Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Birds... (Score 1) 42

If a bird shaped / massed object presents a serious hazard to your aircraft, then your aircraft was never safe to begin with. Don't take me wrong, I'm all for responsible drone ownership and flying, however if you are seriously worried about the ability of a 2 lb drone to take down your aircraft, you should be much more worried about the 10lb canadian goose you are just as likely to hit.

First of all, aircraft fire fighting is EXTREMELY dangerous. Whether it's a helicopter long lining a Bambi bucket, or being in a water tanker dropping water on a fire, it requires extremely skilled pilots. And this is without the distraction that a fire causes - smoke, turbulence caused by the flames (they are nothing like what you get at 30,000 feet), flying low to the ground, etc.

Most aircraft are under 500' above the ground. You need to be extremely skillful when flying this low, and you feel the flames - the rising hot air are shoving your aircraft around, so it's already hard enough keeping blue side up. Then as you release your load, your aircraft's balance shifts and you have to compensate as well as try to fly your lines Oh yeah, did I mention it was smoky so you can't always see clearly out? And there's no map accurate enough so your only protection against flying into terrain is well, the Mk. 1 Eyeball?

In fact, ti's so dangerous there's an aircraft always hanging around overhead - acting as air traffic control so they control and manage aircraft timing, spacing and noting where to attack the fire as well as keeping a general eye on everything in cas something flares up. Everyone is under control in the immediate area.

The problem with a drone is it's not under positive control - who knows where the operator may fly. It's not just damaging the aircraft, but also distracting the pilots who are just trying to keep things under control. If it lands in an engine and takes it out, that aircraft and its crew may land right in the middle of the flames (there's no where to go at 500' AGL). Or it might break through the windshield and seriously distract the pilots.

Perhaps a good way to make conditions relatable to IT workers is imagine trying to write code in the middle of a call center. You have to write your code, but phones are ringing off the hook, people are chatting loudly, and then some idiot starts banging on your keyboard.

It's already a difficult and risky working environment. Drones simply add a risk element that could turn a rescuer into a victim, and that's the last thing anyone needs. It's why SAR often suspend activity when it gets too dangerous, too - because the last thing in the world you want is to make things worse and increase the number of people needing rescue.

Oh, and a crash during a wildfire can spawn more wildfires.

Comment Re:Non-sequitor (Score 1) 90

The recommendation doesn't make sense. Yes, your phone may not always be in your possession. That would rule out software authenticators too, since they reside on the same phone that may not always be in your possession. Even dedicated hardware tokens may not always be in your possession, they can be lost or stolen just like a phone. So if not being always in your possession is the criteria, then all of the NIST's recommended methods fail to meet it.

The summary is poorly worded. It's not YOU in possession of your phone, it's your PHONE in possession of the PHONE NUMBER. The idea is this - if you're going to do SMS as a verification, NIST recommends checking that the phone number you're sending the SMS to is actually the phone you intend to send it to.

There is another problem with SMS 2FA that isn't covered in this document, and is much easier to pull off: It is currently too easy to social engineer phone companies to move service to a new device. This has happened recently to several execs to allow script kiddies to take over social media accounts that are using SMS 2-factor.

No, that's what NIST is talking about. Your phone may not be in possession of the phone number.

Basically what NIST is saying is that phone numbers don't lead to a specific phone. They lead to A phone, but not necessarily the phone you think it goes to. This is especially as modern phone systems allow trivial movement of phone numbers to anything that can provide voice service.

Comment Re:should be ready when it's ready (Score 1) 68

It'll be ready when scaled up. Unlike flying cars, which have no current path to commercial viability. That's the point. It works, and would be commercially ready for small screens now, but that's not where the profit is.

It already is. Ultra-D technology offers glasses free 3D on screens 50" and 65" screens. It's been featured at CES and it's fairly impressive.

It's got a wide 3D viewing angle (120 degrees - 60 degrees off perpendicular each side), and from 120 through 178 degrees, it degrades into a 2D image, so no matter where you are, if you can see the screen, you can see an image. Unlike some other technologies (like the Nintendo 3DS), it never goes unviewable.

