Bioethicist makes him sound like a scientist, his comments do not. As anyone with a wit of common sense can tell you for various reasons, some people live better longer than other people.

Perfect of example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

The current mayor of one of the larger cities in Canada, and has been since the 1970's and she is 93 years old. She is about to retire this year, even then when asked she wants to stay in the political game. To see her in an interview, she has certainly not diminished, and is probably sharper than most at any age. In another case a rock star in his 50's was diagnosed with early onset dementia in BC, Canada recently. That is a pretty big spread. Now you might be able to say, statistically 75 is about the right age, but you don't use statistics to figure about variables like that.

That fact is it varies from person to person for a lot of different reasons, genetics, lifestyle, environment, dumb luck, and for that reason only your own personal individual assessment is going to be relevant. Should people stop doing things that are good for them after 75 if they are feeling good, I don't think so. There are extremes of course, but for the most part I am not sure most people are like that.

I'll take things I hate about the internet and Facebook for 1000$...

CipherSecureInformationSystem

and

CryptSecureEasyCipher

or perhaps CipherIndexedArray?

I can't think of one for FBI. :)

Another catchy one that is easy to remember that most people could identify with would be "FortKnox"... a very secure environment for your valuables... Then again, maybe it is taken or trademarked or something.

Not sure if it is FOSS, but I always thought DosBox was a good one.

How about CryptCipher or CipherCrypt? Heck CipherBox or CryptBox would be better than Shed.

When I think about how hard it is to break into my garden shed, the answer is "not hard". Not exactly the image you want for your cryptographic software.

CryptoCipher... or following the names you hate just call it CC.

You missed one crucial one. Processing speed. I would dismiss most, other than possibly #1, not everyone uses all features, but then again you could say the exact same thing about a host of other features that most people do not use either.

From my experience, I have a Galaxy S3. When I was trying to decide from going from my Apple 3S, to either the new Apple 5 or the Galaxy S3, the SD card was one of the deciding features. I got a 64GB SD card off Amazon for about 50$. I dumped about 40GB of music on it.

One of the things I have noticed, is that once you have it on there, it is difficult to use. The file system is slow. Now that could be that the software that runs the file system wasn't built for that kind of volume, or it could be that the processor just doesn't have the guts to really parse that much information very well. Then again as you say in #7 it could be the card with performance issues. However it being a SanDisk of decent quality, that it would probably have to be inherent, should that be the case.

Anyway with the Galaxy, it is actually inside the phone, so if you don't use it you may not even know about it, no dust, etc. and likely negligible cost considering what goes into making and marketing these things. Anyway I like having the choice, and it is obvious that Apple has been playing the no media game for some time to force you to use their services and/or upgrade to more expensive devices, which is one of the things that also made me move away from Apple.

Anyway mine works, I am happy with it, and I think it is insulting at this point to not give consumers choice. Then again, consumers do have a choice to go with something else, which I exercised.

As you say however, it is probably a truism that on any device, most users don't use half the features anyway, so the lowest common denominator is what you design for. However that is a good way to stagnate and not innovate over time. Which is probably why you see all those TV commercials from Windows and Samsung making fun of the Apple 6 and how behind the times it is. Apple can probably afford to cost on its brand name for awhile, however a lack of innovation may be their eventual downfall.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ca...

While not our Prime Minister, he might be our next one...

I believe that makes it a "tactical" knife...

The cynic in me wants to point out how costly elections are these days in the US, so on the face of it, protecting the current president is a cost saving measure as it would be a lot cheaper over the term of his service than electing someone new....

That said, that is what the vice president is for anyway, and if not, what is the point of the office?

They do not need customer information to asses Canadian content, they need only to look at their licencing list. They probably already meet the requirements, or could meet it pretty easily, I doubt licencing a bunch of Canadian content would be all that expensive. I suspect it is more about how well Netflix enforces the Canada VS US access. That is how many subscribers that have a Canadian billing address and credit card information that happen to be connecting to Netflix using a US IP address which is a very easy thing to do, and Netflix doesn't really try to stop it all that hard really, probably because it isn't really in their best interests to do so. I would say a good chuck of Canadian customers have used the US version of Netflix on more than one occasion because certain content is only available on the US version and not on the Canadian one. You can enforce all the Canadian Content rules you like, but if everyone just connects to the US version it isn't going to make a lick of difference.

That is of course if this whole debate really has anything to do with Canadian content, and not about the CRTC being a shill for the Canadian telecommunications industry which are launching their own competition for Netflix...

This is all so much saber rattling. Neither should, nor would separate. It is a political ploy fed to citizens in order to negotiate a better deal within respective unions or confederacy. In both cases, should the actual event ever happen they would be screwed in so many ways. Quebec gets preferential treatment to appease them. Every now and then they will threaten, but in the hopes of getting even more preferential treatment.

The last referendum Quebec had, we ran a pool on what the vote would be. That is about how worried the rest of the world is about Quebec actually leaving Canada. Eventually people will get sick of it and call their bluff and say, go ahead then, separate already. It's like the child threatening to call child services on their parents, and the eventual response being, here is the phone, would you like me to dial the number for you?

Of course given global warm... or climate change or whatever, that would make much more of Canada hospitable, like North Bay or even Sudbury!

Though given that much of the non-populated near arctic is tundra on top of granite I am not sure how feasible that really is. Also much of the northern parts are only accessible by ice bridges really in winter, which would actually mean that less of the area is actually available for settlement.

Ohhh fancy! :)

On a somewhat unrelated note. I was thinking it probably helps to find people to become suicide bombers if they are uneducated and indoctrinated. I am also vaguely aware that one of the things promised to martyrs of the cause being the whole 72 virgins in the afterlife thing. Is the thinking there that there is this pool of infinite virgins that just exist in the afterlife or is it that God creates them specifically for you? Because if it is just drawing on the pool of those virgins that happen to die and go to the same place, I'm not so sure that is such a fine reward...