Ahem...I hate to nitpick, but Diffie-Hellman does not belong in the same category as RSA and DSA. It is an algorithm for symmetric key exchange. Public key cryptosystems, by definition, use asymmetric keys...not to mention that they can be used to encrypt and/or sign data, which Diffie-Hellman does not do.

The "proof" of the quadratic formula is completing the square. It is a simple method that does not require rote-learning, and can be applied to many other problems. I guess this all depends on how you define "useful". If "useful" means improving your skills in BASIC coding at the expense of learning a simple mathematical technique (which is quite elegant, btw) in a fraction of the time, then yes, writing your pseudo-rootkit was useful. To many, math is a means to an end, but to others it is high art. It is unfortunate that you stand on the the side of the former.

I started reading this thread thinking, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to get some practical insight into how to deploy a microwave link across hundreds of miles of open air, under the pressure of being in a war zone, no less". But what I have read instead are lame excuses for why they should use something else. Hell, I guess they could even use dial-up with AOL if they still have working telephone lines. I hate to be the insensitive, semi-autistic brat in the crowd, but can someone with experience setting up these kind of connections please get the spotlight?

No, GNU-slash-Linux is not a distinction...it is a moniker he asks people to use because he rightfully wants the GNU Project to get the recognition it deserves. When people colloquially refer to "Linux", they are referring to a complete operating system (i.e. GNU-slash-Linux). The entire concept of a free-as-in-speech operating system was pioneered by Stallman. The GPL was created by Stallman. Linux (the kernel) would not have been free if the GPL hadn't come first. People (except the Debian folks) drop the GNU/ because it doesn't roll off the tounge quite so well as just saying "Linux". And others, such as our friends at Canonical, drop the word "Linux" altogether. None of this changes the reality of what Stallman created.

Many (nay, most) native English speakers would be stumped by:

That's why doctors say "high blood pressure" and "irregular heartbeat". And those who have trouble understanding terms like these will have trouble with more than just ordering sandwiches. You can't, for instance, just point to a driver's license application and say, "I want this".

English & Spanish != 170 languages

Let's be practical here...move 170 multilingual people to another country and you can make the exact same claim. This really seems like overkill for any practical purpose.

I often call to complain that my neighbor's DSL isn't set up correctly...oh, wait.

You make some very interesting arguments, and I'd like to believe them, but your explanation of the forces that drive people's salaries seems to only apply in cases where the employees are hired by, and report directly to, the proprietor of the business. Within corporate heirarchies, your model breaks down due to the maxim of, "no one who is subordinate to me may make a higher salary than me".

Managers use (abuse?) their authority within organizations to override the market forces that would otherwise determine the fair value of their service to the company, and thus impose the cost of their labor by fiat. Though it would seem that higher-level executives could step in to ensure that mid-level managers don't receive excessive compensation, that doesn't happen, because the salaries of those in top positions are supported by the same mandate. The system is self-supporting from the top to the very bottom, because the salaries of even the lowest level supervisors are determined this way. Only employees at the very bottom rung have their compensation determined by the market, and if that value is greater than that of their supervisor, the supervisor can easily insist on a raise regardless of his own merit.

The CEO's of top companies receive their level of compensation much more due to the mass of subordinates beneath them than due to the specialization of their skill set or the degree of value that they are able to inject into any business process. MBA's are a dime a dozen, and managers with general business experience are interchangeable. eBay, for instance, could have been just as successful with almost any executive other than Meg Whitman, and they were well along the path to success before she arrived.

Furthermore, this compensation mandate means that executives are able to gain all the benefits of business ownership without assuming its risks. They stand only to gain from success of the business and not suffer from its losses, except insofar as they could be fired in the event of catastrophic failure or gross incompetence. Lower-level employees, OTOH, can be fired on a whim.

Corporate heirarchies do not have a system that allows subordinates to swap places with their superiors based on merit. When an executive underperforms, the only recourse is termination. And, when your boss gets fired, there's a good chance that you'll feel the heat too. Hence the expression, "shit rolls downhill".

Again, I'd like to believe that there's a fair balance between risk/responsibility, creation of value and monetary compensation, but as anyone who has had an incompetent boss or project manager knows, that's usually not the case.

Sir, I'll have you know that real Americans order beer by the foot, or at the very least, in the form of a hat. Pfeh...tourist.

Most laws of this nature are indeed left intentionally vague...as they should be. This is so as to not put an onerous burden on companies trying to implement good security practices, not to favor one specific security vendor over another, and to maintain the flexibility needed for vendors to adapt to changes in technology.

Protecting against SQL injection attacks is much easier than making sure that all storage devices and network connections are encrypted. To use the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy analogy, encryption is like a towel. If your data is encrypted then people (sometimes rightfully) assume you've already got everything else you need to protect your customer's data from the crackers of the universe. These guys, however, clearly had none of the above.

Forget about Google; What hope do admins have when Cisco and Juniper can't implement IPv6 transparently? I'm not sure if it was specifically their hardware that the military had problems with, but they're mentioned in the article so that would be the implication.

Perfect! Just hold on a sec while I forward your post to the Joint Chiefs....there! Done and done.

Not quite. The rule only applies to network hardware vendors who sell to the military, of which there are a very small number. Also, they're not doing this in the interest of public welfare. They are doing it because they're being sold hardware that hasn't been adequately tested and thus tends to break down on them. This is a very sad excuse for quality assurance, and begs the question of whether the military should switch vendors regardless of whether these companies roll out IPv6 on their private networks or not.

I find it ironic that you would use, as your example, a game series (GTA) that is well known for containing sexual content, albeit not explicit nudity. Check out the Leisure Suit Larry series for examples of much more overt sexual content being allowed. When evaluating a game like this, you need to consider the context and quantity of sexual content used in the game. References to prostitution and sex acts are often allowed. Even partial nudity is sometimes permissible. However, there is a big difference between something that contains sexual content and something that is nothing but porn.