2. no messing with grinding, measuring, filling grounds, and cleaning them up. Just pop it in, brew, and chuck it out when done. This feature goes away if you refill or manually fill.
My wife uses a reusable pod with her Keurig. She cleans out the old grounds, measures new ones in, and pops the pod back into the Keurig. The total time for this is about half a minute. Spending that extra time saves us a lot of money, results in less trash, and gives my wife a better cup of coffee.
This is EXACTLY the situation I am calling out as making absolutely zero sense! Oh sure, it saves you money compared to paying for the disposable Keurig k-cups, but what is the benefit compared to ANY other coffee brewing method?!?! As you noted, she's already doing the measuring, filling grounds, and cleaning up after them (and even going so far as to wash the reusable filter, as opposed to alternative methods that don't require a filter wash), so why use a Keurig at all?
I'm having trouble thinking of any other comparable situation... like buying a fridge, paying extra for the ice maker with built in filter, purposefully not hooking up the water line to it, and then buying bottled water to manually fill it when you want ice - just get an ice tray if that's what you want! or, in this case, just get any other readily available, cheap and simple coffee maker.
There are inserts that fit the Keurigs that you can fill with your own ground coffee, then empty after it's brewed. I'd love to use them, it'd give me a wider variety of coffees.
These have been around forever in a slightly larger size in the form of any-other-coffee-maker-ever.
AFAICT, there are 2.5 selling points to the Keurigs: 1. single cup. It's possible to do this with many other coffee makers / techniques, but the big 12 cup drip machines do this poorly. 2. no messing with grinding, measuring, filling grounds, and cleaning them up. Just pop it in, brew, and chuck it out when done. This feature goes away if you refill or manually fill. 2.5. water hookups / reservoir. This is great in hotels when they are hooked into the main lines already. It's also somewhat helpful at home if yours has a larger reservoir than 1 cup, so you don't have to refill it every time you brew. I'm only giving this half a point though, cause who really cares about this?
I'd make a recommendation on what to use instead, but it's pretty much anything else, just with my own preference thrown in. Choose from a 4 cup drip machine, single cup drip, french press (can even get a 1 cup one), cold brew, aeropress, chemex, moka, etc.
If you want to try a wider range of coffee's, just buy any of the other tools and use them. French press, for example, just needs hot water, and you put it and the grounds in the press, mix 'em up, wait, press a plunger, then pour your coffee. You can even get mini ones for single cup brewing, they're very affordable, and take up very little space. You have little to no excuse.
Backwards. Netflix is where you aren't choosing to sit in a room full of 100's of other random people expecting them all to behave exactly as you'd like.
... we're talking about movies which people pay to watch...
According to your logic, if there is a market for this, then they should allow texting, and screw you and your concerns.
I know I'll get heat for this, but IMO, it's like smoking areas in restaurants and bars, especially outdoor areas. I don't feel the need to explain this further.
I also suspect that the majority of people that are so adamant about no texting in a theater are also part of the group that regularly uses the word "glasshole" when referring to someone wearing Google Glass. Those same glassholes could text without any impact to anyone around them, but people are terrified of a blatantly obvious camera if it's worn on someone else's face.
For the record, I don't want texting allowed anywhere/anytime in theaters, but I'm all for a texting section (as long as they have phones on silent), or special showings that are 100% text friendly. There are people that obsess over that connectivity, and that number is growing - it's a market they should probably not ignore completely. There are also people that legitimately need to be able to receive texts 24x7, but probably won't get any (anyone on call). Why not just give them the back row? No one behind them to see the light from their phones, and there is a good chance they'll be on the younger side of the spectrum, so they'll likely have good enough vision to see from back there too:-)
Actually, being able to get from point A to point B faster than a day's worth of travel will probably save countless billions in time and money for everyone from executives to a family going to Disney World, or Europe.
Bah humbug! YMMV, but for me, most of my travels are within 400-1000 miles or so (or 1 - 3 hours in the air). For those on the shorter end of that, it often takes less time to just drive it once you take into account time to get to/from the airports, screening, baggage claim, etc. While supersonic may provide a noticeable difference in some cases, they really need to reduce the end point issues if they want it to seem significantly faster.
