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: people are going to be saying (Score 1) 736

by KevReedUK (#49354435) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Seems like a good idea... Let's develop it a little further, but stop just short of advocating full remote control...

Give the Flight Deck crew TWO PIN codes (each), one for general use, the other a "duress code" which:

1) Unlocks the door (overriding the lockout)
2) Sends a distress transmission to the ground (but without making those onboard aware of it)
3) Changes the transponder code to one of the existing emergency codes (or an agreed upon new code)
4) Forces the autopilot on in a new, more "assertive", mode that:
a) can't be disabled
b) reduces altitude (in a controlled fashion) in case of O2 deprivation
c) redirects to the nearest airport capable of receiving this aircraft type (bonus points for automatic landing capability) and sends a signal to warn the airport to expect them and have emergency services on a higher state of alert
d) can only be overridden by two parties, one of whom must be on the ground
e) once within ILS beacon range of the selected airport, allows for a pilot-controlled landing (but retains a veto over any obviously deliberate attempts to crash the aircraft)

Not likely to be cheap to implement, and false alarms would be inordinately inconvenient, but possibly still more investor-/press-/corporate-lawyer-friendly than the status quo...

Caffeine levels are a little low, though, so I've probably missed some glaring hole in the idea.

Comment: Re: This validates the US policy... (Score 1) 736

by KevReedUK (#49353975) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Or, how about this to take your suggestion a little further?

Give the flight deck crew TWO PIN numbers, one for general use, the other a "duress code" that initiates an alert transmission to the ground, changes the transponder code to one of the relevant emergency codes and sets the autopilot in a more "assertive" state where it:

1) can't be disabled
2) diverts to the nearest airport capable of receiving this type of aircraft (bonus points for automatic landing capability!)
3) reduces altitude (in a controlled fashion) in case O2 deprivation is involved

This way, even if there are bad actors involved, in- or outside the cockpit, their ability to deliberately crash the aircraft, into a populated target or otherwise, is going to be seriously reduced. The inconvenience of a false alarm is likely to be far more press-/investor-friendly than the alternative.

Then again, I've only given this idea a couple of minutes thought (and currently have a little too much blood in my caffeine system!), so there is probably at least one glaring hole in it that I have yet to spot!

Comment: Re:Not the right way (Score 1) 260

by KevReedUK (#49105295) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Parental Content Control For Free OSs?

If you think talking to children is sufficient, then you are a classic example of why it's not.

That doesn't even work with most adults.

Yes, but at the same time a resounding no!

Whether "talking to children/adults/whoever" works is dependent on a range of things:

1) Are you approaching it from a positive mindset? If you talk to people expecting them to ignore what you say, you are far more likely to find them ignoring you.

2) Are you "preaching", or trying to be informative? If the former, what you tell people will often be heard with a degree of skepticism and subsequently disregarded.

3) Have you always taken the "talking" approach, or have you historically taken the "controlling" approach and are trying something new? The former is more likely to be successful than the latter (although it does, to an extent, depend on how you are introducing the latter).

4) Are you the only one in their lives taking the "talking" approach? Particularly with kids in a family setting, consistency is key here.

5) Are you trying to "scare them into good behaviour"? If so, give up... it won't work!

6) The "Do as I say, not as I do" approach will not work. The approach of "I'm older/more knowledgeable/whatever than you, therefore I don't have to live by the same rules" will get peoples backs up. Of course, there will be areas where the activities of others (particularly kids) should be restricted more than your activities, but where this is the case it is essential to make this clear up-front, and explain the reasons why (and ensure that these reasons are understood). Otherwise, you will be seen as a hypocrite, and ignored.

The above being said, however, I would agree that, particularly with the very young, talking is unlikely to be sufficient in isolation. Back it up with monitoring (but be up-front and honest that you are doing so... silently monitoring them without their knowledge will only result in resentment), and include regular reviews of what is found in the monitoring (both "positive" and "negative"). IF you do this, however, monitor EVERYONE'S traffic in the household (otherwise, point 6 applies!). This also gives you the opportunity to set an example by way of logs of your own activities.

Above all else, make sure it is clear that they can talk to you about anything (and I mean ANYTHING). Be approachable. Be prepared for them to see some things that you might not want them to, and to subsequently have an age-appropriate (but honest) discussion about them and make it clear that you expect that this will happen to start with, so there is no point covering it up because you won't be angry unless they try to hide it (and stick to this!).

