Exactly. With the exception of the 27 (or so) stations actually owned by Fox, they have no ability to stop their affiliates from transmitting programs over the air.

Just like MySpace beat FaceBook to market and Netscape beat IE to market. Getting that first mover advantage really fueled their meteoric rise and long stay at the top.

Exactly. Skip the VPN issue and he'd probably still be making a ton of money for sitting on his ass all day.

The article explicitly talks about insider trading by market manipulation of channel checks.

And the SEC is starting to investigate

Okay, just to be clear.

In your meetings, everyone waits while one person tells his status, then everyone waits while a 2nd person tells his status, and so on.

How is this more efficient than everyone composing a 1-paragraph summary and sending it around in E-mail? How is this more efficient than the boss visiting everyone one-at-a-time, taking notes, and typing up a summary E-mail?

How is a "free topics" meeting with everyone better than "targetted topics" meetings with only the people involved? Aren't impropmtu get-togethers with a couple of people in the bosse's office more effective than big meetings in the conference room?

I'm confused. What about your meetings make them good meetings?

What I've found is that if you don't meet together as a team, then you can't make sure that everyone's on the same page. You'd be surprised how many times someone brings up a problem and it turns out that 2 other people knew about it and hadn't said anything yet or knew about it and figured out how to fix it (or work around it). Email isn't as good because you don't know if everyone read it or understood it. Impromptu get-togethers are encouraged, but aren't a substitute for a regularly scheduled team meeting. Things are often handled quicker and easier if everyone's in one place at the same time. In addition, as the leader, I had a busy schedule, so spending 30 minutes together with everyone was more efficient than spending 10 minutes with 5-10 different people. And I often had project updates from the management that I would pass along. I only had to talk about it once and answer questions once while knowing that everyone is aware of it. Targetted topics meetings are scheduled for topics that aren't of interest to the general team. Free topics are usually for non project updates (going on vacation, doctor's appt,, etc) which the rest of the team should be aware of. And strict meeting rules were enforced. If a topic started going on too long (usually longer than a minute or two), then discussion was stopped and a separate meeting was scheduled to handle that particular issue with only the people needed. Most of the meetings were done in 10-15 minutes and were scheduled no closer than once a week. But they are necessary to make sure the project runs smoothly and everyone is aware of what's going on with their teammates and the rest of the project team and don't get stuck in their own silo without knowing what else is going on.

The issue isn't meetings, it's bad meetings. Each meeting should have a set agenda and a time limit for each topic. When I was a senior developer, I would have a weekly status meeting with my team. The meeting always started off with basic status reports (what did you do, what are you stuck on, what do you need help with), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue. If something took more than a couple minutes to discuss, we'd table it for a separate meeting with only the people that needed to be there. Meetings should exist to make sure everyone's on the same page and so people who need something have a forum to ask for it. Without a firm agenda (which is aggressively held to) meetings lower productivity.

This is my suggestion as well. It's actually Delicious Library 2 by now. You can search by name, ISBN number, scanning the barcode, etc. You can also store books, CDs, DVDs, games, physical devices, etc.

May I be the first to say...WTF???

Exactly. Streaming has lower pricing and higher costs for providers. Why would Apple be interested? I'm sure someone at Apple is looking at it to see if it makes sense, but that doesn't mean they are actually interested in doing it.

There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.

1.0 had some issues when you moved beyond web apps (JavaScript or mobile apps), but I am much more confident of its security.

The way DUI laws are written currently, I wonder if you could get a DUI for being in an autonomous vehicle while intoxicated simply because you have the option of taking over control.

I don't care how technical you are if you can't explain what you are doing to others. You need to be able to explain what you are going to do during design phase, so that others can make sure it fits in with the pieces they are working on. You need to explain what you are doing to production support teams, so that they can understand the system well enough to support it. Also, depending on the type of project you are working on, you will probably need to explain some of it to people who do user manuals, phone support documents, training documents etc. There are several different levels of explanation that need to be done and you better be able to explain your application to all of them.

Most of my experience with GWT was with pre-2.0. We had issues when trying to bring in stand-alone pages in addition to the web app we had. It was difficult to integrate existing non-GWT pages with GWT.