This amounts to a very standard issue these days. In the last of giant corporations worth spending millions of dollars and minutes to hack into, a password is insufficient. Good for you. For the rest of the world, you know, like when I'm accessing my registration to a telecom conference in June, a password is plenty fine. If anyone really wants to hack that conference's web-site, then they can change the name that appears on my badge, and could even cancel my registration -- something that the conference organizers would happily fix for me on-site.

Has anyone else noticed that this issue seems to have grown (in Google's mind) as they offer more and more cross-integrated services through a single password? Perhaps, and this is just speculation, if they separated services into multiple accounts hosted independently, while it would be a little less convenient for users, it would be the same less convenient for hackers?

In any event, the idea of replacing something that can't be stolen, with something that can be stolen, is a plainly stupid idea. It's even more stupid than using biometrics -- something I can't control intently, and I leave everywhere I go. So stupid.

I know the TSA has been doing cavity searches for a long time. But exacuating passengers seems both extreme, and dirty. Shouldn't the world health organization have something to say about this?

Maybe next time there's an emergency landing, they should consider evacuating the plane, instead of the passengers. Besides, if it's a rough landing, some of the passengers are likely to self-evacuate.

Just to be clear, you're saying that "obligation" is a word that doesn't come from "obligate".

Congrats, you've consulted a source that lists common usage, and it's told you that common people don't know the difference.

Now use an etymological source, and discover what the words truly mean.

Here's a hint. They have the same root -- which means that they'll be similar -- and yet they have TOTALLY DIFFERENT AFFIXES -- which means they'll be as different as phosphor and phosphate, confer and conference, confer and prefer. So similar. Not the same.

Funny thing. English doesn't actually have many synonyms. They wind up being as distinct as beef and cow -- even though beef simply means cow.

Lookup dictionary in a lexicon, and you'll discover that "use it in a sentence" proves only that you know how others use it in a sentence, not what it actually means at all. Stop corrupting my language through incorrect usage. I don't care how many people make the mistake, it's still a mistake.

Proven vs. Proved. There's five apples. yellow is a primary colour. sign language. Alright.

I was pointing more to the obliged vs obligated word choice. But yes, the posessive apostrophe is one of the dumbest things in the language.

Still more likely "Any company that is not obliged to act for its customers will eventually be obligated to close its doors."

I hardly think that Apple was obliged to change anything. Probably obligated, but not obliged.

...commandeer a vehicle. Makes sense, as long is it's obvious and understandable. I'd happily back away from some work if a big message popped up saying that they needed my machine for a while. And since they don't have a warrant to search my machine, anything they find is inadmissable I imagine? That works for me. And if it's obvious, especially if I can't use my machine concurrently, then bot-nets aren't an issue.

You're the one being dramatic. Decide your number, then get back to us.

Still, answer the question. What's your number? Being able to own the guns that you can currently own in the way that you can currently own them is obviously worth a lot more to you than the right to own explosives -- because you don't currently have that right at all. And we're not talking about the right to own knives.

Knives, guns, explosives, these are all nodes along the same spectrum. You've drawn the line somewhere between guns and explosives. So I'm asking you, what's the number of people who need to die, or the rate at which those people need to die, before you consider moving your line, just a little?

I've always said that if you can't define a line, then you're living by an irrational principle and therefore your ideals have zero meaning, and no one needs to respect them.

So, pick a number, just that I know what it'll take. Others have. It's still your turn.

I'm impressed that you don't differentiate between 26 innocent people and children in a protected environment like a school, versus drug lords being gunned down by rival gangs. But answer the bloody question. What's your number? How many people are worth not even considering altering these particular existing rights? I'm not even talking about removing rights, just talking about changing them. And as fundamental as these farticular rights seem to be, they aren't required in most places on this planet.

So again, simple question, what's your number?

Guess your number's higher than 26, and higher than 80. So answer the question then. What's your number? What's more than a blip to you?

Wow, dude, I want your name. I need to be your friend. That's probably the most profound (and gutsy) answer that I've heard yet. It's about now that I wish I weren't an atheist.

a) 20 children and 6 adults were killed in a school and it wasn't drug, gang, or domestic. That's why. And it was the fourth mass shooting in a few months?

b) because 3.2%, when it translates into ten million people, is a big deal if they leave, stop paying taxes, lose their jobs, encourage crime, aren't nice, or are geographically proximal. because 3.2% can effect negative change very easily. Because 3.2% is greater than one fiftieth, which means that 3.2% can be an entire state of the union. You would ignore all of vermont? Oh, and all of wyoming, north dakota, alasta, south dakota, delaware, montana, and rhode island all combined? Or you'd ignore any of georgia, michigan, north carolina, new jersey, virginia, washington, massachusetts, arizona, or alabama? Basically any state but california, texas, new york, florida, illinois, pennsylvania, and ohio, Hope you live in one of those because any other state can just be totally ignored. Great union. Very democratic. Just tell them to get lost.

And because 3.2%, aside from having some right to live the way they want to live (you know, in a somewhat free society), can be correct about something that the remaining 96.9% (rounding error) don't understand. And not only have you said that the 96.9% won't follow them, you've said that the 3.2% aren't even allowed to lead! No wonder nothing changes. It's not all or nothing, it's majority or nothing. Well good luck to you.