You might not be sad, but Sad Keanu is sad :-(

Imagine y = tan(x) x can not be 90. Yet x can be >90 or 90. There is nothing in Einstein's work to show c cannot be exceeded.

Uh-hu. You mean people like me who get on with things knowing it is all working fine and we don't need to waste money on a non-solution? Sounds to me like you are the sort of person who is the problem - trying to brow-beat people into giving you money in exchange for something we don't actually need! I note that at no stage did you offer any counter-argument to any of my points, instead you just mouthed off anonymously - that tells everyone all they need to know about your position...

Thing is, people (usually those with a vested interest in IPv6) have been saying this for at least the past 10 years. Periodically they announce "Oh Noes! We are about to run out of IPv4 space any minute now! Change to IPv6 immediately or we are all doomed!" Only, as we have seen every single time, it's been nonsense. Are there enough IPv4 addresses for everything? Clearly not. Is this a problem? Again, clearly not. IPv4 plus NAT (and DHCP) is a perfectly good solution, it requires not changes in hardware, we don't have to rush out and buy new gear from those touting the IPv4-mageddon, we just carry on as we are with more than enough address space for everyone and everything. Why does my internet-enabled toaster NEED a publicly accessible globally unique IP address, when it is more than happy sitting in my kitchen using my house's private NAT pool which combined uses but 1 single public IP address? It doesn't. IPv6 is an overly complexed solution to a problem which was eliminated yonks ago. The only reason we keep getting these chicken-licken pronouncements of impending doom is because those with a vested interest in trying to flog IPv6 gear find their sales are down. Nothing more.

Not worriesome, because there is zero data to confirm whether those passwords were anything like valid or not, thus no conclusions can be drawn whatsoever other than 20% of people figured out how to get a free bar of chocolate.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Be they the CIA, FBI, **AA, police, DHS, the armed forces - every single one of them. Because then, all each of us has to do is include some of the Wikileaked documents on our personal sites, blogs, etc, and then none of the US authorities will be allowed to read our sites, thus protecting us all from their pathetic attempts to classify the entire world's population as dangerous terrorists. Result! Wonder if it would also stop the likes of Hillary Clinton from ordering for the illegal bugging of senior members of the UN? Opps, Wikileaked there...

First, it was over 2 years ago.
Second it was apparently 20% of people gave their passwords in exchange for chocolate.
http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/04/chocolate-owns-your-passwords/

However, the key thing is - the survey had absolutely zero way of confirming whether the passwords were genuine or not.

You know what? Some random in the street offers me a bar of chocolate in exchange for my password, I'll gladly trade; I end up with a free bar of chocolate, they end up with a garbage string of characters which isn't my password to anything at all. Seems I would be included in that 20%, but my security would have remained uncompromised and I'd be better off to the tune of 1 bar of chocolate.

which all just goes to show that the survey was crap, the results equally so.

Fundamental rules of programming -

1. Constants aren't.
2. Variables won't.

Tell us, Papa Ratzi, how else would you describe someone who adtively protects, supports, defends and hides known repeat paedophiles, hmm?
That sounds exactly like someone who is indifferent toward real life.
So get off your high horse and join the real world.
And startby turning over those of your priests who are paedos to the lawful authorities and stop protecting, supporting, defending and hiding the paedos.

If it delays the release of another of her albums full of coma-inducing, obnoxious whining shit, then that's GOT to be worth it.
For the good of music and of mankind as a whole, let's hope he succeeds!

Ah, you'll be wanting our dual inline DIMM memory module's, I take it?

In a previous company, our Marketing Director was showing some potential marks, I mean "customers" round the labs.
He came to some prototypes we were working on, and proudly showed off his Tech Skillz to the assembled masses by announcing that "Here's where we assemble our prototypes using printed PCB circuit boards".

I kid you not :-(

<quote><blockquote><div><p>Are we to expect a slew of articles about 80 year old discoveries now?!</p></div></blockquote><p>Look at the bright side: none of the articles will be dupes!</p></quote>

Not for another 80 years, anyway.

Are we to expect a slew of articles about 80 year old discoveries now?!

SMAs have been well known about for decades, well written about for decades, just what is the point if this article?!

<quote><p>I think part of the basic issue is that this is a law that should have no jurisdiction in "the comfort of your own home".</p></quote>

Does that apply to all laws, or just the ones you chose?
Do I get to chose which ones apply in the comfort of my own home?