My mistake - should have added "in the cockpit" for those that are slow to think but quick to post.

I don't know about you but the Ukraine is still a top news story in the media I look at and listen to.

What about the other ten crew?

A fishing trawler has sufficient range to reach the east coast of the USA and deliver the nuke in a suicide strike.

Get to know just a little bit more about airlines and you'll see that most are converging towards Aeroflot standards (or lack thereof).

In which case your accomplice on the ground crew removes it or bends it a bit.
We're not going to solve it here with obvious ideas with obvious countermeasures. Somewhere there has to be a person that is trusted and if that breaks down all bets are off.

To add to what the above poster has written, landing with a heavy fuel load is difficult and dangerous so the tanks are not completely filled unless that's what the trip needs.
For example QF32, an Airbus A380 which had multiple problems due to secondary damage from an engine explosion, was overweight due to a large fuel load and landed very carefully at a decent rate of two and a half feet per second but still blew out some tyres.
However I'm not a pilot, I'm just relating something from a book written by one.

The suicide idea falls down when you consider the size of the crew.

Awesome yes. Science fiction awesome no.
Someone in my workplace found a previously unknown undersea volcano under a well charted shipping channel from some seismic data. Aircraft wreckage without a tight area to search in - now that's a lot smaller and a lot harder to find.

What did matter is he was a puppet with very little power making some populist noise to try to increase his support. Wait - don't tell me you thought Iran was a democracy with an elected President able to make serious decisions? Haven't you been paying attention? He could no more nuke Israel than the Mayor of New Jersey could nuke Canada.

If it's Mr Stone's presentation it appears you have failed to understand what he said, taken things out of context, and taken opinions as facts.

Yeah ok I can see I'm arguing with a brick wall

Considering the lack of respect you've demonstrated here and even lying you've certainly acted as if you have been. I suggest you take a look at the Wayland video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
I suggest first you take his advice early in the video about posts like yours and then pay attention to the bits where he is describing X. Then try to understand his aim with Wayland (iphone quality display) and the scale of the problems he mentions instead of blowing them out of proportion.
Also pay attention to what he means about "modern X" - he means cutting edge - gnome3 etc. Once you understand you'll see how people familiar with the topic can see that you are making things up and that you are doing a gross misservice to both Wayland developers and those that work in the X environment.

Get it into your head that X and Wayland are different things and Wayland is something other than just a way to make X better. Wayland is a different approach that pushes a lot of things back to the application. His answer at the end: "multiple GPUs - that's a client problem". It covers a different scope to X and I wish you "X sux" fanboys would just talk about something you actually know about Wayland instead of things you don't know about X.
Another thing - that oft quoted "3 people know about ..." is what is known as a JOKE. Why do we get idiots treating it as a fact?

Snapgear had a really nice GUI front end to iptables on their firewall/routers. Considering how iptables could lend itself to end up like a mess of spaghetti if handled badly that's quite a feat.

It appears you've misunderstood something from a presentation by Mr Stone - perhaps relayed via someone else that didn't understand it. I suggest you look at it (or look at it again) and see what he defines as a "modern X system". Personally I doubt there's much remote access to gnome3 applications. Most applications used in science and engineering with remote access to cluster nodes or compute servers use toolkits he would consider positively ancient. Open/libreoffice doesn't use "modern X" either.

I see now where people are taking that "X is not network transparent" line out of context without understanding how silly it is out of context. I'd say almost all commercial applications on X do not use the newer rendering schemes at all, so in office environments where network transparency matters it's still there. Sure - the new gnome3 stuff has it done via a hack but how many people are really using that sort of stuff over a remote link?
I suggest people watch this and try to understand it instead of just taking away sound bites.