Oh yes, the British government is ALWAYS correct. (SARCASM)
BTW, they only "allowed" it starting in February of 2015.
Moral decisions that only affect YOU can be made by you. Moral decisions that affect others should at least be brought up with the involved parties. Moral decisions that can affect a species should be looked at by at least a representative sample of the population. In non-direct democracies (most of the civilized world), that kind of job usually is done by the existing government.
There used to be a MAJORITY of Slashdot readers who knew what a file system was. There used to be a subset of Slashdot readers who actually contributed to open-source software like the Linux kernel. I miss Hemos and Commander Taco - the founders and original editors.
Then they went commercial (everybody needs to buy groceries). Then they were bought out, with the provision that the founders stay on. Eventually they moved on, then mergers and another sale to a , shall we say, a purely capitalist owner. Across all that the audience shifted after each change. Old dogs like me hardly recognize this place. (yes, I have a 5 digit ID#. Would have had a 4 digit if I had registered when it first became an option)
All that said, it is still kind of telling that you call Docker "esoteric". It has been covered on Slashdot and MANY other Internet technology sites LOTS of times within the last two years. Because you don't know what something is does not make it "esoteric". It simply means you don't know what something is, and like most of the younger generations, it CAN'T be your fault you didn't know. The awful editors MUST have made it that way. (SARCASM)
Try reading an industry-specific magazine like Aviation Week. I work in that field, and I occasionally don't recognize a term in it. But my mindset is, that if the editors assume the rest of the audience know what that term means, maybe I should, too.
So they have a record of who has rented the car. So it could be one of 50 people in the last 3 months at a busy tourist location. If 50 cars were tampered with and remote controlled, will the police be able to track back through all of those people? Obviously, the bad guys would need to use a different person/identity each time they rent a car. OR, even easier, they could compromise some of the minimum wage car cleaners, and have them connect the devices on every other car they work on. Or their manager tells them they need to. Or their manager gets a phishing email from corporate HQ and a crate full of CAN dongles.
Next, you create a bunch of Arduino-based devices with Bluetooth adapters (cheap if you go through Chinese suppliers) that send out "Throttle to 100%" commands continuously. Sprinkle them throughout the planters and harmless decorations around parking lots. Stick them to the bottom of the numerous parking lot trams. On the side of the parking lot attendants hut. Have them all start broadcasting a week later.
You are not thinking at a big enough scale. What if 5% of the rental cars in Orlando Florida went haywire during a two day period? Would that cause chaos? Almost sounds like a terrorist attack. Yes, it could be fixed and prevented. Yes, you might not kill many people. But in the mean time, Team Badguys publically announces they did it, and have the means to do it in another city. THEN the FEAR makes people act stupid and give in, or pass laws that remove liberties. I seem to remember that happening around 14 years ago.
That's exactly the problem - they can do it easily, and they might not get caught. The process can be scripted, then it can be automated to be done RAPIDLY. Perhaps even using a server inside the hospital.
Never underestimate the willingness of bored stupid self-absorbed idiots to do something that makes them feel powerful for little investment on their part.
You MIGHT get away with it so long as you thoroughly document that the patron provided the ENTIRE design AND all materials. Then demonstrate that you only provided your skills and tools, and that you are available for hire for other custom automobiles.
However, as my friend who was a screen printer told me, it can still lead to a costly legal defense for HIM if he "knowingly printed copyrighted or trademarked art". He said that being right, and paying a lawyer to prove you are right, are two different things. In his case, he was providing the materials, machines, labor, and often the final artwork. So his business would be facilitating, and profiting from the infringement. He also had personal concerns with copyright and trademark infringement. As an artist, he wouldn't want someone to rip HIM off.
One could argue that GM was negligent by using a switch that they eventually realized was not good enough. Their "crime" was trying to hide a failure mode that,by itself, is not directly regulated. Reporting the failures was what they didn't do. Whether they did it because they were cheap or lazy, we will never really know.
VW appears to have WILLFULLY deceived and circumvented federal emissions standards and laws. The emissions are directly regulated. Unless VW hangs out some poor programmer who did all of the bad code "strictly on his own".
