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:I already love it... (Score 2) 46

by hawguy (#49389757) Attached to: Amazon Moves "Buy Now" Into the Physical World, With the Dash Button

The only problem is, most of this stuff is cheaper at Costco — when they are having a sale, one can load-up until next year's sale of the same commodity.

But this seems like it would be darn convenient. So much so, I'm prepared to revisit the price difference. Everyone here is busy and if a single button-press can really replace a trip to the store, it just might be worth it...

Not everyone has room for costco's usual super-sized product packages, I really have no room to store a 6 pack of ketchup, #10 cans of corn, or a 24 pack of paper towels, and many items would expire before I can use them. While I might save money by buying in bulk, without unlimited storage space, I appreciate using Amazon for just-in-time delivery even if I spend a little more money. Plus, as you say, there's the convenience factor -- going to Costco ends up taking at least a few hours from start to finish.

Comment: Re:I hope this is a april fools. (Score 1) 46

by hawguy (#49389729) Attached to: Amazon Moves "Buy Now" Into the Physical World, With the Dash Button

These have no reason to exist. They will just create more electronic wastes, not to mention the manufacturing cost.
A simple app for smartphones would've done the same thing, and more.

But that's not the same. When you're reaching for the detergent and notice that it's almost empty, you may not have your smartphone with you, and even if you do, you probably don't want to stop and launch the app so you can order more detergent, you'll just try to remember to order it next time you're at your computer. Though if you had a button right there on the cabinet, then you'd probably hit it right while you have the empty detergent bottle in your hand.

Admittedly this seems like unnecessary overkill, but it is definitely difference than a smartphone app and I can see why some might find it useful.

They will just create more electronic wastes, not to mention the manufacturing cost

Many people would say the same about smartphones and their (mostly) 2 year obsolescence schedule.

Comment: Re:Autocomplete (Score 1) 139

Really? Here's how it works for me: type "J" - long pause while system pulls up every name that starts with J. This is a lot so it takes a while. Whew, OK! Ready for the next letter. "O" and another long pause while the list is refined and the javascript finishes running. By this time I could have just typed "Johnathan" and been done with it. Or the system could have waited until I typed 3 or 4 letters before auto complete starts getting in the way but NOOO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

Sounds like you need a faster computer or faster internet connection -- even when use my phone to connect to the internet, the autocomplete popup comes up faster than I can type, but even if I type faster than the autocomplete popup, I don't see how it would get in the way, if I don't want to use autocomplete, I don't have to use one of their suggestions.

Comment: Re:Autocomplete (Score 3, Insightful) 139

All autocompletes I have ever seen are completely awful and generally worse than nothing at all. Putting words together is, like, the one thing we humans are good at? So I am at a loss as to why we seem so addicted to this ridiculous kind of software.

Really? I use it all the time -- works really well on Google Mail, I start typing "Joh" and a popup window gives me a list of users that begin with "Joh" so I can choose whether I wanted to send the email to John or Johanna. Works decently well on my phone too - I use the "swipe" style typing on my phone and the autocomplete usually figures out the word I meant to type, even when I don't quite swipe over all of the letters I intended to type.

Comment: Re:Engine noise serves no purpose (Score 1) 167

by hawguy (#49370843) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

It has to do with enjoying the sport.
The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.

As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.

Or maybe it's conditioning, you were brought up going to races and hearing the roar of engines, so you expect it. But someone that is brought up going to relatively quiet e-races may find the noise to be too loud.

Comment: Re:And what good would it do? (Score 5, Insightful) 447

by hawguy (#49365145) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

Apparently the pilot is a master at voices.

Even if that half-assed attempt was true, it doesn't improve the safety - they'd still all be dead. It just gives us the ability to ogle and lay blame.

Root cause analysis is not just about laying blame, it's about finding out where the processes/procedures broke down and how they can be improved to prevent a similar incident in the future.

Comment: Re:Maybe not overly broad. (Score 1) 331

by hawguy (#49358313) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

As I understand it, this is saying that warehouse workers (i.e. the people who do physical labor like moving products from point A to point B, or pack shipments) can't help to develop similar systems for their competitors using what they know about Amazon's practices. This does not seem to stop them from doing manual labor elsewhere.

This doesn't seem all that concerning to me. AFAIK this is the exact kind of thing non-competes are intended for. Perhaps 18 months is a little long. I'd guess 6-12 months is more reasonable.

But other than that, this doesn't seem all that bad.

That was my reading too -- they aren't trying to prevent an Amazon warehouse worker from working in a Walmart stock room (even though Walmart and Amazon may be selling the same consumer goods), but are trying to prevent a warehouse worker becoming a Google consultant to help design Google's warehouse operations.

Sounds like there's some overlap with an NDA but Amazon is probably trying to cover all of their bases to give themselves more ammo in a lawsuit.

This was modded as a troll? Really?

Comment: Re:Maybe not overly broad. (Score 2, Interesting) 331

by hawguy (#49357551) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

As I understand it, this is saying that warehouse workers (i.e. the people who do physical labor like moving products from point A to point B, or pack shipments) can't help to develop similar systems for their competitors using what they know about Amazon's practices. This does not seem to stop them from doing manual labor elsewhere.

