Widely used is not synonymous with beloved. The local DMV is widely used, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone calling it beloved.

About two months ago there was a Slashdot article indicating that on average, people are very dissatisfied with Facebook, but they keep using it because Facebook is a de facto monopoly, thanks to the network effect.

Personally, I can't stand Facebook, but I use it because I've got too many friends who refuse to respond to email. I'll continue to hate on it until they solve the following obvious problems

• Provide a convincing reason why I should trust them with my personal data. Facebook has had a terrible history with privacy, and I'm at the point where I'd rather trust nearly anyone else over Facebook
• Provide privacy settings that are easy to use, intuitive, and complete (Especially settings involving others posting and tagging photos of you in them)
• Intelligent, easy to use scheduling features to encourage more "in person" social time. (Facebook "Events" are terrible.)
• Provide easier to use methods of separating "Friends" into different groups. Before making any posting, let the sender me choose who it is going to. (Don't default to everyone)
• No, I don't care about everyone's status update. Please don't flood my news with this
• Applications should not have the ability to spam friends lists

I really don't think that these things are too much to ask for a webpage that has more users than there are citizens in the United States

The payoff is in the improved education of people who choose to use the Khan Academy to supplement their education. If it's popular, someone will likely fund a study to see how effective it is. Google apparently believes in it enough that they're willing to fund the site directly, rather than a study of it.

No. While I definitely agree that mandatory class material should be tested, I don't think anyone's talking about making Khan Academy mandatory. Everything on the Internet has the potential to reach a lot of people. Not everything on the Internet should be carefully tested.

As a person who graduated from a major state college with a minor in math about 3 years ago, I really wish I had even one math teacher in my entire schooling experience who was even half as good of a teacher as Salmon Khan. I've gone over his Calculus videos, because I felt my Calculus skills were lacking, as I'd originally been taught by a lady who could just barely speak English. In my opinion, these videos represent a better educational experience than about 95% of the school that I've attended. I've had a few better classes in person, but most "teachers" are barely qualified, in my personal experience.

Something to understand about Khan's videos, they can be helpful to anyone who can speak English. There are numerous reports of it being a useful tool for students in Africa. Many students have used it to pass the California Algebra I standards test. I suppose there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it's effective, nobody's done a major study yet.

About a month ago, Slashdot posted an article about a 578 million dollar high school being built. Now you're demonizing Google for giving 1/289th that amount to an institution that will likely reach 50+ times the audience, who are probably more in need of a better education anyway? I don't think that makes any sense at all.

In the business world, two million dollars is chump change. Angel investors throw a lot more money than that at an idea without scientific evidence of it working. This seems like an excellent opportunity to throw a little money at an interesting education opportunity, and see how it pays off.

It seems that nearly every liberal I talk to thinks that taxing the rich is the equivalent to getting free money. In case you're wondering, it's not. The fact of the matter is, no matter who you tax, the middle and lower class feel it. The primary example that needs to be looked at is the small business. Liberals keep insisting that they're going to start popping up, and fix the economy. The fact of the matter is, they aren't going to while the rich are getting taxed so much more heavily than everyone else. I think I can paint you a picture to get an idea why. In order to start nearly any type of business, you need to fill a number of roles. One of those roles is an investor. The investor throws a bunch of money at the business to own a percentage of it. Let's say he invests thinking that there's a 75% chance that his percentage of the business will be worth twice what he put into it in about two years, on the other hand if the business fails, he probably won't see much if any of his investment back. If you don't take taxes into account, he's statistically better off by making the investment, which will get the small business started. If you tax the rich at a high rate, let's say 40%, the investor will actually lose money on average by investing in the small business. A smart investor in that situation would just hold on to his money, and there would be no startup, and thus no economic activity. Right now, the tax rate for the rich in America is about 35%, and we aren't seeing many people willing to invest in startups. I guarantee you it's not because the people with money are stupid. Progressive and regressive tax schemes both have significant negative effects on the economy. The one we've got right now in addition to being too Progressive, also suffers from a ridiculous amount of overhead, and lots of the loopholes that unscrupulous rich people are taking advantage of. Except for the fact that there are so many people who think that taxing the rich is free money, a flat tax would be dramatically better than our current system. As far as fixing the stock market goes, I agree with you 100%. Stock market regulation is one of the better ideas that was on our current president's platform. He hasn't come through with it, but I hope that gets done soon, and better than health care. Regarding our political parties, I hate both of them. The Republicans are corrupt warmongers whose morals come solely from the Bible. Democrats have no idea of fiscal responsibility (although I admit they did surprisingly well during the Clinton administration). Both parties hold their own interests higher than the interests of the country, and I hope we as a country never have to put up with either of them controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency again. I know it's going to happen again, but I can dream that it won't.