"Great pate . . . but I gotta motor . .."

Why? Not everything requires that much security. And not everything needs so much security as to require you to bring your password list -- locked in a password keeper though it may be -- with you at all times and subject to possible loss or theft. Not to mention the hassle of carrying it around and tying a lengthy passphrase to do low-risk things.

At my bank, I've noticed that things are locked up with different degrees of security based (I assume) on the perceived risks vs. usability. The paper towels in the bathroom are locked up with a "key" that anyone could grab off the janitor's cart if they really wanted to. Or pick the lock easily. Or just physically bust open the plastic dispenser to get to the sweet, sweet wipes inside. The tellers all have cash drawers that they lock with a key that they keep with them. The vault is locked with a multi-layered security system far more secure than the tellers' drawers. Now why might that be? Why not put the paper towels in the vault and bring two officers with you to the vault/restroom so you can be issued a single towel to dry your hands after washing them? It would greatly reduce towel waste and theft, right? Why not give each janitor a unique key, so you know who has filled the dispenser at audit time like with the cash drawers?

Similarly with low-risk logins, convenience can outweigh security. I don't necessarily need to protect a login to paywalled New York Times articles with the same diligence that I guard my bank login. Why would I create a strong password for that, keep it in keepass (or whatever), enter a passphrase in my phone or tablet or notebook to retrieve it when I could just sit down and enter my relatively weak default password with much less hassle? I guess if the Gray Lady was hacked, she might reveal a password/username combination that would allow ne'er-do-wells to also access my high-quality streaming on the PBS website. Oh well. It's not really a risk to me on the order of giving away the money in my bank account.

So does he at least still get the set of steak knives?

As you drive, do you also swerve into cars separated from you by the "magic force field" white line? Or are you concerned about your paint job in a car vs. car scenario? Perhaps bikes/bikers just need some extremely aggressive abrasive on their sides to protect them from motorists.

In 1981, my dad stuck a self-adhesive LCD clock to the dashboard of his then two-year-old 1979 Plymouth Volare. I think it cost him a couple bucks. Way cheaper than a new car, even by 1981 standards. His '84 Olds had a clock integrated in the radio. My '66 Mustang didn't have a clock -- no rally package, bummer -- but the retrofit radio I installed in 1987 had one.

What are you driving? A Model T?

Why do we have wristwatches? Because they are more convenient than having a timepiece in one's pocket to take out to check the time.

Therefore a wrist-phone must be more convenient than both a wristwatch and a "pocket" phone. It can't just tell time. A wristwatch does that. It can't just tell you that you have a call, your phone does that. It also can't do something that requires user interaction . . . Why? Because you need two hands to interact with a smartwatch. The hand with the watch strapped to its wrist, and the hand manipulating it.

So when will a smartwatch be useful and desirable? When you find an interface method that doesn't require two hands.

And no. I don't know what that method is. And if I did, I wouldn't tell you.

It makes sense the way it's used. If someone is a "suspect" according to their government, that is someone suspected of a crime, then that government probably has straight-up legal means of eavesdropping on them. OTOH, someone who is being spied on via a surreptitiously installed piece of malware might be more properly called a "victim," since the implication is that the spying is being done in an extrajudicial manner by governments or other parties.

Of course, one could be both victim and suspect. Or be spied on by more than one party.

And of course, laws and regulations vary by country, which I add since surely some Slashdotter will feel compelled to point this out anyway. And that Slashdotter may not be named "Shirley".

True, but at first glance the reader might be thinking a "world record" and not a "family record". Only when delving into TFA does one discover that there is a carefully crafted (and accurate) headline enticing one to read a much less interesting story. Sure, a family record for diving in the Cousteau family is a bigger deal than say, most cigars smoked in a 4-hour period -- set by my grandfather in 1966 -- in my family. But, like so many true stories, they're both kind of lame.

Concerning the goals and strategy of the Mayday PAC, what unintended results are you most concerned about, and how do you intend to avert them? E.g., further legitimizing the "buying" of elections, or contributing to the escalation of political spending.

Apparently the mods don't have the same reading list that you do . . . even on Slashdot . . . where you'd expect some familiarity.

A surviving spouse might still want to pay the bills and track the investments.

Even though the "ask a lawyer, not Slashdot" answer gets trotted out all the time, I think it's appropriate here. Lawyers do this sort of thing for a living. Probably cheaper in the long run to ask one.

How'd you test it?

Just rhetorically speaking, and based on these situations, I'd really like to know just what kind of punishment can the NSA hand out, anyway. Is the guy under legitimate threat of being renditioned to some black hole never to be seen again? He can't be tried in a fully open court where the government has to essentially confirm his story in order to convict him. Even if the government convinces a judge that he's committed some secret offence of a nature that cannot be disclosed, that's still a form of confirmation. So does he get sent to a star chamber to be tried, convicted and never seen again? Can they go Manning on him -- he's not revealing government secrets he learned on the job, right? (Or did he?) When the government starts actually locking people up for dissent, it's game over, isn't it?

The "Chiefs" aren't directly named for an Indian chief in general or any particular Indian chief. Rather, the when the team moved to Kansas City, the name "Texans" didn't seem to fit anymore. "Chief" was the nickname of H. Roe Bartle, mayor of the city at the time, and the name "Chiefs" was chosen in a popular naming contest. Bartle's nickname is from his leadership role in the Boy Scouts in the region, who used Native American titles and terms in their organization.

BTW, that origin story is the official one, but I admit is not accepted by everyone.