Which is still a *lot* of successes. Probably a better return on average than the "We are from The Microsoft and we are calling you because your computer is infested with the viruses" scam.

I just did it successfully, after getting the error you got the first time through. You're right, the website does not clearly have a place to log in -- you have to request a document or initiate a payment in order to get the login screen, wherein you can also create an account. In defense of OP, this may be the reason they did not include a link to a login page -- there doesn't appear to be one.

But to your point, there seems to be a bug in the form, where if you put any punctuation or special characters in the required passphrase, it misreports the issue as a bad password. Taking the exclamation point out of the passphrase caused my password (a different token) to be accepted. For what it's worth, YMMV, etc etc. (This is the government we're talking about...)

I just now created an account. There's no login button on the top page -- you have to enter into some kind of transaction before it'll give you the option of logging in or creating a new account. (I chose to view a transcript for a past year.)

Once the process gets going, it's a little *too* straightforward. The information you need to create an account could easily be socially engineered. Current address, age, full name and SS# are all required information on any loan application, for instance. It then checks your records and gives you a multiple choice test for outstanding loans and banking information that you need to answer correctly. Again, all of this is public record. It would take some effort, but creating an account on someone else's SS# is definitely doable.

> I am surprised that no one has brought up her famous quote of "No one in this country has a God given right to a job"

It doesn't do the Democrats any good to bring it out now. Wait until she gets the nomination, and *then* bring it out.

> Why can't the Republicans offer a sane candidate?

I think because all the insane ones have all the political clout.

I believe this was reported in Slashdot years ago. Chitosan based bandages are available on Amazon. I carry one in the first aid kit on the motorcycle. Is this Retread Sunday?

Because HP went so well!

Everyone knows, there are no female customers at RSA conferences. (/irony)

I'd restate as "harder to invade but easier to lock valid personnel out", which seems a classic problem with any secure location. As such, there has to be existing solutions. Having two crew in the cockpit at all times is a good start but not a complete solution. (You could probably think of at least three ways around this.)

If there is one truth in the world, it's this: Nobody wants to see me in hot pants.

Never mind, I'll just read the literature and save myself a plane ride.

> Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

...and certain women are willing to be objectified (at least a little bit) for money.

> If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

That appears to be the case, yes. No fun allowed here.

You beat me to it. I was going to ask "What part of 'turn on' did you not understand?"

Obviously what they'd need to do is take a poll of attendees ahead of time, and then revise the rules to something that doesn't turn anyone on.

To prevent lying on the poll, a polygraph would have to be involved.

Earth-size moons of gas giants are definitely a possibility. I think we've already found gas giants in the "goldilocks zone". But I thought I read recently (maybe in Slashdot?) that although rocky planets orbiting close enough to red dwarfs to have liquid water might be fairly common, there was some other reason why life was unlikely in that scenario. I don't remember the details, though. Radiation, perhaps?

> Imagine being bombarded by quasars and blasted by supernova. Life is very possible in that environment, but it would be equally difficult for any life form to organize into something more complex than bits of matter capable of replication.

I've been thinking of this point in particular, and I suspect that if intelligent life happens at all (other than us) it's probably most likely (or least unlikely) out on the edges of a galaxy, where low density of stars vs empty space reduces the odds of nearby supernovae and other types of stellar catastrophe. I suspect (although I have little to base this on except statistics) that the closer you get to the inner, crowded parts of the galaxy, the less likely you'll find life that's managed to have a stable enough environment for long enough to develop intelligence.