I take it you're Amish?

And why would someone go to their mobile network provider, and not the independent shop around the corner to buy a new one, or maybe a second hand one? Let along upgrading their contract, just because their phone is stolen? Just doesn't make sense.

So you report a bug the way you're supposed to, it barely gets attention, and you think re-reporting it the same way will suddenly do the trick?

Well repeated often enough it may - but it also shows the failure of devs to use their own bug tracking system.

The sad part is that it is a known bug, that got introduced breaking a perfectly working feature, and is still not fixed. It is not a new feature they're asking for, just to retain something that was always there.

This is programmers not doing their job - and it being FOSS that is distributed for free is irrelevant as it's more than a hobby-level tool we're talking about. It's production-level software, and essential to the operation of a large number of computer systems.

FTFY

Facebook provides all kinds of "privacy settings", allowing a user to set exactly who can see what. No-one, friends only, friends of friends, the world. So simply based on what Facebook tells their users, it's an informed decision to have expectations of privacy. It may even be called intelligent, where the girl reasons "the school won't like this, so I set it to have only my friends see the post, and there are no school teachers amongst those friends, so it's like talking to each other when we're out in the park."

Now most people with a bit more life experience than a 13yo know that Facebook may be lying. Those really in the know, know that Facebook is lying. Furthermore it's of course ridiculous for a school to ask her password (one more reason to have her use a password manager as a password like 50plZ5njlf%*g9Fp - just generated that one with LastPass as illustration - is impossible to remember and this way she can truthfully say "sorry I don't know my password for Facebook").

But I don't think it's reasonable to expect from anyone to spend hours upon hours of research on the quality of privacy settings offered by a web site. Like with what all other companies tell you about their products, you normally simply have to take their word for it. And that's exactly what most people do, most of the time. Only afterwards we may find out what was promised is not true. And then it's time to name and shame the company that lied, and in bad cases sue them. The first is often enough to put a serious dent in their business (e.g. a restaurant really hates people coming down with food poisoning after eating there, and having the world know about it), and may actually put a company out of business. That alone should be a good reason for a company to at least do their best to deliver what they promise.

Except for the part where the communications equipment was switched off. As I understand it, this must have been done manually. A pilot trying to recover from a mechanical error will probably not do this, instead they'd press the emergency button to call for help.

Step 1: hijacking, hijackers incapacitate (maybe kill) pilots, take over the plane, switch off communications.

Step 2: passengers find out the plane has been hijacked.

Step 3: passengers kill hijackers.

Step 4: no-one on board that can operate the plane, switch on communications and take control of the autopilot, and all that's left for the passengers is wait for fuel to run out and the plane to crash in the sea, killing all on board.

Then he took awfully long to actually do that, and went to great lengths not to be detected. Someone that wants to kill themselves does so in the spur of the moment, which is why they can be talked out of it with relative ease by just stopping them from making the jump. If they don't change their mind themselves.

A pilot, knowing that he has many more people on board, would just ditch the plane headfirst in the water or in the ground if he really wants to kill himself and wants it so desperately that he wants to take the other 270-something people with him. This doesn't make sense, for suicide.

The acceleration of a controlled landing on water (or simply the end of a controlled glide path) may be not that much higher than the acceleration of a rough controlled landing on a poorly maintained runway during a typhoon. You may want the bolts to go off in the first situation, but not in the second. It's not that easy.

Was it that erratic? Shortly after this overland flight path was made public, aviations experts said they were following a common navigation route. Which is not necessarily a straight line. And which means that whoever was operating the plane, knew perfectly well where they were.

Of course you know exactly which e-mail address belongs to which name, so it's no problem for you to recognise a fake.

And how am I, a simple end user, to know that the Microsoft that the key says it is issued to (or who generated it), is not the same Microsoft that built the Windows the computer runs? Because the mailing address in the key is different? An e-mail address is different? I don't usually know which one is the "real" one. And that's about a well-known company, not an obscure software developer that I never heard the name of.

This are keys issued in a person's name. Names tend to not be unique, many people share the same given name(s)/surname combination. The same accounts for company names, where it's even easier to get a key with the exact same name as anyone can register a company in the same name as the company they want to copy.

Those keys are perfectly valid. CA's do not have to be compromised for this kind of "attack", they do their job and issue keys in the actual name of the applicant. It can't be that they refuse a key just because someone else somewhere in this world happens to share your name, and they got a key first.

This simple issue is not addressed here, but it's definitely closely related to this problem.

What may be impossible to shut down when flying, may be easy to do when on the ground.

Cutting the appropriate wire will do. If that's a problem for the engines, ground the aerial sending out the ping. It may not be easy to do, but it can be done for sure. Everything on an aircraft is accessible when it's on the ground.