Yep. I've taken the Google model to Outlook. I have just one folder called archive. It comes down to these steps:
- If I haven't looked at it yet, it's unread in the inbox
- If I've read it but still have something to do, it's marked read but still in the inbox
- If I'm done with all of the actions associated with it, it goes into the archive folder
On top of that, I use search folders to quickly look at emails from specific people or groups. I prefer that to real folders as sometimes emails need to exist in multiple folders, plus those folders will catch anything that's in both the archive and inbox folders.
I have 10,000+ emails in my inbox and I get the same benefit from them all being marked read. I also can search for back emails which you cannot (unless you have archived them).
Edit: Occurred to me you may have meant the same thing (if this is the case, pls ignore my post). I'm pretty sure the OP refers to empty inboxes (all messages deleted, not just marked read).
Very awesome and inspiring ... I do the same thing all the time (hack at codesy things that I have no real understanding of ... like the time I spent 2 whole days trying to get Phusion Passenger to run on Windows) and feel ashamed to say it out loud for some reason.
I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down.
As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile.
There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time.
I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.
Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :)
I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate).
I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable.
Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No?
If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden. Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion. The so called underwear bomber was stopped because when people see a man trying to ignite his underwear they stop him. We're not that helpless.
Life is risky. Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago. No need to go further.
The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?
At what point does the security become theater to you?
"It's not a goal to try to prevent someone from doing this again. That's simply not possible. The goal is to make its success as unlikely as possible without causing too great a burden." - agreed
"Groping and virtual strip searches go too far in my opinion." - Understood. Personally, I'm ok with the virtual strip search. If the physical search is a "professionally executed" pat down, I'm also ok with it. My wife and I fly multiple times/month and so far this has been our experience. If the search turned into "groping", I would have a different view.
"Zero people have died in the U.S. from terrorism on airplanes since 9/11. It's extremely unlikely that a terrorist will blow up a plane with the security measures that were in place 1 year ago." - We just had a few close calls. The terrorists appear to be adapting.
"The next place to hide explosives are vaginas and anal regions. Do you think those should be probed as well? If a terrorist blows himself up at a TSA checkpoint should we have a checkpoint in order to get to the checkpoint?" - This is indeed the rub. Where do you "draw the line?" - is always the issue when discussing giving up/forcing people to give up personal liberties for the good of others. Nevertheless, we do it all the time. For me the scanners/searches have not crossed the line. For you, they have.
So your line is slightly beyond the current TSA policy. What happens to your line when a terrorist successfully destroys a plane full of people with a anal cavity bomb? Do you and your wife submit to cavity searches or, as you stated, your "personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No?".
"How do we prevent this from being attempted again?"
"We" won't, bluntly enough. Nor will hyperparanoia do anything about the next stunt. What do you do when a lunatic swallows or rectally inserts some explosives?
The answer is that you accept that there are reasonable measures and unreasonable measures. Use only reasonable measures. Accept that there is a finite risk of someone getting past those measures. Recognize that you're more likely to die while driving to an airport than in flight from all causes, not merely the extreme outlier possibility of someone deliberately trying to kill people on your flight.
You're assuming that air port security exists in its current form to protect human life. Maybe it's more about protecting the aircraft. AQAP recently stated that their primary goal in attacking aviation targets is to inflict financial damage. Their reasoning is a relatively cheap attack has the potential to destroy a $300M+ aircraft. Like most other things in American politics you have to follow the money. A few hundred dead people is sad but a politically connected insurance company paying off a big claim for a blown up 747 is more likely to drive policy in this country. People die from preventable causes all the time. That's not really the issue here I suspect.
Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting.
Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.
@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.
All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes. Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year.
"All I can do is point to the zero deaths since 2001 caused by passengers smuggling dangerous objects onto planes." - As I noted above, we have recently had a few close calls. It appears the terrorists are adapting. Personally, I'd rather we try to stay ahead of them than wait for your sentence to change to "well we had zero deaths until 2011 when ..."
"Flying is far safer than many other common activities whose risks we gladly accept, and that would remain true even if terrorists blew up a fully loaded 747 every year." - I have used this argument myself (yes I have argued your side as well). However, it does not capture the broader impact - economy etc (this may be why they continue to target planes). Frankly, I think the terrorists could accomplish their goals in many other far easier to accomplish ways but I wont help them here.
I understand your view. I just don't share it. You attacked mine by saying the scanners added zero value. I forwarded a link that while critical of the scanners also noted they were as "effective as a pat down". Unless you think pat downs add zero security, then we are back to security vs personal privacy.
“While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee.
