I assume by "salt" you guys are referring to a different salt per session (a.k.a. a nonce).

If you really mean just an ordinary salted hash, then you still haven't changed anything - the salted hash is the "real" password, and any intermediary or eavesdropper can see it.

If you're talking about a nonce, then yes, now you're protected from eavesdropping - but the machine doing the verification needs to have your secret available in cleartext. This requires that you have a locked-down verification server probably separate from your application server.

Contrast this situation with a cryptographic system: The server stores your public key. When you attempt to connect, the server provides you with a nonce. You encrypt with your private key. The server can verify your connection, and your secret is never stored or seen by anyone except yourself. Nothing that the server has visiblity of, nor anything overheard in transit can be used to impersonate you in the future.

All it should ever get is my password hash.

You're just hiding the weakness: in this scenario, your "password hash" is becomes your real password. Anyone who steals the hash can now impersonate you, which means that your real password is also being saved in cleartext on the server.

A news service called Domain Newswire is claiming to have gotten confirmation from Web.com: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/21/network-solutions-auto-enrolls-customer-into-1850-weblock-service/

More platters, slower seek.
Fewer platters, slower seek.

Where's the peak?

Yeah, I never knew myself. When I looked for the stats from last year, I found this article, claiming 187,975 voters casting 1,516,765 votes. Since I didn't know which number would reflect what they were collecting, I looked at #hottest100 on twitter to see what kind of images people were sharing. The ones I found looked like http://instagram.com/p/jX3m6pMTsy/, https://twitter.com/andrewyesterday/status/424445352557547520/, and https://twitter.com/Natalia_Cooper9/status/424770515027623936/, so I assumed the 187k number was the correct comparison...

There were fewer than 200,000 votes cast last year - they've sampled close to 10% of the actual votes, so I'm sure they'll have a reasonable approximation of the final result...

I think we're in agreement, where the issue you reference is the agenda I reference. There's every possibility that it's valid.

I guess you could be suggesting that there's an issue with the browser extension which does not apply to the infringing site - admittedly, that is a possiblity.

But if Yale goes after the browser extension, they have to give a reason for that. If it does not apply to site, then we simply repeat the process - create a method for browsing the Yale site in the manner we prefer, which does not trigger either of the known complaints, and then wait to see what complaint they bring against it, if any...

I agree with your perspective. Unfortunately, the other details muddy the water:

The Nagios project on sourceforge was set up in May 2001.

The Nagios Plugins project on sourceforge was set up in June 2001.

The owner of the Nagios project later went on to create Nagios Enterprises and register the trademark.

So while the enterprise didn't exist back then, it is the successor of the project which was using the name first...

Could someone contribute an executive summary?

Yale had it's own ratemyprofessor implementation, which only displayed each course's scores separately, never comparing them.

Some students decided that it would be good to see the scores side-by-side, so they built a site that allowed comparisons of the data (by scraping the original site).

Two years later, Yale decided that they didn't like the comparison site, and blocked its IP so it couldn't scrape the data.

Although the reason for Yale not liking the site is alleged to be because it makes comparisons easy, Yale is claiming that the block is for protection of their copyright material.

So someone with suitable skills built the equivalent functionality as the banned site into a browser extension, which therefore has no copyright implications (since the data is never scraped/served by another server), and is harder to block (since the server doesn't know which students are using the extension).

The idea is that if the only issue was one of copyright, the browser extension is fine. And if Yale challenges the browser extension, then they clearly have some agenda which is not about copyright.

... think of the standard deviation as the "average distance from the average" ... That is simple, neat, and easy to remember... It is also wrong.

In fact, it is wrong in exactly the way that TFA suggests: you're describing the mean deviation...

... radio waves that can be transmitted from tiny circuit boards and USB cards inserted surreptitiously into the computers??? How is that surprising? They're inserting a USB modem, bluetooth dongle, or other equivalent radio chip into the target.