Not so fast. Degrees are not useless. Sure the technology learned when earning the degree might be obsolete by the time you get out and actually find a job, but the advantage of the degree is NOT the tools, it's the learning of the *process* of software development. It's about the mindset and not about the specific tools you use.
Now if you only learned the tools when you got your degree, it was worthless, but most degree programs do much more than produce coders fluent in the language of the day. They should teach you the basics of data structures, how to convert your algebraic equations into code, some of the classic algorithms for sorting and such. They should teach you HOW a computer actually works and what your code makes is do. In the end you should be able to DESIGN a program not just code one up. The better degree programs also teach you how to teach yourself which is a life skill a programmer will ALWAYS need, and most HS graduates have never mastered.
So formal schooling (2 or 4 more years) has much value.
Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. T
I disagree with you. I assume you are serious and are referring to the antichrist controlling all buying and selling during the tribulation in an effort to get people to take the mark of the beast. If so, I'd like to point out something to you..
First, it's going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot change prophecy, or adjust the fulfillment of it so why are you up in arms over this? It's out of your control.
Second, most believers I know are not expecting to be here during the tribulation period. The most common interpretation of Daniel and Revelation I know teaches that the Church (i.e. believers living and dead) are caught up in the rapture and removed from the earth PRIOR to the start of the tribulation. Following that is at least 3 1/2 years before the antichrist sets up his full power structure and starts forcing people to take the mark. I'm out of here by then.
So, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not going to be here for the events covered in Revelation and the 40th week of Daniel.
Now if you are just joking... Don't quit you day job..
A repair mission was pretty much impossible. A rescue mission might have been, but as others will be sure to point out this would have been risky and didn't stand a very good chance of success. But it was ONLY possible had they known for sure the damage was terminal and had started the rescue mission right after the launch. Given they didn't really know the extent of the damage, trying a reentry was pretty much the only option. I don't begrudge the mission controllers for going though with it.
Astronauts know the risks they take all too well. They fully accept the risk that they may not come home, and that death may not be quick. Many of the modes of death they face are quick. But some are slow lingering affairs. I cannot imagine dying of Hypoxia in a cold soundless metal cylinder, knowing what was coming, but having no options.
But heroes are like that. For the sake of the mission they take risks we would never imagine. Astronauts are rare, not because they number only a few, but because of what they choose to do in spite of the risks.
As I heard recently, the proper answer for when a law enforcement officer asks you the time is "I'm sorry, I'll have to consult my lawyer"... what a shame.
I would revise that statement to the following: "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now? If the officer indicates you may not leave, ask "Am I under arrest?" if they say "no" then ask "May I leave now?" Answer all questions the same way until you are allowed to leave or they arrest you. If they arrest you, THEN you say: "Respectfully officer, I request my lawyer be present before I answer any of your question. " If they say you may leave, LEAVE! Above all, DON'T answer questions until your lawyer tells you to.
Further, if an officer asks to search or "look" though your stuff, you say "Respectfully officer, I do not consent to a search of anything. May I leave now?" (etc) NEVER consent to a search or answer ANY question be CLEAR and FIRM but RESPECTFUL when you respond and ALWAYS obey commands they give. Don't get in their way, just keep answering their questions by refusing to answer and not allowing any searches.
Answering police questions or allowing searches can NEVER help you but the CAN hurt you, even if you don't think you've done anything wrong. Remember the Police can lie to you and what they *say* they are investigating may not be true and you have no way to know. Best to just keep quite and not allow searches.
NOBODY flies at better than CAT 3b, which is still not "land itself" but allows you to land with RVR as low as 50 meters. Which means you have to have a pilot and at least 50 meters visibility to get the thing on the ground.
Land itself would be CAT 3c, which is not allowed anywhere in the world.
The best you will usually see is CAT 1, even on most commercial aircraft. Few will have CAT 2 equipment. Most crews will only be certified to CAT 2 at best, mainly because they don't need anything better 99.99% of the time and the cost of keeping the aircraft and crew certified is pretty high. For most routes, it's cheaper to put a planeload of passengers on a buss on occasion, than eat the costs of keeping everything current, even at CAT 2.
