I think the fact that you consider $85/month for 100/30 a reasonable rate goes to show how big a piece of BS that report is. Here's a counter example: I pay ~$10/month for 100/100, no caps.

To be honest that is actually below average, fiber goes for ~$30 before discounts are added here in Tokyo. And while I have no personal experience outside of the city limits, my in-laws, who live on the outskirts of a town of ~20k far removed from the industrial centers, recently installed fiber because "it's only a little extra on the phone bill and came with a free tablet".

You paint a dark picture my friend,
For if what you say is true, the first thing we will do once we make first contact is to sue thier planet from under thier feet!

How dare those pirating alien scum view our IP without a license!

You did not answer your own question. You answered whether you though it was "likely", not whether you though it was "feasible".

While, unfortunately, I cannot disagree with you on the likelihood of there being such an attempt, I do believe that establishing a permanent moon base within a decade is both feasible and a good course of action.

The arguments I'd give for it are the same that were given for putting a man on moon. While we may no longer have the soviets to worry about, the rest of the arguments given are just as valid today as they were back then.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Address-at-Rice-University-on-the-Nations-Space-Effort-September-12-1962.aspx

IIRC my AI classes correctly, those systems worked. At least they had a very high accuracy, higher than most doctors. The problem was not technical, but legal. Who do you sue if the computer gets it wrong?

Which makes me wonder: will this system will fair any better?

I just RTFA and it is just as confusing as the summary. I wish blog authors would at least try and understand the subject before writing about it.. OpenID is a specification. As far as I can tell the specification is safe, so implementations that follow the specification correctly are safe. However it seems that there are a few implementations that skip an important part of the process, namely input verification. Basically saying OpenID is broken because of this is like saying SQL is broken because some sites are vulnerable to SQL injection attacks.

There can be only one!

And just because you don't believe in God, does not mean He does not exist.

Without concrete proof either way, both are valid, mutually exclusive hypotheses. Don't let your acceptance of one blind you to the fact that the other might be the one that is correct.

You do realise that you passed on the rare opportunity to answer an exam question with "LOL" and get a passing grade. :)

RTFA. The code was used within the permissions granted, so there was no copyright infringement. The problem was that the license, while permissive for 1984 was not up to modern FSF standards and was not GPL compatible (falling foul of the "no other restrictions" clause).

There was no financial or legal reason for Oracle not to release the code and bad PR if the didn't. It is nice that they did release it of course, because, as I understand it, rewriting it would of been a nightmare.

Just use an easily remembered phrase to generate the password.

"To Be or not to Be, that is the question" -> "2Bon2B,titq"

Quite simple. After typing it in a few dozen times, your fingers find the keys without having to think about it.

You are right of course, that dictionary attacks and rainbow tables aren't much use against a decent configuration, but once a site has been broken into and the password store obtained, then they are still quite effective.