I know exactly why I originally switched: I was not yet educated on the sheer depth of Google/Chrome's hostility towards your privacy, it had a huge selling point: silent, background updates where I don't even know they're happening (I like it that way).

This was at that time shortly after Firefox went to that crazy new release schedule and whizzed along from version 4 to version 26 in what felt like about 20 minutes. It was during this time that Firefox was driving me ABSOLUTELY NUTS popping up every few weeks with yet another new release, and getting in the way with its addon checks etc next time it's launched.

There is little that infuriates me more than when I launch an application and can't use it for the next 30 seconds because it's picked that time to chug around doing updates. I don't know if it's because they're too busy coding to use their own applications, but very few developers in the world seem to understand that "when an application is launched, that's when the user wants to USE that application" (sometimes urgently), and therefore very few have the sense to do their updates in the background or on exit (still annoying if you're waiting to shut down, but at least slightly less annoying).

Pre-empting the inevitable "30 seconds isn't that long you're not going to die waiting 30 seconds to see your cat videos" reply: Oh hold on, I'll just bin my SSD, and I believe Grace Hopper would like a word about nanoseconds. Chrome didn't need to waste those seconds, and so neither did Firefox. Unnecessary wastes of time are quite irritating.

{/rant}

The other issue was Chrome's excellent sync vs. Firefox's messy faff of one.

HOWEVER!

Two things have happened since:

1) An acute awareness of how much Google treat your personal info / metadata / browsing habits as an all-you-can-eat buffet, made all the more obvious in our recent privacy conscious times triggered by NSA et al

2) They finally fixed the Firefox browser.

There is still a foreground element to updates and their notifications, but nowhere near as obtrusive as they were when I abandoned it, add-ons don't usually break, and now it has a proper sync system.

Nowadays it's a no-brainer to use Firefox again. It gives you the same conveniences regarding sync and less annoying updates, but doesn't spy on you or restrict you like Chrome does and has much more respect for your privacy and freedom. Wouldn't touch Chrome with a bargepole now, and them locking it down even further only seals the deal.

Yes indeed. I took control of a site in 2007 and haven't knowingly broken a link since. Various restructures just led to more redirect entries in .htaccess, and if you somehow have an old 2007 link it should take you to the relevant page on today's site. It just needs disciplined webmasters.

(I'm not the most creative of people and our marketing girls are not exactly the most constructive in dealing with other departments (such as making suggestions for improvement or even opening their mouths and telling me they don't like it in the first place), so they've decided to simply outsource it from under me. The new developers will no doubt break my lovely 7 year chain. But hey ho, that's life.)

I thought about this kind of thing recently - take something like Google Drive. You pay for the premium version and they give you more space, but you're still tied to their (lack-of-)privacy policy and they still spy on you.

If part of a premium service was "no ads *and no tracking or scanning your stuff or your habits in any way*" (preferably with some way to prove it) I think I'd be more inclined to pay for it.

If clicking on a site had options:
- View free (ad and data mining supported)
- View for 2p (100% private and ad-free)
I'd pay the 2p. Assuming there's some way to prove that they're not lying, which yeah, wouldn't be easy. It'd need some interesting open-source "thing" to make it happen.

:|
I bet it would be
8|
a bit of a cash cow.

This means they can hire multiple providers (generally in different regions), evaluate them against each other, encourage competition between them to lower prices, etc.

This of course, worked great for the rail industry.

The reason I switched from iOS was because personally, I *want* control over my smartphone. I want the options and customisations, and the ability to decide what keyboard to use and where my music sits. My advice to those who can't handle a few options is "get an iPhone".

Though really, I can't see why both user groups can't be catered for - have sensible defaults and basic options, and put everything else inside an "Advanced settings" button somewhere - no one is forced to tap it.

It does work on some routers and mobile hotspots! Support IS a bit hit and miss though. It comes up as non-unicode symbols on Windows (though most when out and about are in iOS or Android devices, which display it correctly)

Slashdot can't seem to print unicode stuff, but basically it's a list of symbols that might scare Whovians. :)

Has it ever actually happened in canon?

Far as I know all the male timelords were always male and all the female timeladies were always female. He had a granddaughter, and he doesn't refer to her as "grandperson"

I get the impression that the possibility he cited that one time that "I could come back as a woman! Or with two heads!" was probably either a) a very unlikely mutation or b) the Doctor lying, like he always does.

I think it's rather risky to post this without a question mark after the title - pretty sure I remember how "studies showed" that vegetables weren't good for you once.

I imagine it depends on the driver and whether they compensate by pausing the conversation when things need concentration etc. But I've seen people trying to drive a *shopping trolley* while talking on the phone and failing hard, so a car? Hm.

Haha yeah didn't he technically marry her or something
But true. I meant with companions. I remember reading that they didn't want him to be thought a dirty old man travelling with a young girl hence the original decision to make Susan his granddaughter

Not on TV. It's the sexual tension between 20-somethings that sells there. The Doc being older might at least reduce some of that. But then it's not really seen as pervy like in the 60s if he's lucky enough to get a 20-something drooling along after him, so I'm not sure it'd change much compared to the "let's make him a grandfather so he can have none of that hanky panky" thing they had with Hartnell.

Also going wayyyy back, Peter Purves played some crazy guy in the exact same episode that Steven Taylor was introduced

I'd imagine that they'll just go all gooey about how "distinguished" he looks, companions and all, as much as we might like to think we'll get a break from all the flirting.

When you would constantly curse... BLOODY MOUSE!