# cat > /etc/hosts
> google.com 127.0.0.1
> doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1
> youtube.com 127.0.0.1
> google-analytics.com 127.0.0.1
> # ...
> EOF

Google Wave may mean that web sites and blogs will be implemented as embedded Waves. The wave demo at http://wave.google.com/ shows how this would work for blog comments & galleries.

In this demo, they basically hint that because of this, Google is rethinking what embedding & javascript mean on a page because they envision a future where the content can and will live anywhere and won't be represented by static HTML.

As you point out, this is already happening, albeit to a lesser degree than I think Google anticipates.

You have it backwards: if inflation occurs, woo-hoo. Inflation means that each future dollar is worth less than each dollar today. When you borrow money today via a bond offering, your payments are (typically, and in this case) fixed for the term, but you will be earning more dollars for equivalent value in the future.

Your conclusion, that now is a good time to borrow, is probably correct.

Agreed. See x.org for how quickly a community can switch to a fork.

Knife. Crime.

The reason you don't get turn-by-turn directions with Google maps is that Google's agreements with map/GIS data providers (all those with copyrights listed in the bottom corner of your map) forbid it.

A license that allows turn-by-turn directions that is controlled by GPS costs money, hence why there aren't any free apps that do this, except for one, AndNav for Android, that uses Open Street Map data instead of commercial map data.

In fact, AndNav started out doing this with Google Maps until running into this problem.

I have paid, including the developer fee and taxes, $450 for an ADP1 from Google. One of the key selling points for developers is that they can publish hooks that are available to other apps, called "intents." Most major actions, like "call so and so," or "go to the home screen" are done with intents. New ones can be added and then called by other apps.

In light of this, I think it is pretty shitty of them to restrict access to software that will be publishing intents that applications I develop could interact with. I suppose I'll have to independently contact developers and see if they'll play nicely.

A lot of people want to read news so that they can be informed about what's happening in the world, not so that they can share and comment on it. These people might be willing to pay if it means continued access to news from on-the-ground, professional correspondents.

My hypothesis about making people pay for access to a news site is this: you get people who value it, and you keep out a lot of the crap.

Sorry if that's not egalitarian, but have you ever looked at your local paper's web site? On mine, each article typically has hundreds of comments to the effect of "how is babby formed," or "barrrak hussein osama gonna give teh aids." Why would anyone intelligent put in the effort to contribute to a discourse like that?

The counterpoint is not "slashdot." At least we have moderation and most of the crap gets pushed to -1.

I like how you liken "climate change deniers" to religious bigots. "Religious zealots" would be more appropriate, and they exist on both sides.

Yeah, this is the basic idea of how science is supposed to work, but that's not the point that comes across in your post. The parent post is a troll.

The last time I was presented with the "agreement" for the iTunes store, I pulled up a terminal and ran wc on it. It was 4,931 words long, not including referenced agreements. You can go buy a CD at a store with out signing a contract, much less one nearly 5,000 words long.

It contained all manor of claims of how Apple could unilaterally change the terms for purchased music and required that you "agree to agree" to future terms.

Having taken some contract law courses ( but IANAHPAADL - I am not a highly paid Apple attack dog lawyer), much of it seemed unconscionable. Specifically, consideration from Apple (ability to play already purchased songs, access the store, etc.) seems weak-to-non-existent in light of the fact that it can be arbitrarily revoked according to the terms.

Also, I am generally an Apple fan, but this is one area where I think they are really out of control.

Let me get this straight -- we should suggest to people who are highly credulous that there is the possibility that they might receive legitimate email from "suitably important-looking government address"?

That will never cause bigger, more successful phishing scams.

Exhibits A, B, C, and G will be grounds for a DMCA takedown notice. The youtube version will have the sound muted so as not to leak any copyrighted material without just compensation.

"GUI Interface" is redundant. I think that's the qualm, or at least part of it.