This doesn't seem all that concerning to me. AFAIK this is the exact kind of thing non-competes are intended for. Perhaps 18 months is a little long. I'd guess 6-12 months is more reasonable.

But other than that, this doesn't seem all that bad.

That was my reading too -- they aren't trying to prevent an Amazon warehouse worker from working in a Walmart stock room (even though Walmart and Amazon may be selling the same consumer goods), but are trying to prevent a warehouse worker becoming a Google consultant to help design Google's warehouse operations.

Sounds like there's some overlap with an NDA but Amazon is probably trying to cover all of their bases to give themselves more ammo in a lawsuit.

Comment: Re:how about an autoland panic button? (Score 1) 379

by hawguy (#49356561) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

If your pilot is already determined to crash the plane, an autoland malfunction won't make things any worse

It also won't make it any better if the pilot can override the "panic button" with manual controls.

Which is why I wrote it locks out the cockpit controls and only way to disengage would be for both pilots to enter their own secret code. So if it's inadvertantly activated, it can still be deactivated.

So design it so it doesn't falsely go into panic mode.

Malfunction generally means functioning other that as designed. Designing to not malfunction is an oxymoron.

I would hope that every flight control computer is designed to not malfunction through redundancy.

If you trust your fly by wire aircraft to translate your control stick movements into control surface movements, surely you can trust it to not take over unless you tell it to. If the flight control computer is so screwed up that it took over without being commanded to and it can't be unlocked, then you're already screwed.

Comment: Re:how about an autoland panic button? (Score 1) 379

by hawguy (#49356203) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

1. Most aircraft have manual control in case of system malfunction.

If your pilot is already determined to crash the plane, an autoland malfunction won't make things any worse

2. System may malfunction and falsely go into "panic" mode.

So design it so it doesn't falsely go into panic mode. If the flight control system has a software bug so serious that it spuriously enabled a mode it's not supposed to, the aircraft probably has bigger problems to worry about.

3. Malfunctioning system may not be capable of safe auto landing.

Neither is a pilot that's determined to crash the plane.

4. Many aircraft are not capable of auto landing.

This will likely be less of an issue over time.

3. There may be no autolanding airport within range.

Probably less of an issue on long-haul flights where they have a lot of fuel early in the flight, and already have several alternate airports in their flight plan, they can just make sure that one of their destination alternates has autoland. For short-haul flights that might not be carrying a full fuel load or destinations in remote areas without a suitable autoland alternate, this might be more of an issue.

Comment: Re:how about an autoland panic button? (Score 1) 379

by hawguy (#49355997) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Interesting... plane flies over hostile area with autoland capable airport, and somebody presses panic button.

I assume the flight control computer would be programmed to prefer "friendly" airports unless fuel state requires landing at a known "hostile" airport (landing safely in Iran is probably better for the passengers than crashing when if the aircraft runs out of fuel). Pilots/airlines must already know which airports are deemed unfriendly so they can avoid them in their alternate airport planning. Though I wonder if there are any "hostile" airports with ILS/MLS equipment approved for autoland?

Comment: how about an autoland panic button? (Score 0) 379

by hawguy (#49355723) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

How about a panic button outside the cockpit with the same code as the entry door that only the pilots know? If a pilot gets locked out and fears for the safety of the plane, he enters his panic button code and it locks out the cockpit controls and tells the autopilot to land at the nearest auto-land capable airport. The only way to disengage would be for both pilots to enter their own secret code. For bonus points, make it able to be remotely activated so when ATC finds that the plane is unresponsible and obviously off course, they can turn it on (or call the airline to turn it on).

Autoland may not be perfect, but it's probably safer than a suicidal pilot.

Comment: Re:stupidly weak (Score 1) 263

by hawguy (#49349773) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

Yes, use 100% dictionary words. That's a great idea. The idea of a passphrase is to make it so many letters, brute forcing won't work. But dictionary attacks don't have to be individual words. They can easily be combinations of all known dictionary words without having a ridiculous result set to try compared to random letters. So what you need to do is come up with multiple words that you can remember then put a number or two between them. DO NOT replace e with 3 or a with @ or S with $, as those are known and common attack possibilities too. So if you choose "chickenisdelicious7nomnomnom" nobody will ever, ever, ever figure that out. If you choose "chickensandwichwaffles" it could get reverse via dictionary phrase attack in under a second.

It's only stupidly weak if you don't follow the stupidly simple instructions involving using a die roll to choose random words. Using the 7700 word dictionary they recommend and 5 words gives 64 bits of password entropy. Granted, that's much less than the 144 bits of entropy you provided in your 28 character alphanumeric password, but still no one is going to brute force 2^63 bits in a few seconds.

Comment: Assuming fair dice (Score 3, Funny) 263

by hawguy (#49349709) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

This procedure assumes fair, unbiased dice. For years, the NSA has required precise machining of dice to generate predictable rolls. Once someone cracks the code, Casinos will lose billions.

What, other than precision machining, would explain why plastic dice with a materials cost of pennies cost over $2/each?

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.

Working...