Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:A Bit Fishy (Score 1) 373

by amicusNYCL (#49357797) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

The normal thing for an aircraft to do when it thinks the pilot is making a mistake is to yell at them, not stop them.

The Air France flight that crashed a few years ago off Brazil comes to mind. I believe the inexperienced pilot was flying the plane while the sensors were iced over and the computer was telling him to climb steeply when it was exactly the wrong thing to do.

even in a B-2

There's another good example. The single B-2 that we've lost was because, again, the sensors were clogged with moisture. The computer tried to go nose up immediately after leaving the runway and the plane stalled. Here's the video of it crashing. Computers are a great aid, but we're still a ways away from completely relying on them to move passengers when a couple of faulty inputs can bring the entire plane down.

Comment: Re:Don't make it impossible, just make it hard (Score 1) 373

by amicusNYCL (#49356281) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

If one pilot incapacitates the other, the cabin crew realize the plane is going down, they need to get into the cockpit.

And do what, exactly? Ask the guy nicely to land the plane at the nearest airport? If your pilots are fighting then you're already losing the battle, having someone come in and offer them a beverage isn't going to help. Anyone who cannot fly the plane does not need access to the cockpit, you're just adding more points of failure.

Comment: Re:It already is 99% probably 99.99999 %. (Score 1) 373

by amicusNYCL (#49356245) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

It already is 99% probably 99.99999 %.

Count up all the flights since a pilot last intentionally crashed an airliner.

Divide 1 by that number. Now you have your percentage effectiveness.

No, that's stupid. You need to count the total number of times that aircraft have tried to be hijacked or crashed (or, simply, someone tried to gain access to the cockpit). Not the total number of flights. A flight without any security events is not a data point when trying to rate the effectiveness of security procedures.

Comment: Re:Don't make it impossible, just make it hard (Score 1) 373

by amicusNYCL (#49355737) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

The bad guys have depressurized the plane, and they're slowly cutting parts from cabin crew to get the code.

Why would the cabin crew have the code? The code is for the pilots. If the cabin crew want to come in then the pilots unlock the door from the inside. If your'e talking about eliminating edge cases, giving the entire cabin crew the code is a great place to start looking.

and can't spend time mucking about with the locking mechanism.

It's a single switch. The 2-switch idea could mean one switch is on the top left of the console, for the pilot, and the other is on the top right, for the co-pilot. They can each reach the switch with one hand while seated, but it would be too far apart for someone to try and hit both at once. They can manually fly the plane and also hit the switch.

There simply isn't a way you can 100% guarantee this is 100% safe

I don't think 100% is a reasonable goal in anyone's mind. 99.9% might be enough. 99% might be enough.

Comment: Re:No end-user would do this fiscally (Score 1) 226

by amicusNYCL (#49348111) Attached to: Russian Official Proposes Road That Could Connect London To NYC

To drive those 8000 miles the apportioned cost would be $4,000. You can get 10 round-trip tickets London-NY off-season and 5 on-season for that.

If you want to see London, then buy a plane ticket. If you want to see Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, and the UK, then there would be another alternative. You could drive all over mainland Asia, the Middle East, and Africa as well. You could get in your car and hit the Great Wall and the pyramids before heading to South Africa, then head back up and take a ferry across to Spain and continue through Europe. I'm talking multi-month or multi-year RV trips to actually see most of the world, starting at your house. If you really want to make it an adventure then start in Panama and head north. You could start in South America and take the Pan-American highway north, but you'll find some trouble going from Columbia to Panama in the form of 60 miles of rain forest without a road. The connection between Alaska and Russia would allow you to drive across 4 continents without a ferry, 5 if they put a road through the Darien Gap.

Comment: Re:it could have been an accident (Score 1) 731

by amicusNYCL (#49347219) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

... and when that doesn't work (because the door is in "locked" state), the terrorist just threatens the (co)pilot inside to cabin to unlock or he'll kill the pilot and/or everyone else... At which point the pilot opens the door anyway.

