Just to build on what you said, two other factors contributed to 9/11 more than "private security contractors let box cutters on board."
First of all, pre-911 a hijacking meant you sat down and stayed quiet. The plane flew to Cuba, the hijackers put on a grand show, and then everyone was released unharmed. It was highly inconvenient but as long as you didn't draw undue attention to yourself you were fine. So when the 911 hijackers took over the plane, the passengers understandably figured this was what was going to happen. Obviously, it didn't and when the Flight 93 passengers heard what was going on, they fought back. It might not have saved the plane, but they stood a better chance fighting back than sitting passively. Passengers all know to fight back now and indeed have prevented other attempted hijackings by doing so.
Secondly, the cabin doors pre-911 weren't sealed. Pretty much anyone could burst in and take over. Post-911, the cabin doors are sealed so this can't happen.
If we were to revert to pre-911 security (private contractors allowing everything that was allowed on September 10th, 2001) but kept the passenger awareness and the locked cabin doors, we would have all the security we need to prevent another 911. The TSA adds about as much protection as a Magic Terrorist Repelling Rock would.
At this point, all the terrorists need to do is leak "plans" to do something. Then just sit back and watch the politicians and security agencies scramble to prevent the attack. They could let it be known that they've come up with exploding fruit to take down airplanes and the TSA would confiscate all fruit passengers tried bringing aboard. Thanks to the politicians and the TSA, the terrorists' "cost to instill terror" has dropped to nearly zero.
Microsoft said: "With the free Windows 10 upgrade offer ending on 29 July, we want to help people upgrade to the best version of Windows."
Of course, they didn't mean the best version of Windows for customers. (That would likely be either Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 with a third party tool to restore the start menu/desktop.) They meant the best version of Windows for tracking their users' every move. Using that metric, Windows 10 is the best!
I also like the idea someone suggested, of making patent applications free... if it gets accepted. But if it is rejected, you pay.
This is an interesting idea. One of the big issues with the patent system today is that the patent office approves too many patents figuring that the courts will sort it out. The courts, in turn, assume that the patent office did their job and that an approved patent should be taken as valid unless proven otherwise. This would actually give the patent office a financial incentive to reject patents which might counteract the laziness incentive to just rubber-stamp them.
Photosynthesis only removes carbon from the atmosphere for a short period of time. The plants eventually die and decay. When they do, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. The problem is that all of this carbon was locked out of the usual carbon cycle by being buried deep underground (in the form of coal or oil). We're pulling it out of the ground, burning it, and putting it back into the normal carbon cycle. The only way to restore the carbon cycle to the normal (pre-industrial age) amounts of carbon would be to bury it again - an endeavor that would either be highly expensive (use some sort of atmospheric scrubber to remove the carbon and then pump it deep into the Earth) or would take millions of years (wait for the same process that formed the oil in the first place).
82% unemployment rate? Only 41 million Americans employed? What stats are you looking at? According to the ones I'm looking at, there was an unemployment rate of 5% in April 2016 (Source). Stretching those stats as far back and they'll go, the highest the unemployment rate hit was 10.8% (around 1983). Another page from the same website shows 151 million people employed (Source). The lowest number of employed people since 1950 was still over 57 million.
So just how are you assuming that only 41 million Americans have jobs and 300 million Americans are on welfare? (Note that you can't count children as "unemployed Americans on welfare" since they aren't part of the job force.) Or are you assuming that anyone who isn't working in a farm job must be somehow "unemployed"?
This law isn't being abused. It's working exactly as intended. What? You thought that the intent of the law wasn't to protect business' interests over the interests of the people?
The problem here is that the attorney's fees and court costs associated with due process are often cost-prohibitive.
Not only the fees, but the time involved. Businesses (especially large ones) will often have attorneys on hand so for them the cost is little to none to handle legal proceedings against a customer who "dared" to post a negative review - even if the company's lawsuit is completely without merit. The customer, on the other hand, not only has to pay a lawyer (hoping to recoup this cost if they win the lawsuit) and various court costs, but they need to spend time dealing with the lawsuit. This might mean time off of work and possibly docked paychecks (if they ran out of vacation days). The companies know this and could just file meaningless motion after meaningless motion to drag out the court case until the customer gives in to the business' demands in order to make the lawsuit go away. (See: The RIAA/MPAA Strategy.)
