Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:French republic vs monarchy ? (Score 1) 105

Not certain that you get the good picture, probably because that my explanation and my English are not good enough. The parliament can vote to appoint any citizen (almost everybody) as a member of the head of state (The Federal Council: the highest political level), even a citizen that have do nothing to be voted for. Maybe this URL is worth reading

But the main feature is that there vote 7 members, not just one, so this grant that all leading parties are represented up to the highest level, lowering greatly the frustration of a large part of the population and forcing every parties to continuously and constructively negotiate between them. The whole process is under direct control of all the citizens that can revert any decision and even impose new decision to the government. The Federal Council, the direct democracy by referendum and initiative, are something different from most other country in Europe. Some countries have referendum and initiative in there constitution but in a form that make then more theoretical than a real powerful tool practiced many time per years by all citizens. For example, French citizens referendum are excessively rare and the result of the last most important one was inverted by the government than disliked the popular decision. No better way to spread frustration at large scale and break confidence on the political system...

Comment: Re:French republic vs monarchy ? (Score 1) 105

The Swiss constitution was mainly setup after the civil war of 1847. At that time enough politics worked seriously together to compare various existing foreign constitutions. The French Revolution and the USA constitution played a major role in the redaction of the first text. The major Swiss ingredient was to introduce a proportional representation of the parties up to the head of state. A new version of the constitution adjusted many parameters and introduced the referendum, and the version just after introduced the popular initiative.

It was a constructive work to fix the problems found in the early versions. It mainly work because of the first decision of making a proportional head of state. Without this feature, too many effort is lost by the parties to place there members on the most powerful place, making them willing to promise the impossible to take more vote: there are basically required to lie and to play on the emotional level. And when you play with lie and emotion, you get something unmanageable that split the citizens mostly between two main parties that constantly fight each at the other. Whenever the party that win, the system mostly grant to have as close as possible a rate of half of citizen frustrated by the result of the vote. By contrast the Swiss political system limit the possibility that a significant opposition exists because it will be integrated early in the government.

The argument that this work only because this is a small country have no merit. The Switzerland with 26 strong sates with each there own constitution, and 4 official languages, is used at a bigger scale than in many bigger countries where the political system is far too much centralized. The current state of the multiple parties coalition in Germany is interesting and is obviously a good step forward the proportional representation, even if it's informal. Juts hope that the will not miss the opportunity to grant that in an updated constitution.

Comment: Re:French republic vs monarchy ? (Score 1) 105

The citizens vote to elect the two parliament chambers members, representing proportionally the states and the peoples. Then the parliament (all members of the two chambers) vote to appoint the 7 Federal Council members. There can appoint any citizen of the country even it's not a candidate. As strange as it look like, yes this has happened: a citizen without high view on the politic can be boosted up to the highest level in a few hours. The main goal is to form a stable Federal Council with a proportional diversity of the leading parties. Then 7 Federal Council members decide by them self there minister assignation between them.

Comment: Re:French republic vs monarchy ? (Score 1) 105

The same happens in all states. Prime ministers to presidents all do that.

Not in Switzerland for example.

Here the parliament (directly elected by the citizens) elect the Federal Council where each of this 7 members act as minister. There is no upper layer like prime minister or formal president (there is an annually elected president into the Federal Council, but this is strictly honorific without any added power). So each leading parties are fully represented in every politic layer up to the head of state, making a lot of conflict useless. The Federal Council is required to act as a single body after there have voted on a decision. Every decision can be changed back by citizens using referendum and every change to the constitution require a mandatory referendum, so the parliament and the Federal Council cannot act against the citizen wishes. In addition citizens can force a change in the constitution using the popular initiative. Here every citizens vote on a lot of important subjects many times per years making everyone more concerned about the politic of the country.

Exactly the contrary of the French citizens where there live in a modern kind of monarchy from a small self proclaimed elites that fight to place there favorite king at the most powerful place to mainly serve there own interest. I really hope that there will quickly evolve to something better.

Comment: French republic vs monarchy ? (Score 1) 105

It's only a democratic country because there can vote for the king, but the king choose the ministers and the ministers can do anything. The parliament is a joke to keep some credibility that some discussion exists. The citizen are left with there problems and never take seriously.

