I often have either the SyFy or Discovery channels always on in the background as I'm on my computer, lately the Discovery channel has taken over...While I admit I chuckle at the Mutant versus Monster and psuedo-remake of current movies (like 2012, but not the real 2012 that was released in theaters) I can't imagine actually having to pay for this channel. It's a collection of not very good things.

IMO the shows mentioned in the blurb here were terribad. Caprica (no thanks), SG:U (puke), SG:A (space vampires weee), SG (was good for the first few seasons then went downhill). Eureka - campy, but alright, it is a good fit on a free nerdy network. Sanctuary - meh, it's not a great show, not really good, but it's cheap and easy to make so it's not going anywhere. Warehouse 13 - similar to Eureka (and set in the same world as they do cross-overs) but it's not like an "omg this show is great".

Occasionally the SyFy channel will get a decent show, like BSG, but it doesn't market it well and ultimately it does little to actually benefit the network, because they don't know what to do with good shows. Hell if they knew what to do with a good show, they would have played Firefly in order and it'd done well.

Let's just be honest, SyFy is the place for misfit toys that nobody wants and to think it'd actually be able to get people to pay for it is wishful thinking at best.

Seriously. With the exception of certain legal documents (which should be converted to a secure digital format of some kind) why do we *need* to try and save/rely on paper mail? What possible benefit is there?

I check my mail every day, not because I actually get mail every day, but because every local store and service provider in the area send me crap that fills up my box. I immediately toss all of this into the garbage (not the recycling because the garbage is what is next to our mailboxes at my complex and I don't want to carry all this crap back to my flat).

I get maybe one or two pieces of mail a week that is actually for me, they are all bills for services that for whatever reason won't go completely paperless, even though I pay them online.

I don't see the value in this, it basically means they'd be taxing the people who have to commute to work. I myself have a 30 to 45 minute commute each day. My car is very fuel efficient though (32MPG on average), but why should I pay more than say someone who buys a gas guzzler (10MPG) but doesn't have to commute to work? And the commute thing isn't so much by choice than by it's better than any other offer I've had in my direct area by far.

I think gas tax is currently "fair", but if they just want to keep putting more taxes on the middle and lower class people then I guess this idea makes sense...

There firewall is fully operational!

Was convicted of Fraud before and tried to do this same thing in 2003. I have serious doubts to any validity of this.

Dropbox is ideal for transferring large amounts of things like photos, pdfs, artwork and in general non-sensitive information that just needs to get from person A to person B without having to rely/setup/use FTP or email.

At my last job we mostly used it to transfer/archive press releases in Word and PDF format as well as some design files so that our other departments (not always in the same building or city) could grab them easily. Nothing with sensitive information was ever stored on it.

I kind of expected more people to be in the seasonal category like myself, but I guess many of you are moma boys :P I kid

I don't really see why libraries are holding onto actual books these days anyway. Seems like the best thing to do would be get rid of the paper, make more room for public readings and other events that happen at libraries and then have the entire book library all digital in PDF and ePub formats for each book. That way you could read whatever you want on whatever device you have.

I'm all in favor of Google standardizing Android hardware. As it is right now it's a nightmare when doing UI Design compared to doing UI design for the iPhone. With the iPhone it's nice because every phone using the same screen size. On the droid not only are the screen sizes different, but the aspect ratio is not consistent either, so it's not a simple choice of designing one interface that can scale, you're stuck creating multiple interfaces. I think standardizing the hardware, at least screen sizes, would actually encourage app development (or at least more iPhone app ports to droid).

It's a cool app, but doesn't do what I need. I actually need RSS support in the sense of...I need to see feed urls like every other browser. For example, one of the things I do at work is include submitted feeds to our website. Many people send in direct links to RSS feeds, which is fine, but equally as many people send over just their site url, which means i need to visit their site and look at their feed, grab the url and include it on our end. On IE and FF and Opera it's easy enough to go to www.theirsite.com, click the rss icon, copy+paste the feedburner or xml link and enter it on my end. I can't do that on chrome and that's just silly to me.

"As long as I don't notice it and it's not malicious I don't care."
- Most End Users.

Ever since the last 3.6 update I've had a ridiculous amount of crashes with FF when viewing any site that has some flash ad or element on it. As a result I've almost completely stopped using it with exception to check browser compatibility issues. Now that I know it's going to be requesting updates every quarter this year I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why any user would really want to stick with this browser.

Hell, IE8 seems to run more stable, and chrome has become my default browser of choice. The only thing I don't like about chrome is it's lack of good RSS support, but these days I'm finding myself using that feature less and less in my browsers, instead I just use RSS on my phone for "quick reading" on the light rail to work.

I think things are evil if I find them attractive, easy to work with and provide me with enjoyment too.

OMG Women are iPhone!

Just because the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt and Tesla are being made doesn't mean that me and the rest of the country are going to spend, or even have the means, of buying a $35k, $50k or $100k car that doesn't perform as well in mileage, safety and environmental impact as say my Subara Forester which only cost me $20k.

For example, I actually got to go to a Nissan Leaf event and test drive one http://www.michaelghurston.com/2010/10/test-drive-the-nissan-leaf/ - the car had some cool features, but it has some serious impractical features that would cause my life to revolve around my car instead of my car being something to get me from point a to point b.