It's like Dropbox, but everything resides on the server of your choice. Ridiculously easy to set up, literally copy a directory into the web root, set permissions, and done.

Has MOST features Dropbox does, sharing files, access from anywhere...photo gallery, you can open files in the browser with native internal apps..

It gives you the drag-and-drop simplicity of Dropbox with its syncing with nearly the same simplicity to set up.

Several, at least 3. And I haven't submitted my information for any of them. They still work fine.

Reminds me of a Wired article I read for a class one time. The assignment was to read the article and "summarize the directions that commercial use of technology is moving to provide content, away from the open, free web."

I slammed the article in my assignment, calling it out for what it is: bullshit. Of course, one cane make that conclusion just by knowing it's from Wired...

I'm not a lawyer, and don't care much for a particularly detailed treatise, but could someone explain why one can't just say "Prove I've never purchased XX movie/song, and am not simply downloading it for a digital archival purpose which I am allowed under Fair Use."?

As I understand Fair Use, one is allowed to have an archival copy of any movie/song (breaking DMCA notwithstanding), so couldn't downloading be considered a more time-efficient method of obtaining your archival copy? And doesn't presumption of innocence mean that they have to PROVE that you never bought the item in the first place, and thus are not allowed your digital archival copy?

I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere.

Out in the Palouse in Washington (rolling wheat fields for hours) we had GPS not able to find us. When it finally did, it had us placed in the middle of a wheat field, and told us to take a left on a road that didn't exist. And the Palouse is wide open, you get plenty of satellite reception for GPS signal. Lucky for us we knew where we were and just turned on the GPS to see what it'd say.

The Colockum Pass is a state route, but it is by no means a route that any semi should take, yet about twice a year truckers from out of state try taking this route from Seattle to Ellensburg to Wenatchee, as it's shown on GPS as the shortest route (I had to manually move the Google Map to take this route). They physically cannot make this route, but several try per year anyway.

I had a buddy that grew up in Huntington Beach, CA. We went to a strip club one night, and to find it (he'd been there before) he had to use his turn-by-turn GPS. To leave and get back on the interstate, he had to use is turn-by-turn GPS, which meant waiting in the parking lot while it calculated (I told him to go out, take a right, the next right, then a right at the light would head it towards the interstate. His GPS told us to go LEFT, then LEFT, and then right, ultimately one block west of where I would have brought us to the same road (left around the block, or right around the block). He didn't trust me, and NEEDED the GPS to find the way back to the interstate, which was 1/2 mile away (straight shot to the interchange).

True story in Washington. (Someone correct me on the details if I'm wrong) I was told that our Senator, Maria Cantwell, threatened to investigate the oil companies for price gouging the Pacific Northwest; they dropped prices (by almost $0.60/gal for diesel) and she dropped the investigation. Gas prices have steadily gone back up to where they were before, and I hear she's threatening to investigate again.

Interesting. This is honestly something I would be interested in learning about; do you have any evidence and sources that also claim this?

Emphasis mine.

That, I would mind, and it is a separate issue. The issue of a device that records the cars data and keeps it there is acceptable, but one that transmits data to other parties is completely unacceptable. My mistake if I was unclear in that.

Multiple E-mail accounts, for multiple purposes all in the same application window. Personal and professional separate, and switch between them seamlessly. Literally check my E-mail at one click of the mouse.

That's what IMAP is for. If I'm somewhere other than my home computer or laptop, all have web interfaces that suffice, but I have to then log into each account separately.

Personally, I use Postbox; it was the first client I ran across that integrates GMail's Archive (without creating a separate "Archive" directory). It's got some issues with my account on Live.com (issued by my college) via Outlook services (not synching sent/outgoing, not authenticating properly) but every client I've used has the same issues with that account)

Also to fight terrorists.

Compare it to a flight data recorder. The pilots surrender that specific freedom to be able to fly and earn their wage for their chosen profession. They know about it, and they willingly accept it.

The only thing wrong here is that the public isn't generally "in the know" about these, but the premise is the same: you are using a federally funded system of roads, there are requirements for its use, public safety is involved, so it is not unreasonable to add on a requirement that a car data recorder be in place so long as the driver is aware it is there. If you don't like it, don't drive.

It's just like speeding, or having insurance, or seat belts, or having a driver's license; you agree to these terms to be able to use public roads.

Consider gun ranges. Everyone is armed, yet no one is killed.

The problem is the image guns have; (my opinion respectfully disagrees with yours, unlike many gun nuts who get pissed off at statements such as yours) many people see them only as dangerous and tools to destroy. I see them as dangerous and tools to protect as well. Guns are so entrenched in American culture (what little culture we have) that they are quite ubiquitous. Gun control efforts simply remove guns from law-abiding citizens, and those who would do harm with them don't care, because now those whom they would harm are disarmed.

Cite? No sources. Just my opinion. What's overall gun ownership in Newark like?

Google found this: http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-jersey/1141975-crazy-nj-gun-laws-these-laws.html It appears they have somewhat strict laws, which can tend to "scare" law-abiding citizens into now owning/carrying guns. This, however, has no effect on the criminals, and now they know their targets are not armed.

Now if guns were much easier to get, criminals would get more, definitely, and crime would probably spike, but as responsible citizens got armed as well, crime rates would probably settle down to lower than what they began at as criminals start getting shot back at.

All conjecture. I'd like to see someone with the resources study this more thoroughly and properly, but there is so much bias in gun control that it'd likely be done by gun nuts like the NRA (I'm a part of, I believe they are a necessary evil in our times, but they are hugely sensationalist) or anti-gun nuts like the Brady Campaign.

Guns are enablers. As authority (from whomever) increases due to increased weapons (guns), then our ability to say "no" decreases unless we similarly escalate. Some other countries don't have such problems, I think, because it is SO much more difficult to get guns into the country, so very few criminals are even able to get guns.

Nah, we're the land of the "I deserve that because."

Yea, just because. No reason, just because someone thinks they deserve that. We're the land of entitlement without earning anything.