1. It's probably better to remain civil in your discourse if you want people to take you seriously, and not just dismiss you as a troll. If you really do feel so strongly about your position, then you're probably doing more harm than good to your cause by firing off such remarks.
2. I doubt that you personally communicate with everyone using encrypted email. If you do, your world is probably fairly insular (and you should probably consider expanding your experience to include communicating with people outside of your comfort-zone).
3. The most constructive response to the parent post would probably be a suggested plan of action. I'm sure that many here would be all-ears to even a decent framework for convincing the average person to use encrypted email.
It seems like teaching people to use GPG for the authentication is probably the first step. Sending to someone who doesn't use GPG then is still readable, and if you want to push the point with a particular person then every time they email you call them and say "I got an email, I wanted to be sure it was from you, since there was no signature..."
Once you can count on contacts using GPG, the path to encrypting is much easier.
IMHO the problem is the NOT infrastructure per se, it's the theoretical part that is cumbersome. If you now why you are doing something, it's easy to understand why you should not save the 'key' in the "Keychain" or sign random emails.
To use GnuPG correctly you need explain to average Joe concepts like:
* PKI
* Key signing
* Web of trust
* Revocation key
The problem is that, as Einstein said: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simple.
Same problem I can't talk bitcoin with most of my real-life friends. They are incredibly smart people, but they are not familiar with key concepts about BTC and don't wanna wrap their minds around it when we're hanging out having fun.
I see what you're saying I think the same argument is being overly used to justify a lack of basic effort to learn anything about computing beyond 'click this shiny red button'.
People just cry out to the programmers to "just make it easier".
Well there's only so far you can go on the easy scale until you start sacrificing security and integrity.
People need to learn some of the fundamentals and basics you can't run away from it forever.
It's like someone saying "Mehh I don't like calculus ... why don't these mathematicians make it just easier? Why do I have to learn about differentiation? Make it so easy my grandma could differentiate this equation"
Instead we force every kid to take the pain a bit and learn some damn basics.
Same should go for computing. Schools could teach the kids the basics of protecting their communications on the internet. Give that 10 years and Public/Private key encryption is a piece of cake for every reasonably educated adult in the society and they are no longer buzzwords because everyone grew up with it and remembers their 8th grade when they learned all about it.
I'd argue that getting address books to understand what keys are and how to use them would be more impactful. If I put public keys in my address book, which is nicely integrated with my mail client anyway, then sending encrypted mail should be far more straightforward. The problem then is getting people to use new address books.
I'd love it more if there were a "kinda figure out the normal pace of output and change color when it varies by %" mode.
This would make it a time derivative color changer, perhaps.
Use case: are we in the lunch rush yet, or just poking along at our usual lazy morning pace.
It could also mark out delays in expected periodic output that sometimes misses a beat (showing a bug in real time software that isn't, quite)
Thanks for the feedback, I like this idea. I can imagine it working well in 256-colour mode, gradually increasing colour intensity in line with write-frequency.
Do not confuse nostalgia for reveration. The old programming systems are indeed quaint, and should be preserved, but not used. There's a reason we've moved on.
So each year ~5M new cars hit the streets,
at an extra $140 each,
so the cost is ~$700M/yr.
There are 210 deaths/yr by backing over,
assume these prevent all 210 (they won't, certainly not until most of the old cars are off the road),
this means each life is worth $3.3M, minimum.
Cool.
But is there a way to invest $700M/yr that will save more than 210 lives/year?
I agree - if some tiny % of Apple's 80k employees are poking Samsung in the eye via lawyers, no way the other ~80k employees are somehow useless or starved for attention or money. Especially since the $160B cash hoard implies each employee could have ~$2M at their disposal - without using any credit.
Seriously, even small companies can do more than one thing at a time - why can't a big company.
