How dare the guys at Dropbox try to use a soccer field they reserved

Employees from Dropbox, a San Fransisco based company that provides a popular file hosting service, reserved a soccer field in a local city park. They paid $27 for an hour of soccer time.

When they showed up to play soccer during their allotted time, they found the field already in use by neighborhood youths in a pick-up soccer game. The guys from Dropbox tried to get the pick-up players to leave the field.

One of the youths videoed part of the exchange with the Dropbox guys:


My favorite part of the video is when one of the men refusing to leave the field asks one of the Dropbox guys, in broken English, to see his papers.

How ironic.

The problem is that the neighborhood youths didn’t recognize the concept of reserving the field, even though there’s a sign posted at the park that clearly states permit holders have priority over non-permit holders:

paytoplay

The guys from Dropbox are being crucified online. They’re been portrayed as entitled, gentrifying douchebags. I really don’t understand how they’re the bad guys. The people refusing to leave the field are the ones who acted entitled. They believed they had a right to something even though they hadn’t paid anything for it, while the people who paid for it, were being denied access.

Like it our not, we live in a world were things cost money. If I was Conor, the guy who paid the city of San Fransisco $27 for the permit, I’d be calling my credit card company and filing a chargeback. It seems to me that a link to the video is all the documentation he would need.

Who knew storing nude photos on the Internet was a bad idea?

13952973887726

I think what surprise me the most about the recent Apple iCloud naked celebrity photo scandal is that it’s 2014 and people, celebrities in their 20’s, thought the Internet was a save place to secure their private nude photos. Since when was the Internet a safe place to store anything?

Edward Snowden, the American hero who leaked highly classified information about NSA monitoring capabilities, currently hiding in Russia, told the world that nothing you do online or with a cellphone is private. He said the government had access to anything. If you believed Snowden, why would you think anything was private on the Internet?

If you own an iPhone, by default, it sends any photo you take to the cloud, specifically, the iCloud. The reason? In case you lose your iPhone or it becomes damaged, all your photos will be backed up and obtainable. I like it because I can take a picture with my iPhone and then immediately have access to the photo on my desktop or laptop. You can always turn this feature off, if you want to.

Did any of these naked celebrity victims know that they cold turn this feature off? I’m guessing not.

Having worked for years in the photo finishing industry, I know for a fact that a lot of people like taking naked pictures of themselves. When I got out of the Air Force in 1994, I was hired by Wal-Mart Photo to work as a repair technician in a new, gigantic photo lab they were building here in Maryland. If you dropped off film at a Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club for two-day processing anywhere in the Mid Atlantic or North-East region, it would be sent to us, processed, and then sent back. Most of the process was completely automated and normally the images were not seen by human eyeballs. As a repair technician working on the high-speed, automated photo finishing equipment, that norm didn’t apply to me. I would see a lot of the photos being processed. There were a lot of nude pics, much more than you would think coming from people who shop at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club.

Whatever you think the percentage is of people taking nude pictures of themselves is, double it and then double it again.

The takeaway from all this is that if you’re a celebrity who enjoys taking nude pictures of yourself, make sure the technology you’re using to capture your nakedness doesn’t automatically store the photos on the World Wide Internet Web, protected with the same simple, stupid password you probably use for everything else online. Depending on your level of celebrity, you may have someone working for you who is in charge of your security and technology. If so, they should have ensured this didn’t happen. If, however, your level of celebrity is at best, waning, you can just go on Twitter and blame the technology you never bothered to learn about:


If Kirsten Dunst is smart enough to know how to put a pizza icon with a poop icon in a Twitter post, creating the phrase piece of shit, how did she not know that photos taken with her iPhone, even “private” naked pictures, would automatically backup to the iCloud?

Why does it take just as many Blu-ray discs as DVD discs to hold the same content?

Why does it take just as many Blu-ray discs as DVD discs to hold the same content? - Bent CornerCosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the Neil Degrasse Tyson reboot of the 1980 Carl Sagan PBS television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, comes out on video today. I’ve been looking forward to owning this. Currently, there are two versions: a 4-disc DVD set and a more expensive 4-disc Blu-ray set.