In theory you could secure BlackBerries but it always required an enterprise license and running your own servers with your own keys.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this would just limit the scope of the issue. The key would still be a shared key for all your users, right? If so, that's not a fix at all.
At some point, you have to pick that trust point, and Open Whisper Systems seems like a good point.
You're doing it wrong. Think about any scientific breakthrough, algorithm, mathematical proof, etc. It's perfectly fine for all the work to originate at one person or closed group, but people don't trust it until it's been peer reviewed.
I'm not claiming whether or not that's been done, or to what level, but it's not smart to pick a group of people and decide to trust them with a topic you admittedly don't know enough about just because they seem like good enough folks.
At the very least, no; you do not have to pick a trust point.
I agree. A few shortcomings of the eink kindles are: * less content than in physical form * content is often cheaper when you buy the physical book * not allowed to resell the books you buy (... unless i'm mistaken, but I see no way to do this) * limited lending support * DRM, though you should be able to strip this in most cases * sub-par integration for external content (such as the library systems, gutenberg, etc) * wish it was easier to take notes on it
That said, you mentioned that you don't expect it to run apps, but it actually does already (albeit a limited library of apps). They're called "active content" in the kindle store: http://www.amazon.com/b?node=2...
Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Where are all the grammar nazi's today!?!? "respectively" means something! I highly doubt its cheaper to upgrade an SD movie to 4k than it is to upgrade an HD movie.
Anyway... IF you already have some movies on the UltraViolet service, and IF you have a huge pipe with no data cap, then maybe it'd be worth the money to upgrade one or two of your titles... but what titles are there that even have native 4k shots?
You just described the Smartboards and Mimeos that have been in use in schools and universities for the past 15 years. Oh, and the projector versions cost a lot less (although the LCD display versions run around $8500 for just the display.)
I agree. That said, I was curious how much a 4k projector would run these days, since the item in the article is a 4k device (though, only 55" or 84"... my cheap-ish 720p projector at home is throwing a 110" display). 4k projectors are EXPENSIVE! The projector alone will run somewhere in the neighborhood of the price of this surface hub thing. Those prices vary wildly from around 5 grand up to $168k. Looks like the median price is somewhere around 8-15k. So, until those projector prices come down, which will be a while since I doubt many people will be picking up that tech (as opposed to 4k displays which are getting gobbled up for use as computer monitors, as well as furture proof tv's since they're priced in the same ballpark as a 1080p display)... well, until those prices fall, the surface hub may actually be a better value than a comparable projector based smartboard.
Nope, not those. There's a fairly easy solution to these issues, and there are cyanogenmod / rooted apps that have been available for a long time so it's technically a done deal. Allow the user to control which permissions it allows for each app, and allow the setting of stand in values.
For example, if an app requires GPS, the user could select "nope... just feed the app these coordinates instead: ___". Similar for a contact list, let the user supply an empty or preset or limited list of contacts.
The existing apps do not solve the problem because not everyone has that ability. However, if that control were standard, then those making the apps would be encouraged to provide more honest information about the required permissions, and to limit them from the start so they get good data.
As it is today, for most users, it's an either/or situation. You can either accept the apps requested permissions and use it, or you don't get to use it at all. That's stupid.
You're reading out of context. There was nothing about what I said that implied that email headers were encrypted via S/MIME, GPG, or PGP. If one is using email + one of those, the clear text headers will be available to every SMTP server along the way, and possibly sent clear text in transit depending on various TLS deployments/negotiations/etc. None of that changes the fact that, if you encrypt all your email via S/MIME or GPG or PGP, and you use gmail, google will be unable to read the content of the message body (which could, in turn, contain another RFC822 mime message, complete with additional headers, but fully encrypted). I was correcting the mistaken statement that ledow made. No need to poo-poo on S/MIME simply because it doesn't do everything; know its purpose and limitations and leverage it as another layer of security where needed/possible.
The idea behind S/MIME is that if I receive an email from castionsosa and it has a little badge next to it, I can be assured that it's from castionsosa, and if the badge isn't there I'm supposed to be suspicious. Guess what, no humans notice when the badge isn't there; so S/MIME isn't solving the problem it was meant to solve.
