Can you be a pal and explain a few things about the PAL 8045 to me? I've been looking around for them but they're really hard to find. I finally found a store that carries them, but is out of stock. They mentioned, however, that the Alpha PAL 8045 is only a heatsink, and you buy the fan separately.
So, are the fans you buy for it just standard case fans? Do they get power off the power supply like a case fan, or do they attach to the CPU fan header on the motherboard?
If they're just standard case fans, are there recommended fans to use with the unit? Are there big differences in the noise and airflow in 80mm case fans?
I'm on my quest to get the quietest, coolest PC so I can use it both to play 3d-heavy FPS games, compile kernels, and play DVD movies and music. The CPU and case cooling are my only remaining noise/cooling issues.
If elements with attributes start with two parentheses that makes them different from elements without attributes. There's gotta be a way since the SSAX project has to handle it somehow.
Converting to PDF is easy too. Just use XSL-FO. Apache has an
implementation of this. Currently they only create PDFs, but it could easily be sent to a printer directly. You can also convert directly to
TeX:
I used to work with all kinds of custom ICs and trust me, 700F is perfectly possible. I've even seen circuits that worked pretty well with components at about 300F. When I was a beginner HW engineer I was looking into problems with a board we were making, and I wanted to see if some components were overheating. Stupidly I touched them with my finger. Ouch!. My finger touched the component for far less than a second and I was severely burned. Think "touching a soldering iron tip with your finger" type burned.
This isn't to mention all the times when a layout error resulted in powering on a system and watching components explode, fire, smoke, etc.
An electric burner doesn't heat up very quickly compared to fried electronics. The reason why is simple. An electric burner dissipates a few hundred watts over an area that's at least 5cm by 5cm. When a chip fries you can dissipate 300W over an area that's less than 1cm by 1cm. That's a lot more energy in that small area.
I've seen many components that were fried and the solder disappeared. Seeing as it takes a temp of about 400F to melt solder, it would take a lot more to flash it into nothingness.
But don't trust me. Miswire some electronics and see for yourself.
Interesting! If I had mod access you'd have points. Anyone who knows much about HTTP will realize that the only way a server can know what kind of client is accessing it is by the "User-Agent" header.
For a long time (and maybe still) IE was listed as "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0;* Windows NT)". (Mozilla being the browser identity for Netscape's browsers since the early days). This would try to fool the server into thinking that it was talking to a Netscape client.
I believe that with all current versions of the browsers being blocked, it is relatively easy to change the User-Agent string to any custom setting. Note that MS isn't blocking old Netscape, just Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, etc.
This will allow Microsoft to claim that the only browsers accessing msn.com are IE and old versions of Netscape. It will also allow them to argue to people to use whatever IE extensions that MS decides to introduce. It will also put the burden on other browser makers to make sure that their browsers exactly match IE in all behavior, broken or not, in case MSN relies on it.
I hope this move backfires when all kinds of new AOL users using a Gecko-based browser are unable to access MSN, and unskilled enough to change their browser string. I hope AOL doesn't cave and forces MS to change, rather than making it's User-Agent into something stupid like: (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0 (compatible; Aolizard/7.0) Windows XP)
Couldn't MS code then be said to harbor terrorists? Or couldn't it at least be said to supply terrorists needs? If terrorists take over airplanes once, the US government wants to mandate steel cockpit doors. Since "terrorists" regularly take over computers running MS pructs, shouldn't the same government force MS to replace their ultra-flimsy "cockpit" doors?
It's kinda funny. For a long time now people have been saying "if you want your congress rep, senator, MP, friendly dictator, etc. to listen send them snail-mail". These days with the Anthrax scares, I'd say one way to guarantee your rep won't see what you wrote it to send it by snail-mail.
Will this result in more reps using email, and thus more influence for geeks? Or will this just mean phone calls and personal appearances become even more important.
One thing's for sure. If you want to write your rep a letter about something that matters to you -- put down that powdered sugar donut and wash your hands before you do do it!
As an amateur geek, does being interviewed by a rabid geek site like Slashdot -- a site that normally interviews people who rewrite kernel modules in
brainf*ck for fun -- scare you? Or is being a gen-u-wine celebrity and the actor formerly known as "the boy" insulation against such terror?