Why would he open the door? At that point the choice is between everyone on the plane except the terrorists and the pilot dying, or everyone on the plane and probably many people on the ground dying. If you open the door they will still kill everyone on the plane when they crash it into whatever target, also potentially killing many on the ground in addition to the damage. It doesn't matter how many people on the plane they kill, the worst solution is always to open the door and give them control of the aircraft. Even if they detonate a bomb on board there's still a slim chance that the pilot could make sure the plane goes down in an uninhabited place.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 876

by amicusNYCL (#49346823) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

It sounds to me like their options are:
a) Can't work as a photographer
b) Be required to violate their religion

Notwithstanding the fact that photographing a gay wedding in no way, shape, or form is a violation of any religion (feel free to support your position with published religious doctrine if you feel otherwise), but, yeah, those are pretty much their options. If they want to work as a public photographer then they lose the right to turn people away based on their own insecurities. If they want to be an insecure photographer then simply don't run a public business. Go word of mouth, you don't need a business license and the government can't tell you how to operate.

And if I was a gay couple, I sure as hell wouldn't want them photographing my wedding anyway--their heart wouldn't be in it, and they'd probably do a terrible job.

There's a major point in that statement which should make much of this discussion moot, which I agree with. If you don't like someone, don't use their services. Problem solved. That starts to break down though when the number of people offering a certain public service is small within a certain area, but in general I agree. I don't necessarily think that anyone *should* be forced to do a certain job, but I have far, far more disagreement with the notion that someone should be able to discriminate wholesale against groups of people based on their hatred. Let's face it, this isn't about religious doctrine, it's about simple hatred. I have never seen a Christian teaching which says that people need to avoid associating or coming into contact with homosexuals. It's not about religious principles, it's about hate. They just try to claim that their hate is based on religion, but the fact is that they are distorting their religion to justify their hate.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 876

by amicusNYCL (#49340807) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

It's about forcing people to participate in activities that they view as evil.

It is? You mean I can just be walking down the street and be compelled to attend a hate rally, or have gay sex? Well, that definitely seems like some government overreach. You might be right.

If I owned a printing shop

OOOOHH, so not just some random person walking down the street, you're actually referring to someone operating a public business, and that person being allowed to decide that they don't want to deal with an entire group of people, even though they deal with everyone else, and the government saying that it's ok for them to do that if that's what God told them to do.

Well, I think that's pretty stupid. Either you want to run a business or you don't. If you do, then when you get your business license you agree to provide your services to "the public". Not "the public who are like you."

I would refuse to produce material for the Westboro Baptist Church.

And I would support the WBC's lawsuit against you, even while thinking they are a bunch of dickheads.

a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a homosexual wedding

By "participate in a homosexual wedding", do you mean "take pictures of the wedding and then charge for the service?" If the photographer doesn't want to offer their services to the public then they have every right to stop being a public business.

I have a friend who is vegan, and he turned down a website job at a hunting magazine.

What does that mean? That your friend operates a public business with a business license and turned away a job that he could have done but didn't want to do because he doesn't approve of the "lifestyle choices" of the people asking for his services? Or the magazine offered him employment and he said no thanks? In one of those cases he would be operating as a public business and I would disagree with his decision.

If I owned a printing shop, I would refuse to produce material for black people.

it seems reasonable to me that a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a black wedding

I have a friend who is racist, and he turned down a website job at a black magazine.

Seriously man, as a country we already went through all of this shit. Changing the group of people doesn't change the issue.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 876

by amicusNYCL (#49339997) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Sign up at your local ob/gyn for a vaginal exam.

Are you trying to claim that a gynecologist would refuse to work with male patients on some sort of moral or ethical ground, as opposed to the fact that said patient doesn't even carry the equipment that the doctor is there to treat?

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva