Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice?
No. They won't notice it in this case, because the performance margins between browsers are now so small that you can't notice without something timing things for you, or loading a very intensive (very complex dom or javascript or combo) side by side in FF and some other browser. You're not going to notice if it's faster than chrome if you're not even sure what browser you use.
IMO, this is why MS Edge failed to take off. Who cares about its performance, if it breaks on many sites and, when broken, even offers to show that site in IE instead. If a browser kept telling me to use a different browser, then whatever benefit it may have had to begin with, isn't really worth it cause of that rigmarole.
The ME is technically unnecessary, so yes, let's just get rid of it!
USB is technically unnecessary. WiFi is technically unnecessary. GPUs are technically unnecessary. Again, baby out with the bathwater.
USB is the only one of those built into most motherboards, and it can be disabled. They can all be disabled. The power management in BIOS that you spoke of can be disabled. The IME can't be disabled. These comparisons are not of equal parts.
If the IME were easily disabled (and veritably so), that would probably suffice for the majority of people complaining about it, and the majority of normal people still wouldn't even know what it is and would just leave it running.
If they were fully committed to the move to Linux (they weren't, or they would not have migrated *to* MS Exchange), then they would not have maintained most of the old windows systems for those odds and ends applications. They would/should have picked off those that are most used or influential or expensive, and implemented a solution for those (in some cases, maybe that'd be vm for those select users; in other cases, maybe retraining on an open solution; in others, maybe just abandoning it; in others, maybe redevelopment; in some, maybe an exception to continue to use and maintain windows+application, but that should be a last resort).
If that were the case (I've never seen a list of what applications/things/etc there are that they can't live without, so I don't know), then yeah, those apps/os/machines should all be over 13 years old. They'll probably need upgraded ($$$ and training) just to run on Windows 10, if they even support it. There will probably be a bunch that still need to stay on XP or 7 or some other windows version... but those should not be counted in the reasons to move to Windows 10.
Moving to Windows at this point will certainly cost them more money up front, require as much training as the move to Linux originally did, and likely cost way more in the long run. There's an awful lot of money involved, and politicians are making the decision, so I'd be absolutely amazed if there wasn't a lot of back scratching and greased palms. This is just sad.
So yeah, sure, God-mode might be pretty cool, but it's a bit dangerous if others can exploit it just as easily as I can.
Compared to what? Exploiting the kernel? Exploiting the BIOS? We're talking about another level underneath that's fundamentally the same thing. Is getting rid of it any sort of answer? About as much as getting rid of the kernel or the BIOS. Obviously, the focus should be about documenting it and pushing for as many people as possible to replace it.
WTF? It is not fundamentally the same thing! The BIOS is there to initialize the hardware so that the OS can boot. The boot manager handles passing on that to the OS, where the kernel takes over as the running/managing process. That entire time, the ME is still there, and provides no value to that process. (I'm not saying it has zero value, but its value is not in that series of events, but outside it)
Is getting rid of it any sort of answer? About as much as getting rid of the kernel or the BIOS.
So "yes", definitely. Is that way you meant to say? We've been working to get rid of the traditional BIOS for a LONG LONG time. We've also been actively working for the past several years on minimizing the role the kernel plays (for example, the move towards vm and, more so, containers). The ME is technically unnecessary, so yes, let's just get rid of it!
I guess my overall point is, the sky isn't falling.
Stupid me, I read the article you linked. There is NOTHING in that about being more efficient or lower cost, and certainly not in comparison to driver assisted cars.
I'm not debating whether or not driverless cars will come to fruition; I'm questioning all the (inaccurate) selling points.
But that (having the car park itself once you get to work) doesn't save money overall. It might save people in cities who drive into the city a few minutes, but it's not going to save anything for most people. The car is still less efficient, and if it needs a fancy garage with automated plugging or inductive charging, that's gotta cost most than a gravel lot.
