And how is fiddling with the route on a GPS only device different from fiddling with the route on a GPS enabled phone?
Because one of these seems to be legal as stated by the summary.

Goal is to be bought by some bigger corp for a rediculous amount of money.

It's a little surpising she manged to do all that, given how small she is.

Heightism.

I don't see how this is paranoia.
I wouldn't use the same password for my phone and my banking acount. But the fact you can't change your fingerprints pretty much forces you to.
Worse, you will use the same print in the future, forever.

So how long is that password going to last, with all the regular leaks, phone-malware and whatnot? How many years?
If any single application you gave the fingerprint to has a security hole, just one of them, then all other are immedeately compromised. And there is no way you can change that, even if you knew it happened.

And the best part is, because the 'password' is so strongly linked to your person, everyone who got it can easily figure out which other locks it might open for them, other than your phone.

Lastly, the argument of 'the xyz could do it if they really wanted' is just a bad one and I'm sick of hearing it.
This is still a question of economics.
Sure there could be agents following everyone around, grabbing fingerprints from the used glasses in restaurants and so on... would only cost like a trillion dollars until we have all the data.
Or we have them all upload their prints to their phones, which we already have backdoors into anyway, so it costs one of our IT people 10 minutes to issue the download command.
One thing will never happen, the other is more than likely.

So there is really such a big difference between one big balloon and lots of small balloons containing the same volume of helium?
Because otherwise I'd say this has been done before.

This sounds like a very specific problem with a certain firmware to me.
It's not an inherent problem with the SSD technology.

'Hard as Rock Wood' makes you think of a lady?

That's about 90.3 m/s!

A programmer usually only writes a program once and then it gets copied for no further costs unlimited times.
Still programmer has been a job for quite some time now.
Shouldn't we have all the programs we need by now? Why are there still programmers employed?

That idea is flawed.

As soon as we can do more with less, we simply go and do much more.

And if you wanted to live a life by the average standards of a 1960s household, you could actually do that with 10-15 hours of work per week as far as products are concerend, that are actually affected by automation. The things that would keep you from achieving this are most likely exactly the things that did not get much of an efficieny boost through automation: services and basic resources.

You will still have to precisely define the goals of what the machine is supposed to learn and then later do.
Which is basicly what coding is.

"I would really like to know how the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 compares to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand, but I'm too lazy.
Ah screw it, I'll just make it a news topic on slashdot and wait until someone else does it for karma."
- timothy

They probably could not find their SSID, assumed the router was broken, took it down and bought a new one...

The cost of electricity has gone up, because electricity companies have to buy renewable energy from the producers for a set (high) price.
Then they push this price on to the customer.

So not the inefficiency is pushing up prices, but the actual amount of energy produced is.
If those things were more efficient, energy prices would be even higher.
Yes this is a stupid system.

Yes, it would make much more sense to go for the 'non polluting' option of renewables + nuclear.

Sadly this is not possible, because the political driving factor behind the rise of renewables (the green party) was also founded (!) on anti-nuclear sentiments.
It is hard to imagine them giving up their very core believes now that they have almost reached their goal.
On a general note, people who are in favor of renewables are usually also politically close to the green party, which hates on nuclear by principle.

So we are going for the 'green' option instead, even though it does not make much sense and will cause more pollution in the forseeable future instead of less.
Good idea + political dogma = mediocre results