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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 296

by Rei (#49358149) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Sure there is: add this to the CPDLC standard and make all of the hardware modifications needed to support it:

Message type: Revert flight plan and lock
Message arguments: TIME: the time of the flight plan to use
Message description: Revert to the flight plan that was active at TIME that had been approved by both ground control and the pilot; engage autopilot; and disable all pilot / copilot access to all systems. If there is no approved flight plan then the flight plan is to return to the nearest suitable airport in the most direct route possible.

Additional modifications: Make sure that the pilot can never disable datalink communications with ground by any means that ground wouldn't have time to respond to.

Result: Nobody is ever "remote controlling" the plane from the ground. A murderous / terrorist ground controller can't crash the plane, only make it autopilot itself on a previously approved or otherwise reasonable flight plan. A pilot behaving suspiciously can't crash the plane, as ground control will just engage the autopilot and lock them out. To abuse the system both ground and the pilot would have to agree on a suicidal flight plan.

Comment: Re:the law has to be better (Score 1) 296

by circletimessquare (#49356163) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

i agree

so give a financial incentive to self-report. that discretion and confidence will be maintained. that graceful financial transition would be supported. because the company would rather deal with that, much cheaper than a PR fiasco, lawsuits, destroyed equipment, etc

enforce that approach by law even

then you are left with the truly deep in denial types. those who think they can beat their illness, or that continuing in their job is proof they have things under control, until they don't. these are people who might have even been attracted to the job of airplane pilot in the first place, as a proof to themselves they can maintain great responsibility in the face of stress

so the problem becomes one like pedophiles in the priesthood: in some ways, the priesthood attracts well-meaning individuals who think the religious purity will allow them to beat an affliction they know they have. of course, human weakness prevails in the end

or pedophile teachers

or sadistic cops: you know you get a thrill abusing and dominating, so you're attracted to the police force

these are difficult problems

but that doesn't mean we tolerate pedophile priests/ teachers, sadistic police, or mentally ill pilots. it just means it is hard to root them out when they have an incentive to hide

Comment: Re:Possibly that would be counterproductive (Score 0) 296

by circletimessquare (#49356085) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

mental illness is not a matter of a burst blood vessel, you don't understand the topic

and it doesn't matter if they get treatment or not. they cannot be trusted with human lives

although, there should indeed be an amnesty program such that reporting their problem means they don't get immediately fired or otherwise lose income

because then you're right: this is a disincentive to self-report. i don't know, maybe an incentive program to self-report? financially, the company would rather be on the line for gracefully financially transitioning a troubled employee, rather than dealing with the PR, lawsuits, direct costs, etc., of a downed plane. so the company has an incentive to reward the employee for self-reporting, and the company should do that. that should be enforced by law even

but allowing them to keep their position? no, completely unacceptable. if it is shown you have mental health issues, there is no way you should be allowed to be responsible for human lives

Comment: the law has to be better (Score 1) 296

by circletimessquare (#49355503) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

1. doctors and psychologists who do reviews for organizations that have employees with major responsibilities: the military, nuclear plants, airlines, etc, they should be required to inform employers

2. then, employers who have employees they know have mental problems *have* to remove them from job positions where loss of life is easily caused. if that means removing them from the only field they are trained to work in, so be it. time to get a new career in a new field

it's not discrimination. it's safety. there was apparently warnings that mental health evaluators and employers knew that this guy had serious depression. he should simply never have been allowed to continue to be a pilot

is that fair? is it fair 150 people are dead? if you have mental problem, i sympathize. but you should not be trusted with my life

you don't hire asthmatics to do heavy lifting in dusty places, you don't hire albinos to work in the sun, you don't hire amputees for typing jobs. and you don't hire people with mental disorders to fly airplanes

some people have medical conditions which preclude them from certain lines of work. if you have major depression, you should not be allowed to have any job where you can easily cause loss of life. you should not be a commercial pilot. period

it's rather shameful german law does not reflect this, or any other country for that matter. i hope these familes sue. the german government, the airline industry, and Germanwings screwed up, and they need to receive a heavy reprimand on the only terms they understand: financial ones

Comment: Re:Too bad the US is so legalistic (Score 1) 100

That would be pretty fucked up if the military and academic networks had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why international diplomacy is usually steered away from vigilantism, and those nations who engage in vigilantism are treated with a certain level of disdain...

Comment: Re:Github is scary for critical code (Score 4, Insightful) 100

You put your local github repo on some server, and then have it push its updates to Github. Should anything happen to that server, you can use Github to get a copy. The chances of Github and your local server losing your data is clearly much lower than either on its own, hence it making sense. Or just hate on Github because you are scared and don't understand stuff. Whatever's easier.

Comment: Re:MY data in AMAZON's cloud ?? (Score 2) 111

by dave420 (#49354369) Attached to: Amazon Announces Unlimited Cloud Storage Plans
It's not really your own cloud, just a centralised bunch of disks with a poor backup system. Getting your data from Amazon is easy, obviously, as that's the whole point. I've been using them for years and never had problems in that regard. Couple that with encryption, and you can take the benefits of Amazon's system (low cost, geographical spread, high availability, high speeds) without the down-sides. You can also couple Amazon's offerings with their virtual machines, something you can't do with your attempt of a cloud.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure