Yes the group that voted the 2nd time. That's who we have statistics on.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
As you decrease unnecessary color those colors that exist become much more visible from far away (i.e. at small sizes). Think about a match sized fire in a completely dark room or a single drop of red paint on a giant white wall. Decreasing distracting information increases the information density you can absorb.
I haven't seen an increase in screen sizes over the last few years. Moreover screen sizes as people migrate to smaller form factors like tablet style laptops are quite likely to go down not up. And you add in things like 2-3 pixels repeated a 5-10x across the screen x 1/2 dozen of these type of wastes and you are in the 100 pixels of waste. That can be something like 15% wasted space.
There are people who don't understand basic economics and I'd assume their opinion could be easily changed in a bipartisan way. Our system is generally effective in dealing with ignorance and educating when it is united.
Not going to happen. The functionality that the new designs allow for is what is driving the aesthetic. When there are practical concerns driving an aesthetic the switch is generally at least semi-permanent.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
Yes they are. The new style of design allows for less borders between boxes which makes screens more efficient in how they use space. Being able to visually comprehend more on a screen occupying the same physical space is an upgrade.
Moreover once you introduce touch and thus have an inaccurate pointing device borderless works far better since you want the pointing device to be closest center not border and except for circles that's not going to be the same thing.
I had the right hardware for Windows 8, a capacitive / resistive touch screen with a detachable (or swivel keyboard) and it was much nicer than Windows 7. The Windows crowd is incredibly conservative about change. I'm hoping Microsoft helps break them of that.
True. Good point. AFAIK the way Microsoft handles that is you send what you want. Exchange forwards the email to Microsoft. The recipient gets a link they can only open via. their Microsoft Live account. For those with servers using Windows Azure Rights Management it goes through transparently.
So still annoying but getting better. Main thing is it is part of Outlook.
You are right enforcement is difficult. The problem is upstream.
1) We need to have a discussion if as a society we want software patents to exist at all. We may want to consider software to be more like a book and so simply not subject to patents at all.
2) Assuming we do the rules regarding patenting math / code need to be tightened. Most people in the tech field what an innovation to have to be far greater to be worthy of a patent.
3) For this to happen the patent office doesn't do enough research. They need to verify originality. Also going back to the policy that a patent requires submitting a functional prototype. They also can help out in determining if a violation is taking place in advance rather than this being a function of the courts.
4) However they can't do this because there are too many patents. Patents are fundamentally too cheap. Patents need to be much much more expensive to pay for the research requires to enforce 1-3.
5) There needs to be better good faith licensing terms like in Europe. Violations need to be sanely priced but easier to prove.
The big fish hate the current patent regime to the point Obama and many Democrats made a stink about it. The problem for patents are centered on tech and that's a Democratic constituency. The move for more aggressive enforcement is really centered on a group of Republican judges.
I've always thought the best people to handle community signatures is banks. Banks are already trusted. Banks are used to and setup for verifying identity. Generate a key on USB and submit to a bank which verifies your real life keys for a marginal fee. They could also optionally store a copy of the private key for you in case of loss.
For not tied to your real life accounts... there is no need for verification the email provider can just self sign.
Blame MS for not integrating it into Outlook
Exchange has an easy to use encryption feature so that's not true.
I agree with your post. In the 1990s there was a lot of enthusiasm around crypto.
I think what's happening though is groups like Apple and Google have made crypto pretty easy. Since the original article mentions email, for example in Apple's standard / free / included mail.app I can easily:
a) self sign a certificate and include the public key in my email
b) send an encrypted email to anyone who has ever sent me their certificate
Similarly with the iPhone / iPad application. That's a pretty good implementation. It isn't perfect since it isn't obvious to the user how to move certificates around systems so multiple devices does lose some user friendliness. This all works automatically with Exchange.
So I think we are getting user friendly it is just taking a long time. Email is an area where I blame Microsoft for not acting like a leader and driving standards.
The Debian developers for whom we have statistics are the people who put together Debian. But there is a lot of overlap most Debian packages are maintained by someone closely associated with the group that writes the software that words on Debian.