Again, sure, that's cool, and we all like cool things, but why try to sell it as more than what it is?
So it's not lower cost at all. You're suggesting that the roads need fixed in order for self driving cars to work, period. To recap, the conversation went:
> > > > Self driving cars that can handle the roads in my area may just be impossible. > > > Then the lower-cost solution is obviously to fix the roads first, then recoup the costs by eliminating the driver expenses after self-driving cars are in operation. > > Exactly how would that be lower cost? Lower cost than what? > (you said something to the effect that better roads meas cheaper AI cars than would be needed if roads were awful (and they may not work at all on awful roads), and that could potentially save money overall)
AFAICT, you have no idea if it'd be cheaper to fix all roads first, or to leave shitty roads and focus on the cars ability to deal with shitty roads.... and neither of those deals with it being cheaper than just continuing to have human drivers. Is that right? IE. that you're "lower-cost" has nothing to do with a comparison to existing human driven cars?
You answered your own question. Spotify has twice the listeners and 14 times the paid listeners.
There are way more Hershey's bars sold per day than pop rocks, but that doesn't mean pop rocks are dead. You can use any products/companies here. One company/service having a larger share of users does not mean that all others in the market are dead ("the day the music died for (Pandora)").
Also, you can pick what you listen to on Spotify, while Pandora still has that bullshit "Due to streaming rights we cannot skip this song or replay it".
Uhhh, d'uh. They're different products. That's actually why Pandora has a chance of still making it regardless of how well others are doing.
Apple Music and Spotify are far more similar than Pandora and Spotify. Apple Music has 5.2 times the paid listeners of Spotify. By your logic, does that mean Apple Music is doomed?
Deploy in ideal conditions first, increase the complexity gradually.
Sounds like responsible development practice to me.
It does?!?!!??! I fear you're not being sarcastic. Simplify your task until it can handle the complex and harsh environment of production. Don't expect your environment to be ideal.
Then the lower-cost solution is obviously to fix the roads first, then recoup the costs by eliminating the driver expenses after self-driving cars are in operation.
Exactly how would that be lower cost? Lower cost than what?
What expense are you eliminating or recouping? This isn't a closed circuit race track where eliminating the driver could save you the expense of the driver. *I* still need to get somewhere, so I'll be in the car either way. The driverless cars are LESS efficient (the computational power to operate them is quite significant at this time), so there is actually a LOSS of money on energy/gas per mile.
If you're hoping to save money on parking, then excuse my language, but fuck you for even thinking of it (not necessarily "you" as in the parent, but whomever is thinking this, cause it always comes up). The options here all suck: * have it drive around all day without you instead of paying the high price to park downtown? Great... more traffic, more gas/energy used, more miles driven (rubber/roads wasted), all so you can avoid paying for the most efficient option of just plopping it into a spot. Oh, and if it's electric, how the fuck is it going to recharge? Oh yeah, park it and let it charge. This is a dead end. * have it drive home and come back to pick you up? Again, more traffic (fully doubling the time and miles spent on the road). If you're trying to avoid parking downtown, this is surely going to lead to congestion pricing and/or normal tolls, plus it'll use more gas/energy/etc. * have it car share and go pick up other people? We already have great solutions for this that serve us better - taxi's/uber/lyft/etc. Sure, self driving can assist in those industries, but let's not pretend this is going to be how everyone will use their cars.
You would/might be correct that it could save significant money by being far safer and dramatically reducing accidents. However, that equally applies to assisted driving cars. Any safety related savings that would come from driverless cars could (and will) also be present in the assisted driving cars.
This post may be a bit harsh, but I am honestly curious if there is some real benefit I'm missing. I've seen a bunch of stories/threads on this, and the reasons I've ran into all seem really dumb (such as those above). Driverless might be cool, and I'd enjoy kicking back while my car takes me somewhere safely, but I don't see the point in baseless claims like those above, unless those are all just trolls. Am I wrong?