I'd be careful with "all" in your statement. No they ALL cannot land themselves. Many commercial aircraft are supplied with CAT 3 capacity, but not ALL of them. I would contend that *most* commercial aircraft are NOT delivered with CAT 3 equipment, because it is pretty expensive and usually unnecessary. In fact most new commercial aircraft only carry only ILS certified avionics packages.
And I'd like to point out that "land itself" is a bit misleading, even for CAT 3. Yes, the aircraft can touch down and even stop itself, but without the pilot, even a Cat 3 capable aircraft isn't going to land itself. The equipment only is capable of doing the flying (stick, rudder, throttle) the REST of the aircraft's systems are still the pilot's duties (Flaps, spoilers, auto-breaking settings, landing gear etc). Not to mention that a CAT 3 approach is going to require the pilot to position the aircraft to be at the correct altitude, airspeed and heading over the initial approach fix before the automation will take over.
So it's not ALL commercial aircraft that come properly equipped and even with the equipment there is a need for a pilot to run the other systems (like putting the gear down..) and get you on the ground.
Announcement after take off on a commercial fight:
"Welcome aboard ladies and gentlemen for our flight to Chicago." (continues to discuss the flight altitude, weather in Chicago etc.)
"And one final announcement before you sit back and enjoy your flight. This airline believes in advanced technology and we are pleased to tell you that you are on the FIRST fully automated commercial flight to fly without pilots. We have thought of every eventuality and have programmed the autopilot to deal with each and every one. Please don't worry... Nothing Can go wrong....
Yea, it was, and it wasn't them messing with the automated landing system. They where messing with the ILS, which is decidedly NOT category III capable.
FYI I believe airplanes are capable of landing themselves
Yes and no. Sure gravity will eventually win and you WILL land, walking away can be a problem, having a flyable aircraft is slightly more of an issue.
Landing airplanes is not that difficult if you have a basic idea about what's going on and how the controls work. Throttle back and keep the thing fairly level and you are going to land. The real issue though is knowing how to get the airplane to hit the ground WHERE you want it to while in the configuration necessary. In a Cessna 150, where the landing configuration is pretty much set for you, getting lined up on glide path and speed can be hard the first few times, but the margin for error when facing a 200' wide 8,000' long runway is huge. A skilled pilot can land one of these on 10' wide 200' long strip but the margin for error is about zero. Commercial aircraft are usually high performance turbine powered affairs. They land on 100'x5000' runways all the time, but the margin for error is pretty low and the configuration of the aircraft quite specific.
Where I'm not saying a neophyte couldn't take the controls of a commercial aircraft and land with coaching, I'm am claiming that this is a high risk thing to try. The bigger and faster the airplane, the lower chance of this being successful.
Apparently, have you tried to get 8mm film developed quick these days?
Seriously, it takes time for this stuff to wind its way though the verification process. Just because you have a bright flash on some video doesn't mean you actually saw something worth reporting. Such claims require some verification, and verification takes time.
So, this company wants you to work for them and take LESS, but they are promising you a better opportunity? I suppose it *might* be true, but I'd be worried about going backwards unless you are changing careers or work locations.
If you are worried enough about this to consult the sages of SlashDot and actually TAKE some stranger's advice, I suggest you ask the prospective employer for more money (say exactly what you make now) and failing that, keep looking. If they really want you, they will pay, if they won't pay, they don't really want you that bad.
NEVER go backwards without a reason that is tangible if you can help it. It hardly ever pays you back.
And the Marines are just the Navy's policemen. Yea, yea.
Remember the Air Force used to be PART OF THE ARMY and the NAVY existed 100+ before the guys in blue. Also remember that the Navy flies too, only they use 1,000 foot long runways that float around and does just about EVERYTHING the guys in Blue can. The Air Force rarely uses anything under 6,000 foot, so who has the better pilots?
Ah, the old flame wars of old, BEFORE we had the internet, before we had FIDONET, before we even had modems and computers..
Problem is there is GRAVE risk in this "investment" from many fronts.
Sure, buy low (after bad news) and sell high (after the recovery) is a winning play. But it assumes three things we are NOT assured of with BitCoin.
