Would you be willing to put money on this never being patented? The USPTO have granted many patents with obvious prior art.

Even more accurately, you are a megaphone rental company that tells customers "no hate speech". One day someone walks in, rents a megaphone and starts promoting the burning of the Quran. You tell that person that this comes under hate speech, and stop handing out megaphones to that particular person. If a contract says "no hate speech", then I definitely see the promotion of Quran burning as a valid excuse to terminate the contract and any services provided.

According to your link, some countries use terms like "the 1900s" to refer to anything between 1900 and 1999. As it says, this is equivalent to English-speakers using the term the "nineteen hundreds". It doesn't mention in any way how someone could refer to the year "1999" as being in the "19th century".

Rendering pages as the user wants I would say is preferable to rendering pages the way the website wants. After all, it's the users choice as to which browser to use.

What the GP mentioned in his, quote, and what you skipped, is the word "it". I feel in a similar manner to the GP, and it's not because they have started using lock-in, but because they (seemingly) used to be against lock-in and have reversed their stance on it.

And gosh my formatting sucked there. Apparently I've switched to HTML mode in my profile, oops.

I'm purposefully not commenting on the second part of your comment, as I agree with you. Once the server is doing more than authentication or authorisation, the difficulty steps up fast. However, if it's just an authentication/authorisation issue, it's not always that hard to beat. Somewhere in the code (or maybe in multiple places) there will be a bit that says something like "if notAbleToAuthorise() { goToMenu(); }". All it takes is to replace the call to "notAbleToAUthorise" to a function that just returns false. Or true. Or whatever. Usually people next argue that CRC checks will stop you from modifying the code. That means there's code that goes "if checksumFailed() ..." and again, change the call. I believe that as long as the game is "technically" playable without any DRM enabled, then the DRM will be able to be patched without too many hardships. I just can't fathom a situation where DRM will be unstoppable (even computationally-unstoppable via encryption), because the owner of the game has all the information they want.

I don't get why CVS/SVN/etc even should deal with security. They're source control/management systems. For public pull/fetch/get-only servers, no password is required. For situations where security, is required, set up SSH access, or some other secure access (and use an ssh keyagent if you don't like typing your password in heaps).

From your link "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts."
I don't have anything against creationism itself, but that site seems to be another site that tries to use the Bible, as justification for the Bible being "accurate". I don't believe that teaching anyone to "accept this bunch of pages as fact" without being able to test any of it yourself, is not a good way to teach. At least tell people "here is a way to independently verify these facts, and here is a list of people who have independently verified it"

I dunno, maybe I'm misreading TFA, but it seems to say that the "entire thing" is not open, that Google is not disclosing full source which is "part" of the reason for not including android code in the linux kernel. Another part seems to relate to no one being willing to "clean up" the code which has been released, and there are possibly other parts to it.

Running folding@home just grinds the same algorithms over and over. From TFA

So he's found a difference in algorithm efficiency based on computer architecture, and also improved the algorithm.

You might think his results may be lesser than what folding@home gets, but I think his methods are more valuable, when compared against what would've been learnt by letting the computer run folding@home.

Or when we colonize space, and have thousands of planets all with people and devices needing IP addresses.

Odd, my joke's never have morale.

I'm guessing that's a typo, and was meant to read "Food for all five humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons."

See http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498504&cid=30659002

If what that poster said is correct, then the only crypto is the software that verifies you entered the correct password, and then sends the "show second partition" command. And the whole lot is pointless, as that second partition itself is not protected in any way, except by running the vendor software itself on Windows.