Let's see: The rat had a choice (in both cases) of something enjoyable vs. something not as enjoyable. All other things being equal, why not choose the more enjoyable thing? They'd probably get the same result if they'd used fruit instead of oreos. But hey, that wouldn't be as good of a headline: Cherries are as addictive as Cocaine. The neuron activation thing may have some merit. (I don't know enough about neurochemistry to argue either way) And.. why didn't they run the experiment with just the filling, and then just the cookies?

Wow, skewed much. "... thankfully a backup kicked in...". That same phrase could have just as easily been phrased "The robust backup systems performed perfectly as designed to ensure the safety of the stored materials." But I guess reports of systems working as designed don't sell many views.

I sent my letter to Mr. XXXX in BigCorp, but Mr. XXXX's secretary read the letter. I didn't even know Mr. XXXX had a secretary, I expected only Mr. XXXX would read it. Isn't reading someone else's mail a federal offence (at least in the US)? How is this different? I signed up with Google. I know (and authorized) that Google does such scanning. You send me email. My secretary (ie: Google) reads it first, and compiles certain information about the "letters" I receive.

Actually, many spam filters do. They're not just blind pattern matchers, they do have algorithms that continue to tune the filters' effectiveness, even without human intervention. They may also download other databases from their home (like Barracudacentral), but that's so that your spam filter can take advantage of the tuning that the other thousands of other spam filters are assembling as well (which might get your filter one jump ahead of a spam blast as a filter in Chicago has already seen the blast, but it hasn't reached Seattle yet...).

Please skip making a 3.11 version... just to avoid another flood of ".. for Workgroups" jokes.

Lets see.. you want to get on a plane, you have to remove your shoes, get body scanned, wait in the long lines for those privileges.... or just drive onto the runway. Hmm... does anybody in the TSA see be huge glaring problem here?

Really? I just popped over to their website. Clicked over to Order a Model S, and it starts with value shown as "$601 / mo. Effective Monthly Cost", and a "calculate link" under it. Two things popped to mind. The word "effective" changes the meaning of the phrase, and so I wondered about what the effective really meant, so clicked the calculate. That showed me the estimated monthly payment ($980/mo), how much remaining incentive payments effectively (there's that word again) bring down your payment ($80/mo), gas savings ($261/mo), "guaranteed resale value" (read the website for details) ($39/mo), plus you can add in a few other intangibles. And if you don't like their assumptions, you can change them (Like maybe your electricity costs $0.13/kWh instead of $0.11. Makes it $609/mo, BTW.)

Easy way to stop that problem. Don't do all of the "easy to enforce" things. Then they have nothing left but the drug dealers, rapists, murders, burglars, muggers, etc to catch.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. See: the Morris Worm. Spread through sendmail (and other vectors).

VFR and IFR are regulatory systems, not physical constraints. What happens to your RC plane if I'm using a set of binoculars? Does it magically gain range? Ramp that up to telescope, followed by remote cameras. One other reason one loses control of RC planes due to limitations on radio range. But that's easily solvable as well with stronger radios, directional antennae, and/or repeater stations (whether terrestrial or orbital) (Possibly other mechanisms... I'm not an RF expert). (Of course limited by physical constraints. The stronger radio/more sensitive antennae may be too heavy for a particular aircraft.). Being unable to climb to 1000's of feet is an airframe design limitation. Also a solved problem. (Better wing designs, more thrust, etc)

And this is why we have have the patent problem. Why is the distance to the pilot any factor? Let's see. We have an RC airplane. We have wireless cameras. OMG, if I put a wireless camera on a RC airplane, that makes it a completely different and novel thing! USPO here I come! Wait... wireless telemetry... that's 2 patents!

No. Your question has too many variables and attempts to assign an absolute to it. If you don't need a 10 and only need up to a 7, then ask yourself if you'd fire the 7 who is an egotistical narcissist. Having said that, you may find that the 10 can look at your 7 problem and say "but if you do it this way, your 7 problem is now a 4 problem".

Oh look, it's yet another case of "If you have physical access to the server, all bets are off.". If you can clone the volume, you effectively have physical access to the server. This isn't a new vulnerability. Just another case of "It's on the webz, it must a a completely novel thing!".

Ermm...oops. that's FAIR, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory.

Because in order for that stuff to be considered for inclusion in whatever Standard they are talking about, they probably had to agree to license it, usually under FRAND terms (Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory).