I use both DropBox and Box.net. Both are great. DropBox is by far the easier of the two for synchronization purposes, but it lacks one very important feature that Box.net does have. You can share any file or folder in box.net publicly. However with DropBox, you're limited to one file at a time shared publicly. It's cumbersome if you'd rather make a folder public. So, until DropBox implements this much-asked-for feature, I will keep both (though I've mostly moved over to DropBox). Their desktop app is awesome!

Lastly, note that clicking a link here will earn Author Tech Tips a referral and some free storage space. Just FYI.
My recent post Plutchik’s Eight Primary Emotions And How To Use Them (Part 2 of 2)

Forgive me for being the voice of dissent but I find two problems with this post:

First, this seems to me an oversimplification. I am not arguing against the importance of modesty but Victoria's Secret simply does not have "pictures of women showing their private parts". When I see or hear a phrase such as "pictures of women showing their private parts" I immediately think "pornography" as that is the accepted definition of the term. Objectively speaking (and we need more of this in Christian circles) the female models are all clothed, albeit skimpily. Thus presenting Victoria's Secret as a company that shows pornography in its stores is simply being dishonest.

Secondly, the author is mixing two very different situations that the Bible treats as distinct. Yes, "the Bible teaches us that we should dress and behave modestly" in *public*. However in *private* and within the bounds of the marriage bedroom, going even so far as being fully unclothed is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. (and necessary!) As Scott says, "God is very pro-sex" and He is. This important distinction was not made in the post.

So which camp is Victoria's Secret in? I confess I've been in the store several times. All of them were with my wife save one occasion when I was buying her a present. I think the store is certainly very controversial, (and this is done on purpose for marketing reasons) but they do not deal in pornography. They sell their products to people who expect to be in intimate, private relations with one another not to people planning to be out in public.

I can appreciate Scott's need to go along with his daughters' understanding of this complex issue, but I don't think the same logic should hold when engaging an audience of adults as in this post. Ultimately, I do not find Victoria's Secret offensive for being pornographic as stated and alluded to in this post. (Note that this does *not* mean they aren't offensive to me, just not for being pornographic or promoting public displays of immodesty.)