It doesn't matter what the users want. It matters what the advertisers want. They want a big screen with room for ads.

This is especially true of Android, since Google gets their revenue from ads, not phones or phone software.

Over half the Bitcoin exchanges have gone bust. Entire Bitcoin "stock exchanges" disappeared with the money. Bitcoin "investments" promising substantial returns each month were, of course, Ponzi schemes.

Bitcoin is a scam magnet. Irrevocable, remote, anonymous money transfers are the scammer's dream. (Yes, there are people talking about cryptographic escrow schemes so you can buy something with Bitcoins and have some recourse if it doesn't show up. So far, that hasn't reached usability.)

That's why Bitcoin needs regulation. If you're going to hold other people's money, you have to be regulated. Deal with it.

Let's see this list of spyware. Will Google kick them out of the Android store? Will the FBI prosecute the developers for "exceeding authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? If not, why not?

I think what you've discovered is that you can't put up ads for something similar to what people are searching for, thinking they'll consider buying your product instead. Searching for somethng is a very narrow task. "Is THAT what I want?... no. Is THAAAT what I want?". It's not really a time when people are open to new ideas.

So I don't think Google adswords is a "scam". If it was, Google would have been out of business long ago. What you need to realize about marketing is you need to get the consumer at the right TIME. There's periods of time when people are far more open to something new and interesting. But it's most certainly not when they're looking for something specific.

Shit, if people actually DO that, I'd put out ads specifically so competitors would go try to click on them. Why? Because every minute they spend clicking on ads is a minute they aren't doing any work trying to compete with me.

1) This service will survive for all of two weeks tops - it's him against the collective power of Google. I put my money on Google.

And if that were the matchup, I'd agree. But remember Google is an enormous company, with many problems. This is a minor little annoying fly buzzing around the office. If the fly lies low, it can survive for quite a while. If it bites the wrong person, or becomes too annoying, it's going to get swatted rather quickly.

So far it looks like the fly has managed to lie low enough to not be much of a concern (The article mentions the service has been around for 2 1/2 years).

>("Getting the job done" does not, and has never required being abusive to others. Getting the job done while being abusive is not proof that being abusive is required or even was part of, "getting the job done.")

Hmmm.. I'm going to disagree here. Being verbally abusive is a technique to demand change in an organization. We all like to think leaders all command respect and everyone just follows them because they're the leader. Bullshit. One technique, employed by MANY leaders is being a total fucking asshole, at least part of the time. You think anyone would be talking about this GCC bullshit (and if what Torvalds says is right, it's really completely fucked up, and not excusable) if Linus just put a nice, politely worded request to just fix shit? I don't think so. But even if he was nice and polite, and got the thing fixed, there's little or no consequence for the fuckup, so it can happen again. If you're coding GCC, maybe you might at least sub-consciously think "boy, I better not release utter shit, or I'll catch some serious shit from that asshole Linus Torvalds... what a cock gobbling asshole that Torvalds is".

This idea you have that everything can work in a nice polite society where everyone has mutual respect for each other can work sometimes, in limited capacities. But the norm is for assholes like Linus to sometimes throw shit-fits, and others to work in fear of having a shit-fit thrown at them sometimes.

Is that the ONLY way to run an organization? Probably not, but as another thread points out, it's a common pattern of effective leaders.

When it's time for an asteroid mission, it will probably be robotic.

It's amazing how much money NASA can spend not going into space.

It's one of those "flexible funding" Indiegogo projects, where they get to keep the money even if they don't get enough money to make anything. Great scam; just come up with some popular idea, overprice the project, and keep the money.

If you want more servers like that, Wierd Stuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale, CA, has the same HP series G Xeon servers for $189. (2 3GHz quad-core Xeons per server! Hard drives are extra, but cheap.) Wierd Stuff has huge supplies of previous-generation data center equipment.

It's amazing how cheap computer hardware is now.

Reality check: space travel with chemical fuels just barely works. It takes huge rockets to launch dinky payloads, and that hasn't improved in 45 years. Satellites and probes are useful. Man in space has just been a boondoggle.

If fusion ever works, this may change, but with chemical rockets, it's not getting much better.

Right, that was when AdBlock sold out to Google.

The post was about comparing a woman looking at a mans strength, to a man looking at a linebackers strength. It wasn't about men being stronger than women, which is obvious.

The claim, at least as someone else could find out, was totally false. So yes, I think scrutinizing peoples claims is extremely important.

That building complex was overhauled in 1997 by Inglett & Stubbs electrical contractors, who did $14 million of electrical work. This failure may or may not be their fault, but it's not because of neglected infrastructure.

Now, at last! Google People! In cooperation with the Venter Institute.