I suspect it also has to do with being able to strip the car down and sell the parts. My guess is that in modern car theft rings, even things like doors, fenders, and trunk lids are resold on the black market. A bunch of pink body panels showing up at a swap meet somewhere would be a lot easier to trace.

Did he tap his foot twice while in the next bathroom stall err I mean cubicle?

Then don't get arrested. It's generally not hard to avoid.

I've done some work on avionics displays code too, and from what I saw, the displays code is one of the least complicated parts of a typical avionics system. But that doesn't paint an accurate picture of the avionics system as a whole. Other parts, such as flight controls, vertical profile, the terrain avoidance system, etc are an order of magnitude more complex.

Also, there seems to be a tendency in this thread to equate complexity with convoluted code. Convoluted code can be quite complex, but is often unnecessarily so. Some software, however, is very complex due to the requirements that drive it, and would still be complex no matter how cleanly it was written.

I find it amusing that people think that because embedded software has to be predictable, deterministic, and well-documented, that it is therefore simpler. That's pure nonsense. The complexity of the software is driven by the system's requirements, and no, I don't mean the requirement that it be predictable and reliable. I don't know what avionics software you've worked with, but from what I've seen, avionics software has to control a huge number of different systems, and respond to a huge number of different inputs, and the logic involved is often very complex (flight control calculations, etc). Even the "simple" logic it performs is made much more difficult because of the enormous number of different cases it has to handle, meaning that it's almost never as simple as just having a huge switch statement. Yes, there are certain areas of the code that are straightforward and simple, as you would expect in any large system, but those parts tend to be the exception rather than the rule. In either case, the one thing I can say with certainty is that web browsers are nowhere near the "most complex piece of software you will find anywhere".

By the way...

1. Your description about how embedded code gets written is completely bogus. It's obvious you've never actually been involved in any such development.
2. You'd be surprised how few auditors are involved. Yes, there are lots and lots of design reviews, peer reviews, etc. But rooms full of auditors standing around with red markers? Not so much. I don't know where you got that from, but it's pure fiction.
3. I never said anything about less common languages, but as long as you're beating on straw men, I suppose that's as good as any.

Yeah, I figured I'd get at least one know-it-all like you making some sweeping proclamation along the lines of "Nah. Embedded code is easy." But I've seen (and worked on) enough large-scale embedded systems to know that you're full of shit, and that the complexity involved in many such systems dwarfs that of a web browser.

Here come some more shark comments. Sheesh!

Browsers are about the most complex piece of software you will find anywhere.

I don't disagree with your main point that web browsers are very complex. However, the above quote is pure hyperbole. There are many types of software that make web browsers look like child's play. Among them, I would say, are avionics software, flight software for satellites, etc. Those are just a couple examples - I'm sure there are quite a few others.

I agree completely that Glass-Steagall should not have been repealed, and I'm well aware of how its repeal contributed to the recent financial meltdown. My point was that government regulation doesn't always happen as it should, and that the government itself cannot be blindly trusted to do the right thing (any more than corporations can be trusted), not that regulation is a bad thing.

Glass-Steagall

You mean the same Glass-Stegall Act that was repealed after years of lobbying by the banking industry? Just sayin'...

people been changing the meaning of words since the beginning of time. Just deal and accept it.

You're missing the point. I don't have a problem with the meaning of the word pirate - neither the old meaning nor the new meaning. I just think it's folly to call yourself a pirate when that's exactly what your enemies want you to be called.

This is not a war that can be won without having the public on your side. It doesn't matter how many geeks on Slashdot or elsewhere think that pirates are cool. Most of the public hears the words "pirate" or "piracy" and thinks exactly what the MAFIAA wants them to think: criminal, thief, bad guy.

The real battle is getting the public to understand why they should give a shit about keeping the Internet free (as in speech). You're not doing yourself any favors by saying "Fuck yeah! I'm a pirate, bitches!"

That may be, but I don't see the "pirate" moniker working out very well for people fighting for Internet freedom. Despite the fact that a lot of geeks think that "pirates are cool", most members of our society hear the word "pirate" and think exactly what the MAFIAA wants them to think: criminals, thiefs, etc, etc.

I wish the people behind these anti-big-brother movements would stop calling themselves pirates. There are LOTS of good reasons to support file-sharing and a free-as-in-speech Internet, and to oppose abusive government intrusion and the commercialization of the Internet. Those who fight for this cause under the "pirate" banner are not only doing a disservice to their own cause, but to the rest of us who want a free Internet for reasons other than downloading the latest crappy summer blockbuster movie via BitTorrent.

At the very least, the word "pirate" should be avoided because that is the MAFIAA's loaded word of choice for painting file sharers as dangerous criminals. Why let your enemy frame the argument in his own terms? It's akin to the way the neocons in the U.S. frame the war debate as a question of whether or not you support the troops.

If you think the republicans have a monopoly on censorship, you've had your head buried in the sand too long. Heard of the fairness doctrine?

Apparently he's never heard of Tipper Gore either.