Obviously you don't understand business. See, providing excellent customer service is very expensive. That eats into profits and other vital business expenses like executive pay raises. However, businesses usually have lawyers on hand no matter what so the cost to fire off a threatening legal letter - or to sue the person into silence - is rather cheap. It's just basic Business 101.
(I'd say "this post was all sarcasm" but too many business owners would say this and be completely sincere about it.)
Exactly. Had Snowden stayed and tried to "work through the system," nobody would have ever heard of him or of the revelations he brought to light. He would have been hushed up and then arrested on some trumped up charges. This would not only scare off other whistle blowers, but would seed doubt in the minds of anyone who actually did hear what he had to say.
Snowden gave up his life in America along with any chance to see his family and friends ever again. (He shouldn't believe any claims of getting a "fair trial.") He risked being captured and imprisoned for life. All so he could tell the world about the NSA's illegal spying program. He's a hero in my book.
Since the MPAA/RIAA seems fond of "Three Strikes" type rules, how about we implement this for auto-DMCA filing. You use software that files an incorrect DMCA notice? You get one strike and a warning to fix the software. Another incorrect DMCA notice is sent? A sterner warning and strike two. Third warning? Penalties are inflicted (e.g. lawyer fees for the targeted party + the amount that the targeted party would have been on the hook for had they been guilty of copyright infringement - call it a Karma fee) and an X month ban on submitting DMCA notices.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath on this being enacted anytime soon. Any attempt to bring sanity to the DMCA would attract a swarm of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists.
What France is doing is no different. They expect Google to obey French law for information they serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France.
I have three problems with this statement.
First of all, Google is complying with the French version of Google (Google.fr) but not the main Google.com. Google.fr serves up automatically if someone from France tries to load Google. So if someone from France goes to the Google.com website, they are purposefully going around the system - possibly in an effort to get the blocked content.
Secondly, complying with this law - the way France wants Google to comply - would mean removing/blocking this content for EVERYONE due to a law in one country. This would mean that I (in the USA) wouldn't be able to find content simply because France said no to is. How far does this extend? Can Saudi Arabia demand that Google censor search results worldwide to comply with their laws? What if two countries have conflicting laws? Is Google compelled to observe the conflicting laws at the same time?
Finally, this can be extended beyond Google. I run a few websites. Suppose I post something that is perfectly fine in the US but that someone in France decides is against their law. Right now, there's no problem. My websites only need to comply with the laws of the country I live and operate in. However, if we insist that I must "obey French law for information [I] serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France", then suddenly French law applies to me merely because someone from France loaded up my website. Adding Point #2 into this, it means that I might be forced to comply with the laws of ANY nation that decided their laws extend beyond their borders because websites can be loaded via the Internet onto computers in their country.
IANAL, but in my understanding downloading *is* a copyright violation - it's just nearly impossible to prosecute. You'd have to sue individuals for one download at a time instead of suing one person for sharing a thousand files. Even if you somehow got the evidence, it becomes much harder to threaten the person into settling if they are facing a few thousand dollar fine versus a few million dollar fine. About the only time you'd actually be sued for "downloading" would be if your Bittorrent client automatically shared out what you were downloading - and thus you actually got nabbed for uploading.
All this being said, the media often switches the terms and will proclaim "pirate sued for downloading a thousand films" when what they really mean is "pirate sued for UPLOADING/SHARING a thousand films."
I know you're trolling, but I have a feeling that we could cut every cent the government pays for astrobiology and still not fund a wall separating us from Mexico. In fact, we could probably cut NASA entirely ($19.6 billion budget for 2016) and that wouldn't be enough for a wall between the US and Mexico. Besides, why cut NASA's budget to build the wall? I thought Trump was going to magically convince Mexico to do it with Jedi mind tricks or something.
Do you really think everyone who is religious would just declare "Well, there's life on another planet, I guess God doesn't exist"? Of course not. They'll just say that God created that life also but the Bible was detailing the creation of life on Earth. The discovery of alien life won't mean much for them.
For scientists, though, the discovery of alien life would be an enormous discovery. We already know a lot about evolution, biology, etc, but all of our data points come from one source. This would be an entirely different source to examine. Would life on Europa have cell structures like ours or totally different? Would they have DNA or another information storing mechanism? Would they have eyes similar to ours, completely different, or no eyes at all? (Life in Europa's waters might be dark and so no eyes might be needed - or perhaps their eyes evolved to "see" certain forms of radiation.) The scientific advances from even the simplest life forms would be amazing.
