I know this obviously, I just asked if we had over done it? Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer. The answer is yes, we have over done it, mostly not paying attention to code optimization at the core. More memory and faster CPU cycles is nowadays cheaper that efficiency at the core of program logic.

I never complained about anything. My OP was merely an observation of what had happened; We got lazy, not everybody can code efficiently and it is cheaper to rely on more horsepower than to optimize code logic nowadays while code efficiency was much more important a few decades ago. This is exactly why we are still talking about page load speed in 2013.

Page used to load really fast in 1990s in mosaic then, Netscape as long as you had something like a T1 connection. Now, funnily enough, the software layer involved in serving dynamic content and all the xml, third party sites and what not network calls the browser has to make before actually counting the page as loaded make it seem like the software layer has become the bottle-neck. This sounds silly to me, maybe we over did a bit?

Christ Pete, Update!

http://www.petefinnigan.com/

Here is scientific evidence; the sweet spot is above 0.08. Look at the curve, at 0.08 you are indeed impaired, a little above, you get into super human driving abilities. So, what we need is actually making it illegal to drive above or below the sweet spot.

https://xkcd.com/323/

I use a Yupana, it does calculations with the help of Fibonacci numbers and it doesn't make any noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus#Native_American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yupana

I do not know what is the limit of the "wireless spectrum" if there is any. Before this limit is reached, I guess just updating all hardware gears that transmit/route more efficiently is all that is needed.

From TFS: "capable of getting speeds up to 1gbps"

That's 0.125 GBps so 8 seconds for a GB. You need at least 80 seconds to hit your 10GB cap which is more than one minute. This sounds much fairer now.

If you do not already know who he is and therefore you can't contact him then; Are you sure that he is real?

I would be curious to know if he is a real customer of yours first. Just post the reply to my message here.

1) You encrypt with the public key(s) of the recipient(s). Then, only him can decrypt the content using its private key.

2) You sign with your private key. Then, anybody can verify your signature using your public key. The content really comes from you as long as your private key wasn't compromised.

Yep, I do not want to troll/bash but just reading that paragraph in TFA made me doubt about the seriousness of those researchers.

Could be a mistake in TFA or a researcher wrongly cited I don't know...

From TFA:
"The researchers acknowledge that attackers might subvert their system by launching a denial-of-service attack against a honeychecker server. In such an event, they recommend using a failsafe: if a honeychecker server becomes unavailable, temporarily allow honeywords to become valid logins."

Letting everybody in seems like a weird way to failsafe;-)

I think they said there is a modified httpd although. It should be enough to raise suspicion.

https://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=14836

I remember seeing a whistle device that you attach to your key ring. When you lose your keys, you whistle and your key ring beeps.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tobar-Keyfinder-Keyring-Whistle-Activated/dp/B000246JIQ

CIA uses Slackware?

Samba X ?

http://xamba.sourceforge.net/sambax/index.shtml