It is also worth making clear that if you are not filtering, and your child has friends over to visit, it will reflect on them very badly if they use the opportunity to bypass the parenting style of their friends' parents by showing them things they wouldn't have access to at home. Explain that it may be tempting to "show off" how you have greater trust in your kids than other parents do, but that abuse of trust will have consequences (be sure to make these consequences clear ahead of time and stick to them). It might also be worth letting the other parents know of your differing approach... If, however, you do this, make sure that you are not using an approach of "I'm a better parent", but rather just informing them of the different approach and the potential that the temptation to abuse it in front of friends may be too much for your child the first couple of visits and to be prepared to have some questions raised by their child).

Comment: Re:Screw this clickbait (Score 1) 237

by KevReedUK (#49104831) Attached to: Ten Lies T-Mobile Told Me About My Data Plan

Actually, I guess the last one was more of a tongue-in-cheek dig. The quote stated that calls are being recorded for "quality assurance". Would I be wildly misinterpreting his intent if I were to guess he was saying that this is a lie because of his perception of a low quality of service from those he spoke to over the three contacts (i.e. the "quality" wasn't "assured", in spite of the recording of calls)?

Comment: Re:you can buy android without google over there.. (Score 1) 149

by KevReedUK (#49092791) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

Thanks for reminding me... Haven't visited the main /. site in a long time. I only normally browse via mobile device, so I get the mobile site that hides everyone's signatures.

I assume that you have opted to criticise the sig because you can no longer find fault with the body of the comment itself?

Comment: Re:Nice try (Score 3, Interesting) 144

Think it through...

1) Drive F/W gets infected.
2) Drive infects OS and UEFI on boot.
3) You detect malware, but don't realise it's in the F/W of the drive. You disinfect the drive and reboot.
4) You notice the malware is still evident, but can't find any trace of it on the drive. You detect it in the UEFI and flash that to get rid of it.
5) You notice it's STILL there, so you assume it must be so deep in the UEFI that you can't get rid of it (which many would consider far more plausible than it being in the DRIVE F/W!). You therefore replace the whole PC, but swap the disk over as you believe the drive (which you have now "securely" wiped) is safe.
6) Guess what's now infected!?!

OR (more likely) you infect an external hard disk and find that you're still spreading malware from machine to machine throughout the PCs of your company/family/friends/whatever, even after you have "securely" wiped it.

Comment: Re:Does Yandex own towers? (Score 1) 149

by KevReedUK (#49091845) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

I'm not sure whether this is the same in Russia, but here in the UK, just because your phone is COMPATIBLE with other operators' networks, doesn't mean that you can just switch networks if you bought your phone through one of them. Even if you have come to the end of your contract (which are almost always set up to ensure that you have, over the life of the contract, paid FAR more than the value of the subsidy applied to your initial purchase of the phone), you will still need to get the operator you acquired it through to "unlock" it to allow it to work on competitors' networks.

Obviously, if you buy your phone outright from an independent vendor, this does not apply.

Comment: Re:you can buy android without google over there.. (Score 1) 149

by KevReedUK (#49091811) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

That is why I was replying to the comment I replied to, not that of the GP. The post I replied to was referring to McD setting restrictions on an intermediary between themselves and the customer (and comparing it, rather appropriately, to the actions of Google as described in TFS), and highlighting how it differed from the GP's analogy of McD setting restrictions on what they offer direct to the customer (this time offering another appropriate comparison, this time to Apple/iOS).

Comment: Re:"Difficult to install" == "Difficult to compete (Score 1) 149

by KevReedUK (#49090405) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

... and the "difficulty" in changing the browser [...] is about the same as android.

I was under the impression (not that I've ever lowered myself far enough to use an iPhone) that any alternative browser you can get through the App Store is nothing more than a "skin" over the in-built Safari browser of iOS... no option for different rendering engines, etc. Was I mistaken in this understanding?

Comment: Re:you can buy android without google over there.. (Score 1) 149

by KevReedUK (#49090335) Attached to: Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android

You mean like the franchise model that McDonalds operates in many countries of the world (including the UK), where this is (based on how a local franchisee described it to me) exactly the approach (all or nothing. You can't just sell the burgers, you have to adhere to the whole brand identity, right down to the WiFi if you offer it. The only exception is the right to opt out of SOME of the promotions.)?

Single tasking: Just Say No.