And (sorry if this is in your FAQ but since your server is melting so I can't check) are there actors in Hollywood that are as geeky / more geeky than you that one would never suspect? Or are there actors who portray geeks that are confused by the number of switches on a hair-drier? In other words who do you talk code with and who do you poke fun at?
From what I remember of chemistry (my worst subject in Uni) a half-emtpy hydrogen tank might be half-filled with air or oxygen or any other gas. The partial pressure of the hydrogen might be half the total pressure. And I'm pretty sure that alcohol (ethanol) still requires external oxygen to burn. From what I remember, burning is the process of changing CH3CH2OH into CO2, H20 and a few other things. It was the breaking of the big molecules into smaller ones with less energy that releases all the heat. But like I said, Chemistry was my worst subject.
Pure hydrogen, methane, alcohol or gasoline in a tank will not explode. Nothing in a tank alone will explode, because all explosions and fire require oxygen. Unfortunately on this planet oxygen makes up about 20% of the atmosphere so there's a lot around.
If we were on Neptune which has a methane atmosphere, we'd probably worry about oxygen slipping out and the explosions that would result from that.
Yup, and taking away everything including people's tweezers means that only someone insane enough to not understand their odds of success would attempt to perform a copy-cat crime.
While the terrorists who crashed into the Pentagon and WTC were ruthless, they seemed to understand their chances of success very well. The next terrorist act (assuming there will be another one) will most likely be as difficult to see coming as this one was. And, in retrospect, it will probably seem just as easy to prevent, if only we'd been looking in the right place.
If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology.
Yup. And most people want the music they copy to be either a direct CD copy of the music, or rip it in a standard MP3 format. So... if his technology allows that then how exactly is it protecting anything?
We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player,
For their MP3 player? Hmm... now I notice he didn't say in standard MP3 format. Maybe he means "for their MP3 player as long as it uses the special no-copy technology XXX and plays WMA format music". I would bet that his technology would prevent it from working on my MP3 player. Since I'm just doing what I want in a way I think is reasonable he wouldn't want to stop me right?
What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things.
Yeah, that's great. Thanks for treating customers with such respect.
The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that.
So he's saying you know that the technological solution you've created is weak, and you intend to use the DMCA to enforce it? If the gov't were't owned by big coprorations like the record companies, I'd expect they'd complain. If I protected my house with a flimsy screen-door lock then expected the police to do everything they could whenever someone broke in, I think they'd get pissed at me pretty soon.
Doesn't anybody want to think about what happens in the world where no music is paid for?
No Britney Spears, no *NSync, only people who are into music for the sake of music. Man, would that ever be a great world!
This business can be a very lucrative business if it's done properly [...] I think there's a huge opportunity for this company to expand not just from the CD music but also for CD software, digital data, streaming, et cetera...
Ok buddy. So you think you're going to be in a lucrative business. You think you're gonna make loads of money when your goal is: "Make it easier for the record companies to squeeze me and prevent me from doing what I want with the CD[*] I bought". Guess what. I (and a few other people) want to convince you that it's *not* lucrative.
If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days.
Any takers?
[*] Note, the product bought, whie a shiny disk in a silver case is not actually a CD, sorry for any inconvenience.
But what about the nice box (ahem) that software comes (ahem) in? What about the manuals, the CD, and all the other goodies you get in a box of software? Why do you get it in a store, see a price sticker on it, give a cashier money for it, and walk out with it?
MS wants software to be prostitution. They want you to pay each time you use it, and they want the US legal system to be their pimp.
Chances are, whether we like it or lot, they'll get to do that. If we're lucky, however, there will be some alternatives in the form of Free software.
The problem, as I see it, is that right now software is more like marriage. You find what you want, pay a big up-front cost -- the wedding -- and make a commitment for life. When new, improved versions become available you can go through a long, involved process to get them, but you can't recoup the original cost of the wedding. If someone wants your old version, you can't just give it to them, they have to pay for a wedding too.
Yup, I agree. Without a means of verifying the signature, having it as part of the post is at best a waste of space. At worst, since the signature can't be checked, it implies it wasn't Philip Zimmermann who wrote that message.
