You want proof?

How about we start with this:

Oz many times acknowledged products he told viewers to use are not scientifically supported and don't have the research to be presented as fact.

He has more or less publicly admitted that he hawks stuff which there is insufficient evidence for.

He's a paid shill, with little medical credibility, because he advocates which he is paid to advocate.

Which means he has now stayed into being entertainment, but not fact or medicine. But he sure as hell isn't acting as a credible medical professional.

That's just awesome ... in the literal meaning of the word. Space has such cool stuff in it.

"Begging your pardon, Sir, but it's a big-ass sky!"

I have a android device and user neither Google nor Microsoft. I have no use for either company.

That's kind of my point ... are people who are trying to kick Google off their android devices all keen to get Microsoft instead?

This is like a hard core Linux user wiping his Windows machine and then installing a version of Office.

I just can't figure out who the target market for this is.

But now you're stuck with Microsoft.

Is this supposed to be some kind of improvement?

"Oh noes, google is teh big evil corp'ration, let's go with teh Microsoft". I mean, what the hell are they thinking?

This just sounds like the point at which the free software folks sell out and say fuck it, let's just follow the money.

I have a hard time people are going to buy an Android device, so they can wipe it, kick out Google, and bring in Microsoft. If you want that, buy a Microsoft device and get on with it.

Honestly though, we see pretty much daily that the number of security holes in a system is proportional to its complexity.

A modern aircraft is an immensely complex maze of wiring. A 'modern' aircraft could be easily 10-15 years (or more) old, and full of systems which weren't designed with security in mind.

If you've ever sat in an aircraft seat and seen the navigation display which shows your position, altitude and speed ... you can bet your ass there is some connectivity among the systems.

So, if the default assumption in security is all software has bugs, and all systems have weaknesses ... it's reasonable to conclude that we simply don't know the risks here.

But you don't simply say "oh noes, teh evidence isn't there so it's teh safe". Be it IP or not, if there are physical connections between the components, there is probably an exploit.

So, Mr cyber Expert and Pilot, other than saying "nuh uh", do you have anything to suggest there is no chance of this?

We know people can hack air gaps, and if the in-flight wi-fi is at all connected to the electronics in the airplane, there's potentially a lot of attack vectors.

And since there is no actual article, just a summary which says some guy says it can't happen ... I call "bullshit" on the whole story.

Seriously, timothy, a link to a story or this is nothing more than innuendo.

there is a new energy usage monitor available in KInfoCenter, and a battery applet identifies applications that hog power

And how much power does that consume? :-P

Split seam the fuel tank, then swing out and rotate the elements and create a massive autogyro

Why am I not convinced your way sounds like the "easy way"?

I can't event think of the mechanical stresses involved in opening this thing up to spin it around.

In fact, it sounds outright crazy.

And that's before we start considering a fuel tank designed to open up. Because, what could possibly go wrong there?

Moreover, "designed for security" is just a meaningless marketing term. It's a catch phrase, but it doesn't actually mean much, apparently.

You can't just say "I'm making the most secure thing evar" and have that mean anything unless you've spent a LOT of time and effort making it so. You can't just throw something together and think you've made something secure.

And if you make this big bold claim, and then trip on your own dicks, you look like idiots.

My general rule would be to treat a claim like "designed for security" as at best puffery, and at worst a dangerous lie designed to make your product look good. But I sure as heck would't treat it as an indication of actual security.

It was supposed to change the world, but it didn't.

But, I was in a busy downtown once and saw an older gentleman with only one leg riding on a Segway ... I bet for him, the Segway was no joke.

Well, that's why we have Poe's Law.

Weeding out the funny-stupid from the actual-stupid can be a full time job, so people don't bother. ;-)

I agree you should have the right to believe any bat-shit crazy thing you choose. That is your right.

I disagree that simply proclaiming this should entitle you to a tax-free status.

Unless, of course, we're all free to say we believe in any random thing as our religion and are therefore entitled to tax-free status.

We at the Church of the Big Titties are an inclusive group, and do not discriminate on the basis of actually possessing any.

We are a community founded on the appreciation of breasts of all shape and size (despite our name) ... we have but three commandments, "thou shalt not touch the titties of anyone without their consent", and except during the "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" or other appropriate contexts "thou shall endeavor to maintain normal eye contact with the owner of the boobies", and finally "thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of someone having (or not having) titties".

We ask only a small donation to assist in our administrative overhead (purchasing of the Blessed Beer).

If you wish information about establishing a local parish or ordination we offer very reasonable rates. Although, we would in no means infringe on someone else's right to participate in their own form of the Admiring of the Boobies, as we feel that would be contrary to our message.

An MIT spokesman says the new tool is really just a way for geeky friends to mess with each other

Honestly, if there's a better reason to write a piece of software, I can't think of it. :-P

Well, today you can also learn that Bill Paxton is not credited with being in Independence Day, because he was not in it.

So, it is a completely true statement to say "Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton..."