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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:A "safety feature" (Score 1) 30 30

It's interesting as the unique tail section was actually touted as a "safety feature" by the company. I'm not necessarily saying it can't be the case, but like any feature, even a safety feature (see: exploding airbags), defects or improper use can cause more harm than in it's absence.

An improperly implemented safety feature (emergency ballast blow system) contributed to the loss of USS Thresher... In the same way, the Apollo 1 crew died (in part) because of a system (a well locked down hatch) that had been installed to prevent a repeat of an earlier accident. (Which, by morbid coincidence, one of the crew had been involved in.)
 

It's a bit strange, as it seems like such a fundamental error - not some obscure feature that could be overlooked. What pilot would say to himself "Hey, I know I'm supposed to unlock the tail at time X, but what the hell, why not just do it now?" It seems really strange that they wouldn't have precise procedures for this, since it's such a critical part of the entire design.

It's not so much that, as the pilot appears to have become confused due to a) the simulator not properly conditioning them, b) lack of recent and overall experience with the vehicle, and c) high cockpit workload at that point in the flight compounding a) and b). At least that's how I read the report. (The abstract and summary of which is not clearly linked of the summary or TFA but which can be found here.)

From my experience in the Navy, I can say that obtaining those reflexes isn't easy, and neither is maintaining them (regardless of experience).

Comment Re:If there was a criteria for safe unlocking (Score 1) 30 30

If there was a criteria for safe unlocking of the hinged tail section then why wasn't it interlocked until the criteria was satisfied?

There are problems with interlocks that aren't often appreciated by the armchair engineer. They add weight and complexity to a system. They themselves can fail. They add to the maintenance burden. They add to training, Etc... etc... TANSTAAFL.
 

A bigger error here is reliance on operator training. It's the least reliable form of ensuring a certain outcome.

Yet, for being the least reliable, it's a method that works very well - presuming the operator is properly trained.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 374 374

And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions.

Wrong. Martin Luther King, Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony did NOT go to prison. They were arrested, booked and released. MLK spent some time in a local jail, but that's not the same as being sent to prison.

A better example for Snowden would be Daniel Ellsberg, who is now seen as a hero.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 4, Insightful) 374 374

He should have gone on the Sunday talk shows and say, "the government is doing really sleazy, illegal and unconstitutional shit, and I am violating my oath and the law by telling you exactly what they are."

When your oath to the government requires you to keep government wrongdoing secret, the problem is not with the whistleblower, but with the government.

Comment Re:Urg. (Score 1) 30 30

Worth adding is that the answers to someone's "security" questions often are easily obtained with just a small bit of social engineering.

Yep. Even easier if the information ("correct" answers) are available via Google.

But also, since you're already using unique passwords ... and the crackers managed to get your password ... how did they do that and would that have also yielded your "security" answers.

Their thinking seems to be:

1. So, one username / password isn't enough.

2. A second password should be enough, but it will use the same username as in #1.

3. And that second password should be SUGGESTED to be based upon something that can be researched / socially engineered / tricked out of the person.

4. And entered using the same channel as #1.

Okay, if you cannot get two factor authentication then at least use a different email address for each bank AND ONLY FOR THAT BANK. Email addresses are free. And always use completely unique passwords. Not bankname1 and bankname2.

The same for the "security" questions. Always completely unique.

If you have to write them down, do so. Just keep the paper in a secure location. It's far less likely that someone will break into your house to look for passwords than it is that someone will crack your computer.

Comment Re:Yeah, be a man! (Score 1) 374 374

The government, not wanting to validate that the information he leaked is indeed accurate, have not named the people he's gotten murdered. There's a list; it's not short.

And you've seen this list? You know about it because Raymond Reddington told you about it?

Nobody got killed because of anything Edward Snowden has done. Can you say the same about any American president in the past - I don't know - two hundred fucking years?

Comment Urg. (Score 4, Informative) 30 30

Robin Miller: One thing that I think my wife and I are doing right: we don't have a bank anymore, we have a credit union, a local credit union and they do use secondary authorization on everything, you have to not just know the account number and the password, but you also need to know the answers to fairly obscure questions about our past, what year teacher was your favorite in what grade, things like that. Does that help?

NO!!! It does NOT!!!

1. It does not because that information can be collected at other sites controlled by crackers. So unless you enter incorrect information (which is, in effect just another password) then it is useless.

2. It is still on your computer. So if your computer is cracked then the crackers get your username / password / favourite-dog-food / whatever.

3. Find a bank / credit union that uses real two factor authentication.

Comment Mod parent up. (Score 2, Interesting) 374 374

Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.

Exactly.

If the end result of civil disobedience is the exact same in the USofA as in North Korea ... then what is the difference?

The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.

And THAT is a very big problem.

A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant.

Working...