The value of a company is no longer what it produces and the value of their products.
net present value calculations are fairly meaningless in an unstable environment. Also I think you're confusing the revenue line on the profit and loss statement with the net worth on the balance sheet. Play some more "railroad tycoon".
"Value" has become something completely artificial.
What exactly is a "non-artificial" "value"? The only answer I can even think of is some sort of revealed religious answer, like turning one dude in for crucifixion has a value of X pieces of silver, and I don't think that defined "value" is too helpful in figuring out how much Facebook is worth.
Today, the "value" is what some people think it would be worth. Whether that has any reflection in reality is secondary.
I would say that a closed transaction is the best, most realistic technology for finding value ever invented... Dice aren't going to work.
how much easier does it get to imagine it when you know that you could "buy" 50 World Trade Centers for that?
Its gets a lot easier to imagine if you think of it as, apparently in their opinion, if you have $50B laying around, the best thing to do with it at that moment is buy a Facebook. Rather than Government Motors or a huge pile of rice or whatever.
Somehow that does not seem right in any shape way or form. I know at least a handful users that have way more than a couple of accounts (pets, hiders and other stuff.)
Maybe 25 cents/user on a good day but $100?!?
Take all your physical paper junk mail and toss it into MULTIPLE trash bags for about a year. Make an intelligent estimate on paper, printing, and postage costs and multiply by the number of envelopes / catalogs / postcards / phone books. I was easily exceeding $1000/yr a couple years ago.
Realize that my yearly junk mail is a yearly cost for an entire industry, that shows up on the P+L and cash flow statements not the balance sheet. On the other hand you're talking about ownership of a future advertising industry merely being $100 per victim. Frankly, $100 ownership cost per victim is cheap.
Compare to the cost of buying the SuperBowel in order to sell millions per minute TV commercials.
Another fun cost comparison is a realistic estimate of the sum of all local TV stations, at least a hundred million industry wide total to reach a million or so viewers, not so far out of line.
Civilization V was released with a ton of bugs, many of which were (are!) showstopping crashers, as long as you got to a few hundred turns. Add a trillion smaller, non-crasher bugs, and you have one of the buggiest releases of all time. And yet, between brick-and-mortar and Valve/Steam, they sold about a million units. That's about $50M in the bank.
Testing? What testing?
The key difference is Civ5 is a short term experience, its just something you play until Civ6 comes out, assuming they survive.
On the other hand, the original post
We have one app that is used by a few hundred clients and was initially developed by a few undergrads about 10 years ago.
implies every sale is vital since there have only been a couple hundred, and its just one app, not a series.
In other words, everyone knows civ5 is super buggy and as long as its fun for awhile, who cares. On the other hand, over the previous decade word has gotten around about the original poster software thus only a couple hundred sales.
Quality control a decade ago might have turned them into a billion dollar company over the previous decade, rather than their current pitiful state. If, perhaps, they're planning on winding down next year, debugging for one eleventh the lifetime of the SW is probably pointless.
Let's take the example of a published experiment where the level of statistical significance is so high that the result only had one chance in a million of occurring due to chance. One in a million is 4.9 sigma. There are two problems that you will see in virtually all experiments: (1) people always underestimate their random errors, and (2) people always miss sources of systematic error.
It's *extremely* common for people to underestimate their random errors by a factor of 2. That means the the 4.9-sigma result is only a 2.45-sigma result. But 2.45-sigma results happen about 1.4% of the time. That means that if 71 people do experiments, typically one of them will result in a 2.45-sigma confidence level.
In a publish or perish market, they could have spent more time and money to get a higher statistical result, except for:
1) That is money and lifetime out of their pocket for "nothing"
2) Scaling laws and limited expensive tool sampling time might make it impossible.
I'm sure most people would rather get two research stipends and two published papers in their CV for 2.45 level research than one of each for 4.9 level research.
I did read the article and it also seemed to discuss "fads" while trying very hard not to describe them as basic human fad behavior. There's nothing wrong with a fraction of the population entertaining themselves by chasing fads. The scientific method seems quite effective at getting rid of the fads based on the article example. The problem with that, exactly, is what, other than the author wants to make money off telling everyone about it?
Heres a standard slashdot car analogy... At some point in my father's youth, tail fins on cars were the big thing, until they got tired and mostly went away. When I was a kid, back when it was an expensive hobby, spending a lot of money on after market car audio was cool, until that got tired and mostly went away.
