To be honest, this is a new low. Can't remember seeing a misspelling in a headline, particularly of an extremely common 4 letter word that isn't a homonym with anything.

I guess amend that to "hit by a bus when you are a fly" ?

The expected answer means we will have cryptographic security available indefinitely. We may have to keep switching algorithms, but in principle there will always be an algorithm out there that can't be quickly bypassed. Evidence that P = NP (or one is a subset of the other) means all cryptography is doomed to fail.

Then all of you will owe me big time!

More seriously, I'm wondering if you could get the patent office to approve such a patent with the explicit goal of embarrassing the office and hopefully getting some of its grant happy officers fired.

...to have a watered down version of Photoshop Elements included as a gateway to the more expensive Photoshop proper. Done correctly it would be a win for both companies and consumers.

Roundabouts take more physical space (about 4 times as much space) than a straight intersection and don't work well for more than a lane per direction. Besides, we could do better than roundabouts - there's also cloverleaf intersections, but those use roughly a full square mile and require a bridge be built. It just isn't practical for every intersection to have them.

It's not ridiculous at all - it's a simple space issue. A round about takes more space than a simple intersection with a traffic light. A cloverleaf intersection is even safer and faster than a round about, but it takes even more space and also requires the building of bridge.

Cities already devote enormous amounts of space to the movement of cars. They can't spare any more, at least in the downtown areas. Using round abouts more frequently in the suburbs would make sense though.

Walled-garden Edition. Also rhymes with ME, another colossal MS failure.

Fixed that for you.

My worry is that if I took up the offer to work from home I'd start to hermit. I need the social time and to get out and be among other human beings, otherwise I fear I'd stay single forever.

I'm not paying $3500 for $1500 worth of PC.

Seriously.

In layman's terms it's the difference between waving at someone, and having a seizure. One is an external phenomena caused by gravity, the other is an internal (sorta) phenomena of gravity.

The context I meant for "data" above was all the data of the page. Navigation elements in headers, footers and asides. Currently these are positioned using floats and they have to be present in the HTML dom in a certain order for this to work. With grids (and to a lesser extent flexbox) the order the information appears in the DOM isn't relevant.

The example you gave of a 10x10 table isn't the same - it's just a table, not a web document that may need to have its data's presentation optimized for several environments. And yeah, you can set elements to display none and/or double send elements and turn on the one you want for a given view context but that's a waste of bandwidth.

I don't see grids replacing tables where tables make sense. Tables don't make sense as a layout grid mechanism. CSS Grids don't make sense as a table replacement either.

How stupid are you? Seriously. The problems of copyright law are entirely off topic and the mediums could not be more different. There's no legitimate comparison to be drawn here so you're coming off as a prattling moron.