Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:My answer (Score 1) 525

It is definitely not the case at DUB or GLA, both of which certainly handle international traffic. DUB also handles some international transfer traffic - it actually has US Immigration there that you go through /before/ boarding a US bound flight.

If it really is generally the case, then I suspect you're confused about what "European" generally means (possibly you actually mean "Schengen" area). I'm still sceptical though. Can you provide a citation? :)

Comment Re:My answer (Score 1) 525

Amen to this, security at Schiphol is getting ridiculous and annoying. They took a bottle of water off us when we transferred, even though we had bought it airside at our departing airport. The immigration control to get to the Schengen area is also annoying - long queues. The Marchaussee check-point (customs/immigration) is slow, and the dumb phony-exploding-water security check there-after is often even slower - causing further slow-down at the Marchaussee check-point. :(

Comment Re:inequality (Score 1) 1063

Scotland is still suffering from the effects of its de-industrialisation. The lowlands and its central belt particularly, used to be home to much labour intensive, heavy industry - steel, shipyards, mining, heavy engineering. The industry is gone, but the people (or their descendants) largely remain. Thus there are many pockets of poverty around. Life expectancy can be extremely low there, due to substance abuse particularly. The area of Glasgow I live in, Calton, has the lowest male life expectancy in the UK - 53.9 years!

Scotland is a special case, and is dealing with some tough social problems that are a legacy of how the world around it has changed over the last 60 years. Scotland has excellent health care though, I've found. They spend quite a lot on social health-care, relative to rest of UK. That the life expectancy is still low is due to that poverty and attendant education and life-choices that seem to correlate with that.

Comment Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score 1) 449

My understanding is that these liquid explosives are difficult even for trained technicians to mix under controlled laboratory conditions, never mind dumb foot soldiers trying to do this in an aircraft toilet. For the UK liquid bomb plot trial, the UK government produced demonstration videos of the power of these bombs, however I thought I read somewhere that those producing that demo actually had great difficulty making it work. Unfortunately, I can't a good ref for this now, so...

Comment Re:The argument against regulation ... (Score 1) 449

without proof that such emissions will actually harm someone.

There is plenty of proof that various kinds of emissions, those from combustion particularly, cause harm. E.g. start with death rate statistics from London in the 50s when they had terrible smog during some winters, when cold air trapped emissions. Large numbers of people *died*, quite obviously directly due to the smog - animals were falling down dead. This was the impetus for regulation of emissions there. Similar stories elsewhere.

Comment Re:but (Score 1) 449

Oh, my father's take on mobile/cell phones being banned was that it was done to protect the *ground* GSM networks - not the aircraft. Having many thousands of phones in the air, in range of tens, maybe hundreds of GSM cells would have put a strain on, perhaps overloaded, the GSM networks. Also, he's heard that "tu duh duh duh tu duh" kind of interference in his headphones, from the mobile phones of passengers roaming. Which potentially could be a safety hazard - though that was in an older aircraft without any complex, modern electronic control systems or cockpit instruments.

Comment Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score 1) 449

This isn't a terribly uncommon problem, and the fault is often the sensors in the wheel wells. I can ask my (retired) airline captain father for more details if you wish. I've had mobile/cell phone conversations with him in the late 90s, where he was phoning home from the cockpit. ;)

Comment Re:Pilots... (Score 1) 449

You are making rationalisations about RF interference by making an analogy to water sinking boats? Your post is a prime example of the fallacy of arguing by analogy - or "argumentum ad vehiculum" as I like to call it, because of how often the analogies relate to cars. The actual NYT article, which the somewhat-stupid, dogmatically anti-regulation blog linked to, even mentions that RF interference does not work additively this way.

Comment Re:Not surprised at all (Score 1) 179

Yes, something like SecureBoot possibly could be a piece of a system that guarantees the operation of code - though, it need not be either (e.g. the hardware could come with a formal proof or model, and a checker could verify the loaded code follows the proof - not caring where it comes from).

However, SecureBoot is not that system, nor does SecureBoot of itself get you any closer to that system.

E.g. how many systems get their boot path compromised, without the exploitation of any software bugs? That's basically never the case with malware. If you can compromise a system, you can find a way to have some apparently innocuous data file exploit a bug in some code that interprets it to inject code (JPEG parsers, Flash, JavaScript, etc.. take your pick, the list is endless - they're all buggy, cause we don't know how to write bug-free code), and then take-over the machine - that will work for the initial exploit and it will work to re-exploit the machine after reboots. SecureBoot just doesn't do anything to stop this, and these are scenarios which exploits already regularly use.

SecureBoot doesn't stop the bad guys. It will only stop the less-technical, more ordinary users from using their computers the way they want.

Comment Re:Not surprised at all (Score 1) 179

No, it can not. SecureBoot verifies the code image was the one that was intended, *prior* to that code being run. SecureBoot can say nothing about what happens when that code runs. In particular, SecureBoot will not protect you from the code being modified or replaced once it is running, by design or (the typical case for security compromises) through the bugs that are rife in any non-trivial body of code. To make guarantees about the correct operation of code and be able to verify it is free of bugs that would allow the code to be replaced would require formal verification. That's a near impossible task generally.

"even if malware loaded into memory into runtime" - so you recognise this can happen, yet still can claim SecureBoot protects against it? A reboot doesn't protect, because the system can just be compromised again (e.g. by some apparently innocuous application, or even a data file that gets interpreted automatically by an application that has a bug, thus allowing code injection and further exploitation of kernels bugs - as there have been in, e.g., Javascript and Flash interpreters).

SecureBoot does not fix the problem that end-users want it to. However, SecureBoot certainly walks us down a path where large corporates could make life difficult for end-users. MS might not be able to make SecureBoot mandatory for now, for legacy compatability reasons, but do not doubt they will when they can. SecureBoot is already *mandatory* on ARM systems, in order to be supported by MS Windows there.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?