For everyone else, the benefits would come down the road. With a greater understanding of biology and evolution, we might be able to design better treatments for diseases or fix genetic-based ailments.
Plus, there's the "coolness" factor of discovering that we're not alone in the Universe.
My Droid Turbo came with Motorola's own "voice assistant" feature. Like you, I was excited to try it out. You could even set custom activation phrasing so you could use a term you wouldn't use unless you wanted the phone to answer. I set it to "Droid Activate." All I needed to do was say "Droid Activate, find x", it would run a search for X, and beep with the answer. (It's definitely not as full featured as Siri, Cortana, or Google's assistant.) The problem was that the system seemed oversensitive to what constituted my activation phrase. I'd be having a normal conversation when my phone would beep to let me know that it helpfully Googled part of what I said. I believe, at one point, it activated based on phrase "she's got no pants" which led my kids to repeatedly shout "she's got no pants" in an effort to make it activate again.
That feature was quickly turned off. If I want to do something, I'll do it manually. It's not like it's hard to run a Google search or set an alarm.
Part of this problem is that some people react differently in online communication versus face-to-face. This can smooth out conversations as you cut through the non-verbal communication and go right to the "verbal" (well, written) communication. Unfortunately, it can also lead to people not thinking of the poster they are replying to as an actual human being. Their reactions don't get moderated like they might if a person was right in front of them and "I disagree because of these reasons..." becomes "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!!!"
Unfortunately, another part of this problem is that some portions of society seem to be more accepting of the "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!" response and less accepting of the "I disagree because of these reasons..." response.
I think the big problem is that some people see "online interactions" as being equivalent to "sitting with a friend in a private room and talking" when it's more analogous to "sitting in a crowded restaurant and talking." You might still talk about private things in the crowded restaurant, but you shouldn't act too surprised if the person sitting at the table next to you overhears your conversation. This is especially true if your online interaction is a Facebook post - even if you think you locked it down so that only some people can see it. All it takes is one person to send it on to someone else. You can use direct messages to communicate privately, but again these can be forwarded to a third party easily. Meanwhile, talking to a person face-to-face in a private location can result in hearsay ("So-and-so said you're a horrible co-worker and he hates you") but it's easily dismissed as gossip even if it's the truth.
On the bright side, it will be a great help to those of us who have difficulty remembering people's faces.
Now: Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?" Me: "Fine... um... you. How are you?"
Soon: Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?" FindFace On Google Glass: "This is John Smith. He works for XYZ Corp and last e-mailed you about the Sprockets project." Me: "Fine, John. How's that Sprockets project going?"
People who need to maintain their "reputation" will need to be even more self-censoring than they were before. This will create a world(and it is already going this way) where anything you say, or do, any way you react to something, body language, facial expression, what videos you watch, books you read, music you listen to, things you post, etc will be recorded, analyzed and codified.
Or people will learn to self-moderate their online interactions the same way they self-moderate public face-to-face interactions. When I post something online, I think "Would I say this to a room filled with my wife, parents, friends, relatives, boss, co-workers, and (depending on the topic) my children?" If the answer is "No", I don't post it. If the answer is "yes", I go ahead and post it. Too many people will post a ten paragraph screed against their coworkers on Facebook and then act surprised when their boss finds it.
We usually go to BJ's to get giant bags of toilet paper (as well as paper towels and other bulk supplies), but sometimes we can't get out there (for various reasons) and we find that we're running low. We could go to a closer grocery store and buy a small package to tide us over (paying more per roll in the process) or we could buy from Amazon and have it shipped right to our door in two days. Amazon isn't our only option and might not be the one we use all the time, but it's definitely a good option to have available and one we take advantage of from time to time.
I was searching for the right word and infuriating was the first one that came to mind. Annoying seems a better fit, though. Twitter is mostly a text-based medium - with photos sprinkled in. To give replies as "text within images" defeats much of the purpose of the system.
I have observed a tendency in all business, after having a huge success with something, to try to change it, and change again, till they kill it. I suppose it's a consequence of the human inability for just doing nothing, and letting things be.
Of course, on the flip side, you can also fail by not changing with the times. For example, Blackberry. They were the top of the smartphone heap at one point. The landscape began changing and they insisted that they didn't need to change because they were Blackberry. By the time they realized they needed to change, they were a distant 4th place behind Apple, Android, and Windows Phones.
If they had made some tweaks while they were at the top of the pack, they might have kept the iPhone from taking off. Unfortunately, you never know how much change is needed and how much is too much until after the fact. (And even then it can be murky.)
