As far as I've ever heard, it is theoretically impossible to stop that kind of attack. If a user runs your code, then yeah, duh, your code can do whatever. I don't think that counts as a security vulterability.

Star Wars?! Oh, man, there are so many better examples of Disney rehashing old works. How about Maleficent (aka Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective)? Or running the Disney Princess angle into the ground with Brave (at least other Princess films had a legend or fairy tale background, Brave was just a complete fabrication)? Better yet, let's just talk about Disney Princess films, and how Disney takes an old legend or fairy tale, and turns it into a highly profitable film and merchandising effort? If that's not rehashing the same shit over and over, I don't know what is. The recent Star Wars acquisition doesn't have anything on the black hole of creativity that is Disney.

OK, I'll play. Here's an example I happened to be thinking of recently. Consider the case of a film from the silent era, 1894–1929. On a common-sense basis, it clearly should be in the public domain. After all, the people who made it are all dead - as likely are their heirs. So, who really deserves any money from something created that long ago?

However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired. So, it's either not available at all, or maybe isn't available in the best possible quality. But if somebody still owned a valid copyright for it, they might have a financial incentive to make it available in HD.

Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think any film from the silent era should still be protected by copyright. But at least some case can be made for that. So there's your counter-argument.

So there's a mysterious form of RADAR, that's been widely available since the 90s, which can shoot down stealth aircraft at will, yet we have lost only one manned stealth aircraft in combat in 20 years?

Can you actually explain how he did not put Americans in jeopardy, or does your aluminum hat cause you to automatically reject anything anyone from the government tells you.

Not all baby boomers had kids by their mid 20's, my parents are of that generation and I turned 18 on Jan 1 2000.

Usually I hear 1982 as the demarcating line which places the current max age around 33. Then to confuse things some refer to those born in 80-84 as "cuspers" who are not entirely Gen X or Gen Y.

You make it sound like it's a good thing. I hate that stuff, and I personnaly don't think that legalizing a substance that distorts reality, that can make you a veggie and slowly destroys your ability to have fun without it is just a way to make a whole generation less intelligent than the one before.

I didn't say F-35 would win a VFR dogfight. I said the entire point of the damn thing was to avoid VFR dogfights. I said it had rails for air-to-air missiles, and it would be very difficult to impossible for Su-35s (or even F-22s) to get a strong enough lock on it to engage outside of VFR.

As for our allies, approximately how much do you think we're paying Canada to buy F-35 rather then upgrade the FA-18 Superhornet into a CF-18 Hornet II of some sort? The answer is $0.

because every area facing cuts is always "critical".

Like this one?

http://blogs.reuters.com/great...

Over three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that,

In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

For something that no one in the military actually wants.

Translations: The Israelis are not terrorists because they use the best technology they have access to in order to target their munitions. Hamas are terrorists because they use the best technology they have access to in order to target their munitions. I like your double standard.

Can you apply the same reasoning to a Blu ray or DVD you bought and own? I didn't think so.

As for Afghanistan, we didn't really do anything to them. Sure, we got Bin Laden, but by that time he was almost dead anyway and that was just for political posturing by Obama, not to stop any real threat.

You forgot to add that if Hamas was playing by the US of A rules they would be called freedom fighters for peace justice and democracy... not terrorists...