The whole point of a PGP signature is to verify that someone is who he/she claims to be. A posting with a PGP signature that can't be verified is meaningless. An unsigned post by somone calling himself "Robin" saying "I talked to him on the phone" is not proof of anything. (I'm not saying I doubt that the note is from Zimmermann or the post is from Robin, it's the principle of the thing).
"the article had no such statement or implication when she read it to me."
"I can only speculate that her editors must have taken some inappropriate liberties in abbreviating my feelings to such an inaccurate soundbite."
"It appears that this nuance of reasoning was lost on someone at the Washington Post. I imagine this may be caused by this newspaper's staff being stretched to their limits last week."
"I have always enjoyed good relations with the press over the past decade, especially with the Washington Post. I'm sure they will get it right next time."
If anyone is to blame for the change it's the editors, not the writer. And the editors are probably pretty stressed right now. I doubt they were being malicious.
You may have heard of the principle "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Maybe that should be changed to include stress, exhaustion, and emotional turmoil.
In the US especially, people pay for their own education. If they want to spend time emailing in class, let them!
In my first year in University I started out going to all my classes, including intro to computer science. After the first class I realized that I knew most of what they were teaching already. I considered not going to class, but I thought it would be good to be there in case they went over something I didn't know. If I had had a computer with me I could have done some emailing, worked on the assignments for the class, etc. while waiting for the prof to hit something I didn't know. But we didn't have computers in the lecture hall, so instead I just sat there and tried to fight off sleep.
Unless the students who are emailing, IMing, searching for pr0n, etc. are bothering other students, let them do what they want! If they're being disruptive, kick them out.
In high school it might make sense to do something like this. Most kids don't have a choice about whether they go to class or not, and most are having their education paid for by taxpayers. It makes sense to do what it takes to get them to pay attention. But in University?
Those are good ideas if you might be a source a few times, but I've had friends that were really burned.
One friend developed some software, a plugin for a 3d graphics program. His plugin was used on a famous huge-budget TV show, so a local newspaper interviewed him. He assumed they'd talk about his plugin, and how well it had done. When the newspaper article was published, he found out they decided to focus almost exclusively on the fact he still lived at home, and worked out of his bedroom. Instead of getting a cool publicity boost the article made him look like a boob.
They never misquoted him, they didn't take anything he said out of context -- they just misrepresented the purpose of the article and the interview.
Since he's unlikely to be interviewed again, threatening not to be a source again is an empty threat. A letter to the editor might do something, but probably would just be ignored.
Another friend was interviewed as part of a piece on "cheap date ideas in [Cityname]". She was told she would be one of a number of people interviewed... As you might have guessed she was the only one they managed to interview for the article. It ended up being an article that was essentially "cheap date ideas with [Hername]".
She was so embarassed that she didn't go out for a couple of weeks, before her trip overseas, and months later when she came back she was still getting razzed for it.
They didn't misquote her too badly, they just changed the focus in a way that was horribly embarassing for her.
In a situation like this, can anything be done? If you have the opportunity to be interviewed is there any way you can prevent this type of thing?
This isn't a question for Zimmermann, it's a question for anybody who knows. What can you do when, like him, you're misquoted in by a journalist?
From the sounds of it, he did everything you could expect someone to do to avoid being misquoted. He emphasized to her he did not feel "overwhelmed with guilt", had her read the article to him over the phone before it was published, and was still misquoted thanks to an editor.
I imagine in certain circumstances you could sue the newspaper for libel, but what else can you do? What are your rights to: 1) not sound like a complete moron, 2) not be quoted out of context, 3) not be misquoted, 4) not have words put in your mouth.
And while we're on the topic, another question for the masses. From what the DoJ and others are doing, I'm getting less and less willing to send my email in plain text. The problem is that my technically unsophisticated friends don't have PGP, and I'm afraid it might be too tough for them. I know I could point them at hushmail (http://www.hushmail.com/), but are there any other good options? Also, what good arguments can I use to convince them it's worth the effort?
Btw, by "technically unsophisticated" I mean one until a couple of months ago was using a 486 and windows 3.1. I can't expect them to switch to Linux yet, but I want to help them find a good way to use pgp.
Slashdot Mirror
Penny arcade had a cute one today.
Argh! Slashdot ate my comments.
Lemme try again.
