Not actually true, as Aero uses your graphics card to do the compositing, whereas the older desktop renderer was entirely CPU-based. Disabling Aero just means more work for your CPU.

What app do you use in the backcountry? I've honestly never found one that I've thought to be a satisfactory substitute for my Garmin.

That's the thing that drive me nuts about this.

If something is legitimately libelous or defamatory, pretty much every country has a mechanism to have said content removed at the source. Remove the false content, and the next time Google spiders the site, it's gone from Google too. All the "right to be forgotten" is, is a method to censor the truth.

That's actually a situation where you *wouldn't* use a smartphone at all.

Wilderness applications like backpacking, camping, climbing, hiking, or whatever, (Not just jogging in the park.) really call for a dedicated GPS unit. Smartphone GPS chipsets have severe limitations that limit their utility when they have no data connection. Specifically, they use aGPS (Assisted GPS) to "cheat" in order to get and maintain their fix quickly and with less power consumption. And they tend to be utterly terrible at getting a "pure" GPS fix. I've also never seen a app that's really full-featured enough to use outside civilization. There could be one I've missed, of course, but that still wouldn't correct the deficiencies of the hardware.

On the other hand, my second-from-their-lowest-end Garmin (Etrex 20) uses GPS, GLONASS, and WaaS with no data connection required to cheat the fix. It's rugged and waterproof to 2 meters. The software is specifically designed for real outdoors applications and not just driving directions. It's lightweight and designed to be both held and operated in a one hand... no mucking about with a touchscreen. There's a huge variety of maps, both free and paid, I can load on it either vis USB or MicroSD card. And it will run continuously for better than 24 hours on a pair of AAs.

(Also, if you're smart, you'll still bring a paper map and compass as a backup.)

In most cases, I get a full day out of my iPhone with GPS and Bluetooth on, email set to push, and all the other battery-hungry settings enabled. About the only time I adjust the settings is when I know I'm going to be out and about all day somewhere with very poor, or no, cell coverage. That, in my experience, is the worst energy-vampire of all for any phone; as they all ramp up their own transmission power to max in a desperate attempt to reach and maintain contact with a cell.

Occasionally though there are certain apps that, either through a bug or poor design, will drain excessive battery via location services. Annoyingly enough, a while back Facebook's app was especially battery-hungry in the background, and would be one to explicitly kill after exiting.

Free trial periods are fairly common and standard though; not just for internet services but in everything from telecoms to consumer products ("If you're not completely satisfied in 30-days return it for a full refund") to drug dealers. Some states even have a "cooling off period" where you are able to return a new car for a full refund within a certain period of time. So why is Taylor Swift, or anyone else, singling out Apple; besides the standard-issue irrational BS dating all the way back to "what kind of an idiot talks to a computer with a mouse?" (Or, as she herself put it: Haters gonna hate.)

Three months is longer than most, sure. But I suspect that the calculation is that those three months will convince more users to convert to paying customers than a normal 15 or 30 day trial would be. Though I notice that Spotify's $1 trial period is also three months. And Swift had her Spotify-hate thing going on a while back. So maybe she is not privy to those projections and really is just butt-hurt about the length of the trial.

Also, Apple can't unilaterally do a free trial of any length. They need the permission and support of the rights holders, be they major labels or minor. Not that that bunch is in any way virtuous themselves. But again, free trial periods are fairly common across the board. And why would they make this one three months unless the business types HAVE predicted that it would result in more paying post-trial customers than a shorter one?

For the life of me, I don't see why this is suddenly a controversy. So far as I can recall, Facebook has had the "real names" policy the entire time they've been around; all the way back to when they were "The Facebook" and were exclusive to college students. And they've never hidden the policy. In fact, they used to advertise it as a feature to distinguish themselves from the cesspool of fake accounts and trolling that MySpace had degenerated into. The people whining about it now remind me of those people who move into houses next to airports and then complain that the airplanes make noise.

And as far as the drag queens' complaints, Facebook does in fact 0provide mechanisms, separate from individual pages, for promoting your stage name, band, business, or whatever else you consider your brand. So that is also a stupid non-issue.

The article is roasting Apple for a lot of things no one but the music industry really cares about, with the exception of getting big acts like Adele and Taylor Swift signed on. But really, whether they do or not, the buying public doesn't really care that much. It is a tempest in a teapot.

I was actually kind of surprised at the "most popular artist of the last decade" part about Taylor Swift. I knew she was doing indie rock or folk or something back before she went mainstream with 1989. (And yeah, I have to admit that Shake It Off is catchy and well-produced. Just a few seconds of it gets it stuck in my head for quite a while.) But I had no idea that folk or indie draws that large of a following these days. I guess Beyonce really did have something to be jealous of when she sent in her idiot brigade to assault Swift for winning that award that she coveted for herself.

Fair point about the Biebers, Brittneys, Iggys, Kanyes, and Taylors of music these days.

But just to be a bit pedantic... You can't really properly call Nine Inch Nails a band. NiN is basically just Trent Reznor in his studio producing. When he feels like making a bit of extra cash touring he hires whatever guitarists and keyboardists are available, has them learn his songs, dresses them in black for a a few months, and still uses a drum machine to keep the beat.

You're forgetting the countless incredible pieces of music which is instrumental/synthesized only.

... which are sold to the DJs who perform it, at exorbitant prices, on Beatport, or sometimes even on vinyl still. (If they're smart, those same DJs are writing those purchases off as a business expense anyway. So don't weep for the DJs' wallets.) Hell... sometimes said producers themselves do go on tour. Above & Beyond played two sold-out nights in a row at the Bill Graham auditorium here in San Francisco, for example. And Deadmaus and BT are pretty active touring producers, even though they're best known for what they do in the studio.

So, I know Walmart are a bunch of evil bastards. And I'll do a little happy dance the day the whole bloody lot of them are put out onto the street to starve in the gutter.

But what's wrong with Denny's? Aside from the low-quality and overpriced (Ever since they got rid of the $1.99 "are you out of your mind?" grand slam.) food that would make me ill in any situation other than "I've already been up half the night and put my body through worse things than what I'm eating right now.", that is. It's certainly not fine, or even fair, dining by any stretch of the imagination. But what puts them on the level of Walmart?

> As an example, we recently had a password issue
> where users were required to change passwords
> every 90 days. It was a dumb idea, and I'm not
> entirely sure why I agreed to it in the first place,

In some cases, you don't have a choice. Work somewhere that takes credit card payments? Section 8.5.9 mandates that all users must be made to change their passwords every 90 days. And I'm pretty sure that HIPAA and the rest of the big standards have similar requirements. Yeah, it's a dumb policy that results in users creating dumb passwords. And yeah, it's annoying to have to enforce it, especially when users forget the dumb passwords they knocked up and complain. But, unless Visa, MasterCard, and such can someday be persuaded otherwise; anyone who wants to take payments has to do it.

If banner ads were still static, or even animated, gif images, I wouldn't block them. But many "regular banner ads" these days come with some pretty obnoxious javascript, stupid HTML5 tricks, and sometimes even flash (still). That sort of resource-hogging, battery-draining, vulnerability-inducing, malware-spreading nastiness needs to die, whether it's in a pop up/under, an interstitial, or "just" a banner.

So yah, I block them and don't blame anyone else for doing so. I do whitelist some sites I want to support though. But any shenanigans, and back into the blackhole they go.

Heh... if your resume includes drunken sword fights you're either doing life really, really right or really, really wrong.

More to the point, as much of a badass as we know he was during WW2, we don't even know how much of a badass he really was because so much of what he did in the war is still classified.