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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Really? (Score 1) 44

He does have a point in that anything owned and operated by the general public tends to be maintained to a lower standard than anything owned and operated in an industry which has rigorous maintenance standards and penalties for not following them, such as the airline industry...

Nobody is trying to sell flying cars to the mass public- yet? I hope not, too. The flying cars which will actually be overhead any time soon will all belong to corporations, possibly the ride"sharing" companies, maybe taxi companies. Maybe Google, or Amazon, who knows.

Even with private aircraft and pilots, the pre-flight walk rounds can take more time than the flight - precisely because it is necessary to ensure some level of safety.

Well, it's going to be a whole lot less necessary with aircraft which resemble nothing so much as a scaled up R/C quadcopter. Presumably most of them will be at least octocopters, with at least one design which is supposedly going to be in the air immediately using a four-boom octo design. They're all solid state and have only a handful of moving parts, and wear of bearings can be measured using microphones. Batteries will be continually monitored (as in, 24x7x365) and evaluated by software so that their condition is always known. Any component which seems the least bit iffy will be swapped out (trivially) so that the aircraft can be restored to service.

I still don't look forward to seeing them overhead, I think that there are better solutions. But maintenance is actually the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about allowed areas, flight paths, fundamental hardware and software design issues, etc. The hardware is actually pretty simple, but that doesn't mean people won't get it wrong. The software is not simple, and there's lots of room to botch it.

Comment Re:Look at all the anti vehicle protection round p (Score 2) 44

If flying cars are available the defenses will be useless.

They already are, if that's what you mean by useless. It's already possible to practice flying in simulation, then get some manuals and learn how to actually start up a plane, then stroll onto an airfield someplace and steal one since so many of them have basically no security.

You won't be allowed to control a flying taxi manually, and they will be totally dependent on their computers to fly so you're not going to be trivially overriding them from inside the cockpit.

Comment Typically Boring Comment (Score 3, Interesting) 44

He also doesn't like them because his company, The Boring Company, wants to provide a competing transportation solution.

He also doesn't like them because people will report on that, and then people will talk about his boring company. It's extremely profitable dislike.

On the other hand, I agree with him. Adding more air traffic is inefficient at best.

On the third hand, there's probably plenty of places where tunnels won't work. That's not a reason not to build tunnels where they will work, but we still need something which handles those situations. I still like elevated PRT.

Comment Re:One man's picky is another man's prudent (Score 1) 77

But the wealthy told us that if we gave them all of our money, they would create jobs!

Seriously, the element missing from your story is that they're spending people's retirement funds on this shit while the one-percenters are literally just sitting on cash that could be invested in such business ventures. Didn't they tell us that's what they were going to do with the money? Invest it, and create jobs?

Comment Re:So do tell (Score 1) 130

The last military contract I worked on -- a number of decades ago -- was a system that ran on a computer built to military standards using discrete transistors -- none of those fancy IC things. It was nowhere near as powerful as the PC-XTs in our office. But it would run equally poorly in the Arctic in January or the Middle East in July. And the computer would probably survive being inadvertently dropped off a truck by some high school dropout then run over by the next two vehicles in the convoy.

Sure, but for the price of maintaining an antique, you could probably put a more modern computer in every pocket...

Comment Re:4 out of 30 are French (Score 1) 61

The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been.

What? And also what? The republicans are much worse. Much, much worse. Democrats occasionally try to help people. Republicans only try to help corporations. It's true that the Democrats lost because their leaders are corporate tools, but calm your hyperbole there, son.

Comment Re: Not a big deal (Score 2) 112

I hope for your sake and for the rest of the democrats that you do some good soul searching prior to 2018 & 2020... otherwise you will be trounced again.

The DNC is still up to the same old tricks, refusing to support genuinely leftists candidates in favor of centrist tools of the corporatocracy. So yeah, expect a repeat.

Comment Hmm (Score 1) 193

1.) Artificial intelligence is already getting smarter than us, at an exponential rate. 2.) We'll make AIs into a general purpose intelligence, like our own. 3.) We can make human intelligence in silicon. 4.) Intelligence can be expanded without limit. 5.) Once we have exploding superintelligence it can solve most of our problems.

1. no 2. probably 3. probably 4. probably 5. probably not, it will most likely use us for axle grease as we will otherwise compete for resources and we won't be good for anything else.

Comment Re:firewall (Score 1) 115

Of course the problem can be reduced if we were allowed to control a root level firewall on our android or iphone devices.

On Android, DroidWall, AutoProxy and others use iptables. IOW, you can control a root level firewall on your Android devices. I doubt you can do it on iOS, but I wouldn't know because I don't actually care.

Comment Re:Open ports (Score 2) 115

Open ports are not by themselves a security risk.

Not by themselves, but there's no such thing as an open port by itself. We're obviously talking about listening, so we need not discuss ports opened outward, although there are definitely ways to compromise an application in reverse, so opening a TCP connection outward is an opportunity for an incoming attack, if you connect to a host which is malicious (whether inherently, or because it has been compromised.) But at minimum, listening ports provide an opportunity to attack the networking stack of the device, and the application (or daemon, etc etc.) which opened the port. So yes, open ports absolutely do increase your security risk. If there are zero open ports on the device, then the only parts of the networking subsystem with which you interface are the network interface and its driver, which means there's less opportunity to exploit a vulnerability.

Saying open ports are not a security risk is like saying that open windows are not a security risk. What? Of course they are.

Comment Re:What's the immigration status of these families (Score 1) 177

NO, illegal immigrants are people who have NO LEGAL RIGHT to be in the country.

Sadly, the people who are really fucking up the country have every legal right to be here. Illegal immigrants don't even make the needle twitch compared to, say, Republican voters. Unless they are also voters, but when we go looking for voter fraud, we generally just find Republicans.

Slashdot Top Deals

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't have a fix. -- Rhett Buggler

Working...