones would employ a sophisticated new camera system
called "Gorgon Stare," which allows a single aerial vehicle to
transmit back at least 10 separate video feeds simultaneously.
View Full Image
U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used off-the-shelf programs
to intercept video feeds from Predator unmanned aircraft.
U.S. Air Force
U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used off-the-shelf programs
to intercept video feeds from Predator unmanned aircraft.
U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used off-the-shelf programs
to intercept video feeds from Predator unmanned aircraft.
U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used off-the-shelf programs
to intercept video feeds from Predator unmanned aircraft.
Gen. Deptula, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said there were
inherent risks to using drones since they are remotely controlled and
need to send and receive video and other data over great
distances. "Those kinds of things are subject to listening and
exploitation," he said, adding the military was trying to solve the
problems by better encrypting the drones' feeds.
The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink
between the unmanned craft and ground control. The U.S. government has
known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s,
current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local
adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.
Last December, U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered copies of
Predator drone feeds on a laptop belonging to a Shiite militant,
according to a person familiar with reports on the matter. "There was
evidence this was not a one-time deal," this person said. The
U.S. accuses Iran of providing weapons, money and training to Shiite
fighters in Iraq, a charge that Tehran has long denied.
The militants use programs such as SkyGrabber, from Russian company
SkySoftware. Andrew Solonikov, one of the software's developers, said
he was unaware that his software could be used to intercept drone
feeds. "It was developed to intercept music, photos, video, programs
and other content that other users download from the Internet -- no
military data or other commercial data, only free legal content," he
said by email from Russia.
Journal Community
* discuss
“ Who were the lame engineers who came up with a system that
runs without encryption? Even the graduates of the local high school
programming courses know better than to leave to chance an important
security hole. â€
— John Cierra
Officials stepped up efforts to prevent insurgents from intercepting
video feeds after the July incident. The difficulty, officials said,
is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old
involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual
drones. Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to
their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be
upgraded to handle the changes. Additional concerns remain about the
vulnerability of the communications signals to electronic jamming,
though there's no evidence that has occurred, said people familiar
with reports on the matter.
Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems
Inc. of San Diego. Some of its communications technology is
proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily
compatible, said people familiar with the matter.
In an email, a spokeswoman said that for security reasons, the company
couldn't comment on "specific data link capabilities and limitations."
Fixing the security gap would have caused delays, according to current
and former military officials. It would have added to the Predator's
price. Some officials worried that adding encryption would make it
harder to quickly share time-sensitive data within the U.S. military,
and with allies.
"There's a balance between pragmatics and sophistication," said Mike
Wynne, Air Force Secretary from 2005 to 2008.
The Air Force has staked its future on unmanned aerial
vehicles. Drones account for 36% of the planes in the service's
proposed 2010 budget.
Today, the Air Force is buying hundreds of Reaper drones, a newer
model, whose video feeds could be intercepted in much the same way as
with the Predators, according to people familiar with the matter. A
Reaper costs between $10 million and $12 million each and is faster
and better armed than the Predator. General Atomics expects the Air
Force to buy as many as 375 Reapers.
Buerste
"Ignoramus27261" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.27261.invalid> wrote in message
> Read this:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11drone.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
>
> Apparently, the drones are capturing so much video information, that
> the military has to hire thousands of analysts who watch those
> videos closely.
>
> I have a suggestion.
Can't I have control of a loaded Predator? I'll be careful!
Jim Wilkins
27261.invalid> wrote:
> ...
> I know for sure that I would be personally participating, if admitted.
>
> i
I mentioned your idea in rec.aviation.military, without divulging your
name yet.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/356ac296ac60b2c3#
jsw
Ignoramus21069
> On Jan 10, 8:36?pm, Ignoramus27261 <ignoramus27...@NOSPAM.
Thanks. Actually go ahead and divulge my name. I appreciate your
interest in this idea. What if something comes out of it. I am going
to hop over and look.
i
Lewis Hartswick
is (if still) going??
...lew...
John R. Carroll
It's going fine, and for the guy that mentioned the Sloan Project, I'm the
guy that finally made the plug plates that worked to replace the BS ones
that didn't. In my damned garage! Well, sort of.
--
John R. Carroll
Stuart Wheaton
SETI at home used idle processing time to look for signal in the noise
pulled from outer space radio. Computers do this well. Computers are
not yet particularly good at looking at a cluttered photo and deciding
whether something is a rock or a dirty truck. People do that well, and
for some kinds of analysis not much training is needed, just helping to
select what MIGHT be worth looking at with skilled eyes might save
thousands of man hours.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:miC2n.1928$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad...
