Via Lifehacker, DropBox just came out of beta. Installing it gives you a folder on your hard drive that's synced to their server. Any file you drop in there is automatically synced to any other computer you have registered with the service. It's cross-platform - I have my work computer (running Windows XP) and my home computer (Ubuntu) connected, and file syncing between them seems to be flawless.

There are tons of other ways to do this, but DropBox gives you two free gigs or lets you pay for more, and the interface is pretty sweet. In addition to the desktop folder, you can access your files from a web browser anywhere.

It's really nice to see the level of Linux support they're offering. They're not supporting all distributions, but how rare is it to see a service come right out of beta and already have a Linux version?

Yesterday, Mozilla Labs introduced Ubiquity, "An experiment in connecting the web with language". It's a lot like Launchy or Gnome-Do, except different.

Install Ubiquity into Firefox and then hit the shortcut keys to launch Ubiquity, and then start typing. You can search Google, post to Twitter, send an email - all through an intuitive command-line interface. It's not for everyone - if you spend all your time pointing and clicking, you may not like using the keyboard this way. But for those of you who use the mouse only when you really need it, this may revolutionize the way you use your browser.

Remember, the browser knows a lot about you. If you're signed in to Gmail, for example, and you find a great webpage you want to share with your friend, you don't have to know your friend's email. Just type, "email " and then your friend's name - Gmail will find the address, and copy the url for the page into a new email to your friend.

And this is just the beginning - there are already tons of user-created scripts available, and it's pretty easy to create your own. There's even a tutorial.

And lest you think I forgot to get in a dig on Microsoft, ye of little faith, let me remind you that this is the sort of functionality that will be in Internet Explorer 17, due to be released around the time your great-great-grandchildren are colonizing Mars.

If you're in Firefox now, install Ubiquity now. If you aren't, get Firefox first, then install Ubiquity. And if you find or write any really cool scripts for it, be sure to let me know.

Have you ever typed your name into a search engine? I have a relatively unusual last name, at least outside of French-speaking countries, so most of the results for my name are actually me. That's kind of nice.

Then, earlier this evening, a friend told me, "you aren't that hard to find on teh intrawebs". That got me thinking - I wonder what else is out there?

For the first time, I googled my usual screenname, thetejon, which I've used for most everything ever since I had my first AOL account.

The results are pretty impressive.

Some of the most interesting:

Wedding Toasts for the Groom - a blog post that used a picture of me giving a toast at the wedding of one good friend to another.

2006 October PUNK Blogs & News @ PROPUNK.COM! - I suspect this site runs scripts to scrape content tagged with "punk" from wherever it can find it and hopes to generate ad revenue. The picture they got is actually of my cat.

большое спасибо мите за лицензионный balance 005 - a LiveJournal entry linking to one of my photos from Costa Rica. The entry is not in a language I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are.

So, there you go. Think about that next time you do something stupid on the internet. Google doesn't forget.

Remember when Internet Explorer was pretty much the only browser out there? Yeah, me neither. IE has always sucked, and IE7, touted as competing with the newer browsers, is really just playing catch-up. And not actually ever catching up.

Over at the Mozilla Labs Blog, they have a little video about experimental browser changes for Firefox. The idea is to anticipate your actions in the browser and offer no-cost assistance.

That is, when I open a new tab, if my browser could offer me options, like a search bar, instead of a blank page, there is no cost to me, and it may streamline my browsing experience.

Anyway, it's a cool video, and it demonstrates one more time how far Microsoft has fallen in terms of innovation.

I like reading Seth Godin's blog. It's generally interesting, and he talks about marketing in a very general sense that applies to more than just "professional" marketers. It probably even applies to you.

But today I think he is absolutely wrong. He says that you should click on ads to say thank you for good content. Let's list the reasons why this is not what you should do.

First, you're tipping with someone else's money. If you want to give the author 10 cents for a good blog post, great. I'm sure he or she will appreciate it. But when you click on an ad (And we're assuming no interest in buying, if you're actually looking to buy it's different), you're giving the author someone else's 10 cents. Sure, that person left piles of dimes out, but they left them with the understanding that you'd take one and give it to the blogger only if you really wanted to look at what was being advertised.

Second, you are actually putting the blog author's account at risk - ad sellers take click fraud very seriously, and if tons of people click an ad then immediately leave the advertiser's site, the ad seller is going to get suspicious.

Third, you are under absolutely no obligation to support the business model chosen by the blogger. If the ad doesn't speak to you, ignore it. If they can't make a living without your ad click, then perhaps they need to rethink the business they're in. There is a demand for quality content, and it is definitely possible to be compensated for creating it, even without advertising.

If you see an ad for something that interests you, and you think you'd like to know more about the product or service, by all means click the ad. That's what it's there for. But if you have no intention of learning more about what's being advertised, and you certainly aren't going to buy anything, then just skip the ad.

By the way, note that I did not say that clicking an ad with no intention to buy is stealing. It's not. As I mentioned, the advertiser has put the pile of dimes out there for you to take and give to your favorite blogger. And yes, you have no obligation to support the business model of the advertiser any more than that of the blogger. But if we want to talk about honoring the writer, then we need to talk about honoring the advertiser, too.

Edit to add: He's posted again, clarifying his position, because apparently I'm not the only one who disagreed. I still don't entirely agree, but the second post is much better than the first.

Since our webmail got blocked, I've been hoping that work would provide me an alternative internet connection. The best solution from my perspective would be if they would pay the difference between my cell phone plan now and a Blackberry that can be used as a modem for my laptop.

So, I was doing some research at Verizon's website, and a helpful salesperson popped up and offered to assist me. Here's the transcript of the chat. My comments are in red.

