I wonder if a forum or an imageboard could be implemented in a P2P fashion?

I think teh usenets worked (or could be made to work) like that, but everyone old enough to know is probably dead or doolally.

So.

Farewell then, Leonard Nimoy.

You were Spock, and then you were not Spock. Or was it the other way round?

If I may be so bold

that

is illogical.

E.J.Thribb (17½)

Take a look at these, a couple of links away from TFA. http://dtafalonso.deviantart.c...

They're all fapping off about them, but look how faint some of the differentiators for the folder contents are; several of them look pretty much he same.

Also, why is everything turned as if it's facing someone six feet to my left? Well, actually it's only nearly everything, which is even worse.

The ones they're griping about are better IMO.

I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.

What idiots. It's the metric system that does that. They'll charge you as much for a kilogram as they do for a demifirkin, just you watch.

Have you seen gnome these days?

The "You may like to read" column overlaps the one to its right, even though there's a space big enough for it going unused.

They have a fixed size for the body of their site - if the browser is wider than the body, padding is shown; if the browser is skinnier than the body, scroll bars are shown.

You think horizontal scrolling is a good thing?

When you follow an external link or post a reply, and then go back, it takes you to the top of the page rather than where you were.

This was temporarily fixed, and then unfixed.

Firefox on Win and Linux.

So this is the kind of stuff Human Factors researchers are advocating now?

No, it's what UXtards are advocating. They aren't the same thing.

First, the complexity of the engine shouldn't matter. You will never get the bulk of users out there to use, or care about, the real power of the engine. They don't want to mess with the engine. The engine should be under the hood, in a black box, whatever engineering metaphor you want. Users just want things that work.

I remember way back when I was at university. There were various absolute rules for good software engineering. The first was that the user should be presented with a must-read manual no longer than one paragraph. Tips and tricks could be more extensive, but that one paragraph was all you needed.

The second was that the user absolutely must not care about how something was implemented. In the case of encryption, I take that to mean, in the case of e-mail, that the engine should not be visible outside of configuration. A supplied key should trigger any behind-the-scenes compatibility mode or necessary configuration to talk to that user. If the keys the user has aren't suitable to correspond with that person, the system should ask if one is needed and tie it to that protocol.

There should be no extra controls in e-mail, except at an advanced user level. If a key exists to correspond with a user, it should be used. If a key exists for inbound e-mail, the key should be applied. The process should be transparent, beyond getting passwords.

Any indexes (particularly if full indexes) should be as secure as the message, good security practices on both will take care of any issues.

Ideally, you want to have the same grades of authentication as for the early certification system, adapted to embed the idea that different people in the web of trust will have done different levels of validation and will be trusted to different degrees. The user should see, but not have to deal with, the level of trust.

Last, GnuPG is probably not the system I'd use. Compatibility cruft needs to be as an optional layer and I'm not confident in implementation.

There should be eight main libraries - public key methods, secret key methods, encryption modes, hashes (which encryption modes will obviously pull from), high level protocols, key store, index store and lacing store. (Lacing is how these are threaded together.) The APIs and ABIs to those libraries should be standardized, so that patching is minimally intrusive and you can exploit the Bazaar approach to get the best mix-n-match.

There should also be a trusted source in the community who can evaluate the code against the various secure and robust programming standards, any utilized theorum provers and the accepted best practices in cryptography. Essentially replicate the sort of work NIST does, but keeping it open and keeping it free of conflict of NSA interest.

Sounds implausible. Only the officers would have needed to know what time the barrage would lift (or whatever) and they generally didn't carry rifles.

It may also cause ATM machines to fail and vehicles to stop because their EMS systems and ECU units hang up.

Less of the trivial nonsense. What we all want to know is how round the tabs are.