This article is just trash. I mean, the whole thing! It's just buzzword-laden bullshit that can't even be parsed into coherent thoughts. There is very little meat in this supposed roundup of interface wins & losses, and to top it off, it doesn't even mention the horrendously well-accepted "interface failures" which have been primary topics of discussion in the wide open world of UX this year.

My take: anything involving the word "UX" this year has most assuredly been a GRAND success at the unstated mission of screwing people (the ones forced to use the interfaces) over, whether it be by way of simplifying (read: removing) functionality, tightening (read: hiding) features, or even just by repurposing (read: obfuscating) old "paradigms".

Well, at least -I- think my summary is better than their article!

My cloud provider is the NSA!

Anyway, I don't really store anything online. I'd sooner not use a computer at all than trust a "cloud" storage system on the internet to archive my data even half as well as my own physical drives do.

I've got convenience -- my drives are insanely fast, instantly available, and I can connect them with USB 3.0, eSATA, or drop them into a SAS backplane at my leisure. I own the drives, I own the data, and I own all the options.

When I want my data to be reliably backed up, I make reliable backups.

When I want to share it, I can do that.

But most important -- when I want to delete my data, I make it truly vanish.

This guy's got it right! I don't want to navigate a bunch of bullshit personalization settings in order to be able to get to meat of a web site. Aside from that, excess javascript is the very reason that I use noscript in the first place.

Aside from the thick fucking white borders, the ugly "this domain has been parked, here's some ads (articles, really - look more closely)" interface, and the tremendous abuse of javascript, there's also the matter of usability. Let's say that I whitelist this site with noscript. Well, now I get LOOK-THE-FUCK-AT-ME giant tooltips explaining that it's alright to click on things at the top of the page every single time I visit it because I have my browser set up to delete all cookies/history/etc upon closing a tab.

In such a case, I also have to navigate those bullshit personalization settings I mentioned in order to disable the gigantic/distracting images, leaving only the article summaries which are in fact tinier than the images themselves. Now it looks like I'm on some beta version of a Wordpress blog that a kid just set up.

Well, I guess I'm not really fighting against this. If this is the direction that Slashdot thinks that it should go, then by all means, do it. If it happens though, don't expect to retain your usual base of contributors.

Dunno why that's modded funny. It was my first thought as well.

The problem is probably when governments start trying to enforce it for all communications, but that's such an unrealistic logistics nightmare that it simply isn't a plausible concern.

My first thought was scameras / licence plate cameras at intersections, etc. I hope it's not something malicious like that!

Ew. The comment box ate my clever mark-up!

My comment should've read something like:

"U.S. officials have learned that (China|Russia|Syria|Al Qaeda|etc) have commited cyber(terrorism|war|crime|etc)".

With brackets. :

Mod this guy up!

My personal opinion is that tftp can be both right and wrong, and it deserves some discussion.

He's right in the fact that: "U.S. officials have learned that have commited cyber" is becoming downright annoying to read, especially without any credible evidence ever pointing to the former culprit truly being the one to commit the latter [horrible] cyber-deed.

The other part - well, that's already been claimed by other threads. It's the oft-discussed "is there even enough credibility in this government to warrant giving their finger-pointing even a single thought?"

Ahhh. My signature should be "cyber-lol"!

> The U.S. has intercepted

Sounds right so far.

> an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy

Mm hmm...

> ...U.S. officials also fear...

They're more scared of us than we are of them! Right? Maybe that's spiders.

> the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike

I can't go on. I'm really feeling terrified now, so... Ahh. I think I'll go watch some F** N**** to learn more about this.

Do your cables use oxygen-free copper, though? I'm sick of oxygen messing my pixels up!

Also, can I give you more money for some gold-colored connectors??? I don't mind throwing all of my money at you and your cables if you add useful features like these.

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...

Vigintillions, my friend.

Honestly, I didn't mean for that number to be taken literally. This is Slashdot! How could it be taken as truth without a reference?!

Whether it be Microsoft Security Essentials, Norton, or any other antivirus software, it won't help.

Didn't you read the article? Those kinds of things are only useful against mere computer viruses. These are more sophisticated.

These are "implants"!

Sounds like a job for... Well, any of the millions and trillions of safer, free, open source software utilities which can do the exact same thing without exposing your keys to some third party.

I wouldn't trust anyone but myself with my private keys, and I certainly wouldn't trust anyone else to generate private keys for me.

For that matter, I don't trust my data to be safe in anyone else's computer, but I guess that's OT.