The thing about a terrorism attack, though, is that one of the known terrorist organizations would need to be taking credit for it for any of these to be plausible. If ISIS came out today and said, "Haha he was secretly one of us BE AFRAID" then it'd most certainly be reclassed from murder suicide to terrorism. But if a lone dude does it, and no organization claims credit for it, the murder-suicide theory will be the only logical one. Terrorism works by publicity of actions.

That's a good idea. Rapid shedding of altitude should automatically pop the lock. Say, 20,000 feet descent in under 5 minutes. That is very clearly not normal behavior of a large plane, which takes 30 minutes to reach cruising altitude of 30K+ feet, usually in small increments of 1000 feet every 2-3 minutes after the initial rise. If the plane really is crashing due to catastrophe, popping the lock on the cabin door won't make a difference. If it's crashing because the pilot saw a vision of Jesus who told him to kill everyone on board, it might save the plane.

That is the impression the word leaves, yes. No regular underscore for you. You get RED SHARPIE!

I can't help but think the recent attention to the gender wage gap is a convenient political distraction. It's a real problem, but the timing is very suspect. To explain, I'll repurpose a joke I once heard about unions...

A CEO, a politician and a male and female worker sit at a table. There are 302 cookies on the table. The CEO rakes 300 over for himself. He gives one of the remaining cookies to the male worker. Then he breaks the second remaining cookie into 6 fragments, gives 5 to the female worker and keeps the last fragment for himself.

Then the politician says to the female worker, "Hey, isn't it unfair that the male worker got more than you!? We gotta do something about that!"

Wow. You have some serious ignorant rage. You have literally seen none of the purported offenses and it's very, very evident by your post.

1. There's no denying that he's rude in that post. He does like to stir the pot. Is it wrong to be rude or is a comedian allowed to be rude in the attempt to get laughs?

2. In no part of the post is there anything attempting to explain away anything-- just a more accurate description of what occurred as evidenced by video, not conjecture and snarling Daily Mail outrage.

3. The only thing held against him that could possibly be considered racist was the thing about Mexicans and even that isn't literally racist. It was prejudicial and stereotypical. They got in trouble like that as they should have. Even the accusation that he used the N-word is baseless because he never used the word. He mumbled a placeholder sound that, if you trained your ear to hear it, could sound like it. And then they tossed that take. And then someone dug it up years later.

4. We still don't know if Clarkson actually hit his producer. Read the investigative report. There was a 30-minute drunken verbal assault and then 30 seconds of an "assault". Assault is an attempt or threat to batter (strike or physically harm). You may be happy grunting over your morning coffee at the lack of genuine information, but the law uses specific words for a reason. In NO PART of the document does it say anything about punching, throwing, kicking, etc. 30 seconds is a long time for a person to be throwing punches on someone who does not fight back and for that victim to leave with only a fat lip.

So, if I take your post as any evidence, that long list of explaining what happened in each of the accused offenses in genuine truth (not shallow, detail-less, outrage mongering), is trolling.

I gotcha. Thanks for the insight.

PS -- If you want to disagree with the factual nature of any of the points, then do so by all means. I'll happily go into more detail and support my assertions with external links.

If you're expected to do VoIP and some very database intensive stuff, then yeah, VPNs over high latency lines suck.

I was pretty swiftly disabused of that notion after I was hired for my first job. It's kind of made me scared even as I'm searching for something new. Now I know I'm not that great - I'm merely average, or maybe just barely above average at best. How am I supposed to convince an employer that I'm worth their time and money?

I'm in the same boat - I consider myself one of the first Millennials, mostly because I identify more with them than I do Gen X. That 1980 cutoff is really unfair (I was a month too early.) I think a better definition is "grew up with computers." If you were the kid programming your parent's VCR when you were 7, you're probably more Millennial than GenX.

Like others who responded to my post, I posted with the hopes of finding an Intellimouse replacement. Your post is the first I've seen with a favorable comparison and a make/model. From what I can see, the only major difference is instead of having one button on either side of the mouse, it has two on either side thus making this a 7-button mouse.

Could you confirm?

And wow... a $70 price tag at Amazon.com? That's rough. Do you have a cheaper suggestion?

I'm impressed that you got yours to last so long. I've gone through 5 of them since my first in 2000/2001. In fact, I bought a 3-pack when I heard they were going the way of the dodo. I'm on my last one now.

Le sigh.

Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

Certain positions are allowed to require certain levels of attractiveness. Models, for example. In fact, the "models" reasoning is what allows many casinos to discriminate against thicker women in that they categorize their waitresses as models.

LOL -- And how exactly is this post, explaining the actual events that led to Clarkson's lack of contract renewal, a trollish post?

Please tell me who is getting trolled? This is probably the most literally informative post of this article's discussion.

He's missing the point and still explaining an issue.

RSA doesn't want to promote the objectification of women any more.
Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

So, let's say that hire and train those who would otherwise be hired as booth babes so that they're useful temporary representatives of products and companies. Let's say they show up dressed in business or business casual attire. And let's say a man goes to one of these conferences, see a beautiful woman, finds out she's a knowledgeable associate in the industry, and continues to ogle her for her secondary sexual characteristics while she convinces him to try some products.

Is any wrong done? If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

They were more of audacious humor being taken as rude and thus made the BBC look bad. See this highly informative post I made that was quickly down-modded (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7156205&cid=49345691).

1. Drove a truck in the Arctic circle while having a gin and tonic. (No roads, international waters)
2. Called truck drivers porn-loving prostitute murderers.
3. Called the Prime Minister a one-eyes idiot.
4. Said the BBC was obsessed with hiring Black Muslim lesbians (commentary on the focus on diversity).
5. Told a story about a woman wearing a burka falling over and exposing a g-string and stockings.
6. Called a Ferrari "special needs".

And on and on. Within the context of the character he plays, this is all to be expected. It's all the joke of him being an ignorant buffoon. He plays this character on TV everywhere he goes, but his more intelligent normal self pops out from time to time such as on QI or on some of his specials.