1. It won't go down after you buy it on MORE bad news - BTC seems to be getting bad news more and more often these days. Eventually it just will keep going down.
2. It must RISE enough to make a profit - BTC does seem to cycle, but you must be able to invest enough and it must rise enough for you to clear your transaction costs and make a profit. Like in #1, if we keep getting bad news, eventually confidence will fail and BTC with it.
3. You MUST be able to actually get the trades to take place when YOU wanted - This means that you must convert TO BTC and then FROM BTC when it is profitable for you. Recently there has been issues with DOS attacks on the BTC exchanges which slowed down transactions. This would slow down your buy and sell and add risk to your trades because liquidity of the commodity is not assured.
If you want to gamble with BTC, PLEASE don't do it with money you cannot afford to loose, and I mean that. Think of it as entertainment, like hitting the slots, and DON'T bet your savings, your kids college funds or your retirement money on this. If you have some spare change and you want to play, great, just remember you hare having fun. When it starts getting serious or you are stressing over it, cash out.
Does anyone still think bitcoins are worth anything more than Monopoly money?
Actually, You can at least burn the Monopoly money and generate heat to boil water to cook with, so it's MORE valuable than bitcoin. Ok, Ok.. I'm done laughing here, but not having any BitCoin is sure looking like a good idea now.
That's how free market correction is supposed to work, right?
And it does if you let it. We already have safety standards for cars. You either meet them, or you cannot sell your car to the public. Things like seat belts, tail lights and emergency brakes are all mandated features. But none of these things make a car safe. Additional software requirements would be the same, they'd be regulations you'd have to show you meet, but not really all that helpful for true safety of the complex system integration a car involves.
Manufacturers are inclined to produce reliable, safe cars by the profit motive. Many cars have proven to be unsafe, or at the very least the public believed them to be unsafe. The builders of these cars couldn't sell them or had to discount them and didn't make money so they stopped. You can bet that these manufacturers don't want to take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to design a car and the manufacturing process to build it only for it to be unsafe or unreliable. They will go out of business if they do this too often or continue to push out inherently unsafe cars they cannot sell.
So I think market forces will correct such things. And the court system is there for when manufacturers mess up (or can't prove they didn't). Both are huge incentives for keeping manufacturers on track.
As I recall this conversation, I was saying "TURN IT OFF". You said, "but you can't because it is a push button". Then I said "put it in neutral" to which you objected "The engine will blow!" to which I said "The ECU will prevent that" to which you reply "But not all cars have ECU's" which had me saying "Then it doesn't have a push button, so turn it off". Now you are saying I don't 'get' what an ECU is or how they work?
As with all things, it's *training* you will fall back on in panic situations. My complaint about "drivers education" is valid. Emergency situations should be drilled and proper coping techniques taught and practiced. You need to do it once or twice, then if you happen on a situation like this you KNOW what to do and if you hit a situation you haven't thought about, you know what you CAN do. Turning the key off fixes a LOT of stuff that can go wrong and knowing how a car drives and brakes w/o the engine running is a GOOD thing to know>
Flight training is replete with training and drilling the student pilot on the standard emergency situations that they should NEVER find themselves in if they are careful. Departure stalls are one that stands out in my mind because they where HARD for me. But I went up and practiced them until I mastered them because there was that chance I'd get in a situation where I got distracted on departure, close to the ground with full power applied nearly stalled I'd know what to do, instantly. Guess what, stall training SAVED MY LIFE at least once. Not that I stalled, but that I RECOGNIZED the stall was about to happen and I knew what to do, (which is NOT intuitive by the way).
Yea, some folks panic and freeze, you cannot help them much. But with training and experience, doing the right thing is possible for most of us.
IF you don't have an ECU (Engine Control Unit), chances are you don't have push button start either. So we have come full circle, just turn off the key.
And I learned how to drive in a 56 Chevy truck, complete with a clutch, when I was 12. I was driving for 4 years before I got my license, albeit in the fields on the farm. It was also around this time I learned to work on engines (cars, tractors, trucks, lawnmowers etc) so I have a reasonable understanding of what's going on. Subsequently I've received a degree in electrical engineering, so I'm not totally unaware of how all this automation works.