What world did all of you come from? How is having over 73 million active listeners considered "the day the music died for (Pandora)"?!??!!?
At this moment, every comment is critical of pandora in some way. WTF? How are people leaping to that conclusion from these numbers:
Spotify: 140 million active listeners (60 million paying) Pandora: 73.7 million active listeners (5.19 million paying) Apple: 27 million users (all paying)
Sure, Pandora took a loss of 7 million users over the past year, but if they had not lost those, they'd simply be at 80.7 million active listeners. Maybe they're not first place, but they're the only one of those three that offer a service like theirs, and they have MILLIONS of users, and MILLIONS of paying users.
These comparisons on that level are just stupid. They say nothing about whether the company can be successful or not. FWIW, I'm not arguing that they are, or have been, successful/profitable/etc, but these numbers don't spell the end in any language. They're top of their class, and in the top 3 for internet streaming music. That should still be impressive, not a death knell.
I feel like things weren't always this way, and this is an internet age thing, where people feel only one or two companies/products can be even considered, and everything else is garbage (or, on the low end, everything is garbage and just buy the cheapest shitty stuff you can get your hands on). It's depressing that 3rd place no longer counts for anything.
Keepass is open source. They could coopt it. Keepass 1.x has been ported to just about every platform, and would likely be fairly easy to utilize as the backend storage, and even has API's for accessing the DBs and such. Keepass 2.x, while open source, is only available in.Net (C#/C++, can run under windows, via mono on other OS's, or via wine).
That said, I think there would be little benefit to using it. It would be nice to know I could access the encrypted blob via a separate program, also completely offline, but they could alternatively offer some sort of export or sync or something to other formats, including the keepass 1.x or 2.x format, and that'd be enough for me. AFAICT, they don't offer either of those yet, so I'll stick with my own.
Trusty old xcalc gives the correct result on all of those:-) As does gcalctool and gcalccmd.
I understand (more or less) why those results are coming from the windows calculator, but this problem was solved a VERY VERY long time ago. How the hell did they allow that through?
I'm not certain, but I strongly suspect you are both right. Okian Warrior noted several things that I thought were true, such as select all only selecting the messages displayed on the screen, and requiring you to go to the next page and then select all those, repeating ad nauseam. I've done that a few times, and I'd surely remember if there was an easy second click to actually select all messages in that collection. Google probably updated Gmail with that additional feature/fix/whatever.
The trashcan on the main message list was probably added later as well. They already had a dropdown of actions to apply to selected messages, so they probably assumed the separate trash icon was not needed. The fact that they don't include the trash icon on the message list until a message is selected is its own problem - a new-ish UI trend (or resurgance of a past trend) to hide things that can't be used at the moment, instead of de-emphasizing them (greyed out options, or strikethrough, or similar). In a normal email client, a "delete" or trash action on the main message list makes sense because there is almost always at least one message selected. Google changed that by nature of a single click anywhere on the message index opening that message, rather than a double click... so you can't easily select a message (must click the little checkbox instead).
Whether or not those ended up being good ideas in the context of browser based email, I don't know... but it's certainly inconsistent.
1. they already allow it via other methods: a) use mailvelope, webpg, etc and the existing webmail infrastructure b) use any standard IMAP client (a couple examples: k9mail on android; outlook, thunderbird, alpine, etc etc etc elsewhere)
2. maybe you don't understand what gpg/pgp/smime do? Yes, they can encrypt, but they're more commonly used to sign, which ensures the message content isn't modified at any point. This would NOT impact their ability to data harvest.
3. they can still mine info from encrypted emails by either: a) like how whatsapp does, where it's the connections they're interested in. That's a HUGE thing (social relationships). b) if google made it, it's VERY likely they would offer a convenience feature of storing the key securely on their servers so that all your clients would just work. If they do this, then could then scan all your email still. Sure, big step back if you're already encrypting all emails as one more party has access, but it's still a big step forward for anyone sending in the clear.
