If you're going to be leaving drawings out where they'll be exposed to sunlight, whether or not the inks are light fast is going to be important if you want to use your drawings in the future.

Some cheap pens will fade rapidly and be difficult to read (especially for thin lines) in a matter of months.

(As a note, this is why I tend to stick to pencil)

There's also the finding that many types of thermal paper contain much larger amounts of BPA than food packaging:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/07/28/study-finds-bpa-in-store-receipts-health-effects-as-yet-unclear/

Would be interesting if the link between obesity and eating fast food was only partly due to the food itself and partly due to handling the receipts.

- Bring US patent law in line with other countries
- Emphasize just how much easier we're making it for inventors in other countries to file in the US
- Add a little more to US patent law
- Put pressure on other countries to follow our lead
- Wake up and all the world has adopted our model

Each of those examples calls for more than just a barometer:

Requires the barometer, some type of measurement device, and a ladder or other way of scaling the building.

Requires the barometer and some type of measurement device.

Requires the barometer and a custodian.

It's at least been tried:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/nyregion/30dogs.html

Though apparently they ran into problems (not due to liability, though):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/28/a-dog-for-a-day.html

Except from Monsanto's perspective the neighboring farmer doesn't own the seed -- he just licenses it.

Say we modify the analogy a little -- assume the neighbor's dog is attacking someone in your yard.

If the pet store knows the dog has a history of attacking people and rents the dog to your neighbor without telling him of the dog's history, who should be liable when the dog attacks someone?

Because it's used for accessing corporate email. In many organizations, that's the only choice if someone wants to access their mail on a phone.

The biggest selling point is that it keeps corporate data segregated from the rest of what's on the device. (If someone's phone is lost / stolen or leaves a company the end result is that it allows for a remote wipe command to clear out just the data for Good)

Last I had looked at it (close to a year ago), usability was lagging behind the native email clients for Android / iOS, but they did seem to be making slow progress.

If you design it before the invention of the hairpin?

The original posting talks about "signing up" in the general context of creating an account on a site.

The article, however, seems pretty clear in talking about "signing" up to receive emails. (And very clearly puts forward that "no option == spam")

Looking at the two modes of failure for a user receiving emails you can have:
- False positives: user starts receiving email, but doesn't want it
- False negatives: user doesn't get any email, but does want it

The main debate in the original article boils down to:
- Single opt-in results in fewer false negatives, but more false positives
- Double opt-in results in fewer false positives, but more false negatives

At which point the question is one of whether it's better to optimize for fewer false positives or fewer false negatives.

In the context of the original article, if someone is signing up to receive emails, both of the following situations will lead to the original user not receiving the emails that they requested:
- If they misspell their address and the email goes to someone else
- If they enter a different address purposefully and it goes to someone else

For the user signing up for messages, the opt-in message isn't something they specifically wanted -- it's a barrier that prevents them from getting what they wanted (as such, a double opt-in request could be seen as a false positive). For someone whose email was entered in a form by someone else, any message they receive may be seen as a false positive (including a double opt-in request).

Seems a little backward that there would be complaints that workers might look out their windows and see grass, trees, and other natural things.

Everything I've read on productivity and mental health would suggest it would be beneficial to have a less "urban" view out your window.

Two angry men with guns who prefer to use intimidation rather than follow the law show up at his doorstep -- I fail to see any way in which that isn't potentially life threatening.

I'd considered this sort of thing a while back -- there's really no need to use a set list of passwords.

Assuming that the passwords are being hashed, you can have a lookup table where you store:
(Password hash) + (Current # of accounts using that hash)

By setting a threshold for the ratio of (Current # of accounts using a hash) to (Total # of accounts), you can reasonably control the average entropy of passwords in the system.

For example, if you have 100,000 users in a system and set a threshold of 2%, the system would stop allowing anyone else to use that password.

Would be an interesting experiment to see what ratio comes up with the best balance between being secure vs. being too annoying to users.

The big downside of that type of dynamic system is that for low numbers of users, it may become easier to brute force which passwords are in use by iterating through the "change password" process. (Setting a limit on how many times an account can change their password in a given day would help slightly, but might not do much to stop a distributed attack)

In the case of Hotmail (or any other large provider), they're already starting with a large data set, so they'd be able to avoid that issue.

A large-scale, coordinated boycott of all air travel would probably have some effect.

Might not even take much more to set off than a few major "think of the children" ad campaigns funded by companies with a vested interest in increasing road travel...