The drones are about as fast as a pizza...do you routinely order a pizza and then leave the house to return hours later and wonder why your pizza is cold? No, this is for when you order something and want it immediately (otherwise you would be ok with a normal package). You place your order, they pack it, and the drone flies it over. You walk outside, say "Hey Drone!", grab the box, and walk back inside. I don't see why you would bother using the drone to deliver if you aren't going to be home for the next 5 hours...
My apartment building started having a dog-shit problem (although my favorite, was the person who would pick up and bag their animal's shit, but would proceed to drop the baggie on the ground outside the entrance to the apartment...I think that is actually *worse* than just leaving it out in the grass). Management started posting notices that if the problem continued, they would just start saying "no dogs in the building". They pointed out that they would not be cancelling leases...which means that either you have to say goodbye to Fluffy, or you are on the hook for $$$$ in order to break your lease and find a new home on short notice. Kind of a hard-ass approach, but I haven't stepped in dog-shit since.
- Site A requires a symbol, but only accepts !?#$%.
- Site B requires a number, but god-forbid that number is at the beginning or end of your password.
- Site C won't accept any symbols, but needs upper/lower/number
- Site D has reasonable complexity requirements, but requires you to change the password every 30 days, despite being a service that you only access if something is wrong, and even then, never more than once a month (one of my student loan providers used to do this. I think I complained enough that they realized that password change requirements were stupid...especially on a website where the worst thing you could do would be pay my bill for me).
I like the algorithm method (and even if the algorithm would be obvious to a human with access to 3-4 passwords, it would save you from some bot getting one password and simply trying the same pair at every major service), but when you have sets of requirements like this, it is impossible to implement. A and C are mutually exclusive, B is annoying (and actually reduces brute force complexity) but avoidable, and D will break your whole algorithm the first time it changes (unless you add a counter, but then you have to remember what iteration you are on).
I keep a little list in a google doc of the rarely accessed but important sites that have weird password requirements (since it is rare they tell you the requirements on the login page)...then at least I know that I may have had to modify my algorithm because '^*()' aren't valid characters, or that the requirements were dumb enough that I just said "screw it" and used some old insecure password that has probably been unknowingly leaked 15 times while hoping for the best.
Obviously make it a voluntary option, but I would think they could squeeze out a lot of revenue just taking any unreferred link and turning it into a referral. I suppose Amazon might not love this, but it is not that different than what forum operators do when they add referrals to every outgoing amazon link.
Takes forever to start up, hangs a lot when changing screens, uses a ton of memory, sometimes can't regain audio focus (e.g. if I stop playback, watch a video with something like DTS that causes my receiver to switch modes, and then later try to play a song in spotify again), etc.
It's like a drug though. I know it is bad for posterity's sake since I no longer have a "collection" that can serve as a reference to what I was listening to in the past. They really should add something better than "starring" stuff...If you star an artist, you get every single song added to one giant list that is not easy to navigate; they should have an "add to personal library" type option that lets you grab whole albums or artists, but still leaves the starred section for truly great individual songs. But even though it's bad for future me, present me loves being able to play anything with a click and discover new things super easily (and be able to play whatever I want at work without trying to synchronize a large collection).
It was pretty powerful, and even without the features, I liked the fact that the active playlist was held completely separate from the library (as opposed to say...struggling with itunes). You could search your library at will without changing anything in the playlist. They were in separate windows and the paradigm was pretty clear--you play music in the playing window, you search for music in the library.
Then, the playlist had ITS OWN INTERNAL MINI PLAYLIST! You could queue up specific tracks to play next (using j or q keyboard shortcuts IIRC). This great, because you could have your playlist on shuffle, but still be able to specify what song you want to hear next, all while still keeping your playlist sorted by artist/album/whatever. Infinitely better than software where the solution to "shuffle" was to actually shuffle your current playlist which makes browsing more difficult.
