Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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:*sigh* (Score 1) 101

by HBI (#49359737) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

He was born in Canada. But, his mother was a US citizen and only there due to her husband's work, and I think as a result he does qualify as native born. McCain was born in the Canal Zone and we've had a few other situations like that. I think that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, as some aver, he would probably have been adjudged as native born due to his mother similarly being a US citizen.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 4, Insightful) 101

by ScentCone (#49359395) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?

Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).

When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 329

by ScentCone (#49359357) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up
What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 329

by ScentCone (#49359343) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

So what if you have one of these jobs and are going through a rough patch?

Everybody goes through "rough patches," but very few of them kill themselves over it, let alone decide to kill a hundred other people just to add some more drama to it. The whole point here is that you can't have someone in a position of responsibility like that, and have them be one of those much more fragile people who become suicidal/murderous over a "rough patch."

If it takes something bad happening in their life to make it clear they can't keep a level head and maintain their professionalism, then they are not in the right line of work.

Comment: Re:Wrong target (Score 1) 50

by Just Some Guy (#49358493) Attached to: Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

The target should be Apple not Google.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 3, Interesting) 329

by ScentCone (#49356065) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".

No, he's saying it should be illegal to keep things like mental instability and dangerous suicidal mindsets secret from the state when the state is what licenses you to be entrusted, day-in, day-out, with the lives of hundreds of people. If you've got mental problems, don't look for a job where that is by definition a disqualifier. It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.

Comment: The inside threat is more potent (Score 3, Interesting) 329

by smooth wombat (#49355501) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up
airlines have fewer options if the threat comes from within.

This shouldn't be a surprise. It's the same thing with networked systems. It's not outside threats which pose the problem, it's the people on the inside who either inadvertently or deliberately cause the problems.

Once you've granted someone access to your data, no amount of firewalls, air gaps or anything else can prevent that person from doing damage in some form, even if only taking that data and giving it someone else on the outside.

In this case, since the co-pilot was on the inside and had the ability to override the security code to open the door, the damage was done long before he crashed the plane.

People will buy anything that's one to a customer.

Working...