4 ms·
We're talking about a very clever adversary here though. If QA was was enough to catch every instance clandestine sabotage/spying there would never have been a
by GVIrish 7y ago
We're talking about a very clever adversary here though. If QA was was enough to catch every instance clandestine sabotage/spying there would never have been any incidents of successful covert action by foreign intelligence services.
You can inspect something all you want but there's always the risk your adversary has developed something sneaky you haven't thought of yet and aren't looking for.
- jacquesm 7y agoEjection seats are about as functional as it gets. Any part that can't be readily explained by physics or requirements has no business being there. I know about all the 'cool' spy stories, the IBM typewriter one is still the best example (much better than The Thing, in spite of Theremin being lightyears ahead of the game) because it shows that when you are actively looking for something you might still overlook it. But the point is: typewriters and Great Seals do not have a whole lot in common with fighter plane ejection seats.
- DuskStar 7y agoThe computer, gyroscopes and accelerometers are all required for the seat to adapt properly to different situations. Maybe even a connection to the plane's telemetry data, too. Are you sure you couldn't fit a mic in there with the air pressure gauge? A radio with the computer? Because I'm not.
- lakisy 7y agoForget about microphone. How about a small radio receiver inside the explosives that the seat has. If the correct signal come, the ejection seat fire. No more worries that the place is coming to attack you ;-)
- peteretep 7y ago> But the point is: typewriters and Great Seals do not have a whole lot in common with fighter plane ejection seats. Correct, plane ejection seats are orders of magnitude more complicated. You appear to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect regarding security and QA both.