To be sure, there certainly are many, many ways to break an egg, but this article is specifically talking about device-resident code that would take care of bricking the phone for you...no need to mess with HLR's. One-stop shopping, as it were:)
If so, they are barking up the WRONG tree. We don't want the handset software to do the banning. Banning an ESN is *easy* compared to what they are describing here. Carriers only have to check the ESN registry when the handset gets turned on, if it's not "bad" and a it has a valid SIM so you know who to bill, it's good to go. The other advantages is that it is NOT reversible by the criminal, while re-flashing the phone is something they might be able to accomplish. Yet, upon recovery of a stolen phone, a bad ESN registry might allow for the reinstatement of of an ESN by the owner so they can use it again.
"SHIELD demands a tool that costs less than a penny per unit, yet makes counterfeiting too expensive and technically difficult to do"
and at the same time
"What SHIELD is seeking is a very advanced piece of hardware that will offer an on-demand authentication method never before available to the supply chain"
These appear to be mutually exclusive.
I don't think so. At least DARPA thinks it's possible to do. Despite being government engineers, the guys and gals at DARPA are a fairly bright bunch.
For digital systems, I'm thinking that there might be a way to put a small amount of ROM and logic that responds to specific stimulus in ways that are not easily duplicated if you don't know the logic design. Put a little bit of state information in the mix and it wouldn't be that hard to pragmatically validate the part, but hard to duplicate said part.
No, no, no! This is Slashdot, we need a car analogy:
Does relying on pre-made rubber tires make you a bad driver?
No, but it does make you a BAD mechanic.. You mean you don't make your OWN tires, mount them with a crow bar, balance them by spinning them on your finger using lead you smelted yourself? Shesh!
Slashdot Mirror
Degree? Useless.
Not so fast. Degrees are not useless. Sure the technology learned when earning the degree might be obsolete by the time you get out and actually find a job, but the advantage of the degree is NOT the tools, it's the learning of the *process* of software development. It's about the mindset and not about the specific tools you use.
Now if you only learned the tools when you got your degree, it was worthless, but most degree programs do much more than produce coders fluent in the language of the day. They should teach you the basics of data structures, how to convert your algebraic equations into code, some of the classic algorithms for sorting and such. They should teach you HOW a computer actually works and what your code makes is do. In the end you should be able to DESIGN a program not just code one up. The better degree programs also teach you how to teach yourself which is a life skill a programmer will ALWAYS need, and most HS graduates have never mastered.
So formal schooling (2 or 4 more years) has much value.
Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. T
I disagree with you. I assume you are serious and are referring to the antichrist controlling all buying and selling during the tribulation in an effort to get people to take the mark of the beast. If so, I'd like to point out something to you..
First, it's going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot change prophecy, or adjust the fulfillment of it so why are you up in arms over this? It's out of your control.
Second, most believers I know are not expecting to be here during the tribulation period. The most common interpretation of Daniel and Revelation I know teaches that the Church (i.e. believers living and dead) are caught up in the rapture and removed from the earth PRIOR to the start of the tribulation. Following that is at least 3 1/2 years before the antichrist sets up his full power structure and starts forcing people to take the mark. I'm out of here by then.
So, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not going to be here for the events covered in Revelation and the 40th week of Daniel.
Now if you are just joking... Don't quit you day job..
A repair mission was pretty much impossible. A rescue mission might have been, but as others will be sure to point out this would have been risky and didn't stand a very good chance of success. But it was ONLY possible had they known for sure the damage was terminal and had started the rescue mission right after the launch. Given they didn't really know the extent of the damage, trying a reentry was pretty much the only option. I don't begrudge the mission controllers for going though with it.
Astronauts know the risks they take all too well. They fully accept the risk that they may not come home, and that death may not be quick. Many of the modes of death they face are quick. But some are slow lingering affairs. I cannot imagine dying of Hypoxia in a cold soundless metal cylinder, knowing what was coming, but having no options.
But heroes are like that. For the sake of the mission they take risks we would never imagine. Astronauts are rare, not because they number only a few, but because of what they choose to do in spite of the risks.
