Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:this pisses me off about modern business (Score 1) 160

by Obfuscant (#49497155) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.

That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.

Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due care that the employer has towards his employees.

Comment: Re:Typical Misdirection From White House (Score 1) 245

by Obfuscant (#49497029) Attached to: Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.

It's not even that. It's a community activist site that uses Barry's name because of his "legacy" and inspiration. They admit they have no connection "in any way" with the US or any other government.

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 255

by Obfuscant (#49497003) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

You seem really desperate to see him as public enemy #1.

Stop making things up. I said exactly what I meant. He was looking for this response and he got it. He threatened to hack into aircraft safety systems and he got detained and questioned. I said nothing about him being public enemy number one.

Certainly the absence of anything happening and their apparent inability to get a warrant hasn't convinced you.

The absence of anything happening is irrelevant to making a threat to do something, and we have no idea where they are in the process of getting a warrant.

If law enforcement walked past you, stopped, then turned and looked right at you,

I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't see them. I don't have eyes in the back of my head, and neither does this guy.

you're saying you are too clueless to guess you are of interest to them?

I guess you are incapable of trying to make any point without being personally insulting.

Comment: Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score 2) 160

by Obfuscant (#49496955) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.

How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)

Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don't trust you specifically can be dealt with. You don't think that someone who locks the doors on their house is scared you are going to come rob them, do you?

It isn't about you. It's about the people who still work there who the company has some responsibility to protect.

I think there is a defining question here: were one of your fellow workers fired and the company allowed them to wander around the building, and they "went postal" and killed a couple of your friends, would you join in the lawsuit against your employer for failing to provide adequate workplace security? Would you think "Bob had a right to be in the building and the company isn't responsible in any way for allowing his rampage to happen", or would it be "they should have escorted him out"? If the people who Bob killed couldn't determine Bob was a danger (and stay away from him after he got fired), why do you expect an HR manager who doesn't know him very well to be better at guessing right?

Comment: Re:Typical Misdirection From White House (Score 2) 245

by Obfuscant (#49496813) Attached to: Gyrocopter Pilot Appears In Court; Judge Bans Him From D.C.

Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

And who was "them" that he sent the message to? "info@barackobama.com". If you didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, that domain is used by "Organizing for Action", a "grassroots" "community organizing" group. It has "barackobama" in the name, so the President must be involved, right? He got the message the postman delivered, right?

According to the FAQ in their website asking about the group's connection to Barack Obama:

The President's legacy as a grassroots organizer helped inspire a movement of millions. OFA was founded in January 2013 to make progress on the agenda the American people voted for. From fighting climate change to working toward economic opportunity for all, OFA's mission is rooted in making real, lasting change.

In other words, they have no connection to Barack Obama at all. They were inspired by his community activism. Period.

So, the miscreant postman told some political activism website about his mission, but nobody directly connected to the US government. By email to a role address that may or may not be read for days. And what TFA calls "a time-delayed email", so delivery wasn't even attempted until after he took off.

So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him.

What utter and complete bullshit. He wasn't going to the Whitehouse, he was going to the Capitol, so I guess Barry was sitting on the portico with a beer and a cigar waiting for someone else. But barackobama.com has no connection to Barry or to the US government. As they admit when asked "is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government", the answer is "NO". So how an email to barackobama.com would make it to the Prez is a mystery, and how it could be seen by ATC prior to his entry to the airspace so they would know he was coming is even more of a mystery.

Trying to defend him on the basis that he told the appropriate government officials he was coming, and the the President was looking forward to his visit, is just pathetic nonsense.

Comment: Re:this pisses me off about modern business (Score 1) 160

by Obfuscant (#49496443) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

It is not about you.

We need a car analogy. I know ... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.

Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.

Comment: Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score 1) 160

by Obfuscant (#49496363) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.

It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.

The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.

Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do something like that, and the result of getting it wrong for one who is is very serious, it's better to err on the side of caution.

If your employer does it you should find another job...

You're free to make your employment decisions based on whatever criteria you choose. The 80% of employees stuck in a building with one or more potential knife-wielding nuts shouldn't have to suffer from your freedom.

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 255

by Obfuscant (#49496213) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

I'm saying that they didn't feel that the "threat" was serious enough to divert the plane.

You're saying that you think they didn't think his threat was worth dealing with because they didn't have the plane diverted. That's different. They obviously didn't think the threat was worth diverting the flight, but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was serious. And you don't know when the FBI became aware of the threat. Perhaps Syracuse was the most appropriate "diversion" airport by the time they knew. IIRC, it left Chicago, so it's only an hour and a half flight or so. It's a pretty large airport with good services, or was at the time I lived in the area. It's got (had) an Air Guard unit with F16s, so emergency response is capable there.