Alton Brown does that. I loved his Good Eats show and how he brought geekiness to cooking, but seeing answers to questions as photos of sticky notes applied to his computer is just infuriating. It might have been quirky at first, but it means it's impossible to include his tweets in a search.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to build on what you said, two other factors contributed to 9/11 more than "private security contractors let box cutters on board."
First of all, pre-911 a hijacking meant you sat down and stayed quiet. The plane flew to Cuba, the hijackers put on a grand show, and then everyone was released unharmed. It was highly inconvenient but as long as you didn't draw undue attention to yourself you were fine. So when the 911 hijackers took over the plane, the passengers understandably figured this was what was going to happen. Obviously, it didn't and when the Flight 93 passengers heard what was going on, they fought back. It might not have saved the plane, but they stood a better chance fighting back than sitting passively. Passengers all know to fight back now and indeed have prevented other attempted hijackings by doing so.
Secondly, the cabin doors pre-911 weren't sealed. Pretty much anyone could burst in and take over. Post-911, the cabin doors are sealed so this can't happen.
If we were to revert to pre-911 security (private contractors allowing everything that was allowed on September 10th, 2001) but kept the passenger awareness and the locked cabin doors, we would have all the security we need to prevent another 911. The TSA adds about as much protection as a Magic Terrorist Repelling Rock would.
At this point, all the terrorists need to do is leak "plans" to do something. Then just sit back and watch the politicians and security agencies scramble to prevent the attack. They could let it be known that they've come up with exploding fruit to take down airplanes and the TSA would confiscate all fruit passengers tried bringing aboard. Thanks to the politicians and the TSA, the terrorists' "cost to instill terror" has dropped to nearly zero.
Of course, they didn't mean the best version of Windows for customers. (That would likely be either Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 with a third party tool to restore the start menu/desktop.) They meant the best version of Windows for tracking their users' every move. Using that metric, Windows 10 is the best!
This is an interesting idea. One of the big issues with the patent system today is that the patent office approves too many patents figuring that the courts will sort it out. The courts, in turn, assume that the patent office did their job and that an approved patent should be taken as valid unless proven otherwise. This would actually give the patent office a financial incentive to reject patents which might counteract the laziness incentive to just rubber-stamp them.
Photosynthesis only removes carbon from the atmosphere for a short period of time. The plants eventually die and decay. When they do, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. The problem is that all of this carbon was locked out of the usual carbon cycle by being buried deep underground (in the form of coal or oil). We're pulling it out of the ground, burning it, and putting it back into the normal carbon cycle. The only way to restore the carbon cycle to the normal (pre-industrial age) amounts of carbon would be to bury it again - an endeavor that would either be highly expensive (use some sort of atmospheric scrubber to remove the carbon and then pump it deep into the Earth) or would take millions of years (wait for the same process that formed the oil in the first place).
82% unemployment rate? Only 41 million Americans employed? What stats are you looking at? According to the ones I'm looking at, there was an unemployment rate of 5% in April 2016 (Source). Stretching those stats as far back and they'll go, the highest the unemployment rate hit was 10.8% (around 1983). Another page from the same website shows 151 million people employed (Source). The lowest number of employed people since 1950 was still over 57 million.
So just how are you assuming that only 41 million Americans have jobs and 300 million Americans are on welfare? (Note that you can't count children as "unemployed Americans on welfare" since they aren't part of the job force.) Or are you assuming that anyone who isn't working in a farm job must be somehow "unemployed"?
This law isn't being abused. It's working exactly as intended. What? You thought that the intent of the law wasn't to protect business' interests over the interests of the people?
Not only the fees, but the time involved. Businesses (especially large ones) will often have attorneys on hand so for them the cost is little to none to handle legal proceedings against a customer who "dared" to post a negative review - even if the company's lawsuit is completely without merit. The customer, on the other hand, not only has to pay a lawyer (hoping to recoup this cost if they win the lawsuit) and various court costs, but they need to spend time dealing with the lawsuit. This might mean time off of work and possibly docked paychecks (if they ran out of vacation days). The companies know this and could just file meaningless motion after meaningless motion to drag out the court case until the customer gives in to the business' demands in order to make the lawsuit go away. (See: The RIAA/MPAA Strategy.)