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> Can't I have control of a loaded Predator? I'll be careful!
Do you have a Concealed Carry license?
Ignoramus21069
You said it very well.
All that these amateur analysts need to do, is pinpoint areas of
interest.
i
dan
rec.crafts.metalworking mine and will die if we don't mount a rescue
by Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:18:52 -0600:
>I have a suggestion.
<snip good suggestion>
I remember when we were looking for sadam, there was a web cartoon
that used this idea. There were thousands(millions?) of these little
ROVs that were controlled like an online game. The idea was that if
you found something interesting, you would flag it and a military tech
would check it out. The ROVs looked like little potatoes with spider
legs. Sorry, but I have no idea of the url or title or anything.
--
Dan H.
northshore MA.
Andrew VK3BFA
27261.invalid> wrote:
> Read this:
Well, Iggy kicked this one off, and I know that I will probably regret
this, but here goes anyway.
RANT ON.
You guys are totally NUTS! Are you so paranoid, and desperate, that
you are willing to analyse grainy video in search of your "enemies" -
some of you couldn't find Pakistan and Afghanistan on the map, let
alone have any knowledge of their culture, attitude, and how things
work over there. This applies to your military as well - in fact, you
lot are terribly insular which explains WHY you stuff up so
consistently The "trained analysts" have, at various times, shot up a
wedding party, a school, 2 tall guys on a donkey because one of the
baddies they were looking for was tall, so those two poor saps were
"close enuff" - this is clearly insane! These are people, folks. This
is a people problem, it wont be helped by some young smartarse
playing with a video console that fires REAL rockets.
And the people your shooting with these things invented the blood feud
- keep going, and every single person there will eventually have good
reason to kill you.
The technological approach clearly isn't working (ask the families of
those poor bastards who have been killed) so think of some outside the
square way of doing it rather than doing poor John Wayne
impersonations.
Your (we) are going to have to get out eventually, and its no good
trying to save face - that just wastes time, (no one believes it
anyway) and gets more people killed.
RANT OFF.
I am leaving the state tomorrow, so will not be able to reply to the
usual suspects.
Andrew VK3BFA.
Ed Huntress
"Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
news:a42ae9e7-de1e-4e6c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ha! Leaving now, you're going to miss all the fun replies, Andrew. <g>
I hope you have an enjoyable trip.
--
Ed Huntress
rangerssuck
A system very much like you described was used to search for Steve
Fossett's plane. You got an aerial photo and marked things that looked
like they might be "something relevant" to the search. Thousands of
people participated.
It's a good idea.
Stuart Wheaton
Andrew, you are lumping two problems together, and misreading one of them.
The idea here is not to do targeting, or any other intel function. The
idea is to do the roughest sort of data analysis. Suppose you were
looking for poppy fields. Get a high res satellite photomontage of all
Afghanistan, and ask the dumb people to tag all cultivation. After
something is agreed to be cultivation, the intel types can sort it for
poppy vs. cotton.
Same could be done to find camps, or trails.
The second problem has to do with the protocols for verifying the intel,
and the acts taken based upon it. Both of these problems are serious,
and must be solved. One of the solutions may be for intel officers to
stop doing mundane tasks and spend more time doing the things that
highly trained and cleared people are needed for. I do not think the
original problem presented was one of real-time intel, but rather one of
sorting huge piles of "Boring", to find the nugget of, "weird, what is
that?"
As far as getting out, well, we armed the most extreme members of that
nation when the Soviets invaded, ignored them when they won against
Russia, let them devolve into chaos, then invaded them, then ignored
them while we got distracted in Iraq. Colin Powell called it the
Pottery Barn Doctrine, We broke it, we own it. We have a moral duty to
put Afghanistan on some sort of stable footing, it will cost lives, and
many of those lives could have been saved if better decisions had been
made in the last 30 years, but we must try to give them enough peace and
security that they can decide how to run their nation.
Stuart
Ignoramus21235
1. The question why we are engaged in this war, is completely separate
from asking how we can become more efficient at processing
intelligence.
2.
Wes
>In light of this, I would think that there are at least thousands of
>bored American patriots, with plenty of time on their hands, who would
>want to help the military fight the war.