Comment: Re:Remote link failure imply stand alone operation (Score 1) 460

by jcdr (#49442075) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Sorry for my English, it's not my native language.

Yes we fully agree that automation on board is the best solution. This is critically important for safety operation, far more than a remote co-pilot.

From my point of view radar and radio are the same category of system as civil aircraft operator mostly use secondary radar that rely on a radio link to get back information from the aircraft. Primary ground radar will be useless for the aircraft until it send information to them, but this again depend on a radio link.

Comment: Re:Remote link failure imply stand alone operation (Score 1) 460

by jcdr (#49433379) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Radar failure rate show how fragile is a radio link. Now you have to remember that this link is required to have a kind of "ground based co-pilot". So the availability of the remote co-pilot will be far lower than a on board co-pilot, human or automate. The net result of a remote co-pilot is a decease of the safety level. On board automated co-pilot can potentially increase the safety level because it's possible to have multiple instance of them to increase there availability. It's a fairly simple logic. An other hint is that complex systems that need to maintain safety under degraded operational conditions use distributed autonomous subsystems not central radio link.

If you are still not convinced, just look at accident reports where the stress on the flight deck required the full attention of the two pilots very quickly to save the situation. A remote co-pilot will be completely unable to do anything useful, especially if it already monitor multiples flights at the same time. An on board automated co-pilot can react immediately, and probably even faster than an human.

Comment: Re:Remote link failure imply stand alone operation (Score 1) 460

by jcdr (#49428115) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

all planes start circling at different altitudes until the system is working again..

Certainly not an option for a failure that last longer than a single hour as aircraft will risk to run out of fuel. There is a chunk of documented incidents at ground level that affected a lot of flight and that lasted far more than a single hour. Aircraft need to be able to land automatically by itself without remote operation and there need to use it every day to ensure that the system is at the required safety level. There is nothing worst than a safety feature that is only used in case of a incident: most of the issues will be hidden until the incidents.

Comment: Remote link failure imply stand alone operation (Score 2) 460

by jcdr (#49421549) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Remote operation imply data transfer, usually by radio, and this is the weakest part of the system. To ensure that the aircraft stay in safe operation without remote link, it fist must be able to sustain stand alone operation, including landing before running out of fuel.

Concentrating control to a single point will increase the risk, concentrating control to a remote point will add an another layer of risk. The only solution is to allow distributed control, and this imply that each aircraft is able to operate safely by itself without remote control.

If you are not convinced, just imagine that a remote control point is unable to operate for some reason: you have now dozen of flight without co-pilot and there need to all land as soon as possible, raising a another wave of problems.

Comment: Re: No longer required (Score 3, Interesting) 362

by jcdr (#49307605) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

If I understand you correctly, this confirm the possibility that Microsoft have the possibility to manage 2 classes of keys: the first keys class is the current one where Microsoft is willing to sign binaries not from them; the second keys class could be for 'lock in' machines where Microsoft keep full control on.

To be fair, I think that the 'lock in' keys class it's a logical step for Microsoft branded machines. But this could go very wrong if OEMs start to do the same by using the argument 'designed for Microsoft OS' because this will add 'and nothing else could run on it' to the argument. I suspect that the goal is to reserve top machines specifications to Microsoft and to only allow degraded specifications machines to run other OS. The market already have products with this kind of bias.

And yes, you are right. This evil plan was draw decades ago with the deep knowledge that it will only work at the time when the security feature will be so standard that no chip will be manufactured without it anymore.

The fact that Windows 10 is announced to be virtually free for almost everyone having a previous copy of Windows somewhere is a clear singe that the time have changed. The OS have no value anymore. The number of new software that only run on a single OS will drastically shrink, exacerbating the OS value problem. So the 'lock in' machines with exclusive specifications will be the only market where Microsoft could make money from the OS.

From my analysis, the Microsoft message is dual: 1) you don't need anything other that Windows 10 as it's virtually free for everyone; 2) You need Windows 10 to run top specifications machines. OEM market will almost certainly split the product range accordingly if no reaction prevent this.

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds