"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."

This is intriguing, but it just seems to add yet another layer. Is it really needed? By leveraging Filters and Labels, you can automatically categorize email to whatever you want.

I also use the "Multiple Inboxes" Labs add-on that gives me a second "inbox" that is defined to display only "starred" items. no matter where the message is (in the inbox of archived with a label) I can always see those which I classify as "important." And by using Filters, this gets done automatically for many messages.

Actually, I stand corrected. It appears that the "Call phone" feature being added into Gmail requires a "Voice plugin" that would require you being tied to the computer after initiating the call. (http://www.google.com/chat/voice/)

I don't know how much I would even use calling built into Gmail, but I surely won't complain about added functionality. The problem I've found with using computers as phones is that you are tied sitting down in one location, most likely stuck with a headset on since using speakers would result in lots of echo. Applications like Teamspeak and Ventrilo make sense because usually when you're using them, you're already at a computer.

I think you misunderstand the technology. When you initiate the call from within Google Voice, (and presumably within Gmail) Google Voice rings your defined phone. You pick it up, then rings the other party. You can get up and leave or do whatever you want, because at this point, it's all on your phone. You aren't tied to the computer other than to initiate the call.

Abso-frekin-lutely amazing!

Thanks!

True, but hovering over the URLs shows them in a clean font in the status bar of Firefox, so it's obvious which one is which.

But your point is taken. No one can know everything. but that's why we need to educate those who are prone to get stung by this stuff. My mantra to my parents and friends is, "If the link you are clicking on is unfamiliar or sent to you by someone you don't know, then just don't click it. Otherwise, proceed with caution." Sure, it isn't perfect, but it has significantly reduced the calls I get asking me to bail them out of a mess.

You're the 30,000th person today who has been told they are the one millionth visitor.

Cool! What do I win?!?

If you rely on some alert or some fancy feature for protection, you really aren't being as proactive as you could. Regardless of what any alerts might or might not say, if the URL doesn't look right, err on the side of caution. While there are always exceptions, if you don't know what a "good" URL looks like, take the time to educate yourself.

As a follow-on, does it make sense that younger generations might actually be interested in seeing just what made Star Wars so popular by being able to see the "original" version?

Written diaries could be the most valuable. They could be typed or hand-written--it really doesn't matter--as long as it is capturing HER feelings and thoughts. In fact, I'd contend that if she enjoys actually writing with pen and paper that she do that--whatever she is most comfortable with.

My point is that though this is /., don't let the technology get in the way. Sure, it would be nice to have it all formatted and pretty in some OpenSource format, but the point is to capture her thoughts, not get bogged down by the technology.

I saw all 6 movies in a movie theater as they were released, and after seeing the newer "editions", I really crave the theatrical versions that I originally saw. Are they politically incorrect? Possibly. Do they look cheesier? sure. But it's what was released, and it is what millions experienced as "real" Star Wars. George Lucas would make lots more money if he would just release the original, theatrical versions. Market them as retro--whatever. Just stop rewriting history!

Doesn't this update just patch the PDF exploit and not the other methodologies used by Dev-Team to jailbreak? And wasn't the PDF exploit developed by someone not on the Dev-Team? I'll gladly stand corrected if this is not true, but I thought I read this somewhere.

Great observation!

Current technology in the iPad, while quite decent, is still quite fragile. I was discussing the pros and cons of the Kindle and the iPad to some family members, and they were asking what were some of the "cons" of these devices. Among other things, I said, "Well, you can step on a book and it won't shatter, you can drop a book in a puddle, shake it off, and it's usually still readable." The point being that books, while taking up far more space than e-versions, they are amazingly rugged and durable--something that the likes of the Kindle or iPad can't yet claim.

...of completely removing personal responsibility.

It's a great way to remember past events by envisioning them through today's eye. Very cool.