As I mentioned in a reply to someone else, the criticism of the movie is valid, and pertinent. The "reasonable editing" whooshes right by the ill-informed non-NRA members. There are people who missed the visual edits and heard what they wanted to hear (translation "pearl-clutching suburban soccer moms"). Would it "detract from the art" if Moore had put up a sub-title with the location and date of the various speech segments? Not really. Why did Moore smoothly edit different speeches from before the tragedy and after it? The only logical conclusion was to create an all-encompassing "speech" that NEVER occurred. Personally I think showing and labeling multiple speeches over multiple years would present a more sound argument for the "unbending nature of the NRA". [Full disclosure, I am a member of the NRA]
Yes, there are many logical arguments to make that new gun-control laws will not "fix America". But it is disingenuous to say that pointing out that Moore's manipulation of speeches is "beside the point".
More specifically, the "cold dead hands" quote from Heston was not made at the speech after Columbine
With respect, Heston was famous/infamous for that quote before the movie so anyone that did not know that before watching it on first release was living under a rock - I think it he was even quoted on the Simpsons long before Columbine. It's obvious that he's got footage from several appearances of Heston from previous years, he's noticably younger, and there is really nothing to suggest that the viewer is supposed to think that it was all current with the production of the movie. Turning up at Heston's place to taunt him was a bit of a dick move on Moore's part and discredited the film a bit, but putting multiple appearances of Heston in the film was not. Heston did say what he said. Only people looking at it with no idea about the subject will get fooled the way you are suggesting Moore is "tricking" people.
That is EXACTLY the problem - a large percentage of the audience did "learn" about the "callous and uncaring NRA" from that movie. Remember, 50% of the population have below average intelligence. The representation in the movie ADDED to misconceptions held by people who already were afraid of guns. My citation/source is conversations with people.
Because the first AC in this tiny thread cast women as only worrying about changing web site colors, not computer security. Second AC didn't get the WHOOSH of the "joke" by first AC ( I hope it was a joke, otherwise the first AC is just a loathsome troll). I was bored and pointed out where the "joke" came from. First AC seized upon the fact that the example "coder" was a girl to make the joke fit over here. Then my explanation WHOOSHED over your head.
The article about how "anyone can code if they copy and paste from Google", is looked at with shaking heads and scorn by the traditional Slashdot crowd, because we know that creating HTML and CSS is NOT "coding". That is, it isn't "coding" when the mainstream press (and apparently the "super HTML coders" themselves) basically equate "coding" to "programming". HTML tags copied from a web page is barely equal to the skill level of a script kiddy.
Presentation and styling of a web page is not programming, so don't even try to make that argument.
I think people here have different definitions of the word "demo". One use of the word "demo" is what the manufacturers and sellers of all those cheap video playback devices and monitors want - something "cute and silly" to draw the attention of Joe the parent looking for something to mount in their mini-van. Or to show off color range and such.
Then there is the 3D graphics crowd (hardware makers, programmers, and artists), who think a "demo" is something "stunning" to show off every rendering and graphical trick the software and hardware can do.
Then there is the educational crowd that is trying to both show off and draw attention. They almost HAVE to choose "cute and silly" over "stunning", the VERY sensitive (and vocal when upset) audience.
I believe he is sarcastically referring to another Slashdot article where a young girl was lauded as a "coder" because she looked up CSS color codes on Google.
> Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141, whose design the drunkard Yeltsin sold to USA (L-M) for 300m USD in the late 1990s. L-M company had no experience whatsoever in vertical landing planes and relied on this tech import to compete against Boeing-BAE-Rolls-Royce, who bidded with the X-32 prototype as a very distant successor of the Harrier. L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics..
I find it hard to swallow that the F-35 is "based on" the Yak-141, since the Yak-141 has THREE separate engines in the airframe. L-M might have lifted some ideas from the Yak-141, but it is a very different airframe. It is rather to silly to think the problems the F-35 has stem from trying to make western avionics work in an eastern-designed airframe, since it isn't the same airframe.
Can you provide any evidence that the Navy operates the A-10? I found mention of ONE A-10 that the Navy modified to study meteorological conditions (strange).
