'When you want to listen to Nas's Illmatic you don't think "I want to fire up Grooveshark so I can listen to Illmatic." You just think "I really want to listen to the one of the greatest rap albums of all time right now."'

Not me. I do think "Should I fire-up Subsonic and pre-load a bunch of music for later off-line use or stream now from Pandora?" Apps give not only content but specific functionality for their use-cases.

Maybe I'm showing my age - but I prefer my apps to provide specific functionality rather than these sort of "mashups" where we just put a bunch of crap in front of the user and hope they find what they were trying to do.

You may be using too restrictive of a meaning though. What if I phrased it this way:
Fox News is doing ISIS' work for them.

That would seem to make sense regardless of whether Fox News is getting any monetary reward right? And I can be said to be working "for somebody" without being paid by them if I labor on their behalf. And I could say that somebody I trick into doing my work is "working for me."

I don't even think this is an archaic usage. Seems pretty common to me.

Robots!

It's not even out yet for any of the Nexus devices. https://developers.google.com/...

*I* think it's funny that you believe being overly pedantic is going to help move the discussion forward. Nerds or not we should all know how to have a conversation without assuming things not in evidence. And still you persist with believing the OP thinks there is "no risk". Perhaps nerds don't know how to ask clarifying questions?

He didn't say "no risk" he *at best* implied "no risk." My reading of his comment was that he implied "low-risk" actually. That's why I say your over-the-top reaction to it was unnecessary since your confidence in what he meant should be low.

Except - Comcast has signed exclusivity deals with those towns and won't let you build or make it prohibitively expensive to build there.

Wow man - this is casual conversation. To take an "implies" and turn it into "a complete disregard for probability" is just way over the top in this context.

Where did the person you replied to say there was no risk?

So it's worth people dying in order to proclaim us to be a nation of "not-wimps?"

Missed the sarcasm I see?

All of which are *much* more efficient than "ctrl+c" + "ctrl+v". I'll be honest - I like the highlight + center-click thing for the most part. But there are a number of times where explicit copy/paste is much nicer. And I think at this point it's actually more efficient overall. ctrl+c is pretty damned easy to hit and removes the accidental copy issues one can run into. Also having *one* copy/paste buffer is *enormously* better than Linux's sorta-kinda-two. Yes, workarounds...

and occasionally less efficient - especially if you want to paste *over* something like a URL.

Select new URL, select old URL, paste, oh crap, delete old URL, got *back* and select new URL, paste.

Sounds like this app would be very helpful then.

Mod up!