Comment Re:Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 1) 81

You are never obliged to report crimes to the police unless you're a mandatory reporter (basically, doctors, social workers and teachers) and the crime is on the mandatory reporting list (child abuse, and that's about it). If you're not a mandatory reporter, then you don't have to report anything for any reason ever. It's actually constitutional, by the way. It's part of the fifth amendment. Basically, the fifth amendment means you can always keep your mouth shut in case you accidentally say something incriminating. In fact, the mandatory reporting requirement has never been tested, and I think is likely unconstitutional.

Additionally, your understanding of accessory is a bit off. To be an accessory, you must know about the crime and provide material aid toward the commission of that crime and there has to be an accessory statute for that crime. For example, if you give a ride to a dude who then commits a murder but you didn't know about the murder, you're fine. If you pick him up afterwards, find out about the murder, and hide him, you're now an accessory after the fact. Another example, you stand in front of a camera so your friend can shoplift, you're not an accessory. Why? Because there's not a statute making being an accessory to shoplifting a crime (in most states; some states have a more general accessory to a crime law which would cover it). You may, however, be guilty of something else like conspiracy to commit fraud, or may even be considered a shoplifter under some statutes, but not an accessory. Final example, you find out about a friend committing a robbery and don't report it to the cops. You're not an accessory, since there's no material aid.

Comment Re:Even if it is money, I get it.... (Score 1) 81

You are never obliged to report crimes to the police unless you're a mandatory reporter (basically, doctors, social workers and teachers) and the crime is on the mandatory reporting list (child abuse, and that's about it). If you're not a mandatory reporter, then you don't have to report anything for any reason ever. It's actually constitutional, by the way. It's part of the fifth amendment. Basically, the fifth amendment means you can always keep your mouth shut in case you accidentally say something incriminating. In fact, the mandatory reporting requirement has never been tested, and I think is likely unconstitutional.

Comment From where does the FAA get power to regulate it? (Score 1) 21

I'm curious:

Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.

(Similarly with the FCC and radio signals that are too weak to be decoded outside the state of origin or substantially interfere with reasonable interstate services. Sure "radio goes on forever". But so does sound - with the same inverse-square law and similar interference characteristics - and we get along just fine without federal regulation of speech and bullhorns.)

Comment Re: The fix is in (Score 1) 178

Bernie supporters got swindled out of 220+ million dollars to see Bernie be a shill for Hillary.

So if someone named Bernie "made off" with your money, should you be

    A. mad at Bernie,

    B. mad at yourself for letting yourself getting swindled,

    C. mad at the system, OR

    D. all of the above
Just curious...

or

E. mad at the Russians (This choice was paid for by the Clinton Campaign)

Interesting theory. So Clinton must have paid a pretty penny to Putin for some compromising pictures of Bernie to convince him fold like a cheap suit...

Comment Re:A good reason not to use fingerprint unlocking (Score 1) 198

Is there any good reason to even use Touch ID or other fingerprint unlocks instead of just using a password or passcode?

Less chance of someone seeing you typing in your passcode.

When I used to use a passcode, I had the phone lock after an hour of not having been used. With the fingerprint sensor, it locks immediately when it goes to sleep, and then requires the code after not having been used for 8 hours. I'm comfortable with this, and consider it an improvement...

Comment Re:It's not money... not unlike US green back (Score 5, Insightful) 81

Which isn't saying much, as that ten dollar bill is fiat money, and is good only so long as the government's credibility holds up (which for the US government is ... well, not very well.)

Every country in the world is trying to put their wealth in dollars. US government credibility (or rather, the credibility of the US treasury and the Fed) is pretty goddamn high.

Comment Home Gold sounds similar (Score 1) 132

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Do you mean 3 adults or what? If it is a shared household of 3 adults then they can pay for their OWN PS+. If it is an adult and kids, then the adult can decided if they want their kids to have online multiplayer, or not.

I meant either way. A lot of people quote the raw sticker price of a console in arguments but fail to take into account the additional price of online multiplayer, especially in the era of a TV in every bedroom. Do games on either current console even support LAN multiplayer?

But PS+ accounts are per user [etc.]

tl;dr: PS+ on PlayStation 4 covers the user's primary console and other consoles that the user logs in to. Thank you for the explanation. After a bit of research, it appears Xbox Live Gold on Xbox One works the same way, and they call it "Home Gold".

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...