301–310 of 409 posts
So a test drill went wrong. It makes sense to have drills right now, India (tests with war against China and Pakistan), China (Telling their soldiers to be prepared to die for China), Russia(tests against Nato), and North Korea (getting ready for war with the US) are all having military tests for basically what will quickly become another world war. We are really at a big crossroads as a large amount of people are re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just recently I spoke to my friends that literally are living in LaLa land. They are making fun of me prepping and saving dry food, water, stacking up on legal guns and munition. I took upon challenge last xmas to meetup with them and they brought my prepardness as one of laughing subjects. It really saddens me when they believe that when gloves of society are off, we all gonna be happy singing kumbaya and respecting…
The fact that they are laughing at you does not mean that you are not actually living in lala land. The whole 'prepper/suvivalism' movement took a big hit after Sandy Hook. To date survivalists have caused more deaths than their preparations have saved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people are calling for the person who did this to be instantly fired, but I've always been of the opinion that the guy that pushed that button would be an outstanding hire - because he'll never, ever do something like that again and he's learned an important lesson.
I'm always a bit shocked at the number of people here calling for someone's head in this sort of situation. I imagine the same people would downvote to oblivion anyone who came on here and wrote something like: "The only way we're going to get better software is by firing people who write bugs and make sure they never work in the industry again."
We see it all the time in IT - people totally misjudge the 'risk'. 1% risk of breakdown quite often seems acceptable to decision makers until it actually happens. Then all hell breaks loose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s not much of a consensus on “cover”, hence people seek insight on the concept from law enforcement officials. Is it cover when you’re inside but 30 floors up in a high rise?
That is actually reasonably well-established - check out this: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58cc34b9112f7043268... Not common knowledge, though, in part because nuclear hazards have been painted in an exaggerated light by Hollywood (basically, no point in trying to survive, because everybody is going to die and what's going to be left is a 1,000-year lethal nuclear wasteland), and in part because we stopp…
That is classic cold war stuff. Before you even get to the foreward by Edward Teller you get a preface stressing (among other things) that low doses of radiation are "healthful."
Just watched an interview on CNN with the Governor of Hawaii and their director of emergency management. Pretty impressed that the director didn't throw anybody under the bus. He basically said "An employee pushed the wrong button. It's my responsibility, so this is my fault. We're going to make procedure and technical changes to make sure this doesn't happen again."
I wonder what those procedural changes could be Could they do it so say, two people have to input a code or something from different machines, or something more physical like turning two keys, hitting a button etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that they are laughing at you does not mean that you are not actually living in lala land. The whole 'prepper/suvivalism' movement took a big hit after Sandy Hook. To date survivalists have caused more deaths than their preparations have saved.
Source, please? I was unaware of this sentiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A ballistic missile heading for Hawaii would be nuclear, the amount of additional loss of life that would incur from “damaging the public’s trust” in the early warning system would be pretty much negligible if the missile hits any major population center. This is basically not an issue for nuclear missiles for something more like to the situation in southern Israel with conventional unguided munitions blindly shot at…
> but if a nuke could get you it would do it regardless if you duck and cover or not. This is just not true. The area in which the nuke will get everyone regardless is less than a tenth of the area where taking precautions would save you. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. People widely laugh at "duck and cover" as if it was some huge joke. Even at the height of the cold war when the nuke stocks were at their larg…
Although FEMA is actively developing more robust controls for their IPAWS system, the controls on user behavior and what functions can be triggered in the system have limited capabilities to enforce restrictions (one would be the requirement for a digital signature to accept a CAP message as valid). If you listen to the press conference [2] Hawaii says they will now be using a 'two person rule' which indicates that the most significant controls they have are manual/behavioral (not automated in the system by user roles or automated workflows based on state policies). Few information systems do much more than have a few coarsely-permissioned user roles, though, so it's not like FEMA or Hawaii has tried to cheap out on the functionality - it's just not a very common capability and emergency alerts isn't a mission where you want to be using 'interesting new tools' that aren't well tested.
There are several alerting systems - the Emergency Alert System (EAS), the Wireless Alert System (WEA), and Non-Weather Emergency Alerts (NWEM). States use FEMA's IPAWS system for sending alerts, which [1] this one seems to have been sent through (localities don't necessarily participate in IPAWS, which is voluntary, but the Hawaii EMA was the one that sent this). Some questions I would have about this would be: - IPAWS messages must have a digital signature to be accepted by the system, however based the Hawaii EMA press conference and articles which say 'an employee made an error' I would guess that the digital signature is not used in a way that is actually tied to the official authorized to declare the alert but to is accessible to their whole emergency Operations Group. - Are they sending test messages with that signature? With a 'two-person rule', it sounds from the press conference that it isn't enforced by the machine (not like having two keys which both have to be turned to send the message) but by the first person stepping away from the machine and letting the other person push the "are you sure you want to send this?" button. That doesn't seem much better, but changing the system to do that gets away from the basic CAP architecture and isn't likely to happen soon.
The FCC is currently working on a proceeding regarding updating WEA to allow more geographic targeting of alerts, the way the other alerts can be targeted at specific locales. The current system dates back to 2011 or 2012, and is pretty coarsely-targeted, which is probably why you're getting Amber Alerts on your phone for a town that is 6 hours away just because it's in your state. You can find it at Proceeding Numbers 15-91 and 15-94 [3].
[1] You can see the message here, which archives messages sent via IPAWS: http://ipawsnonweather.alertblogger.com/?p=18764 [2] http://dod.hawaii.gov/hiema/press-conference-missile-alarm-l... [3] https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-announces-comment-dates-rulemaking-s...
This gives some more technical details on IPAWS and the Common Access Protocol that these messages use: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ipaws/ipaws_cap_mg.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what those procedural changes could be Could they do it so say, two people have to input a code or something from different machines, or something more physical like turning two keys, hitting a button etc
Putting the button behind glass.
That very afternoon a plastic guard was installed over the button so you had to lift it first.
Just watched an interview on CNN with the Governor of Hawaii and their director of emergency management. Pretty impressed that the director didn't throw anybody under the bus. He basically said "An employee pushed the wrong button. It's my responsibility, so this is my fault. We're going to make procedure and technical changes to make sure this doesn't happen again."
This is known as the "Asoh Defense". Capt. Kohei Asoh accidentally flew a DC-8 airliner into the water while on approach to SFO. No major injuries and the aircraft was repaired. The incident was noted for Capt. Asoh frankly accepting responsibility. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2#The_"A...
I was shocked at the 2.5mi deviation until I realized that this is about 51 seconds of flight at his airspeed of 177mi/hr.
Still, that's a pretty astonishing distance from the runway.