Which is only as secure as the door frame it goes into, which usually means: pretty insecure.
Still, I agree with the premise that it's about assumptions, and if people can be made to realize that their garage door openers are inherently pretty insecure, and feel that that presents a substantial, then there's a market there. But until it becomes a problem that's common enough for media outlets to scare people about it, there probably isn't a large market yet.
(Any marketing plan for an endeavor like that should have a PR budget from day one, since that's exactly how such stories tend to become news segments.)
> Which is only as secure as the door frame it goes into, which usually means: pretty insecure.
But the door frame/deadbolt is still more secure than the remote controlled garage door because abusing the former mode of entry is more likely to draw concern from passers by and leaves a permanent record of your passage.
I think that's one valid way of looking at it, and many technically-inclined people would be inclined to agree, I'd imagine.
But another way of looking at it, and one I suspect most non-technical people would, is that it just takes one motivated person of roughly-average strength to break a doorframe. It takes someone with fairly uncommon technical sophistication to make one of these devices.
Once someone mass-produces them and sells them in real volume that perception could flip, but right now I'm far more concerned about a flimsy doorframe–which leads to where I live and sleep–than I am about someone rigging up a way to open my garage door–which only gets them into a detached garage where insured stuff is kept. The odds of a break-in being by force (whether against a door frame or a window) are just vastly higher.
Precisely. He found confirmation of something that other people already knew and told him.
The author apparently didn't consider the possibility that those people on the "conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights" sites may have already done the same research that he did.
If one spends enough time in these circles, one can get a pretty good sense of who should be wearing a tinfoil hat, who just seems to be an interested observer and who just might have intelligence service connections.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is often tiresome but some of the people out there know things.
I feel like I documented what I learned from other people and what I discovered myself. Is there something I portrayed inaccurately?
Really, I'm just glad people decided the story of the scope of the FBI aerial surveillance was important enough that they investigated it, and are telling it now. It doesn't matter so much who did it first.
I did enjoy saying I "scooped" AP because for a long time I was unsure whether I had uncovered something real and maybe instead I'd fallen into unreasonable paranoia, and then they came along a month later and confirmed everything I had discovered. But they went far beyond that and did actual reporting, talking to the FBI and digging up documents. I just had an SDR and Google. They're the professionals and did 10x as much work as I did, and got more impressive results.
The post you linked to has 2 planes that it claims are FBI that used JENNA callsigns. That's 2% of the planes that have been discovered, most of which did not use JENNA callsigns and were discovered by other means. That's one tiny part of the story.
> Well, that's helpful
Did I slight your favorite conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights site?
> Did I slight your favorite conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights site?
Again, helpful. I have no particular interest in any sites you'd consider one of the above, but nice rhetoric.
I was about to take the time to reply to your first point–which is fair and worth talking about–but the trolling afterwards leads me to believe it's fairly unlikely you're interested in discussing it on its merits.
If you're infuriated by "people talking about things like this is a new finding, but it's been well known for years", you'll LOVE the Hillary Clinton private-email-for-work-business story, which was well-documented in 2013 and ignored until March 2015.
The issue isn't that it's old news, the issue is about how smug the author sounds saying he discovered this himself, when he even documented himself proof that others had already discovered this before.
That's a weird text. At the beginning the author lists reasons why it's clearly Newton's third law, and then just basically says: "But then an 'authority' on aerodynamics waved hands around telling me it's not. The end." Maybe I misread something, but nowhere in the examples that are apparently inconsistent with Bernoulli's law, and for which the professor claims they actually support it, does he actually provide an explanation.
Sure. A follow-up question I would have asked: how do propellers work? By accelerating large volumes of air, force is generated according to Newton's Second Law. So do wings accelerate large volumes of air? Of course, as one can see at any airport, large vortices trail behind and below the wings of any airplane or glider. So how is a wing different than a propeller?
I didn't say it wasn't complicated. What I said was most lift is due to angle of attack.
The fact is that the percentage of lift that is attributable to angle of attack is far greater than that due to reduction in air pressure across the curved part of the wing.
If you get shafted by your employer during maternity and they pull coverage early, and give you misinformation re: COBRA timing, and it's not an open enrollment window with the state exchange, even if you can convince the state exchange to let you in before the next open enrollment period, the soonest they might do that is at the end of the month.
And if you have any ongoing treatment issues, the temporary/indemnity insurance you'll have to buy won't cover any preexisting conditions.
TL;DR–if you get left in a lurch, you're still stuck on temporary insurance which won't cover preexisting conditions.
I once had a friend show up to help me start a car that wasn't starting–we thought it was the battery but it turned out to eventually be a flaky ignition switch.
It took us a good 20-30 cranks to eventually narrow it down to the ignition switch (when we bypassed it it started). I couldn't believe that little paperback-sized box was capable of doing that.
And it was a relatively big, high-compression engine.
The engines and starter motors have been slowly getting more efficient over the years. I recently hired a car which, once up to temperature, would kill the engine when stopped and fire it up for you as soon as you put it back into gear. That feature wouldn't ship without a lot of confidence in the ability to start every single time without putting excessive wear on the starter.
You may already know this, but for those that are wondering - this is called "Start-Stop" and is built into many new cars. The feature saves about 10% in fuel usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system
Yeah, this was a supercar made a couple decades ago, which makes the whole thing all the more impressive. Probably a pretty inefficient starter motor on it, and no start-stop on it, obviously.
> We still don't culturally embrace alcohol as a good thing. You don't see the states advertising vodka like they advertise the lottery.
I'm having a hard time with this. Something doesn't have to be endorsed by the state to be culturally embraced, which seems to be what I'm understanding when I view both sentences in tandem. Apologies if I'm getting that wrong.
But if I view the first sentence in isolation:
> We still don't culturally embrace alcohol as a good thing.
I'm still baffled, but for different reasons. Alcohol is endorsed, celebrated, and embraced from top to bottom in nearly all corners of contemporary society. It's served nearly everywhere, consuming it is the cultural norm, not consuming it is viewed with suspicion, it's lauded as being crucial to one's enjoyment of an evening, social gathering, sporting event, flight, etc. Entire business models exist that would otherwise be unprofitable if not for alcohol sales. Many establishments are essentially loss leaders but for their alcohol sales (which are supposedly tangential to their primary business offering).
2.5 million deaths are alcohol-related every year. It's a factor in 40% of all violent crimes. 24% of incidents involving police have alcohol as a factor.
And yet, sit around at dinner with a group of guys and order a soft drink, and it's often viewed as abnormal behavior.
Why? Because, for reasons passing understanding, we culturally embrace alcohol as a good thing.
Are those environmental stats per capita or area? I ask only because it's by far the largest state in the CONUS, which makes me wonder if that doesn't play a contributing role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_con...