FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Noel writes:

Notice that the Special Condition published in the 13 April 2007 Federal
Register (and later on 2 Jan 2008) adds the following requirement
for the 787 Type Certificate:

"The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain."

If complied with, why complain?

How do you verify compliance with something that vague?

The requirement is not unique nor vague to those that do it for a
living; you know, a job, something you may have heard about but
never experienced.

You hire any number of companies who have been doing this for decades.

snip ignorant babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.


#m

Martin Hotze wrote in news:flrakc$moj$3
@kirk.hotze.com:

schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.


Make up your mind.

Bertie

Martin Hotze wrote:
schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.

No matter what anyone does, he will continue to make stupid posts.

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the rational
world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there will
also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because they
are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

As for the time it takes, I seldom open a USENET window unless I'm
waiting for something else, e.g. a long compile or a data gathering
session to complete, so it is either that or play pocket pool.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article , wrote:

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the rational
world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there will
also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because they
are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both ways.


2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the
rational world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there will
also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because they
are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both
ways.


2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.


There are always other options.


Bertie

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , wrote:

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the rational
world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there will
also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because they
are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Non sequitur.

As I said, an individual may ignore him, but there will allways be someone
who will respond.


2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.

Won't happen in the real world.

The only thing that bothers me with those that resond is those that
quote 347 lines to add one or two lines; if you are going to respond,
snip for christ's sake.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the
rational world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there
will also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because
they are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both
ways.

Non sequitur.

As I said, an individual may ignore him, but there will allways be
someone who will respond.


2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.

Won't happen in the real world.

The only thing that bothers me with those that resond is those that
quote 347 lines to add one or two lines; if you are going to respond,
snip for christ's sake.


Heh heh.

Bertie