Can you be a pal and explain a few things about the PAL 8045 to me? I've been looking around for them but they're really hard to find. I finally found a store that carries them, but is out of stock. They mentioned, however, that the Alpha PAL 8045 is only a heatsink, and you buy the fan separately.
So, are the fans you buy for it just standard case fans? Do they get power off the power supply like a case fan, or do they attach to the CPU fan header on the motherboard?
If they're just standard case fans, are there recommended fans to use with the unit? Are there big differences in the noise and airflow in 80mm case fans?
I'm on my quest to get the quietest, coolest PC so I can use it both to play 3d-heavy FPS games, compile kernels, and play DVD movies and music. The CPU and case cooling are my only remaining noise/cooling issues.
Wrong URL. The link to the register article is: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22559.html. Or you could just read the article at Kuro5hin:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/31/15654/175
According to Kuro5hin's story, it was Roblimo who informed them they were getting the boot too. Inneresting.
But you're missing my question. How do you distinguish between child elements (Name) and attributes (Type, worthless-stock-options).
Well that breaks stuff, right?
If elements with attributes start with two parentheses that makes them different from elements without attributes. There's gotta be a way since the SSAX project has to handle it somehow.
I've noticed XML is basically Scheme too. One question though, how do you do XML attributes in Scheme?
<Slashdot>
<Editor Type="Full-Time">
<Name>CmdrTaco</N ame>
</Editor>
<Slashdot>
Converting to PDF is easy too. Just use XSL-FO. Apache has an implementation of this. Currently they only create PDFs, but it could easily be sent to a printer directly. You can also convert directly to TeX:
I used to work with all kinds of custom ICs and trust me, 700F is perfectly possible. I've even seen circuits that worked pretty well with components at about 300F. When I was a beginner HW engineer I was looking into problems with a board we were making, and I wanted to see if some components were overheating. Stupidly I touched them with my finger. Ouch!. My finger touched the component for far less than a second and I was severely burned. Think "touching a soldering iron tip with your finger" type burned.
This isn't to mention all the times when a layout error resulted in powering on a system and watching components explode, fire, smoke, etc.
An electric burner doesn't heat up very quickly compared to fried electronics. The reason why is simple. An electric burner dissipates a few hundred watts over an area that's at least 5cm by 5cm. When a chip fries you can dissipate 300W over an area that's less than 1cm by 1cm. That's a lot more energy in that small area.
I've seen many components that were fried and the solder disappeared. Seeing as it takes a temp of about 400F to melt solder, it would take a lot more to flash it into nothingness.
But don't trust me. Miswire some electronics and see for yourself.
Interesting! If I had mod access you'd have points. Anyone who knows much about HTTP will realize that the only way a server can know what kind of client is accessing it is by the "User-Agent" header.
For a long time (and maybe still) IE was listed as "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0;* Windows NT)". (Mozilla being the browser identity for Netscape's browsers since the early days). This would try to fool the server into thinking that it was talking to a Netscape client.
I believe that with all current versions of the browsers being blocked, it is relatively easy to change the User-Agent string to any custom setting. Note that MS isn't blocking old Netscape, just Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, etc.
This will allow Microsoft to claim that the only browsers accessing msn.com are IE and old versions of Netscape. It will also allow them to argue to people to use whatever IE extensions that MS decides to introduce. It will also put the burden on other browser makers to make sure that their browsers exactly match IE in all behavior, broken or not, in case MSN relies on it.
I hope this move backfires when all kinds of new AOL users using a Gecko-based browser are unable to access MSN, and unskilled enough to change their browser string. I hope AOL doesn't cave and forces MS to change, rather than making it's User-Agent into something stupid like: (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0 (compatible; Aolizard/7.0) Windows XP)
Couldn't MS code then be said to harbor terrorists? Or couldn't it at least be said to supply terrorists needs? If terrorists take over airplanes once, the US government wants to mandate steel cockpit doors. Since "terrorists" regularly take over computers running MS pructs, shouldn't the same government force MS to replace their ultra-flimsy "cockpit" doors?
It's kinda funny. For a long time now people have been saying "if you want your congress rep, senator, MP, friendly dictator, etc. to listen send them snail-mail". These days with the Anthrax scares, I'd say one way to guarantee your rep won't see what you wrote it to send it by snail-mail.
