You're not the boss of me!

Well, I think that it could be argued that the *fundamental* theorem of algebra is more fundamental (that's the rule that, when vastly oversimplified, states that polynomials have roots). That being said, the identity that you propose is, as pointed out by the GP, an identity derived from properties of multiplication. It is not really all that fundamental, and one of the hypotheses of the identity is that x is not zero.

In the one-point compactification of the real (or complex) numbers, it makes sense to assign the value infinity to x/0. This is both meaningful and has value (particularly in complex analysis). That being said, the original question is asinine. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both mathematics and programming.

The Feds always look for the most expensive option. They'll end up with pricey battery powered hardware tokens when they could look at cheap Yubikeys.

Yes... because the defining characteristic of a geek is the desire and ability to much about with hardware. Obviously.

I'm going to beat the rush and bring my Roomba to the passport office tomorrow morning.

Yeah, and also meant my public key.
Derp.

Anyone who encrypts mail to me does it from their own machines. This is for Facebook mail to you. If a user grabs your keys they can also send you mail directly without going through Facebook.

Facebook lets you control your public keys as if it were any other information: public, friends only, etc.

Them having my private key is not a problem. This encrypts email one would normally get. I don't work for Facebook.

What is the problem you are eluding to?

If they have only your public keys, what is the harm in them running a keyserver?

I don't use the gmail web client. I have the a GPG plugin (GPGMail) on my laptop's email and a GPG client (oPenGP) on my iPhone.

There are GPG plugins for the web client but I have not used them.

a) for some things, yes.

b) It's worth encrypting everything. This protects your data not only from the spooks, but from gmail/live/your ISP/whatever free client you may use.

Just added my keys. Not that I care about the notifications that "Billy scored X on Y Game", but anything that obfuscates and encrypts data on the wire is a good thing. It's not just the NSA, how many of you use gmail? This will keep them from scanning your mail.

>In fact I may enable a bunch more useless notifications and set up a rule to delete them at my end as they arrive.

It can be difficult to tell the difference between rocks that have been modified by people and rocks that have been shaped by natural processes. That being said, there are things to look for.

First is material. From the photographs in the linked article, it appears that the purported tool is made from some kind of fine-grained silicious material (high in silicon, rather than magnesium and iron, as evidenced by the color), whereas the surrounding rock appears to be basalt (mafic, therefor darker in color). If you work in an area, you get to know the geology of the region, and where rocks come from. Seeing rocks far from their sources often indicates human curation. That being said, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would bother to curate a general tool like the ones photographed, so that probably isn't going to be a huge factor in this case.

Second, after seeing hundreds or thousands of stone tools, you get good at identifying them. It is kind of like chicken sexing---it may be difficult to quantify *exactly* why something is a tool, but people get really good at it, none the less. Again, this isn't the whole story, but it gives you an idea about why one might pick up a rock in the field. People who have a lot of experience and training are more likely to recognize potential tools.

Third, there are morphological indications of human modification. Rocks that fall and break naturally tend to have random patterns of flaking, whereas intentionally modified rocks will show flaking that is concentrated in a particular place. This isn't foolproof (indeed, there were purported pre-Clovis tools found in California a few decades ago that, upon closer examination, turned out to be naturally formed), but, again, it is an indication.

Fourth, it is often possible to tell a tool from other contextual clues: is it near a hearth? a pile of animal bones? other easily identified tools? Again, given the age, this is unlikely to be useful in this context, but you asked a more general question, so this is part of a more general answer.

Finally, there are lab tests that can help. One can check for residue (i.e. blood or plant reside that might indicate use in preparing food), or microflaking that might indicate use, for example. These are things that you can't see in the field, and almost certainly can't see in a photograph that was taken in the field.