This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.

Comic 78 - Bad televison...

24th Oct 2012, 8:50 PM
Bad televison...
Average Rating: 5 (12 votes)
Post a Comment
(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)

Comments:

cattservant 24th Oct 2012, 9:09 PM edit delete reply

I think the Lunar Authorities should securing their 'Borders' right about now.
Centcomm 24th Oct 2012, 9:21 PM edit delete reply

The already have. that was the major action a year before this story began :D
cattservant 24th Oct 2012, 9:13 PM edit delete reply

"Now."
(Except for the time lag.)
Centcomm 24th Oct 2012, 9:24 PM edit delete reply

well .. yeah . by the time shes seeing it - its already over. ( but : because radio waves move at the speed of light. There is a delay between sending and receiving on any radio message, but it becomes more apparent over immense distances, such as from the Earth to the Moon, or beyond. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1.282 light-seconds. This means it takes Light, and Radio waves, 1.3 seconds to go from Earth to the Moon. Because of this, it takes 2.6 seconds to get a reply from the moon, as the message has to go there, then a reply has to be sent back. Each message having to go the 384,403km there, and another 384,403km back. )
cattservant 24th Oct 2012, 9:30 PM edit delete reply

I'm impressed!
You just happen to have this nugget of highly technical info right on the tippys of your typpe digits...

Must be nice to be young and intellectually able!
Centcomm 24th Oct 2012, 9:35 PM edit delete reply

Wikipedia is fast >_<
cattservant 24th Oct 2012, 9:40 PM edit delete reply

Too modest... >^OO^<!
Death2Bravo 24th Oct 2012, 9:38 PM edit delete reply

Think they'd know to pull the plug on transmission then pacify all targets. Sheesh, can't teach soldiers common sense.
cattservant 24th Oct 2012, 9:41 PM edit delete reply

Just maybe they sent the exact lesson the wanted to.
Centcomm 24th Oct 2012, 9:41 PM edit delete reply

Drones arent known for there subtle hand. its also a object lesson.
Centcomm 24th Oct 2012, 11:31 PM edit delete reply

Yes it did , this incident ignited a massive civil war. for the next few years. as people galvanized.
dolo724 25th Oct 2012, 1:30 AM edit delete reply
wow. I found this while voting for TMI and had to read it in one sitting; it popped up as a captcha icon.
I grew up on hard scifi, in the middle of the Cold War, on Van Vogt and Heinlein. Thanks for this! Subscribed.
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 7:43 AM edit delete reply

aww your welcome thank you ! Im always glad to see new readers !
Marcus Ramesy 25th Oct 2012, 6:25 AM edit delete reply

because Drones are dehumanized, and dont care... targets are just targets, demonized .. most definatly.. but.. how do you fight an enemy that knows no fear? cant be demoralized, and can just be built in no time at all (I beleive from start to finish a drone takes less than 10 mins to build in rappid fabrication, correct me if im wrong) it may have taken longer back in those days since they didnt have the same advancements that we have now... so.. you have an virtualy unlimited army, that feels no fear, has no need for "self preservation" out side of keeping costs down low, cant be reasoned with, cant use psychological warfare.. just a walking tide of moving death... id what was being done bad.. absolutely.. but you have to admire the sound tactic and the efficiency in wich it was carried out
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 7:42 AM edit delete reply

At this time period it took about 24 to 48 hours to build a single drone ( similar to building a performance car. in automated / manned factorys ) Galina took almost 12 years to build due to inventing new technology and having to wait for tissue growth.

*** edit corrected forgot a one.
Hornet 25th Oct 2012, 10:19 AM edit delete reply
And our current government and military machine is salivating at the possibility of having more drones. War shall have no more importance to these people than a video game (at least as long as they're not the ones looking down the barrel).
Also anyone ever tell you that a wireless connection is secure is blowing smoke up your arse.
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 10:36 AM edit delete reply

you are right on all counts. Wireless ISNT secure - but you can make it darn difficult to decrypt. matter of fact that was Galina's original job was intercepting and decrypting transmissions.
Marcus Ramesy 25th Oct 2012, 11:15 AM edit delete reply

War...... War never changes....
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 11:45 AM edit delete reply

Nope .. (insert fallout plug here.)
Marcus Ramesy 25th Oct 2012, 1:16 PM edit delete reply

on the note of wireless encryption.. there is no such thing as "hack proof" there will always be some one smarter to figure out the holes that are in a system, as some one who had to deal with encryption both in the military and in the civilian sector there are somethings that are not worth the time, other things that require very specilized equipment and or skills.. and others that were just completly over looked *coughs predator coughs coughs* .... there is such a thing as "secure enough" when dealing with wireless.. aka your satalite network, the cable companies, and yes.. your home wifi set up... can they be decrypted.. yes.. is it easy.. for some people, with the right skill set, or with good google fu and the ability to follow instructions.. .. but try asking your grandma... or some one not tech savy.. and its "impossible"