Taking basic human nature and claiming insight at noticing scientists behave like humans is pretty much the sociological equivalent of all those moronic business method patents where you take something pedestrian, suffix "... on the internet" file the patent and wait for the money to toll in.
One thing I do know. Current scientists aren't very well educated on what has gone before.
Computer scientists / IT people have the same problem. Nothing is really new. Personally I'm waiting for "implicit typing" to be in style again. Python whitespace is conceptually pretty close, probably why I find it repulsive.
Grad schools wont accept you without a 3.0 undergrad and many Doctoral programs wont accept you without a 3.25.
Invariably in my experience this is for "straight thru" students.
The bottom 75% of schools accept anyone with a stack of dollars and/or corporate tuition reimbursement.
The next 20% (at least) will only accept traditional students by your GPA rules, but if you're a non-traditional student all you need is the cash.
When a student is 19, the student is the one whom wants to go to the school. When a student is... anything other than 19... suddenly everyone in the administration, from the lowliest file clerk up to the dean, the school is the one whom wants the student to go there. For obvious financial reasons.
1. Jam cell phone traffic during exams. If it's not legal then make it legal. More feasible for large college courses than high school exams due to cost.
2. Zero tolerance policies. If you're shown without a doubt to have cheated then you not only fail the course, you're expelled.
3. Keep exams short, possibly in sections spread out over multiple days, and stipulate that if you leave the exam room for any reason (including to use the bathroom), your work for that day is invalidated and you must re-take an "alternate" version of that day's exam.
4. Design exams such that they're resistant to cheating. Use essay or short answer questions instead of multiple choice. If you must use multiple choice then generate different exam versions in which the answers are ordered differently. No two students in proximity to one another should have the same exam version.
5. Structure classes in a such a way that exams are taken individually, with very little opportunity for cheating. I took a self-paced digital logic class that used this format. To advance to the next unit a student had to get a perfect score on a six-question 30 minute quiz taken in the presence of a proctor. After the student had finished the proctor would denote any incorrect answers and the student had 10 minutes to correct them. If he failed to get all questions correct then he had to wait 3 days before re-testing on that unit.
How is the average educational facility supposed to make more money by lowering their average scores and annoying their students? Solve that meta-problem and several other problems solve themselves.
The most interesting part of this expensive and heavily studied technology will be the results (or lack of) with regards to demographics such as race, sex, parents income, political beliefs, whatever.
Err, I should follow up, I'm not so much interested in "such and such group cheats more" but more interested in cognitive research.
For example its widely believed that men inherently have better spatial analysis skills than women.
So given "imagine a cluster of 64 computers wired in a six dimensional hypercube. They are on a straight linear shelf and must be placed one foot apart for cooling purposes. So theres a line of 64 PCs, which is 64 feet long. Each node connects to six neighbors. What is the longest ethernet cable required?" which is big time a trick question. Maybe a better one would be optimally arranged short average cable length or something. Or how many of each length of cable required. Whatever, anyway, theoretically if there were actually enough female CS students to not be a rounding error, this software might pick up the groups as two separate groups of cheaters. Not because they are cheaters, but because of inherently different cognitive approaches to the problem.
The most interesting part of this expensive and heavily studied technology will be the results (or lack of) with regards to demographics such as race, sex, parents income, political beliefs, whatever.
A good way to think of C is "user friendly assembly".
Its also a "universal assembly". Very handy that I can run the same software on a PIC, AVR, MSP, or pretty much any other microcontroller, and only have to worry about the relatively tiny I/O and timing functions.
Forth is almost as good, but not nearly as widespread.
You must not be familiar with fortran implicit typing. Are you ever in for a treat...
Variable names beginning with I, J, K, L, M, or N are integer, all names beginning with other letters are float.
So, in your example, "beanCount" is gonna be a float. Sorry if you don't like it that way. The good news is "intcents" is gonna be an integer, so you win there.
Well, unless you play with the IMPLICIT statement.
The other thing, is the best part about standards, is there are so many conflicting standards, so if you don't like how fortran-77 handles implicit variables, you can try another standard for completely different results.
People used to say fortran was write only, until they invented perl...
Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.
However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.
That sounds like an accurate summary of the guys article, rather than his angle, or agenda or goal, or whatever.