>
>And the suggestion is to let them watch the current videos, as
>captured by drones, and comment on the activities that they
>observe. There is a few very basic things that could be done to ensure
>that "wrong people" do not interfere with military operations: they
>can be assigned to people on a random basis, without them knowing the
>actual area where the videos are being taken, and second, more than
>one volunteer wuld be assigned per video (so that purposely "not
>noticing" some acttivity would not be helpful to terrorists). Third,
>every signin would have a reputation, based on how they agree with
>other observers.
I'm up for it. I think Texas did something with border cams a while back.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Stormin Mormon
to see.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ignoramus21235" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.21235.invalid> wrote
in message
news:oY-dnbTnLoJzzNPW...@giganews.com...
Bill Noble
sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
http://webhosting.devshed.com/c/a/Web-Hosting-News/Hosted-in-China-Malware-Infested-Web-Sites/
http://www.redherring.com/Home/18033
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1339
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/161920/china_becoming_the_worlds_malware_factory.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10002761-83.html
much is aimed at industrial espionage, and our technology is leaking out
http://www.pcworld.com/article/186831/google_attack_highlights_strength_of_targeted_malware.html
http://www.scmagazineus.com/google-adobe-targeted-by-malware-in-coordinated-attack/article/161269/
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=2959B109-1A64-67EA-E4DAF2E15C298C62
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34842857/ns/technology_and_science-security/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jL9ZjvvThSwuDeYE0unEbzkAvrzg
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/attack-google-part-widespread-chinese-spying-effort-641
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/technology/14google.html
Ignoramus3181
> if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace the chinese
> sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
> insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
i
Michael A. Terrell
Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-14, Bill Noble <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace the chinese
> > sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
> > insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
>
> I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
No, you surrendered. White flags, and all.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Ignoramus3181
I would have surrendered if I allowed malware to take over. In fact,
the opposite is the case and malware is completely eliminated. Who
won?
i
Michael A. Terrell
The malware. It forced you to change operating systems. It's like
buying a new car, to keep from packing the wheel bearings with fresh
grease. You waved your white flag and gave in.
technomaNge
Michael, you forgot to put a smiley on there!
If I didn't know better, I'd say you don't have a sense of humor. :)
technomaNge
--
All my home computers are Linux.
Ignoramus3181
If a new car was free, in your example, it would be a victory -- to
get a well running car for free.
Same here, I have a great OS that costs me nothing and keeps me secure.
It is a win-win in all respects.
i
Michael A. Terrell
Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2010-01-14, Bill Noble <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace the chinese
> >> >> > sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
> >> >> > insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
> >> >>
> >> >> I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
> >> >
> >> > No, you surrendered. White flags, and all.
> >>
> >> I would have surrendered if I allowed malware to take over. In fact,
> >> the opposite is the case and malware is completely eliminated. Who
> >> won?
> >
> >
> > The malware. It forced you to change operating systems. It's like
> > buying a new car, to keep from packing the wheel bearings with fresh
> > grease. You waved your white flag and gave in.
>
> If a new car was free, in your example, it would be a victory -- to
> get a well running car for free.
You've been listening to Obama again. There are no free new cars.
They all cost someone to design and build.
> Same here, I have a great OS that costs me nothing and keeps me secure.
>
> It is a win-win in all respects.
If you say so, but I don't see it that way. I have had maybe three
virii with Microsoft OS in my computers from the DOS 3.0 days till now.
Those were when someone managed to slip an infected disk into my
computer while I was busy working on something else. Like a guy I
worked with a few years ago. His computer wouldn't boot, so he tried to
make a boot disk on the computers at work. He had trashed six systems
before we caught him with the infected floppy. You can't fix stupid.
Adaware & Spybot S&D, NoHosts, along with the Zone Alarm firewall
keep the other crap out of my computers, as well. All of them are free
for personal use. I have nothing against Linux. I have a couple
computers running different versions, but the computers I repair and
give away have various Windows OS so I need to stay familiar with
Windows.
Go ahead and limit yourself if you want to, but I enjoy learning new
hardware and software. :)
Michael A. Terrell
I wasn't kidding, and I do have a very warped sense of humor. :-)
Why limit yourself when there are software & hardware that won't run
properly under Linux? I have some hardware that will only work with WIN
95 to ME. Should I trash it and do without? For instance, I have a
half dozen good flat bed scanners that only work on older Windows
systems, but not one worth a damn that behaves under XP. The video
editing software I like, and the can to text program works well under
ME. I don't have $1,000 to buy everything new, so I keep one of the
older computers around to do graphics.
