In the case of a second monitor, you might have some windows applications that 'know' they go on the right screen. I've never seen a mechanism for Windows to properly recover from windows that want to be too far off the screen for the current resolution. (I'd appreciate any tips if anyone has them.)

Alt-Space, M, then hit an arrow key. For some reason hitting the arrow key attached the mouse pointer to the titlebar of the window, so you can use the mouse to move the window where you want it. Also, while most apps don't require it, hold down Alt while hitting space. Firefox specifically has this issue. Windows apps are supposed to allow users to hit Alt to shift focus to the menu bar, but not all of them work.

There's instructions on how to tie a necktie. I don't know how to tie a necktie. If I got a job at one of those banks I'd have to go dig up some instructions on-line... Or I could just use the nice document that HR provides during orientation. That'd actually be handy.

I don't know how one would get a job at a place like that without having worn a suit and tie to the interview. If they're telling people how to tie a necktie after the fact, isn't it too late?

I don't ask for stuff to be delivered to my doorstep here in the US, but I can't seem to convince UPS or the post office that such a thing isn't a great idea. Although, I'm usually less worried about it getting stolen then I am about it getting wet, since it inevitably rains whenever a package is due to be delivered.

The option of sending a blank Ccc: header to indicate that at least one Cc:'d recipient was actually a Ccc: inherently leaks information and MUST NOT be exercised if there is only one Cc:'d recipient in the rewritten message because in this case the information leak is total and would eliminate the aura of mystery produced by including such a header, as it is then perfectly clear that the Cc: was indeed actually a Ccc:, defeating the purpose of the allowing the header to be optionally included. As with address obfuscation, whether this is appropriate for a given message depends on how much information the sender is willing to have the recipents[SIC] know about which Cc:'d recipients never were actually sent the message.

I don't think this restriction on not including the empty Ccc: header when only one address is moved to the Cc: header entirely makes sense. For example, I might send a message to some friends, Ccc:'ing someone. I may not care if my friends know that I Ccc:'d that person, but I do want to make sure that if they forward the message on, their recipients think the Ccc:'d person was actually Cc:'d. Since there are times this is possible, I think this behavior should be recommended but optional.

Can't we at least expect our April Fools RFCs to be well thought out? Come on!

You can stream internet radio ... while running other apps

How? Seriously, I'd like to know... Pandora quitting while I check email or reply to an SMS that just came in is probably my biggest pet peeve about my iPhone.

"Severely limited fashion" is a bit of an exaggeration considering I haven't had my XBox360 hooked up to the internet in months, and it works perfectly fine. These people should have known that modding their boxes was going to lead to their being blocked from Live. The same thing happened to people that modded the original XBox.

Actually, I found out about a Smashing Pumpkins concert in my area right due to those targeted ads. I'm not sure I would have found out otherwise, so I was pretty happy about it. The quality of the targeting seems to have gone down of late, though. It seems like all I see any more are ads for Catholic singles, which is weird, because I never told facebook whether or not I'm Catholic.

Come on man, don't take away the only thing we've got going for us. Everyone knows we have to disparage Chicagoland lest they take over completely. (spoken as someone born and raised in the Quad Cities area... no longer living in the area though)

I just hope no one from the University of Illinois signed off on this... Prof. Kaler in the astronomy department was one of my favorite professors while I was at school there.

I don't know what to tell you. It worked fine when I was doing my taxes--displayed the same text (albeit formatted a bit differently) that Firefox did.

...there are no extended validation cues...

Actually (and I just checked), but Safari 3.2.1 (on Leopard, at least) displays the name of the extended validation cert owner next to the lock icon in the top right corner.

Sounds like a risky strategy to me. What if people actually stopped turning left on red?

Actually, they're pretty good about honoring DMCA takedown notices. I've filed a couple for photos my friends have uploaded without my permission (snagging them from my website and posting them on Facebook) and they've been taken down within 24 hours.