Re:Compressed file != poor quality
on
MP3Pro Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm tired of people equating compression with data loss.
The first comment on my post mentioned the same and I reacted in this post, agreeing on the idea of lossless compression. I think this makes your post redundant, but obviously the moderator didn't read all the articles either.
Hmm, I didn't know about the options on the XM. I do know the Xantia Activa, based on the prototype Activa II, which was both revolutionary and beautiful. I drove the new C5 a few weeks ago, AFAIK it's got (almost) the same suspension as the Xantia Activa and yes, it drives great!
This is not the first car with this kind of features. Citroën has the Xsara Windows CE, which is already featured in the commercials as being almost shipping.
Re:Just what we need -- a car that can be hacked!
on
Internet-Ready Car
·
· Score: 1
Some needs are better left unfulfilled.
Yup. Sad, but true. Volvo (if I'm not mistaken) built a car that could sense when it was not between the lines of a lane and correct it by steering a little. And I recall some manufacturer (also Volvo?) who built some kind of radar into the front of the car, so that it could slam on the brakes when the driver overlooked a car in front of him. Would you think these things get implemented in road-going cars? Little chance, because those guys can figure themselves in court with some driver who parked his car upside-down in a ditch because he relied on the car to correct his steering. Or someone who's playing with his telephone and smashing into a traffic jam, because the radar happened to fail. I mean, if a smoker can drag a tobacco producer to court because his docter discovers cancer because of smoking, why would someone driving with his eyes shut and crashing into something be less successful in a lawsuit against the builder of the car?
Technology could bring us a lot of good things, but sadly a lot of things will not be implemented because of these complications...
Please don't take it personally - I wasn't trying to make you out as a foolish audiophile, but there are plenty out there.
Hehehe, don't worry, I don't take it personally. We're obviously talking in a different direction. What I wanted to say is that MP3pro has only a very small advantage over plain vanilla MP3, because it is basically an improvement of a property that doesn't matter too much to most people.
That person playing tunes while typing in Word is most likely playing either the CD or the MP3 through a Soundblaster... urgh.
Exactly. Do you think he/she can hear the difference between a good MP3 and a CD? Small chance. And the chance that he can hear the difference between MP3 and MP3pro is even smaller.
Excuse me? Does that imply that you don't surf to sites outside your own country? Or that you have no IRC-contacts overseas? It doesn't matter where it's employed, spying on people is not a thing any government should do.
First off, I don't quite understand the point you're making here. You read the article (r3mix.net) but you pick out exactly the wrong pieces. Let me quote a part:
all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio on:
B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14 with amp PM14 (Straightwire Pro cabling and extra's) [DM30000- so bit more than $15000]
Sennheiser Orpheus Electrostatic Reference-headphones with tweaked accompanying amp (digital and analog out) [>$10000]
Now how realistic does that sound? The article I referred to in my first post obviously shows that there actually are people who have this kind of expensive devices in their houses, but how many percent of the total population is that? So how does this laboratory test translate to a home situation in which someone has Winamp play some tunes while typing in Word?
This is exactly what I meant. People don't listen to MP3 because of their quality, but because the ease of use. Sure, you can buy expensive software to make almost-perfect MP3's, but what's the use? Who'd want an MP3 that's twice as big as a normal one? The people who really want this quality (whether they can actually discern between a good and a bad one or not) will not bother to do so: they'll simply feed their CD-player with a good CD. I'm not talking about Naxos and the likes, more about Deutsche Grammophon and Decca, but you seem to know about differences in quality.
And please don't make it look like I said things like but I can always tell the difference! and Ogg is better because... because I didn't say that. I tried quite some different encoders in the past and I indeed could hear the difference between a few of them (Xing was terrible), but none of them could encode at 256kb/s and of course I didn't have the expensive stuff that C'T used. I didn't say that Ogg was better either, just that this is one piece of software that you can use the way you like, no strings attached. Ever tried the Fraunhofer encoder? I did, but it took me quite some time to have it cracked (yeah, sure, as if you're really going to pay for it...). Ogg is better in that it's free from whatever registration or content protection whatsoever. And that's a thing I treasure, as do a lot of folks here on/.
