Cause a forklift with 500lbs of batteries in it is never going to be misaligned and damage a car.

So who exactly got stuffed into small boxes, had hypothermia induced, and were pushed against the wall, sources please and testimony from prisoners does not count.

There is no expectation of privacy in email

There may be NO privacy in email, but that doesn't mean there is no expectation of privacy.

The constitution is a contract, established between "the several states", the people of said states, and the federal government. If you tried to interpret any other contract as a "living document", granting one party new rights and privileges according to its own interpretation of changing conditions, you'd be laughed out of court. The contract has a process for dealing with changing conditions--it's called an amendment! Now I happen to agree with you that the clean air act is constitutional (under the commerce clause, because air pollution is interstate) but this "living document" stuff is a formula for tyranny. It takes what was intended to be a written constitution, with strictly enumerated powers, privileges and rights, and turns it into something like the Roman Republic, which had no written constitution--just traditions. And we all know how that ended up.

Like prior IE releases they're still playing catchup and not moving ahead of the competition. Webkit & Mozilla have support border-radius for quite some time now and Opera, I believe, has also started to supported it. Then there's SVG which the others have supported for a very long time now.

This is no different than when IE8 was released and IE finally supported CSS 2.1 when all the other browser vendors had.

Webkit, specifically Safari, has been leading the way in CSS innovation & Javascript performance with each release with Chrome slightly behind. Firefox & Opera seem to be battling it out for third place and IE, of course is always an entire generation behind.

Want privacy? Encrypt the actual message itself.

So in order to view an email you must:

1 Log into a computer
2 pull up an email program
3 authenticate with the server
4 download a copy from the server
5 read the email.

I can certainly see how adding one extra step

4.5 Open the email (decrypt or de-envelope)

Is the BIG step that you think is necessary to imply an expectation of privacy. So, why is it that 4 distinct steps is not sufficient to be considered no expectation of privacy, but 1 extra step is?

And what if the encryption is ROT13? is that sufficient? Or if someone is good enough to have memorized it and can read such a message rote do you no longer have any expectation of privacy?

The simple fact of the matter, is that the concept of an expectation of privacy is based upon the concept of what a person may observe with their own senses and not going out of their way to acquire that information. It is EXACTLY why it is NOT legal to use IR cameras to spy into buildings even though all that juicy IR information is beaming right out of the homes.

You can not read an email without technical assistance. That's all the envelope that is necessary.

Why can't they just support the codecs installed on the system?

[a-z0-9]{8} Yields 36^8, or 2821109907456.

Must contain at least 1 number means you subtract all those that don't (26^8). Must contain at least 1 non-number (I'm assuming this is also a restriction) means you subtract all those that don't (10^8).

You're down to 2612182842880.
Other specific restrictions (can't be the user name, can't be last password, can't be 1234abcd) will have very little effect. Let's call it 2500000000000.

At 100000 per second, we have 25000000 seconds, or 9 and a half months to crack a password.

Odds are you'll crack it in 1/2 that time, so you've got 4-5 months.

Simply require users to change their password every 6 months and you're safe enough.

An attacker would have to:
  - Know when a user changes his password.
  - Get the hash immediately.
  - Know the encryption scheme used.
  - Crack non stop without the video card melting.
  - Have about a 60% chance of getting it before the user is required to change their password again.

It's doable, but anyone who would be the target of such an attack would likely have:

  - A better bank
  - FDIC-insured investments
  - Lawyers with very expensive suits

But why are we talking about cracking passwords when we should be discussing the root of the problem? Someone done accessed ur shit and got ur password file, foo!

Why not just develop a design to swap out batteries through an automated crane? Pull in, the robot arm removes your empty battery and replaces it with a full one. The empty battery charges at whatever pace the 'gas' station deems necessary (maybe overnight when prices are lower) and the driver has a full charge within seconds. I'm almost certain I saw this idea put forth on /. in the past.

What's that sound I hear? I'm not sure if it's the sound of you being facetious, or the 'whoosh' of the joke going over your head. Often hard to tell. One, unless "make sure he never does it again" means "with a baseball bat", there's nothing a social worker can do with kind words to stop a violent man being a violent man. Secondly, and I've experienced this firsthand, maybe one out of fifty social workers, counselors, and people of that ilk actually feels sympathy for the victim, as opposed to being excited with trying to 'fix' the fucked-up violent one. (Much like we nerds would rather spend time coding a new solution instead of fixing some crufty misfeature in an old 'boring' program). The first time that happened to me was when I got beaten up at a new middle school, talked to the vice-principal and he offered to 'get me some counseling', and it's never gotten any better even on into adult-life (except for the bit where I've learnt to fight back against any aggressor). Don't be ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. You only cheapen yourself and the discussion.