Calling the aircraft grounding a "knee-jerk panic reaction" and 'utterly stupid" is silly. NOBODY (except the hijackers) knew how many planes were involved until every things was straightened out afterward. Grounding the planes was not solely to stop any other planes from hitting ground targets. It also kept the fighter intercept squadrons from having a bunch of extraneous clutter in the sky. It also was a PR move, in that people were literally panicking running away when they heard low-flying aircraft after the news broke. The length of the grounding is certainly up for debate, but the initial decision was sound.
One analogy you can make is that a SWAT team wants bystanders and other friendlies in a target building to stay low or flat. Anybody still standing up, and that isn't in a police uniform, is probably a threat. Anybody on the ground is also less likely to get hit when the officers shoot at the standing bad guys. (This plot device is in several movies of various calibers, the bad guys outfit themselves to match the police uniforms to escape in the confusion)
> Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141...snip...
L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics.
That really would have been an amazing trick, since the Yak-141 (aka Yak-41) had THREE engines. One main thrust engine, and two VTOL engines. The F-35 airframe has NO similarity to the Yak-141 except for the fact that it has wings and a cockpit. The three engine design is documented in several web pages and books about the Yak-141.
I have no love for the F-35 or JSF program. However, I have to call out arguments that are just patently wrong. I suppose it is possible L-M borrowed some VTOL ideas from the Yak-141. However, the F-35 is drastically different.
NO! This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this thread, and there are some doozies here.
This is a distribution that collects numerous security monitoring packages, as well as packages that are typically used for active network and computer penetration testing. The distro makers chose the name "Kali" to draw on the "sinister and powerful" imagery. (not bashing Hindu beliefs, but that is the perception of "Kali" to most western people)
I think perhaps your definition of "just another OLD guy" might not match that of people who are, in fact, old guys. I really can't imagine someone with a 7 digit Slashdot number thinking they are "old".
True, it wouldn't have cost the editors anything to include a simple parenthetical mention - something like "Kali Linux (the security and penetration testing distro)".
HOWEVER, it isn't completely unreasonable thing for a Slashdot editor to assume someone who has read Slashdot for a while (say, maybe 10 years) might have heard of Kali (and its predecessor Backtrack). Kali is rather well known to anyone who has anything to do with computer and network security. Which, is a rather large swath of the Slashdot community.
Right or wrong, the Slashdot editors have always tended to editing for non-casual readers. If you truly had been reading Slashdot for 10 years, you might have seen the three other articles that included it since it launched in 2013. Or the eight articles that mentioned Backtrack Linux since 2010. Or the four articles that occurred since 2005.
The surface of your "moderately shiny" metal will not stay shiny when subjected to the energy level we are talking about here. Just Google for videos of small-scale cutting lasers. This is FAR from the energy level of sunlight reflecting off a shiny car hood.
Or watch this video of a 500W laser cutting into a sheet "moderately shiny" metal.
More than one small-town police chief explained that a "free" MRAP was taking the place of him buying a $200,000 "bullet-proof" plain-Jane SWAT van, a month or so back during the first newspaper articles that were critical of the DOD equipment program. MRAPS aren't just protected from mines. It would be kind of silly to have a truck protect the soldiers inside from mines but not bullets.
Whether he needed a bullet-proof truck is a question for another forum, but the fact that he just avoided paying $200K for something is actually a "good thing".
I'm sure the $10 light is as resistant to impacts and weather, and has a switch rated for thousands of cycles. Yes, four digit flashlights sound crazy, until you consider the economies of scale for specialized equipment that "needs" to always work. How you define "always" and "needs" is what adds zeros on the right side of the cost. The US military writes crazy tough "requirements" that cost money just to prove how reliable your hardware is.
How did companies do things 20 years ago?
They racked up lots of frequent flyer miles, spent hours on long distance calls, and made FedEx a household name (and very profitable). Did I mention the conference calls where people on the East coast had to stay at work late to talk to people on the West Coast?
Perhaps the "each" for those items is a CASE. A SMALL case of cups, for example, is often a "gross" of cups. (12 dozen = 144).
Work in food service or a warehouse, you will learn that LOGISTICS is what makes a large organization work.
Air gaps work great and are cheap when they are only 3 feet wide- everywhere along the circumference of the inner "island".
