horse-and-cart didn't stop working when the automobile came around. The proposal here is that we shoot all horses and burn all carts because somebody somewhere has started driving an automobile.
Didn't you read the article? Damn the worth! We're all unique snowflake rockstars and all our meals and coffee mugs are blessed by our specialness. Share all the pictures!! (insert crazy meme guy with a paintbrush) Join the photo revolution man.
It's a girl.
It's a brush.
It's from Hyperbole and a Half.[1]
It's the overly used image that bothers me most because that person needs the traffic and their image is pretty popular yet they never get accreditation for it.
Omg that is hilarious. Like a billion times more hilarious than a funny but mindless "it's hilarious because everyone is in on it" meme. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Ironically this is relevant to the discussion. Memes are kind of like Instagram (I imagine there are other similar phenomenons). They share the instant gratification of a trigger-like social connection between a huge mass of people, but lack all the fulfillment and self-discovery that REAL content can bring. But it's really not surprising that things like Instagram and memes thrive in the digial-social space. Most people will generally get a much higher response to a "MY CAT HAZ GLASSES!" fake polaroid, then to share something like "Hi all my friends, I read this insightful 5 page article on adulthood and I think you all might get something out of it too."
It sort of reflects a broader-scale problem with people just not having time (or not wanting to bother) with discussing things like sex, politics, art, religion, relationships... They'd rather just share some Ha-Has, small talk and get drunk. I think this is especially pronounced in North America and in large urban centers.
I guess it's a matter of intent: if I already know I'll want to share the pic I'm about to take I just fire up Instagram, otherwise I use the standard camera app.
On a related note: the Google+ Instant Upload feature does even 'better'. From the G+ website: "All photos and videos taken with your mobile device are uploaded to the From your phone album. These photos and videos are only visible to you unless you share them." That's even more frictionless sharing, but not in a way I like: it freaked me out when I inadvertently turned this on.
That actually sounds reasonable -- you can log-in, decide which photos you want to share and delete the rest. Unless you don't like it using bandwidth or don't like google itself having access to all your stuff.
No, you can in fact discard the picture you took. What OP is saying is that it's one button to share to as many different social networks (plus email) as you want. It sounds minor, but it really is much more convenient.
My guess (I don't use it either - I can't stand the stupid filters), is that if you fire up Instagram, instead of the regular camera app, you'd know that it's going to automatically share everything you take.
I used to be a Noscript user, but I just got sick and tired of clicking 2-3x as much as usual, just to get every page to load correctly. Normal process:
-Page loads, great
-Click on something but it doesn't respond
-Shit, probably JS
-Click NoScript, see a list of sites
=This is where is really gets good=
-Stare at the list of sites noscript is blocking on the page, arbitrarily unblock one that 'seems' like it would be hosting the code that runs the thing I'm trying to fix, based only on domain name
-Refresh the page, try clicking that thing again, if it doesn't work, repeat the process
I wasted many hours of my life on that process, and what did I gain from it? Security? Not really, since I would randomly enable sites to run JS. So I uninstalled it. Worst case scenario, I get a virus and have to reformat, and lose an hour or two. I don't have any important data on my hard drive.
So, Noscripters, are you guys just really concerned about security or is it a psychological thing - as in, it feels good to be able to be the boss of your browser and tell sites whether or not they can run JS?
Odds are I don't care enough about your site to Like, +1, or Tweet it.
Odds are I don't really intend to purchase a BMW, meet hot singles, or reserve a room at Days Inn based on a display ad.
If I care enough about your site to click on something and it doesn't work, I might allow scripts to run but I have to want to see what your site has. Each round of allowing scripts increases the odds I will navigate away. Clicking to allow javascript doesn't bother me because most of the web is a waste of time to begin with and Noscript makes me more selective.
Websites which rely on javascript essentially ask me, "Do you really want to look at this." Much of the time, the answer is no.
I run Pentadactyl with a Noscript integration addon, so enabling domains is extremely fast. Considering the slowness that JS often adds to a page - particularly on my slowish laptop - I'd say I still save time.
Then I get the benefits of security and not being tracked everywhere I go.
As a Pentadactyl (after Vimperator after Conkeror) and NoScript devotee, I just wanted to thank you for bringing the integration addon to my attention. I had no idea that was even an option. For anyone else wondering, it can be found here:
I don't find it that difficult to work out which items need unblocked, TBH. If I can't immediately tell, a brief dabble with the document inspector usually reveals it.
I ran it for a while mostly as an educational thing: I wanted this big subterranean mass of Stuff that goes on whenever I load a webpage to be more visible to me, and to understand what's happening. Why does this site load 10 files from 4 different domains? What are they doing? As an added bonus I could reduce third-party tracking's effectiveness by not loading their JS.
As a less-intrusive compromise, I use Ghostery now, which lets me zoom in on a lot of the common third-party JS without cluttering the view with "normal" stuff like jquery and friends, because they keep a curated list.
I'll start: given my credit card transaction log, thieves could show up at my apartment and steal my Amazon packages before one of my neighbors brings them inside.
Is it safer/healthier to run on grass than concrete? I like to run laps on a soccer field near my apartment rather than on city sidewalks so I don't have to deal with traffic. But I seem to be the exception in my neighborhood. I see tons of people running down the streets, but nobody running on grass. I assumed that a softer running surface would create less impact on my joints and prevent injury and reduce wear and tear on my body. But I could be wrong. Just curious.
Completely depends on how you run. The trend I see is that everyone thinks running on hard surfaces incurs more impact, but that isn't necessarily the case.
Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago.
Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass.
Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass.
"We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."
Probably depends on how you run. If you're a forefoot striker, running on asphalt is probably better than running on grass, because the vast majority of the impact will be absorbed by the calf/foot muscles. The danger from stepping in a hole or tripping over an object hidden in the grass probably outweighs the minimal increase in impact from running on concrete (not that either of these should actually be a significant danger).
On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.
05 GTI turbo when I bought it with 97k miles, all dealer maintained? $9k
Environmental reasons aside, buying used vehicles in good shape is an excellent way to judge reliability. The 5 year break in period not only provides a prospective used car buyer with a good idea of reliability, but it also allows you a great gap of time for TSB's and recalls to pop up, so you know exactly what you're getting.