Isn't that the point of the add-ons? Mailvelope and WebPG could then be offered as add-ons, instead of browser extensions. The gmail add-on would extend the base of people that could use it with gmail (ex. on mobile web clients, safari, MSIE, opera, mobile gmail app, etc), though it is product-specific (gmail only, not other webmail providers).
Also, neither of those does S/MIME. I'm pretty sure there are similar solutions for S/MIME, but again, this should be part of the mail client (IMO).
I understand why they don't add these, but come on. Those should be the first add-ons added. There are even browser add-ons that add S/MIME functionality to gmail and other web based clients (ie. it can and has been proven/done).
I don't want an interface to quickbooks in my email client. I want an interface to standard email features in my email client.
AFAICT, these sort of extensions are just blocking based on a URL list. They can play the cat and mouse game of moving them around and renaming scripts all day every day. IMO, we need an extension that detects those sort of code profiles and provides the option of killing off that code.
If one of these extensions does more than a simple blacklist, please let me know - I haven't found one.
Not every networking protocol can be encapsulated in HTTPS...
Exactly. I was going to mirror an above AC who said, "I'm surprised that this still needs saying on an allegedly technical forum", but he was implying HTTPS was all you needed (wrong).
... (just ask Active Directory)
OH FFS! That's one of the easiest ones to move to a secure protocol - LDAPS (it even has its own extra protocol version that adds the SSL/TLS, but can also upgrade an LDAP connection via TLSStart).
Plenty of traffic is sent in the clear, and those are all better examples than HTTP/HTTPS and LDAP/LDAPS.
SSL attacks generally require a man-in-the-middle position, which this hack can provide. That should be a bigger concern.
Please give us your clear, concise, and universally accepted distinction between a "loophole" and a "legitimate business expense".
No write offs, thus "legitimate business expenses" don't matter.
FWIW, I'm not the GP, and I don't believe moving to a workable flat tax is feasible. If we were to somehow wipe out every tax related thing there is right now, and plop in a new tax system, flat tax could be made to work, but it's also very prone to very big loopholes for the rich. Avoiding any additions like business expenses or reclassifying income would be difficult. The flatness of the tax itself isn't even solidly defined, as many say a "true flat tax" is proportional, but may be progressive and/or regressive. Labeling anything tax related as "simple" is a great red herring.
What the fuck is a craft person? It sounds like it isn't a "real" job.... like it's designed to allow people to blow money on making decisions for them. How does that really compare?
Those that have a machine with enough juice to need this aren't even going to blink at an additional $70.
Bullshit. Serious pros and enthusiasts run this stuff at home all the time (though, while I can't speak for everyone, windows doesn't touch any of my home xeon systems). Big corps aren't going to be happy, nor are their IT departments cause they'll have to cut a little bit out from somewhere else, but it won't really affect their buying habits... you have a point there, but that's really the only group. Small businesses are going to fucking hate this. There techs all surely pushed for it for their little local fileserver and what have you, and now it's going to start costing them more?... or less if they ditch it and move to Linux, or just not upgrade?
its justified same way as a hot dog cost 10 dollars at a stadium...
That price hike for the stadium dog is far more justified. Real estate and labor costs more in the stadium than most other places you can get a hot dog.
MS charging more to run the same version of Windows on a xeon cpu is, IMO, more like charging way more for business class plane tickets but still giving them economy seats and service. I honestly can't think of anything else quite like that which actually exists/happens and is legal (extortion/kidnapping would be similar - charge more if the parent is rich - but that's illegal).
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice?
No. They won't notice it in this case, because the performance margins between browsers are now so small that you can't notice without something timing things for you, or loading a very intensive (very complex dom or javascript or combo) side by side in FF and some other browser. You're not going to notice if it's faster than chrome if you're not even sure what browser you use.