When your "island" has to cover multiple states and time zones at the same time, it becomes very unwieldy to strictly maintain that air-gap. Why do you think the DOD classified networks cost so much and have so many regulations concerning them? Have you ever priced what REAL hardware encryptors cost?
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, they only "allowed" it starting in February of 2015.
Moral decisions that only affect YOU can be made by you. Moral decisions that affect others should at least be brought up with the involved parties. Moral decisions that can affect a species should be looked at by at least a representative sample of the population. In non-direct democracies (most of the civilized world), that kind of job usually is done by the existing government.
Then they went commercial (everybody needs to buy groceries). Then they were bought out, with the provision that the founders stay on. Eventually they moved on, then mergers and another sale to a , shall we say, a purely capitalist owner. Across all that the audience shifted after each change. Old dogs like me hardly recognize this place. (yes, I have a 5 digit ID#. Would have had a 4 digit if I had registered when it first became an option)
All that said, it is still kind of telling that you call Docker "esoteric". It has been covered on Slashdot and MANY other Internet technology sites LOTS of times within the last two years. Because you don't know what something is does not make it "esoteric". It simply means you don't know what something is, and like most of the younger generations, it CAN'T be your fault you didn't know. The awful editors MUST have made it that way. (SARCASM)
Try reading an industry-specific magazine like Aviation Week. I work in that field, and I occasionally don't recognize a term in it. But my mindset is, that if the editors assume the rest of the audience know what that term means, maybe I should, too.
So they have a record of who has rented the car. So it could be one of 50 people in the last 3 months at a busy tourist location. If 50 cars were tampered with and remote controlled, will the police be able to track back through all of those people? Obviously, the bad guys would need to use a different person/identity each time they rent a car. OR, even easier, they could compromise some of the minimum wage car cleaners, and have them connect the devices on every other car they work on. Or their manager tells them they need to. Or their manager gets a phishing email from corporate HQ and a crate full of CAN dongles.
Next, you create a bunch of Arduino-based devices with Bluetooth adapters (cheap if you go through Chinese suppliers) that send out "Throttle to 100%" commands continuously. Sprinkle them throughout the planters and harmless decorations around parking lots. Stick them to the bottom of the numerous parking lot trams. On the side of the parking lot attendants hut. Have them all start broadcasting a week later.
You are not thinking at a big enough scale. What if 5% of the rental cars in Orlando Florida went haywire during a two day period? Would that cause chaos? Almost sounds like a terrorist attack. Yes, it could be fixed and prevented. Yes, you might not kill many people. But in the mean time, Team Badguys publically announces they did it, and have the means to do it in another city. THEN the FEAR makes people act stupid and give in, or pass laws that remove liberties. I seem to remember that happening around 14 years ago.
That's exactly the problem - they can do it easily, and they might not get caught. The process can be scripted, then it can be automated to be done RAPIDLY. Perhaps even using a server inside the hospital.
Never underestimate the willingness of bored stupid self-absorbed idiots to do something that makes them feel powerful for little investment on their part.
You MIGHT get away with it so long as you thoroughly document that the patron provided the ENTIRE design AND all materials. Then demonstrate that you only provided your skills and tools, and that you are available for hire for other custom automobiles.
However, as my friend who was a screen printer told me, it can still lead to a costly legal defense for HIM if he "knowingly printed copyrighted or trademarked art". He said that being right, and paying a lawyer to prove you are right, are two different things. In his case, he was providing the materials, machines, labor, and often the final artwork. So his business would be facilitating, and profiting from the infringement. He also had personal concerns with copyright and trademark infringement. As an artist, he wouldn't want someone to rip HIM off.
One could argue that GM was negligent by using a switch that they eventually realized was not good enough. Their "crime" was trying to hide a failure mode that ,by itself, is not directly regulated. Reporting the failures was what they didn't do. Whether they did it because they were cheap or lazy, we will never really know.
VW appears to have WILLFULLY deceived and circumvented federal emissions standards and laws. The emissions are directly regulated. Unless VW hangs out some poor programmer who did all of the bad code "strictly on his own".
