dogslayeggs

As much as I hate using cash, I understand that the credit card companies charge ridiculous fees to businesses and also that people with very low income don't always have access to digital forms of payment. Maybe Sweden does better with equipping their entire society with digital tools, but in the US I don't think we are ready for a fully digital payment society.

My memory is hazy, but I'm pretty sure Mozilla was a package and most people just didn't install the rest of the package. Everyone called the browser Mozilla because they didn't use the other parts. I could definitely be wrong, though.

Trillian was definitely part of that war. I remember the daily patches to get things working again.

Trillian was not Mac only. I've never owned a Mac and used Trillian almost exclusively from 2002 until roughly 2009?? I can't remember when the transition from IM to texting happened for me, but it was around then. When I was running Linux at home I would use Gaim, which was developed by a friend of the main Trillian guy.

The environmental impact of rocket launches is not good. I launch rockets for a living, including out of Vandenberg, so I'm personally invested in the ability to launch from the West Coast. It's one thing to launch national security missions once every two months and take the hit to the environment for that, but it's another thing to launch once a week every week to put up some disposable internet satellites so a billionaire can make more billions.

It's only political if you think preserving the environment is political. But CA has been long-known to care about preserving the environment, so if the Coastal Commission has been able to make rulings based on environmental impact in the past then I don't know how this lawsuit will work out. If they had asked for something reasonable like going from 6 to 12 launches, I think the commission might have been more amenable or at least open to negotiating to something like 8 or 10 launches. 50 launches is ridiculous, though.

I read some sysadmin forums about Conversation View, and most of them say users regularly ask how to turn it off. I always turn it off immediately.

I'm regretting not doing that 20 years ago.

When I left college, my university closed my email account. That sucked, but I moved on. Then the paid service I used closed down, so I had to change again. That sucked. I lost access to my Xbox Live account because they send all my "update password" emails to that old address and won't update to my new address without confirming the change on an email that no longer exists.

Now I've had the same email address for 17 years and really really don't want to move on, even though I hate that it is with Google. They went from "don't be evil" to "be as evil as possible."

Google glass failed for many reasons, but I don't think privacy was one of them. Price and usefulness were the two big reasons. Tech has advanced a lot in 10 years, so the usefulness and video quality has definitely advanced; but the ratio of price to usefulness is probably not right yet.

Can't stab me outside Pizzahut if there are no Pizzahuts around! taps head

There's a huge difference between what a site like Reddit is used for and how Twitter is often used for. Reddit is all about discussion, so blocking discussion is bad (as you pointed out). Twitter is used a little for discussion (their character limit doesn't really allow much discussion), but it's mostly used for informing the world about whatever you are doing or care about. Famous people and companies use it for advertising, and normal people use it for letting people know what's going on in their world. Stalkers can use this information to figure out where people are in the world. Being able to COMPLETELY block a stalker is a good thing. Now people with stalkers will once again be afraid to openly say what they are doing in the world.

Yes, but there is no technical justification for Spotify to not have real-time, remote access to a database, even if the database is constantly changing. We have had the technology to do that for 25 years. If Spotify is not properly handling the contracts to legally stream content, then some of the fault lays with them. Spotify is basically claiming their defense is ignorance. They can't be held liable because they didn't know what they could and couldn't stream. How is that a legal justification for breaking the law? And Kobalt's reasons for not letting Spotify know is also dumb.