That's not entirely accurate. What an S/MIME signature is supposed to solve is to provide evidence that: a) the message was from that sender (or someone with his private key), assuming you trust the cert CA and his public cert didn't just change b) the message has not been altered in transit
If someone along the path the email travels (for example, the spam filter or virus filter) modifies the message (ex. strips out the attachment or adds a "sent via iSomething" phrase at the end, or maliciously alters the message text), then the badge will be broken and you will get a big alert.
I've seen that catch naughty mail servers a few times, though I haven't seen it catch anyone malicious (probably because I'm not a very important target).
However, the problem you noted is very similar here. When I did have signing problems, lots of people were getting emails from me with a bad S/MIME signature, and no one was complaining about it! Everyone should have reacted strongly to the big red banner that outlook was showing them. I don't even think this is an awareness problem - people just don't care.
Compared to existing TLS, it ensures the hop between your providers systems and the destination MX is also done over TLS.
As far as I am aware, S/MIME and OpenPGP do not do PFS (perfect forward secrecy). Doing so would be difficult because they would need some way to exchange the ephemeral key, and there is no direct handshake.
This means someone can intercept your S/MIME/CMS/PGP/GPG/etc encrypted message and deploy brute force attacks on it if they can intercept it in transit. The addition of SMTP STS will greatly reduce that possibility as the hop between providers can be verifiably ensured to be TLS encrypted (hopefully over a protocol supporting PFS). Your message could still be snagged at rest on any system along the path, or on the path within the destination network, but this reduces the area of attack.
Maybe people will finally be able to email secure information easily.
Which has nothing to do with SMTP STS. SMTP STS does not provide message integrity, privacy from any SMTP servers along the path, data security, nor authentication. That said, SMTP STS seems like it's a good addition to the existing transport security.
The post title is, IMO, misleading. This isn't really a new email protocol, it's an extension to the existing protocol. Your email is not encrypted; your traffic is encrypted, and potentially only for part of its transit. While it is attempting to provide some level of assurance that the traffic is always encrypted between systems, it can not enforce that within ones network (ex. mail hits company external SMTP gateway, STS is done there, gateway passes it in plain text to local antivirus system, which passes it to local spam filter, which passes it to internal mail gateway, which routes to internal mail storage for the destination user, then the user gets it via a secure or insecure channel). It does ensure that between you and your providers SMTP server there is encryption (which you could already ensure), and that between your provider and the destination server, as defined by the destination MX record, there is encryption. That's a nice bonus, but it doesn't completely solve the "horrible insecure mess".
You don't know what you're talking about. In all honesty, I have no need for a DE at all. I currently use one only because I do have a need for: * workspace switcher of some sort, preferably with tiny previews of what's on the virtual desktops * a clock * a couple widgets (task tray / notification area) * list of current windows (ex. task bar) * a window manager * (on my laptops) network manager, because I hate dealing with wifi via other methods I can easily put that together from a handful of disparate projects that have been around for ages and will continue to work just fine, or I can slap on xfce, or just about any other DE, tweak a couple settings, and be done. Take away the ability to tweak a couple settings, and I'll stop using the product. If I actually care about the product and/or have contributed to it, I'll complain loudly (at a minimum).
The features take 'zero additional code' but you don't want to enable them.
Wrong. Initially, they made it impossible to use Unity with focus follows mouse due to the global menu - you can't get your mouse up to the top of the screen without rolling over other windows, which would focus them, and thus the global menu would change. I would gladly add the code for the config screen to make a checkbox to enable local menus, but that was already there and they CHOSE to remove that option, so my code will not be accepted. This has nothing to do with me not wanting to put in effort; it is that they put in effort to remove and prevent options that work perfectly fine.
That stupid decision has shown itself as such, since they have backpedaled and now have the application menu in the titlebar (which is another mistake - overlooking the config option and refusing to provide the user with a choice yet again).
Focus follows mouse makes no sense on a touchscreen or a tiny screen with everything full screen, which is why they had zero support for it in Ubuntu Netbook Remix. They repurposed that for Unity, and overlooked those items they had purposefully ignored. Windows 8 made very similar mistakes. It's all quite obvious, and loads and loads of people yelled and warned and such, but they stubbornly went ahead anyway and ignored their base.
