They were re-classifed as TR-1(x) models in the mid-80s.

The U-2 is not longer a "traditional" spy-plane (i.e. photoreconnaissance of fixed points of interest). It had all the high-res photography equipment replaced with side-band IR and wide-angle low-light cameras. Bascially, they turned it from a "oooh, look at that neat weapons complex" single-frame photographer into a massive photo Hoover (or Vax, for our Brit friends).

Turns out, the U-2 is massively useful here: incredibly high service ceiling, newer semi-stealth improvements in materials, and a batshit crazy loiter time. It outlived the SR-71 because it turns out point-recon is better done by LEO satellites, and the SR-71 can't loiter. Or go slow enough to photograph a wide area well.

I'm kinda surprised that the Global Hawks are more expensive than the TR-1, though, given that the TR-1 now required non-trivial maintenance, and human costs to fly. Then again, this is 1950s technology, and the B-52 shows that if you can figure out where it works, well, high-tech doesn't always mean better mission success.

Now, if only they'd cancel those stupid Littoral Combat Ship programs (yeah, we're building 2 production versions, cause we couldn't decide which sucked less), we could look at some significant savings...

-Erik

Actually, given today's rock-bottom borrowing costs (barely 1% on many new car models over 3 years), you're a fool to pay cash for a car.

You forget to factor in inflation and opportunity costs. If the interest rate on your investment is below inflation, you actually lose purchasing power. Similarly, if the interest rate on the loan is below inflation, you gain purchasing power.

The numbers don't lie: if you're financial situation is stable, in the current environment, you should invest any savings in long-term accounts, and borrow for short-term expenses that can be paid off out of your ordinary budget.

Remember: short-term investment interest rates are well below inflation (2.5%), and car loans for people buying a new car with good (600+) credit history are likewise well below inflation.

The only reason to pay cash is if you don't have confidence in your current income remaining where it is over the life of the car loan AND you don't have a sufficient nest egg to weather some loss of income. Frankly, if you don't have that nest egg in place, you shouldn't be buying any car until after you've plumped up that nest egg. Plus, paying off a car loan is a BIG bump to your credit rating, which you don't get by paying in cash.

-Erik

Oops. You are correct.

Though, I will have to have several people executed upon my death.

-Erik

I've made sure that all the legally-important data on me is available to my will's executioner (i.e. the person handling my estate trust). Plus, of course, a couple of letters and videos for specific people.

Beyond that, everything I care about is encrypted. It all goes away when I die, since I don't record the key or passphrase anywhere, and, barring a breakthrough in quantum computing, no one is going to be guessing that key outside a large TLA agency. I'm not in the position in my life where I have to worry about a TLA, though I'd like to be. :-)

-Erik

Slightly Offtopic: I would incredibly, massively, can't emphasize it too much recommend that everyone meet with an estate lawyer and get a trust set up for themselves to handle all their affairs. It's relatively inexpensive (mine was $500, including all lawyer time), and is by far the best way to handle all those sticky end-of-life (and afterlife) issues, like a living will, disposition of estate, medical power of attorney, etc. I did it at 30, and I'd really say that everyone should do it as soon as they're done with school and have a professional job.

"Technology", in the sense of basic principles, is certainly neutral. However, specific assemblages of technology - from a car, to a gun, to a spoon, or a computer program, certainly aren't neutral. they have good points and bad points, which are determined by their intended or designed use, their practical or common use, and their potential or possible use. How we allow for the use of given assemblies of technologies depends entirely on how we view the social cost-benefit equation of the assembled tool.

Many people want to ban certain tools based on their potential usage, which is either irrational or irresponsible (or displays a hidden agenda unrelated to the merits of the tool).

However, it is equally dishonest to judge a tool merely on its proclaimed intended usage.

As a society, we must look at the whole picture, and hopefully, error on the side of permissiveness. That does not mean that we should be shy about outlawing things whose negative potential and common usage significantly outweigh any benefit that is intended or common usage provides. Like everything else, it's a balancing act.

In this case, the judge did just that, much to the *IAA (or Spanish equivalent's) disappointment.

-Erik

No, I'm not a child anymore. I learned that taking things from others is wrong. That much of the crap people do in their younger days is naive, misplaced, stupid, or dangerous. I don't scream at authority just because my friends say it's cool. Growing up is learning why the rules exist, and figuring out how to fix the rules that are broken, not flaunting the rules just because they're the rules.

