Could be? Come on - targeting whistleblowers is the point. It's not about damaging national security, the economy or the environment - it's about damaging somebody's political career.

If it was about any of these you'd expect it to be used against politicians, bankers, government contractors, etc.

The disadvantage is that designing such systems is much harder than designing a centralized system, that performance will be more unpredictable, it's hard to achive very low latencies, and that the creator will have less control.

Part of the latter is that it can make it far more difficult to datamine or snoop on the content.

If the government wants to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it, it has an obligation to show that such control is the least burdensome method of achieving a compelling state interest.

How many of these actually are regular private companies? Public utilities, including telcos, often have all sorts of special rights plus direct and indirect subsidies granted to them even if nominally "private".

Actually, I believe it isn't curiosity that was tested. I believe it was interest. Interest != curiosity. Curiosity would involve something the subject didn't know. Interest is something totally different since it relies on a topic the subject already has some familiarity with.

Actually "curiosity" might still be the best term. Since it can be independent of how much knowlage of a subject someone currently has.
It's also important that this is subject specific and follows that person's own definition of the "subject". Which can be an issue in an educational environment.

What is Microsoft going to do next? Windows 12, Windows 13, etc., up through Windows 29, and then skip to Windows 40 because Windows 3.x apps checked for version 3?

Though there's also "NT4" and "Windows 2000" to consider here.

Any software old enough to care about Win9x is software that Microsoft does not care about supporting on Windows 9.

Even if it does exist it would probably misidentity as "Windows 1".

Only if they orbit solar power satellites. Part time power is silly."

That eliminates the random element. But the power output will still be "part time" due to the Earth being in the way for about half the time. Only a geostationary orbit will not require any kind of tracking. A geosynchronous orbit creates a North-South ground track. (The article dosn't even mention Indonesia, BTW). Any other orbit is going to create a complex ground track requiring "handover" and possibly multiple satellites in the same orbit. There's also the issue of how do you create such a satellite which isn't capable to being used as a weapons grade maser.

Build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants and be done with it.

Which is something we already know how to do. Including designs which can be throttled and produce little long term radioactive waste.As well as designs which could be developed if money wasn't being squandered on wind and solar.

Generation and power delivery need to be separate, so you pay to have grid tie and pay for power delivery. You can also sell your power back at some rate that the market will bear.

The structure of the grid depends very much on the kind of power plants used though. In terms of are they generating full time or part time. If that latter is it to a schedule or effectivly random.

That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.

Cleaners and janitors are a known known issue with physical security. So this is unlikely to work with the likes of the NSA :)

Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".

This fiction. Mythbusters managed to inadvertantly "bust" the ending too.

No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.

IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.

Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.

They also tend to have a direct personal interest in planes not colliding too. They are also not obliged to follow ATC either. There are rules specifically indicating that if ATC and TCAS are in conflict to follow TCAS. Though a pilot might have to answer to all sorts of people afterwards if they said "unable" without a good reason.

You might as well be the person in the back yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TAKING OFF" after a blown tire and abort near V1.

Or even the one in the back of the plane behind the one now stuck half way down the runway until all the wheels on the MLG are changed.

Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.

Where there is malicious action that can easily circumvent "redundancy". Especially where this involves "insiders" who can know which parts of systems are the least redundant. Since redundant systems are generally intended to be so against random damage.

Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.

It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan. If the flight is effectivly a charter by the FAA then that isn't likely to happen.

loyalty side effects may occur (aka you get what you pay for)

There are also highly paid (possibly overpaid) people who show utter contempt for their employers though.