Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 2) 575

You would have a hard time convincing me that no passing/passing allowed lines are not helpful.

They are a nightmare. The double yellow lines that are prevalent in the US with very limited passing zones prevent people overtaking in otherwise clear stretches, then encourage it in shorter stretches where there may not be sufficient time or distance to complete the maneuver. I have seen some passing zones which would be sufficient to pass a tractor traveling at 20mph, but which are in no way sufficient to pass a large truck doing 50mph. By putting up a sign that says passing allowed, there will always be those that think this means it's also safe.

Similarly, there may be a long straight stretch which is divided into two passing zones, one for each direction. If you have an oncoming vehicle at the start of the stretch there would often be plenty of room to complete a pass after it goes by, but now you only have half of your 'passing allowed' zone left. Stupid.

Comment Re: We'll see (Score 2) 226

That's helpful clarification, since the Rule links to the actual codification which the original article seems to misread, deliberately or

So the linked article says "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft" (Did you notice the absence of a period at the end of their quote?)

And the Public Law referenced in the FAA Rule actually says:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

So the rule which the original article thinks would prevent the FAA from regulating actually says that it only applies to model aircraft flown as part of a nationwide community's programming.

Comment Re: We'll see (Score 3, Informative) 226

This is totally different. The linked article even explains it

Following the link, it tells us that model aircraft to which the rule applies are defined as "unmanned aircraft ... Flown within line of sight".

As i understood it, the new FAA rule applies to drones capable of being flown outside the pilot's line of sight. Therefore this law is irrelevant as to whether or not the FAA can regulate, since it covers a different type of aircraft.

Comment Re:Stream 11 (Score 2) 508

These guys are $200 a pop.

That's the problem. The OP is looking for something substantially more affordable. It's easy for those with some reasonable income to not realize just how tight things are for the poorest members of society.

That said, I think there's a real limitation as to what can be achieved at such low pricepoints. At about the $170 range you can have a decent screen, processor, storage, and RAM. As you go below that price point things have to be sacrificed. Unfortunately I don't see much in the way of screen-less options that save money. HP make a Stream desktop that runs windows, but it's still around the same pricepoint. Intel make a compute stick, which is better with a $135 price tag on Amazon, but that's probably still too expensive.

Maybe you're stuck with something Raspberry PI like, with a small but fast SSD and a cheap case, keyboard, and mouse. That sounds like it could work, but once you have the computer, case, HDMI cable, SD card and some sort of removable storage so the kids can submit work, you're still going to have a price tag that is well above $50/head.

Comment Re:Poor example (Score 1) 451

So the earlier example with a car doing much the same has been corrected. Now they have data that shows a bike can do something similar at an intersection. I imagine it will be pretty trivial to produce code that lets the car progress through the intersection slowly, while watching the bike to make sure it stays within a box.

One thing's for sure, a car that refuses to go until the cyclist stops moving or takes their turn is hardly creating a dangerous situation.

It does raise another interesting point though. What is it that US road designers have with four way stops? They place them everywhere, while the rest of the world happily gives bigger roads priority and use yields to allow traffic from side roads to merge. If the roads are very similar in traffic volume, use a roundabout.

Comment Re:A HUD is usefull... (Score 2) 417

I just don't see value in the satnav being built into my car. It will be older tech very quick, much more expensive to replace, and you're stuck with it.

Which is exactly the value offered by Android and Apple car integration. Both can offer superior mapping at lower cost than an auto maker. Phones are easier and cheaper to upgrade. All the car needs to provide is a display and audio.

Of course, if you sell a car with built in GPS you make a killing on the initial sale with the potential to do so another couple of times through the life of the vehicle if the end-user wants map updates.

Submission + - Remote control of a car, with no phone or network connection required

Albanach writes: Following on from this week's Wired report showing the remote control of a Jeep using a cell phone, security researchers claim to have achieved a similar result using just the car radio. Using off the shelf components to create a fake radio station, the researchers sent signals using the DAB digital radio standard used in Europe and the Asia Pacific region. After taking control of the car's entertainment system it was possible to gain control of vital car systems such as the brakes. In the wild, such an exploit could allow widespread simultaneous deployment of a hack affecting huge numbers of vehicles.

Comment Re:Oh the irony (Score 1) 111

Oh... you mean like thinking HTTPS stops anyone from seeing the URL you just visited so they can view it for themselves?..... yeah, some people just don't get that.

Well, https won't protect you from others identifying which site you visited, but the entirety of your GET request is encrypted and that's important. It means if which actual pages you view is protected from snooping unless, say, you're on a work computer and your employer is using some nefarious https proxy that issues certificates to your browser.

So your employer might know you were looking at a local news site, but cannot see that you were reading the situations vacant pages. Or they can tell you were at the Mayo Clinic site, but not that you were reading pages about STDs.

You can typically spot such proxies pretty easily though - visit Google and see if their certificate was signed by or by some other entity. If it wasn't signed by Google, you have reason to be concerned. If you're really suspicious you can check fingerprints too, but for some sites these may change and you may be better picking a small server that likely has a single certificate to check the fingerprint against.

Comment Re: Yes, but can it launch Waze (Score 1) 235

You do realize that Google Now will happily open Waze if you say "open Waze app"? Give it some context and it knows exactly what to do.

That said, I agree that s statement beginning " open ..." could automatically be interpreted as meaning an app, but there may be reluctance I do that in case it interferes with future expansion into the internet of things, e.g. "open the curtains", or " open the garage ".

Comment Re:Difficult? (Score 5, Insightful) 152

at least until somebody reverse-engineers the password manager and disables the "give fake password upon decryption failure" logic

Why should a password manager like this know if it's generating a valid or invalid password. Surely all it needs to do is generate a salted hash based on the website name, a random value it generated when you installed the software and your entered password that protects the vault. Any salt entered will generate a result, but only the salt you are expected to remember will generate valid passwords.

You should get the advantage of strong lengthy random passwords for the websites you use, and some added value in that if your password file is compromised it remains challenging to brute force since each generated password needs to be tested. The disadvantage is that some sites may not place limits on the number of login attempts making brute forcing possible and then the overall security comes down to the strength of the salt you chose.

Comment Re: Enlighten me please (Score 1) 450

I didn't for a minute suggest it couldn't. Rather, that a single wire doing all that plus power is going to be a spaghetti like mess, and a dock might be the better solution. I don't see anyone crying out for a single cable that has two adapters going off to monitors, another to the keyboard, another to the mouse, another to network, another to an external drive and then a few spare for regular USB use like SD cards, charging your phone, etc. Presumably, the solution is a usb-c hub, which begs the question why that's better than a dock which provides all the same at your desk, plus the laptop having sufficient ports for when your away from the mega cable?

Also, from my understanding, usb-c does have some practical bandwidth limitations that could be an issue if your driving a multi-head setup and want decent bandwidth remaining for external disk and Ethernet. Admittedly that's going to be less common.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.