As I said, off-the-shelf drones are typically on the 2.4GHz band, yes. The 433 MHz and 900 MHz bands should be practical with protocol tweaks.
It matters if you're trying to jam a specific device or class of devices without taking out all radio traffic in the area. Jamming is the equivalent of a loud, constant noise drowning out speech. If the frequencies of the noise are far enough above or below that of the speech, it may still be possible to pick out what the speaker is saying. You can get around that by either being intelligent about what you're trying to jam (match frequencies) or by blocking everything (white noise).
Off-the-shelf toy-style drones are typically on the 2.4GHz band, yes. Once you get in to picking your own electronics, sending control and telemetry data over other ISM bands is relatively trivial.
Laptop cooling systems are designed to border on insufficient. Improved cooling demands things that are avoided in todays laptop designs: physical volume (both for air flow and mechanical components), weight, noise, complexity and/or manufacturing cost.
The 360 was just an engineering screw-up.
It'd be funny if he turns out to be a good president for these last 2 years
And ironic that re-election political pressures demand a president do anything other than that.
I doubt it. More likely they rigidly support the ends of the device and apply the spec'd force to the center.
In the olden days, the horse knew the way home.
That was my knee-jerk reaction as well. Thinking it though, SouthWest must have a group dedicated to monitoring social media postings in order to respond that quickly. Surely this group is familiar with the Streisand Effect, and would not take such action against the passenger. Rather, I suspect the punitive action came from the same gate attendant that the passenger complained about.
Gate attendant gets pissy with passenger -> passenger posts complaint -> SW social media group reads complaint -> SW calls gate attendant and tells her to fix it (i.e. apologize) or it will come up at her performance review -> pissy gate attendant calls passenger back to the gate and threatens him.
That would make sense. This however, stinks of lobbyist action.
Perhaps when it comes to simple ball handling and player-on-player action, that's true. However, like all team sports, strategy can be applied with respect to general placement of players, passing and the like. Ideally, these strategies should leverage each player's individual strengths, thus making them unique to a given team. Opposing teams could extract much of this strategy from existing game footage, but not newly developed strategies (such as those designed to counter a specific opposing team) or tactics that are being kept 'up their sleeve' to be used in a pinch.
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Which makes it all the stranger. High-profile area of research, likely to be checked, major journal... It's like a checklist of ways to get caught. The tinfoil hat region of my brain makes me wonder if the research is genuine, but other researchers are refuting it out of fear that the funding for their own research will be cut. After all, who needs an expensive, complex (and patented) method of creating stem cells when a cheap and easy solution produces similar (or superior) results?
That came to mind for me. The "display" they appear to be demonstrating uses a projector to illuminate desired areas of nanoparticles. The new technology here is that the particles respond to a specific bandwidth of light, letting others through. If one had a bright light of that specific bandwidth (say, a deliberately de-focused laser), he/she could illuminate the screen from another location, blinding the driver if the screen covered a large enough area of the windshield.
Putting aside the ranking of Jobs' achievements, convincing the world of the non-PCness of Macs pales in comparison to Gates' achievement: Convincing the world that all PCs run Windows.
In all seriousness, I was thinking the exact same thing.
As others here have pointed out, the premise of a BIOS-flashing piece of malware seems tenuous, and even laughable to those familiar with the subject. So why would the NSA make such a claim? One strong possibility in my mind is that they really have produced such a piece of malware (keylogger, packet sniffer, whatever) and are afraid of the public backlash and/or damage claims (my motherboard failed! it must be the NSA!) that would arise when its existence is made clear by a Snowden release. As such, they are desperately trying to spin it off on China before said release can be made.