The right place to store a chocolate bar is the pocket right under your nose.

But to be honest, I am not sure if that held the adoption rate down...

Ranch Dressing makes EVERYTHING better.
The only way to make Ranch Dressing better is if someone figured out put caffeine in it.
Yum, Caffeinated Ranch Dressing!

Not all students will do the final test.
The assumption here is that if 160000 students enroll and pay their fees, a (much?) smaller number of students actually follow through to the end.
Because the fees are so low, why not give it a try? I suspect the dropout rate is much higher with a low entry fee.

I would provide x amount of time for warranty (say two months) and provide the option to buy into service (monthly fee) that covers feature and security fixes.
The best part of a service model is that you keep contact with the customer and you can up-sell them to the next feature release.
This model does not work as well for all custom work.

For custom x months of warranty plus $x per hour for changes and fixes. Providing them with a lifetime support option is very unpredictable and may scare the customer away. They may plan on using the solution for 3 years where you are covering your ass when you need to fix it 20 years from now (current year equivalent: you need to keep that prehistoric server running to make minor changes in COBOL...) and account for that somehow. Be specific what lifetime warranty is when you go that route, sometimes it is just educating the client on expectations.

Yes, but with different logins (for sites like /.).
The different logins are remembered when I get to the site, the password is predictable when I need to do something.

When website business gets serious, a separate password schema is used (Bank, Web Stores, etc.).

To be honest, why would not every site let me choose how long my password is? I am a strong believer in the 'correct horse battery staple' method for passwords.

Are you implying that there are no wealthy professionals in SF who are aligned with the political left?
Do you realize that Nancy Polosi's district is San Francisco?

I agree only on your point that the product is almost completely visible. No need to unpack.
What I do not agree on is the easy to open idea of perforation in the back. That never works.
Either the perforation is to rigid and wont tear without excessive force, I usually get a scissor to open.

A well made clam shell packaging can be opened and closed with press locks and a piece of tape.
If you need to return an item, you can do so in decent shape, if the product came in a completely sealed clam shell (with or without perforation) and I need to return it, expect it to be returned in a plastic bag as the packaging will never go back to its original shape.

Lastly, CFL bulbs need to be in clam shell packaging as it protects the product fairly well, however, when you buy a pack (always more than one in a package) to replace one lamp, you end up with one or more unprotected bulbs as the package never comes back to its original shape. The last thing you want to do is break an spare CFL in storage.

I agree, but we must stay away from dancing or else the fees will double.

Why would it be more expensive to listen to a song by an artist when the listeners start moving their behinds to the beat?
And at what point are people dancing? Can that be defined clearly?

Splitting out the results by topic is not a new idea at all.
Many years ago while consulting at Yahoo! we already played around with a search engine that broke its results by topic (back then we used the 'Explorer' search text to show its potential). Somehow this never caught on.

I cannot remember the name of that particular search engine we used back then (these were the days of Altavista, a new start up called Google and Microsoft was still using Yahoo). A little research on the webs brought me to this: http://search.yippy.com/ It does the same thing without the thumbnail bloat. Try it with search terms like Explorer or Roots. It is a different experience.

disclaimer: I have absolutely nothing to do with yippy.com and if this article was not posted I would never have looked for it.

Hey, you are not allowed to publish Oracle's benchmark results!

How many stock photo companies that you know are valued in the 1Bn$ range? Its a business model alright, but not that lucrative...

What I found troubling is that you are saying that of artists who upload their material (music, graphical art) to FB, FB can sell their art to whoever/whatever, I am not sure if (upcoming) artists are too thrilled about that.

The fact that they have an amazing number of subscribers, and got there so quickly is absolutely amazing. The inability to monetize on it could be part of this success, turning around and start making serious money over these $800m users in unprecedented ways can only spell disaster in my opinion. On the other hand, FB will still track each of these users regardless if their account is active or not.

It is only true that it was priced perfectly if the stock remained within .5% of its closing price of Friday.
Since we have an uptick market today and FB stock going down, there is no such story as 'its been priced perfectly'.

FB has been overvalued to support the huge demand, the only problem with this is that the excess demand was for investors who want to ride the stock up in the first couple of days before dumping it with decent gains. Now that these gains are nowhere to be found and no long term investment strategy exists, the interest has melted away.

FB will have to win the investor crowd interest back soon to maintain its current price and I believe only a clear revenue strategy will do such a thing.
Until then, the stock price is at risk to drop to more acceptable P/E ratios.

We are all downwind from super volcanoes.

In ANY investment strategy you should invest based on hard facts, never on intuition or emotion.
Whatever is going on with the FB IPO, there seem to be way to much emotion on deciding to 'ride the gravy train'.
So, if anyone takes the time to look at the facts, being risk averse is not a fools decision.