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:Ya Think? (Score 1) 56

by sabri (#49185733) Attached to: US Air Traffic Control System Is Riddled With Vulnerabilities

You're just trying to impress everyone with you knowledge by pulling a regulation out of your hat.

Yes, this actually got me laid last night. Ain't that cool?

You actually need a damned compelling reason to exercise 91.3(b), which is why 91.3(c) exists. If you have been denied access to Class B / C / D (yep, they can deny you access), your engine quits, and you go gliding into the primary when you could have easily glided to a perfectly good airport, even a nice soft grassy field, outside the Class B for no reason other than you thought you could do whatever you want under 91.3(b)...you're fucked. In fact, even if that was the only reasonable option (other runway was too short, covered in clouds, mountainous terrain with no fields, whatever), you still better hope to hell no one can ever possibly blame you for the engine failure.

It's not that black and white. First of all, once I utter the words "I declare an emergency", or just squawk 7700, not a single controller will deny me class B clearance. They're trained to deal with the emergency first, handle the rest later.

Second, if I mess up in flight, that does not mean I deserve a death sentence by ATC denying me the best possible option to get out of my emergency. A very good example of this would be a VFR pilot flying into IMC. It is his own fault for getting in that situation, but ATC will do their best to help him out.

Yes, you may need to explain yourself to the FAA. But I rather be in the hot seat in front of the FAA than have my wife and kids say their last farewells.

You cannot exercise 91.3(b) if the emergency is your fault. If you forgot to switch tanks, cannot show that you were properly performing maintenance (like changing the oil), the FBO where you rented the airplane didn't do a 100 hour, whatever...you're fucked.

Total utter bullshit. You can exercise 91.3(b) at any time if the safety of the flight requires you to do so. Feel free to cite the rule that provides an exception for self-induced emergencies.

That does not say that you can do whatever the fuck you want. It means that the accountability comes afterwards, in the sense of "we have a number for you to call", once you're safely on the ground.

Comment: Re:Ya Think? (Score 1) 56

by sabri (#49183065) Attached to: US Air Traffic Control System Is Riddled With Vulnerabilities

Yeah, yeah, yeah. 14 CFR 91.3. Going by your logic, ATC has no job. Obviously, ATC's job is to safely operate the National Airspace System. 91.3 isn't going to get an airliner into a busy terminal through a layer of weather. When a pilot observes a conflict between an ATC clearance or regulation and the safety of flight, however, the pilot has the authority to deviate.

I don't think you get the idea behind 14 CFR 91.3.

Pilot makes mistake, pilot dies. Controller makes mistake, pilot dies. Pilot is the ultimate authority and thus has the ultimate responsibility over any flight. But he'll gladly take any help he can get.

I'm a big fan of ATC. I like flying in Bravo airspace. I like flight following when in Echo airspace. It helps me stay safe. But in the end, when I'm flying, I am flying.

Comment: Re:Ya Think? (Score 3, Informative) 56

by sabri (#49181839) Attached to: US Air Traffic Control System Is Riddled With Vulnerabilities

Getting everyone on the ground safely is the pilots' job. Keeping planes in the air safely is ATC's job.

Nope. Once an aircraft is moving on the ground under its own power, the flight has started and the pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility and authority over the safety of the flight. A pilot in command can deviate from any rule, clearance or law to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.

Comment: Re:Uh ...wat? (Score 3, Insightful) 422

It's using information to garner a public lynching response

which, in this particular case, was the best thing he could have done.

His only three alternatives were, in order of saneability:

- do nothing;
- go to a local police station and see the complaint archived in a desk;
- do what I probably have done and get a shotgun out to protect his little girl from threats of sexual assault and worse;

This guy is the best dad this girl could have right now.

Comment: Re:Because you're an idiot? (Score 1) 93

by sabri (#49169131) Attached to: New Seagate Shingled Hard Drive Teardown

The systems I'm buying now will be obsolete by the time SSD can even think about touching hard drives in terms of capacity per $. Typically, the ONLY reason to go full SSD now for large storage capacities is because you absolutely need the performance and are willing to pay essentially "whatever it costs" (at least 8x+ the price) because it's that important to get the IOPS. Maybe by the end of next year we'll get it down to "only" 4x the price (not counting that though because price per GB for large capacity hard drives still continutes to fall, balancing out a part of the cost reduction in SSDs).

You're right, but also somewhat wrong.