Oh, and by the way - notice how I never said the current laws are correct in all respects. They're not perfect. But, I still haven't seen a coherent argument that what the OP did was ethical or moral to begin with. And I'm tired of people saying "but I didn't mean to be bad". Sure. And how am I, the victim, to sort out the people who didn't mean to be bad from those who did? Innocent intent is only a defense if you can't reasonably foresee the consequences of your actions.

There's a world of difference between helping people who either (a) ask for the help, or (b) drop in your lap by no volition of your own, and "helping" people by sticking your nose in their business - whether or not that "help" is useful is immaterial, you stuck you nose in where it had no right to be.

Bottom line: even white hat hacking without permission of the target is the same as vigilante-ism. You're taking the law into your own hands, and it doesn't matter if you sometimes help society. The practice itself is a bad idea.

-Erik

And, you just made my case for me.

I never claimed Phreaking was legal, moral, or ethical. It wasn't (certain Hollywood films notwithstanding).

The major difference is that now, the community as a whole should know better - that is, our community has the ethical standards to say it's bad, and not encourage people to do that kind of behavior. That's exactly what I'm doing. If it's a bit harsh, then so be it. Kids seldom change their behavior in response gentle admonishment for things they don't see as wrong - that is, for behavior they know to be wrong, being gentle is very effective, while for behavior that they perceive as OK (but isn't), the "tisk-tisk" approach is completely ineffective.

We also only have the OP's side of things - how do we know they aren't doing something internally to resolve the problem? We also don't know exactly what he did as far as the hack itself goes, so there's no basis for assuming that it didn't cause any damage. That whole unknown is why the event should never have happened in the first place, which is why I'm being harsh. The hack itself shouldn't have happened. Period. End of discussion. This is not "back in the day" - this is now, and the comparison isn't valid anymore. Times have changed, and I'm holding the OP to current standards, not two-decade-plus old ones. That's not hypocritical, as I can easily recognize the 80s behavior was no better. He doesn't get a pass just because other people used to do it.

-Erik

Bureau of Labor and Statistics report for energy pricing in the San Francisco area.

Oooohhh, look! PG&E is soooooooo efficient, that I get my electricity at a mere 66% premium over the nation average! And my gas at only a 30% premium! Way to go, PG&E!

'cause, obviously, they're spending all that extra money on infrastructure improvements!

(for those who aren't up on local events in the SF area, about a year ago a 1m gas pipeline ruptured in San Bruno and incinerated a 3-block neighborhood. Yeah, just like as if someone had napalmed it. In the insuing investigate, it came out that PG&G has such shoddy recordkeeping that they ,b>simply don't know when their infrastructure was installed, and the vast majority of it hasn't been inspected in god knows how long.)

Yup, them private-company, government-regulated monopoly systems just work out grand, don't they?

-Erik

My point about his friends was that he's clearly with a bunch of folks who think it's OK to hack. And, give him positive reinforcement to hack. It's unlikely that he's going to be able to change the group dynamic, so his own best interests are to find another group that isn't a bad influence.

This is no different than getting a kid out of any other bad circle of peers; people seldom recognize the damage their peer group is doing to them, and abandoning that peer group, while drastic, is usually the only way to stop the behavior. There's too much pressure to relapse, otherwise.

He's still free to explore his talent, but he needs to find another group that will encourage him to do it in a more constructive manner.

-Erik

I see no compelling ethical, moral, or legal defense for what he did. He's a criminal, and not in the kind of "causal" criminal sense of someone jaywalking. Nope, he explicitly went out and hacked someone else's system.

Now, I'm willing to maybe (and, that's a very big maybe) accept that it might have been discovered by a malformed URL typed in. If so, that's a different story, as there that's accidental, with no intent. But the OP's statement sounds exactly like he was doing something with intent to hack (even if that hack was URL manipulation), in which case, he's back on the hook for being a criminal. Period.

I'm old enough to have started out in the 80s, with the heyday of Phreaking. So I know all about "misbehaving". However, those times are long, long gone. The Internet has grown up, and the behavior we expect of people must also. This kind of behavior simply isn't acceptable anymore, and has been clearly criminalized. I can't see any compelling moral or ethical argument that outweighs the counters in terms of social good (that is, any moral or ethical argument in favor of this kind of behavior is outweighed by better moral and ethical arguments against it).

As a community, we have a social responsibility to educate the new (potential) members, and that includes social pressure to conform to basic standards of ethics. What was possibly acceptable 20 years ago isn't acceptable anymore, and people need to recognize that. Times change, and hacking/cracking has very strict boundaries if it is to be ethical. This guy has crossed all those, and need to be told in a very strong way that he's wrong, since he clearly doesn't recognize that is was wrong.

-Erik