There's always a trade-off that Linux folks (and UI designers in general) debate -- more customizability and options (which often introduce more opportunities for things to break) vs. streamlining and less customizability.
No. Fuck that. That is not the case for the vast majority of these types of issues.
In the majority of cases, the options were previously there, and they options still exist within the codebase, but they have removed the ability to toggle that option via a friendly configuration panel, and may go so far as to bury it further or go to extra lengths to make it difficult to re-enable. If you have to use gconf-editor, gsettings commands, chrome://flags, about:flags, about:config, gpedit.msc, opera:config, etc etc etc... then, IMO, they're doing it wrong - it's awkward, unorganized, and just a shitty way to abandon the responsibility of laying out configuration screens nicely. Some examples:
* window menu, minimize, maximize, close buttons should be easily positionable on the title bar. If they can be moved elsewhere, it should be easy to move them back and put them in any order on either side in any mix of left/right/etc. * application menu (the typical File, Edit,... Help lists) should be their own menu bar. if they can be moved elsewhere or are by default (ex. to global menu bar, or integrated into the application title bar), it should be easy to move them back. It should also be easy to re-arrange them or add/remove items, but that's fine being an advanced option. * window borders should be theme-able, at least with respect to their size (from 0 to N pixels wide). Some desktop themese in the paste have had zero or 1 pixel wide side borders which makes it impossible or very difficult to grab them and resize the window. If that's what someone wants, that's fine, but leave the option to make them larger - it's almost always within the codebase already! * docks / start menus / what-have-you should be easy to move to any edge, span the width or resize and float left, right, or center, autohide, etc etc etc. All the things they were able to do over a decade ago by simply dragging and dropping things. If it's so difficult to allow that, then there is something wrong.
These sorts of changes don't just make things difficult, they make things completely unacceptable for some very well established workflows. For me, the global menu debacle forced my hand. I've used focus follows mouse (no autoraise) for nearly 2 decades. I'm not budging on that. They have since compromised, but that was also a dumb move IMO. Just add an easy option to stick it back on its own bar and everyone would be happy (something like settings -> appearance -> window manager -> application menu placement). Why fight against your users on options that take zero additional code (they already have to have code to account for a variable number of menu bars and variable layout of said bars).
IMO, your "anti-vaxxers" example is a great example of the situation, but with entirely different impact on the user and others.
Where it fails is that if one were anti-GMO, they can easily eat a healthy diet still, and their decision to do so does not affect anyone else. However, those choosing to live anti-vax are arguably putting others in society at risk, as well as their own well being.
Where it is similar is that the result is a relatively tiny portion of people are hardcore anti-vax (or anti-GMO), but why not allow them to make that decision? What harm does that do to you or others? I suspect that in most cases where people may consider the GMO label in a purchase decision, it'll be when they have two very similar products to choose from, similar to most whole foods customers and the choice between "certified organic" and their other produce.
I think this thing is pretty dumb, but the idea of helping some disabled people ride bikes is perfectly fine. This isn't meant to help someone that is currently incapable of riding a bike (or, at least it wasn't meant for that at the start of the project). It's meant to help get the bike to the person that would otherwise have trouble getting it from its spot. I suspect it's a very small target audience that would both have trouble getting it from the spot, and have a bike in a spot from which it was able to just dive itself out, and they'd be able to ride it fairly normally once they had access to it, but I can see some edge cases this could fill (someone with lower leg amputee and a missing arm with prosthetics). IMO, it'd be easier to design a good bike storage system, and then you wouldn't have to lug around all that extra crap on the bike.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife uses a reusable pod with her Keurig. She cleans out the old grounds, measures new ones in, and pops the pod back into the Keurig. The total time for this is about half a minute. Spending that extra time saves us a lot of money, results in less trash, and gives my wife a better cup of coffee.
This is EXACTLY the situation I am calling out as making absolutely zero sense!
