I've actually been wondering something as I read through all the comments, and it's unclear from the original question. Yes, the kids have multiple passwords to multiple sites, but does each child have a unique login/password combination for each site? Around here at least, it seems that the schools and libraries have one institutional subscription with a login/password to each (paid/commercial) resource, and that gets divulged to and shared by all students/patrons using that site.

If each child has his or her own set of login credentials, many other commenters have pointed to various "password wallet" type solutions.

If this is instead set up as I put forth above, I suppose the students could still use one of these apps and just put the school's credentials into it. But I think a better solution in this case would be for the school to set up a private portal (VPN, website, or whatever), give each student and anyone else who needs access a single, unique login, and have links through said portal that redirect to the various external sites with the correct credentials. That way you're only asking users (especially younger children) to remember - and keep secure - a single username/password combination.

As the parent suggests, access can be IP based, and by connecting to the portal/VPN, your device at home appears to be coming from the school. That's exactly what the university I work at does, for example if I want to access various online journals from home. They even have it set up so I can initiate the VPN session by visiting a website.

OK, 100% in agreement that there should be more emphasis on reproducing results, but someone needs to step up and pay for it - the current funding situation is far from pretty. Also, in the current "publish or perish" climate, nobody is going to spend time working on reproducing somebody else's results unless it directly impacts their own work. So we'd need to change that mentality as well.

However, if you truly believe that reproducibility is part of peer review, I've got a bridge to sell you. With most (all?) journals, reviewers aren't paid. The time they spend on peer review is typically spent AFTER they put a full day into their own research; their home institution doesn't expect any less output. They get minimal if any recognition for it, in an academic position it checks a little box for "good scientific citizen" and maybe puts a bullet point on a resume/CV. Sure, they'll ding the paper if the claims seem outlandish, or something just doesn't seem to add up, or grandiose claims are made with a sample size of n=1, but they generally expect that the submitting group has done the controls, the replicates, etc. The purpose of peer review is for the paper to pass the sniff test, not to guarantee there's no fraud.

From the changes over the last several versions, it seems to me that Firefox is heading in this direction as well...

Fortunately, for now we can still "restore" things to the way we like, but how much longer until their UX "experts" make that impossible?

Frankly, I think we (meaning: those who design these sorts of things for a living) can deal with the issue of condensation out of the air.

The big problem today is that so-called "high temperature" superconductors all have less than desirable properties. Some are amazingly fragile; some superconduct but can't really be worked/machined in any meaningful way; some are so difficult to make (at least reproducibly) that they can't be used for anything more than research. It's great we've gotten this far.

As a practical thing, most of us who make use of superconductors would be absolutely THRILLED if we could get a good, workable, and ideally strong superconducting material that operated even a little bit above LN2 at 77K. Any remotely useful supercon material needs to be cooled with liquid helium, which is both non-renewable and expensive. Our little NMR facility (3 magnets) spends over $30k/year just keeping the magnets cold so they can be used as something more than very expensive paperweights. And we actually get a "good" price on LHe.

I've got to basically agree. Furthermore, while tritium tends to be pretty strongly regulated because it's (mildly) radioactive, deuterium is relatively easy to come by. The natural abundance of deuterium is ~1% of all hydrogen. You can separate D2O out of water by distillation, or you can skip this step and just buy it. I can buy a kilogram of 99.8% D2O for $300-400; that's with a discount, but full list is under $1k, well within the means of any determined terrorist. If you hydrolyze that, about 20% of D2O by weight is deuterium, so getting a few grams to "boost" your bomb via hydrolysis would be trivial, ignoring the part where you have to prevent the deuterium + oxygen from dramatically recombining.

Basically, the terrorist angle is a red herring from someone with an anti-fusion agenda.

More than likely, if you have a residential contract with your ISP it has a clause to the effect of "we can change this agreement any time we like". True, you can cancel your service at that point without penalty, but in some (many?) places that might mean going without broadband, at least in the US. And how long will it take Comcast, etc. to come around to Rightscorp's way of thinking if they offer to split their settlement^W protection money? Sure, this could be a boon for some small ISP with morals and a backbone, but there aren't too many of those around.

BTW, total agreement on the common carrier thing.