IMO, this is why MS Edge failed to take off. Who cares about its performance, if it breaks on many sites and, when broken, even offers to show that site in IE instead. If a browser kept telling me to use a different browser, then whatever benefit it may have had to begin with, isn't really worth it cause of that rigmarole.
The ME is technically unnecessary, so yes, let's just get rid of it!
USB is technically unnecessary. WiFi is technically unnecessary. GPUs are technically unnecessary. Again, baby out with the bathwater.
USB is the only one of those built into most motherboards, and it can be disabled. They can all be disabled. The power management in BIOS that you spoke of can be disabled. The IME can't be disabled.
These comparisons are not of equal parts.
If the IME were easily disabled (and veritably so), that would probably suffice for the majority of people complaining about it, and the majority of normal people still wouldn't even know what it is and would just leave it running.
If they were fully committed to the move to Linux (they weren't, or they would not have migrated *to* MS Exchange), then they would not have maintained most of the old windows systems for those odds and ends applications. They would/should have picked off those that are most used or influential or expensive, and implemented a solution for those (in some cases, maybe that'd be vm for those select users; in other cases, maybe retraining on an open solution; in others, maybe just abandoning it; in others, maybe redevelopment; in some, maybe an exception to continue to use and maintain windows+application, but that should be a last resort).
If that were the case (I've never seen a list of what applications/things/etc there are that they can't live without, so I don't know), then yeah, those apps/os/machines should all be over 13 years old. They'll probably need upgraded ($$$ and training) just to run on Windows 10, if they even support it. There will probably be a bunch that still need to stay on XP or 7 or some other windows version... but those should not be counted in the reasons to move to Windows 10.
Moving to Windows at this point will certainly cost them more money up front, require as much training as the move to Linux originally did, and likely cost way more in the long run. There's an awful lot of money involved, and politicians are making the decision, so I'd be absolutely amazed if there wasn't a lot of back scratching and greased palms. This is just sad.
So yeah, sure, God-mode might be pretty cool, but it's a bit dangerous if others can exploit it just as easily as I can.
Compared to what? Exploiting the kernel? Exploiting the BIOS? We're talking about another level underneath that's fundamentally the same thing. Is getting rid of it any sort of answer? About as much as getting rid of the kernel or the BIOS. Obviously, the focus should be about documenting it and pushing for as many people as possible to replace it.
WTF? It is not fundamentally the same thing! The BIOS is there to initialize the hardware so that the OS can boot. The boot manager handles passing on that to the OS, where the kernel takes over as the running/managing process. That entire time, the ME is still there, and provides no value to that process. (I'm not saying it has zero value, but its value is not in that series of events, but outside it)
Is getting rid of it any sort of answer? About as much as getting rid of the kernel or the BIOS.
So "yes", definitely. Is that way you meant to say? We've been working to get rid of the traditional BIOS for a LONG LONG time. We've also been actively working for the past several years on minimizing the role the kernel plays (for example, the move towards vm and, more so, containers). The ME is technically unnecessary, so yes, let's just get rid of it!
I guess my overall point is, the sky isn't falling.
The sky already fell.
Can always use inductive charging too.
That's a nice way to recoup the green energy savings by using an electric vehicle... throw them away on lossy inductive charging!
Stupid me, I read the article you linked. There is NOTHING in that about being more efficient or lower cost, and certainly not in comparison to driver assisted cars.
I'm not debating whether or not driverless cars will come to fruition; I'm questioning all the (inaccurate) selling points.
But that (having the car park itself once you get to work) doesn't save money overall. It might save people in cities who drive into the city a few minutes, but it's not going to save anything for most people. The car is still less efficient, and if it needs a fancy garage with automated plugging or inductive charging, that's gotta cost most than a gravel lot.
Again, sure, that's cool, and we all like cool things, but why try to sell it as more than what it is?