Oh sure, it saves you money compared to paying for the disposable Keurig k-cups, but what is the benefit compared to ANY other coffee brewing method?!?! As you noted, she's already doing the measuring, filling grounds, and cleaning up after them (and even going so far as to wash the reusable filter, as opposed to alternative methods that don't require a filter wash), so why use a Keurig at all?
I'm having trouble thinking of any other comparable situation... like buying a fridge, paying extra for the ice maker with built in filter, purposefully not hooking up the water line to it, and then buying bottled water to manually fill it when you want ice - just get an ice tray if that's what you want! or, in this case, just get any other readily available, cheap and simple coffee maker.
There are inserts that fit the Keurigs that you can fill with your own ground coffee, then empty after it's brewed. I'd love to use them, it'd give me a wider variety of coffees.
These have been around forever in a slightly larger size in the form of any-other-coffee-maker-ever.
AFAICT, there are 2.5 selling points to the Keurigs:
1. single cup. It's possible to do this with many other coffee makers / techniques, but the big 12 cup drip machines do this poorly.
2. no messing with grinding, measuring, filling grounds, and cleaning them up. Just pop it in, brew, and chuck it out when done. This feature goes away if you refill or manually fill.
2.5. water hookups / reservoir. This is great in hotels when they are hooked into the main lines already. It's also somewhat helpful at home if yours has a larger reservoir than 1 cup, so you don't have to refill it every time you brew. I'm only giving this half a point though, cause who really cares about this?
I'd make a recommendation on what to use instead, but it's pretty much anything else, just with my own preference thrown in. Choose from a 4 cup drip machine, single cup drip, french press (can even get a 1 cup one), cold brew, aeropress, chemex, moka, etc.
If you want to try a wider range of coffee's, just buy any of the other tools and use them. French press, for example, just needs hot water, and you put it and the grounds in the press, mix 'em up, wait, press a plunger, then pour your coffee. You can even get mini ones for single cup brewing, they're very affordable, and take up very little space. You have little to no excuse.
It's called Netflix.
Backwards. Netflix is where you aren't choosing to sit in a room full of 100's of other random people expecting them all to behave exactly as you'd like.
If you want a completely distraction free viewing, just wait and watch at home. It's cheaper.
(see, that sort of argument is pretty useless!)
... we're talking about movies which people pay to watch ...
According to your logic, if there is a market for this, then they should allow texting, and screw you and your concerns.
I know I'll get heat for this, but IMO, it's like smoking areas in restaurants and bars, especially outdoor areas. I don't feel the need to explain this further.
I also suspect that the majority of people that are so adamant about no texting in a theater are also part of the group that regularly uses the word "glasshole" when referring to someone wearing Google Glass. Those same glassholes could text without any impact to anyone around them, but people are terrified of a blatantly obvious camera if it's worn on someone else's face.
For the record, I don't want texting allowed anywhere/anytime in theaters, but I'm all for a texting section (as long as they have phones on silent), or special showings that are 100% text friendly. There are people that obsess over that connectivity, and that number is growing - it's a market they should probably not ignore completely. There are also people that legitimately need to be able to receive texts 24x7, but probably won't get any (anyone on call). Why not just give them the back row? No one behind them to see the light from their phones, and there is a good chance they'll be on the younger side of the spectrum, so they'll likely have good enough vision to see from back there too :-)
Actually, being able to get from point A to point B faster than a day's worth of travel will probably save countless billions in time and money for everyone from executives to a family going to Disney World, or Europe.
Bah humbug! YMMV, but for me, most of my travels are within 400-1000 miles or so (or 1 - 3 hours in the air). For those on the shorter end of that, it often takes less time to just drive it once you take into account time to get to/from the airports, screening, baggage claim, etc. While supersonic may provide a noticeable difference in some cases, they really need to reduce the end point issues if they want it to seem significantly faster.
True. "Live Case" should be reserved for cases that actually add live content (maybe via an Eink screen or low power oled).
That said, this case does have a NFC button on it, so at least it adds *something* that's not on most cases.
In theory you could secure BlackBerries but it always required an enterprise license and running your own servers with your own keys.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this would just limit the scope of the issue. The key would still be a shared key for all your users, right? If so, that's not a fix at all.
Nook Glowlight Plus is on sale for $99 right now.
