And generally, the number of a tool's users with a problem at any given day SHOULD be << the number of developers or support staff.

I see what you did there.

Was that an intended typo or a Freudian slip?

Showing CAM rips?

That's gotta count as cruel and unusual punishment.

The question, then, becomes obvious: Is it more likely that the perp will take your gun and shoot you (there has got to be statistics for this somewhere) or that the identifying electronics will fail and render the gun inert?

Furthermore, should it be obvious to the guy being aimed at that the gun is inert? Just the threat of being shot might be enough to deter a lot of people.

Because they carry several hundred people at any given time, probably.

You don't think people spend 270 dollars on their hobby?

And yet he yanked a rib out of Adam. I smell a malpractice lawsuit in the making.

And I am sure that whoever receives your 'report' will handle it with utmost dilligence. After all, in Slashdot's lifetime a whopping ONE comment has been deleted due to serious legal threats.

So Margaret Thatcher was worse than, say, Hitler or Kim Jung-Un?

Symantec did exactly what gets private security researchers into hot water: They publicized an exploit in a program.

Ignoring the fact that the program is malware and the exploit was a means of defeating the malware, WHY is it okay for Symantec to do this?

I don't think that's a numeral, but an unknown.

I call bullshit, Nokias are fragile by comparison to those controllers.

And this is not the case with them as separate entities?

Isn't that pretty much what the article is about, that we're all getting a touch of ADHD because of our online habits?