Yeah, but then you have to lug an iPad around everywhere you go. It's not like it will fit in your pocket.

I think this is still true of aftermarket car stereos though they usually have removable faceplates that you can store in the glovebox (or take with you, but then you have the same problem as the iPad of lugging it around everywhere). If the car computer is integrated in the dash, then you would have to take the dash apart or really slash it up to get at the computer (not that this is hard, but I don't think it's a simple smash and grab). If it's just a laptop sitting under a seat with an LCD in the dash, then yeah you're right.

He wasn't complaining about paying extra for the satnav, he was complaining about being asked to pay an absurd amount for satnav. When you can get a good standalone unit for ~$200, ~$4000 sounds ridiculous especially considering the screen already exists so the only things you are paying for are the receiver and the software. Sure you're going to pay more to have it done by the dealer and have it integrated with the rest of the car information system, but about 20 times the cost of a standalone unit sounds like a rip-off to me.

Okay, so salt is more useful than I thought. For some reason I was thinking collision == access, but you're right that no one allows you to provide just the hash as that would be stupid (and pretty much defeat the purpose of hashing the password) and, as you state, if the stored hash is generated (and therefore authenticated) with salt, then your collision value won't give you access.

A well written explanation, thank you.

I think you misunderstand what AndrewNeo was saying. When you have the hash itself, you can then try to find some input that also produces that hash (a collision). You don't have to know anything about the original password or the salt.

As far as I can tell, salting only helps against rainbow table attacks. OP wasn't using those, he was computing the hashes (and thus finding collisions) using only the EC2 GPU instance. He was generating the tables themselves. Salt won't help you in that case. It just requires more compute power which has now become available thanks to the EC2 GPU instances that Amazon is offering.

So why's she talking on a fairly large, conspicuous headset and not a small hidden device?

This guide is not by a lawyer, but it seems to have a good general overview of the law regarding photography (warning: pdf link). Basically there are four aspects to photography as far as the law is concerned. This is US law.

1) Whether you have a right to take a photograph (e.g. there are laws that restrict you from taking pictures of some military bases whether you can see them from a public place or not)
2) Whether you have a right to be in the place where you're taking the photograph (e.g. with Stonehenge I presume it's private property so you if you run on without paying their admission fee you'd be trespassing)
3) Whether you have a right to publish the photograph (e.g. you can't legally publish an image of a copyrighted work as your MoMA visit indicates though surely fair use would apply to parody or the like)
4) Whether you have a right to make money off the publication of a photograph (e.g. you can't sell a photo you took of Brett Farve without his permission, but there has to be more to it than that because the paparazzi are always selling celebrity photos)

In general, those four rights are unrelated. That is, you can be trespassing, but still be able to take a photograph and publish it, you just might be arrested for trespassing. As for British law, I have no idea what your rights would be. The government has video cameras watching you on the streets in London, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I learned it was illegal for a the general public to take pictures of those same cameras.

It depends on the timeline. Did Cuccinelli apply for the grant before or after the hockey stick debacle? Keep in mind Cuccinelli is not an author of the MBH papers, but the premise stands. You'd be guilty of fraud if one of the papers on which you based your proposal was found to be wrong. Though as far as I can tell, the hockey stick-like shape hasn't been invalidated. Some people just have a problem with the way the conclusions of the paper were stated. Plus, I don't see why investigating a claim, even if you think it's wrong, is bad science. You would then have evidence to support your idea that the original claim was wrong, or you get evidence to the contrary, or you just get more evidence that doesn't lead conclusively to either conclusion. Either way it seems like a win to me. Gathering more information and figuring out exactly what's going on with various phyiscal processes is what science is all about.

They started migrating everyone to whole disk encryption after this incident. My web-connected work computer was switched over about a year ago maybe more.

The manufacturer put abbreviated Scripture references on its parts. So what? If you didn't know anything about the Bible, it could easily be seen as just another part number. They're not forcing anyone to read the Bible or look up the Scripture reference. If a manufacturer wanted to put HHGTTG42 or THX1138 on parts or some other geeky reference, people would think it's cool. It's just as cryptic to anyone without "inside knowledge", but since it's a Bible reference, everyone gets their undergarments in a twist. It's not an endorsement of Christianity as an official religion by any government.

Actually, Microsoft has said it's only for application compatibility. Apparently a bunch of applications broke when going from 5.1, 5.2 (XP) to 6.0 (Vista). Why should Microsoft "lie to applications" and complicate things when they can just do what they did when going from 2000 to XP and change the minor number, as 91degrees said, version numbers are arbitrary. For what it's worth, I'm running the Release Candidate and it is a major improvement over the pre-SP2 Vista I ran for several weeks before reverting to XP.