Not worriesome, because there is zero data to confirm whether those passwords were anything like valid or not, thus no conclusions can be drawn whatsoever other than 20% of people figured out how to get a free bar of chocolate.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Be they the CIA, FBI, **AA, police, DHS, the armed forces - every single one of them. Because then, all each of us has to do is include some of the Wikileaked documents on our personal sites, blogs, etc, and then none of the US authorities will be allowed to read our sites, thus protecting us all from their pathetic attempts to classify the entire world's population as dangerous terrorists. Result! Wonder if it would also stop the likes of Hillary Clinton from ordering for the illegal bugging of senior members of the UN? Opps, Wikileaked there...

First, it was over 2 years ago.
Second it was apparently 20% of people gave their passwords in exchange for chocolate.
http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/04/chocolate-owns-your-passwords/

However, the key thing is - the survey had absolutely zero way of confirming whether the passwords were genuine or not.

You know what? Some random in the street offers me a bar of chocolate in exchange for my password, I'll gladly trade; I end up with a free bar of chocolate, they end up with a garbage string of characters which isn't my password to anything at all. Seems I would be included in that 20%, but my security would have remained uncompromised and I'd be better off to the tune of 1 bar of chocolate.

which all just goes to show that the survey was crap, the results equally so.

Fundamental rules of programming -

1. Constants aren't.
2. Variables won't.

Tell us, Papa Ratzi, how else would you describe someone who adtively protects, supports, defends and hides known repeat paedophiles, hmm?
That sounds exactly like someone who is indifferent toward real life.
So get off your high horse and join the real world.
And startby turning over those of your priests who are paedos to the lawful authorities and stop protecting, supporting, defending and hiding the paedos.

If it delays the release of another of her albums full of coma-inducing, obnoxious whining shit, then that's GOT to be worth it.
For the good of music and of mankind as a whole, let's hope he succeeds!

Ah, you'll be wanting our dual inline DIMM memory module's, I take it?

In a previous company, our Marketing Director was showing some potential marks, I mean "customers" round the labs.
He came to some prototypes we were working on, and proudly showed off his Tech Skillz to the assembled masses by announcing that "Here's where we assemble our prototypes using printed PCB circuit boards".

I kid you not :-(

<quote><blockquote><div><p>Are we to expect a slew of articles about 80 year old discoveries now?!</p></div></blockquote><p>Look at the bright side: none of the articles will be dupes!</p></quote>

Not for another 80 years, anyway.

Are we to expect a slew of articles about 80 year old discoveries now?!

SMAs have been well known about for decades, well written about for decades, just what is the point if this article?!

<quote><p>I think part of the basic issue is that this is a law that should have no jurisdiction in "the comfort of your own home".</p></quote>

Does that apply to all laws, or just the ones you chose?
Do I get to chose which ones apply in the comfort of my own home?

<quote>I'm not saying reading music for fun is a <i>bad</i> thing, but it's different from hearing it played and neither is a replacement for the other. Like someone else said, it's like looking at the code for a game vs playing it.</quote>

Completely wrong.

It is, however, akin to reading a book rather than watching a film or TV adaptation thereof.
If you know how to read (words or music score) then your enjoyment is limited only by your pure imagination, and what you imagine will be far better than anything someone could record.

(FWIW, reading the soursecode of a game would be akin to reading the TeX source for the music score).

'cos that one time you post and your location is half way round the world as you are on holiday, kinda gives a massive clue that you are not going to be round for a bit and your property ripe for a visit from the guys with the stripy jumpers.

...for anyone doing a search on the term analyst.
Or searching for information about shitake mushrooms.
Or looking for the latest football results for Arsenal.
Or cocktail recipes.

So Google supposedly (via Twitter) issue a denial.

I remember a very recent denial Google issued -
"No, we're not collecting WiFi data with Street View"
"Wait, I mean, we're not storing the WiFi data we collect"
"Erm, OK, but we can't do anything useful with it..."