There are people who had a hard time learning windows, and it's
hopeless trying to switch them to Linux without getting phone calls
around the clock. Not everyone takes to a new OS easily, and what I
work on goes to the disabled and elderly.
If all you want is idiot proof computing, use whatever works. I know
of several businesses that have tried to switch to Linux, to discover
that their business software was flaky or unusable under the dozen
different versions they tried. They switched back to Windows 2000 Pro
to be able to build and ship their products. Late last year the
switched to XP when they upgraded their computers.
BTW, I lost your e-mail address when my old system died. The
motherboard needs recapped, and I am looking for the right
electrolytics. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your last donation. :)
Ignoramus28589
>
> Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2010-01-14, Bill Noble <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace the chinese
>> >> >> > sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
>> >> >> > insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, you surrendered. White flags, and all.
>> >>
>> >> I would have surrendered if I allowed malware to take over. In fact,
>> >> the opposite is the case and malware is completely eliminated. Who
>> >> won?
>> >
>> >
>> > The malware. It forced you to change operating systems. It's like
>> > buying a new car, to keep from packing the wheel bearings with fresh
>> > grease. You waved your white flag and gave in.
>>
>> If a new car was free, in your example, it would be a victory -- to
>> get a well running car for free.
>
> You've been listening to Obama again. There are no free new cars.
> They all cost someone to design and build.
>
Of course there are no free cars.
I was goving you a hypoithetical example that IF a new car was free,
then it would be a victory to get one.
>
>> Same here, I have a great OS that costs me nothing and keeps me secure.
>>
>> It is a win-win in all respects.
>
>
> If you say so, but I don't see it that way. I have had maybe three
> > virii with Microsoft OS in my computers from the DOS 3.0 days
> till now. > Those were when someone managed to slip an infected
> disk into my > computer while I was busy working on something else.
> Like a guy I > worked with a few years ago. His computer wouldn't
> boot, so he tried to > make a boot disk on the computers at work.
> He had trashed six systems > before we caught him with the infected
> floppy. You can't fix stupid.
>
> Adaware & Spybot S&D, NoHosts, along with the Zone Alarm firewall
> keep the other crap out of my computers, as well. All of them are free
> for personal use. I have nothing against Linux. I have a couple
> computers running different versions, but the computers I repair and
> give away have various Windows OS so I need to stay familiar with
> Windows.
>
I have never had a virus on Windows, as a matter of fact (unless I
forget something). I just cannot stand the possibility of getting one.
> Go ahead and limit yourself if you want to, but I enjoy learning new
> hardware and software. :)
I also enjoy learning new hardware and software. I cannot see how
using Linux would preclude me from doing so.
i
Ignoramus28589
>>
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>> >> On 2010-01-14, Bill Noble <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >>> if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace the chinese
>> >>> sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us than all the
>> >>> insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
>> >> I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
>> >
>> >
>> > No, you surrendered. White flags, and all.
>> >
>>
>> Michael, you forgot to put a smiley on there!
>>
>> If I didn't know better, I'd say you don't have a sense of humor. :)
>
>
> I wasn't kidding, and I do have a very warped sense of humor. :-)
>
> Why limit yourself when there are software & hardware that won't run
> properly under Linux?
You lose some, you win some. Most "hardware" actually runs fine under
Linux.
> I have some hardware that will only work with WIN
> 95 to ME. Should I trash it and do without? For instance, I have a
> half dozen good flat bed scanners that only work on older Windows
> systems, but not one worth a damn that behaves under XP.
They would likely work under Linux as well. I have a similar old scanner.
> The video editing software I like, and the can to text program works
> well under ME. I don't have $1,000 to buy everything new, so I keep
> one of the older computers around to do graphics.
>
> There are people who had a hard time learning windows, and it's
> hopeless trying to switch them to Linux without getting phone calls
> around the clock. Not everyone takes to a new OS easily, and what I
> work on goes to the disabled and elderly.
Definitely true.
> If all you want is idiot proof computing, use whatever works. I know
> of several businesses that have tried to switch to Linux, to discover
> that their business software was flaky or unusable under the dozen
> different versions they tried. They switched back to Windows 2000 Pro
> to be able to build and ship their products. Late last year the
> switched to XP when they upgraded their computers.
>
> BTW, I lost your e-mail address when my old system died. The
> motherboard needs recapped, and I am looking for the right
> electrolytics. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your last donation. :)
We switched to Linux at work on the server side, and we are not
looking back at all. The savings are mind boggling. If anyone is
interested, I can go in detail.
i
Michael A. Terrell
A lot of software to integrate automated test systems are not Linux
freindly. It works for, but not eveyone.
