No, this is very much analogous to one stupid and evil American "cultural difference." Swiss "cash culture" will massively enable crime, just like American "gun culture." And just as in the US, the consequences the Swiss feel at home will be just the tip of the iceberg of international crime enabled by their "unique culture," and they will profit from it (international banking for white-collar criminals in Switzerland; and gun manufacture and the security services/products that make a weak attempt at addressing the dangers of every yahoo being armed in the US).
No. The FAA will need to have a metallurgist on staff, and all aircraft should have their metallurgy reviewed. I thought we were talking about the known flaws in the 737 Max 8. So in the big picture, yes, the FAA will need to have a wide range of professionals on staff, as they have in the past. That's the price of safe air travel and it has proven to be affordable.
One fucking amateur pilot could've caught this problem, but again, a suitable level of regulation has been in place in the past and could be again. This problem can be fixed without any metallurgy knowledge.
Or just one guy with some aeronautical engineering experience. Maybe an amateur pilot who can put 2+2 together. This isn't a complicated problem that takes an Apollo 11 team to identify and fix, this is Babby's First Lesson in Avionics, and Boeing failed it the moment they were left unsupervised. The airline industry and its customers have paid for the required level of regulation in the past. And how the hell did metallurgy get involved in a software and training problem?
Maybe, upon review, said something like "Hey, why does this system have redundant sensors but flip out if only one of them malfunctions? Is it safe that it will completely and silently override the pilot's controls even at maximum opposite input? Shouldn't pilots have extensive training on how to deactivate this system in case it malfunctions? And why the fuck is it that on an aircraft with a glass cockpit, the indicator to warn that this system is malfunctioning is an optional physical gauge cluster that costs as much as a high-end sports car?"
A slight variant of the "those who can't do, teach" argument - which is obviously fallacious or nobody would ever be qualified to do anything. And we'd be having these disasters all the time and not just as a result of lapses in regulation.
As a bit of an aircraft enthusiast you lost the gamble in assuming I didn't understand the system. This issue isn't even that complicated, Boeing failed to design the system to use redundant sensors correctly, even though they were present, and then skimped on error-checking systems and pilot training requirements to try to save money for their customers.
The FAA can pay anyone just as easily as Boeing, isn't the government full of overpaid bureaucrats after all?
The 737 Max 8 disaster should be the final nail in the coffin of the idiotic idea of self-regulation. Boeing didn't stop themselves from making relatively basic mistakes even though they knew it could cost them dearly, which it did. How could anyone continue to defend self-regulation after this?
You make the same mistake as raymorris, in asserting that most users even notice the difference between HTTP and HTTPS. They don't, which is why browsers have green lock indicators etc.
Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?
The green lock is there because the user doesn't know the difference between http: and https: in the URL bar. As such, the browser should display the green lock for an HTTPS connection with a valid cert and not display one for an HTTP connection or an HTTPS connection with an invalid cert. It's even easier for your RasPi to MITM an HTTP connection, but the browser will happily use that protocol without complaint.
The problem is that you suggest the common user can tell the difference between a cardboard box and a safe. They can't (thus the green locks and such), and yet we're still treating a safe with potentially no lock (or potentially the best lock of all, if you roll your own cert, verify keys out-of-band, and save them) as a less secure container than a cardboard box. Which it in no way is.
It's incredibly stupid that browsers don't make a peep about plaintext HTTP connections, but go into full "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!1" alert for HTTPS connections with a self-signed or invalid cert. In what way could the latter possibly be less secure than the former?
Just like health care, they throw the good of the population under the bus to protect existing industries that profit from the horribly broken status quo. And a large chunk of the population has been tricked into liking it that way.
Well then we'll have to do away with laws against death threats, copyright enforcement, doxxing/revenge porn, and privacy in general, not to mention any seditious libel/seditious conspiracy and hate speech laws of course.
The only jurisdiction that has "absolute" free speech is the ungoverned regions of Somalia.
Since you have correctly observed that companies are paying adults like kids and won't pay adults like adults out of the goodness of their hearts, that sounds like a yes. I'm willing to entertain this idea, it's certainly far from ideal IMO, but it could bring needed material improvements. So do you have any age/wage bracket ideas in mind?
Who is to say some philanthropist won't set up auto manufacturing that gives free cars to everyone.
Charity reinforces hierarchy. You think giving some individual philanthropist control over whether everyone has cars is a good idea?
The only difference between your idea and the standard Hunger Games/Elysium impoverished-99% dystopia is the free cars and perhaps other goods from a few hypothetical philanthropists, at least until they get bored with it or die off or anything happens to break one of the incredibly fragile threads dangling your society over the pits of hell.
What's better than giving to charity is reducing the need for it.
Saying that supply-side economics has been "debunked" is an understatement, it's been tried exhaustively in numerous experiments and found to be ruinous to the bottom 90% every single time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is very much analogous to one stupid and evil American "cultural difference." Swiss "cash culture" will massively enable crime, just like American "gun culture." And just as in the US, the consequences the Swiss feel at home will be just the tip of the iceberg of international crime enabled by their "unique culture," and they will profit from it (international banking for white-collar criminals in Switzerland; and gun manufacture and the security services/products that make a weak attempt at addressing the dangers of every yahoo being armed in the US).