After, the lack of anything happening at all is a pretty good clue (for the cluefull) that the "threat" which could have been a bit of dark humor was, in fact, a bit of dark humor.

No, all that proves, for the clueful, is that he didn't do what he talked about. You can make a deadly serious plan to kill someone and then change your mind at the last minute. That doesn't turn the plan into just "dark humor".

As for the rest, I'm guessing that the combination of the feds looking right at him and an IQ above 60 told him who they were there for to at least 90% certainty.

The feds walked past him. How did he know they were looking for him? A guilty mind. He expected to be detained and he got what he was looking for. Fifteen minutes of fame.

This kind of idiocy is exactly what gets innocent people killed by cops.

Except he wasn't innocent, and he makes no claims that he is. Has he denied making the tweet, and has he denied that he would be able to do it?

You avoided the first question I asked you. You said because it was on Twitter the threat wasn't serious. It was "just a tweet". Do you really believe that, and are there ANY social media sites where threats should not be ignored?

Comment: Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? (Score 1) 255

by Obfuscant (#49496009) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

No, none of that. He tweeted. That's it, just a tweet.

So you don't believe that threats made using Twitter should be investigated or dealt with in any way? Are there any social media systems where threats should be taken seriously?

If the feds ACTUALLY believed he was hacking the plane, why did they wait until it landed to do anything? Shouldn't they have ordered the plane to make an immediate emergency landing before something happened?

They didn't need to know he was actively hacking the systems to know they needed to take the threat seriously. It was still a credible threat. They waited because, you know, dropping the o2 masks doesn't really mean the airplane is going to crash, and the pilots can actually still fly the plane and everything.

Had they ordered the plane down immediately while nothing was happening, you'd be complaining how they lept to conclusions and inconvenienced all the passengers and maybe the FBI was the cause of the scare and not the guy who was talking about hacking into the onboard systems.

When you make jokes about hacking into mission critical systems that could endanger a couple hundred people, you're a fool and need to have a reality check. That's what he's getting.

He knew he was going to get it, too. According to TFA, they didn't even have to tell him they were on board to visit him. It says the feds walked past his seat and turned around, and he asked "should I get my bags?" In other words, he was getting the response he knew he would get, and that means the response he wanted. An innocent person wouldn't know the feds were there for him. An immediate assumption like he made shows a guilty mind.

Comment: Re:If you are ABLE to be a hooker, detain you? (Score 1) 255

by Obfuscant (#49495207) Attached to: FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

I hereby claim that I have hands, therefore I am able to stab someone. Should I be detained and my property seized because I am ABLE to commit a crime?

If you threaten to stab someone, that's called "assault" and it is, indeed, a crime for which you can be detained and a large knife in your possession at the time will be confiscated.

Comment: Re:Youngest ever? False. (Score 1) 308

It has no scientific answer, but in red states a definition of when cells become a person is going to be shoved down our throats.

A government-based decision either way is shoving some answer down someone's throat. The best course of action is to get government out of the answer altogether and let people decide. That means, however, getting government all the way out of the answer, including not forcing people who make one decision pay for the actions of people who decide the other way.

Comment: Re:all in the implementation (Score 1) 113

Oh for fuck's sake.. it's very simple: Avionics need to be on a physically separate network from everything else, preferably encrypted.

Why should a private network waste time encrypting and decrypting stuff?

If you've got a hacker accessing your avionics network, you have more serious issues than just whether the data is encrypted or not.

Comment: Re:Kind of a dup, but here's a link that explains (Score 1) 113

Flight plans have to be public, because they're offering travel to the public. If you don't know when the plane lands, you can't schedule a ride from family.

While the two kinds of data are similar, they are not identical.

The flight schedule has to be online for the reasons you gave. But the flight schedule is not the flight plan, and the times can differ by a significant amount. Every time you've arrived or left early or late, you're comparing your watch to the scheduled time. The flight plan will be much more accurate and be based on existing conditions.

For example, the "book" time for a United flight from PDX (Portland OR) to ORD (Orchard, I mean O'Hare Chicago) is 3 hours 55 minutes. Depending on the position of the jetstream and other winds aloft, the flight can take as little as 3 hours 20 minutes. The flight plan will take into account the jetstream; the schedule does not.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Working...