Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Donate (Score 0, Flamebait) 98

by rahvin112 (#47435231) Attached to: First Release of LibreSSL Portable Is Available

There is no stated guarantee that money donated will go to support SSL instead of OpenBSD. This fork is a fundraising drive by OpenBSD and nothing more.

Now that OpenSSL's problems are being fixed they can at least guarantee that the money donated will be spent on OpenSSL instead of some other operating system and with firm corporate backing and involvement the organizational problems (which caused the technical problems) will finally be fixed. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is stupid. OBSD's resources and effort will always be focused on OBSD first and foremost. People that intend to use Linux should recognize that and refuse to donate unless they commit that every dollar donated for LibreSSL is _only_ spent on LibreSSL development. Theo will never make that commitment because this is a fundraising drive for OBSD first and foremost.

People interested in GPL software should donate to Linux organizations such as the Linux Foundation that have taken responsibility for OpenSSL and will ensure that it's organizational and technical problems are finally fixed.

Comment: Bet he wasn't buckled in... (Score 1) 411

by rahvin112 (#47434013) Attached to: The First Person Ever To Die In a Tesla Is a Guy Who Stole One

I'm willing to bet the guy wasn't buckled up. Even when cars are tore in half in crashes if the person is buckled in they are usually still attached to the seat (even though they are sometimes dead from the car being sheared in half).

There is like a 95% chance that if he was ejected that he wasn't buckled up (the seat itself would've had to been sheared to cut the lap belt). I bet the final investigation notes that he wasn't buckled in (there is no guarantee of survival if the passenger compartment is compromised by ripping the car in half but it's still not likely). Seat belts are seriously strong and secure, even if the car is ripped in half the lap belt should have remained secure if it was buckled because it's anchored to the seat itself.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the cops find that he would have survived if he'd been buckled in.

Comment: Re:Hard finding any worth it these days (Score 2) 479

And all those stories are bullshit.

The simple answer is the electrolyte that failed was simply cheaper to produce. Most of the product failed out of warranty so it was never an issue for the capacitor producer. The good stuff, tantalum, is actually a conflict mineral (meaning the mine's production is used by non-state entities to fund nearly endless war often over control of the mine) and is super expensive in comparison to the dirt cheap (fails in 6months to 3 years) stuff they used. Don't attribute this to malice or sneaky corporate espionage when the simplest answer is that someone made more money using substandard product. Because that's the reality, some Chinese capacitor company laughed all the way to the bank then reincorporated 3 years later under a different name. Nearly a billion dollars in electronics were ruined by some guy trying to make extra money and the companies you purchased from didn't care.

Comment: Re:Jurisdiction (Score 1) 302

I sincerely doubt the controls on that drone would work at nearly half a mile altitude in one of the most congested radio locations in the US. For one thing the GW bridge is NOT 2000 feet in the air and they said it was near the GW bridge. If "near" is 2000' feet away I'm smokey the bear. The pilots also said the drone did a mach 0.9 climb. Again bullshit. Every measurement they gave is suspect because of those two items. The cops lied on their police report and said the drone approached them when the reverse is true. For that reason every claim in the charging document should be thrown out automatically.

If these drone pilots (and I mean if, the police statements are lies and should be treated as such) violated FAA rules they should be punished by the FAA, not local law enforcement. My reading of the transcript says they wanted to punish these guys so they made something up probably not realizing the transcript would prove them to be liars. If the cops thought the guys were violating FAA rules they should have contacted the FAA and let them investigate and punish the drone pilots.

As it is the cops in question should be fired and charged for making a false police report.

Comment: Re:Obligatory Car Analogy (Score 4, Insightful) 302

There is no information that the drone tried to ram the helicopter, you are making that up. What information we do have indicates that the helicopter rushed the drone then gave chase when it left the area. From this the police charged the people with reckless endangerment because their helicopter got close to the drone. If there was reckless endangerment it was on the part of the police.

Baring other details being released IMO this isn't much different than the police arresting photographers photographing them for wiretapping or violating their privacy and other such nonsense. The police created this situation deliberately so they could charge the guys. Not much different than the video's of them screaming stop resisting while they beat someone unconsciousness that isn't resisting.

Comment: Re:What difference now does it make? :) Sunk costs (Score 5, Insightful) 354

by rahvin112 (#47420307) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

And most important of all and ignored totally by everyone is that every single plane the airforce has ever developed had these same growing pains. They all have massive cost overruns, groundings and unexplained crashes.

