What you say is true, however it doesn't excuse the negligence of storing passwords in plaintext, or even with poor hashing algorithms.

Just because access to the password file is a major loss requiring everyone to change their passwords, that doesn't mean a good hashing algorithm doesn't extend the period people have to change their password, or in the case of people that use good passwords, extend the likely breach of that password outside useful bounds. i.e. just because Alice's password is s3cur1ty! and will fall within the first 2 minutes of access to the hashed table, doesn't mean Bob's of (say) f37kqrLbaNQCnlfyBXnp is as even plausibly retrievable stored as a salted SHA512 hash.

You are dangerously stupid or trolling.

I know some people who would find it just as offensive that their status was regarded as a "disorder", so I don't know that there's any universally accepted way of describing it. As for "official medical terms", have that discussion with some feminists about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Some goes for gender dysphoria. If dysphoria is defined as "a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life", I'm not sure I'd want that label either.

otoh I'd suggest "gender assignment" is a stupid term since it implies a decision on behalf of the parent/doctors/etc and tends to the provocative.

In any case, I don't mean it to be dismissive or invalidating in general, even if there are some people that are either mistaken or attention seeking in this area, as in every other area of human experience.

Sorry, I thought that was the term http://medical-dictionary.thef...

Do you have some particular term that you're desperately attached to I should use if I meet you?

Yeah well, this isn't about internet addiction either, it's about the reach of bullies into the home at all hours of the day and night.

I guess the difference I see is that you're (apparently?) proposing that removing 24/7 internet access from adolescents is somehow damaging, while I don't see the "boon" of having your tweens on the internet all night.

Sure they can be bullied at school, they can be molested in the comfort of their own homes, but there's nothing that has the searchable reach of the internet to find vulnerable idiots to prey on.

I agree with the last phrase of your comment, but you could say the same thing about the car, and I don't think you're suggesting that 12 year olds should be supplied with those? Or are you?

The article is, after all, about children.

Nice theory, but I wonder how many teenagers you have in the house? How many of those have other issues that constant internet activity exacerbates?

Not that anecdotal evidence is data, but; you go ahead and tell me how healthy it is for a gender confused 12 year old to be given a data enabled iPhone by his/her non-custodial parent, who then can not remove the device even after stark evidence of grooming messaging taking place, because they threaten to suicide if it's taken away.

Yeah, that's the same behaviour we had to deal with as kids, in no way whatsoever.

I get where you're going but cash is fungible and what the town spends it on, or if it even bothers to comply with state laws about where the money goes, is less easy to control. And if the "town" doesn't have the fine revenue, they have less money to fund the police, so it makes little difference if the cops hand it to the town to hand back to the police. By which I mean the town often appears to be directing the police to raise revenue.

Then you get ridiculous situations like:
http://theind.com/article-8237...
http://theadvocate.com/news/le...

Where the town is collecting ticket revenue and not passing it along to the state as the law requires, ostensibly via some loophole. Then the state suggests putting up flashing "speed trap" signs outside your town, because that's adult.

Or these guys that were running the police force to fund the town:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fl...
So if they can't have the fine revenue they have no use for police at all!

You already have failing towns that are massive speed traps because the revenue stays within the town, and you'd like to ... increase that effect?

The trouble with the 85th percentile rule is that it works against people that want the speed limits higher, even if they're in the greater percentage.

i.e. traditionally the unlimited speed was assessed on a road, and the limit set at or below the speed that 85% of people were travelling. Now, the enforcement here is so strict that people are generally doing 5 under the posted speed limit, so they're dropping the speed limits all over the place!

The problem you have with your system is that the fines are retained by the police, they should go into state revenue without earmarks.

That said, they're still really enthusiastic to fine speeders here; they still get to swagger and chide you like a naughty child after breaking more laws than the person they're "in pursuit" of, that hasn't actually fled.

Exactly so, but would you think it's acceptable to write a contract in "redneck"? The introduction to the article implies that small groups, "youfs" for example, write correctly because they write as their contemporaries write, it's not comparable to entire countries.

Admittedly, the body of the article is a long way from the opening paragraph and I suspect a (sub?)editor is at fault. The body is about obscure grammar rules most people don't know, and elements of style which even Oxford and Cambridge can't agree on.

ah doesn't reckon yer thesis is necessarily co'reck, an' thet th' article is cornfusin' dialeck wif language.

I don't fink yor thesis is necessarily correct, right, and that the article is confusin' dialect wiv 'am sandwich.

Or maybe you reckon the above is "English"?

I think you can blame the people that over-egg the pudding by putting multiple full-screen ad breaks in videos and generally making the experience so bad people seek a technological fix to their perceived problem with those videos and yours are collateral damage.

Naturally, most of the really bad videos are things like BBC shows that people have no moral right to watch or monetise.. but I'm sure both can give you lots of reasons why they're not hurting anyone.

Seen this twice now, and have to ask, "umm so?"

Are their primes worse than $1000 primes? Or do you have some proof that their backend is insecure?