It just won't come from lossy compression schemes like MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.
Ok, subtle difference:)You're right, if you would use an algorithm that would show no difference between a decompressed file and the original recording, you're talking state-of-the-art audio from a compressed file. I stand corrected:)
Real state-of-the-art quality will never come from a compressed file (see Insanely Audiophile here on/. yesterday). MP3 is not used for it's quality, but for its convenience: don't have to change CDs every hour, don't have to look them up, don't even have to go out and buy them. If you really want good quality, buy a decent audio installation and good CDs.
So I don't see huge benifits in MP3pro just because it's smaller and slightly better. I do however see a disadvantage: the content protection that is to come. That would take away a lot of its convenience. I'd say let's go for Ogg.
Many posters seem to forget that buying a house is a little different from ordering a CD at Amazon. If you look at some data of a CD online and decide to order it, what's the risk? Maybe you don't like it after all. Well, too bad, you spent a few bucks. But when it comes to buying a house, it's not enough to see just a few things like number of beds, number of baths, price. You'll have to go out and look at the house yourself (and preferably bring someone who can look at it from a technical point of view if you can't do that yourself).
Websites are better than the local newspaper, at least in my opinion. I can have my real estate site, the NVM site (sorry, all Dutch), search for houses within my price range, the selected number of rooms and the area. Now try to do that in a newspaper. In that way I get a good view of what's for sale. So I pick a house that interests me and then I contact the realtor who's selling it. No, I can't bid online, but I wouldn't want to do that anyway. Next thing to do is that what you need to do anyway: make an appointment to have a look at the house.
i just want to feel the music so when i'm driving down the street and the bass kicks in my stomach flutters and i can feel my chest vibrating...
...so you can't hear the screaming tyres of the car trying not to hit you. Or the horn of that truck you overlooked... Now what was it you wanted to feel again?
These should preferably shake the entire house when Alzo Spake Zarathustra is played at high volume (for those of you that don't recognize the name: you have heard the music, it's usually refered to as 2001).
Minor correction: it's Also sprach Zarathustra (thus spoke Zarathustra) and was written by Richard Strauss. The only well-known part BTW is the opening fanfare, which is about the first minute. If you're referring to music that should preferably shake the entire house and you're into classical music, try the dies irae from Verdi's Requiem. And when you're at it, try the libera me at the end of this master piece too: it's about the opposite of the dies irae and is guaranteed to send shivers down your spine.
The Organ Symphony from Camille Saint-Saëns is worth a try too, especially the fourth part: a full symphony orchestra plus a church organ playing fortissimo. Breath taking, I guarantee.
Re:Survival - Social - Recreation
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 1
My Humble opinion: Geeks/hackers are people who prioritize recreation over social purposes.
Depends on how you define social purposes. The Hacker Ethic is worth a read in this view: it views hackers not so much as computer freaks but as people with a strong drive to do some particular thing, mostly just for fun, which explains Linus' title. Matter of definition:)
Re:What we really need is a kernel story
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 1
Methinks Slashdot wouldn't have reacted the same way with Bill Gates' book.
It sure is cool to have an MP3-player in your car, but I don't get the stir on this either. My brother, who's got two left hands, bought a Yepp, made a clamp for it and connected it to his car radio. Nothing special, works fine.
...UNIX is user-friendly. It just happens to be very selective in who it's going to be friends with.
I've worked as a sysadmin in several UNIX/Windoze mixed environments for quite some time. It always struck me to see that the Windoze guys outnumbered their UNIX colleagues by far. And more interesting: those Windoze people had work all day long, while the UNIX people had time to do things for themselves (did I hear someone mention the word training here?). Why else would you think I can post this many articles on/. every day *grin*?
There is not a chance in hell they are going to be able to blame Microsoft.
Thank god, someone who gets it. The idea of most software providers is to give their customers access to a helpdesk (which usually isn't half as helpful as a tour through Usenet and/or IRC). Tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks! No way to drag a company like M$ to court and have a judge say they need to compensate you for your losses.
