Seriously, an exotic woman driving exotic cars too fast? Who'd watch that?

I would, because I'm a man and I'm not afraid to admit that on some level I'm a pig. Ideally she'd be smart and funny too, because I don't like to think of myself as being a total pig, but either way I'm in.

I wonder how hard it would be to fork a file manager to add the functionality you are looking for. Someone else mentioned various filtering options.

I'm very much a fan of "it's easier to make the tool you need than it is to convince someone to make it for you."--even if it would be easier for someone to modify their own project than you having to learn all specifics, they're normally so resistant to ideas that it's almost impossible to get a dev to care about a feature you do.

Any any stray shot by some trigger-happy gun nut would likely pierce the fuselage and start decompressurization, ala Goldfinger.

No, it wouldn't. Repeated tests have shown this will not happen. If you think a hole the width of a pencil will cause a plane to lose pressure that quickly, you might want to check your physics book again.

Also, terrorist holds lady with knife to neck and tells you put down your weapon (while unseen terrorist sneaks up behind you with box-cutter).

So on a crowded plane, there would be no one behind you to see this second terrorist sneak up behind you? Even if they hold a knife to someone's neck, you're still defeating their purpose of taking over the plane. The pilot now has time to radio an emergency and make a rapid descent or throw the plane into violent maneuvers to upset their balance.

I like this, too, but what's to stop the bad guys from faking the secret frequency and crashing the plane from the safety of their hideout?

And people say I have an active imagination. How do you propose the bad guys fake this signal from a cave in Pakistan to a plane flying over the Alps? Or over the Indian Ocean? You do realize the power required to send this signal, the technology to continually track the plane in flight and the equipment needed to do all this isn't something you can go to your local Radio. . . er, Best Buy and pick up on a whim.

Stop over thinking this. Today, if someone tries to hijack a plane from within the passenger compartment, they will fail. They might be able to kill a few people on board, but they will most likely die in the process and so will not accomplish their mission.

All current large GUI changes are not to make our lives easier, it's to bring in new people who can't be bothered to learn how to use a normal, productive GUI. It's about drawing in new customers, not pleasing their existing ones that are getting more and more aggravated.

It's like when the Wii hit. Lot's of people like it, and hats off to you. But going from the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube... and then being stuck with "casual" games on the Wii was like a slap to the face. It's like they said "There's no money in you guys who supported us and got is this far, so we're throwing you away for some new people who don't even like games."

You use version 3.14 on a Pi?

In other words, stupidity like the Metro interface (aka "Change for the sake of change because CHANGE MUST BE BETTER") is not reserved to just Microsoft, but is a symptom of a much bigger problem that permeates many projects and companies across the technological landscape.

Change is fine IF AND ONLY IF it can actually outperform the incumbent. Being different doesn't automatically make it better. Nobody complains that we should completely redesign current bicycles merely because they're old. They haven't changed drastically because they already went through a huge amount of experimentation. They're already a great fit for the problem they solve.

I vaguely remember some business proverb along the lines of: Ask your customers to change once, and they'll let you. Twice, and they'll hate you. Three times and they'll leave you.

If they want to force everyone to change user interfaces, they better be damn well sure that they've tested it and it clearly improves are ability to do real work. Because if it doesn't, we're leaving for more stable pastures.

Nailed it. It's like the old saw about the Chinese character for "crisis" being made up of characters for "danger" and "opportunity". No matter what happens now they're going to lose some of their long-term fans. But at some point young people aren't going to be so keen on watching some ancient codger behaving like an ass.

If they play this right it could become like Dr. Who, with a reboot every few years to bring in fresh blood.

There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!

Sure. But the man verbally abused and bullied a subordinate. Then he physically assaulted him -- or perhaps by that point the physical altercation was mutual.

At some point you have to ask yourself whether you have your priorities straight. As a fan of the show I'm sorry to the big ape gone. As a fan of civilized behavior I'm happy to see at least a minimum standard of decency in behavior getting enforced.

Thank you. I was hoping someone was going to mention this.

It wasn't as if Jeremy hadn't previously been warned and had been put on notice that another serious incident would be the end.

Being a prima donna and ranting and raving is one thing. Punching someone is quite another. While Jeremy may have unconsciously done this to not have to renew his contract, it's not something one wants to be known for.

By that logic, 9/11 itself was merely a fault of a malicious actor. Or a bunch thereof.

Possibly even more than that. You think that airlines are too eager to go "yeah, well, one of our pilots went bananas and crashed the plane 'cause he felt like it"?

No, but I think we should ask the question why this happens, and why it seems to increase in frequency.

As far as I can tell pilots are of no different stock than they were 5 years ago. So what changed?

So far, so theoretical.

I'd be amazed if that wasn't already the standard procedure. But anyone who ever worked in any kind of "real" environment knows that security procedures are, at best, haphazardly implemented. Often ignored.

Yes, there should be two people in the cockpit all the time. No, there won't be.

What's the difference?