Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hmm, strong evidence of null-activity by NSA? N (Score 3, Insightful) 20

by aviators99 (#47863935) Attached to: Research Finds No Large-Scale Exploits of Heartbleed Before Disclosure

"... our detector" = "strong evidence of a negative we're trying to prove..."

It's interesting how one detector can be "strong evidence" that the NSA didn't do something in secret, I think.

The research had nothing to do with the NSA (the article about the research decided to bring them up). To me, the main objective of the study was to see if the widespread revocation of certificates in a short period of time was really warranted. IMO, it was not, and my opinion seems to be validated by this study.

It *is* possible to prove this sort of negative (I'm not saying they did). For example, if you wanted to prove that heartbleed was not used on a particular system, you could set up logging in advance. You could then extend that to multiple systems, and so on. My point is that you can't use the "you can't prove a negative" argument for things like this (and also that the NSA had nothing to do with this study).

Comment: Re:...really? (Score 1) 157

by aviators99 (#47828583) Attached to: Tesla's Next Auto-Dealer Battleground State: Georgia

Simple solution: they can see them in the showroom, and buy them online..

This is already Tesla's model. You can't buy a car at the showroom; only online. Each showroom has at least one Mac you can use however you want, and an employee will help you if you have any questions. But you can't pay there.

Comment: Re:Poor password selection (Score 1) 59

by aviators99 (#47492527) Attached to: Tesla Model S Hacking Prize Claimed

Yes, thank you for correcting the inaccuracies. There is no "PIN" for accessing a Tesla. There is a password, with complexity requirements.

You cannot honk the horn or control the windows from the app while the car is moving.

The "hack" was likely a set-up. Could potentially be done with a MitM/replay attack, but that would still lead me to believe it was a set-up.

Comment: Re:Personal opinion on this.... (Score 1) 199

by aviators99 (#47438197) Attached to: FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage

Controlled airspace goes down to ground level in an inverted cone shape at controlled airports, that is quite wide. This is to allow IFR traffic to take off and land at controlled airports and never leave controlled airspace. So you can't fly 10 feet next to a large airport without breaking the law, but you can fly 10,000 feet in remote areas without telling them anything and be legal. It can get a bit complicated when learning to fly in the midst of 3 international airports while taking off from an uncontrolled one. I usually flew without touching controlled airspace, but had to keep track of my position when I got near them.

Just trying to give you some information for your viewpoints.

I think you're confusing "positive controlled airspace" with "controlled airspace", but you are otherwise correct.

But I do wonder about the true "uncontrolled" airspace and how the FAA's rule-making may or may not apply. This is different from what you describe. I believe you are regularly flying in "controlled airspace", in which you usually don't have to deal with controllers Uncontrolled airspace is rare in areas where manned aircraft fly, but is probably more prevalent where drones fly.

Comment: Help Yourself (Score 1) 184

by aviators99 (#47293863) Attached to: EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement

My WiFi SSID has been called "Help Yourself" for years. I've never had any issues, probably because every router I've had has turned out to be so crappy that I can barely get a signal from the other side of the house, let alone the street. Every now and then I see some people joining. I don't use WiFi encryption, because I don't think the speed loss is worth it, and all of the websites I visit that contain information I don't want to share use HTTPS.

Comment: Re:Improper use of [sic] in TFA (Score 1) 100

Yes, but:

The notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in the transcribed material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, and the errors have been repeated intentionally, i.e., that they are reproduced exactly as set down by the original writer or printer.

But not worth arguing over.

Comment: Improper use of [sic] in TFA (Score 1, Funny) 100

Yes, it's a British article, but they put "[sic]" in a quote that contains "favorite" as opposed to "favourite", I guess without taking into account that the perpetrators might be American. On the other hand, while typing this post in Chrome, the browser marked "favourite" as a misspelling :-)

Comment: Re:Drones over the matches (Score 1) 138

by aviators99 (#47253173) Attached to: France Cries Foul At World Cup "Spy Drone"

I actually believe that "drones" were being used at the matches. They were certainly used at the Olympics this year.

I also think the objections do have to do with the thought that it was another team trying to watch training.

The Phantom 2 has a range (out of the box) of approximately 800m. So whoever was controlling it was nearby. It might have been possible to track him/her down.

I've been told by my friend who has one that it uses point-to-point 802.11 in order to communicate, so you can imagine all sorts of ways to mess with it.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.