I don't know why more people don't use solutions like Lastpass. I have one very long and difficult to guess password (but easy for me to remember), and every site I visit has a unique psudo-random gibberish password. If a site does something really stupid like store passwords of their users in plaintext, a breach will only allow access to that site since that password is used nowhere else. This method is impervious to dictionary attacks, hash-table lookups, etc. It's a tiny bit of an inconvenience, but it's very secure and I don't have to worry about breaches like this at all.

-S

... it's falling. With style.

-S

They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).

At a minimum, they ask you to pay for things (HBO comes to mind) that you could, admittedly illegally, torrent. They make more off of your cable subscription than they would for just the raw bits for you to take what you want.

So it should come as no surprise that they're willing to sign up for this.

-S

Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue

So give them a couple hundred bucks and be done with it...

-S

Confession: I'm a Windows/PC user. Win 7 works fine for me. I use it at work. I use it a home. I can run pretty much anything I want on it. It's stable and mostly trouble free for me.

I've yet to see a single compelling reason to move to Windows 8 for desktop/laptop. Maybe it's OK for tablets? I don't know... I use Android and I'm happy with that. Is there *any* "ohhh... gotta have that" feature in Windows 8? Looks like a usability step backwards from Windows 7 to me. Am I missing something?

-S

Romney: "my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk"

No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% of scientists in agreement.

-S

More info here:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c7c2fbd2gil25fjimln1jnr1134/110701307803962595019

I do not think d|i|g|i|t|a|l means what you think it means...

They're sort of like a tick that attaches itself to a host and keep engorging itself until it pops.

It's gotten itself firmly attached to the wallets of 93 million people. Now it's sucking hard. The pop will come enough...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/19/verizon-quarterly-revenues-q1-2012/

I've got friends, and I'm sure you do too... obsessive about recycling, shut off the water when brushing their teeth, drive small cars with good gas mileage (and/or take public transportation, ride their bikes), support "green" causes, eat organic foods, etc... I'm sure you know the type.

But then they go and spawn. Repeatedly. Have I published a peer-reviewed, formal study? No. But I personally know some of those people, and given the limited number of people I know compared to the population of the earth, it is safe to say that those people exist, and in fairly large numbers.

And while they seem to work tirelessly to "save the planet", the act of having in excess of 2.0 children serves to greatly defeat their environmentalist activities. And yet this fact seems to escape them...

-S

Sounds like a self-correcting system to me. It's seen in nature all the time. It's just sad to me that we, as a species, are too stupid and stubborn to keep it from happening to ourselves.

I'll never understand so-called environmentalists who go out and have 5 or 6 kids. I can think of nothing quite so environmentally irresponsible...

-S

Show me the massive increase in accidents and fatalities that have come along with the massive increase in cell phone usage. Then I'll believe there's a real correlation. The results of a controlled test designed to yield a certain result isn't useful data.

Here's the fatality list through 2009. It shows steady decreases in fatalities per mile driven.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Of course, that's 3 years old now, but still... there's been an increase in cell phone use through 2009, so if using a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving, I'd expect to see a big increase in the fatality rate, not a decrease.

And here's another flawed study (2010)... http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx

They estimate that 25% of crashes involve the use of cell phones. Based on that, I would expect accident rates to increase (to a degree) along with cell phone usage. But they don't. Many states have banned cell phone use by drivers. In those states, shouldn't see a big decrease in accidents? Do we? I doubt it.

-S