Say, I further "encrypt" my https sessions using ROT13. If NSA is on to me specifically, they will have no problem figuring it out. But if they opportunistically monitor main internet pipes for vulnerable traffic, I should be safe. What if web browsers encrypted data with one of hundreds of algorithms independently developed by smart people worldwide *before* standard https? At least some of them will prove resistent to cryptanalysis and even vulnerable ones will consume some of NSA's computing power and employee time to crack.

That's an interesting take on the idea. There may be, almost certainly is an "optimal" point of view where the balance of future carrying cost, productive potential, experience and future work expectancy.

If you value experience the highest, then older people are the most valuable. Children have highest carrying cost, least experience, but the highest adaptability and future earning potential.

Now you could take a *market* approach to valuing lives by holding an auction to see how much people will contribute to save a life. In that case I have no doubt that children would win hands down. In a sense we do this already; charities which rescue children have a distinct advantage over those that target adults or the elderly.

I actually dug out my old Model M last year. Aside from the fact that the rubber.insulation had flaked off the keyboard cord, it still worked perfectly. And it was every bit as good as I remembered it being for typing, and if I replace the cord it will last forever.

There's only one problem with the thing: it's so damn loud. Every damn keypress is accompanied by a loud "POK!" Forget about annoying other people, *I* was annoyed. Years of typing on pretty good Thinkpad "scissor switch" keyboards had accustomed me to a low, pleasant sussuration.

Cherry makes a "brown" switch that is not quite as loud as the classic buckling spring. I have a cheap nixeus keyboard that uses "brown" knock-offs. They're pretty good and not so loud as to be annoying. I wouldn't use this keyboard in public, at a Starbucks or in the library, but it's fine in my home office.

You mean, like you're doing right now? Good question.

wouldn't a device like this with a fitting attachment solve some of the issues involved with this equipment?

Nope, just a simple option to not generate a year inreview. What exactly are you proposing? Requiring the other billion people to opt in?

We don't need our presidents to know how to code, or to be scientists. We do need them to appreciate that coding and science are important, listen to the experts and encourage general public to do the same. I'll take one line of Javascript over "I am not a scientist" excuses right away.

The year in review is just a summary of what you yourself have posted. "Don't show me my own photos" seems like an unrealistic request for a mainstream service. I think the most that can be done is have a preference that people can check if they don't want their year in review. Facebook has plenty of ethical flaws, but this is not one of them.

APK's host files as interpreted by Bennett Haselton would have been a better bet.

You are talking about super regulated markets, markets where governments are heavily involved and declaring that the way they are regulated and corrupted by the governments is something that would prevent a bakery from changing prices on the fly should their market conditions change, for example a giant influx of consumers wouldn't change the market conditions for bakery enough to change prices. I showed that as market conditions change the producers quickly modify their behaviour. I don't know what you are even trying to say, however comparing stable and predictable market conditions to changing market conditions and declaring that changing market conditions do not cause producers to changing prices is too silly.

A swing and a miss.

Still you can't deny that lefties have all the sense of humour of an average lake trout. The best yuks anyone's ever gotten out of them have been at their expense, and so the circle is complete.

Oh I'm not a righty.

Tyrants of any stripe fear nothing so much as laughter.

That's why lefties have no sense of humour.

Of course, if you seriously advocate that people take responsibility for their networks, their equipment, and their decisions and realize the part they play in enabling the problems they complain about, you'll be accused of "blaming the victim".

Still, unlike the harsher laws that vary by jurisdiction (of which some have no extradition treaties), this actually stands a chance of working. On a hostile network like the Internet, nothing other than hardening the targets is going to actually improve security. It would also be nice for the rest of us not to have to contend with botnets and other problems made possible entirely by the clueless who want all the benefits of a general-purpose global network but don't want to put forth the effort to learn how it works and how to use it responsibly.

They strongly resemble the child who wants a pet cat but doesn't want to feed it and change its litter box because that part isn't fun.