What about taking an insurance? It's always a nice idea to do that when you could get claims from customers, so that wouldn't change a lot. Maybe an insurance company could ask a higher fee if you work with Open Source (which they will think is of bad quality and prone to errors), but my bet is that you're still spending a whole lot less in this scenario. And let's face it, when was the first time proprietary software had a bug fixed sooner than any piece of Open Source software? So which software will be more suitable to run critical stuff in the end?
Suppose the same nasty bug is found in both IIS and Apache. It allows a hacker to break into the server and change the site. We all agree that this is very bad for businesses and if we're dealing with a co-hosting company, their customers will surely blame them if it happens. Now suppose a friend of mine and I both are co-hosters, he's running IIS, I'm running Apache. Guess who's going to be the first one to release a message stating that the bug has been fixed and the problem solved?
But suppose there's some quick hacker who hacks both our networks before any bugfix was released (no, I don't want the discussion again about what a hacker is, you all know exactly what I mean here, right? *grin*). The guys messes up a few sites and we both get huge claims from our customers. Now what will happen? Sure, I can't contact Apache and pass the claim to those people. But can my friend do that to M$? Don't think so. So, we're up to our necks in the same sh*t. Now suppose that one of us got himself a good insurance. The one who didn't, will be out of business before he can say bugfix while the other one simply forwards the claim(s) to his insurance company.
Now for the customers... The customers of our not-insured company suddenly lose their co-hoster and thus their websites! And the ironic part is, it's because of their own claims! Tough luck for both. The other one however, remains in business and can welcome some of the customers of the other one. I know I'd go for Open Source and an insurance!
But there are STILL us geeks out there that use more than 3gb per month.
Count me in. And I hope there will be more and more users who do that, that's the best reason for an ISP to improve their networks dramatically. Let them invest in fiberoptics and stuff, I'd be happy to pay more if that would mean I had a truly fast and unlimited connection.
I feel like an average user and I sometimes hit 3GB in a day.
If a lot more ppl would use 3GB on a day, you'd be an average user. And I hope it will get that far soon, because then the ISPs would be forced to improve their networks. Until then 3GB a day can't be called average in my eyes.
Don't get me wrong here (as did the person who modded my original post to troll): I don't say you shouldn't use 3GB a day, but that it's only natural that an ISP doesn't like that too much. Same idea goes for a ferry: if you embark with your bike, you pay a whole lot less than when you park your roadtrain on C-deck. Doesn't mean that the truck driver gets an unfair treat, just that he uses more capacity and thus has to pay more.
If, however, Telstra doesn't offer more than this and calls this free then there's something not right, I agree.
I don't really think this is an absurd idea, it happens everywhere. And let's be honest, for most users 3GB a month is more than they'll ever use in a month. There's just the few fanatic geeks who use their bandwidth as much as possible (#includeme) and place a relative burden on the network. Relative, yes, for if Telstra would have a better network, this wouldn't be an issue.
Sure, for the few souls that will have to decrease their traffic it sucks. But think of it again: a bigger, faster network costs money. Would it be fair to let the lightweight users pay for that, while only a few consume the bandwidth? Nah. The heavy users should think about what they want: decrease traffic or pay more. I'm sure there are options subscribe for unlimited traffic, but at higher cost. Will it be worth the extra cost, is the question these people should ask themselves. If 10 people in a city want a car that can do 200MPH, would it be fair for a car manufacturer to give all its cars this feature and increase the price? Or would it be more appropriate to sell normal cars to normal drivers and offer a sports car to those that want it?
It's easy to start yelling that Telstra sucks, but try to think what you would do if you were mr. Telstra and had to cut cost. If you really need the bandwith for downloading ISOs, movies, MP3s or whatever, you'll have to think about am I going to be fine with this, or would it be worthwhile paying more to continue this habit?
One day in the future, George W. Bush has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him. I don't
know what to do here, says the devil. You are on my list, but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got a couple folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves.
Bush thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving
in and surfacing empty handed. Over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. No, George said. I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long.
The devil led him to the next room. In it was Newt Gingrich with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day, commented George.