They've spent the bulk of the money quoted for the planes. All those R&D dollars are gone. At this point the planes cost about $120 million a piece to build, which isn't that much more than an F-18. That's nothing, but because they include the R&D that's already spent you end up with dollar amounts that look massive. The less we buy the higher the amortized costs are.

The F-35 is likely to be the last manned fighter ever produced. We've signed almost a dozen countries up to buy some and spread the costs out. It's going to totally streamline all the parts acquisition and maintenance and leave us with a single plane that handles almost every manned role. In time robotic aircraft or drones are going to take over all the dangerous roles. But that time is still decades off and we need something to keep our defense better than everyone else until that point. Air power and navy are two areas I have no problem with out government spending money on. They can be used to deny an enemy entry to the Americas and our separation from the Asian continent is one of the things that provides our best protection.

Comment: Re:better than what we have now (Score 1) 245

And he's Canadian for those that missed the joke. Or was, he surrendered his Canadian citizenship so he can pretend he's a real American. Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.

Comment: Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (Score 1) 464

But in the case of the Asiana crash the biggest problem were the meat bags in the seats. They weren't talking to each other, they didn't understand the systems they were using (one of the systems was telling them they were off the glide path for the entire landing and in fact was showing bigger and bigger divergence) and the lead pilot had only spent something like 40 hours flying a 777.

You can't design around stupid. Stupid people are far to ingenious. The biggest recommendation out of the safety review of the Asiana crash was that the pilots needed better training, in particular talking to each other, questioning each others actions and more flight time with the new systems including simulators.

The pilots actually set the autopilot at one point, this autopilot has only one function, that of maintaining an elevation. They did this thinking the autopilot would control the approach speed for them and it took them minutes to realize it wasn't doing anything (because that's not what it did). On top of this they thought they could pull a huge airliner out of a dive in less than 100' vertical (they waited until they only had 100' (30m) of elevation before trying to gun it and "go around"). That's like trying to make a u-turn in bus on a one lane road. Those are simply not things you can design around and I suspect there is very little you could do to prevent stupidity like that.

IMO it's not that much different than the Atlantic crash in the airbus where one pilot was flying correctly, the co-pilot was pulling back on his stick constantly and the computer was set to average the inputs. They didn't talk to each other and ignored 77 audible warnings that the plane was in stall. The plane literally fell 50,000 feet before it disintegrated. In that case there is at least an argument that the planes systems should have given feedback to each pilot that the other was doing the opposite of what they were doing. But even that is a band-aid over a meat bag problem where two humans aren't telling each other what they are doing and they both have their hands on the controls. You can't anticipate stupid where you expect capable and intelligent operators. This isn't an automobile where we hand anyone with an IQ of 60+ a license and set of keys. This is a system that's supposed to require tens of thousands of hours of flight instruction before you're ever even let touch the controls of a commercial flight and decades spent in the assistant seat before you're ever allowed to be in charge.

I think all this heavy automation can be a disaster waiting to happen if we aren't careful and require pilots to routinely fly the plane without the automated systems. They should be there only to assist the pilot and help prevent errors, not to the fly the plane, because if we want automated systems to fly the plane we should just get rid of the pilots completely.

Comment: Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (Score 1) 464

The transatlantic crash was blamed on lack of pilot/co-pilot communication. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick endlessly.

777 was apparently due to a cultural issue of the co-pilot refusing to question the pilot.

These are all issues with people, not the electronic systems. Something that can be solved with training. Two crashes out of 100,000 flights is not a trend.

Comment: Re:NO-NO-NO, a thousand times NO! (Score 1) 464

777 failed because the pilots ignored the warnings offered by the electronic systems, not because the electronic systems failed. The plane warned them a dozen times they were too low and they ignored it. This is just like the transatlantic flight that went down where the pilots listened to 77 warnings that they were in stall and did nothing to prevent it apparently because they thought they knew better than the electronic systems.

Comment: Re:And when the video feed dies... (Score 3, Insightful) 464

Pilots routinely fly on instruments these days anyway, this is particularly true and night and in bad weather where visibility is minimal to non-existent. Think of landing a plane in thick fog, an operation that is common these days. The scary thing would be loss of instruments and electronic control systems. That would require pretty much total failure of the electrical and hydraulic systems and the backup systems. Something I don't believe has happened in a commercial airliner in more than 20 years.

Though I agree with you, there should be windows for emergencies if they lose everything else and only have windows it's not going to be easy to land the plane because they'll have lost all instrumentation and hydraulic assist. That might be one of those times you just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...