Sorry to break this to you, but in the vast majority of cases:

Gate staff != flight crew

My understanding is that this amendment was intended (and has since been interpreted) to protect free speech and the right to assemble and petition the govt for redress where THE GOVERNMENT is the cause of such grievances. I do not believe it applied in this case. That being said, IANAL. More to the point, I do agree that the reaction of the airline staff was grossly lacking in proportionality.

Probably because it's using the same SoC as the B model. IIRC the A and B variants were different not only in the layout/ports, but also the underlying SoCs (CPU, GPU, RAM combination). This would suggest that the major model identifier will be used to indicate the underlying SoC, while suffixes like '+' will be used to indicate layout/ports. This is, however, just a somewhat educated guess on my part...

Local dealers insure safety? Personally, I'm no fan of any insurance company, but I'd still rather get insurance from them than from any dealer... Or did you mean ensure?

Actually, according to the summary, one half DID catch fire, the other half briefly became an aircraft (and let's not dwell on the fact that it did so with neither a properly filed flight plan, nor any communication with any form the air traffic control).

Are you also proposing that this browser not support plugins? Otherwise, what's to stop malware writers creating a plugin that captures input and phones home with it? Or are you suggesting that the browser only support plugins obtained from some kind of walled garden? Who will police it? In the end, the problem remains that people will be the weak link. When discussing security, even computer security, it has always been thus, and likely always will be.

And now I feel really daft, because up to this point I was thinking they meant draft as in 'non-final version'. As a result, the biggest question I was thinking of was 'sure, it's embarrassing that copies were sent to the dead, but more importantly, why not wait for the final version?'

I'm guessing here (I didn't read TFA), but people are probably more likely to keep their addresses updated with the DMV than they are with anything that could potentially lead to them being called up for service in the military. As such, to make sure that the database is as accurate as possible, it would make sense to periodically merge data from the DMV. As for the records still being in the database, despite the demise of those to whom they refer, I'm one of those people who believes that once a record is in a database, unless it should never have been there in the first place, it should NOT be deleted. If no longer relevant, then set a status flag of some kind, but don't delete it. I'm not an American, and, more to the point, am not familiar with how data exchange occurs between state and federal government departments, but if it's anything like it is over here in the UK, when someone dies the death is registered with the local register office. That information is not automatically shared with the DVLA (our equivalent of your DMV, but just one at a national level) or any other organisation. If the US system is anything like ours (and with the added complications inherent with some government bodies being federal, some state and possibly some at even more localised levels, it would surprise me a HUGE amount if such automatic data exchange was commonplace), it's understandable that those records were not only still in the database, but were still marked as active. Would we rather they simply assumed that once a person reaches a given age that they are obviously dead and can hence have their record updated accordingly? Obviously none of this excuses how that data merge was handled. If my assumption above is correct about the data from the DMV being imported purely to ensure that addresses and contact numbers are up to date, the obvious question that follows is why these older records led to letters being sent out. The date of birth field should only have been used for identifying records to receive address updates and, as such, if anyone born in the 1800s received such letters it would be due either to a poorly written query, or to the date of birth field already being wrong prior to the merge (or, of course both).

Perhaps you meant to say no one's going to jail AS A RESULT OF being born in the 80s. Your choice of wording can be taken to mean that being born in the 80s can be used as a universal defence to get away with any crime...

Closing the windows? I should think so too! Otherwise it would get pretty draughty once an airliner gets up to speed, even in the thinner air at higher altitudes!

"rodders no longer directly... " Is this something else to be blamed on Delboy?

Before this, the number stood at zero? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "before this, we have no f%@#ing clue what the number stood at because there is no data"???

Do you know any users who HAVEN'T been conditioned into clicking "yes" to any such prompt? (Please note, I said users, not admins)

I'm no MS shill, but in my opinion, the best way of sending all the MicroSoft drones to sleep is to keep up your kind of rhetoric. It's certainly sending me to sleep!