Well, if everyone only used the list provided, you have a valid point (actually, he provides an alternate, but the point still stands). However, it's trivial to generate a unique list for each user to work from, at which point you have far more entropy than with just the numbers from the dice.

Also, while attackers may be aware of the method, they'd have no way of knowing whether or not any given user is using it.

The advice is only wrong that he said "common words" and didn't give a random procedure for picking - the size of the dictionary matters, and expecting humans to be random without some help isn't reliable.

There are several online generators based on the method, and if you don't trust that, there is the Diceware method which uses 5 dice (or 1 die rolled 5 times) to randomly pick words off a list.

...sez Anonymous Cosby.

It's hurtles all the way down.

Do I feel lucky? The smart ass in me, or maybe it's just age... would want to retort, with "Well do you?"

Shouldn't that be "Well, do ya, punk?"

One simple yet undeniable observation that supports the role of antibiotics in obesity: antibiotics fed to livestock reliably fattens the animals. Of all of the environmental changes of the past 40-50 years commonly cited to explain the enormous rise in obesity rates in the Western world, the fact that antibiotics reliably fatten animals make them one of the more plausible factors, in my opinion.

All right Mr. Pedant, yes, if you qualified to not have to file in the US, then you're probably OK not to file as a non-resident. However, if you're an adult non-resident with any significant source of income, you do have to file, even if that income is below the non-resident exemption (approx $90,000 USD) where you won't owe any income tax. But do note that the US is virtually alone in taxing non-resident citizens.

If you don't make substantially more than $90,000 and only have an income from a job (i.e., not self-employed, own a business, or have substantial investment income), it's not a huge deal beyond having to file a second tax return. Otherwise, it can mean major tax headaches. A friend of mine up here who's also a non-resident US citizen folded his one-man business and took a regular job because the tax benefits to owning an incorporated business in Canada were nullified after the IRS claimed their share (and then some).

The point being, yes, there can be serious tax consequences to having US citizenship if you don't earn your living in the US. I don't foresee renouncing my US citizenship anytime soon, but for a foreign national considering whether to pursue US citizenship, I would advise them to think twice about doing so without a compelling reason.

Dual US-Canadian citizen here. Jizzbug is correct, you always have to file. And if you want to start a non-US business, or are self-employed, it can be a real hassle come tax time.

Nor the Millennium Falcon.

I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial is as horrifying of an indicator of how corrupted the US gov't has become in the post-911 era as any I can think of.

Well, of course they do it to save money. But consider a fairly close analogy: if they are selling alcoholic beverages which are as comparatively contaminated and devoid of alcohol as these tests show, would they get away with it? Of course not. Why? Because people would notice. Why? Because, for its intended purpose, alcohol very clearly works.

And I'm not saying *no* supplements work, I take several regularly myself (including turmeric, though I don't buy it as a supplement). But the point remains, if they are knowingly putting some random organic detritus in a capsule and calling it ginseng and taking the risk of getting caught doing so, they are making a rather hefty wager on the belief that consumers won't know the difference.

That makes me want to go out buy some random homeopathic remedy just to try to angrily return it.

"I paid good money for this water that contains no Rhus Tox. When I brought it home, it was clear that it actually contained no Hypericum. You FRAUD!!!"

First of all, they are not "counterfeiters"; they purport to be the "legitimate" manufacturers of supplements who are passing off fraudulent substances as genuine. A counterfeiter would be someone else trying to pass off fraudulent supplements as the "good" brands.

Secondly, all of the items you mention must at some level serve the function/perception of the legitimate product. You can't pass off counterfeit money that doesn't even look like real money, counterfeit electronics that don't work at all, etc.; or in other words, you are counting on someone not noticing (or caring about) the difference.

So, yes, I will stand by my assertion, if so-called "legitimate" manufacturers of these supplements are selling absolutely fraudulent goods, then they must certainly believe that no one would notice the difference, and by extension, that the "real thing" has no effect that the consumer would miss.

What's the big deal? Instead of getting "Useless Compound X," buyers were getting "Useless Compound Y."

Well, if nothing else, it certainly shows that the manufacturers believe the 'bona fide' supplements are useless, as they would have to be pretty well convinced that no one would know the difference to engage in fraud on such a scale.

I can't speak for GP, but I don't have a problem with lingo or jargon per se, it's *meaningless* market-droid buzzwords that bug me. I don't see people complaining much about the vast amount of never-ending jargon in the tech world, until it comes to things like "Web 2.0", "Cloud", and "Internet of Things" that vaguely repackage existing concepts designed to appeal to the PHB hive mind.

So, yes, I'm old.