Obviously you don't understand business. See, providing excellent customer service is very expensive. That eats into profits and other vital business expenses like executive pay raises. However, businesses usually have lawyers on hand no matter what so the cost to fire off a threatening legal letter - or to sue the person into silence - is rather cheap. It's just basic Business 101.
(I'd say "this post was all sarcasm" but too many business owners would say this and be completely sincere about it.)
Exactly. Had Snowden stayed and tried to "work through the system," nobody would have ever heard of him or of the revelations he brought to light. He would have been hushed up and then arrested on some trumped up charges. This would not only scare off other whistle blowers, but would seed doubt in the minds of anyone who actually did hear what he had to say.
Snowden gave up his life in America along with any chance to see his family and friends ever again. (He shouldn't believe any claims of getting a "fair trial.") He risked being captured and imprisoned for life. All so he could tell the world about the NSA's illegal spying program. He's a hero in my book.
Since the MPAA/RIAA seems fond of "Three Strikes" type rules, how about we implement this for auto-DMCA filing. You use software that files an incorrect DMCA notice? You get one strike and a warning to fix the software. Another incorrect DMCA notice is sent? A sterner warning and strike two. Third warning? Penalties are inflicted (e.g. lawyer fees for the targeted party + the amount that the targeted party would have been on the hook for had they been guilty of copyright infringement - call it a Karma fee) and an X month ban on submitting DMCA notices.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath on this being enacted anytime soon. Any attempt to bring sanity to the DMCA would attract a swarm of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists.
I have three problems with this statement.
First of all, Google is complying with the French version of Google (Google.fr) but not the main Google.com. Google.fr serves up automatically if someone from France tries to load Google. So if someone from France goes to the Google.com website, they are purposefully going around the system - possibly in an effort to get the blocked content.
Secondly, complying with this law - the way France wants Google to comply - would mean removing/blocking this content for EVERYONE due to a law in one country. This would mean that I (in the USA) wouldn't be able to find content simply because France said no to is. How far does this extend? Can Saudi Arabia demand that Google censor search results worldwide to comply with their laws? What if two countries have conflicting laws? Is Google compelled to observe the conflicting laws at the same time?
Finally, this can be extended beyond Google. I run a few websites. Suppose I post something that is perfectly fine in the US but that someone in France decides is against their law. Right now, there's no problem. My websites only need to comply with the laws of the country I live and operate in. However, if we insist that I must "obey French law for information [I] serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France", then suddenly French law applies to me merely because someone from France loaded up my website. Adding Point #2 into this, it means that I might be forced to comply with the laws of ANY nation that decided their laws extend beyond their borders because websites can be loaded via the Internet onto computers in their country.
IANAL, but in my understanding downloading *is* a copyright violation - it's just nearly impossible to prosecute. You'd have to sue individuals for one download at a time instead of suing one person for sharing a thousand files. Even if you somehow got the evidence, it becomes much harder to threaten the person into settling if they are facing a few thousand dollar fine versus a few million dollar fine. About the only time you'd actually be sued for "downloading" would be if your Bittorrent client automatically shared out what you were downloading - and thus you actually got nabbed for uploading.
All this being said, the media often switches the terms and will proclaim "pirate sued for downloading a thousand films" when what they really mean is "pirate sued for UPLOADING/SHARING a thousand films."
I know you're trolling, but I have a feeling that we could cut every cent the government pays for astrobiology and still not fund a wall separating us from Mexico. In fact, we could probably cut NASA entirely ($19.6 billion budget for 2016) and that wouldn't be enough for a wall between the US and Mexico. Besides, why cut NASA's budget to build the wall? I thought Trump was going to magically convince Mexico to do it with Jedi mind tricks or something.
Do you really think everyone who is religious would just declare "Well, there's life on another planet, I guess God doesn't exist"? Of course not. They'll just say that God created that life also but the Bible was detailing the creation of life on Earth. The discovery of alien life won't mean much for them.
For scientists, though, the discovery of alien life would be an enormous discovery. We already know a lot about evolution, biology, etc, but all of our data points come from one source. This would be an entirely different source to examine. Would life on Europa have cell structures like ours or totally different? Would they have DNA or another information storing mechanism? Would they have eyes similar to ours, completely different, or no eyes at all? (Life in Europa's waters might be dark and so no eyes might be needed - or perhaps their eyes evolved to "see" certain forms of radiation.) The scientific advances from even the simplest life forms would be amazing.
For everyone else, the benefits would come down the road. With a greater understanding of biology and evolution, we might be able to design better treatments for diseases or fix genetic-based ailments.
