Simply put -- consumers can't be trusted to be able to deal with complex secure authentication schemes. That's why there's so many easy-to-guess "What city did you grow up in?" password-reset functions. There are so many weak links in the chain of trust, it takes a concerted effort on the individual's part to secure it.

The CEO of Cloudflare fell victim to this when someone CONVINCED AT&T TO REROUTE HIS VOICEMAIL, starting a chain of events that wound up with the interloper having complete control over Cloudflare and the myriad of sites that use CF (and therefore trust it to send legitimate data).

It's a bit exciting/fascinating to read about the chain of events, (particularly the timeline):

http://blog.cloudflare.com/the...

http://blog.cloudflare.com/pos...

I think there's a false assumption here--that separating students into different schools based on academic performance is a Bad Thing. On the contrary, such segregation would enable the schools to tailor their teaching to the needs of their respective students. So the higher-performing students aren't held back due to a lower-performing student, and the lower-performing students don't feel lost because the teacher has to trying to teach an arbitrary curriculum at an arbitrary speed.

There is one thing, however, which I don't know how we can fix, at least not from a legislative or policy standpoint, and that is the lack of parental participation.

While I agree with some of your points, I'll take issue with this statement. In my opinion, the lack of parental participation and school/legislative policy have degenerated in a vicious cycle. Schools try to do more to help kids, while discouraging/preventing parental influence on school policy. As a result, parents are less involved, which leads the school to do more, etc.

As for "day long day care" - so true. Look no further than the push for 4k and Head Start, which have repeatedly and consistently failed to produce lasting benefits, while costing taxpayers *billions*. There's no educational justification for it.

Does it include APIs for the NSA backdoors?

They didn't do it for NSA money, that was just gravy. They did it for Mossad money and got the NSA to chip in after the fact.

I'll start: "You blew it up! You BASTARDS!"

In business, they have a standard "due diligence", before any transaction is completed, both parties are given enough time to determine if the transacion is all it seems. On the internet, there's a site called letmegooglethatforyou.com. Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Because if there's any place in the entire world where you want to put decommissioned WMDs, it's in the middle of a sea too large for effective policing and too shallow to put them out of the reach of wreck divers

First, you stop asking sefl-defeating questions. The question is not "how do you protect privacy when its out of your control", it's "how do I control things in order to increase my privacy" You ask how to maintain your privacy when your friends all have cameras, why do you have friends that pull out a camera at the drop of a hat again? You ask about protecting personal data that's collected by banks and companies that have horrible IT, why are you doing business with them again? Your privacy is literally your own business, and if you don't mind it, someone else will.

Not good enough for Cheney apparently

Ahh, then not Cheney, who had his implant broken precisely so that would be the only way to do it...

Okay, given Cheney's historical level of paranoia (this is nothing compared to some of his hijinks as SECNAV), I can TOTALLY see Cheney not understanding something and therefore assuming it's going to be used by people out to get him. Both "not understanding something" and "worried about trivial crap" are WELL within Cheney's persona. Having said that, whose wise idea was it to make a defibrilator that can be remotely accessed wirelessly in the first place? If nerd history has taught us anything, it's vulnerable shit eventually gets broken into, and wireless protocols are by definition vulnerable.

Okay, apple fanbois, you can all now seriously bugger off. I was pointing out that Apple DID care about benchmarks, to the point of cheating. I now have three people calling me a complete liar about that, even though there are also two different cases brought up of some alleged cheats (neither of which was the case I was thinking of) which were "well, it's not nearly the same caliber of cheat". WHO THE HELL CARES? They at this point CLEARLY cared about benchmarks, even going to the depths of trying to tweak the numbers to make themselves look better than they objectively were. Get the fuck over yourselves already, Neither of the Steves is going to give you a hummer for this, one's kinda living impaired and the other stopped caring about the company PRECISELY BECAUSE OF YOU IDIOTS.

"apparently" is SUCH a nice word, it allows you to argue against hypotheticals without actually admitting squat. You ought to try learning what it is sometime.... And it DOES have relevancy to "If Apple did this, people would be up in arms!", as they clearly were accused of it once, and people clearly still buy Apple products.

We know what sites YOU look for entertainment on now, don't we....