I read what he's writing, all very good agitprop, but the unreleased info could be used for many different purposes depending on what it is, maybe Greenwald already knows. Or his buddy told him to support it. If it happens to match a pre-existing agenda of his. So in that scenario, if we know his agenda, we know what the unreleased contents are..
And so we're once more divided. What's the value of an international network when every country insists on their own language?
Well, the scientists refused to use COBOL because its a wee bit lacking in the numerical analysis area, and the bean counters refused to use FORTRAN because they don't like expressing bean counts using floating point... Its not exactly a new problem.
In the unofficial FAQ, is that a dirt racin' track in the background of the picture?
After a few decades in the telecom industry, I've seen remote pops having all kinds of crazy neighbors. It kind of makes sense, its not as if a bunch of hardware would contain about the noise, and most of the time, there would certainly be plenty of parking... Not many other facilities would want to locate next to a racetrack, beyond the obvious tow truck, autoparts and hotel types.
Obviously this facility will house the thousands of centrifuges necessary to purify enough U-235 to implement the final phase of Operation Apple Core Takeover.
The iReactor, now thinner, lighter, and shinier than ever!
Then comes a deficit commission and Social Security and unemployment insurance is gone and you have a significant population of desperate unemployed people starving to death on the streets.
They can always riot and thanks to the 2nd amendment they'll be some pretty exciting riots. Which is a good thing, as it tends to discourage the creation of conditions resulting in said riots.
Thats why (some) rich people tolerate or even support social programs... Even if they are utterly self centered, and have no empathy or responsibility for their fellow humans, or for the random whims of chance that could strike them down, they personally don't want to live in 24x7 rodney king riot conditions, so maybe UI and SS and some civilized medical care is not such a bad idea after all. Its nice when even the most despicable inherently line up with the somewhat more intelligent.
Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.
You must not have gotten the news that corporations and govt have merged. $500M is going to his friends, former and future coworkers / employers. Side effects such as producing a working vehicle are not relevant to the primary goal of transferring $500M, about half from Chinese bond holders and half from taxes, to his "family".
Now if the $500M when to the department of agriculture or something, he has no "family" there so he would complain.
Kohls has had technology like this in their stores for a little while now.
A little while? My local food store had that in the early 90s. Had some weird modulator thing that plugged into the florescent lights. It was some kind of weird boost/buck converter that varied the line power / light brightness by a volt or so from cycle to cycle. I had the EE background to understand it but no one at the store knew how it worked.
The interesting thing is if you only have a couple tens of thousands of price tags, it doesn't take a very high bandwidth signal to reprice everything in a couple hours.
I have no idea what this place wants to do with 3 megs/sec, as that is tremendous multicasting bandwidth. You could almost ghost machines with that, slowly.
HR people will question your ability to deal with IT technology if you don't have a MySpace/FB/Twitter presence, claiming it is as behind the times to not be on FB as it is not to have a cellphone or computer.
I love the smell of astroturf in the morning, or at least I just work up, anyway.
Also there is a lot of self delusion going on, in general, in social media.
Everyone looking for a date knows they have to post on facebook, because like two people on Oprah were interviewed and supposedly got a date.
Everyone unemployed knows the best place to get a job is linkedin because everyone knows Oprah interviewed a guy whom heard of another guy whom got a job off linkedin.
The funny part is FB is full of unhappy single people and LI is full of unemployed people. It just doesn't work, and until "everyone knows it doesn't work" they can roll in some cash. Once its well known, it'll turn into a ghost town, or devolve into something mindless like prime time TV, there will still be people logging in to fertilize their fertile donkeys or whatever in farmville.
Slashdot Mirror
The value of a company is no longer what it produces and the value of their products.
net present value calculations are fairly meaningless in an unstable environment. Also I think you're confusing the revenue line on the profit and loss statement with the net worth on the balance sheet. Play some more "railroad tycoon".
"Value" has become something completely artificial.
What exactly is a "non-artificial" "value"? The only answer I can even think of is some sort of revealed religious answer, like turning one dude in for crucifixion has a value of X pieces of silver, and I don't think that defined "value" is too helpful in figuring out how much Facebook is worth.
Today, the "value" is what some people think it would be worth. Whether that has any reflection in reality is secondary.
