I suspect you are right, which is why I wrote "Google can" rather than "Google does," but Google may have incentive to sell service at a loss to improve the experience of their Youtube users (thus making Youtube more profitable due to more usage) or so they can mine the traffic data. In any event, having a price from a pure ISP avoids that whole issue.

Why would they offer the service at all if they would be losing money on it? Just leave that market completely and have more money at the end of the day.

The $65/month number is from Grande Communications', not AT&T. I don't know anything about their service, so I don't know if it is any more legit than AT&T.

So, what we learn is that ISPs believe they can build a gigabit infrastructure and make a profit charging only $65/month for service without having to subsidize it with an ad business (like Google can). That's a very nice measure of just how much the rest of us are getting screwed by our ISPs.

I'm wondering what is supposed to be mysterious about that code. The "/* increment */" comment seems to apply to the code inside the loop, not what is being done to the i variable, so I don't think that's it. Is it because the loop goes from 7 down to 0 instead of the other way around? I remember reading a programming book back in the 80's that advocated doing that for better speed since the assembly code generated to compare to 0 was faster than comparing to some other integer (which seems to no longer be the case, and I suspect could even cause cache misses for a bigger loop, although I don't know enough about how CPUs fill the cache to know for sure).

Yes, XMind allows you to grab any node and drag it (with the hierarchy under it intact) into any other part of the hierarchy. That was one of my requirements, which a few other mind mapping tools I tested didn't seem to support (or, at least, I couldn't find a way to do it with other tools with just a few minutes of poking around). You can also collapse/expand any node.

Have you tried XMind? I was recently searching for an outlining tool and found it to be pretty good for my purposes. The basic version is free.

Good point. I looked at the Q4 table and thought the original poster got "couple billion per year" by multiplying the revenue by four. I didn't scroll down, so I didn't see that there was a full-year table available showing that they are profitable (but not justifying the "couple billion" number). Thanks for the correction.

To be fair, that's billions in revenue, not profit, so I wouldn't say they "make" a couple billion per year. In fact, the source you linked to shows that their operating income is negative, so after subtracting expenses from that revenue they are losing money. So, they don't have a few billion in spare cash sloshing around -- that $2.6 million is not a negligible amount of money for them. The fact that they still think it is worth spending on lobbying when they don't have a lot of spare money is perhaps an even stronger statement about how effective lobbying dollars are.

I've seen two episodes of Dr. Oz. In the first, he talked about treating a jellyfish sting. Knowing nothing about jellyfish stings, I assume his advice was legit. The second episode he talked about homeopathic medicine and all of the wonderful treatment options it provided. He didn't laugh when he was saying that. I never watched again -- can't trust anything he says to be valid.

I've read about quite a few of these "Linux blow-ups" over the years, and I can't think of a single instance where I cam away thinking Linus was anything short of fully justified once you actually looked at the context.

I'm in the test group, too. The very first time I saw it, for a split second my brain wanted to think the ads were part of the organic results due to the lack of background color differentiation. Since then, I've not been at all tempted to accidentally click the ads, so I think it will make no difference a few days after they transition people over to the new layout (if they ever do).

That's the way I do it, actually, but it's not very discoverable for new users, so it's probably best to not assume they'll do it that way.

If you click the title bar to move the window around, the area you have to hit would be smaller (must avoid menus) and would vary from one application to another due to differing number of menus. I don't know if that's the "official" reason; it's just a hypothesis.

Advertising dollars spent on Facebook may be detrimental for companies buying "likes" through Facebook (even directly, not 3rd party). When advertisers figure that out, Facebook is done.