There are only a few times in my life that I've considered illegally constructing a military-grade GPS receiver, and this is one of those times.
No. The FAA will need to have a metallurgist on staff, and all aircraft should have their metallurgy reviewed. I thought we were talking about the known flaws in the 737 Max 8. So in the big picture, yes, the FAA will need to have a wide range of professionals on staff, as they have in the past. That's the price of safe air travel and it has proven to be affordable.
FYI, if you split a quoted post
Testing
into multiple quotes to respond to parent bullet points,
Test
this now trip's slashdot's lameness filter. /offtopic
Test
Can't reproduce?
One fucking amateur pilot could've caught this problem, but again, a suitable level of regulation has been in place in the past and could be again. This problem can be fixed without any metallurgy knowledge.
Or just one guy with some aeronautical engineering experience. Maybe an amateur pilot who can put 2+2 together. This isn't a complicated problem that takes an Apollo 11 team to identify and fix, this is Babby's First Lesson in Avionics, and Boeing failed it the moment they were left unsupervised. The airline industry and its customers have paid for the required level of regulation in the past. And how the hell did metallurgy get involved in a software and training problem?
Maybe, upon review, said something like "Hey, why does this system have redundant sensors but flip out if only one of them malfunctions? Is it safe that it will completely and silently override the pilot's controls even at maximum opposite input? Shouldn't pilots have extensive training on how to deactivate this system in case it malfunctions? And why the fuck is it that on an aircraft with a glass cockpit, the indicator to warn that this system is malfunctioning is an optional physical gauge cluster that costs as much as a high-end sports car?"
A slight variant of the "those who can't do, teach" argument - which is obviously fallacious or nobody would ever be qualified to do anything. And we'd be having these disasters all the time and not just as a result of lapses in regulation.
As a bit of an aircraft enthusiast you lost the gamble in assuming I didn't understand the system. This issue isn't even that complicated, Boeing failed to design the system to use redundant sensors correctly, even though they were present, and then skimped on error-checking systems and pilot training requirements to try to save money for their customers.
The FAA can pay anyone just as easily as Boeing, isn't the government full of overpaid bureaucrats after all?
The 737 Max 8 disaster should be the final nail in the coffin of the idiotic idea of self-regulation. Boeing didn't stop themselves from making relatively basic mistakes even though they knew it could cost them dearly, which it did. How could anyone continue to defend self-regulation after this?
Well I know about the NRA, but who's PETA astroturfing for? It looks like a bunch of genuinely incompetent vegan nutballs.
Read it and weep:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/...
You may be on to something, he's apparently completely forgotten about Wikileaks:
https://www.vox.com/world/2019...
He's being charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and one of the reasons for his arrest was a US extradition request:
https://edition.cnn.com/uk/liv...
You make the same mistake as raymorris, in asserting that most users even notice the difference between HTTP and HTTPS. They don't, which is why browsers have green lock indicators etc.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?
The green lock is there because the user doesn't know the difference between http: and https: in the URL bar. As such, the browser should display the green lock for an HTTPS connection with a valid cert and not display one for an HTTP connection or an HTTPS connection with an invalid cert. It's even easier for your RasPi to MITM an HTTP connection, but the browser will happily use that protocol without complaint.
The problem is that you suggest the common user can tell the difference between a cardboard box and a safe. They can't (thus the green locks and such), and yet we're still treating a safe with potentially no lock (or potentially the best lock of all, if you roll your own cert, verify keys out-of-band, and save them) as a less secure container than a cardboard box. Which it in no way is.
It's incredibly stupid that browsers don't make a peep about plaintext HTTP connections, but go into full "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!1" alert for HTTPS connections with a self-signed or invalid cert. In what way could the latter possibly be less secure than the former?
Just like health care, they throw the good of the population under the bus to protect existing industries that profit from the horribly broken status quo. And a large chunk of the population has been tricked into liking it that way.
For free speech to work it must be absolute.
Well then we'll have to do away with laws against death threats, copyright enforcement, doxxing/revenge porn, and privacy in general, not to mention any seditious libel/seditious conspiracy and hate speech laws of course.
The only jurisdiction that has "absolute" free speech is the ungoverned regions of Somalia.
Since you have correctly observed that companies are paying adults like kids and won't pay adults like adults out of the goodness of their hearts, that sounds like a yes. I'm willing to entertain this idea, it's certainly far from ideal IMO, but it could bring needed material improvements. So do you have any age/wage bracket ideas in mind?
So you're saying that the minimum wage should vary by the employee's age?
Who is to say some philanthropist won't set up auto manufacturing that gives free cars to everyone.
Charity reinforces hierarchy. You think giving some individual philanthropist control over whether everyone has cars is a good idea?
The only difference between your idea and the standard Hunger Games/Elysium impoverished-99% dystopia is the free cars and perhaps other goods from a few hypothetical philanthropists, at least until they get bored with it or die off or anything happens to break one of the incredibly fragile threads dangling your society over the pits of hell.
What's better than giving to charity is reducing the need for it.
Saying that supply-side economics has been "debunked" is an understatement, it's been tried exhaustively in numerous experiments and found to be ruinous to the bottom 90% every single time.
Even most electric cars are capable of using powertrain waste heat to heat the cabin, supplemented by the heat pump system when necessary.