As I heard recently, the proper answer for when a law enforcement officer asks you the time is "I'm sorry, I'll have to consult my lawyer"... what a shame.
I would revise that statement to the following: "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now? If the officer indicates you may not leave, ask "Am I under arrest?" if they say "no" then ask "May I leave now?" Answer all questions the same way until you are allowed to leave or they arrest you. If they arrest you, THEN you say: "Respectfully officer, I request my lawyer be present before I answer any of your question. " If they say you may leave, LEAVE! Above all, DON'T answer questions until your lawyer tells you to.
Further, if an officer asks to search or "look" though your stuff, you say "Respectfully officer, I do not consent to a search of anything. May I leave now?" (etc) NEVER consent to a search or answer ANY question be CLEAR and FIRM but RESPECTFUL when you respond and ALWAYS obey commands they give. Don't get in their way, just keep answering their questions by refusing to answer and not allowing any searches.
Answering police questions or allowing searches can NEVER help you but the CAN hurt you, even if you don't think you've done anything wrong. Remember the Police can lie to you and what they *say* they are investigating may not be true and you have no way to know. Best to just keep quite and not allow searches.
One more thing..
NOBODY flies at better than CAT 3b, which is still not "land itself" but allows you to land with RVR as low as 50 meters. Which means you have to have a pilot and at least 50 meters visibility to get the thing on the ground.
Land itself would be CAT 3c, which is not allowed anywhere in the world.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
The best you will usually see is CAT 1, even on most commercial aircraft. Few will have CAT 2 equipment. Most crews will only be certified to CAT 2 at best, mainly because they don't need anything better 99.99% of the time and the cost of keeping the aircraft and crew certified is pretty high. For most routes, it's cheaper to put a planeload of passengers on a buss on occasion, than eat the costs of keeping everything current, even at CAT 2.
I'd be careful with "all" in your statement. No they ALL cannot land themselves. Many commercial aircraft are supplied with CAT 3 capacity, but not ALL of them. I would contend that *most* commercial aircraft are NOT delivered with CAT 3 equipment, because it is pretty expensive and usually unnecessary. In fact most new commercial aircraft only carry only ILS certified avionics packages.
And I'd like to point out that "land itself" is a bit misleading, even for CAT 3. Yes, the aircraft can touch down and even stop itself, but without the pilot, even a Cat 3 capable aircraft isn't going to land itself. The equipment only is capable of doing the flying (stick, rudder, throttle) the REST of the aircraft's systems are still the pilot's duties (Flaps, spoilers, auto-breaking settings, landing gear etc). Not to mention that a CAT 3 approach is going to require the pilot to position the aircraft to be at the correct altitude, airspeed and heading over the initial approach fix before the automation will take over.
So it's not ALL commercial aircraft that come properly equipped and even with the equipment there is a need for a pilot to run the other systems (like putting the gear down..) and get you on the ground.
Announcement after take off on a commercial fight:
"Welcome aboard ladies and gentlemen for our flight to Chicago." (continues to discuss the flight altitude, weather in Chicago etc.)
"And one final announcement before you sit back and enjoy your flight. This airline believes in advanced technology and we are pleased to tell you that you are on the FIRST fully automated commercial flight to fly without pilots. We have thought of every eventuality and have programmed the autopilot to deal with each and every one. Please don't worry... Nothing Can go wrong....
(click) Go wrong.....
(click) Go Wrong...... "
LOL, I'm pretty sure that was a Die Hard movie.
Yea, it was, and it wasn't them messing with the automated landing system. They where messing with the ILS, which is decidedly NOT category III capable.
FYI I believe airplanes are capable of landing themselves
Yes and no. Sure gravity will eventually win and you WILL land, walking away can be a problem, having a flyable aircraft is slightly more of an issue.
Landing airplanes is not that difficult if you have a basic idea about what's going on and how the controls work. Throttle back and keep the thing fairly level and you are going to land. The real issue though is knowing how to get the airplane to hit the ground WHERE you want it to while in the configuration necessary. In a Cessna 150, where the landing configuration is pretty much set for you, getting lined up on glide path and speed can be hard the first few times, but the margin for error when facing a 200' wide 8,000' long runway is huge. A skilled pilot can land one of these on 10' wide 200' long strip but the margin for error is about zero. Commercial aircraft are usually high performance turbine powered affairs. They land on 100'x5000' runways all the time, but the margin for error is pretty low and the configuration of the aircraft quite specific.
Where I'm not saying a neophyte couldn't take the controls of a commercial aircraft and land with coaching, I'm am claiming that this is a high risk thing to try. The bigger and faster the airplane, the lower chance of this being successful.
Apparently, have you tried to get 8mm film developed quick these days?
Seriously, it takes time for this stuff to wind its way though the verification process. Just because you have a bright flash on some video doesn't mean you actually saw something worth reporting. Such claims require some verification, and verification takes time.
So the sky IS falling? Apparently it is on the moon...
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
So, this company wants you to work for them and take LESS, but they are promising you a better opportunity? I suppose it *might* be true, but I'd be worried about going backwards unless you are changing careers or work locations.
If you are worried enough about this to consult the sages of SlashDot and actually TAKE some stranger's advice, I suggest you ask the prospective employer for more money (say exactly what you make now) and failing that, keep looking. If they really want you, they will pay, if they won't pay, they don't really want you that bad.
NEVER go backwards without a reason that is tangible if you can help it. It hardly ever pays you back.
And the ARMY has the flame throwers so they win Flame wars..
That's no lady, that's YOUR wife!
Stick around folks, I'm here all day!
And the Marines are just the Navy's policemen. Yea, yea.
Remember the Air Force used to be PART OF THE ARMY and the NAVY existed 100+ before the guys in blue. Also remember that the Navy flies too, only they use 1,000 foot long runways that float around and does just about EVERYTHING the guys in Blue can. The Air Force rarely uses anything under 6,000 foot, so who has the better pilots?
Ah, the old flame wars of old, BEFORE we had the internet, before we had FIDONET, before we even had modems and computers..
Problem is there is GRAVE risk in this "investment" from many fronts.
Sure, buy low (after bad news) and sell high (after the recovery) is a winning play. But it assumes three things we are NOT assured of with BitCoin.
1. It won't go down after you buy it on MORE bad news - BTC seems to be getting bad news more and more often these days. Eventually it just will keep going down.
2. It must RISE enough to make a profit - BTC does seem to cycle, but you must be able to invest enough and it must rise enough for you to clear your transaction costs and make a profit. Like in #1, if we keep getting bad news, eventually confidence will fail and BTC with it.
3. You MUST be able to actually get the trades to take place when YOU wanted - This means that you must convert TO BTC and then FROM BTC when it is profitable for you. Recently there has been issues with DOS attacks on the BTC exchanges which slowed down transactions. This would slow down your buy and sell and add risk to your trades because liquidity of the commodity is not assured.
If you want to gamble with BTC, PLEASE don't do it with money you cannot afford to loose, and I mean that. Think of it as entertainment, like hitting the slots, and DON'T bet your savings, your kids college funds or your retirement money on this. If you have some spare change and you want to play, great, just remember you hare having fun. When it starts getting serious or you are stressing over it, cash out.
Does anyone still think bitcoins are worth anything more than Monopoly money?
Actually, You can at least burn the Monopoly money and generate heat to boil water to cook with, so it's MORE valuable than bitcoin. Ok, Ok.. I'm done laughing here, but not having any BitCoin is sure looking like a good idea now.
That's how free market correction is supposed to work, right?
And it does if you let it. We already have safety standards for cars. You either meet them, or you cannot sell your car to the public. Things like seat belts, tail lights and emergency brakes are all mandated features. But none of these things make a car safe. Additional software requirements would be the same, they'd be regulations you'd have to show you meet, but not really all that helpful for true safety of the complex system integration a car involves.
Manufacturers are inclined to produce reliable, safe cars by the profit motive. Many cars have proven to be unsafe, or at the very least the public believed them to be unsafe. The builders of these cars couldn't sell them or had to discount them and didn't make money so they stopped. You can bet that these manufacturers don't want to take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to design a car and the manufacturing process to build it only for it to be unsafe or unreliable. They will go out of business if they do this too often or continue to push out inherently unsafe cars they cannot sell.