So it's not lower cost at all. You're suggesting that the roads need fixed in order for self driving cars to work, period. To recap, the conversation went:
> > > > Self driving cars that can handle the roads in my area may just be impossible.
> > > Then the lower-cost solution is obviously to fix the roads first, then recoup the costs by eliminating the driver expenses after self-driving cars are in operation.
> > Exactly how would that be lower cost? Lower cost than what?
> (you said something to the effect that better roads meas cheaper AI cars than would be needed if roads were awful (and they may not work at all on awful roads), and that could potentially save money overall)
AFAICT, you have no idea if it'd be cheaper to fix all roads first, or to leave shitty roads and focus on the cars ability to deal with shitty roads.... and neither of those deals with it being cheaper than just continuing to have human drivers.
Is that right? IE. that you're "lower-cost" has nothing to do with a comparison to existing human driven cars?
You answered your own question. Spotify has twice the listeners and 14 times the paid listeners.
There are way more Hershey's bars sold per day than pop rocks, but that doesn't mean pop rocks are dead. You can use any products/companies here. One company/service having a larger share of users does not mean that all others in the market are dead ("the day the music died for (Pandora)").
Also, you can pick what you listen to on Spotify, while Pandora still has that bullshit "Due to streaming rights we cannot skip this song or replay it".
Uhhh, d'uh. They're different products. That's actually why Pandora has a chance of still making it regardless of how well others are doing.
Apple Music and Spotify are far more similar than Pandora and Spotify. Apple Music has 5.2 times the paid listeners of Spotify. By your logic, does that mean Apple Music is doomed?
Deploy in ideal conditions first, increase the complexity gradually.
Sounds like responsible development practice to me.
It does?!?!!??!
I fear you're not being sarcastic. Simplify your task until it can handle the complex and harsh environment of production. Don't expect your environment to be ideal.
Then the lower-cost solution is obviously to fix the roads first, then recoup the costs by eliminating the driver expenses after self-driving cars are in operation.
Exactly how would that be lower cost? Lower cost than what?
What expense are you eliminating or recouping? This isn't a closed circuit race track where eliminating the driver could save you the expense of the driver. *I* still need to get somewhere, so I'll be in the car either way. The driverless cars are LESS efficient (the computational power to operate them is quite significant at this time), so there is actually a LOSS of money on energy/gas per mile.
If you're hoping to save money on parking, then excuse my language, but fuck you for even thinking of it (not necessarily "you" as in the parent, but whomever is thinking this, cause it always comes up). The options here all suck:
* have it drive around all day without you instead of paying the high price to park downtown? Great... more traffic, more gas/energy used, more miles driven (rubber/roads wasted), all so you can avoid paying for the most efficient option of just plopping it into a spot. Oh, and if it's electric, how the fuck is it going to recharge? Oh yeah, park it and let it charge. This is a dead end.
* have it drive home and come back to pick you up? Again, more traffic (fully doubling the time and miles spent on the road). If you're trying to avoid parking downtown, this is surely going to lead to congestion pricing and/or normal tolls, plus it'll use more gas/energy/etc.
* have it car share and go pick up other people? We already have great solutions for this that serve us better - taxi's/uber/lyft/etc. Sure, self driving can assist in those industries, but let's not pretend this is going to be how everyone will use their cars.
You would/might be correct that it could save significant money by being far safer and dramatically reducing accidents. However, that equally applies to assisted driving cars. Any safety related savings that would come from driverless cars could (and will) also be present in the assisted driving cars.
This post may be a bit harsh, but I am honestly curious if there is some real benefit I'm missing. I've seen a bunch of stories/threads on this, and the reasons I've ran into all seem really dumb (such as those above). Driverless might be cool, and I'd enjoy kicking back while my car takes me somewhere safely, but I don't see the point in baseless claims like those above, unless those are all just trolls. Am I wrong?
