Slashdot Mirror

We wouldn't be surprised if this was Verizon's doing, in an attempt to get people to wait before upgrading to the iPhone 4 and extending their AT&T contracts another two years. The carrier has a history of leaked information during sensitive times for its competitors. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-iphone-coming-in-january-2010-6#ixzz0sHfifYxg

iPhone commercials advertise the ability to make calls and surf at the same time. AFAIK, you can't do that on Verizon's network.

We wouldn't be surprised if this was Verizon's doing, in an attempt to get people to wait before upgrading to the iPhone 4 and extending their AT&T contracts another two years. The carrier has a history of leaked information during sensitive times for its competitors. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-iphone-coming-in-january-2010-6#ixzz0sHfifYxg

iPhone commercials advertise the ability to make calls and surf at the same time. AFAIK, you can't do that on Verizon's network.

And here are the photos everyone is looking for.

Yes, I'd definitely say she's hot.

-

Article 1 Article 2

This is just plain wrong. Most research points to HFT accounting for around 70% of trading volume. Your also assuming HFT's don't trade amongst themselves, and that they don't make transactions on longer time periods when no buyer/seller can take their trades. When HFT's stop trading market liquidity plunges, and everyone complains when they do NOT trade the market.

It's not just right, it's dead on the money and is the main problem with flash trading - it adds a grand total of zero liquidity, instead it "skims off the top", essentially pocketing a small percentage on every sale it conducts.This is the very basics behind flash trading, and the reason why flash trading is being conducted in the first place - if it were a zero sum game, it wouldn't be worth the investments needed for flash trading. The massive fraud you talked about before is indeed horrible, but one crime doesn't make another currently legalized but essentially criminal and highly unproductive (from market's perspective) activity.
The main reason why people can argue it adds liquidity is because it's the entire purpose of flash trading scheme to catch the buy/sell BEFORE it happens, and essentially conduct it twice, pocketing the difference. If buyer and seller contacted each other directly, as would imminently happen in a few moments if there was no flash trading going, liquidity would stay exactly the same.

In fact, it is far more often argued that flash trading in fact reduces liquidity, by removing and pocketing extra funds from buyers and sellers.

Also, please stop linkin businessinsider.com, which is essentially a professional magazine for people working in the stock market and will always be supportive of ways these people can use to pump money out of the actual companies/trades and into their/their owners' pockets as some sort of a reputable source. While a decent source on what's happening in the industry, it's about as trustworthy to present an unbiased and truthful point of view on this issue as an ultra orthodox jewish magazine would be on Palestine problem.

A high speed trader does not increase liquidity, because for a high speed trader to work it has to know that It can buy something now and sell it moments later. This means the initial seller and the final buyer already existed before the high speed trader got involved, they just hadn't found each other yet. The item being sold was already as liquid as it was going to get.

This is just plain wrong. Most research points to HFT accounting for around 70% of trading volume. Your also assuming HFT's don't trade amongst themselves, and that they don't make transactions on longer time periods when no buyer/seller can take their trades. When HFT's stop trading market liquidity plunges, and everyone complains when they do NOT trade the market.

Well said! -- although a lot of people seem to be confused about what you mean. Even those who are trying to defend you seem to misunderstand you.

Let me take a stab at restating this:

Defenders of draconian copyright enforcement are always complaining about how expensive it is to develop their creative works. They've invested soooo much! (Or they cite the money they project they could make -- from an economic standpoint, it's the same thing.) They paint a picture of a huge pile of money, invested in their art. And all that money, that mountain of cash, is regarded as the justification for strict laws against those 'stealing' their MPEGs or MP3s: 'We've invested a lot, so we are entitled to a lot of protection.' What skywire is pointing out is that, per se, a massive investment doesn't entitle you to anything. Ideally the rule of law exists only for the good of society, and if it protects material investment sometimes, it does so only as a means to the end of guarding society.

• If you spend a ton of money on developing a music business, that doesn't entitle you to warp copyright law and abuse the judicial system to save your business from drowning in red ink.
• If you invest a ton of money in opening a coal mine and hiring miners, that doesn't entitle you to disregard safety laws, even if fulfilling them would bankrupt your mining company.
• Maybe you spend your money financing a militia and propping up a South American dictator so that your banana company can pay low wages and stay profitable, but you're not entitled to anything but disapprobation.
• Maybe you spend good money buying children to work your cacao plantations in Cote d'Ivoire, but if I had anything to do with it, you would forfeit your entire investment and spend the rest of your life in prison.

