The best part of the whole thing was the reason: "The mistake happened because staff had not checked the timetable, the company statement said." Based on personal experience, the staff of subway systems and commuter trains in the US are consulting time tables that must round only to the nearest ten minutes.

We really should applaud them. Imagine how hard it will be to figure out how to write code to hack this.

"Altman says. 'And the American puritanical ideal that hard work for its own sake is valuable -- period -- and that you can't question that, I think that's just wrong.' [...] Study after study, however, has shown that giving people extra money makes them feel financially secure. That security ends up leading to empowerment, not de-motivation." So, its a puritanical idea that work for work's sake is valuable, but if you give everyone an income, they will feel empowered to do what exactly? Work?

The IRS has a secret legal opinion that they CAN use lethal drone operations on a citizen noncombatant living in the United States.

Yes, but it was the rule changes instituted between 1905 and 1909 that brought down the injuries and deaths, not the introduction of modern padding. It used to really be trench warfare with gang tackling, no distance between the players at the start of each play, eye gouging, etc... I will grant that the number of injuries will not decline, but I would argue that the type of injuries will be different and easier to treat.

Eliminating the "protective" equipment worn by the players would massively decrease the quantity of brain injuries. Players hit at speed and tackle head-up and in front of the runner (vs the rugby style) because from Pop Warner on they are "up-armored" like a Hummer in Jalalabad. Everything about how you are taught to hit in football (everything I was taught through high school anyway) becomes impractical when you take away shoulder pads and the facemask, especially at the higher speeds in college and the pros. Go to the soft helmet and no shoulder pads and the blood will fly but the concussions will drop dramatically. Since we have made good strides in treating lacerations and broken bones but can't fix brain injuries, I would vote for a trip in the way-back machine to early years of football.

Copyright enforcement by software: the speed camera of the internet...if the traffic ticket were set to eliminate your whole wage. Actual people could review this stuff...or we could all accept that if you use the tools a giant corporation provides to you at essentially no cost, you are totally at their mercy.

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

If the issue is impersonation, then the headline of Schneier's post should have been "Counterfeit TSA agent IDs and Uniforms Will Now Be Sufficient to Bypass Airport Security". Every TSA agent has access to the "secure" areas of the terminal and passes through security unchecked throughout the day. The assumption that counterfeit pilots will have access more than counterfeit TSA agents at a large airport is a little silly. What happened to Schneier's desire for intelligence based screening? If we assume that everyone has to be verified, aren't we back to strange child pat downs and removing the Depends of senior citizens. I suspect what Schneier thought but didn't want to say is that he thinks that people with the "background" to require strict scrutiny may be allowed through in a pilot uniform because the program creates a situation that removes the discretion of the security personnel.

This is one where I believe that no amount of logic and reasonable precedent will matter. The court will simply not invalidate the basis of an existing industry and it has nothing to do with corruption. No quantity of shine can alter the fundamental nature of this complaint. It won't happen, don't get excited.