in a future world, especialy one based on hard sciences there are a lot of liberties that are taken/can be taken to acount for the advancments of technologly... for example.. if I look at a computer from the late 20th century vrs computers of my time... it woudl be like comparing a calculator to a abacus... what is easy to hack in the 20th century with 20th century tech.. may be eaiser... and in some cases.. impossible do the the loss of technologly, and the obscurity of the systems (security through obscurity) where as tryign to hack in to systems in my time with 20th century (and 21st) equipment woudl be obscenely dificult.. if in some cases impossible some systems still use a binary logic, others use far more advanced logic like the AIS cores and the androids synth brains..... so at the end of the day... the question of security becomes.... secure enough untill some one hacks it.. and fix the hole.. and wait for the next hack.. and so on and so forth.. its always hackers vrs the systems.....
Computant 20th Aug 2016, 12:27 PM edit delete reply
There is one very easy way to make something "hack proof."
Closed system.
You can't hack what you can't access.
mushroomisland 25th Oct 2012, 1:06 PM edit delete reply

this is so confusing...looks cool though lol xD;;; and oh no I have a feeling Gali's gonna get involved somehow...
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 1:32 PM edit delete reply

she technicly already is. :D
cattservant 26th Oct 2012, 3:30 PM edit delete reply

And, Things are going 'bump in the night'!
GeekPrime 28th Oct 2012, 11:14 PM edit delete reply

Hey Rams,
I agree to a certain point, and that point is "hackable". Everything is hackable, true, however encryption is _impossible_ to hack IF DONE CORRECTLY, that is, large amount of bits in the private/public key and a public algorithm. Sure, it is possible to decrypt a conversation/wifi channel/... given enough time and computing power. But again, given enough bits in the key, it becomes impossible in a timely manner, e.g. attempting to hack/hijack a wifi command-control connection to a drone or even just a video feed from it.

Short version (and sorry, Centcomm, this IS off subject) - Security through Obscurity does NOT work because it only paints a target on your system, but today, 128-bit encryption is strong enough to withstand any brute-force attempts to break it.

Repeat: Today.
Centcomm 28th Oct 2012, 11:18 PM edit delete reply

No worrys its still "technicly" on subject as Galina would be well versed in this stuff .. the authors may NOT have up to date and perfect info. so feel free. Ill simply add this is "soft sci-fi" and we do try to stay within realistic limits sometimes we have to "fudge things" where our info may be thin.
Computant 20th Aug 2016, 12:36 PM edit delete reply
Higher encryption vs brute force hacks is based on time to crack with current tech.
I remember when the Military told me to change my password from 12 digits to 14 because a 12 digit password could be brute force hacked in less than 90 days.
You would think that since adding a digit multiplies possible passwords by roughly 70 (26 letters *2 plus 10 characters and 10-ish symbols) that at the "doubling every 2 years" rate one extra character would buy you 2^x = 70, x ~ 6, 12 years of additional security at the 90 days to hack point, but we created multi-processor computers...
Use 70 times as many computers and you can hack a 13 digit password in the time it used to take you for 12...
Shotgun15 25th Oct 2012, 8:33 PM edit delete reply
Is it just me (at my advanced age) or does Gali look an awful lot like a young Patti Duke . . . ? especially when she played twins?
Centcomm 25th Oct 2012, 8:36 PM edit delete reply

Hmm interesting... I think Gali has a thinner face with higher cheekbones but I can see the resemblance :D
Centcomm 27th Oct 2012, 2:58 PM edit delete reply

hehe - I guess so - however I should point out that Galina ( and her human originator ) were both russian.
Centcomm 27th Oct 2012, 11:27 PM edit delete reply

heheh :D
jas 28th Oct 2012, 6:52 PM edit delete reply

...and thus died the last of liberties in that great nation. Wow.
Centcomm 28th Oct 2012, 9:00 PM edit delete reply

would you belive this is just the middle? theres far worse to come.
cattservant 29th Oct 2012, 6:10 AM edit delete reply

The "Murder-Turds" probably haven't even started to evolve yet!
Centcomm 29th Oct 2012, 9:42 AM edit delete reply

nope they arent around in there modern form yet.
xpacetrue 15th Apr 2014, 7:21 PM edit delete reply

Wait. "The 3-C AI is using -"

Is this the same 3C mentioned in Datachasers?! Is it really that old?
Centcomm 15th Apr 2014, 7:37 PM edit delete reply

Yes it is.. :D
Sleeper 26th Feb 2015, 11:36 PM edit delete reply

Holy crap!

Some day I hope to see a journalist brave enough to tell it like it is.
Computant 20th Aug 2016, 12:30 PM edit delete reply
I think Dan Rather was the last journalist on TV. Today you have various actors and entertainers.
Granted you have the Jon Stewart/John Oliver types that hide some actual journalism in comedy, but that is about the max that the corporations will allow any more.
Can you imagine Fox news or CNN hiring someone who wants to broadcast a story that would make a major advertiser look bad?
Post a Comment
(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)