Got a link for that sale? Seems like it's $129.99 on their site right now.
At some point, you have to pick that trust point, and Open Whisper Systems seems like a good point.
You're doing it wrong.
Think about any scientific breakthrough, algorithm, mathematical proof, etc. It's perfectly fine for all the work to originate at one person or closed group, but people don't trust it until it's been peer reviewed.
I'm not claiming whether or not that's been done, or to what level, but it's not smart to pick a group of people and decide to trust them with a topic you admittedly don't know enough about just because they seem like good enough folks.
At the very least, no; you do not have to pick a trust point.
I agree. A few shortcomings of the eink kindles are:
* less content than in physical form
* content is often cheaper when you buy the physical book
* not allowed to resell the books you buy (... unless i'm mistaken, but I see no way to do this)
* limited lending support
* DRM, though you should be able to strip this in most cases
* sub-par integration for external content (such as the library systems, gutenberg, etc)
* wish it was easier to take notes on it
That said, you mentioned that you don't expect it to run apps, but it actually does already (albeit a limited library of apps). They're called "active content" in the kindle store: http://www.amazon.com/b?node=2...
It's still my favorite way to read.
Ah, it's all in binary now.
Unless you have mod points and mod someone. Sadly, it then displays in normal base 10 after the mod.
From the summary:
Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Where are all the grammar nazi's today!?!? "respectively" means something! I highly doubt its cheaper to upgrade an SD movie to 4k than it is to upgrade an HD movie.
Anyway... IF you already have some movies on the UltraViolet service, and IF you have a huge pipe with no data cap, then maybe it'd be worth the money to upgrade one or two of your titles... but what titles are there that even have native 4k shots?
You just described the Smartboards and Mimeos that have been in use in schools and universities for the past 15 years. Oh, and the projector versions cost a lot less (although the LCD display versions run around $8500 for just the display.)
I agree.
That said, I was curious how much a 4k projector would run these days, since the item in the article is a 4k device (though, only 55" or 84"... my cheap-ish 720p projector at home is throwing a 110" display).
4k projectors are EXPENSIVE! The projector alone will run somewhere in the neighborhood of the price of this surface hub thing. Those prices vary wildly from around 5 grand up to $168k. Looks like the median price is somewhere around 8-15k. So, until those projector prices come down, which will be a while since I doubt many people will be picking up that tech (as opposed to 4k displays which are getting gobbled up for use as computer monitors, as well as furture proof tv's since they're priced in the same ballpark as a 1080p display)... well, until those prices fall, the surface hub may actually be a better value than a comparable projector based smartboard.
It stems from two problems.
Nope, not those.
There's a fairly easy solution to these issues, and there are cyanogenmod / rooted apps that have been available for a long time so it's technically a done deal. Allow the user to control which permissions it allows for each app, and allow the setting of stand in values.
For example, if an app requires GPS, the user could select "nope... just feed the app these coordinates instead: ___". Similar for a contact list, let the user supply an empty or preset or limited list of contacts.
The existing apps do not solve the problem because not everyone has that ability. However, if that control were standard, then those making the apps would be encouraged to provide more honest information about the required permissions, and to limit them from the start so they get good data.
As it is today, for most users, it's an either/or situation. You can either accept the apps requested permissions and use it, or you don't get to use it at all. That's stupid.
You're reading out of context. There was nothing about what I said that implied that email headers were encrypted via S/MIME, GPG, or PGP.
If one is using email + one of those, the clear text headers will be available to every SMTP server along the way, and possibly sent clear text in transit depending on various TLS deployments/negotiations/etc. None of that changes the fact that, if you encrypt all your email via S/MIME or GPG or PGP, and you use gmail, google will be unable to read the content of the message body (which could, in turn, contain another RFC822 mime message, complete with additional headers, but fully encrypted). I was correcting the mistaken statement that ledow made. No need to poo-poo on S/MIME simply because it doesn't do everything; know its purpose and limitations and leverage it as another layer of security where needed/possible.
But Google can read anything@gmail.com if they want, etc.
Not true if one utilizes end to end encryption (pgp/gpg, s/mime, etc).