The devil opened a third door. In it, Bush saw Bill Clinton, lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head, and his legs staked in a
spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Bush took this in disbelief and finally said, Yeah, I can handle this.
The devil smiled and said OK, Monica, you're free to go.
And since the US has laws ensuring more freedom than any other nation...
Whahahaha!!! Right. Ask PRZ about freedom in the US. But sure, you have a point, there aren't too many countries in the world that allow you to have murder weapons in your house so that you can shoot your neighbor if you want to. Or to let your children shoot themselves for that matter.
Come on, get a life! Try to look a little further than your own borders. Most civilised countries don't even have the death penalty anymore, but the US gives their judges the freedom to kill.
Are they serious that it will decode but not encode?
I never used rot13 in Netscape and since I don't have it installed here at work, I can't try it. But I can imagine that if you decode a piece of text that's not encoded, you end up with the encoded version. The link you provided showed this principle with the single button for both encryption and decryption.
Of course, Microsoft will try to make these encryption schemas for passport users only.
Yup, that's one of my objections against M$: if you don't use their stuff, you're out. And the only one who can say that it's absolutely bugfree and without backdoor is... yup, M$. Am I going to trust private e-mail to the secret ways of a M$-program? Guess not.
Teach people a few basic things about security, install PGP for them and let them click away for a while. Chances are that if they discover how easy it is to use strong encryption and what possible risks they can circumvent with it, they start using it as a matter of routine. And that's exactly what we want (we = people who care about their privacy).
Slashdot Mirror
The first comment on my post mentioned the same and I reacted in this post, agreeing on the idea of lossless compression. I think this makes your post redundant, but obviously the moderator didn't read all the articles either.
Hmm, I didn't know about the options on the XM. I do know the Xantia Activa, based on the prototype Activa II, which was both revolutionary and beautiful. I drove the new C5 a few weeks ago, AFAIK it's got (almost) the same suspension as the Xantia Activa and yes, it drives great!
This is not the first car with this kind of features. Citroën has the Xsara Windows CE, which is already featured in the commercials as being almost shipping.
Yup. Sad, but true. Volvo (if I'm not mistaken) built a car that could sense when it was not between the lines of a lane and correct it by steering a little. And I recall some manufacturer (also Volvo?) who built some kind of radar into the front of the car, so that it could slam on the brakes when the driver overlooked a car in front of him. Would you think these things get implemented in road-going cars? Little chance, because those guys can figure themselves in court with some driver who parked his car upside-down in a ditch because he relied on the car to correct his steering. Or someone who's playing with his telephone and smashing into a traffic jam, because the radar happened to fail. I mean, if a smoker can drag a tobacco producer to court because his docter discovers cancer because of smoking, why would someone driving with his eyes shut and crashing into something be less successful in a lawsuit against the builder of the car?
Technology could bring us a lot of good things, but sadly a lot of things will not be implemented because of these complications...
Hehehe, don't worry, I don't take it personally. We're obviously talking in a different direction. What I wanted to say is that MP3pro has only a very small advantage over plain vanilla MP3, because it is basically an improvement of a property that doesn't matter too much to most people.
That person playing tunes while typing in Word is most likely playing either the CD or the MP3 through a Soundblaster... urgh.
Exactly. Do you think he/she can hear the difference between a good MP3 and a CD? Small chance. And the chance that he can hear the difference between MP3 and MP3pro is even smaller.
Excuse me? Does that imply that you don't surf to sites outside your own country? Or that you have no IRC-contacts overseas? It doesn't matter where it's employed, spying on people is not a thing any government should do.
all on cdrs and played in a Recording Studio on:
Now how realistic does that sound? The article I referred to in my first post obviously shows that there actually are people who have this kind of expensive devices in their houses, but how many percent of the total population is that? So how does this laboratory test translate to a home situation in which someone has Winamp play some tunes while typing in Word?