I will miss Winamp, but I must confess, I use it far less these days. Spotify has changed the way I listen to music--I no longer acquire music permanently and listen to much of it at work (vs using winamp for many many years as a student). This may not be a good thing...right now I can browse through my music folder and go on a nostalgia trip, much like my parents can flip through their records and CDs...with spotify, I will have to actually remember what I was listening to 15 years ago instead of stumbling across it when I set winamp to "shuffle all". But, it means I have cut out winamp. At work, I use Spotify...and at home mostly listen to music on my HTPC through spotify or XBMC. Winamp only gets used when I am using my desktop for something that doesn't have its own sound (like gaming or editing videos)...which is pretty much only when I work from home.
I mean...I was doing it to call out the fact that he is an idiot, but the content itself was accurate and cited to the original stories. I think it is notable enough for inclusion--thousands of people read and commented on those stories and I wouldn't have any idea who Bennet Haselton is if not for those posts. His wikipedia page even includes a section for "Other Internet Activities".
Still got nuked from orbit almost immediately.
10 years ago, we didn't have tons people carrying around a book to read because they "get bored waiting at red lights"...and when you saw someone reading in the car, it was often notable as a "bad thing". Now it is rare that I pull up to a light (on a motorcycle so I am high up and can see what people are doing in their laps) and don't see some asshole who thinks checking up on his facebook or instagram newsfeed is more important than paying attention to his surroundings. It is a little more rare in slow moving traffic, but I still see it all the time.
At least I understand the pressure that comes with texts/work emails. Someone is communicating with you and you have a strong desire to read/respond, even if you know it is wrong. But checking fucking facebook while driving because you can't handle sitting in the car? I can't believe that there are people who are seriously arguing that this is OK.
I doubt you become the 5th employee without an equity grant...so my guess is that none of those people would be hurting for a job after a $3b sale.
They also let you set the timer on the photo, so you could give someone a nice generous 10 seconds, or you could say they get to see it for 2. Some phones require a second or so of holding the buttons to get a screenshot, so if the image is only there for 2 seconds, you had better be really fast.
You also have to know you are going to want to save the photo. If most of the photos you receive are innocuous, are you going to be ready to do the screenshot dance? You only get one chance and it is only around for a max of 10 seconds.
The only reliable option is an app that grabs the unviewed images and stores them. These work since snapchat downloads the image before showing it to you...giving you plenty of time to find the barely obfuscated file before viewing it in snapchat and having it get deleted.
I've never bothered though. For the most part, I like snapchat because it doesn't clog up everything else with dumb pictures. A group MMS will send as a message (not data), can have a large filesize attachment, can take some time to load, and will be stored in your phone forever unless you delete it. For stupid little throwaway "snaps", it is kind of nice that they just go away when you are done.
You get to a download page and there are ads that scream things like "DOWNLOAD NOW", "CLICK HERE TO INSTALL", etc.
Frequent/savvy users are able to figure this out, but when you tell your parents that they can get this free photo editor, they end up with the same damn crapware on their computer as they would have had if they just went ahead and tried to pirate photoshop. The same thing is true about Paint.Net's download page...on their page, I see two giant colorful "Download" buttons that are actually ads. The actual download link is a standard text link that says "Paint.NET v3.5.11" which takes you to another page that has another giant colorful "Download" button. On that page, the real download links look like fake links...the button says "Download Now DotPDN LLC" which doesn't sound at all like what you want.
Sourceforge isn't quite as bad...the ads aren't always there, and often they show up on the post download ad-page (the one that says "your download will start shortly" so there if you click them, you often end up with both the file you want *and* the crapware...leaving a 50/50 chance the user will get the right file.
I get why the pirate sites have these misleading ads (and it probably helps discourage people from software piracy since they try it, get some weird downloader and ad-toolbar instead of the software they were looking for, and then give up)...but when respectable free alternatives resort to the same shady ads? wtf?