Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 65

So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.

So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case), with your assertion that what the administration has done is "impossible" to actually enforce. If you think it's impossible to enforce but still think federally registering 9-ounce toy operators is a good idea, reconcile that, in detail. If you think it shouldn't have been put into place, then explain why you're bitching at me for saying the same thing. Try to avoid the lazy ad hominem, though, since it just makes you look juvenile.

Comment Re:Route customization (Score 1) 34

Alternatively, it could also be used as a self contained system that would learn the best strategy for your normal commute, but then it would have no benefit on roads you haven't driven before.

I think you could cover 99% of my driving with less than 100 routes. Especially if I get into the habit of telling the car where I'm planning on going.

Comment I practically guarantee you... (Score 4, Insightful) 130

I practically guarantee you...

The problem is with a long or int (32 bit) value having its address passed in for a time_t (64 bit) value.

As long as the number is positive, it appears to work, but if it goes negative (and given that most of the people setting it to that date are West of GMT, it *will* go negative), then the underflow blows all the adjacent bits in the next 32 bit word over.

And it appears that something important was there. This will likely be a problem for the code after 19 January 2038, if that's the case.

This is why there should be strong type enforcement set in the compiler settings, to make sure it doesn't compile if you have this kind of bug in your code.

This should be a trivial fix, but it's pretty clear that you could fix the problem on your own by temporarily disconnecting the battery and/or letting the battery drain (which would likely take a very long time). So take it into your local Apple store and be done with it.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 65

There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs with cheat sheets explaining how to report unregistered hobbyists and how to get that info to the DoT for enforcement). Huerta said, in one of the related press conferences that they intend to go after "anything that flies."

If you are presuming that - despite what they are coming right out and saying repeatedly - they don't intend to enforce the 250g end of the spectrum of toys, why do you suppose they sat around for weeks in meetings with regulators, manufacturers, pilots associations, etc., and issued a rule that includes those toys, along with language saying how they did so because of the critical, life-threatening safety issues that they represent? If you think that's all nonsense that shouldn't be enforced, then why are you defending the administration for putting a kid with a 9-ounce RC toy in federal legal jeopardy?

100% of homicides SHOULD be dealt with. 100% of kids flying 9-ounce toys should NOT be dealt with. You understand this isn't about a rules governing what happens when someone causes an injury or property damage ... this is about making the act of using that 9-ounce toy illegal (subject to both civil and federal criminal penalities) the moment you hover the toy one inch off of your back yard grass. You think the FAA won't bother themselves with grandpa's unregistered use of a 1-pound model he's been flying in circles at an AMA field for years ... so why aren't you calling for the new executive order that criminalizes his hobby to be undone? Are you really a fan of wasting millions of dollars to set up an entire new registration and enforcement regime to address things that you think don't need to be enforced? Why?

Comment Re:Wait a mintue (Score 4, Informative) 227

The former. All modern browsers except Firefox have decomposed their browser into multiple processes, so that a compromise from one site will only gain control over an unprivileged (i.e. isolated from other stuff the user cares about) process. They also run plugins in separate processes and have fairly narrow communication paths between them. Firefox is still a massive monolithic process, including all add-ons, plugins, and so on.

This basically means that you just need one arbitrary code execution vulnerability in Firefox and it's game over. In contrast, if you have the same in Chrome, Edge, or Safari, then it's just the first step - you now have an environment where you can run arbitrary exploit code, but you can't make (most) system calls and you have to find another exploit to escape from the sandbox. Typical Chrome compromises are the result of chaining half a dozen vulnerabilities together.

Comment Re:This is a big bitchslap to Mozilla (Score 4, Interesting) 227

It also scales based on processor resources. They hit serious TLB scalability issues at around 17 processes (varies a bit between CPUs, in some systems - particularly mobile - you'll hit RAM limits sooner), so if you have more tabs open than this, you will start having multiple independent sites share the same renderer process.

Comment Re:tom (Score 1) 119

Typically not to end users though. Microsoft sold the BASIC that computer vendors (including Apple) burned into ROM. Microsoft QuickBASIC for DOS contained a compiler that could produce stand-alone .exe or .com binaries, though the free QBASIC that they bundled with DOS 5 and later was a cut-down version that only included the interpreter.

Comment Re:Turing Evolved (Score 2) 197

Robots don't feel those emotions, and have committed no massacres on that scale. I trust robots more than I trust humans.

Do you trust a gun? Do you trust a bomb? Of course not, because the concept is meaningless: neither will cause harm without instructions from a human. Both can magnify the amount of harm that a human can do. Autonomous weapons, of which landmines are the simplest possible case, expand both the quantity that a person can do harm and the time over which they can do it.

During the cold war, there were at least two incidents where humans refused to follow legitimate orders to launch nuclear weapons - in either case, the likely outcome of following the orders would have been the deaths of many millions. The worst atrocities of the second world war were caused by people 'just following orders'. And you think that it's a good idea to remove the part of the chain of command capable of disobeying orders.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 529

The person in your story was relying on his ability to read a map, which sounds pretty reasonable, and his ability to read a compass (which was not such a good plan, if he didn't sanity check it with the direction of the sun). The people in TFA, however, are carrying a device that tells them their precise position in the world to within a few metres. If you're not periodically checking and saying 'hmm, I want to get from here to here and I'm nowhere between the two points' then I think that counts as a bit stupid.

Comment "Meaningful human control" (Score 2) 197

That's something of a question, isn't it? What does "meaningful human control" translate to? Does it mean that a human has to okay each weapon discharge? Does it mean that we aren't supposed to release a swarm of von neumann kill-bots with 'destroy everything' as a goal? What if we release them in an area with orders to kill any humans with weapons that don't have a valid IFF signal?

In addition, I've seen with UN weapon ban treaties that they're sometimes used as a 'we don't have them, so you shouldn't either' tool. Who's closest to these sorts of weapons? The USA. Who's NOT going to agree with any treaty limiting the effective use of these weapons? The USA. Rendering the ban useless.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 65

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.

No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?

Slashdot Top Deals

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..