Plus, there's the "coolness" factor of discovering that we're not alone in the Universe.
My Droid Turbo came with Motorola's own "voice assistant" feature. Like you, I was excited to try it out. You could even set custom activation phrasing so you could use a term you wouldn't use unless you wanted the phone to answer. I set it to "Droid Activate." All I needed to do was say "Droid Activate, find x", it would run a search for X, and beep with the answer. (It's definitely not as full featured as Siri, Cortana, or Google's assistant.) The problem was that the system seemed oversensitive to what constituted my activation phrase. I'd be having a normal conversation when my phone would beep to let me know that it helpfully Googled part of what I said. I believe, at one point, it activated based on phrase "she's got no pants" which led my kids to repeatedly shout "she's got no pants" in an effort to make it activate again.
That feature was quickly turned off. If I want to do something, I'll do it manually. It's not like it's hard to run a Google search or set an alarm.
Part of this problem is that some people react differently in online communication versus face-to-face. This can smooth out conversations as you cut through the non-verbal communication and go right to the "verbal" (well, written) communication. Unfortunately, it can also lead to people not thinking of the poster they are replying to as an actual human being. Their reactions don't get moderated like they might if a person was right in front of them and "I disagree because of these reasons..." becomes "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!!!"
Unfortunately, another part of this problem is that some portions of society seem to be more accepting of the "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!" response and less accepting of the "I disagree because of these reasons..." response.
I think the big problem is that some people see "online interactions" as being equivalent to "sitting with a friend in a private room and talking" when it's more analogous to "sitting in a crowded restaurant and talking." You might still talk about private things in the crowded restaurant, but you shouldn't act too surprised if the person sitting at the table next to you overhears your conversation. This is especially true if your online interaction is a Facebook post - even if you think you locked it down so that only some people can see it. All it takes is one person to send it on to someone else. You can use direct messages to communicate privately, but again these can be forwarded to a third party easily. Meanwhile, talking to a person face-to-face in a private location can result in hearsay ("So-and-so said you're a horrible co-worker and he hates you") but it's easily dismissed as gossip even if it's the truth.
On the bright side, it will be a great help to those of us who have difficulty remembering people's faces.
Now:
Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
Me: "Fine... um... you. How are you?"
Soon:
Person I Should Know: "Hi, Jason. How are you doing?"
FindFace On Google Glass: "This is John Smith. He works for XYZ Corp and last e-mailed you about the Sprockets project."
Me: "Fine, John. How's that Sprockets project going?"
Or people will learn to self-moderate their online interactions the same way they self-moderate public face-to-face interactions. When I post something online, I think "Would I say this to a room filled with my wife, parents, friends, relatives, boss, co-workers, and (depending on the topic) my children?" If the answer is "No", I don't post it. If the answer is "yes", I go ahead and post it. Too many people will post a ten paragraph screed against their coworkers on Facebook and then act surprised when their boss finds it.
We usually go to BJ's to get giant bags of toilet paper (as well as paper towels and other bulk supplies), but sometimes we can't get out there (for various reasons) and we find that we're running low. We could go to a closer grocery store and buy a small package to tide us over (paying more per roll in the process) or we could buy from Amazon and have it shipped right to our door in two days. Amazon isn't our only option and might not be the one we use all the time, but it's definitely a good option to have available and one we take advantage of from time to time.
I was searching for the right word and infuriating was the first one that came to mind. Annoying seems a better fit, though. Twitter is mostly a text-based medium - with photos sprinkled in. To give replies as "text within images" defeats much of the purpose of the system.
Of course, on the flip side, you can also fail by not changing with the times. For example, Blackberry. They were the top of the smartphone heap at one point. The landscape began changing and they insisted that they didn't need to change because they were Blackberry. By the time they realized they needed to change, they were a distant 4th place behind Apple, Android, and Windows Phones.
If they had made some tweaks while they were at the top of the pack, they might have kept the iPhone from taking off. Unfortunately, you never know how much change is needed and how much is too much until after the fact. (And even then it can be murky.)
Alton Brown does that. I loved his Good Eats show and how he brought geekiness to cooking, but seeing answers to questions as photos of sticky notes applied to his computer is just infuriating. It might have been quirky at first, but it means it's impossible to include his tweets in a search.
If they do this they can call their lingerie line: "Amazon Women In The Mood".
I even have the perfect catch phrase for the lingerie models to say. "Me want snu-snu!"