The idea behind S/MIME is that if I receive an email from castionsosa and it has a little badge next to it, I can be assured that it's from castionsosa, and if the badge isn't there I'm supposed to be suspicious. Guess what, no humans notice when the badge isn't there; so S/MIME isn't solving the problem it was meant to solve.
That's not entirely accurate.
What an S/MIME signature is supposed to solve is to provide evidence that:
a) the message was from that sender (or someone with his private key), assuming you trust the cert CA and his public cert didn't just change
b) the message has not been altered in transit
If someone along the path the email travels (for example, the spam filter or virus filter) modifies the message (ex. strips out the attachment or adds a "sent via iSomething" phrase at the end, or maliciously alters the message text), then the badge will be broken and you will get a big alert.
I've seen that catch naughty mail servers a few times, though I haven't seen it catch anyone malicious (probably because I'm not a very important target).
However, the problem you noted is very similar here. When I did have signing problems, lots of people were getting emails from me with a bad S/MIME signature, and no one was complaining about it! Everyone should have reacted strongly to the big red banner that outlook was showing them. I don't even think this is an awareness problem - people just don't care.
...but 25MB sounds a lot better than 3GB.
Speak for yourself :-)
I suspect you mean 25Mbit/s versus 3Mbit/s.
Compared to existing TLS, it ensures the hop between your providers systems and the destination MX is also done over TLS.
As far as I am aware, S/MIME and OpenPGP do not do PFS (perfect forward secrecy). Doing so would be difficult because they would need some way to exchange the ephemeral key, and there is no direct handshake.
This means someone can intercept your S/MIME/CMS/PGP/GPG/etc encrypted message and deploy brute force attacks on it if they can intercept it in transit. The addition of SMTP STS will greatly reduce that possibility as the hop between providers can be verifiably ensured to be TLS encrypted (hopefully over a protocol supporting PFS). Your message could still be snagged at rest on any system along the path, or on the path within the destination network, but this reduces the area of attack.
Maybe people will finally be able to email secure information easily.
Which has nothing to do with SMTP STS.
SMTP STS does not provide message integrity, privacy from any SMTP servers along the path, data security, nor authentication.
That said, SMTP STS seems like it's a good addition to the existing transport security.
The post title is, IMO, misleading. This isn't really a new email protocol, it's an extension to the existing protocol. Your email is not encrypted; your traffic is encrypted, and potentially only for part of its transit. While it is attempting to provide some level of assurance that the traffic is always encrypted between systems, it can not enforce that within ones network (ex. mail hits company external SMTP gateway, STS is done there, gateway passes it in plain text to local antivirus system, which passes it to local spam filter, which passes it to internal mail gateway, which routes to internal mail storage for the destination user, then the user gets it via a secure or insecure channel).
It does ensure that between you and your providers SMTP server there is encryption (which you could already ensure), and that between your provider and the destination server, as defined by the destination MX record, there is encryption. That's a nice bonus, but it doesn't completely solve the "horrible insecure mess".
You want KDE, but you don't.
You don't know what you're talking about.
In all honesty, I have no need for a DE at all. I currently use one only because I do have a need for:
* workspace switcher of some sort, preferably with tiny previews of what's on the virtual desktops
* a clock
* a couple widgets (task tray / notification area)
* list of current windows (ex. task bar)
* a window manager
* (on my laptops) network manager, because I hate dealing with wifi via other methods
I can easily put that together from a handful of disparate projects that have been around for ages and will continue to work just fine, or I can slap on xfce, or just about any other DE, tweak a couple settings, and be done. Take away the ability to tweak a couple settings, and I'll stop using the product. If I actually care about the product and/or have contributed to it, I'll complain loudly (at a minimum).
The features take 'zero additional code' but you don't want to enable them.
Wrong. Initially, they made it impossible to use Unity with focus follows mouse due to the global menu - you can't get your mouse up to the top of the screen without rolling over other windows, which would focus them, and thus the global menu would change.
I would gladly add the code for the config screen to make a checkbox to enable local menus, but that was already there and they CHOSE to remove that option, so my code will not be accepted. This has nothing to do with me not wanting to put in effort; it is that they put in effort to remove and prevent options that work perfectly fine.
