I'm pretty positive this drone wasn't using very many advanced algorithms. I mean, in the base case, you could easily spoof the unencrypted signal and try to force the drone to change directions. Unfortunately, this really only works when you're using Pseudorange measurements, as opposed to Carrier Phase. Moreover, if there was an INS on the drone as well, this interference problem would become rather trivial.

When using a GPS, if you notice large gaps where your data suddenly "jumps" from one location to another, it tends to be due to poor satellite geometry, i.e.: you have a cycle slip and you need to reconnect to the satellite and estimate the carrier ambiguity again before you can continue to use that satellite's measurements. Of course, this sort of thing is only detectable if you use Carrier Phase measurements, because Pseudorange can have an expected error of +/-10 metres. Now, suppose you're using Carrier Phase to detect cycle slips, and somebody manages to still spoof the signal. With an INS on board, you can still detect the direction of travel, as well as the acceleration at which you are traveling. If your INS does not agree with your GPS, then it would be assumed that the GPS is erroneous, and thus to ignore it until it starts agreeing again. There should be next to no excuse for somebody to take over a drone other than a mechanical malfunction or shoddy software.

Lastly, the idea that the military channel (aka P-code / encrypted channel) could easily be spoofed is ridiculous. GPS gives updates for satellite position approximately every 2 hours, if I remember correctly. That means you could effectively update the keys for the encryption every 2 hours, if you were so inclined. On top of that, the bandwidth of the P-code is much higher, and when interference/multipath/noise/spoofed signals try to mess with that, they end up having a far smaller effect on the signal than is given to consumer / civilian channels. Overall, the P-code is really hard to break, since encryption roll over can update very frequently, and noise and other interference can be mitigated quite well. It should also be noted that military based systems use very expensive receivers, often ones that don't track weak signals (that are more easily spoofed) and ones that can track multiple frequencies (L1, L2, L5, L1C, L2C, P-code) as well as multiple systems (GLONASS, GPS, Beidou/Compass, and more). Quite frankly, it's too expensive and too difficult to spoof that many signals and systems, since GLONASS runs on completely different frequencies, and doesn't even use the same type of signals (Amplitude Modulated GPS vs Frequency Modulated GLONASS). Overall, this article is FUD, and shows that the writer doesn't know jack lanterns about GPS.

Let me try to explain:

If Microsoft implements Do-Not-Track as default in IE, then the majority of users will never notice the setting and then leave it on. This means, most ad companies will start losing revenue, and fast. This is a problem for most ad companies. So, since Do-Not-Track is just a flag that says "I don't want you to track me," it can't actually prevent companies from tracking you online (since it doesn't have any technical blocking or filtering) if they decide they want to.

If ad companies start finding out that Do-Not-Track is default, and that everyone is using it, they're just going to ignore the feature for everyone, which makes it worthless. Therefore, it is better that Do-Not-Track is opt-in, since this will legitimately show that users don't want to be tracked, as opposed to users who were just too lazy or ignorant to change the settings.

In the long run, companies will be more likely to follow the Do-Not-Track standard if they aren't losing significant market share to it. Since the people opting in should effectively be just the tinfoil hats, they won't care about that revenue, since these people use adblock and don't make them money anyways.

All in all, it's a touchy issue. I don't think anybody here agrees that tracking is good. In fact, most of us think it's deplorable the amount a company tracks us on the web just in the name of a couple ad clicks. However, Do-Not-Track is completely useless unless it is opt-in. Otherwise, companies would just ignore it anyways, since it's not mandated by governments or any powerful institution. Hope that helps clear things up.

This is because Google owns doubleclick, which happens to be one of the worst offenders, if you RTFA.

Though honestly, its not just them. They do happen to be one of the highest tracking companies, but that's not really news in itself. The interesting part of the article are the other players.

Invading privacy through third party scripts and services seems to be the norm, I'm afraid.

Siri is only the beginning.

Soon... One day... Soon.

Set your home page to "about:newtab".

There. Everything solved.

Gravity? That would imply that the Earth is not flat and satan isn't trying to pull us down to hell, which is why we stick to the Earth.

Brush up on your bible son, if you don't want to look like an idiot.

By the end of 2012? Knowing Gabe, this likely means we won't see it until Christmas 2013, at which point he'll release Half-Life 3 alongside it and the world will end.

If Duke Nukem was the rapture, then Steam on Linux is the Armageddon. And when it comes to timeliness, I never trust Valve. Quality, sure, but meeting or setting deadlines? Not a chance in frozen hell.

And here I thought researchers were looking for a way to break into the secret google night clubs. Everyone knows that's where all the cool nerds are.

Keeping this analogy, it does seem about as effective as an actual bouncer. While most drunken retards are being thrown out on the streets, the dangerous, more vile types get to stay inside and ultimately take drunk chicks home. I suppose it's nice to have less people throwing up on you, but getting stabbed at a nightclub is still getting stabbed at a nightclub. I suppose you could draw the argument that there's a pat-down and weapons check at the door, but let's be real, if you were going to bring a weapon to hurt someone in the first place, you'd be smart enough to hide it and get in.

If that didn't make sense to you (lack of cars, etc...), basically this means bouncer will only affect poor malware writers and the big-boys will just skirt around the security anyways. Which really means little, because I'd rather get rid of the big players and be stuck with a bunch of obvious annoyances than to remove the annoyances and have a false sense of security about my apps. I should give google credit though, at least it's a start. Hopefully by this time next year they'll have managed to match common sense 2014 in terms of malware protection.

Professional Shill anyone? I've seen a few of these around.

Though seriously, I feel like this poll is more appropriate to another site, where you know, people talk about coding more often than other things. I rarely see any threads or even stories here that discuss coding in any particular length. Most of the time it's tech gadgets, dupes, political tech stories, or dupes.

Though I suppose if we had a poll of our actual demographic, we'd have a poll of dupes.

Well, that's dreadfully disappointing. Here I thought I'd at least get to SEE a superhero before I die. Now I only get to dream about it as gamma ray cancer eats my brain to death.

I would think the first course of action if you're worried about radiation poisoning is to move to a place where this app would be useless (ie: low or no radiation from human sources).

Although, knowing our wonderful eastern friends, they're probably trying to make nuclear superheroes and this chip/app/phone is just a means to sniff out the Hulk from the general population. I'm assuming it can detect gamma radiation as well, so obviously we should put it to it's best use.

Overall, I thought having multiple researchers with the same name was a good thing.

Then we could each take credit for one another's work, and we'd all collectively be the biggest badass in science. It'd sure make research funding easier, in any case.

Really guys? Slow news day would be one thing, but this is ridiculous.

At least show some honesty for what this is.
P.S. in case you don't know what this is, I'll remind you that I check off the disable ads button, and use ad block. Still I read this and get upset. Wtf slash dot?

This is getting too wacky and out of hand. I mean, piracy is one thing, but playing police?

Next thing you know laws will be privatized for the highest bidder in a location. I think we need to step back and ask ourselves, is piracy really worth letting this crap slip by?

I think we should start by reducing the amount of legislation and bureaucracy and let the police do their job. Then we write the minimum amount of laws required to protect start up industries, and then we hang all the lawyers anyways because they're ridiculous and will ruin everything (as always).