This is exactly what I meant. People don't listen to MP3 because of their quality, but because the ease of use. Sure, you can buy expensive software to make almost-perfect MP3's, but what's the use? Who'd want an MP3 that's twice as big as a normal one? The people who really want this quality (whether they can actually discern between a good and a bad one or not) will not bother to do so: they'll simply feed their CD-player with a good CD. I'm not talking about Naxos and the likes, more about Deutsche Grammophon and Decca, but you seem to know about differences in quality.
And please don't make it look like I said things like but I can always tell the difference! and Ogg is better because... because I didn't say that. I tried quite some different encoders in the past and I indeed could hear the difference between a few of them (Xing was terrible), but none of them could encode at 256kb/s and of course I didn't have the expensive stuff that C'T used. I didn't say that Ogg was better either, just that this is one piece of software that you can use the way you like, no strings attached. Ever tried the Fraunhofer encoder? I did, but it took me quite some time to have it cracked (yeah, sure, as if you're really going to pay for it...). Ogg is better in that it's free from whatever registration or content protection whatsoever. And that's a thing I treasure, as do a lot of folks here on /.
Ok, subtle difference :)You're right, if you would use an algorithm that would show no difference between a decompressed file and the original recording, you're talking state-of-the-art audio from a compressed file. I stand corrected :)
Yup. One more strong reason to go for open source :)
So I don't see huge benifits in MP3pro just because it's smaller and slightly better. I do however see a disadvantage: the content protection that is to come. That would take away a lot of its convenience. I'd say let's go for Ogg.
Websites are better than the local newspaper, at least in my opinion. I can have my real estate site, the NVM site (sorry, all Dutch), search for houses within my price range, the selected number of rooms and the area. Now try to do that in a newspaper. In that way I get a good view of what's for sale. So I pick a house that interests me and then I contact the realtor who's selling it. No, I can't bid online, but I wouldn't want to do that anyway. Next thing to do is that what you need to do anyway: make an appointment to have a look at the house.
Minor correction: it's Also sprach Zarathustra (thus spoke Zarathustra) and was written by Richard Strauss. The only well-known part BTW is the opening fanfare, which is about the first minute. If you're referring to music that should preferably shake the entire house and you're into classical music, try the dies irae from Verdi's Requiem. And when you're at it, try the libera me at the end of this master piece too: it's about the opposite of the dies irae and is guaranteed to send shivers down your spine.
The Organ Symphony from Camille Saint-Saëns is worth a try too, especially the fourth part: a full symphony orchestra plus a church organ playing fortissimo. Breath taking, I guarantee.
Depends on how you define social purposes. The Hacker Ethic is worth a read in this view: it views hackers not so much as computer freaks but as people with a strong drive to do some particular thing, mostly just for fun, which explains Linus' title. Matter of definition :)
Would have been an other title, Just for me
It sure is cool to have an MP3-player in your car, but I don't get the stir on this either. My brother, who's got two left hands, bought a Yepp, made a clamp for it and connected it to his car radio. Nothing special, works fine.
I've worked as a sysadmin in several UNIX/Windoze mixed environments for quite some time. It always struck me to see that the Windoze guys outnumbered their UNIX colleagues by far. And more interesting: those Windoze people had work all day long, while the UNIX people had time to do things for themselves (did I hear someone mention the word training here?). Why else would you think I can post this many articles on /. every day *grin*?
Thank god, someone who gets it. The idea of most software providers is to give their customers access to a helpdesk (which usually isn't half as helpful as a tour through Usenet and/or IRC). Tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks! No way to drag a company like M$ to court and have a judge say they need to compensate you for your losses.
What about taking an insurance? It's always a nice idea to do that when you could get claims from customers, so that wouldn't change a lot. Maybe an insurance company could ask a higher fee if you work with Open Source (which they will think is of bad quality and prone to errors), but my bet is that you're still spending a whole lot less in this scenario. And let's face it, when was the first time proprietary software had a bug fixed sooner than any piece of Open Source software? So which software will be more suitable to run critical stuff in the end?
Suppose the same nasty bug is found in both IIS and Apache. It allows a hacker to break into the server and change the site. We all agree that this is very bad for businesses and if we're dealing with a co-hosting company, their customers will surely blame them if it happens. Now suppose a friend of mine and I both are co-hosters, he's running IIS, I'm running Apache. Guess who's going to be the first one to release a message stating that the bug has been fixed and the problem solved?
