Why are you stating the definition of a dirty bomb as the proof that it is not a threat?

Exactly. The second I saw that the accusers were bringing out ELA, I lost all reason to believe anything they were saying. ELA is almost completely random, and will show you whatever you want to see.

No, that analysis uses ELA, which is completely unreliable and not proof of anything, in any direction. Anybody who uses ELA as a proof has no idea what they are doing.

ELA is complete and utter garbage, and can not be used to show anything at all. It's like looking at tea leaves.

It probably does have simple onboard guidance. Lots of home-built RC quadcopters do, and I don't see any reason why a commercial one shouldn't.

Oh, right, I was off the internet for April 1st, so I missed that.

Man, remember when people cared about Eric S. Raymond?

This would be largely correct, and in fact would be a good choice, as the radiation is harmless.

Oh wow, good thing you notice! Those scientists are going to be so embarrassed when we tell them they missed that!

Check your timezone settings - you seem to have left them about ten years into the past.

Hint: They're lying.

They hardly "admitted wrongdoing". They made up absurd stories about how it was all an April Fool's joke, and lied about how long it had been active and how much money they had made.

(Consider this: Which part of this "April Fool's joke" was supposed to actually be FUNNY? It was installed in secret. If it was hidden from you, how were you supposed to laugh at it?)

Absolutely nothing in this case would change if Firefox were a closed-source app. No part of this has anything to do with open source.

That is "upset" as a noun, not an adjective.

I also like how gamers will yell until they are blue in the face about second hand game sales and how important they are.

And then they will turn around and talk about how "Steam gets it right", conveniently forgetting it was the first place that forbid second-hand game sales.