Will this result in more reps using email, and thus more influence for geeks? Or will this just mean phone calls and personal appearances become even more important.
One thing's for sure. If you want to write your rep a letter about something that matters to you -- put down that powdered sugar donut and wash your hands before you do do it!
As an amateur geek, does being interviewed by a rabid geek site like Slashdot -- a site that normally interviews people who rewrite kernel modules in brainf*ck for fun -- scare you? Or is being a gen-u-wine celebrity and the actor formerly known as "the boy" insulation against such terror?
And (sorry if this is in your FAQ but since your server is melting so I can't check) are there actors in Hollywood that are as geeky / more geeky than you that one would never suspect? Or are there actors who portray geeks that are confused by the number of switches on a hair-drier? In other words who do you talk code with and who do you poke fun at?
From what I remember of chemistry (my worst subject in Uni) a half-emtpy hydrogen tank might be half-filled with air or oxygen or any other gas. The partial pressure of the hydrogen might be half the total pressure. And I'm pretty sure that alcohol (ethanol) still requires external oxygen to burn. From what I remember, burning is the process of changing CH3CH2OH into CO2, H20 and a few other things. It was the breaking of the big molecules into smaller ones with less energy that releases all the heat. But like I said, Chemistry was my worst subject.
Pure hydrogen, methane, alcohol or gasoline in a tank will not explode. Nothing in a tank alone will explode, because all explosions and fire require oxygen. Unfortunately on this planet oxygen makes up about 20% of the atmosphere so there's a lot around.
If we were on Neptune which has a methane atmosphere, we'd probably worry about oxygen slipping out and the explosions that would result from that.
Yup, and taking away everything including people's tweezers means that only someone insane enough to not understand their odds of success would attempt to perform a copy-cat crime.
While the terrorists who crashed into the Pentagon and WTC were ruthless, they seemed to understand their chances of success very well. The next terrorist act (assuming there will be another one) will most likely be as difficult to see coming as this one was. And, in retrospect, it will probably seem just as easy to prevent, if only we'd been looking in the right place.
A federal crime? So if your sister types in "whitehouse.com" into her browser and gets a porn site that's a federal crime? Even if she mistyped it?
Yup. And most people want the music they copy to be either a direct CD copy of the music, or rip it in a standard MP3 format. So... if his technology allows that then how exactly is it protecting anything?
For their MP3 player? Hmm... now I notice he didn't say in standard MP3 format. Maybe he means "for their MP3 player as long as it uses the special no-copy technology XXX and plays WMA format music". I would bet that his technology would prevent it from working on my MP3 player. Since I'm just doing what I want in a way I think is reasonable he wouldn't want to stop me right?
Yeah, that's great. Thanks for treating customers with such respect.
So he's saying you know that the technological solution you've created is weak, and you intend to use the DMCA to enforce it? If the gov't were't owned by big coprorations like the record companies, I'd expect they'd complain. If I protected my house with a flimsy screen-door lock then expected the police to do everything they could whenever someone broke in, I think they'd get pissed at me pretty soon.
No Britney Spears, no *NSync, only people who are into music for the sake of music. Man, would that ever be a great world!
Ok buddy. So you think you're going to be in a lucrative business. You think you're gonna make loads of money when your goal is: "Make it easier for the record companies to squeeze me and prevent me from doing what I want with the CD[*] I bought". Guess what. I (and a few other people) want to convince you that it's *not* lucrative.
Any takers?
[*] Note, the product bought, whie a shiny disk in a silver case is not actually a CD, sorry for any inconvenience.
But what about the nice box (ahem) that software comes (ahem) in? What about the manuals, the CD, and all the other goodies you get in a box of software? Why do you get it in a store, see a price sticker on it, give a cashier money for it, and walk out with it?
MS wants software to be prostitution. They want you to pay each time you use it, and they want the US legal system to be their pimp.
Chances are, whether we like it or lot, they'll get to do that. If we're lucky, however, there will be some alternatives in the form of Free software.
The problem, as I see it, is that right now software is more like marriage. You find what you want, pay a big up-front cost -- the wedding -- and make a commitment for life. When new, improved versions become available you can go through a long, involved process to get them, but you can't recoup the original cost of the wedding. If someone wants your old version, you can't just give it to them, they have to pay for a wedding too.
