Valid point.

Originally, SSL/TLS and HTTPS were developped and deployed to provide pprotection for this small amount of snesitive data.

Now, for various reasons, we have HTTPS protect pages that contain a lot of "rich" content that actually doesn't need this protection. This has the side affect of creating a lot of extra, uncachable content. I can understand why ISPs would want a way handle that.

So, is there a way to securely protect the sensitive stuff while leaving the rest unencrypted? Perhaps the non-sensitive stuff could be validated* with secure hashes, so could then be cached without need to decrypt anything?

*As I understand, one of the current problems with mixing HTTPS and non-HTTPS content on the same page is that the non-secure content can affect how the secure content is handled.

If you use a simple prefix you can remember, a different one for each system, then you can program a complex suffix into a YubiKey configured in "static mode". This avoids changing the existing password based system.

Of course, it's not as secure as other options, like One Time Passwords or challenge-response systems, but is an improvement.

(Another option would be to have a seperate YubiKey for each system, then each system could have a completely unique password.)

My girlfriend of many years freely admitted that I was the "rational" choice rather than the "chemistry" choice. Later she also admitted to other advantages of choosing me over a man "practicing optimum predation".

They wouldn't. They are already helping each other and (mostly) fighting for each other against the rest of the population. And they pay a pittance to a few "peasants" to do the the dirty jobs they don't want to do, so they are set. They don't really care about the "lower classes" as long as the lower classes don't get in their way. And for the few that do get in their way, they have the resources to neutralize the threat.

Sounds like his manager failed to successfully play politics.

The stakes may be higher than some people think. Over thepast few years, several people I casually know (that is, I only know them by face and first name) have expressed the opinion that the sex offender list is a license to hunt and kill. How many people with similar names are going to get "tagged" by this service?

How about a real Detective Mudoch? (Admittedly, Canadian) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091909/?ref_=nv_sr_4)

Interesting, but it would still be just a copy. You will still be dead.

Putting your brain in a tank with life support and connections to an avatar would extend your life. But only for along as you can pay the costs (and even then, only up to a few hundred years, assuming the neurology researchers' estimates are reasonable).

Yes, you would. You'd be programmed to be happy. (and to not notice the patent number).

I live in the "snow belt" and have driven through Michigan and several other northern states. High priority areas get prepped/cleared first, then other areas in order of descending priority. As such, there are many areas where the road conditions were even worse while waiting for the crews to get to them.

It just isn't affordable to have the kind of coverage you seem to think those states should have.

On the other hand, those of us in the snow belt should not be making fun of those who don't, so are prepared.

Also, Amanda Tapping's character, Helen Magnus on Sanctuary. (I would also counter her role as Samantha Carter on Stargate: SG1 as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.) If you insist on "mainstream" TV shows, I would count Pauley Perrette's role as Abby Sciuto on NCIS as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.

*These are shows with an ensemble cast, so there are multiple co-leads. Also, in both shows, there were episodes where Abby or Samantha were the central protagonsit (as was other episodes where other members of the ensemble were central).

Many company have internal applications that require IE. Fro example, my employer and a lot of other companies I know of rely on a web-based "project time and resource reporting" system that only supports IE (ver 6 or newer) and uses several methods to get around user agent header spoofing. It is the only reason I still use IE.

Probably very few people are visiting W3Schools from their corporate PCs, so their statistics won't include those installations. On the other hand, if people who use EI at work are using other browsers on their own time, that might show a real preference for not using IE. (Of course, there are people like my parents who are completely oblivious to the fact they are using Windows/IE at work and Linux/FF at home. (I set up their home PCs for them. Unfortunately, they keep telling their friends who great I am at keeping their home PCs running smoothly.)

$10k * 100,000 engineers = $1B additional wage cost.

Seems reasonable to me. Of course, I am an engineer (thought not one of those engineers).

Water lines, in areas subject to freezing weather, need to be underground to protect against freezing. Elsewhere, water lines tend to be underground because elevating them is usually impractical in an urban environment. Putting those lines underground actually is very expensive.

Power lines underground are expensive enough that very few neighborhoods are willing to pay the power companies to bury them. Adding lines to existing poles would result in the new lines being too low, so either the poles have to be replaced with taller ones, or parallel sets of poles placed. Either way, is actually very expensive.

The crapware subsidizes the cost of the PC. PC manufacturers get paid to put that stuff on their PCs. The crapware vendors pay for this in the hope that enough customers will like something enough to actually buy the full version. Apparently this happens enough for the practice to be profitable.