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.

That's nice, but it really doesn't apply to reviews of any kind. After all, if you can't talk about the problems, screwups, and deficiencies, you'll never be able to improve, and there's a high probability that things will just get worse.

I guess with all that shapechanging gender & species alteration for sex makes Loki a Trisexual. If it's sexual, he'll try it. Only Barbie and Ken are safe from his attentions.

Since when has Marvel, or DC, ever stuck to that promise that the dead are dead except when dealing with characters that were at best only tertiary.
.

Because despite having screwed things up from a mythological perspective, they are now trashing their own canon and existing continuity, or at least that farce they consider continuity.

This will probably piss off a lot of fans, not because they dislike women, but more because they are making massive changes to a favorite character, or in some perspectives, a blatant ripoff of the 'real' character.

"Our observable Universe is a pretty impressive entity: extending 46 billion light-years in all directions, filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies and having been around for nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang."

The observable universe is observable because there has been time for the light to travel that far, which can not exceed the age of the universe. Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.
So why does the summary say it's 46 billion L.Y. across and only 14 billion Y. old?

Doesn't China still have a 1 child law.

Yes, those explosions are really surface blasts, even the ones up to 25m deep.
It's kind of when you scratch an itch, it's not like it's going to break a bone or anything.
As to being the equivalent of a magnitude 2, so what. A magnitude 2.5 is in the you won't even feel it category as it's less than light which doesn't even start until 3.
A magnitude 1 is said to be the equivalent of blowing up 6 ounces of TNT.

Of course, if you still want to be afraid of that, I know a few dozen "invasive species" you can over-react about, and let's not forget the microscopic amounts alcohol in many of the drinks and foods that kids consume. :p

Funny thing that, it's mostly people without the google glass that are acting like the last 7 letters of your post.

This has nothing to do with google glass, other than a headline whore trying to hype his article.
Any video capture device, like every smartphone, security camera, and other form of video camera on the planet can be used for this.

No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
Besides, there are display systems with a reliability that is more than adequate, and it's probably redundant in some fashion just to be sure.

Hey, maybe they have a couple of Oculus Rifts stored in the glove compartment just in case the big screen goes wonky, or they want to play a quick game of Battlefield before leaving international airspace. :p

It's already known, and has been for decades now, there are lazy irresponsible & incompetent judges that keep pre-signed blank warrants in their desk for the cops to grab without bugging them.