The 'but I paid good money' argument is spurious -- yet it is cited as justification for legal and moral outrages both large and small. In fact, the law should serve the people, not just the investors.

Having worked at Zynga, I can say with confidence that the reason there are 85 million Farmville players comes down to two things, neither of which involve good gameplay or tailoring of experience to audience:

1) $1 million plus in advertising per week in Facebook ads alone ( http://www.businessinsider.com/gossip-2009-11 ). My personal experience there corroborates this number, and I can confirm that they spend similar numbers on other advertising venues.
2) A ruthless focus on acquisition, regardless of tactic. Policy violation and "we're shutting you down if you don't stop doing X in your apps" emails received from Facebook and MySpace ran about 2 a week while I was there. If they find a way to exploit an API or work around the system to spam people, they'll do it. The most recent one I've seen is dynamically generated apps whose sole purpose is to get new Farmville invites into your request queue to work around the "block this app" functionality in Facebook. If they can get away with temporarily turning a feature off so the policy violations disappear and then turn it back on a week later, they'll do that, too.

The typical lifespan of a Zynga player ( >95% ) is one play session, ( ~5% ) play for 3 days and then are never heard from again, and (0.001% or less, depending on game) sticking around for the long term. The money is made during the first three play sessions, primarily via completion of affiliate offers (65-90% of all revenue, depending on game), with the rest coming from direct purchase of virtual goods by the 0.001% that stick around.

Generally speaking, there are 4 ways of maintaining a player base - acquisition, interest, retention, and reactivation. Zynga is a master of acquisition with a moderately large internal focus on reactivation (Farmville's gameplay is almost exclusively a reactivation device). They spend very little on interest, just enough to get people in the door. Anything focused on retention is actively discouraged; the entire organization employs fewer than 15 QA persons in total, who also double as customer service - this should give you an idea as to their strategy here. Seriously - I was actively disciplined for reducing game downtime and resolving major bugs that interfered with gameplay, and the division I worked in (servicing > 800,000 active players/day at the time) reduced its QA+customer service staff from 7 to 2 because "QA was slowing things down too much".

This relentless focus on acquisition is why Farmville has 85 million players - nothing more. The corollary lesson being that if you want to be the next Zynga, start with a $50 million advertising budget and a weak sense of ethics - the rest will fall out naturally from there.

I can play that game too: ya rly.

That's JUST the federal income tax, doesn't count how much they got back, ignores all other taxes, and ignores the more important comparison of that tax burden (including how much is returned or hidden) as compared to their level of income.

The top 1% pays a maximum of 35% federal income tax, control very nearly 50% of all wealth in the country, and the highest tax bracket has been steadily decreasing for quite a while. In 1944 it was 64% for those making $1M in income.

Hate to sound like an Apple apologist, but there's not a whole lot to be gained from going from Core to i, and some good reasons not to.

And if it seems that they're focusing on new devices at the expense of their traditional lineup: well, sad though it may be, there's a damn good reason for it. 5.4 billion good reasons for it (40% of revenue) in fact.

The question is: Will the New York Times be here in 50 years?

My guess is no. It may not even last ten.

Lawrence Person
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
http://www.battleswarmblog.com/

Full disclosure: I'm not American.

Meanwhile, the Chinese continue to save and to live within their means, accumulating capital that will increase their productivity going forward.

Unlike in the US, where your conspicuous consumption is what gets the ladies (the shallow ones at least), men in China compete for woman by how much they save:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hoarding-money-is-the-only-way-to-impress-a-woman-in-china-2010-2

Dear Washington,

You're doing it wrong.

Thanks,
Everyone

Seriously what the hell? Stop giving our money to greedy corporations. Want us to buy a house? Spend more on crap? Buy new cars? HOW CAN WE DO THAT WHEN YOU KEEP TAKING OUR $?

OH wait. You'll just take it and give it to corps for free.

Now, I am not a tax hater. I am fine with taxes for things like emergency services, libraries, roads, schools. The difference is those services provide for the public good. Forcing me to hand money over to your buddies at the "too big to fails" is bullshit. You crooked fucks.

Seriously, what the hell!? Stop giving our money to lazy people. Want me to buy a house? Spend more on crap? Buy new cars? HOW CAN I DO THAT WHEN YOU KEEP TAKING MY $?