I would say that a closed transaction is the best, most realistic technology for finding value ever invented... Dice aren't going to work.
how much easier does it get to imagine it when you know that you could "buy" 50 World Trade Centers for that?
Its gets a lot easier to imagine if you think of it as, apparently in their opinion, if you have $50B laying around, the best thing to do with it at that moment is buy a Facebook. Rather than Government Motors or a huge pile of rice or whatever.
Somehow that does not seem right in any shape way or form. I know at least a handful users that have way more than a couple of accounts (pets, hiders and other stuff.)
Maybe 25 cents/user on a good day but $100?!?
Take all your physical paper junk mail and toss it into MULTIPLE trash bags for about a year. Make an intelligent estimate on paper, printing, and postage costs and multiply by the number of envelopes / catalogs / postcards / phone books. I was easily exceeding $1000/yr a couple years ago.
Realize that my yearly junk mail is a yearly cost for an entire industry, that shows up on the P+L and cash flow statements not the balance sheet. On the other hand you're talking about ownership of a future advertising industry merely being $100 per victim. Frankly, $100 ownership cost per victim is cheap.
Compare to the cost of buying the SuperBowel in order to sell millions per minute TV commercials.
Another fun cost comparison is a realistic estimate of the sum of all local TV stations, at least a hundred million industry wide total to reach a million or so viewers, not so far out of line.
Advertising is big business.
Civilization V was released with a ton of bugs, many of which were (are!) showstopping crashers, as long as you got to a few hundred turns. Add a trillion smaller, non-crasher bugs, and you have one of the buggiest releases of all time. And yet, between brick-and-mortar and Valve/Steam, they sold about a million units. That's about $50M in the bank.
Testing? What testing?
The key difference is Civ5 is a short term experience, its just something you play until Civ6 comes out, assuming they survive.
On the other hand, the original post
We have one app that is used by a few hundred clients and was initially developed by a few undergrads about 10 years ago.
implies every sale is vital since there have only been a couple hundred, and its just one app, not a series.
In other words, everyone knows civ5 is super buggy and as long as its fun for awhile, who cares. On the other hand, over the previous decade word has gotten around about the original poster software thus only a couple hundred sales.
Quality control a decade ago might have turned them into a billion dollar company over the previous decade, rather than their current pitiful state. If, perhaps, they're planning on winding down next year, debugging for one eleventh the lifetime of the SW is probably pointless.
Let's take the example of a published experiment where the level of statistical significance is so high that the result only had one chance in a million of occurring due to chance. One in a million is 4.9 sigma. There are two problems that you will see in virtually all experiments: (1) people always underestimate their random errors, and (2) people always miss sources of systematic error.
It's *extremely* common for people to underestimate their random errors by a factor of 2. That means the the 4.9-sigma result is only a 2.45-sigma result. But 2.45-sigma results happen about 1.4% of the time. That means that if 71 people do experiments, typically one of them will result in a 2.45-sigma confidence level.
In a publish or perish market, they could have spent more time and money to get a higher statistical result, except for:
1) That is money and lifetime out of their pocket for "nothing"
2) Scaling laws and limited expensive tool sampling time might make it impossible.
I'm sure most people would rather get two research stipends and two published papers in their CV for 2.45 level research than one of each for 4.9 level research.
I did read the article and it also seemed to discuss "fads" while trying very hard not to describe them as basic human fad behavior. There's nothing wrong with a fraction of the population entertaining themselves by chasing fads. The scientific method seems quite effective at getting rid of the fads based on the article example. The problem with that, exactly, is what, other than the author wants to make money off telling everyone about it?
Heres a standard slashdot car analogy... At some point in my father's youth, tail fins on cars were the big thing, until they got tired and mostly went away. When I was a kid, back when it was an expensive hobby, spending a lot of money on after market car audio was cool, until that got tired and mostly went away.
Taking basic human nature and claiming insight at noticing scientists behave like humans is pretty much the sociological equivalent of all those moronic business method patents where you take something pedestrian, suffix " ... on the internet" file the patent and wait for the money to toll in.
One thing I do know. Current scientists aren't very well educated on what has gone before.
Computer scientists / IT people have the same problem. Nothing is really new. Personally I'm waiting for "implicit typing" to be in style again. Python whitespace is conceptually pretty close, probably why I find it repulsive.
Grad schools wont accept you without a 3.0 undergrad and many Doctoral programs wont accept you without a 3.25.