That stupid decision has shown itself as such, since they have backpedaled and now have the application menu in the titlebar (which is another mistake - overlooking the config option and refusing to provide the user with a choice yet again).
Focus follows mouse makes no sense on a touchscreen or a tiny screen with everything full screen, which is why they had zero support for it in Ubuntu Netbook Remix. They repurposed that for Unity, and overlooked those items they had purposefully ignored. Windows 8 made very similar mistakes. It's all quite obvious, and loads and loads of people yelled and warned and such, but they stubbornly went ahead anyway and ignored their base.
There's always a trade-off that Linux folks (and UI designers in general) debate -- more customizability and options (which often introduce more opportunities for things to break) vs. streamlining and less customizability.
No. Fuck that. That is not the case for the vast majority of these types of issues.
In the majority of cases, the options were previously there, and they options still exist within the codebase, but they have removed the ability to toggle that option via a friendly configuration panel, and may go so far as to bury it further or go to extra lengths to make it difficult to re-enable. If you have to use gconf-editor, gsettings commands, chrome://flags, about:flags, about:config, gpedit.msc, opera:config, etc etc etc... then, IMO, they're doing it wrong - it's awkward, unorganized, and just a shitty way to abandon the responsibility of laying out configuration screens nicely. Some examples:
* window menu, minimize, maximize, close buttons should be easily positionable on the title bar. If they can be moved elsewhere, it should be easy to move them back and put them in any order on either side in any mix of left/right/etc. ... Help lists) should be their own menu bar. if they can be moved elsewhere or are by default (ex. to global menu bar, or integrated into the application title bar), it should be easy to move them back. It should also be easy to re-arrange them or add/remove items, but that's fine being an advanced option.
* application menu (the typical File, Edit,
* window borders should be theme-able, at least with respect to their size (from 0 to N pixels wide). Some desktop themese in the paste have had zero or 1 pixel wide side borders which makes it impossible or very difficult to grab them and resize the window. If that's what someone wants, that's fine, but leave the option to make them larger - it's almost always within the codebase already!
* docks / start menus / what-have-you should be easy to move to any edge, span the width or resize and float left, right, or center, autohide, etc etc etc. All the things they were able to do over a decade ago by simply dragging and dropping things. If it's so difficult to allow that, then there is something wrong.
These sorts of changes don't just make things difficult, they make things completely unacceptable for some very well established workflows. For me, the global menu debacle forced my hand. I've used focus follows mouse (no autoraise) for nearly 2 decades. I'm not budging on that. They have since compromised, but that was also a dumb move IMO. Just add an easy option to stick it back on its own bar and everyone would be happy (something like settings -> appearance -> window manager -> application menu placement). Why fight against your users on options that take zero additional code (they already have to have code to account for a variable number of menu bars and variable layout of said bars).
IMO, your "anti-vaxxers" example is a great example of the situation, but with entirely different impact on the user and others.
Where it fails is that if one were anti-GMO, they can easily eat a healthy diet still, and their decision to do so does not affect anyone else. However, those choosing to live anti-vax are arguably putting others in society at risk, as well as their own well being.
Where it is similar is that the result is a relatively tiny portion of people are hardcore anti-vax (or anti-GMO), but why not allow them to make that decision? What harm does that do to you or others? I suspect that in most cases where people may consider the GMO label in a purchase decision, it'll be when they have two very similar products to choose from, similar to most whole foods customers and the choice between "certified organic" and their other produce.
I think this thing is pretty dumb, but the idea of helping some disabled people ride bikes is perfectly fine. This isn't meant to help someone that is currently incapable of riding a bike (or, at least it wasn't meant for that at the start of the project). It's meant to help get the bike to the person that would otherwise have trouble getting it from its spot. I suspect it's a very small target audience that would both have trouble getting it from the spot, and have a bike in a spot from which it was able to just dive itself out, and they'd be able to ride it fairly normally once they had access to it, but I can see some edge cases this could fill (someone with lower leg amputee and a missing arm with prosthetics). IMO, it'd be easier to design a good bike storage system, and then you wouldn't have to lug around all that extra crap on the bike.