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".

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.

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)

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.