So I think market forces will correct such things. And the court system is there for when manufacturers mess up (or can't prove they didn't). Both are huge incentives for keeping manufacturers on track.
As kindly as I can..
As I recall this conversation, I was saying "TURN IT OFF". You said, "but you can't because it is a push button". Then I said "put it in neutral" to which you objected "The engine will blow!" to which I said "The ECU will prevent that" to which you reply "But not all cars have ECU's" which had me saying "Then it doesn't have a push button, so turn it off". Now you are saying I don't 'get' what an ECU is or how they work?
Troll much?
Full stop (as in I'm done here)
As with all things, it's *training* you will fall back on in panic situations. My complaint about "drivers education" is valid. Emergency situations should be drilled and proper coping techniques taught and practiced. You need to do it once or twice, then if you happen on a situation like this you KNOW what to do and if you hit a situation you haven't thought about, you know what you CAN do. Turning the key off fixes a LOT of stuff that can go wrong and knowing how a car drives and brakes w/o the engine running is a GOOD thing to know>
Flight training is replete with training and drilling the student pilot on the standard emergency situations that they should NEVER find themselves in if they are careful. Departure stalls are one that stands out in my mind because they where HARD for me. But I went up and practiced them until I mastered them because there was that chance I'd get in a situation where I got distracted on departure, close to the ground with full power applied nearly stalled I'd know what to do, instantly. Guess what, stall training SAVED MY LIFE at least once. Not that I stalled, but that I RECOGNIZED the stall was about to happen and I knew what to do, (which is NOT intuitive by the way).
Yea, some folks panic and freeze, you cannot help them much. But with training and experience, doing the right thing is possible for most of us.
IF you don't have an ECU (Engine Control Unit), chances are you don't have push button start either. So we have come full circle, just turn off the key.
And I learned how to drive in a 56 Chevy truck, complete with a clutch, when I was 12. I was driving for 4 years before I got my license, albeit in the fields on the farm. It was also around this time I learned to work on engines (cars, tractors, trucks, lawnmowers etc) so I have a reasonable understanding of what's going on. Subsequently I've received a degree in electrical engineering, so I'm not totally unaware of how all this automation works.
Yea, he's either a crook or a cook...
To be sure, there certainly are many, many ways to break an egg, but this article is specifically talking about device-resident code that would take care of bricking the phone for you...no need to mess with HLR's. One-stop shopping, as it were :)
If so, they are barking up the WRONG tree. We don't want the handset software to do the banning. Banning an ESN is *easy* compared to what they are describing here. Carriers only have to check the ESN registry when the handset gets turned on, if it's not "bad" and a it has a valid SIM so you know who to bill, it's good to go. The other advantages is that it is NOT reversible by the criminal, while re-flashing the phone is something they might be able to accomplish. Yet, upon recovery of a stolen phone, a bad ESN registry might allow for the reinstatement of of an ESN by the owner so they can use it again.
"SHIELD demands a tool that costs less than a penny per unit, yet makes counterfeiting too expensive and technically difficult to do"
and at the same time
"What SHIELD is seeking is a very advanced piece of hardware that will offer an on-demand authentication method never before available to the supply chain"
These appear to be mutually exclusive.
I don't think so. At least DARPA thinks it's possible to do. Despite being government engineers, the guys and gals at DARPA are a fairly bright bunch.
For digital systems, I'm thinking that there might be a way to put a small amount of ROM and logic that responds to specific stimulus in ways that are not easily duplicated if you don't know the logic design. Put a little bit of state information in the mix and it wouldn't be that hard to pragmatically validate the part, but hard to duplicate said part.
... vi you insensitive clod!
Only as necessary to get EMACS running!
So Now we have a CLASSIC flame war!
Viva La Unix! & FLAME ON!
No, no, no! This is Slashdot, we need a car analogy:
Does relying on pre-made rubber tires make you a bad driver?
No, but it does make you a BAD mechanic.. You mean you don't make your OWN tires, mount them with a crow bar, balance them by spinning them on your finger using lead you smelted yourself? Shesh!