As I wrote, I found info only about the last one, so I misunderstood the meaning of your post, sorry.
I know there can be weapons in British police when required (when they ask for armed forces via radio).

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

"This!"

This!

I love the title of this thread. :P

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

The chip they had made back then was quite interesting.

As far as I understood it, it had no software at all, just learning hardware.

Ofcourse the chip they had in 2001, was only a very simple version, some 400 "synapses" per chip, and they had two of them, about enough to make a row of LED's flash. But it was supposed to be simply a proof-of-consept model, according to mr. Haikonen, it would be easy to make chips with millions of "synapses", with existing technology, and that was nine years ago...

If there is no need for software, maybe all you really need is a chip that is advanced enough. I believe the key is in associative memory, the chip will see and understand similarities between patterns, enabling it to learn and understand what it has learned.

It is interesting to think about the possibilities of such chip, because it doesn't base on existing binary-computer-technology, while the rest of the computers are, and probably will be, nothing more but mechanical calculators, a learning chip is something new, and that has it's consequences. If it isn't a calculator, one cannot help but to think what it is? Is it possible the chip is not that different from us, the humans?

On the other hand, I might not be the best person to say much anything about processor architecture, but if there is logic in the chip, a binary computer should be able to run the same functions with software. But, I guess if the answer would be that simple, others would have probably figured it out by now, maybe the problem about software version is in performance. I don't have the programming skills to try it myself.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

"Generally, I think wireless tech is obvious. A terminator CAN'T be hacked in the sense you guys are talking about. It's like taking down a tank with a rock. Not gonna happen. It's sentient, it's like attempting to kill someone by sneezing on them when you've got a cold. And even the risk of hijacking a few units wouldn't be worth Skynet compromising it's first advantage - total co-ordinated control of it's forces. It might disable this feature for time-travelling infiltrators, but I think that most would have wireless.
"

I have been thinking about this for a while...

And I have come to the conclusion, that terminators probably have somesort of wireless-communication system, but, it would be run in "sandbox" mode, safely contained, and controlling a terminator would be inpossible over radio, basically it would be nothing more than a "sixth sense", "RF-range hearing", not too different from their acoustic sensors. It would be similar to a human having a radio, you hear it, but it doesn't controll you.

And about encryption, even if encryption might keep resistance from decoding skynet-terminator transmissions, there would be no way to hide the source of transmissions, so, for frontline combat terminators, radio silence might be a good idea, maybe they could use the radio after making contact.

On the other hand, who says Skynet is tactical genious? Terminators have been described as "ultimate soldiers", a nightmare for an enemy, Skynet is undoubtedly smart as far as AI's go, but is it really that smart? An army of terminators would be a terrible weapon, even if poorly deployed.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?