Chat InformationPlease wait for a Verizon Wireless sales representative to assist you with your order. Thank you for your patience!
Chat InformationA Verizon Wireless online pre-sales specialist has joined the chat. You are now chatting with Elisha Definitely picturing this Elisha
Elisha: Hello. Thank you for visiting our chat service. May I help you with your order today?
You: I have a couple questions
You: first, is there a way to make this chat window pop up whenever I want?
Elisha: How can I help you with your order?
Elisha: Yes, by going to contact us. That is a dirty lie. I tried that. I wish you weren't a liar, Elisha.
You: is it only available certain hours of the day?
Elisha: The sales chats are open 8 am to 11 pm.
Elisha: How can I help you with your order?
You: what's the difference in the two data plans listed with the Blackberry Curve?
Elisha: The $ 29.99 only give you unlimited access to the web and access to personal emails.
Elisha: The $ 44.99 gives you unlimited access to the web and unlimited access to business/personal emails. Plus it comes with the tether feature where you can use the phone as a modem.
Elisha: Which is best for you?
You: so for 29.99 you can't use it as a modem? What needs to be included in order for that to work?
Elisha: Yes, that is correct.
Elisha: You can hook the phone up to the laptop to use the phone as a modem. That doesn't really answer my question, Elisha.
Elisha: What key features in a cell phone are most important to you? I already told you I wanted the Curve (Although I really want the Bold, but it's not out yet)
You: I'm curious why I can't use the phone as a modem on the 29.99 plan.
You: it seems to me that bandwidth is bandwidth, and Verizon shouldn't care what I do with it
Elisha: You can't , you are not paying for that feature with the $ 29.99.
Elisha: I am sorry the feature alone is $ 15.00.
Elisha: That is the way that the plan is set.
Elisha: I am sorry.
Elisha: Are you looking to order online today?
You: well, I'm sure it's not your fault
You: no, I'm trying to get work to approve the upgrade
Elisha: Yes, thanks for understanding.
Elisha: Okay.
Elisha: I understand, are you sure you don’t want to take advantage of our free shipping and instant online discounts today? You're starting to sound like a used car salesman here, Elisha
You: no, thanks.
You: you've answered all my questions, thank very much
Elisha: Thank you for visiting Verizon Wireless, I look forward to speaking with you again. Have a great day! Thanks for kicking me off the chat as soon as it became clear you weren't getting a commission!
Elisha: You are very welcome!

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous that I can't use the phone as a modem without paying the extra $15. If I pay for the bandwidth, why does it matter if I'm using the phone itself, or my laptop through the phone? I know, Verizon has a right to charge me whatever they want. I'm not arguing that they can't charge me, I'm arguing that it makes them big fat jerks.

And Elisha was pretty annoying. I went to her to find an answer to a question that I couldn't find anywhere on the website. When I didn't want to buy today, she blew me off. This is a bad salesperson. And I will probably buy through a Verizon brick and mortar store because of my experience. Take that, Verizon's website!

First webmail, now Del.icio.us. Actually, Delicious went first. The webmail ban isn't supposed to go in for another week.

Why is this annoying? Because I bookmark work-related sites through Delicious. Sure, that's not all I use it for. But a big chunk of my bookmarks there are reference for work. And now I can't get to them.

And I'm not saying they don't have the right to block what they want, because it's their network, and they can block all IP addresses divisible by 17 if they want.

I'm just saying it's stupid, it makes me less effective, and it annoys me to no end.

My friend with the marketing background has a new blog, and he's weighed in with his side of the full- or partial-text RSS feed discussion.

I have a friend with a background in marketing. He's the one who sent me the Comcast complaining article. We've been talking about marketing and the internet.

The two of us come from completely different perspectives on how we consume content online. I've just introduced him to Google Reader and the concept of subscribing to an RSS feed. He seems to be enjoying it, and even shared an article with other people on his GTalk buddy list.

I complained to him that he shared a link to a NYTimes article that didn't have the full text in the RSS feed. This is a pet peeve of mine - I read almost no websites that don't offer full-text RSS feeds.

Techdirt talks about how full-text feeds are better. Feedburner does, too. But NYTimes.com doesn't do it. Are they stupid? I don't know.

A little Googling suggests that there's a lot of disagreement on whether or not a partial-text feed drives more traffic to the site. That is, if you have a feed that doesn't show the full article, do more people actually click through and come to your site, where you probably have ads? Or do most people (Like me) just skip it?

Techdirt makes the point that the real bulk of your traffic comes not from your regular feed subscribers, but from them sharing it with their friends or on their blogs. Things get passed around on the popular sites - when something hits the front page of Digg, it's probably going to show up on a lot of other popular sites. That can generate way more traffic than you'd ever get from your subscribers themselves, even if they clickthrough on every RSS item.

My friend says that NYTimes is not dumb, and they've probably researched where they make their money, and decided that partial feeds are the way to go. I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I realize that the way I consume content is not the way everyone does, and I'm probably in the minority. We may be a growing minority, but NYTimes doesn't make its money on what people will be doing in 10 years.

I will always provide a full-text feed. But I don't make my living with this blog, so I have the luxury of doing what I want rather than what might drive more clicks.

I can't bring him around to my way of thinking, though. But I'm still working on it.

I wish someone had told me you had to enable the Blog API module before you could use all the cool blogging tools like Flickr's "Blog This" or Firefox plugin ScribeFire. I tried setting up both, and kept getting unhelpful errors. It looked like my username and password were wrong. This was frustrating, because I was sure my username and password were correct.

After significant Googling, I finally found a helpful explanation. And now it works perfectly. You can see the previous post, which I sent straight from Flickr.

So, hopefully now this page will be one more Google hit explaining that, if you want an external site or application to access your xmlrpc.php file, you'd better turn on the Blog API module.