Is Australia planning on building their own code from that source?

Because how would they know that what they were running was actually the source code they were provided?

And would Australia even be interested in jumping through that extra hoop considering that there are other vendor options available where Australia feels this isn't necessary? The price difference between Huawei and other vendors would have to be fairly sizable to warrant that.

Or, even more insidious, I've heard of the possibility to include backdoors via the compiler rather than via the source code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)

Quote from that article:
It is also possible to create a backdoor without modifying the source code of a program, or even modifying it after compilation. This can be done by rewriting the compiler so that it recognizes code during compilation that triggers inclusion of a backdoor in the compiled output. When the compromised compiler finds such code, it compiles it as normal, but also inserts a backdoor (perhaps a password recognition routine). So, when the user provides that input, he gains access to some (likely undocumented) aspect of program operation. This attack was first outlined by Ken Thompson in his famous paper Reflections on Trusting Trust (see below).

If Huawei's code requires anything more than generic gcc, Australia may not be able to verify 100% security, regardless... unless they're given the source code to the compiler as well.

Long story short, this just seems like a huge hassle that Australia is probably going to avoid anyway.

Just my 2 cents...

I hate to be a pessimist, but it's my understanding that there's no real technological hurdle that needs overcoming in terms of getting a strength-assist exoskeleton.

Sure, some fine tuning. You know, making sure that it doesn't break the user's bones and all that. But nothing too technically complicated.

It gets slightly more complicated if you're wanting a pure machine-brain interface rather than it being controlled through some other arrangement. But we've seen stuff like this already. The brain adapts well to new stimuli, and I'm sure somebody will get all the kinks worked out of that at some point not too far away.

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is with the power source. Battery technology has been stuck at roughly the same point for decades now. The weight to power-concentration ratio just isn't there.

So unless this story is actually about Nasa figuring out coke-bottle-sized cold fusion, then (unfortunately) go read this post's subject line.

Here's what I don't understand: Why is tenure necessary? What is different about academia such that teachers require "protection"?

And if someone does choose to respond to my post, please keep the vitriol down. Both of my parents were high school teachers. I've been around teachers for an extremely long time. I understand that they work much longer hours than just regular school hours. I understand that they take money out of their own pockets for school supplies. I know all the hardships. That's fine.

So, I repeat: What is different about teaching such that it requires tenure?

I live in a "Right to Work" state, i.e. a "we can fire you for any reason and, as long as we don't tell you that reason, you have no legal recourse" state. Everybody I know functions in this *absolutely no protection* environment, and we all do fine. Sure, sometimes somebody gets screwed over by the system. But in general, skilled labor is required to fill most positions such as engineering, software development, etc. Businesses don't just go off and clear out their entire staff on a whim, even though they can, because it would be disastrous for the business.

How is the same thing not true for teaching? You keep the good teachers. You fire the bad teachers. You get on with life.

You can even feel the tone of the original submitter. How there is an implicit denunciation of the firing of academics. But if you switched out the profession and said, "100 software developers were fired for not meeting coding deadlines", would anybody here even bat an eye?

I just don't get it. And, seriously, if I'm missing something, please explain it to me.

I don't really care if you're talking out of your ass. You write beautifully. I want to hear this spoken, because it was great just with the voice in my head.

Agreed. I know that *technically* the units being using in Afghanistan are robots. A mechanical arm used to weld cars in a factory just following a pre-programmed series of movements is technically a robot.

But if allusions to Terminators are going to be made, then we have to consider autonomy as the real metric for a "robotic war".

IMHO, people worried about things like robotic wars are implying a problem with the robots running amok, at least primarily. True, there are other issues to consider. For instance, would a person controlling a robot from 1,000 miles away take more risks with that robot, or go in firing more freely without worrying about reprisals, as opposed to somebody inside a tank where the control is more "involved"?

But it's not like modern aircraft are directly controlled by the people inside them either. There are tons of stabilizing modifications performed per second completely autonomously just to keep a modern combat aircraft from dropping out of the sky. It's all electronic signals. And a human is controlling that at a high level whether he's sitting in the cockpit or in California with a remote joystick.

Call me when, "afterward, the Stealth Bombers flew with perfect operational records..."

Marketing will call it the "Volkswagen Scarab", and all will be right with the world.

For that matter, Electromagnetism and the Weak Force have been theorized to be the same thing: Electroweak