OH wait. You'll just take it and give it to 47% of Americans for free

Now, I am not a tax hater. I am fine with taxes for things like emergency services, libraries, roads, schools. The difference is those services provide for the public good. Forcing me to hand money over to your voters is bullshit. You crooked fucks.

Just to be clear: I don't want people to starve, but the possibility needs to exist. If people can make more money sitting on their ass than they can at McDonald's, they're not going to take the job. If people had to perform manual labor to collect welfare, "jobs that Americans won't do" wouldn't exist.

Getting back to your point- income redistribution of any sort needs to end. No bailouts for corps. No handouts for bums. There especially shouldn't be any payouts like this happening when the federal government is borrowing $.50 for every $1.00 it is spending. It doesn't cover its core responsibilities yet it keeps blowing wads on "social programs" for the rich and the poor.

Dear Washington,

You're doing it wrong.

Thanks,
Everyone

Seriously what the hell? Stop giving our money to greedy corporations. Want us to buy a house? Spend more on crap? Buy new cars? HOW CAN WE DO THAT WHEN YOU KEEP TAKING OUR $?

OH wait. You'll just take it and give it to corps for free.

Now, I am not a tax hater. I am fine with taxes for things like emergency services, libraries, roads, schools. The difference is those services provide for the public good. Forcing me to hand money over to your buddies at the "too big to fails" is bullshit. You crooked fucks.

Seriously, what the hell!? Stop giving our money to lazy people. Want me to buy a house? Spend more on crap? Buy new cars? HOW CAN I DO THAT WHEN YOU KEEP TAKING MY $?

OH wait. You'll just take it and give it to 47% of Americans for free

Now, I am not a tax hater. I am fine with taxes for things like emergency services, libraries, roads, schools. The difference is those services provide for the public good. Forcing me to hand money over to your voters is bullshit. You crooked fucks.

Just to be clear: I don't want people to starve, but the possibility needs to exist. If people can make more money sitting on their ass than they can at McDonald's, they're not going to take the job. If people had to perform manual labor to collect welfare, "jobs that Americans won't do" wouldn't exist.

Getting back to your point- income redistribution of any sort needs to end. No bailouts for corps. No handouts for bums. There especially shouldn't be any payouts like this happening when the federal government is borrowing $.50 for every $1.00 it is spending. It doesn't cover its core responsibilities yet it keeps blowing wads on "social programs" for the rich and the poor.

I haven't had TV service in 3 years, all media has been through the XBMC and I've never had a problem with downloaded content not working. 1080p isn't a popular downloaded format, you search for any video content and 480i or similar DVD quality will be easier to find than 1080p. Unless there's a huge jump in cheap bandwidth 1080p will continue to be unpopular, especially with Comcast and Earthlink announcing monthly caps. Who'd want to waste 5gb on 1080p when 700mb 480i DivX suffices?

Like I said support is huge, you start putting the software on dozens of different kinds of hardware and OSes and you're going to have support problems. What happens when you post on a forum "1080p is jumpy"? Now they have to look at the cpu and video card and OS and other software and all these other potential problems, and while people might help you today with your dual core 1.6ghz atom in 5 years time they'll laugh at you and say your PC isn't fast enough and to upgrade.

I agree with one thing you said: "If that's just too much for you by all means keep your old XBOX too." I can give my parents a Xbox with XBMC on it and not worry about support because I know there's no problems with it, can you say the same about your $350 personal computer? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fragmenting the XBMC is the same mistake Android made: sure the OS is free, but the software that runs on your Android might not run on mine and many have speculated this fragmentation will destroy Android. Windows Mobile did the the same thing for many years and developers had to publish long lists of supported and unsupported Windows Mobile smartphones. That's one of the reasons the iPhone is so successful: every app works on every iPhone.

This will not end well for XBMC, this will push people off Xboxes and on to Boxee and other competitors because why bother with XBMC when you're already running a dual core PC? Might as well upgrade to Boxee or MythTV.

I don't mind the developers making a XBMC2 for modern devices, but to end support for the highly successful XBMC and close the forums and start removing things from the wiki is suicide and I can't believe they don't see that. What would happen if Sony or Microsoft announced they'd no longer support the PS3 or Xbox360 and they're focusing on next gen consoles? Think anyone that read that would buy a ps3 or 360? Sony's a genius when it comes to that: while M$ ended support for the Xbox, you can still buy a brand new ps2 and new games at most retail stores and it's paid off big, with 1.8 million Playstation 2s sold in 2009. Yes, Sony sold 1.8 million 10 yr old ps2s in 2009, and brand new ps2 games are still being released in 2010. See you don't slaughter the fatted calf as soon as the next gen comes out, and the fact that XBMC developers are doing so prove they don't care about their community and will drop you whenever it's convenient for them.

Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law and just waiting for it to be my turn to get caught doing something idiotically illegal.

Western countries are transitioning from a military industrial economy to a jail and criminal justice economy, and that is where corporations and governments make their money on enforcing laws and creating new and tougher laws (copyright, patent, obscenity, drug, think-of-the-children, etc and so on). Ignorance of the law is no excuse so you'd better keep up and have a good attorney ready to help you. If anything feels good or seems intuitively natural to do then there are probably laws against it.

At any given point in time the average person is breaking numerous laws without even knowing it, or on average about three felonies a day. Just be grateful that you haven't been caught yet.

If you are rich and powerful enough you shouldn't have anything to worry about though, because as one United States President once said, "... when the President does it that means that it is not illegal."

Welcome to the New World Order! (same as the Old World Order, but with bigger prisons and more CCTV).

The Walkman lost its relevance when CDs came out, but then they made a CD-walkman, and then a (rather good range) of mp3 walkmans, and then mpeg walkmans. I'm not sure what's next, nor are they probably - but they'll make a walkman for it when it appears.

The same applies to all the no-name manufacturers too.

XBox isn't even close to being a break-even product, not if it sells profitably for the next 10 years, its had so much cash sunk into it. Pretty much that applies to the rest of E&D and Online division losses (lovely graph) at MS.

I think Windows revenues will fall, (as people have bought a copy by now), and MS will try to drive server sales as much as possible (via Office freebies), but as Office is becoming a free commodity, I think even that cash-cow will stumble. As Google gives office tools away, MS follows suit, and naturally their revenue fails to keep up.

And the market knows it, has known it for some time. Microsoft's only real hope is to start selling into countries like China, and get them to pay top dollar for the products. I don't hold out much hope for that happening.

There's some interesting comments on the MiniMicrosoft blog.

I wonder if this article is a troll for the Greatest Fool. Haven't we all been here before?

1. beany babies
2. .com
3. residential property
4. commercial property
5. data centers
6. ???
7. bust

There is plenty of empty and abandoned commercial real estate in Silicon Valley as well as in such IT outsourcing hotbeds as Beijing.

Apple are 7% of computers sold (by revenue), but they make 35% of the total profit made on computer sales. See

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-profit-share-of-top-pc-vendors-2010-3

Oh, the "good old times", when Zuckerberg sold the information of 4000 Harvard accounts?
Sure, back then Facebook was so much better, mindful of people's privacy and all.

He was not yet a billionaire when he called the Facebook users "dumb fucks". That's right, he was 19, long before those billions would have hit his ego too hard, and already calling the users of his service dumb fucks.

Once that sinks in, I think we can conclude that he has been a douche all along.

Because having bad price to performance has killed Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, and other such manufacturers. Reports usually peg Apple has getting 10% of the market in terms of computers, but something ridiculous like 40% of the profit. If the other 90% of the market is only as good as their 10%, do they really care?

A quick Google search gave an article that says 7% revenue share, 35% profit. Maybe they're interested in sniping the high-margin sales from the other manufacturers, but they're probably content to let everyone else fight over the bottom half of the market.

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Wonder how much this new released IM thread has to do with this "All-Hands".

You don't know what you're talking about. Google has given the U.S. government access to Gmail.

It's interesting that you don't offer any response to their CEO's statement on privacy. Here's Schmidt's full statement:

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

Note that it directly refutes your claim that Google fights hard to avoid giving data to the government. The CEO himself is telling you that your data could be given to the government.

Keep on defending Google if you want. They're more than happy to index the private data of loyal customers like you. They've already shown that privacy is not a real concern for them.

Turns out that the government already has a rainy day fund to deal with industry disasters. At present it holds $1.5 billion, it is not adequate but I think this is the way to go. The impact of this accident is going to be felt by the entire industry, it is only logical for funds to be collected from all oil companies to help with recovery efforts.

Tax on Oil May Help Pay for Cleanup

Curiously BP is not carrying insurance, it is having self-insurance -- they apportion an amount of almost a billion a year into a fund on the island of Gernesey (the offshore UK tax haven).