Michael A. Terrell
Yes, but servers aren't desktops used by people who would need to be
retrained. We have completely different uses for computers, and one
solution doesn't fit all needs.
Ignoramus28589
Do you mean testing of software?
i
Ignoramus28589
I never said that one solution fits all needs.
However, at work, we have people switching to Linux as well, for now
it is mostly developers. I expect some progress in this
area. Developers go first, for obvious reasons.
i
Michael A. Terrell
No, software that controls racks of test equipment in a automated or
semi-automated test environment. It is used in manufacturing and some
repair businesses.
One instance I ran in to would only run under Windows 2.0, and the
source code had been lost when the rack of test equipment and computer
was transferred from on company to another. The contract specified that
test software, so writing a work alike was out of the question. We went
to work one morning, and the IT department had 'upgraded' the OS over
the weekend. Luckily, we managed to piece everything back together from
several sets of backup disks. IT was written up for tampering with
production equipment, and was chewed out by a vice president of the
company. They still had several EPROM programmers that ran only under
DOS 3.0. They were old, but reliable so we kept a few working XT
computers for spares.
Others looked to see the specific version of Windows on a computer
and would refuse to run if it didn't find certain files on the hard
drive. Then, there is software written for telemetry systems, and
satellite control systems that can get now tech support if you change
operating systems.
Michael A. Terrell
Try that with artists. I sure don't want to try it, again. :(
Jim Wilkins
28589.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ....
> > A lot of software to integrate automated test systems are not Linux
> > freindly. It works for, but not eveyone.
>
> Do you mean testing of software?
>
> i
I have to be familiar with Windows for the same reason, lab test
setups. Typically a laptop or older office desktop controls test
equipment like meters and programmable power supplies, and the Device
Under Test, with code from either the device vendor or some whiz in
Software who quit without leaving the source code or instructions to
set it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_test_equipment
I was a test engineer for a Teradyne subcontractor until a lawsuit
destroyed it, and I've also built antilock brake controller test
stands for GM.
In the recent past I've had that to maintain DOS, Win98, Win2K and XP
test stations that couldn't be replaced. One had been left unattended
without a password where the production people could shop and gamble
on it, and I got a lot of admin practice cleaning it out.
With the DOS machine, which ran a stack of GPIB instruments that
tested SCSI chips, the only way to change anything was to edit the
QBasic source code. I quickly redid that one to load or save
initialization files instead.
In an intelligent machine such as an electric vehicle or the prototype
for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast
the laptop is the control panel during development.
Recent grads who still worship *nix try to confound us old folks with
it but generally can get no closer than Cygwin because they can't find
or write all the device and communications drivers needed. It's no fun
anyway after they find that I actually do know how to use the command
line.
jsw, who learned on an LSI-11.
Ignoramus28589
I think that the key to all successful migration is to go slowly and
to solve issues in a proactive manner. I am already happy that we
migrated the server side. The client side is making a slow progress.
i
Bill Noble
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QIOdnUuRAYib7M3W...@earthlink.com...
>
> Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2010-01-15, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ignoramus3181 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2010-01-14, Bill Noble <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > if you want to be much more helpful, spend time working to trace
>> >> >> > the chinese
>> >> >> > sourced malware and deal with it. This will do more harm to us
>> >> >> > than all the
>> >> >> > insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I already won the war against malware. I installed Linux.
>> >> >
if you believe that Linux makes you immune to malware, you certainly will
have a learning experience - it doesn't. What makes you relatively immune
is that you don't have anything of value. Also, notice that I said nothing
about it affecting your computer, I said something about tracing the source
and dealing with it - Perhaps reading up on the threat will make you more
informed.
Michael A. Terrell
As usual, your reply is to the wrong person.
technomaNge
>
> BTW, I lost your e-mail address when my old system died. The
> motherboard needs recapped, and I am looking for the right
> electrolytics. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your last donation. :)
Happy to help.
You've got mail.
technomaNge
--
Due to anticipated high turnout in 2010's election,
the Electorial College has scheduled:
Nov. 1, 2010 All Independents vote.
Nov. 2, 2010 All Republicans vote.
Nov. 3, 2010 All Democrats vote.
Gunner Asch
<VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote:
> The "trained analysts" have, at various times, shot up a
>wedding party, a school,
In both cases, before rounds were expended...a large amount of gunfire
was seen coming from both locals, while Allied groups were on the ground
in the area..and both areas were known "unfriendly" zones.