"Raw capacity" is indeed quite expensive. However, the increased speeds of flash have made it possible to provide in-line data reduction services. Data reduction is a widely used term for two techniques: de-duplication and compression. This works on a block level. When the host writes a block, the system will look in its table to see if that block has already been written. If so, it will simply write a pointer. If not, it will be forwarded to the compression engine and stored. In the storage industry, a data reduction ratio of 1:6 is accepted as generally achievable, with higher rates possible on large virtualization clusters. This means that the effect cost per GB is reduced dramatically and even reaches the price of high-end disks. So your 80TB raw capacity array will store ~300TB of data, depending on the data reduction ratio.

On top of that, since flash performs so well, other features such as continuous data protection by (a)synchronous replication are possible with very little performance degradation.

If you still doubt this technology, go have a look at the technological advances in hard drives, versus the technological advances of flash in the last 5 years. Hard drive vendors have very little to innovate while flash/rram are at the lower end of a hockey stick figure when it comes to innovation and price reduction. Within the next 5 years, flash/rram will replace disk, both in the enterprise as well as the consumer market.

I'd love to see your all-disk array do 2M IOPS, something that all flash arrays are capable of today. Again, at the price that (with dedupe and compression) comes darn close to your disks. Even legacy storage vendors are increasingly investing in solid state technology. Investing in disk is equal to investing in Greek government bonds.

Comment: Re:I don't think so... (Score 1) 58

Could the baseband access or change data on the Android partitions or the efs data? I'm not sure, but the articles suggest to me that they could.

I'm not sure either but if so then I sure hope that the developers of the Blackphone took precautions against that. I do agree with you that it could be a potential exploitable hole: very bad indeed!

Comment: Re:Let me guess (Score 1) 58

So apparently it does matter.

It looks like that what you're quoting concerns spyware on the SIM card, not the underlying OS on the phone/tablet.

In this discussion, the software running on the SIM card would be similar to the firmware on your cable modem. It no longer matters that your neighbors can see your traffic as long as everything you transmit is properly secured and encrypted.

Comment: Re: fees (Score 1) 389

The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?

Very fair points.

I think what we need to do is to create a public last-mile infrastructure, and let the rest up to the market. This works great in Europe, why wouldn't it work fine in the U.S.?

Comment: Re:The last mile should be regulated (Score 1) 389

Instead there should be a single last-mile network that is heavily regulated (including net neutrality) and then let the companies compete on everything else

Yes. Totally agree there. And that shouldn't be a problem either: on the last mile there is no oversubscription or other type of bandwidth issue.

In some European countries, this is happening. The incumbent telcos have to allow competitor ISPs to colocate DSLAMs in their street cabinets against reasonable fees. The small ISP will then be able to use the copper wire connecting the CPE equipment directly to their own DSLAM.

I wish this was possible in my community here. I'd be the first one to start an ISP.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 389

by sabri (#49154953) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling

Your switching stations on YOUR property are yours to do with as you please but only if 100% of the money spent on that equipment was yours and only if the property itself was a 100% capitalist sale and not gained from a court order. The other 99.99whatever% of the distance is not YOURS. It wasn't built on your land or even paid for by your company in many cases.

How a network was a acquired, is irrelevant. If I own a network, it is mine to do whatever I choose to do with it. If I want to throw everything on a big pile and burn it, that is my right (well, apart from the environmental consequences).

My network, my rules. And if you don't agree, don't get on my network.

Having that said, you should read my comment again. The whole point of my comment is that the FCC should make it easier for YOU to make that choice. YOU should be able to have a choice to switch to a competitor of mine who has rules that favor you instead of another company. The FCC is making it extremely difficult for me to start an ISP. I would love to quit my job and start an ISP that focuses on providing the best customer experience for a reasonable price, but it is virtually impossible to do so.

Net Neutrality rules are nothing more than forcing you to go to McDonalds every day, but at least they tell McDonalds that they can't take payment from Pepsico to make it impossible for you to have a Coke Zero with your meal.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 389

by sabri (#49154915) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling

Sure the government gives you the structure of corporations to protect you and sure the government provides you a legal structure for you to even have contracts with your customers,

I don't need the government for any of that.

but oh boy you get whiny if the government doesn't give you everything else too.

You have a very distorted sense of reality. I don't need anything from the government. I am saying that the government should stop taking something away, that is the right of me choosing in whatever way I wish to operate my own goddamn network. The government has no business in telling me what to do on my network.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 389

by sabri (#49154901) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling

FCC isn't stating how anyone can operate their networks. Net neutrality is about saying that corporations cannot screw customers at will.

Oh really? I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations. They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.

The government has no business telling me how to run my network.

You must be Republican.

I am not. I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization and against religious influences on the government. But I am an expert in the field of networking.

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...