Insurance rates will go up

Except that they can not freeze assets that you use to defend yourself.

They can and they do - all they have to do is allege that the assets are the result of ill-gotten gains. Note they just have to say it, they don't have to prove it.

Here's one example of a guy who was forced to the public defender option because the government said all his money was dirty, there are lots more:

http://www.businessinsider.com/allen-stanford-forced-to-take-public-defender-2009-9

The author does state in the article that he was mistaken about the amount of resources HP has, which amounts to at least $25 billion USD in cash on hand, at least 10x more than HTC and Lenovo (the other big Palm suitors from the past week) have in cash.

When compared to the other major companies in the mobile space, like Nokia, RIM, HTC, or Motorola, Palm seems like a very 'cheap' purchase in order to acquire an entire new line of business, along with their entire patent portfolio.

Additionally, it seems other articles mention the same patent concerns since Apple is now going after HTC (but not Palm).
http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-htc-patent-suit-could-be-another-reason-for-someone-to-buy-palm-2010-3
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/

I feel your pain, but seriously, this whole "Apple is ignoring their core/pro consumers!" meme needs to DIE. Yes, "pro" consumers were once upon a time Apple's bread and butter but that is no longer the case. I know how you feel but Apple doesn't really "owe" you anything for keeping them going. The fact is, the company is changing. Look at this chart, it's right there in black and white. (And blue, purple, red, orange, yellow, and green.) Apple makes the bulk of its money from the iPhone--a product that has only been available for less than three years. Next up is the ENTIRE Mac line, a fraction of which are "pro" machines. Next on the revenue hit parade comes the iPod--a 100% non-computer device that again only existed for the last few years. Followed by iTunes--TV shows, movies, and apps; I'll let you guess which of those is the smallest--and finally software (everything from iLife to Final Cut Pro) and peripherals (mainly mice and keyboards) at the end.

Apple still makes computers, and pro computers, but computers in general and pro gear in particular are NOT their bread and butter anymore. Their "core" market is now the HUGE consumer market. If Apple quit making computers tomorrow and ONLY did iPod, iPhone, and the iTunes store, they'd STILL be making more money than they were a few years ago for EVERYTHING.

* which now includes the slightly computer-y iPod touch.

Israel saw this coming and preemtively banned the iPad.

Wait, what? Journalists are immune from having their computers seized? In what dreamworld? They have the exact same first amendment protections as the rest of us. No more, no less..

The State of California, like many other states, has a shield law protecting journalists. Read http://www.businessinsider.com/explaining-the-shield-law-gizmodo-is-using-in-their-search-and-sieze-case-2010-4 for an explanation of how and why it applies in this case.

Journalism is an activity, not a licensed profession, and as such it is open to "the rest of us," so the law applies to anyone engaging in the activity defined in the statute as interpreted by the courts.

Not only that, but the founder Mark Zuckerberg has no problem hacking into other people's accounts. He came up with facebook while working on a similar project for others at Harvard. Evidence shows that he stalled his work on the other project while working on Facebook while stringing along the others. I certainly wouldn't trust a backstabbing jackass like Zuckerberg with my information. It is why I deleted my facebook account almost a year ago.

We have high speed mobile internet everywhere, something the US will never have

You shouldn't make crazy statements like that, because there is no way to tell what the US will and will not have. Just for your information if Google has their way it will happen here and sooner than you think. Google is getting ready to test a super high speed fiber in many cities in the US. http://www.businessinsider.com/google-high-speed-fiber-network-2010-2/
Thanks and have a nice day

It's not even the first one this millennium. Business Insider had an article about one last year.

http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-plane-finally-flies-2009-12

The author of that article is clearly ignorant of NASA's achievements since 1974.

According to this site

http://solar-flight.com/

They are already working on a two-seater that appears to take off under its own power.

So the only thing the Swiss having going for them is making a 'round the world flight in 2012 (please, keep any end-of-days comments to yourselves).

Then what do you call it when people buy apps that serve no money-making purpose for the end user for their phones and other devices?

Usually it is called stupid. (Re-)read my previous comment. You will find in absolute numbers many such stupid practices. However, in terms of percentage of the GDP in any given country, it is insignificant enough to be inappropriate to bring up.

Most software is written by companies and agencies as a means to an end. Some write FOSS. Some build upon FOSS and even return improvements back to the FOSS community. These companies use software to make their money. The list goes on and together they make up the GDP. Talk of use of software will tread on Microsofter's toes, because it will lead to talk of benchmarking and suitability. It will also lead to talk about who software patents are a threat to, the end-user.

