do you know how many new Flarms are sold each year in Australia? on a Last 5 year average less than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve a problem where there is nothing really to fuss about.
to an earlier point you have both ignored, In time, new, very low cost anti collision devices will be available. drones and some serous stakeholders have ensured that significant chip level investments required are already underway. unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem and as such, attract the right level of fiscal attention to do that. and Mike, please refrain from offending language it's unbecoming. your response is mainly unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets are still commercially flawed, which you in running a successful business over an extended period of time by selling propriety and fully closed solutions would be fully aware of. > On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet <[email protected]> wrote: > > So as someone who cannot program a shoebox, and understood less than 10% of > the conversation > > 1 should we be advocating the removal of FLARM in Australian skies > 2 do we need to change the Comp rules mandating FLARM > > JJ > Sent from my iPad > >> On 8 Mar 2016, at 8:05 AM, Mike Borgelt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Richard, >> >> I think Mark Newton already explained how the code and protocols are >> different things. He just told you again. As a supposed IT professional you >> know this so please stop with the bullshit. >> >> Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal code that makes the device >> work. The first implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the transmission >> protocol. They in fact published it themselves. Only when a credible >> competitor, making an inter operable system appeared did they encrypt the >> transmissions. They've now done it in such a way that the key keeps changing >> to make breaking the encryption near impossible. There is no good reason to >> do this except for commercial advantage. It in fact introduces complexity >> and risk. >> >> As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges. Are you really that silly? >> Again the source code for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant anyway. >> Deciding what the thing should do and how is the hard part. I see our >> audios have been explicitly emulated in at least two other products and >> several other features also. >> >> When it comes to interacting with other devices such as PNAs etc we publish >> the messaging protocol which is why XCSoar reads it and also sends >> MacCready, bugs and ballast to the B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input >> protocol to make things easier for developers. >> >> As for hunting down the originator of that email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't >> throw me in the briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the internal >> communications between the Flarm guys regarding the decision to encrypt, >> subpoenaed. Let alone the unwanted attention the case may attract from >> various competition law regulators in Europe and other places. >> >> Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration that got out of hand. It has >> significant limitations but for the purpose it was designed (avoiding head >> on collisions in the Alps) it was a great advance. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote: >> >> >>> Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you. >>> >>> You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging >>> business economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community. >>> >>> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life >>> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios. >>> >>> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. >>> I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes. >>> >>> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply. >>> >>> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those >>> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a >>> competitive market. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote: >>>>>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/ >>>>> >>>>> Smells like bullshit. >>>>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements >>>>> for privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It >>>>> protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing >>>>> the protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have >>>>> serious consequences for users of proper devices since incorrect data may >>>>> lead to undefined behavior on the receiver end. The encryption applied is >>>>> an industrial-strength symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all >>>>> devices with no performance degradation. Since decryption or interception >>>>> of encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also >>>>> ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers. >>>>> Furthermore, the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if >>>>> security is compromised.â >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of >>>>> trade. >>>> >>>> >>>> So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks >>>> privacy and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is >>>> identified by a unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just >>>> the aircraft, same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB >>>> goes to the horizon. >>>> >>>> Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary >>>> encryption scheme which adds complexity and failure modes. >>>> >>>> Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a >>>> problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales. >>>> >>>> I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been >>>> commercially produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had >>>> 40% of the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm started their >>>> encryption games and managed to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme >>>> in 3 weeks. >>>> >>>> Figure out the rest for yourselves. >>>> >>>> Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and >>>> shoot him. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with >>>>> the standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible >>>>> implementations. Devices that arenât ârogueâ get to advertise >>>>> themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that donât, donât. Comps can specify >>>>> that they wonât accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the >>>>> marketâs desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends. >>>>> >>>>> Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is >>>>> going to be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to >>>>> stop providing software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought >>>>> between 2004 and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM youâll need to buy >>>>> another device from the same company that just shafted the device >>>>> youâve already bought. >>>>> >>>>> - mark >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>> >>>> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring >>>> instrumentation since 1978 >>>> www.borgeltinstruments.com >>>> tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 >>>> mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 >>>> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring >> instrumentation since 1978 >> www.borgeltinstruments.com >> tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 >> mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 >> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
