My main reason is that I don't see the point. What is so wrong with glasses than I should want to pay thousands to have surgery on my eyes just to "free" myself from glasses? I've worn glasses for most of my life, can't say they bother me (and they do come in handy as others have noted as added physical protection at times!). Can't be doing with contact lenses though. Went for a trial, couldn't even keep my eye open for them to put the test lens in, so that was the end of that. Ugh, actually putting something on to the surface of one's eye? *shudder* Mind you, I can't have laser eye surgery even if I wanted it - a few years back I gave in and went for a test. The eye surgeon did the usual sight test stuff, measured my glasses to determine an initial prescription setting to test, figured out the final tested prescription was suitable for laser surgery, and started filling out the paperwork. "Umm, what about this double-cvision?" I asked, still sat in the chair with the eye test gear clamped to my head. "Huh? Oh." came the reply. Turns out that they can't do anything about double-vision, so even after surgery I'd still need glasses. Kinda destroyed his whole argument for having it, really! (I was a bit concerned that he had not spotted the glasses had double-vision correction in them when he was analysing them, too - wonder what else he might have missed had the surgery gone ahead?)

Meh, Genesis were never the same since Peter Gabriel left...

Well there was the PicoJava from Sun.
Or the MAJC from Sun

Both of which did exactly that.

Alas none are around any more...

You seriously believe that a gay person can't be homophobic? That's so naive that it's almost sweet (if it weren't so flawed). Fact is that many of the most homophobic bigots in this world are themselves gay.

As I look through my window right now, I can see 16 homes.
6 of those have got solar panels on their roofs generating electricity (2 have also got solar water heating).
10 years ago none of them had any solar.

Just sayin'...

China is the largest investor in renewable energy of any country in the world.[1]

[1] http://hardware.slashdot.org 2 Jan 2012.

You might not be sad, but Sad Keanu is sad :-(

Imagine y = tan(x) x can not be 90. Yet x can be >90 or 90. There is nothing in Einstein's work to show c cannot be exceeded.

Uh-hu. You mean people like me who get on with things knowing it is all working fine and we don't need to waste money on a non-solution? Sounds to me like you are the sort of person who is the problem - trying to brow-beat people into giving you money in exchange for something we don't actually need! I note that at no stage did you offer any counter-argument to any of my points, instead you just mouthed off anonymously - that tells everyone all they need to know about your position...

Thing is, people (usually those with a vested interest in IPv6) have been saying this for at least the past 10 years. Periodically they announce "Oh Noes! We are about to run out of IPv4 space any minute now! Change to IPv6 immediately or we are all doomed!" Only, as we have seen every single time, it's been nonsense. Are there enough IPv4 addresses for everything? Clearly not. Is this a problem? Again, clearly not. IPv4 plus NAT (and DHCP) is a perfectly good solution, it requires not changes in hardware, we don't have to rush out and buy new gear from those touting the IPv4-mageddon, we just carry on as we are with more than enough address space for everyone and everything. Why does my internet-enabled toaster NEED a publicly accessible globally unique IP address, when it is more than happy sitting in my kitchen using my house's private NAT pool which combined uses but 1 single public IP address? It doesn't. IPv6 is an overly complexed solution to a problem which was eliminated yonks ago. The only reason we keep getting these chicken-licken pronouncements of impending doom is because those with a vested interest in trying to flog IPv6 gear find their sales are down. Nothing more.

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.