Talk of 'buying' software or renting software by 'buying' licenses is 1980's talk. Stop yapping about business models that 'sell' licenses and let that meme die.

In fact, to join in with the recent Apple-bashing (which I whole-heartedly agree with), I'd suggest that mobile app development will move away from the iPhone, in favour of Android phones. When you are investing time and money in app development, there is simply more certainty in developing apps that will live or die on their merits, as opposed to Apple's 'approval' process.

Real numbers say otherwise. The growth in development of iPhone apps is unmatched. Joe Clark explains why talking about the iPad:

This was the weekend those of us with high standards lost their remaining residue of patience for ideologues who hyperbolize about open systems without actually creating something people want to use.

An example of this is Apple rejecting.. how many? 40 out of 170,000 available applications? consumers don't freaking care, they just want something that works. If you do care, check the iPhone graveyard for explanations why. But back to the point: you are delusional to think your Apple bashing will "move away development from the iPhone". Just check the iPads sold today, more units than the iPhone. Get a reality check mate.

Yes

Because that's not how the Jew who owns it operates.

"The emails and IMs also seem to show that Google knew about this plan when it bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006"

Everyone and his dog 'knew' there was copyrighted material on Youtube. What Google 'knew' is moot. Googles actions and policies at the time are most relevent. According to the actual text of the emails, Google strongly opposed profiting from 'pirated material'. And elsewhere it shows that content owners were actively uploading content. "we've uploaded boatloads of clips onto YouTube for distribution", Viacom. If this is The Most Damning Information Viacom Dug Up On Google And YouTube, then not much is all I can say.

slide 23
162. In a June 28, 2006 email to numerous other Google executives, Google vice president of content partnerships David Eun stated: "as Sergey pointed out at our last GPS, is changing policy [t]o increase traffic knowing beforehand that we'll profit from illegal [d]ownloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?

slide 24
Google executive Partic Walker and email listing the "Top 10 reasons why we shouldn't stop screening for copyright violations," including: "1. It crosses the threshold of Don't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people's intellectual property, and possible even allowing monetization of it by somebody who doesn't own the copyright";

"2. Just growing any traffic is a bad idea. This policy will drive us to build a giant index of pseudo porn, lady punches, and copyrighted material ..."'

"3. We should be able to win on features, a better [user interface] technology, advertising relationships - not just policy, It's a cop out to resort to dis-rob-ution";

"7. it makes it more difficult to do content deals with you have an index of pirated material.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.

Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.

On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.

Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.

As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.

The document... makes clear that US agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips.

Is this private data that they've "hacked" into (a la Zuckerberg), or is this a case of the feds reading whatever they found posted on the dude's wall or open Twitter page?

ALL of my personal info on Facebook is incorrect. What kind of fool would publish their birth date, full name and address?

Based on what I've seen, just about everybody, and this in spite of articles like this one.

Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Is Simply Not Going To Recover

That video was made in what, 1985? And Windows sold for $99 according to the ad.

That Windows "ad" was an internally distributed Microsoft video that poked fun at Windows 1.0 for its lack of features and Ballmer for his um, Billy-Mays-ness. I guess the idea is "Look how far we've come!" or something.

IMO, Windows wasn't even usable until Windows for Workgroups, but that's besides the point.

Windows has gone down dramatically. Now, they've been labeled a monopoly in court, but they're pricing isn't that of a monopolist. Actually, they've given the consumer a really nice value.

Now, cue the MS haters who are going to accuse me of being an "apologist" and for being a "revisionist". Whatever. I just think it's an interesting micro economic case study.

The price of their product has nothing to do with whether or not they're a monopolist. In fact, Microsoft has been known to offer their product for nothing or next-to-nothing just for hegemony, which is exactly what you would expect from a monopolist. See the attempt to ruin the Mandriva/Nigeria deal a few years ago for an example...in economic terminology, such actions are called dumping.

Now, one reason the price of Windows has come down is because Windows is just a platform for Microsoft to lock users into their proprietary world, most importantly to sell MS Office (see this chart). Another reason is that the software-as-a-product model is dying, and everyone knows it.

Long-term, Microsoft can't compete with free software and the corporations whose business models are built around it. Expect the price of Windows to come down as the trend continues :)

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-the-harvard-crimson-2010-3