Yup, I agree. Without a means of verifying the signature, having it as part of the post is at best a waste of space. At worst, since the signature can't be checked, it implies it wasn't Philip Zimmermann who wrote that message.
The whole point of a PGP signature is to verify that someone is who he/she claims to be. A posting with a PGP signature that can't be verified is meaningless. An unsigned post by somone calling himself "Robin" saying "I talked to him on the phone" is not proof of anything. (I'm not saying I doubt that the note is from Zimmermann or the post is from Robin, it's the principle of the thing).
That's why it pays to read what he actually said:
If anyone is to blame for the change it's the editors, not the writer. And the editors are probably pretty stressed right now. I doubt they were being malicious.
You may have heard of the principle "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Maybe that should be changed to include stress, exhaustion, and emotional turmoil.
In the US especially, people pay for their own education. If they want to spend time emailing in class, let them!
In my first year in University I started out going to all my classes, including intro to computer science. After the first class I realized that I knew most of what they were teaching already. I considered not going to class, but I thought it would be good to be there in case they went over something I didn't know. If I had had a computer with me I could have done some emailing, worked on the assignments for the class, etc. while waiting for the prof to hit something I didn't know. But we didn't have computers in the lecture hall, so instead I just sat there and tried to fight off sleep.
Unless the students who are emailing, IMing, searching for pr0n, etc. are bothering other students, let them do what they want! If they're being disruptive, kick them out.
In high school it might make sense to do something like this. Most kids don't have a choice about whether they go to class or not, and most are having their education paid for by taxpayers. It makes sense to do what it takes to get them to pay attention. But in University?
Nitpick: not "wala", "voilà", french for "there it is", or "there you have it".
Those are good ideas if you might be a source a few times, but I've had friends that were really burned.
One friend developed some software, a plugin for a 3d graphics program. His plugin was used on a famous huge-budget TV show, so a local newspaper interviewed him. He assumed they'd talk about his plugin, and how well it had done. When the newspaper article was published, he found out they decided to focus almost exclusively on the fact he still lived at home, and worked out of his bedroom. Instead of getting a cool publicity boost the article made him look like a boob.
They never misquoted him, they didn't take anything he said out of context -- they just misrepresented the purpose of the article and the interview.
Since he's unlikely to be interviewed again, threatening not to be a source again is an empty threat. A letter to the editor might do something, but probably would just be ignored.
Another friend was interviewed as part of a piece on "cheap date ideas in [Cityname]". She was told she would be one of a number of people interviewed... As you might have guessed she was the only one they managed to interview for the article. It ended up being an article that was essentially "cheap date ideas with [Hername]".
She was so embarassed that she didn't go out for a couple of weeks, before her trip overseas, and months later when she came back she was still getting razzed for it.
They didn't misquote her too badly, they just changed the focus in a way that was horribly embarassing for her.
In a situation like this, can anything be done? If you have the opportunity to be interviewed is there any way you can prevent this type of thing?
This isn't a question for Zimmermann, it's a question for anybody who knows. What can you do when, like him, you're misquoted in by a journalist?
From the sounds of it, he did everything you could expect someone to do to avoid being misquoted. He emphasized to her he did not feel "overwhelmed with guilt", had her read the article to him over the phone before it was published, and was still misquoted thanks to an editor.
I imagine in certain circumstances you could sue the newspaper for libel, but what else can you do? What are your rights to: 1) not sound like a complete moron, 2) not be quoted out of context, 3) not be misquoted, 4) not have words put in your mouth.
And while we're on the topic, another question for the masses. From what the DoJ and others are doing, I'm getting less and less willing to send my email in plain text. The problem is that my technically unsophisticated friends don't have PGP, and I'm afraid it might be too tough for them. I know I could point them at hushmail (http://www.hushmail.com/), but are there any other good options? Also, what good arguments can I use to convince them it's worth the effort?
Btw, by "technically unsophisticated" I mean one until a couple of months ago was using a 486 and windows 3.1. I can't expect them to switch to Linux yet, but I want to help them find a good way to use pgp.
Yup, you're right, I messed that one up. Only 725 or so people have been murdered so far since the attack.