I'm fairly sure ants know how to take bites out of things larger than their mouth.

If only 1% of those people pay for the full album this way, that's 1% more sales than they likely would have had without it.

I assure you, the technology in my car is FAR more than 4 years out of date.

I was about to say how that would never work for the little guy trying to sue a big company with an army of lawyers. Then I noticed your bit about paying the smaller of the legal costs from either side. That's actually quite a clever way to work around the issue. I approve.

If you wanted your new buzzword to have a real meaning perhaps you should have named it something that actually means something. The words Software Defined Network have a generic, non-specific meaning, that's why they are being applied to everything that even remotely fits their definitions. Whatever happened to real names with specifics, like "Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection"

That's probably actually a feature, not a downside, to the businesses that are BlackBerry's primary market.

ummm... no....
Android talks to exchange though the OWA web API.

I don't think that means what they think it means.

The salts aren't meant to be secure. They are commonly stored in plain text right next to the password in the database. The salt's actual job is not to prevent a hacker from breaking that user's password, but to prevent the hacker from being able to break all the passwords at once. The salt effectively "messes up" the hash of the password so that that even if multiple user's have the exact same password they will have different hashes. We all know many users use "1234" as their password. If each user has a random salt applied to the password and if the hacker guesses one user's password, he can't look at all the other users with the same hash and know that they all have the same password. The hacker has to spend the time cracking each password individually.

My AmEx card begs to differ.

Isn't this was the entire point of XHMTL is? "X" as in extensible.

Let it die with what dignity it has left. The last season shows that the magic it once had is dead or dying.

Amazon's is on the internet.

The fact that my case exists at all and counts as 2 factor authentication means than microsoft has ACTUALLY created 2 factor authentication. How many people do you know who have microsoft email addresses? I'm betting that my type of usage isn't all that uncommon.

You may have a point about the SMS code being intercepted, but It doesn't make sense at all that it's static. My understanding is that once you log in with your password you will be prompted along the lines of "We will now send a [random] code to your phone, please enter that code to continue." Other than the unlikely ability for this code to get intercepted it is the same as the pseudo random code displayed on an RSA device. It would only give access for that once use and would in all likelihood be time limited. The next time you want to log in a new code is generated on Microsoft's end and sent to your phone for that one instance.