Invariably in my experience this is for "straight thru" students.
The bottom 75% of schools accept anyone with a stack of dollars and/or corporate tuition reimbursement.
The next 20% (at least) will only accept traditional students by your GPA rules, but if you're a non-traditional student all you need is the cash.
When a student is 19, the student is the one whom wants to go to the school. When a student is ... anything other than 19 ... suddenly everyone in the administration, from the lowliest file clerk up to the dean, the school is the one whom wants the student to go there. For obvious financial reasons.
Some ideas:
1. Jam cell phone traffic during exams. If it's not legal then make it legal. More feasible for large college courses than high school exams due to cost.
2. Zero tolerance policies. If you're shown without a doubt to have cheated then you not only fail the course, you're expelled.
3. Keep exams short, possibly in sections spread out over multiple days, and stipulate that if you leave the exam room for any reason (including to use the bathroom), your work for that day is invalidated and you must re-take an "alternate" version of that day's exam.
4. Design exams such that they're resistant to cheating. Use essay or short answer questions instead of multiple choice. If you must use multiple choice then generate different exam versions in which the answers are ordered differently. No two students in proximity to one another should have the same exam version.
5. Structure classes in a such a way that exams are taken individually, with very little opportunity for cheating. I took a self-paced digital logic class that used this format. To advance to the next unit a student had to get a perfect score on a six-question 30 minute quiz taken in the presence of a proctor. After the student had finished the proctor would denote any incorrect answers and the student had 10 minutes to correct them. If he failed to get all questions correct then he had to wait 3 days before re-testing on that unit.
How is the average educational facility supposed to make more money by lowering their average scores and annoying their students? Solve that meta-problem and several other problems solve themselves.
In fact, there should be a requisite course taught in schools titled "How to cheat and get away with it".
Political science for implementation, statistics for theory.
The most interesting part of this expensive and heavily studied technology will be the results (or lack of) with regards to demographics such as race, sex, parents income, political beliefs, whatever.
Err, I should follow up, I'm not so much interested in "such and such group cheats more" but more interested in cognitive research.
For example its widely believed that men inherently have better spatial analysis skills than women.
So given "imagine a cluster of 64 computers wired in a six dimensional hypercube. They are on a straight linear shelf and must be placed one foot apart for cooling purposes. So theres a line of 64 PCs, which is 64 feet long. Each node connects to six neighbors. What is the longest ethernet cable required?" which is big time a trick question. Maybe a better one would be optimally arranged short average cable length or something. Or how many of each length of cable required. Whatever, anyway, theoretically if there were actually enough female CS students to not be a rounding error, this software might pick up the groups as two separate groups of cheaters. Not because they are cheaters, but because of inherently different cognitive approaches to the problem.
The most interesting part of this expensive and heavily studied technology will be the results (or lack of) with regards to demographics such as race, sex, parents income, political beliefs, whatever.
A good way to think of C is "user friendly assembly".
Its also a "universal assembly". Very handy that I can run the same software on a PIC, AVR, MSP, or pretty much any other microcontroller, and only have to worry about the relatively tiny I/O and timing functions.
Forth is almost as good, but not nearly as widespread.
Why would you use floats for counting beans?
Money can be stored as intCents,
You must not be familiar with fortran implicit typing. Are you ever in for a treat...
Variable names beginning with I, J, K, L, M, or N are integer, all names beginning with other letters are float.
So, in your example, "beanCount" is gonna be a float. Sorry if you don't like it that way. The good news is "intcents" is gonna be an integer, so you win there.
Well, unless you play with the IMPLICIT statement.
The other thing, is the best part about standards, is there are so many conflicting standards, so if you don't like how fortran-77 handles implicit variables, you can try another standard for completely different results.
People used to say fortran was write only, until they invented perl...
Greenwald's agenda is that Bradley Manning has been held in solitary confinement for seven months without yet being charged with a crime. The chat logs (which the federal government has copies of) may contain evidence that helps to exonerate Manning or to prove his guilt. Outside of Lamo, Poulsen, Manning, and the government, nobody knows.
However, Lamo has continued to make (sometimes conflicting) statements about what Manning has told him, and Poulsen refuses to so much as confirm or deny whether the logs support any of these statements.
That sounds like an accurate summary of the guys article, rather than his angle, or agenda or goal, or whatever.