As I mentioned in a reply to someone else, the criticism of the movie is valid, and pertinent. The "reasonable editing" whooshes right by the ill-informed non-NRA members. There are people who missed the visual edits and heard what they wanted to hear (translation "pearl-clutching suburban soccer moms"). Would it "detract from the art" if Moore had put up a sub-title with the location and date of the various speech segments? Not really. Why did Moore smoothly edit different speeches from before the tragedy and after it? The only logical conclusion was to create an all-encompassing "speech" that NEVER occurred. Personally I think showing and labeling multiple speeches over multiple years would present a more sound argument for the "unbending nature of the NRA". [Full disclosure, I am a member of the NRA]
Yes, there are many logical arguments to make that new gun-control laws will not "fix America". But it is disingenuous to say that pointing out that Moore's manipulation of speeches is "beside the point".
With respect, Heston was famous/infamous for that quote before the movie so anyone that did not know that before watching it on first release was living under a rock - I think it he was even quoted on the Simpsons long before Columbine. It's obvious that he's got footage from several appearances of Heston from previous years, he's noticably younger, and there is really nothing to suggest that the viewer is supposed to think that it was all current with the production of the movie. Turning up at Heston's place to taunt him was a bit of a dick move on Moore's part and discredited the film a bit, but putting multiple appearances of Heston in the film was not. Heston did say what he said. Only people looking at it with no idea about the subject will get fooled the way you are suggesting Moore is "tricking" people.
That is EXACTLY the problem - a large percentage of the audience did "learn" about the "callous and uncaring NRA" from that movie. Remember, 50% of the population have below average intelligence. The representation in the movie ADDED to misconceptions held by people who already were afraid of guns. My citation/source is conversations with people.
Because the first AC in this tiny thread cast women as only worrying about changing web site colors, not computer security. Second AC didn't get the WHOOSH of the "joke" by first AC ( I hope it was a joke, otherwise the first AC is just a loathsome troll). I was bored and pointed out where the "joke" came from. First AC seized upon the fact that the example "coder" was a girl to make the joke fit over here. Then my explanation WHOOSHED over your head.
The article about how "anyone can code if they copy and paste from Google", is looked at with shaking heads and scorn by the traditional Slashdot crowd, because we know that creating HTML and CSS is NOT "coding". That is, it isn't "coding" when the mainstream press (and apparently the "super HTML coders" themselves) basically equate "coding" to "programming". HTML tags copied from a web page is barely equal to the skill level of a script kiddy.
Presentation and styling of a web page is not programming, so don't even try to make that argument.
I think people here have different definitions of the word "demo". One use of the word "demo" is what the manufacturers and sellers of all those cheap video playback devices and monitors want - something "cute and silly" to draw the attention of Joe the parent looking for something to mount in their mini-van. Or to show off color range and such.
Then there is the 3D graphics crowd (hardware makers, programmers, and artists), who think a "demo" is something "stunning" to show off every rendering and graphical trick the software and hardware can do.
Then there is the educational crowd that is trying to both show off and draw attention. They almost HAVE to choose "cute and silly" over "stunning", the VERY sensitive (and vocal when upset) audience.
I believe he is sarcastically referring to another Slashdot article where a young girl was lauded as a "coder" because she looked up CSS color codes on Google.
> Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141, whose design the drunkard Yeltsin sold to USA (L-M) for 300m USD in the late 1990s. L-M company had no experience whatsoever in vertical landing planes and relied on this tech import to compete against Boeing-BAE-Rolls-Royce, who bidded with the X-32 prototype as a very distant successor of the Harrier. L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics. .
I find it hard to swallow that the F-35 is "based on" the Yak-141, since the Yak-141 has THREE separate engines in the airframe. L-M might have lifted some ideas from the Yak-141, but it is a very different airframe. It is rather to silly to think the problems the F-35 has stem from trying to make western avionics work in an eastern-designed airframe, since it isn't the same airframe.
Can you provide any evidence that the Navy operates the A-10? I found mention of ONE A-10 that the Navy modified to study meteorological conditions (strange).
Calling the aircraft grounding a "knee-jerk panic reaction" and 'utterly stupid" is silly. NOBODY (except the hijackers) knew how many planes were involved until every things was straightened out afterward. Grounding the planes was not solely to stop any other planes from hitting ground targets. It also kept the fighter intercept squadrons from having a bunch of extraneous clutter in the sky. It also was a PR move, in that people were literally panicking running away when they heard low-flying aircraft after the news broke. The length of the grounding is certainly up for debate, but the initial decision was sound.
