Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely (Score 1) 272

Actually, they did the best they could with what they had, and what they were allowed to do. As they clearly said in the episode, putting a bomb in an actual flying plane at altitude is absolutely not allowed -- no one will fly it, and the FAA won't let it in US airspace. (and they don't have the budget to blow up a fully functional 747.)

In almost every documented case, the people blown out of the plane are either not strapped in properly, or their seat went with them. In every case I'm aware of where some nut does get a bomb on board, it doesn't rip the plane in half; it makes a small hole and the plane lands safely minus the bomber (who goes out their new hole) and maybe a nearby passenger or crew member.

Comment Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely (Score 1) 272

Oh, it's been tried. It just doesn't f'ing work. The amount of explosives required, and their precise positioning, is not something anyone is likely to ever be able to carry out. (getting enough idiots to do it isn't the issue. getting the multiple bricks of C4 on the plane, into place, and detonated at the same time...)

Comment Re:Thanks Samsung! (Score 1) 272

From history. This is far from a new idea. It used to be a lot easier as laptops were bigger and their batteries were bigger. Security screeners the world over have been trained to look for explosives in everything for many, MANY decades. The ability to do any serious damage, however, is still just as limited. (hint: blowing out a window won't destroy the plane or "suck anyone out".) You'd have much better luck climbing into the avionics bay and blowing up some of the computers. Sure, you'd kill a few people, etc. but the plane isn't going to fall out of the sky Lost style.

Plus, iGadgets are very tiny devices these days. How much boom-juice can you get in one? About 1% of what you'd need to kill a plane.

Comment Re:I've noticed that, but something else interesti (Score 2) 158

Those aren't errors in the GPS, but the data it's working with. If it doesn't know about a road, it won't tell you drive down it. If it doesn't know about time restrictions, or construction, or accidents, etc., etc. If we're talking about Waze, then I to have say that's not "GPS"; it's more of a "well, no one else is driving here, so go here!" system.

We validate what the GPS is telling us to do, but we don't ignore it's instructions and plan our own path. If one can't turn left, they pass the turn and wait for the GPS to figure things out. If you can't get in the correct lane in time, again, no panic, just keep driving until the GPS recalculates.

My favorite was the old Lexus GPS. It knows there are roads, and draws lines on the screen, but "has no data" on them so will not navigate over them. (and fills the screen with endless warnings so you can't see any of the little grey lines)

Comment Re:I've noticed that, but something else interesti (Score 1) 158

Nope. That's exactly the thing. We trust the computer and will blindly follow it over a cliff. The passenger, being human, is just as fallible as the driver, so we don't trust it. The computer will NEVER forget to tell you about a turn; the passenger most definitely can (and will.)

Comment Re: Maps technology is lost... (Score 3, Insightful) 158

Exactly. They really had to research that the parts of the brain that handle navigation aren't active when we aren't navigating?!? That's part of the reason we use a GPS in the first place... so we don't have to think about it. (the key reason being, we don't have a clue where the hell we're going.)

Comment Re:A MAC is not necessarily unique (Score 1) 56

By design, they're supposed to be unique. Manufacturers aren't supposed to "recycle" an OUI, but I've heard some lesser known Chinese companies have. The likelihood of having a collision is nearly zero. Now, if you start "randomly" generating your own MACs, the probability of collisions goes way up. (30 years and counting, I've never seen two NICs with the same MAC -- well, that I hadn't messed with, or were broken (all 0's))

Assuming a built-in-address is unique is a safe bet. Assuming a made up one is unique is going to be a problem eventually.

Comment Re:Just build hydrostatic batteries (water towers) (Score 1) 142

Except for the whole using water towers BS. That'll be even more impossible to get past locals than converting a large portion of a mountain top into a lake. Hell, they had a fit over a telescope that would've used a few acres; such a thing will need a few HUNDRED acres.

Comment Re:makes sense for resource poor areas (Score 1) 142

They could if they bothered to make simple, economical cars. Instead, Musk wants to make expensive, Unicorn inspired crap. (The key issue is the $10k worth of batteries a car needs.) The model 3, if they ever get around to making them, is a step in the right direction, but it's still seriously overpriced.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain