The opening paragraph didn't specify "nuclear powered" or "for fixed wing aircraft" or "more than one" or anything. It said carriers, period. When it was written, it didn't even have the word "stateside". The author, Brent Rose, admitted that he had made a mistake in one of the comments to me, and went back and fixed…

Look at the earlier reply from Brent Rose to me. The original version of the article didn't include the word "stateside", and it was only because I pointed out the rather glaring problem the article was corrected. Did you think to read the other responses before calling me a moron?

Look at the earlier reply from Brent Rose to me. The original version of the article didn't include the word "stateside", and it was only because I pointed out the rather glaring problem the article was corrected. Did you think to read the other responses before calling me a moron?

Look at the earlier reply from Brent Rose to me. The original version of the article didn't include the word "stateside", and it was only because I pointed out the rather glaring problem the article was corrected. Did you think to read the other responses before calling me a moron?

Sadly, all too typical that Giz is citing its own, terrible, terrible articles from last year on this research. Key points that apparently none of you understand, nor could be bothered to read when they were pointed out:

A more reasoned approach then articles on some sites, but you still made some pretty serious factual errors, which were also present in io9's original reporting on the research. The biggest would be that the same mutations that allowed the virus to jump between ferrets also took it from 50% lethal to 0% lethal. As in,…

China is going to be quite upset to find out they only learned of the revolution in one of their territories as an off-handed comment in a tech blog. Heads will roll, you can be sure.

What's the matter Sam, you shorted Google stock before pushing your "Android is Cheap, not Good" article, and it didn't fall enough, so now you're trying to whip up some scaremongering by hinting that Page is about to die?

Which says far more about your ignorance than their notability. They have all either won Hugo awards or had NYT bestsellers. Some of them both

Wait, this can't be a Gizmodo article!! A plane is grounded for a faulty component, and instead of calling the plane, the entire development program, and the company a complete failure and a waste of money, there's a reasonable explanation that sometimes these things happen? And this, for a plane that's out of the…

He does accomplish what he says he'll do... eventually. Musk's companies have a pretty terrible track record with hyped deadlines, however, so while you could probably invest in his promises, I wouldn't plan on holding your breath.

Ah. Well. Thank you for pointing out your eagerness to reject scientific thought everywhere you can find it. All you had to mention was you were a climate change denier, and this whole thing could have been over so much sooner.

Again, you appear to be ignoring any and all results from the research done there. Just one of the links offered lists of close to a thousand completed and ongoing experiments on the ISS. And "nothing to do"? Only if you ignore the weekly updates they publish, and the hundreds of new experiments conducted every year,…

NASA's quoted cost for the space station so far is closer to $100B. That being said, you still seem to have a different idea of the purpose of the station than what it was intended for. "Serving as a jumping off point for further exploration" was never the purpose of the station, and I don't see why that's the only…

This effort has supposedly been going on for 5 years. In that time there have been multiple reports of APTs, presumably from China, compromising plenty of DoD and contractor systems. So it's clearly plausible.

Your original post stated that this couldn't possibly be classified data, because classified data is always protected by an air gap. I was simply pointing out that that is hardly an infallible system, which you seem to agree with.

So you agree security has been compromised in the past, but want me to prove that it can happen? Pretty sure that's redundant.

There is significant evidence that it has happened in the past. Therefore either a) all those things must have happened, or b) your theory is incorrect, and it's easier to exploit the system. When evidence and theory disagree, evidence wins.

You said it yourself. Someone has to fuck up. And they do, on a scarily regular basis. All the oversight in the world can't defeat sloppy attention to procedure and some well-written code. The success of the "advanced persistent threat" from China in acquiring most-certainly classified data is proof enough of that.

Wow. Way to entirely fail to understand the purpose of this aircraft. Figuring out who launched a missile is pretty easy — look for the giant candle of the rocket's exhaust plume. For that, you want something like the SBIRS or SBIRS-High spacecraft in orbit, constantly staring down with wide-field cameras. They can…