Well, you live in such a world, whether you like it or not.

If the recipient honestly believes they were the victim of the company trying to get them to pay for something they did not order, they have a chance to keep the item. How many of the recipients believe that?

Combining two encryption methods using separate keys can never be weaker than the inner encryption. Proof: if the combined method IS weaker, the attacker could just use the outer method as an attack with a small constant complexity on the inner method, which means the inner method is exactly as strong as the combined method (times a small constant). Unfortunately the same does not apply to the outer method, it is possible for a weak inner method to defeat the security of a strong outer method (e.g. if the inner method always starts its output with a known pattern, it can really mess up your outer method). Therefore, always encrypt FIRST with the algorithm you trust most, and NEVER use the same key for both methods.

Before DES became the practically universal standard, there were multiple very similar algorithms in use, with the most significant difference being the S-boxes. At least one of them turned out to be breakable with 2^2 effort. Even s2des (I would do a superscript 2 but Slashdot is stuck in the 90's) which was specifically designed to be more resistant to differential attacks turned out to be MORE vulnerable to those attacks.

Minor tweaks are worrying.

Yes, exactly like a completely valid and rational reaction, and a wholly achievable policy.

Its true: You don't have to use other peoples services unless you choose to ('cept for that whole health insurance mandate.)

The problem with ePost is that my credit card can also be used to simplify and automate bill payments.

Hidden irony: Canada Post owns Purolator.

I agree, which is why I'm using raidz2. But that's not the problem I was suggesting a solution to. I was suggesting a solution to the problem of "data on single hard drive eventually goes corrupt, and I don't want to buy a second hard drive."

IPTV isn't an over-the-top service, while Netflix is... I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, it's regulated identically to any other broadcast medium like cable television. Then again, our regulation for that is also federal (there are broadcast regions, but they're defined by the federal regulator).

From here on out, it is nipple interfaces!

The referenced source file has no actual implementation of the encryption in it, so claiming 100 lines is a bit silly...

Google Fibre is not an Internet-only service. It also includes television service, making it analogous to cable providers.

It's substantially more expensive to dig trenches to bury cable than to use existing utility poles. That would be true anywhere in the world that has utility poles.

The power company (owned by the city) owns 80% of the poles. AT&T owns the remaining 20%, presumably because they needed poles in some locations where there was no power pole.