They were actually unhappy with Pearson.

The article makes this very clear. It wouldn't matter if the Pearson Curriculum were on an iPad or an Android device, they'd still be unhappy with it. The attachment of Apple to the story is a means of click-baiting it. Pretty clear in the quotes from their attorney:

L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines “made the decision that he wanted to put them on notice, Pearson in particular, that he’s dissatisfied with their product,” said David Holmquist, general counsel for the nation’s second-largest school system. He said millions of dollars could be at stake.

In a letter sent Monday to Apple, Holmquist wrote that it “will not accept or compensate Apple for new deliveries of [Pearson] curriculum.” Nor does the district want to pay for further services related to the Pearson product.

Pretty ringing condemnation of Pearson's products by the school district; note that the Pearson products might not eve be at fault, given that the complaint was that it didn't help with the standardized testing scores.

Honestly though, we see pretty much daily that the number of security holes in a system is proportional to its complexity.

A modern aircraft is an immensely complex maze of wiring. A 'modern' aircraft could be easily 10-15 years (or more) old, and full of systems which weren't designed with security in mind.

If you've ever sat in an aircraft seat and seen the navigation display which shows your position, altitude and speed ... you can bet your ass there is some connectivity among the systems.

So, if the default assumption in security is all software has bugs, and all systems have weaknesses ... it's reasonable to conclude that we simply don't know the risks here.

But you don't simply say "oh noes, teh evidence isn't there so it's teh safe". Be it IP or not, if there are physical connections between the components, there is probably an exploit.

First they came for the power users...

They aren't doing this to improve the user experience with the software. They're doing it to address the perception that "new and shiny" is what people want -- not functionality per se. They're aiming at the user experience of getting something new.

You know that marketing slogan, "sell by showing what problem you solve"? The "problem" that marketers have identified is the public's disinterest in things not new and not shiny -- and lately, not thin.

In my view, incompatibility is a sign of poor vision, poor support, and a lack of respect for those people who have come to you for what you offer. Speaking as a developer, if I come up with new functionality that is incompatible with the old, I add the new functionality without breaking the old. There are almost always many ways that can be done. I never did find a worthy excuse not to do it, either.

It isn't Google, or Apple, or whatever vendor that needs to learn a lesson. It's the public. I don't think it can be taught to them, either.

Squirrel!

So, Mr cyber Expert and Pilot, other than saying "nuh uh", do you have anything to suggest there is no chance of this?

We know people can hack air gaps, and if the in-flight wi-fi is at all connected to the electronics in the airplane, there's potentially a lot of attack vectors.

And since there is no actual article, just a summary which says some guy says it can't happen ... I call "bullshit" on the whole story.

Seriously, timothy, a link to a story or this is nothing more than innuendo.

there is a new energy usage monitor available in KInfoCenter, and a battery applet identifies applications that hog power

And how much power does that consume? :-P

"Simulations of fusion are only 50 years away!"

I suggested the funnel landing previously. You really wouldn't want to spin it.

I'm pretty sure the problem at that point would be thermal damage to the vehicle. You could perhaps do this on land, and of course you'd probably want fresh water as a coolant and noise suppression, same as the shuttle used to suppress acoustic energy reflected from the pad to prevent it damaging the shuttle. The shuttle usually went through about 1/3 million gallons of water per launch. Of course with the rocket exhause itself, that produced a lot of HCl, and you probably wouldn't want to sit your engines in that, any more than in the ocean.

It's probably be better if they just had flip-down feet to widen the base of the cone ( the falling over was always a result of the center of mass being outside the interior circle of the cone, as described by the landing base -- or it wouldn't have fallen.

The other suggestion would be a big-ass electromagnet to lock the base components into place as it currently exists, but getting power out to the platform for that might be problematic. Maybe they could use a bunch of Tesla batteries, since it's only have to hold until you could mechanically latch the landing legs down.

If we actually had a competitive ISP market, where I could choose between, say, a hundred different providers at my residential address, then perhaps allowing the ISPs to compete in such a manner as you describe would make sense. As it is, we have 1-2 ISPs, and generally poor competition. Once one of the ISPs decides to pull prioritization shenanigans, then we the consumer is powerless to do anything about it. The only vote we have with our wallet is to forego an internet connection completely.

Split seam the fuel tank, then swing out and rotate the elements and create a massive autogyro

Why am I not convinced your way sounds like the "easy way"?

I can't event think of the mechanical stresses involved in opening this thing up to spin it around.

In fact, it sounds outright crazy.

And that's before we start considering a fuel tank designed to open up. Because, what could possibly go wrong there?

Moreover, "designed for security" is just a meaningless marketing term. It's a catch phrase, but it doesn't actually mean much, apparently.

You can't just say "I'm making the most secure thing evar" and have that mean anything unless you've spent a LOT of time and effort making it so. You can't just throw something together and think you've made something secure.

And if you make this big bold claim, and then trip on your own dicks, you look like idiots.

My general rule would be to treat a claim like "designed for security" as at best puffery, and at worst a dangerous lie designed to make your product look good. But I sure as heck would't treat it as an indication of actual security.

It was supposed to change the world, but it didn't.

But, I was in a busy downtown once and saw an older gentleman with only one leg riding on a Segway ... I bet for him, the Segway was no joke.

Well, that's why we have Poe's Law.

Weeding out the funny-stupid from the actual-stupid can be a full time job, so people don't bother. ;-)

I agree you should have the right to believe any bat-shit crazy thing you choose. That is your right.

I disagree that simply proclaiming this should entitle you to a tax-free status.

Unless, of course, we're all free to say we believe in any random thing as our religion and are therefore entitled to tax-free status.

We at the Church of the Big Titties are an inclusive group, and do not discriminate on the basis of actually possessing any.

We are a community founded on the appreciation of breasts of all shape and size (despite our name) ... we have but three commandments, "thou shalt not touch the titties of anyone without their consent", and except during the "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" or other appropriate contexts "thou shall endeavor to maintain normal eye contact with the owner of the boobies", and finally "thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of someone having (or not having) titties".

We ask only a small donation to assist in our administrative overhead (purchasing of the Blessed Beer).

If you wish information about establishing a local parish or ordination we offer very reasonable rates. Although, we would in no means infringe on someone else's right to participate in their own form of the Admiring of the Boobies, as we feel that would be contrary to our message.