Brake fluid? Who needs brake fluid? Mechanically activated 4-wheel drum brakes works for me.

You've missed. It's not about the technical definition. The "key" is the passphrase. The passphrase is pre-shared. The shared secret is the key, and that is the passphrase.

The crypto key is what you are describing, not the pre-shared key the user uses.

The failure to communicate isn't our misunderstanding of the technological terminology, but your inability to put the technical terminology aside and listen to others.

Alice posts a video using music that Bob owns the copyright to. Carol posts a video that uses music Bob falsely claims to also hold the copyright for. Unfortunately Bob's false claim against Carol doesn't change the fact that he actually does have a legitimate legal claim against Alice's video. So kicking him off the system means he's going to issue a takedown against Alice. The whole point of bringing him into the system was to give him an incentive to leave Alice alone.

The problem here isn't Bob and Alice -- that part of the scenario is working fine. The problem is Bob and Carol. There's no incentive for Bob not to make false claims against Carol. That's the bit that has to be fixed.

MAC address filtering isn't very secure, but it's better than nothing. It's like the door chain. They are easily cut, can be kicked open easily, and don't really improve security, but it makes you feel better. Aside from brute force, the glaring hole is that someone can snoop your network and see all the valid MACs on it, even if encrypted. Then, when any of those devices are gone (like your cell phone on WiFi in range), clone the MAC of the missing device, and you are 100% in, if MAC filtering is your only authentication. At best, it will deter a casual snooper, but will only add a tiny delay to a targeted attack.

PSK is Pre-Shared Key. The "key" in that is the passphrase. You pre-share it by putting it in both devices before you try to pair them. The PSK isn't the session key. As you say, that's generated for the session.

And nobody was talking about what is "transmitted" so unclear what that has to do with whether the PSK you enter on the "passphrase" space on the router is a [PS]Key, or a passphrase. It's both. The terms are used interchangeably for that setting. And yes, that's confusing as "key" is used elsewhere for a different purpose. But that doesn't make your car-key not a key because it doesn't look like your house key.

Everyone has the right to express their disgust with you...

Yes. Absolutely.

...and take whatever measures they like in response.

No. Not even close.

the trolls keep telling us that there is "no right to be offended"

Well, perhaps, but I've never run into it. What I have run into, and said myself, is that "there is no right to not be offended."

The version you quote is ridiculous. The version I give you is profoundly defensible.

There are no apps installed in "android". There is an android fork called TouchWiz or ColorOS that includes those apps. Why have desktop environments in Linux? After all, they can just download it themselves later, if they wanted it.

The same ones in the US and EU that determined that the IE pre-install was anti competitive, and consumer-harming. But the hammer coming down on MS was hailed as a good thing, but coming down on Samsung and Oppo is a bad thing?

My point was that so many people were getting hung up on "use taxes are silly" without even realize they were talking about use taxes. The tax should be valid, it's valid everywhere. It should be ignored. I was born and raised in a state with use taxes. I didn't learn what a use tax was until after I had left. Neither I, nor my parents, ever paid a use tax, despite having owed one, many times.

Chicago's move is rational. It placed a use tax on entertainment, then argued that streaming entertainment is entertainment, not a "purchase" (which would fall under a different use tax). They are 100% correct, and the move is 100% legal and consistent with existing law and rulings. It's just that Use Taxes in general are silly and ignored. They only work when the state claims a nexus and converts it to a sales tax.

Still can't wrap my head around that.

The one applying the data-mining computations will still not see the result, because it is still encrypted.

or can you do some forms of statistical analysis on the encrypted data, which gets unencrypted results?

It's almost as if I don't understand what the phrase "the system will check for blinking" means. So does it check to make sure the selfie IS blinking or IS NOT blinking? I fail to come up with any situation in which the last line of the summary makes any sense or bolsters the lack of security in this process. The article goes no further in any attempt to explain it.
How does Mastercard get any original photo of my face in the first place? What if I don't want them to have one? What if I don't want to spend megabytes of my data plan every time I make a purchase instead of putting the onus on the merchant to put 300 bytes of information across the network in a traditional swipe transaction. What if the long line of customers behind me beats my face to a bloody pulp for spending 5 minutes trying to do a transaction instead of just doing a card swipe and entering a password?
Giant leap backward from every angle I look at it. 1000 times increase in bandwidth. 1000 times increase in time. Decrease in security. Decrease in convenience. Can't think of any positives at all.

Malcolm is no friend of the MAFIAA.

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

Agree, very promising technology with lots of small scale uses right now. This is the first time I've heard of printing ships and I like the idea of printing buildings on site using recycled building materials.

Living bone awesome, they have their own independent neural network that can function without any help from the brain, (as does your gut). The neural network in your bones is responsible for the structural adaptations made in response to environmental stresses in individuals, it basically senses stresses in 3D and orchestrates bone building to compensate. It is light years ahead of our current materials science but not so much as to be totally implausible.

The funniest part was when the only (ex) senator to propose putting political sites on the current blocklist found his own anti-abortion websites were the only political sites on a "leaked" draft list.