Mine has been in airplane mode from day 1, with wifi on. I've seen where others have problems keeping wifi on when airplane is also on, but I haven't. Perhaps the fact that the SIM card is still in the original box, never inserted, has something to do with this. I bought an unlocked phone, and have never given it a chance to lock itself.

As ChunderDownUnder reminds me, I forgot to mention that this phone has never been out of airplane mode, in addition to never having a SIM card plugged in. Flashing out of T-Mobile software was also one of the first things I did, and the other night I flashed CyanogenMod 11 M4. (Of course some of the guys on IRC suggest that even that is too commercial, and that I should go to snapshots over on xda-developers, to be safer.)

I keep my tinfoil hat handy, just like I tend to channel RMS and ESR. But there are practical limits...

So if I'm using my no-contract Samsung Galaxy phone as a wifi-only device, and have never inserted the SIM card at all, I believe I'm safe from this particular vulnerability.

Tin-hatters, am I wrong on that?
Explain,

I consider one of the saddest examples of inaccuracy to be "2001: A Space Odyssey".

No manned mission to Jupiter.
No HAL-9000. (But maybe that's a blessing?)
No manned base on the moon of any sort, let alone of the scale in the movie.
No pure-space vehicles like the lunar shuttle.
No commercial, civilian, accessible space station.
No common-use picture-phones.
No Pan Am shuttle to the space station.
No Pan Am.

by Murray Leinster, March 1946. If you're going to talk about how our literature predicts the future, it's worth taking a look at how past literature predicted us. "A Logic Named Joe" did a pretty good job of nailing the internet, nomenclature aside, and it did it almost 70 years ago.

One of them watched the old "Total Recall" with Arnie. Even though the movie was rated R they didn't take advantage of the obvious opportunity with their "walking screening device".

They look at this article, as well as various responses to it. The overall tone is even and reasonable. There is a bit of sensationalism to TFA, and some of its claims appear to be taking worst-case situations and generalizing them to the entire population of wells, etc.

You had me with you up until you said "grown wiser". Yes, we learned that lesson, but I fear that rather than truly growing wiser, man has just found different and new expressions for folly.

Read "Cycle of Fire" by Hal Clement, and weep for America.

I'll take a moment to answer several responses to this.

To call Creationism a theory is to miss the correct definition of the word theory. Many people seem to think of theory as a neat idea to explain nature, but that falls far short.

In this case, the key differentiator is that a theory is testable, typically by experimentation. When you claim to have a theory, you'd also better define some sort of experiment or other set of measurements that can prove, disprove, or modify that theory.

From what I've read, Creationism is at the (stoner voice) "Wow Man!" (/stoner voice) stage.

Of course the downside is that there may be no such thing as "string theory", because there seems to be no way to prove or disprove it. To be fair, from what I can see, those who call themselves string theorists are quite upset about that, and would love nothing more than a real experiment.