The curious want to know: what is she playing on the violin? And does she have licenses to a) have a copy of the music and b) perform in public?

I'd rather go about this a different way. If the president of Bell Media wants to call infringement stealing, I'd like to compile a list of things stolen by Bell Media.

If the definition of "stealing" is that loose, we can surmise that the president of Bell Media:

Has stolen US programming -- it is also available from Bell Media under license, which steals from the US: after all, residents can step over the border and legally view the programming, so Bell Media is stealing viewers from the US.

Has stolen broadcasting technologies from people everywhere -- You know that TCP/IP? It wasn't invented in Canada. You stole it.

Has likely stolen all sorts of documentation -- a quick pass through the office would be enough for me to find multiple cases of infringement.

Just because Bell Media has come to an agreement with US distributors of media doesn't mean that individuals have to go through Bell, no matter what Bell ExpressVu was able to pass into law regarding satellite broadcasts.

So is this basically a framework that allows people to port all their Flash games to the console? Because at the end of the day, that's what it sounds like.

Adding another layer of abstraction means adding another layer of non-optimization in the coding process. For desktop apps, that's not too big an issue; but consoles have a longer upgrade cycle and a restricted memory footprint.

So for games that don't push the hardware in the first place, this should work fine -- such as porting a bunch of Web Flash games. But for doing anything serious, you're going to want to get as close to the metal as possible.

What I'd REALLY like to see for consoles is an asset optimization system -- something that will package up game assets in the optimal format for storage/loading on each platform. Then the coding becomes much simpler.

It was written by a computer... give it some slack.

I'd like to see if it can do anything with "Can waze show me the way to my ways and means meeting?"

What we have just learned is that SoundHound has better comprehension than some Slashdot commenters :)

Something that makes it more interesting is infrastructure sharing. In China, you'll often get a plant that was set up to produce reliable parts for some global corp where someone who works at the factory sets up an independent company that comes in at night with lower-grade source materials and uses the exact same facilities with a different staff. Kickbacks then go to the management of the original company.

As a result, you can get precision-crafted products that look just like top-of-the-line materials, but are made with alloys etc. that are total junk.

And even worse, every once in a while, some of the "night shift" stock accidentally makes it into the "day shift" pipeline -- which is where you get the unexplainable runs of super-sub-par stuff coming out with odd serial numbers.

When their military is more powerful than that of the US?

Is that software written BY males, software written FOR males, or software written ABOUT males?

And to be a bit more serious, make sure you use this when accusing software of being malware; it's a pretty good reference:
https://www.microsoft.com/secu...

Main concern is off the plane. Agreed that if you can take the gun away in-cabin, the gun doesn't really make a difference one way or the other.

Yes, that's why I included all staff in this; it would be more useful for attendants, to make them another large self-aware obstacle between the attacker and the cockpit.

Me too :)

I've been training people to recognize pitch for years. I'm not sure who the "we" is here, but I've had no problems teaching adults pitch OR tempo, which is actually more difficult to master, and goes away faster than pitch if not practiced.

The techniques behind mastering pitch and tempo are hardly new, and have been used for centuries. Maybe the newbie developmental psychologists just forgot to involve musicians in their previous studies?

The same reason that you don't go around blabbing your bank account number and transit number, even though it's likely public record.

When things are too easy to know, a larger percentage of the population will take advantage of the knowledge.

And you already knew that the FBI's mandate wasn't to deter crime... it's in their TLA ;)

This statement also screams "we'd rather obfuscate what we're doing so the guy who sees our plane flying around his building doesn't google the registration and figure out instantly that it's the FBI, and they've found him and are monitoring his actions."

Thing is, the only groups who fly planes in these circles are government agencies. They should really switch to drones :D

Except dogs DO have useful context awareness (just not enough) -- unlike a chemical scanner that flags specific reactions, dogs know the difference between fertilizer + earth and explosives sans earth. Chemical testers don't check to see what other smells are also present.

But yeah; in that setting, sniffers don't work. Too many variables to account for.

Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?

I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.

I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.

Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.

This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around :)

Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.