Its not like anyone was flying a Pred over Manchester...where large
amounts of gunfire are often seen with the cops under
fire......hummmm......
Anyone got a Manchester drone I could take over??
Load her up with a minigun and Ill be Aok
Gunner
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Andrew VK3BFA
> "Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
>
>
> Ha! Leaving now, you're going to miss all the fun replies, Andrew. <g>
>
> I hope you have an enjoyable trip.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Well, it was a bit like throwing a dead rat into a kindergarten
(sorry, was ill mannered) - and thank you all for the commendable
restraint showed in replies.
Went to Tasmania for a week, on the overnight ferry so took the
vehicle, did about 800km - lovely place, quiet country roads lined
with Hawthorn, excellent food, friendly locals, a big, clear blue sky
with fluffy white clouds. Very Nice.
The only "usual suspect" was Gunner, who, as usual, was just plain pig
ignorant wrong. Thankfully, his influence on your foreign policy is
non existent.
(hint:- firing guns in the air at weddings, or indeed any
celebration, is a part of Afghan culture. Unfriendly country - your
right there Gunner, just about the whole country could be described as
that..I wonder why?....)
Andrew VK3BFA.
Gunner Asch
<VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote:
>On Jan 14, 3:07 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Ha! Leaving now, you're going to miss all the fun replies, Andrew. <g>
>>
>> I hope you have an enjoyable trip.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Well, it was a bit like throwing a dead rat into a kindergarten
>(sorry, was ill mannered) - and thank you all for the commendable
>restraint showed in replies.
>Went to Tasmania for a week, on the overnight ferry so took the
>vehicle, did about 800km - lovely place, quiet country roads lined
>with Hawthorn, excellent food, friendly locals, a big, clear blue sky
>with fluffy white clouds. Very Nice.
>
>The only "usual suspect" was Gunner, who, as usual, was just plain pig
>ignorant wrong. Thankfully, his influence on your foreign policy is
>non existent.
How was I wrong?
>(hint:- firing guns in the air at weddings, or indeed any
>celebration, is a part of Afghan culture. Unfriendly country - your
>right there Gunner, just about the whole country could be described as
>that..I wonder why?....)
Indeed the fireing of weapons in the air is part of the culture. Too bad
they did it with teams of both Yanks and Brits in the area..where the
lead was coming down. And ultimately paid the price.
Bummer eh?
And one should note..that foreign policy killed those people..so what
buffoonery are you spewing? That if I had said nothing..those people..a
r before..would still be alive?
Sure you arent drunk? Not a good thing do be doing while posting.
Makes you look utterly stupid.
Shrug.
>
>Andrew VK3BFA.
This one?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-warplanes-bomb-afghan-wedding-party-994922.html
Or these 5 different ones?
http://www.alternet.org/world/91457/
" fact, according to Time Magazine's Tim McGirk, out of 112 Afghans in
the wedding party, only two women survived. In this case, it seems that
the Americans were fed disinformation by an Afghan official out to
settle scores and acted on it.
That makes four wedding parties blown away by U.S. air power in Iraq and
Afghanistan since the end of 2001. And there was probably at least one
more. Back in May 2002, it was claimed that U.S. helicopters wiped out a
wedding party in the eastern Afghan province of Khost, killing 10 and
wounding many more. An Agence France Presse report at the time
concluded: "A wedding was in progress in the village when people fired
into the air in traditional celebration and US helicopters flying over
the area could have mistaken it for hostile fire. An aircraft later
bombed the area for several hours." On this event, however, the
documentation is far poorer."
It would seem reasonable..that one either notifies the aircraft flying
overhead that they are not actually being shot at..or wait till the
aircraft leave the area before shooting up the skies.
After all...shooting at American Aircraft is something the bad guys do
with great regularity..and one always returns fire and kills those
shooting at one. Prevents them from getting good at it and actually
killing ones troops. Historically..shooting at American Aircraft is a
good way to get ones 72 virgins.
So laddy boy..what military service did you do..and in which combat
theater did you serve it? One just knows that you have been fired on
by enemies intent on killing you. Right?
Gunner
The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.
...It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474
Andrew VK3BFA
Mate, you lost all semblance of credibility when you started raving
about "Secret emails" from "High placed patriotic military officers" -
your just plain off your face. Almost certainly a decent person, but
definitely "Off With The Fairies" re your world view.
Andrew VK3BFA.
Gunner Asch
Got cites?
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.