Why do both versions need four discs?

A dual-layer commercial DVD can hold up to 8.7 gigabytes of content. A dual-layer commercial Blu-ray can hold up to 50 gigabytes of content. The Blu-ray version of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey contains 572 minutes of content. The DVD version of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey contains 572 minutes of content. Why then does it take the same amount of Blu-ray discs as DVD discs to hold the same content? One Blu-ray disc can easily hold 572 minutes of content, yet 20th Century Fox, the producers of the documentary, use just as many high-content Blue-rays as they do DVD discs.

I’d be lying if I said I could notice any difference between a Blu-ray and a DVD, especially when the DVD is played on a player that upscales to 1080p. The only real noticeable difference between the two is that it takes close to three minutes for a Blu-ray disc to load up. DVD discs load much faster. The problem of excessive load times could be negated if publishers didn’t use four Blu-ray discs when a single Blu-ray disc could have easily contained the same content.

There are reasons I sometimes think Blu-ray is a rip-off.

How to read Herald-Mail.com for free

herald-mail-freeMy local newspaper’s website, the Herald-Mail.com, like too many newspaper websites, tries to charge visitors to read content, even obituaries. This is on top of all the annoying, gratuitous advertising plastered everywhere. Each month, you’re allowed so many free views, but after that number has been reached, you’re required to pay anywhere from 99 cents for a single day to $65.89 for a full year if you still want to read.

You can pay this if you want to, but you can also easily and legally continue to read Herald-Mail.com for free. All you have to do is put your browser in private mode. Among other things, it stops Herald-Mail.com from placing cookies, small data files on your computer that allows them to track your previous activity. If you stop Herald-Mail.com from placing a cookie on your computer, they can’t count how many articles you’ve looked at. At least the way they’re currently doing it.

This method also works for other newspaper websites, not just Herald-Mail.com.

Every browser has a different method for enacting private mode:

  • Microsoft Internet Explorer: Ctrl+Shift+P or go to Preferences > safety > InPrivate Browsing.
  • Mozilla Firefox: Click on the firefox-private button and select New Private Menu.
  • Google Chrome: Ctrl+Shift+N or click on the firefox-private button and select New incognito window.

If you use Google Chrome, there’s Incognito-Filter, a nifty extension that automatically puts Chrome into private or incognito mode when you go to a site you’ve previously listed. It’s very easy to use and it’s free.

This method also works for other newspaper websites, not just Herald-Mail.com.

GoDaddy removes email support, customers must now call

women-workplace

If you’re a customer of GoDaddy and you want to submit a ticket or send an email to get support, you’re out of luck. Instead of submitting a trouble ticket or sending an email, you’ll need to call their 24/7 support desk and talk to a real-live person on the phone.

As someone who has been making their living for the past five or so years providing tech support, I couldn’t agree more with GoDaddy’s decision to do away with email.

It’s easier and much more efficient to provide tech support over the phone then it is over email. When you are speaking to someone on the phone, it’s much simpler to get to the meat of the problem when you’re actually speaking to a person. You can immediately ask for clarification or ask probing questions. You can do that with email, but you have to wait for a response. Sometimes you wait hours. Sometimes you wait days. Sometimes it takes weeks to get a response from a customer. The whole time you’re waiting, the trouble ticket you created for their issue remains open and unresolved.

I hate open tickets, especially when my name is on them.

In theory, email support is great. When customers have a question, they can send an email and pose their question. The tech support person then reads said email and responds with the correct answer. In real life, that’s not the way it usually works. In my experience, one question answered leads to more questions. When this happens on the phone, it’s no problem. When it happens over email, it creates an inefficient back and forth that ends up taking much longer for both the customer and the tech support agent than if the issue had just been handled over the phone.

GoDaddy is doing the smart thing, for both them and their customers.

Contact GoDaddy Customer Support