Except honestly if you are committing a robbery with a fake gun and you get shot by someone who thought it was real, I could give zero fucks about your death. That still doesn't make the robbery itself "a gun issue." You can get fake guns pretty easily in many countries that ban real guns...

And I am generally for increased gun control and have no interest in having one in my home (many more people are killed with their own or relatives' guns at home than they kill people invading said home).

This isn't a gun issue - it was a BB gun, which is a half step up from airsoft. Not sure who the "us" in "do it like us" is, but in the end it's a robbery issue, not a gun issue. Armed robbery with a knife would be much more dangerous.

So you think if someone put a BB gun (which can still do some serious damage) to your head and took $130 from your wallet they should get no jail time?

I'm not saying 4 years in prison is appropriate, but something stronger than this minor slap on the wrist sure is...

My toaster oven makes toast almost as well as my iPhone makes phone calls. Which, with AT&T, usually burns everyone involved most of the time...

Ahem. The term is "sanitation engineer."

I wouldn't know, I dumped my "feature toaster" years ago for a toaster oven...

Yeah, but saying Blackberry in the distant past did permissions best is like saying your toaster did permissions best of all your kitchen appliances. With great features comes great responsibility...

Not sure what the point of your post was. Clearly you and I understand how Javascript works but the OP doesn't. Read the OP. I assume he doesn't know about Javascript obfuscation, etc, or how a browser executes Javascript in general. Maybe you meant to reply to him.

And your example of using a camera is as I said all up to the browser implementation. As in, if it asks you very clearly and without the possibility of the JS code to obscure it if you want to let the code use a camera, it's implemented correctly. To go on a tangent, iOS does this pretty well. Android does not. (Better to ask at the time it wants to USE a feature than make you agree to 20 permissions when you install the app. Context is key, as you basically said.)

Your post is a hot mess.

So, you want Javascript to be secure, but not allow the user downloading it to be able to see what they are running? Do you even understand how Javascript works in a browser beyond "hitting F12?" For the love of WTF, they are not "seeing the Javascript on your site", you are letting them DOWNLOAD the Javascript to their computer and then run it.

How, precisely, do you expect an interpreted text file to be hidden from a web browser that downloads and executes an interpreted text file? And more importantly, WHY would a browser want to let you do that, unless to obscure what you are trying to run on a user's computer?!?

The sum total of Javascript exploits is a browser that allows Javascript exploits. If they were implemented correctly there would be no problem.

Shouldn't be up to the Javascript website developers to make sure it's safe (OBVIOUSLY!)

It's up to those implementing the browsers with Javascript engines. It should be no more dangerous than any basic HTML if they got the security right.

No, journal reviews have nothing to do with oral defenses. And besides, Elsevier is a private company, we are talking about a public process. Who knows, the actual review process could be public (actually, SHOULD be public), even if in a "read only" sense (maybe with the ability to file prior art claims, etc).

This is the 21st century. This doesn't have to involve a bunch of people sitting in a room all day. Could be video conference, could be asynchronous Q&A, etc. And the reviewers can be PAID to review, so they are getting work done since the review IS the work.

Just riffing here... but what if you have a patent issued one of the inventors listed on the patent had to explain and defend it to a patent investigator/committee?

Obviously it wouldn't be at nearly the same level of detail as an oral defense, but at least it would mean someone has to understand the patent - someone other than the lawyers and/or software employed to make it as unreadable as possible.

No, not full stop.

My parents live in a town that (due to some experiments by various utilities/ISPs) has *4* decent Internet access solutions. Much more competition than average, but demand is no higher than anywhere else, and less than many. Prices and performance aren't even that much better (since not surprisingly the way most "competing utilities" price is to unofficially agree not to undercut each other).

Yes, entirely true.

When the US nuclear submarine fleet was conceived, there was ZERO serious consideration of anti-ICBM defences. Ad even today (like 40 years later) there is maybe one country in the world right now (Russia - and they probably don't even have significant capability) that could "protect" any amount of the population from a single Trident II 14 warhead MIRV, let alone the number carried by a single sub, and REALLY let alone that could protect vs the fleet.

The ORIGINAL intent was, pure and simple, to make the ICBM fleet mobile. Russia also did this to some extent, but they largely used mobile truck-based launchers in Siberia (which was a lot cheaper than submarines, but obviously a lot less effective, especially in today's satellite age...)

"AT&T does not plan to offer the ultra-fast Internet lines to every home in the market. Rather, he said the company would calculate where demand is strongest and the investment in stringing new cables promised a decent return."

More like, "the company would calculate where COMPETITION is strongest". I'm pretty sure Kansas City (or any of its neighborhoods) is not even in the top 10 markets for high speed Internet DEMAND.