But suppose there's some quick hacker who hacks both our networks before any bugfix was released (no, I don't want the discussion again about what a hacker is, you all know exactly what I mean here, right? *grin*). The guys messes up a few sites and we both get huge claims from our customers. Now what will happen? Sure, I can't contact Apache and pass the claim to those people. But can my friend do that to M$? Don't think so. So, we're up to our necks in the same sh*t. Now suppose that one of us got himself a good insurance. The one who didn't, will be out of business before he can say bugfix while the other one simply forwards the claim(s) to his insurance company.
Now for the customers... The customers of our not-insured company suddenly lose their co-hoster and thus their websites! And the ironic part is, it's because of their own claims! Tough luck for both. The other one however, remains in business and can welcome some of the customers of the other one. I know I'd go for Open Source and an insurance!
Count me in. And I hope there will be more and more users who do that, that's the best reason for an ISP to improve their networks dramatically. Let them invest in fiberoptics and stuff, I'd be happy to pay more if that would mean I had a truly fast and unlimited connection.
If a lot more ppl would use 3GB on a day, you'd be an average user. And I hope it will get that far soon, because then the ISPs would be forced to improve their networks. Until then 3GB a day can't be called average in my eyes.
Don't get me wrong here (as did the person who modded my original post to troll): I don't say you shouldn't use 3GB a day, but that it's only natural that an ISP doesn't like that too much. Same idea goes for a ferry: if you embark with your bike, you pay a whole lot less than when you park your roadtrain on C-deck. Doesn't mean that the truck driver gets an unfair treat, just that he uses more capacity and thus has to pay more.
If, however, Telstra doesn't offer more than this and calls this free then there's something not right, I agree.
Sure, for the few souls that will have to decrease their traffic it sucks. But think of it again: a bigger, faster network costs money. Would it be fair to let the lightweight users pay for that, while only a few consume the bandwidth? Nah. The heavy users should think about what they want: decrease traffic or pay more. I'm sure there are options subscribe for unlimited traffic, but at higher cost. Will it be worth the extra cost, is the question these people should ask themselves. If 10 people in a city want a car that can do 200MPH, would it be fair for a car manufacturer to give all its cars this feature and increase the price? Or would it be more appropriate to sell normal cars to normal drivers and offer a sports car to those that want it?
It's easy to start yelling that Telstra sucks, but try to think what you would do if you were mr. Telstra and had to cut cost. If you really need the bandwith for downloading ISOs, movies, MP3s or whatever, you'll have to think about am I going to be fine with this, or would it be worthwhile paying more to continue this habit?
Bush thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed. Over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. No, George said. I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long.
The devil led him to the next room. In it was Newt Gingrich with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day, commented George.
The devil opened a third door. In it, Bush saw Bill Clinton, lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Bush took this in disbelief and finally said, Yeah, I can handle this.
The devil smiled and said OK, Monica, you're free to go.
Whahahaha!!! Right. Ask PRZ about freedom in the US. But sure, you have a point, there aren't too many countries in the world that allow you to have murder weapons in your house so that you can shoot your neighbor if you want to. Or to let your children shoot themselves for that matter.
Come on, get a life! Try to look a little further than your own borders. Most civilised countries don't even have the death penalty anymore, but the US gives their judges the freedom to kill.
I never used rot13 in Netscape and since I don't have it installed here at work, I can't try it. But I can imagine that if you decode a piece of text that's not encoded, you end up with the encoded version. The link you provided showed this principle with the single button for both encryption and decryption.
Yup, that's one of my objections against M$: if you don't use their stuff, you're out. And the only one who can say that it's absolutely bugfree and without backdoor is... yup, M$. Am I going to trust private e-mail to the secret ways of a M$-program? Guess not.
Teach people a few basic things about security, install PGP for them and let them click away for a while. Chances are that if they discover how easy it is to use strong encryption and what possible risks they can circumvent with it, they start using it as a matter of routine. And that's exactly what we want (we = people who care about their privacy).