We left IPv6 enabled on our web site, and I've been slowly adding it to servers as I touch them. Our primary nameservers added ipv6 a couple months ago (well, one of them, the offsite one is waiting for rackspace to *finally* get off their duff and support it on their hosted vms), and I'm planning on working towards having our internal core network be ipv6 only (though realize that's only a holy grail - too many apps don't yet support it).

Or for their customers to switch to juniper, and get the ability to modify configurations without taking your life in your hands to boot...

I had a Prius, and regularly got 48mpg with it. I now have had a Leaf for about 9 months, with about 5400 miles on it, or about 600 miles/month. Compared with my 48mpg Prius, with gas at $3.50/gal (a little high at the moment, but low for much of that 9 months, and it'll be there again by late spring), that's a savings of about $30/month in fuel costs ($44 for gas vs $15 for electricity at 4mpk and $0.10/kWh). With the difference in payments on the Prius (which was $450 vs $400 for the Leaf), I'm saving $80/month with the Leaf...

I use enigmail for those peers who use pgp, which is maybe one person now, however:

1. few, if any, mail clients support pgp out of the box, whereas most standalone clients do support S/MIME now, so signing with S/MIME is a good default

2.. It adds the problem of conflicting with S/MIME - there's no way to say "use which ever encryption I have a key for". The encryption plug in system needs to have a way to say "try them in this order"

...the one or two people who also use encryption. It would be easier if Thunderbird would ever implement the "encrypt when possible" option that's been in the buglist for years. "Always encrypt" is a completely useless option unless you're in an extremely restricted environment.

I do always sign my mail, which occasionally gets me "I can't open your attachment" (usually from webmail users these days, as at least most clients can handle them now) and, fortunately rare now, "I can't reply" (because Outlook would default to signing replies if the incoming message was signed, even if the user had no certificate and then complain because they didn't).

The few people implementing encryption in mail clients have *never* given any thought to usability, and unfortunately, I haven't had time to dive into the code and fix it myself, though I've started trying to get the build environment set up a couple of times.

If you think the setting is all there is to a story...well, that explains a number of popular movies that wouldn't know a story if a transformer turned into one right in front of them.

That is just plain bullshit, for two reasons:

1. Statistically, if cell phones were that dangerous, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last 20 years, along with cell phone usage.

2. Practically, there is an attention threshold: it takes a certain amount of attention to drive safely. For most people, there is some "computing capacity" head room for distractions before it interferes with safe driving. People who are bad at managing those distractions are going to be bad drivers all around, not just with cell phones. If someone can't handle driving and talking, they shouldn't be driving at all.

3. Eating and driving is bigger distraction - if you're going to ban cell phones, you'd better ban drive-thru windows also.

4. Personally, I've been driving and talking (and eating [not at the same time ;-) ]) accident free since the days of the Motorola brick.

Texting, on the other hand, is another matter, as the distraction level is vastly higher, and is far more likely to cross that threshold.

I don't have a problem with this, even if Adblock is getting revenue from it. I want them to be able to continue to support the product, and I want the sites I go to to be able to afford to continue to exist, and I am happy if they are able to make a profit even. We all win. The only reason I started using adblock is because of all the disruptive, distracting, ads that interfere with the actual reason I came to a website in the first place. As long as they're able to keep blocking those, and sites that do tracking, I'm happy...

Someone moderated this a troll, but I'm actually serious: exclusivity deals are highly anticompetitive. As it turns out, in this case, the exclusivity is pretty short term, so it's not that big a deal, but in general, a truly free market will not permit restrictions on trade like this. Once you lose the ability to buy from who you want, you no longer have a free market.

As far as I'm concerned, any exclusivity deal should be considered an antitrust violation.