Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | Piskvorrr's comments login

Best is in the eye of beholder. As for amount of detail, accuracy, speed of updates and speed of response to such vandalism, OSM seems much better to me (at least judging by its European coverage, don't know how good it's in your location). No Street View? That's acceptable for me.

reply


Well, OSM is very variable depending on country.

In Britain and France, OSM is very good. In NL and DE, it is amazing. In the US, it is okay.

It sort of depends on the user community that edits it. OSM is used heavily by the cycling community who want to put all the off-road cycle paths and so on onto the map. And it's used by hikers and wheelchair users and a bunch of other subcommunities who want to make it good for them.

In the US, there isn't such a big community of fanatical cyclists and so on, so less need for alternatives to commercial maps like Google and Apple.

As for Street View - give it a few years. Mapillary is building a Creative Commons-licensed, user generated Street View. http://mapillary.com - example: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/SX2UBibwT4S1h4u_jSHmxg

reply


Indeed. Easier on customer service, too: "and are you SURE that you have your beacons positioned correctly?"

reply


...where a 10-line cron script would have done the same job, in advance.

-----


And then the cron job (that only needs to work every few years) breaks and you find out about it after the fact when a user complains.

-----


Needs to work every few years for each domain. Unless all your certificates expire at the same time (or you only have a few), this will be triggered a few times per year.

And moreover, your scenario is essentially "worst case: fall back to previous behavior." That's not too bad...

-----


True. But the "no lone zone" is not a solution, merely a mitigation tactic, and a simple one at that. There's always a way around any obstacle; this would make such (nb extremely rare) events harder to pull.

-----


Trying to get a quorum aboard a falling plane. Now that's what I call an extreme democratic procedure ;)

-----


And in a dramatic scenario, rather than "One head, one vote", you'll probably have "One gun, 100 votes" anyway...

-----


Preventing accidents and stopping a rogue insider are very different issues. Remote control opens a bunch of new attack surfaces, while not helping with the original problem.

-----


Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.

-----


No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).

-----


This issue of humans in the cockpit? You're saying there's no technical solution to this ....... except AI, which would be a technical solution to this issue.

-----


Except that strong AI is not current technology, or even near-future technology. In other words, "hmm, this wouldn't be a problem if only we could do abracadabra and solve it with magic; therefore it's not a problem. We can't do abracadabra, and hence can't solve it this way? La la la, I can't hear you!"

(Not sure I'd call that a technical solution, but let's assume so.)

-----


We could make planes fly themselves today. This is (mostly) how military drones work. On a couple of my tours, we worked with drones that flew themselves almost completely. My best friend in the universe reenlisted just to fly them, and they fly themselves for most of their missions.

Trust me: Planes could fly themselves using today's technology.

-----


Emphasis on almost. I'm not going to reiterate what's been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289225 , so just the TL;DR version: in case of major trouble, a CFIT of an unoccupied vehicle is a viable safety option, for that 1% that almost works. Try that with an airplane full of people...and you would become a terrorist. Tiny, tiny difference, nothing to worry about.

-----


> ENGAGE AUTOPILOT

Autopilot engaged.

Your autopilot has malfunctioned and has initiated a steep dive. This has knocked the other pilot unconscious.

> DISENGAGE AUTOPILOT

You need another person to disengage the autopilot. Autopilot remains engaged.

> DISENGAGE AUTOPILOT USING YOUR FOOT

The buttons are too far apart, you cannot reach both at the same time. Autopilot remains engaged.

>

The plane hits the ground and disintegrates. YOU HAVE DIED. Do you want your posessions identified (Y/n)?

> _

-----


Now you have two problems: instead of worrying about rogue pilots, you have to worry about rogue pilots and rogue remote control. Oh, and latency in remote control is also a nice thing to have. And signal loss. And jamming. So, five problems (actually, that's just a random sample).

Such a terrible idea in such a short sentence...

-----


The chance that multiple operators in a collective are actively abusing their control (and try to crash the plane) is decreasing in probability. History shows that such actions are usually performed by individuals. Even high latencies would not have prevented a successful intervention in this case (they've had a window of about 8 minutes for an intervention). Jamming is a possibility and an issue with the current communication systems the pilots already rely on.

-----


Multiple? One is quite sufficient: hack the control channel, and you have a plane to play with.

-----


Without trying to be a luddite, what happens in a self-driving car crash? That is, in court, not physically. This is yet to be tested; also, what happens in a meaningful concentration of autonomous vehicles? I'd wait at least for these to be tested before declaring autonomous vehicles "essential."

-----


2025, Q2: Airbus remote execution vulnerability discovered. (Did you just assume 100% reliable HW+SW, on Hacker News? That's some serious handwaving...)

-----


You can hardly compare an embedded software running on an Airplane to an Internet facing web server.

-----


Why not? What is the crucial difference, from the unauthorised intrusion POV? "This should not happen, therefore it cannot happen" is not an appropriate response here. http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/16696-FACT-CHECK-SCADA...

(Note that I didn't mention anything about webservers, or Internet; are you sure the in-flight entertainment systems are separated from the control network by anything else than a firewall rule? See other embedded systems, and how secure they are. Start with...IDK, Toyota's gas pedal code, see how well such safety-critical code was written: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... )

-----


Did you just assume 100% reliable HW+SW...

Why would you think that the parent assumes 100% reliable SW? Having SW more reliable than humans would be enough reason to replace humans with it. This does not seem impossible to me.

-----


Well, the problem with current state-of-the-art flight automation is that it can deal well with routine, repetitive tasks. What it fails at are corner cases (cf. US Airways Flight 1549), and self-diagnostics (sensor readings are inconsistent with current flight profile, e.g. Air France 447). In such cases, what you need is intelligence, not automatics.

This makes your argument another case of "let's assume we have strong AI; then pilotless aviation is easy-peasy." In other words, one of your unstated assumptions is still firmly in the realm of science fiction.

-----


Full disclosure of the vulnerability revealed by the Google team zero implicate Windows update mechanism originally devised to allow flyers to play online with their premium ultimate+ Live account. (where would we be without a bit of Microsoft hate? ....)

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: