Just like it was obvious when Facebook was 2 months old and had 1% of the users g+ does that people would stick with myspace?

Why support 800 pound gorilla? I am all for supporting under dogs and small but substantive social services.

I'm a looking for a social network which would let me tweet longer post (don't want to tweet longer via an isolated blog). Google+ does not and I'm already starting to hate Google+ (out of protest for their naming policy).

You can create 250 character jots on Subjot and post them to Twitter and Facebook. There is also a bookmarklet that lets you share to Subjot/Twitter/Facebook from anywhere on the web.

I'm actually not following what Subjot does (can't understand via the text blurb) and I'm not enthusiastic about logging in on any new service via Facebook/Twitter. So I'll wait for now.

Louis Gray had a nice post about Subjot yesterday if you are interested in hearing it from someone else's perspective. http://blog.louisgray.com/2011/08/subjot-subject-based-shari...

Thx. Well, one thing is common here that I too have a lot to say on many topics and one common denominator (either Facebook or Twitter or whatever) is not a suitable choice (hence I use different platforms for different topics but I know its not totally effective).

It's an ideal concept to sort various different interests of a single person interest into separate containers based on target audience. I think Google+ came close but their naming policy sucks. I wish they'd allow different identity/per-Circle, which could help resolve this issue. But in perspective, I should be able to target my audience based on their interest as I know best and vice-versa. Twitter is totally ineffective here to most degree.

I love your comment. I have been studying identity and the internet for years. Subjot doesn't solve the problem of easily posting from different identities but I do promise to respect people's identity and have internet friendly policies.

Could someone help identify why Firefox saves and keeps such a ridiculous number of Cache folders in \\Application Data\...\Profiles\... They're all 0, 1, 2...and then 01, 0A, 0B. I mean, what's the point here?

Filesystem performance tends to degrade when you have tens of thousands of files in a single directory, so programs that manage thousands of files usually end up dividing them into many subdirectories. It's not just Firefox - git uses the same strategy, for example.

Groupon=Bubble

I manually sort my photos by Date Pictures Taken into their own folders. I don't see a big deal about this as a separate service.

It doesn't bother you that photo-sharing web sites don't use the same simple organization scheme you use locally, but require you to create albums, etc.?

Not everyone know how to name their photographs. The proper photograph naming scheme is simply the biggest missed opportunity since the dawn of digital cameras. Using the naming scheme of Dates Pictures Taken, along with a word or two of the event, people can save themselves from aggravation in managing their thousands of digital photos.

Generally, photos are taken of an event and on a particular day. You may have multiple events in the same day, so you can further nest by time as well. But that's as far as an average user go.

It should be user's own responsibility to manage their naming schemes and sorting. You can then upload folders to any web service (or don't even bother if you use Sugar Sync or Dropbox etc).

Give me something that opens my eyes.

All I see at the site is: "beautiful goat", "measuring beard", "10 year old hot model". That's a crap as one can get!.

Why not just have users type in a room name and password on creation...no need to set the salt after the fact.

Except that the encryption is handled with javascript (obviously). I wouldn't use this for anything serious.

Why not? AES has been implemented in javascript half a dozen times.

And? What is that evidence of?

That the implementation of an encryption library in Javascript is not a reason to mistrust services which use that library?

It isn't evidence of that. Implementation in browser JS is in fact a reason to distrust a cryptosystem.

Okay..? What difference does that make?

because... the server might send a broken .js therefore forcing your chat client into sending plain text.

Exactly, that's the point. Or a browser extension. Or various other fun things, see tptacek's conversation above.

I don't understand why would you not use Adblock. Perhaps there should be a poll for this question.

I actually like ads.

Google can instantly solve this problem by providing users the ability to select different avatars/names for different circles.