Exactly who are these 'authorities'? Where are the 'plans'? Who approved the money for this project and why do the citizens have no say in it? Later the word 'proposals' is used; so is it a plan or a proposal?

This is very poor journalism. Not a single authority is identified. There are references to two critics of the project who have no authority and their opinion doesn't matter. There is no substance to this story at all, no citations, no evidence that it is not just in the reporter's imagination.

& cement is not the same as concrete.

Not in any services I subscribe to.

There is something deeper behind this. There is no technical reason why password length should be restricted as the resulting hashes are the same length effectively. Every time I see a max password length I can't help but wonder if the reason is limited space in a database column and that some braindead idiot is storing the passwords in plaintext.

Every time I come up with a password that has a maximum entry I ensure I use a strictly unique password.

The flaws in RC4 have been known about for a long time but were thought irrelevant in the scheme of SSL/TLS to the point where RC4 was the preferred cipher suit only a few years ago as it was one of the few that were able to mitigate the BEAST attack. So the GP's comment that there's no surprise since RC4 has been known to be weak for a decade isn't quite the full story.

It was only in 2013 where RC4 became strictly taboo for use in SSL/TLS with the exposure of new exploitable vulnerabilities on top of the several previous weaknesses identified, and last month RFC7465 effectively banned the cipher's use in TLS.

What does "password strength" really mean?

If people used a textual representation of number obtained from a reliable hardware random number generator then the meaning would be unambiguous. It's the number of digits in that number. But most people don't do that (perhaps more should).

So what does it mean to say that a password has so many bits of entropy? Well, I guess it means how many truly random bits it would take to index their password from the universe of passwords the user considered. This is more an exercise in psychology than it is in mathematics. You have to figure out how users generate passwords or discount passwords. For example requiring a mix of upper and lower case letters doesn't add as much entropy as you'd think, because most users are mediocre typists who'll avoid using the shift key too often. Requiring digits means that many people will just "0" for "o" and "1" for "L".

So it's really easy to concoct passwords which you know are bad, because you know the methods used to select which passwords you'd consider; if the developers of the strength meter don't take your particular generation algorithm into account the meter will show the password to be stronger than you know it to be.

I'm imagining a kind of competitive tomboy/sibling rivalry thing, with the girl not always winning, but showing she can give as good as she gets. It'd put a "new" (ish) spin on the old Top Gear formula.

Seriously, an exotic woman driving exotic cars too fast? Who'd watch that?

I would, because I'm a man and I'm not afraid to admit that on some level I'm a pig. Ideally she'd be smart and funny too, because I don't like to think of myself as being a total pig, but either way I'm in.

Nailed it. It's like the old saw about the Chinese character for "crisis" being made up of characters for "danger" and "opportunity". No matter what happens now they're going to lose some of their long-term fans. But at some point young people aren't going to be so keen on watching some ancient codger behaving like an ass.

If they play this right it could become like Dr. Who, with a reboot every few years to bring in fresh blood.

Sure. But the man verbally abused and bullied a subordinate. Then he physically assaulted him -- or perhaps by that point the physical altercation was mutual.

At some point you have to ask yourself whether you have your priorities straight. As a fan of the show I'm sorry to the big ape gone. As a fan of civilized behavior I'm happy to see at least a minimum standard of decency in behavior getting enforced.

I'm just wondering how that would work if they don't currently have broadband access... Would you sign them on for a broadband contract and pay for it outright just so that they can test it? Would you set it up under the name of the current home owners? Would Comcast be willing to transfer the contract to you after you are in the home?

Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.

>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie

But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.

>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.

> That ability to change indicates a choice

No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.

Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...

Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.

Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.

And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.

The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?