What world did all of you come from? How is having over 73 million active listeners considered "the day the music died for (Pandora)"?!??!!?
At this moment, every comment is critical of pandora in some way. WTF? How are people leaping to that conclusion from these numbers:
Spotify: 140 million active listeners (60 million paying)
Pandora: 73.7 million active listeners (5.19 million paying)
Apple: 27 million users (all paying)
Sure, Pandora took a loss of 7 million users over the past year, but if they had not lost those, they'd simply be at 80.7 million active listeners. Maybe they're not first place, but they're the only one of those three that offer a service like theirs, and they have MILLIONS of users, and MILLIONS of paying users.
These comparisons on that level are just stupid. They say nothing about whether the company can be successful or not. FWIW, I'm not arguing that they are, or have been, successful/profitable/etc, but these numbers don't spell the end in any language. They're top of their class, and in the top 3 for internet streaming music. That should still be impressive, not a death knell.
I feel like things weren't always this way, and this is an internet age thing, where people feel only one or two companies/products can be even considered, and everything else is garbage (or, on the low end, everything is garbage and just buy the cheapest shitty stuff you can get your hands on). It's depressing that 3rd place no longer counts for anything.
Keepass is open source. They could coopt it. .Net (C#/C++, can run under windows, via mono on other OS's, or via wine).
Keepass 1.x has been ported to just about every platform, and would likely be fairly easy to utilize as the backend storage, and even has API's for accessing the DBs and such.
Keepass 2.x, while open source, is only available in
That said, I think there would be little benefit to using it. It would be nice to know I could access the encrypted blob via a separate program, also completely offline, but they could alternatively offer some sort of export or sync or something to other formats, including the keepass 1.x or 2.x format, and that'd be enough for me. AFAICT, they don't offer either of those yet, so I'll stick with my own.
Trusty old xcalc gives the correct result on all of those :-)
As does gcalctool and gcalccmd.
I understand (more or less) why those results are coming from the windows calculator, but this problem was solved a VERY VERY long time ago. How the hell did they allow that through?
I'm not certain, but I strongly suspect you are both right.
Okian Warrior noted several things that I thought were true, such as select all only selecting the messages displayed on the screen, and requiring you to go to the next page and then select all those, repeating ad nauseam. I've done that a few times, and I'd surely remember if there was an easy second click to actually select all messages in that collection. Google probably updated Gmail with that additional feature/fix/whatever.
The trashcan on the main message list was probably added later as well. They already had a dropdown of actions to apply to selected messages, so they probably assumed the separate trash icon was not needed. The fact that they don't include the trash icon on the message list until a message is selected is its own problem - a new-ish UI trend (or resurgance of a past trend) to hide things that can't be used at the moment, instead of de-emphasizing them (greyed out options, or strikethrough, or similar). In a normal email client, a "delete" or trash action on the main message list makes sense because there is almost always at least one message selected. Google changed that by nature of a single click anywhere on the message index opening that message, rather than a double click... so you can't easily select a message (must click the little checkbox instead).
Whether or not those ended up being good ideas in the context of browser based email, I don't know... but it's certainly inconsistent.
1. they already allow it via other methods:
a) use mailvelope, webpg, etc and the existing webmail infrastructure
b) use any standard IMAP client (a couple examples: k9mail on android; outlook, thunderbird, alpine, etc etc etc elsewhere)
2. maybe you don't understand what gpg/pgp/smime do? Yes, they can encrypt, but they're more commonly used to sign, which ensures the message content isn't modified at any point. This would NOT impact their ability to data harvest.
3. they can still mine info from encrypted emails by either:
a) like how whatsapp does, where it's the connections they're interested in. That's a HUGE thing (social relationships).
b) if google made it, it's VERY likely they would offer a convenience feature of storing the key securely on their servers so that all your clients would just work. If they do this, then could then scan all your email still. Sure, big step back if you're already encrypting all emails as one more party has access, but it's still a big step forward for anyone sending in the clear.
