"...ranging from “multiple” helium leaks..."
It's not a balloon, it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium, though they are know to use huge quantities of Liquid Hydrogen.

"...release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency..."
Do you mean like you have all other PRIVATE CONTRACTORS do? Oh wait, you don't. Of course, as stated, no huge system is ever without issues. The real question is are they fixed, and in a timely manner. In the case of SpaceX, yes. And by the way, SpaceX hasn't had 3 different crews killed in accidents, unlike NASA.

"Again, because the vehicles in question were funded by American taxpayer dollars, there should be no issue in making this report publicly available,"
Wrong again douchebag, they were funded by Elon Musk, not the government.

As to the question I posed in the subject line, I don't actually know the answer, but I suspect it's "all of the above".

Let's see if I have this right:
With the OoOE cpu, the instructions from the code are handled by the cpu to decide what order to process them so you get a faster overall speed.

With the Project Denver cpu, it's an in-order processor, but it uses software at runtime to decide what order to process the code in and stores that info in a special buffer, but that software is itself ran by the cpu in the first place to make the OoOE decisions.

This seems to be kind of flaky to me.

Since a stated reason of the copyright and patent systems are to encourage creation, how does letting someone collecting money off of one thing their entire life, much less after they are dead, encourage them to continue to do more work to keep getting their paycheck?

He's off topic, so no.
Oh wait, I don't have any mod points. :p

The answer is NO,
If you don't know the question, it was, "Can the public really trust the NSA to do the right thing with all those zero-day exploits?"

That's not speculation, that's based on what they are already known to have done with exploits they've discovered or otherwise obtained already.

Any measurement abbreviation where they expect it to be identified between two different measurements of the same type of subject (in this case data) by capitalization of the letters is a complete F-N fail of the first order.

More to the point, never trust the FBI.

How the hell do you turn a discussion over the FBI compromising TOR into a fucking offtopic Apple/MS pissing contest?!
And "slashdot" is not a valid answer.

This filter, that in my experience has the equivalent discrimination level of crack addicted meth head chimp, only detracts from the feed and explains why I am often saying "FB SUCKS!".

Thank you, and Facebook sucks.

There are less of them now than there were a few years ago, the LHC saw to that. The data they gathered on the Higgs Boson ruled out numerous theories, though there are still a lot more to go.

So that's your answer then, your ultimate answer, 42 ?

That's because they are claiming a wi-fi attack. That would be using a wi-fi network of some kind to access the satellite communications system. I doubt that system is directly connected to any wi-fi network. I wouldn't be surprised if the planes that let you surf the net via wi-fi have their planes systems separate from the passenger entertainment stuff. Best if someone from the industry that actually knows how that's all configured speak about that. (As to the spokesmen for the companies, I'd rather talk to an engineer as I don't trust mouthpieces and public relations people.)

Physical access. That's where you plug in a wire or cable or whatever. No wi-fi involved.

Either way, messing with the comms systems is very annoying, but it's in no way Hijacking a plane. And don't forget, they guys making the claims of hacking a plane haven't done it, they only did some lab tests. Just wait until they test on an actual plane and see if they can take it over. Heck, it would be easy enough to test on the ground and break any laws.

The article actually stated that it was only stable on the short term.
It also seemed pretty obvious to me that the writer wasn't trying to "prove" that star system configuration existed, just that despite it being highly improbably, an approximation of it potentially could exist, at least for a little while. It's kind of like the idea that you could go buy one random lottery ticket and win the jackpot that drawing. It's possible, but it's a lot more likely that you won't, and there's a distinct chance that nobody will win this week, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility.

It's kind of like telling someone that their Great Great Grandfather died and expecting them to congratulate them on their promptness.

A shootout with an autodrive car. Sure the criminal could have the car driving to a destination while they hang out the window and shoot. Of course, the car would go the legal speed, stop at all lights and stop signs, and generally be much safer than any car driven by a human, much less one shooting or getting shot at.
Not to mention it will probably have a police override allowing them to remotely either stop it, or redirect it to a place of their choosing. I wouldn't be surprised if it would even tell the police it's intended route and destination if they asked it.
It will also probably have an emergency responder reaction where if there are sirens from police, fire, or ambulance it pulls over to the side and stops, as that is the law for humans. And as the poster mentioned, a partner could always drive a car so the one riding shotgun could still shoot.

Using it for bombings. What's so different from sending an autodrive vehicle to someplace with a bomb in it as opposed to sending a regular vehicle with a bomb and then leaving it before it blows, or even having some ignorant stooge drive it for you? After all, it's not like you can make the autodrive violate it's programming and plow through a crowd or into a mall. If you really wanted to do that, you could just rig a normal car up with remote controls. It's not that hard or expensive, they do it a lot on mythbusters, so it's not a strange concept to most people either.

Of course, the FBI has way too many people that need to deal with technology that really don't understand it in the slightest. Years ago I had to disappoint an FBI agent that I was helping by explaining to him how things really worked. He was getting samples from all the different printers so that they could make a database to identify what printer printed something like they used to do with typewriters. I had to explain to him that the fonts are totally programmable and have no unique characteristics to that printer. Also, that the inks and toners are actually made by only a handful of companies, and are again, not unique to the printer. He was very disappointing with the information.