If the target, the target's friends and target's friends friends are all using encryption for 98% of communications, while you can still crack it (presumably?) you have to know what you're looking for in advance, like you would when applying for a warrant. That sort of defeats this huge plaintext scanning system the NSA and English governments have been putting in to place for the last half decade or more. Without all the supplemental background information their job gets exponentially harder and there's more data to decrypt than they have computing resources for.

PGP isn't exactly known for being user friendly. Gmail does not support it out of the box. The average person just can't be expected to understand that kind of cryptography.
 
That said, if you encrypt the device, encrypt the transport method, and the receiving device, that's pretty damn secure in about 98% of situations. WhatsApp just rolled out end to end encryption for their service as well, and they only charge a dollar a year (I think). That's encryption the average person can use. When an 18 year old mother of two in Sao Paulo can review her grocery list with her mother via secure encryption and neither of them know they're even doing it, that's a whole new level of secure. Compare that to the plain text emails I get from my boss about what I might consider vastly more important things at the office.
 
The golden era of unencrypted plaintext email is just about dead, I think, is the problem for intelligence agencies. At least for those people outside of gleaming glass corporate offices.

Leading is a relative term when you're discussing countries capable of human spaceflight. Last time I checked, the United States was paying a princely* sum to space-taxi their Astronauts to the ISS.
 
*When I say Princely, I mean, "the United States pays more to go to the ISS than the King of Malaysia", because that's totally a thing that happened as part of an arms deal, and we still pay more than he did for the privilege, despite our station being connected to theirs.

Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

If you think Symantec is a solution to any problem that exists, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Does Symantec provide a solution for the problem that is Symantec? In particular, their atrocious (as I recall ... it has been a long time) uninstall programmes.

Why are you using the future tense? They've been doing this for decades in Britain.

You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.

GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.

In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.

some people do deserve it. timothy mcveigh for one example

McVeigh? Oh, you mean the freedom fighter who was murdered by the government for his attempt to start the War of Liberation of the American People from the Curse of Washington? The future will not look kindly on the people who murdered this martyr, and the supporters of that government will be first up against the wall when the Revolution comes.

It looks a bit different from the other end of the telescope, doesn't it?

It need not be invasive. It would be quite easy to construct a system that would automatically erase any footage the moment a plane successfully lands and docks at the airport.

The only footage that would be seen then, is when there is a real problem.

Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.

It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.

That would really suck wouldn't it?

But think of the money the electric company would have to pay you, if you used enough of them.

You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.

A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.

Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.

And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.

I know what CRI is, you pedantic twit. This doesn't address my comment at all, which was in reference to GP's vague statement about "light quality".

If GP had written CRI, then I (and everybody else) would have known what he meant.

Please explain what this has to do with validation, which I thought was the topic under discussion?

Exactly what it is supposed to do: assurance that it will work as built across all major browsers.

Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.

It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.

Browsers will never be "standardized" on the very latest features. That's not how it works. So if you don't want to get stuck, don't use the latest features. What else do you expect me to say?

Also, note: this feature of healthy markets is called "deflation" in that particular market. But... deflation is precisely the hated bugaboo of Obama and his crony Keynesian-interventionist-mainstream economists.

They hate success, if it doesn't include them.