I'm not "trying to impress anyone out there", I'm just trying not to die of boredom on my daily commute. A full-throttle acceleration from a stop light (when the way is clear and it's safe to do so) every now and then can really put a smile on my face.

I hear people say things about people with sports cars - "he's got small penis" or "he's showing off", but I'm just having fun. I'm having fun *for myself*. I've got no one to show off for - I'm married 17 years now.

This app is not for me.

"The app chirps at you when it notices rough braking, aggressive acceleration, or speeding over 70 mph."

I do that all the time. I like to do that. That's why I bought a sports car. Why would I want an app to chirp at me when I do that?

from the article:

  "Meanwhile, the rise of the cloud has reduced the need for extra memory."

Really? "The Cloud" acts as RAM?

Why am I reminded of Star Wreck 4½? Can't remember the exact quote, but...

"Alert the enemies, that we're about to warm up the twinkler banks... soon."

"Alert the enemies, that we're about to warm up the twinkler banks... now."

(Several hours later)

"All right, if you want it. So be it. We will not make any more warnings. All light balls and twinkler banks... feuer."

(The ensuing fight consists mostly of dodging maneuvers of "turn right very slowly" variety)

Clearly you are not a Postini customer.

I am working now, and it's not a media company. :)

That may be true. I'm a developer, so I can't comment intelligently about the financial side of things. It may be that Veoh would have went under anyway, but we would have lasted a lot longer without those attorney's fees, and without the chilling effect the lawsuit had on us. I was told that some companies did not want to advertise with us because of the lawsuit.

In the all hands meeting when Michael Robertson told us all about his idea for my.mp3.com, one guy, a developer, (we'll call him "D") raised his hand and said "So, how are not a warez site, then?", and Michael had some explanation, and D asked the question again, and was insistent about it, and eventually was told to shut up and sit down (in nicer language). He was right, though, as history has proven.

I worked for mp3.com from 1999 to them folding in 2003 from UMG's (and others) lawsuit. I worked for Veoh from 2008 to 2009 when they folded from UMG's lawsuit.

I HATE UMG.

Those were the most fun jobs I've ever had. The work was challenging, the environment was fun, and my co-worker were some of the smartest people I've ever met. I had the opportunity to write code that solved problems no one had every faced before. It was awesome.

UMG has screwed me out of 2 very fulfilling jobs.

Yog's Law: The money flows toward the writer. If it doesn't, then you're pretty obviously doing it wrong. Just how many people in other lines of work are paying to do their work? Silly me, I thought that people are usually paid to do their job.

The publishing industry has existed for a long time and has found a way to enable people to pay the authors, without any of the parties along the way screwing themselves over. The reason why publishers pay for ISBNs is that they're the risk-takers, and this arrangement works for all parties involved in normal publishing.

It's silly to assume that this arrangement would be most benefical for all parties in self-publishing scenario. It's silly to assume that ISBN authorities would be somehow entitled to do this same thing with self-publishing authors. And it's silly to assume that authors should be taking the exact same risks as commercial publishers do right now. The right solution would be to offer new mutually benefical arrangements and new approaches. In short, if publishing something requires an ISBN and self-publishers need it for minimal or no cost, offer them at that price. Otherwise, it's just an artificial barrier and it's plain as day that someone's screwing over someone.

This sketch from Studio C applies: Going Green

Nokia has sold so few Lumias that the market size for people with 3D printers seems big.

When people stop driving too slow in the far left lane, I'll stop tailgating.

I agree. People don't care about Windows, they care about apps, and Microsoft definitely has the inside track when it comes to apps that people actually use.

However, Microsoft is several years late to this particular party, and it is not entirely clear that they can deliver. A tablet with a four hour battery life is not going to be acceptable in most workplace situations where tablets would be a nice fit. Windows RT does a much better job of this, but it does so essentially by sacrificing compatibility with Windows software. Enterprises are already deploying tablets, and in many cases they are already developing the software that they need to switch to tablets completely. The fact of the matter is that large businesses have been switching away from deploying applications on Windows for almost a decade now. Even in most Windows shops new applications get delivered in a web browser these days.

My original point is that Microsoft has gotten itself into a very precarious situation. There are millions of iPad users that now use the iPad as their primary computing device. They don't really want an expensive new tablet that runs their employer's CRM software (or whatever), but that doesn't run the iPad applications that they have come to know and love. What they really want are replacements for the last few pieces of Windows software that they are forced to use on a PC.

Worse, thanks to competition from Google Microsoft can't even fall back on its usual tactic of providing something almost as good as the market leader at a deep discount. Google scooped up that position in mobile several years ago.

Microsoft is in a tough spot, and it is going to take more than a me-too tablet that just happens to run Windows software to turn that around. I don't think that a $900 tablet with a four hour battery life has a chance in the market, even if it does run Windows programs. Obviously you disagree. On the bright side we will find out who is right in a month or so.