Because a simple name-value pair object & array data serialization format is wayyyyyy better than a distributed data storage and retrieval system. Right...

Prepaid 3G on Sprint's network: $25 / month, 300 minutes, unlimited data.

This method of obtaining geolocation is far more precise:

http://geolocation.kmz.me/2011/04/08/geolocation-gone-terrible-with-googles-help-black-hat-hackers-can-pinpoint-web-users-via-javascript-xss/

Although its probably going to be far less accurate as it requires a known router type with a default internal IP and default password. Not to mention it requires a router that has been located on Google street view.

For a moment, forget about how much it costs or whether it can do everything that a laptop can do.

Consider the following use cases:

• Curling up in bed to watch a movie or read a book
• Handing a tablet to somebody across a conference table at a business meeting
• Watching a movie while washing dishes, with the tablet perched on the rim of the kitchen window

None of these things would be comfortable, practical, or even possible with a laptop. And that's why I love both of my tablets (iPad and a Nook Color rooted w/ Android Gingerbread).

Upon actually reading TFA, it's clear that the submitter added the conclusions about "no reaction" or being "ignored". The study itself doesn't mention the word "ignored", it's strictly a study of rates of replies and retweets.

Shame on you submitter....

Rather than looking at the number of replies & retweets, a much better methodology is to look at the number of clicks that a link posted inside a tweet gets.

When I post a link (using my YOURLS powered shortener) Approximately 5% of my 600 followers will click the link. Retweets and responses are much more rare than clicks. If anybody clicks the link, the tweet was not ignored, but according to this study they were.

Regularly I'll tweet something, then a day or two later, I'll have somebody ask me IRL about something mentioned tweet. So despite a lack of twitter responses and retweets, clearly the tweet was read by a "lurker". But according to the standard of this study they were ignored.

Finally, I have my tweets set to funnel into Facebook, which despite having 1/3 of the followers there, it's far more likely that a tweet will receive a response or a "Like". This study doesn't consider that either.

Shameless trawling for more followers: Follow Me on Twitter

Yes, but not before first providing ample warning notifications by e-mail, SMS, and robocall.

If you cut somebody off from the net straight away, that prevents the person from downloading the necessary file to take the steps necessary to remove the bot.

False analogy. Studying cancer thoroughly requires more than simply looking at cancer cells from a distance, but interacting with them, seeing what makes them grow faster, seeing what makes them die. To study cancer you must "follow" cancer cells. Similarly to study social media effectively, one needs to FULLY participate in it, not just use it as a means of monitoring old-media sources and broadcasting one way to a throng of followers.

TFA points to a bunch of pre-twitter revolutions, then the non-revolution of #iranelection, and COMPLETELY overlooks the very significant role that social media played in the election of Barack Obama. Can you say "assume the conclusion"?

A more accurate analogy to TFA would be to say: "Cancer killed my grandpa therefore it will never be cured".

Check out the author's two twitter accounts:

http://twitter.com/Malcgladwell
http://twitter.com/gladwell

Combined # of tweets: 32
Combined # of people he follows: 12, nearly all of whom are twitter accounts for old media establishments.

This is typical thread I see among all those who condemn social media: Unfamiliarity breeds contempt.

But not a bad one at that... Why simply implement a premium pricing plan when you can get a bunch of free press and encourage a public outpouring their love for your product.

I signed the pledge.

"those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to relive it"

This rejection must have hurt them dearly. I mean, getting front page coverage on Slashdot must have really damaged their app sales. I weep for them.

Firefox joins Skyfire (http://www.skyfire.com/) in demonstrating that it's technically possible to run flash on a mobile device. Forgive this OT rant:

This demonstrates how Apples exclusion of Flash from the iPad and iPhone is not a mater of device stability, security or performance, but a mater of Apple's choice to try to destroy Flash because it is a threat to their monoculture. They claim that it runs the "whole internet" and has the "best web browsing experience", they falsified the iPad demonstration videos to try to make it seem like the Flash on the NY Times home page worked.

You can see a divisions in the ranks of the Apple Fanboys, on one side are those who criticize Apple wielding their power towards anti-competitive means, and the other side are the sheeple who rationalizes it, justify it, claim flash is obsolete, and actually wants flash to die because they want what ever the folks in Cupertino want.

This will not stand. Looking forward to a big settlement between Adobe and Apple once Adobe brings suit. Apple needs to be punished for their evil behavior.

> An appliance such as a coffee maker isn't designed to be hacked into.

The whole "Appliance" thing is a false analogy. You can put whatever kind of coffee, filter and water you want into the coffee maker. The filters on most coffee maker are of a standard size which work on a variety of models. The coffee, filters, and water do not have to go through an approval process. The maker of the coffee, filters and water do not have to pay a percentage of their gross revenue to the manufacturer of the coffeemaker.

Similarly, a refrigerator does not only store "authorized" foods. A laundry machine, dish washer, and microwave may have recommendations of what you should wash/cook in it, but nothing to stop you from putting whatever you please inside of them and hitting start.