Ahh, I get it now. Thanks for clarifying :) .

I know that, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) such random noise isn't a strong enough signal to go from the cabin of a plane, through the metal cockpit door, and interfere with the cockpit's nav equipment...is it?

Sure, I understand that, but one hard password still must be less secure than a different hard password for each site, no?

I do it on the site name, not the URL. For ones with multiple names, I use the name of the overall company (i.e. my account on YouTube is based on my account on Google). If it changes, I suppose I can change the password to match, but so far not a single site I have an account on has ever changed its name...

"The point is that nobody is going after your locally stored KeePass file with one passphrase."

And what if they're wearing a bulletproof vest? People have been killed by others in bulletproof vests as well. Every single method of defense has a weakness, whether it's a gun, a shock round, or a fist. For every situation you can find where a shock round wouldn't work, there's a corresponding situation where a gun…

I guess...but you'd have to be wearing an Emotiv or other EEG device while watching a series of information flashes. Who'd do that willingly for anything other than a study?

Finally! Although I know my cell phone is on a different wavelength than plane nav equipment, at least it produces radio waves, giving SOME MINOR credence to the idea of interference. But my iPod with all radios turned off? No. There's no physical explanation for how that could POSSIBLY cause interference. Same with…

I still don't understand the safety of password managers. They store all your passwords...protected by a single password. How is that more secure than just using the same password for everything? The best answer I got was "because it's stored locally", but that's just an inconvenience if I want to log in somewhere…

Nor have you. If you're okay being a hypocrite (demanding evidence while supplying none of your own), then I'm okay ending the conversation here with the knowledge that you're not TRYING to learn about alternatives, but merely trying to find loopholes or worm your way out of acknowledging them.

Not counting the kill ability, Shock Rounds have ALL those requirements. They load like bullets into regular guns, so they have the range and capacity. They're as reliable as the gun they're in, and when you're getting electrocuted you really have no control over your body, so plenty of stopping power. Yes, people can…

I'm only a troll on Omegle. And other places that don't associate my comments with an identity of any sort. If it can be traced to me in any way, I'm not going to abuse it.

P-p-p-PONIES! /)

The Black Eyed Peas used to be good. Used to. Then they started to suck. Their lyrics went from profound to great to good to "WTF is this shit?" They lost it badly.

Yeah, me, too. I almost never use Twitter, so if I can't make a specific account for a site, I sign in with Twitter.

Alternative methods that are proven effective and safe? They don't exist. The only ones that do are condoms, abstinence, and vasectomies. Condoms are safe and effective, but only if you use them every time, and they detract from the activity itself, making them less likely to be used. Abstinence...well, I don't think…

"Nobody - not anyone - gets shot multiple times and continues to fight."

Once again, I never said you shouldn't defend yourself. Nor did I say an attacker shouldn't be harmed (the nonlethal alternatives I mentioned all do harm in case you didn't know). I said they don't deserve to DIE for it. Big difference between getting injured and getting killed. Very, very, big, huge, major difference.

Oh, no, I knew what you meant :) . My comment wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular, it was just a general observation I was making inspired by your previous comment :) .