Isn't that the point of the add-ons? Mailvelope and WebPG could then be offered as add-ons, instead of browser extensions. The gmail add-on would extend the base of people that could use it with gmail (ex. on mobile web clients, safari, MSIE, opera, mobile gmail app, etc), though it is product-specific (gmail only, not other webmail providers).
Also, neither of those does S/MIME. I'm pretty sure there are similar solutions for S/MIME, but again, this should be part of the mail client (IMO).
I understand why they don't add these, but come on. Those should be the first add-ons added. There are even browser add-ons that add S/MIME functionality to gmail and other web based clients (ie. it can and has been proven/done).
I don't want an interface to quickbooks in my email client. I want an interface to standard email features in my email client.
AFAICT, these sort of extensions are just blocking based on a URL list. They can play the cat and mouse game of moving them around and renaming scripts all day every day. IMO, we need an extension that detects those sort of code profiles and provides the option of killing off that code.
If one of these extensions does more than a simple blacklist, please let me know - I haven't found one.
HAHHAH he** beat you to it! posted right below this 8 minutes before you... though it looks more sane than the average APK post, so maybe not legit.
**he, APK, or someone claiming to be him. For someone that signs fucking everything with APK, I don't get why he doesn't just log in.
RTFA much? Just go look at the picture. You'll have completely different questions afterwards.
Not every networking protocol can be encapsulated in HTTPS ...
Exactly. I was going to mirror an above AC who said, "I'm surprised that this still needs saying on an allegedly technical forum", but he was implying HTTPS was all you needed (wrong).
... (just ask Active Directory)
OH FFS! That's one of the easiest ones to move to a secure protocol - LDAPS (it even has its own extra protocol version that adds the SSL/TLS, but can also upgrade an LDAP connection via TLSStart).
Plenty of traffic is sent in the clear, and those are all better examples than HTTP/HTTPS and LDAP/LDAPS.
SSL attacks generally require a man-in-the-middle position, which this hack can provide. That should be a bigger concern.
Please give us your clear, concise, and universally accepted distinction between a "loophole" and a "legitimate business expense".
No write offs, thus "legitimate business expenses" don't matter.
FWIW, I'm not the GP, and I don't believe moving to a workable flat tax is feasible. If we were to somehow wipe out every tax related thing there is right now, and plop in a new tax system, flat tax could be made to work, but it's also very prone to very big loopholes for the rich. Avoiding any additions like business expenses or reclassifying income would be difficult. The flatness of the tax itself isn't even solidly defined, as many say a "true flat tax" is proportional, but may be progressive and/or regressive. Labeling anything tax related as "simple" is a great red herring.
What the fuck is a craft person? It sounds like it isn't a "real" job.... like it's designed to allow people to blow money on making decisions for them. How does that really compare?
Those that have a machine with enough juice to need this aren't even going to blink at an additional $70.
Bullshit. Serious pros and enthusiasts run this stuff at home all the time (though, while I can't speak for everyone, windows doesn't touch any of my home xeon systems). Big corps aren't going to be happy, nor are their IT departments cause they'll have to cut a little bit out from somewhere else, but it won't really affect their buying habits... you have a point there, but that's really the only group. Small businesses are going to fucking hate this. There techs all surely pushed for it for their little local fileserver and what have you, and now it's going to start costing them more? ... or less if they ditch it and move to Linux, or just not upgrade?
its justified same way as a hot dog cost 10 dollars at a stadium...
That price hike for the stadium dog is far more justified. Real estate and labor costs more in the stadium than most other places you can get a hot dog.
MS charging more to run the same version of Windows on a xeon cpu is, IMO, more like charging way more for business class plane tickets but still giving them economy seats and service. I honestly can't think of anything else quite like that which actually exists/happens and is legal (extortion/kidnapping would be similar - charge more if the parent is rich - but that's illegal).