How was this even possible? Passwords should NEVER be something you can steal since they shouldn't actually be stored as clear text (or even encrypted, for that matter).

Hasn't it been common practice, for at least a decade, to store the passwords as a salted hash (using a unique salt for each user)?

You shouldn't be able to steal a password since the site shouldn't have it.

Seinfeld was in the $600,000 to $1,000,000 range (depending on the actor) back in the late 90's

You don't need much brain for running around kicking a ball.

No. That is not how it works. The truth is that the smaller provider pays the larger provider, no matter which direction the traffic flows. Some companies, like Netflix, are nice enough to not use their size as an excuse to charge people -- they offer free peering at internet exchanges. Other companies are maximally greedy.

They are the entity in this arrangement that has actively encouraged assymetric use of the net by offering assymeteric service.

It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

No, it doesn't impress me but for different reasons.

Surviving a typhoon on the surface is none trivial for any vessel of any size. Waves are no fun at all during a storm of that size. I think you underestimate how well the equipment in the steel container would have to be hardened. Its not unusual to suddenly fall a hundred feet or more, only to smack into water which is rapidly raising as you run into it. Imagine repeatedly being dropped from 100 feet or more into a pool for hours on end. Thats what being in a hurricane is like. Unless you're an experience engineer, I doubt you'd make something that survived without several tries.

On the other hand, for a submersible? Meh, not impressive. Dive below and it gets calm fairly quickly. The surface waves of a storm like that don't have that great of an effect on the ocean bottom at sufficient depth. The direct effects of the waves themselves end at about one half the wave length below the wave troughs. Indirect effects are probably worse though, and those can extend down to 300-400 feet.

If the water is deep enough and the USV can dive deep enough, its trivial to wait it out. A submarine for instance has little fear of a hurricane unless its stuck trying to get out of port because they waited too long.

They aren't complaining about being sexualized, as far as I can tell. They are complaining about being harassed. And the fact that some men get their rocks off on violence between women doesn't make the concept inherently sexual. The first page of google hits on that term include a film about a woman boxer and a women's martial arts academy.

I don't think there's anything overtly sexual about "Girlfight".

If you had a company named "Manfight" you wouldn't think of it as sexual.

Plus, even if it is somehow intended to have sexual connotations - that doesn't in any way justify harassment. That's essentially the same as blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively.

Just how annoying is this person that she generates that kind of hate ?

I have worked with/under/and above women and the only time I have ever seen anyone get this kind of reaction, male or female is when it is provoked or the people perpetrating it were a few punch cards short of a program.

Really? What if you could direct where a voluntary overpayment went (NASA for example)?

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance, which is what these companies are practicing, is not.

I've heard this argument from neoliberals on CNBC. It reminds me of a teenager whose parents catch him high as a kite: "You said I shouldn't smoke pot. You didn't say anything about cooking it in brownies and eating it."

It's a reminder about why corporations are regulated. They will do their best to circumvent laws using lawyers, unless they can be sufficiently frightened into behaving. Human beings are capable of discerning right and wrong and society holds them accountable. Corporations' charters specifically require that they not discern between right and wrong and then avoid accountability by saying, "But I didn't pinky swear!".

Will this influence the tax gimmick where the HQ is overseas so the profits don't have to have taxes paid on them?

Why is it the money can evade the government but the data can't?

Microsoft is based in the United States, so there may be some valid argument here that as an American company, Microsoft data regardless of where "in the cloud" it is stored is subject to American legal rulings.

The *real* question is what about companies that do business here but are based in other countries?