Glenn Greenwald writes
Whats Greenwald's angle? Anyone know?
I read what he's writing, all very good agitprop, but the unreleased info could be used for many different purposes depending on what it is, maybe Greenwald already knows. Or his buddy told him to support it. If it happens to match a pre-existing agenda of his. So in that scenario, if we know his agenda, we know what the unreleased contents are..
And so we're once more divided. What's the value of an international network when every country insists on their own language?
Well, the scientists refused to use COBOL because its a wee bit lacking in the numerical analysis area, and the bean counters refused to use FORTRAN because they don't like expressing bean counts using floating point... Its not exactly a new problem.
In the unofficial FAQ, is that a dirt racin' track in the background of the picture?
After a few decades in the telecom industry, I've seen remote pops having all kinds of crazy neighbors. It kind of makes sense, its not as if a bunch of hardware would contain about the noise, and most of the time, there would certainly be plenty of parking... Not many other facilities would want to locate next to a racetrack, beyond the obvious tow truck, autoparts and hotel types.
Obviously this facility will house the thousands of centrifuges necessary to purify enough U-235 to implement the final phase of Operation Apple Core Takeover.
The iReactor, now thinner, lighter, and shinier than ever!
Then comes a deficit commission and Social Security and unemployment insurance is gone and you have a significant population of desperate unemployed people starving to death on the streets.
They can always riot and thanks to the 2nd amendment they'll be some pretty exciting riots. Which is a good thing, as it tends to discourage the creation of conditions resulting in said riots.
Thats why (some) rich people tolerate or even support social programs... Even if they are utterly self centered, and have no empathy or responsibility for their fellow humans, or for the random whims of chance that could strike them down, they personally don't want to live in 24x7 rodney king riot conditions, so maybe UI and SS and some civilized medical care is not such a bad idea after all. Its nice when even the most despicable inherently line up with the somewhat more intelligent.
The sollution is to put a price on IPv4 blocks. And make them increasingly expensive.
Sounds like someone is planning to make money off me.
because IPv4 is free and IPv6 for all practical purposes costs money (because of investments in routers, training, time to set up, etc).
I can tell you are not in the business, so you are drawing the wrong conclusions from inaccurate data.
Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.
You must not have gotten the news that corporations and govt have merged. $500M is going to his friends, former and future coworkers / employers. Side effects such as producing a working vehicle are not relevant to the primary goal of transferring $500M, about half from Chinese bond holders and half from taxes, to his "family".
Now if the $500M when to the department of agriculture or something, he has no "family" there so he would complain.
Well, during the "boost" cycle of a boost/buck converter, yeah, I guess.
Kohls has had technology like this in their stores for a little while now.
A little while? My local food store had that in the early 90s. Had some weird modulator thing that plugged into the florescent lights. It was some kind of weird boost/buck converter that varied the line power / light brightness by a volt or so from cycle to cycle. I had the EE background to understand it but no one at the store knew how it worked.
The interesting thing is if you only have a couple tens of thousands of price tags, it doesn't take a very high bandwidth signal to reprice everything in a couple hours.
I have no idea what this place wants to do with 3 megs/sec, as that is tremendous multicasting bandwidth. You could almost ghost machines with that, slowly.
HR people will question your ability to deal with IT technology if you don't have a MySpace/FB/Twitter presence, claiming it is as behind the times to not be on FB as it is not to have a cellphone or computer.
I love the smell of astroturf in the morning, or at least I just work up, anyway.
Also there is a lot of self delusion going on, in general, in social media.
Everyone looking for a date knows they have to post on facebook, because like two people on Oprah were interviewed and supposedly got a date.
Everyone unemployed knows the best place to get a job is linkedin because everyone knows Oprah interviewed a guy whom heard of another guy whom got a job off linkedin.
The funny part is FB is full of unhappy single people and LI is full of unemployed people. It just doesn't work, and until "everyone knows it doesn't work" they can roll in some cash. Once its well known, it'll turn into a ghost town, or devolve into something mindless like prime time TV, there will still be people logging in to fertilize their fertile donkeys or whatever in farmville.
You might be on to something. Facebook obviously figured this out, and as such began blasting 90% pro-homosexual ads at me.
(insert my best serious Dr Phil wakeup call voice here) ... Oh heck, need I even say it, you all know what we are snickering about.
(goatse image here) Like