One analogy you can make is that a SWAT team wants bystanders and other friendlies in a target building to stay low or flat. Anybody still standing up, and that isn't in a police uniform, is probably a threat. Anybody on the ground is also less likely to get hit when the officers shoot at the standing bad guys. (This plot device is in several movies of various calibers, the bad guys outfit themselves to match the police uniforms to escape in the confusion)
> Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141 ...snip ...
L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics.
That really would have been an amazing trick, since the Yak-141 (aka Yak-41) had THREE engines. One main thrust engine, and two VTOL engines. The F-35 airframe has NO similarity to the Yak-141 except for the fact that it has wings and a cockpit. The three engine design is documented in several web pages and books about the Yak-141.
I have no love for the F-35 or JSF program. However, I have to call out arguments that are just patently wrong. I suppose it is possible L-M borrowed some VTOL ideas from the Yak-141. However, the F-35 is drastically different.
This is a distribution that collects numerous security monitoring packages, as well as packages that are typically used for active network and computer penetration testing. The distro makers chose the name "Kali" to draw on the "sinister and powerful" imagery. (not bashing Hindu beliefs, but that is the perception of "Kali" to most western people)
True, it wouldn't have cost the editors anything to include a simple parenthetical mention - something like "Kali Linux (the security and penetration testing distro)".
HOWEVER, it isn't completely unreasonable thing for a Slashdot editor to assume someone who has read Slashdot for a while (say, maybe 10 years) might have heard of Kali (and its predecessor Backtrack). Kali is rather well known to anyone who has anything to do with computer and network security. Which, is a rather large swath of the Slashdot community.
Right or wrong, the Slashdot editors have always tended to editing for non-casual readers. If you truly had been reading Slashdot for 10 years, you might have seen the three other articles that included it since it launched in 2013. Or the eight articles that mentioned Backtrack Linux since 2010. Or the four articles that occurred since 2005.
The surface of your "moderately shiny" metal will not stay shiny when subjected to the energy level we are talking about here. Just Google for videos of small-scale cutting lasers. This is FAR from the energy level of sunlight reflecting off a shiny car hood.
Or watch this video of a 500W laser cutting into a sheet "moderately shiny" metal.
More than one small-town police chief explained that a "free" MRAP was taking the place of him buying a $200,000 "bullet-proof" plain-Jane SWAT van, a month or so back during the first newspaper articles that were critical of the DOD equipment program. MRAPS aren't just protected from mines. It would be kind of silly to have a truck protect the soldiers inside from mines but not bullets.
Whether he needed a bullet-proof truck is a question for another forum, but the fact that he just avoided paying $200K for something is actually a "good thing".
I'm sure the $10 light is as resistant to impacts and weather, and has a switch rated for thousands of cycles. Yes, four digit flashlights sound crazy, until you consider the economies of scale for specialized equipment that "needs" to always work. How you define "always" and "needs" is what adds zeros on the right side of the cost. The US military writes crazy tough "requirements" that cost money just to prove how reliable your hardware is.
How did companies do things 20 years ago?
They racked up lots of frequent flyer miles, spent hours on long distance calls, and made FedEx a household name (and very profitable). Did I mention the conference calls where people on the East coast had to stay at work late to talk to people on the West Coast?
Because people have converted tracked vehicles to fight forest fires.
See this for an example: M548/M1015 Full Tracked Vehicle
I was just going to mention the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Please, someone throw some MOD POINTS!
Perhaps the "each" for those items is a CASE. A SMALL case of cups, for example, is often a "gross" of cups. (12 dozen = 144).
Work in food service or a warehouse, you will learn that LOGISTICS is what makes a large organization work.
Air gaps work great and are cheap when they are only 3 feet wide- everywhere along the circumference of the inner "island".
When your "island" has to cover multiple states and time zones at the same time, it becomes very unwieldy to strictly maintain that air-gap. Why do you think the DOD classified networks cost so much and have so many regulations concerning them? Have you ever priced what REAL hardware encryptors cost?