Really? That's your argument?

If you are using a many-to-many NAT setup (as many reasonably sized companies would require), you are able to place up to one machine in the DMZ per external IP. So the mistake in question is already possible without

Furthermore many large companies have never used NAT, and they don't have these problems. They have only ever used public IP addresses, and a stateful firewall. They avoid issues like you are talking about by being careful, and having security in depth. For example having multiple firewalls, can prevent accidentally placing a machine in the DMZ with a single mistake. You could make it such that an IP address must be explicitly listed in the edge firewall to be in the DMZ. If you also have the inner firewall configured to require stateful connections for all machines, then the only way to accidentally expose a machine is to make two mistakes. The mistakes could be placing an internal machine in the DMZ vlan and also adding its IP address to the edge firewall, or managing to mess up the configuration of both firewalls simultaneously.

You can avoid your first issue with Google by using verbatim search mode.

To activate it, add '&tbs=li:1' (without the quotes, of course) to the url. In the alternative, it can be manually activated by clicking the link on the left side of the results page labeled "more search tools", which will cause a list of search modes to appear. You can then choose verbatim.

DHS is not a law enforcement agency. Rather is is a United States federal department. It does contain more federal law enforcement officers than any other branch, but that does not make it a LEA.

The NCIC database is another example. They normally only give access to employees of actual law enforcement agencies (the employes are, however, not required to be law enforcement officers). Thus for the TSA to access it, would require that they used employes of the Federal Air Marshal Service, or get an exception to the usual policy.

Nice, but you forgot one important step there. Namely:

Does the photo on the ID match the person presenting it? Yes/No

That and the fact they they had the ID in their possession are the only things that tie the person to the claimed identity.

But yes, that is a far more sane idea for improving security than almost anything the TSA has done.

The real reason that this is not being done might be that the TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Thus it is possible if not plausible that one or more states would not permit them electronic access to DMV (or BMV, as the case may be) records. State law may reserve that ability for law-enforcement (and the DMV itself), leaving only printouts or quarterly data dumps.

Why would end-to-end be broken?

Just because your IP address might change every week or so does not prevent a remote computer from connecting to yours. And you can always use dynamic DNS to host a server.

Actually the value being widely recommended is a /56. See RFC 6177. That allows the user quite a few subnets, more than most homes and small businesses will likely use. Those with larger requirements should have no problem requesting a larger block.

Let's assume your provider gives you a /64 address space, which is the minimum size allocation that supports auto-configuration via SLAAC.
It would be easy enough for the provider to offer dynamic IP block service, where your modem/router gets assigned a different /64 address space each time.

Then all you need to do is turn on privacy SLAAC addresses, which prevents using just the local part to identify you.

I fully expect that by default ISPs will provide dynamic blocks to most consumer clients, if for no other reason than to discourage hosting servers.

You joke, but that domain is actually reserved per RFC 2606. ICANN has no authority to issue it, and the IANA would reject it, even if ICANN attempted to approve it. (The IANA is actually part of ICANN, but only the IANA portion can actual make changes to the root zone. The rest of the organization exists just to create a business model for registrars.)

At least geology, archeology and paleontology's theories are potentially falsifiable (i.e. we can and regularly do find things that cause us to discard previously accepted theories in those sciences).

It is unfortunate that many theories in those fields are not testable, and thus coupled with a finite amount of remaining evidence may settle on an incorrect theory if no evidence that contradicts it remains. However, use of the scientific method in forming and rejecting hypotheses does allow these to be called science

The tag was applied by the submitter. See the Original submission and notice the link to the original source, which is a letter the submitter wrote to Rackspace about this incident.

Agreed.

Also true.

Also true.

Here you go astray. You pointed out many similaries between IV and CSIRO, but failed to note the major differences.

This quote from Wikipedia shows the major difference (emphasis added):

Investigative journalism suggests that the company makes most of its income from lawsuits and licensing of already-existing inventions, rather than from its own innovation. Intellectual Ventures has been described as a "patent troll" by Shane Robison, CTO of Hewlett Packard and others, allegedly accumulating patents not in order to develop products around them but with the goal to pressure large companies into paying licensing fees.

I argue that a company is a patent troll if they are suing others using patents for technology they neither invented nor use. Basically patent trolling is the use of patents purchased from third parties for the sole purpose of suing other companies. Either invention or real use of the patent in question is enough to keep you from being categorized as a patent troll.

Actually though, IPv7 predates IPv6!

The experimental IPv7 protocol was specified in June 1993 in RFC 1475 while IPv6 was specified as in December 1995 as RFC 1883.

So here is what I have found so far:

Space needle,
empire state building,
statue of liberty,
St Luis's Gateway Arch
The white House,
The Washington monument
MLK Jr monument.

The smithsonian has a Panda Icon.

All Google offices have 2 little people.
The Google headquarters has the Giant android statue, as well as the T-Rex skeleton.

UK:
Nelson's Monument
Tower Bridge
Tate Modern

Other:
The Louvre
Eiffel tower
Arc de Triomphe

Pyramids of Giza.
The sphynx.
Taj Mahal

You are quite right that Windows 8 is two entirely different UIs mashed together.

The idea is simple: Microsoft wants tablet computers. Existing tablets that use the regular he regular windows UI have been tried but nevr caugh on. Tablets that use touch-specialized UIs have caught on.

Microsoft wants to be different from Apple. So instead of having a Windows tablet be a scaled up Windows Phone OS device (Like an iPad is a scaled up iOS device) Microsoft decided to make it a scaled down version of their Desktop OS. To do so, they decided to basically replace the existing OS UI with Windows Phone inspired UI. Of course, they needed to have backwards compatibility, as well as compatibility with their other major apps (like Office and Visual Studio), so they kept the old UI around too, albeit somewhat gutted.

Here is what I predict will happen: Desktop application developers will almost completely ignore the new Metro-style app options, and only lightly metro-fy their apps to blend in with the redesigned Office and Visual Studio apps.

Tablet application developers will create metro-style apps, but only care about the user experience on tablet devices, so the applications will really suck on a non-touchscreen Desktop PC.

Casual-game developers will target metro-style apps for both both platforms since they can wdo so with minimal effort.

I'm really not sure what traditional games developers will do. They may target Metro on the PC, which will piss off many gamers who like the option to have windowed games, rather than only full screen. Or they might target the traditional desktop style for the PC. If they target Metro, they may provide settings for a touch based control scheme and to drop the graphical quality substantially in order to allow for more-or-less unmodified tablet build. If they target traditional Windows, they may either ignore tablets, or treat they as a second class porting target, with the usual gutting of the game when they perform the port.

In summary, my prediction is that except for Casual games there will be minimal overlap between Metro-style apps that work well on a tablet, and those that work well on a desktop, which is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft is counting on.

It is important to understand though that what Google means by SEO is things like having an XML Sitemap, ensuring each page has a unique title that reflects the content of the page, providing alt text, using descriptive anchor text (i.e. not "click here"), and providing friendly urls. Those things are easy, and most of them also inherently improve the quality of the site for humans too.

What all too many people understand by SEO is things like getting more pages to link to your site, making sure every imaginable keyword appears on every page, and similar tactics that do nothing to improve the page for humans, nor do they really help Google determine if your site is relevant for a given query.