"I can't help wondering just how could a piece of code, which presumable didn't test its' input data for validity before acting on it, become part of a modern jet's onboard software suit?"" - pdcull

What are you? some kind of person that doesn't read the actual articles or documents? Oh wait.. this is slashdot. Here let me copy paste some text for you

If any of the three values deviated from the median by more than a predetermined threshold for more than 1 second, then the FCPC rejected the relevant ADR for the remainder of the flight.

The FCPC compared the three ADIRUs’ values of each parameter for consistency. If any of the values differed from the median (middle) value by more than a threshold amount for longer than a set period of time, then the FCPC rejected the relevant part of the associated ADIRU (that is, ADR or IR) for the remainder of the flight.

So there you go, there actually really was validity checking performed. Multiple times per second in fact, by three separate, redundant systems. Unfortunately all 3 systems had the bug. Here is the concise summary for you:

The FCPC’s AOA algorithm could not effectively manage a scenario where there were multiple spikes such that one triggered a memorisation period and another was present 1.2 seconds later. The problem was that, if a 1.2-second memorisation period was triggered, the FCPCs accepted the next values of AOA 1 and AOA 2 after the end of the memorisation period as valid. In other words, the algorithm did not effectively handle the transition from the end of a memorisation period back to the normal operating mode when a second data spike was present.

3.6 Discovery Notice from ISP to Account Holder

In the event that an Account Holder is sent one Education Notice and [three] Warning Notices, the ISP will match the IP address from its scheme database and then send a Discovery Notice to the Account Holder.

The Discovery Notice will inform the Account Holder that:

• the Rights Holder may then seek to apply for access to the Account Holders details by way of a preliminary discovery or subpoena application, for the sole purpose of the Rights Holder taking direct copyright infringement action against the Account Holder
• the ISP will notify the Rights Holder that the Account Holder has apparently failed to address the matters set out in the Notices
• should the ISP be served with a valid preliminary discovery order (or subpoena) the ISP will be required to comply with the order, which may require the ISP to disclose the Account Holders details to the Rights Holder.

So, in effect, the customer will get 4 warnings, then the ISP will respond to the rights holder, saying this ID number accessed files 4 times. Only then, may the rights holder start a court process to get the name and details of the account holder. Until the time that the court says so, the ISP will not divulge any of their customer details.

The orthodox conception is that taxation provides revenue to the government which it requires in order to spend. In fact, the reverse is the truth. Government spending provides revenue to the non-government sector which then allows them to extinguish their taxation liabilities.

If you earn below AU$47,196, you don't have to pay back any of your loan. It doesn't get charged interest, it only gets indexed with CPI.
If you earn above that amount, they start charging as a percentage of your income starting at 4% to a maximum of 8% at an income of AU$87,650

When you get a job, you give over your tax file number, and the payment for the loan is automatically deducted from your wages/salary/etc each pay as part of your payment for income tax. At the end of the year, when you do your tax return if you overpaid they give you back your money, or if you underpaid, they'll send you a bill.

1864.3. Payment by check or money order required

A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.

Each of the Defendants has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘559 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by using, in this judicial district, wireless local area network products (“WLAN Products”) to provide wireless network access to their customers, guests, employees, and/or the public, and/or in their business operations, where such WLAN Products practice the methods of, by way of example and not limitation, at least claims 6, 7, and 8 of the ‘559 Patent.

Claims, 6, 7 8 from U.S. Patent No. 6,714,559 (“the ‘559 Patent”) titled “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”:

6. A method of beginning a data exchange over a wireless communication channel between a destination device and a sending device comprising: waiting, by the sending device, a period of time that is at least as long as a predetermined time period and detecting no communication on the wireless communication channel; attempting, by the sending device, to initiate communication to the destination device; and if the attempt to initiate communication to the destination device proves successful, transmitting, by the sending device, a series of packets wherein each two consecutive packet transmissions are separated by no more than the predetermined time period. 7. The method of claim 6 wherein the destination device comprises a polling device. 8. The method of claim 6 wherein if the beginning of the period of time during which no communication is detected coincides with the end of a detected transmission, attempting to avoid collisions by delaying a random period before attempting to initiate communication to the destination device.