It's not anything they posted separately, I just meant 'right click -> view source...'

I agree that not giving your passwords to such sites is a sound policy, but I also think it's good to actually check out if and how they could screw you, rather than just assume they can (by some dark magic).

In this case, you have all the tools to satisfy your inner skeptic: the source is right there, if you don't trust yourself to read it, it's trivial enough to examine all communication the page does.

As the site says, the passwords are hashed on the client, and nothing but the hash is ever sent to the server.

You make a fair point, but this is Slashdot, we're not supposed to be "users" here.

with almost unlimited computing power for brute-forcing the decryptt: 6 alphanumeric characters takes 0.0000224 seconds

With "almost unlimited" computing power any password will almost take "almost no time" to decrypt.

Imagine some of the answers they found to those questions on Yahoo. I can't believe they pulled it off after asking the Internet.

Considering they're both under arrest, and the police have records of texts and Facebook conversations about disposing of the body, among other ridiculously incriminating evidence, I'm not sure "pulled it off" is exactly right.

Actually, sounds about right for asking Yahoo how to get away with murder. Though knowing Yahoo, the first 20 replies were "You shouldn't murder people, murdering is wrong."

If they're actually making preparations to murder someone, they have committed a crime and are criminals.

I don't have a problem with that. Of course, the burden of proof would have to be a lot higher than "googled some things".

You could say it's downright medireview.

Interesting. What do you suppose the word 'gifted' means, then?

Or does that not exist, either?

So if you and your spouse both made $175k pre marriage, just getting married increases your tax rate by 5%.

Your marginal tax rate increases by 5%, the effective rate (in your example) increases by 1.9% ($6.65k) - not great, but not exactly ruinous.

What's 'slashbi'? Some kind of plush mascot? (in which case, I want one)

No shit.

Last year's Nobel in Physiology and Medicine went to the discoverers of the Toll gene and Toll-like receptors (as well as dendritic cells), which play a major role in immune response activation.

You're right, what a fucking joke.

At the current rate, dirt's looking pretty good to win that one.

Since they are the only ones "allowed", and the only ones who *can*, then yes, they SHOULD be required to continually support a platform they hold sole control over.

What a ridiculous thing to say. It's their product, they can do, or not do, anything to it that they want.

My reading was that they already had similar rules in place for flights crossing US airspace (which, fine, sort of makes sense), but now they want to extend them to all flights going to the specified cities.

The "steer clear" and "over-fly US airspace" in your quotes are in different contexts - they were specifically emphasizing that the new rules are about flights that don't enter the US airspace.

Really, "trust in science" - turn that around in your head a few times.