I'm not a lover of MS myself, but Google's power scares me. Skynet is here and there name is Google.

Yes, the articles show up very high and frankly, it's ripe for abuse and can really damage people who are "lucky" enough to have an entry about them in there. Truth is, there are people out there who have a vested interest in making certain people look bad and there is truly no way to correct it. It just stinks since the point is a balanced view in some circumstances. I think the review process is smart.

Nothing on the net is totally secure as we can easily see. I think an individual should never post anything that would put themselves at risk...ie the picture of them drinking at a strip club comes to mind... I think there is a propensity to lose privacy on the net. Web finger http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/14/google-points-at-webfinger-your-gmail-address-could-soon-be-your-id/ is moving toward a digital ID for everyone on the net. Scary.

Document storage and "Rapture" triggered email messaging system. OMG, that is just plain wrong..

That was funny. Server farmers...:-) Thanks.

I think things occur for those reasons. Let's face it, bodies have a need to be free of mucus in order to breathe, but laughter can be a response to many factors. One involuntary when one is tickled. Two as a way for masking uncomfortableness which is more in the area of emotions (which really can't be explained from a biology standpoint.) Three, laughter is also a sign of intelligence in that the understanding of it can denote an absurdity or see another view. My .02

You're right..AOL is what I call Internet Lite. It was amazing to watch them in the 90's, but at this point aren't they just irrelevant?

Here's the thing in my estimation. If you are paying for the game, then you should not have to see ads. Now if it's free, that's another story as that's how the developer gets paid. To add to a paid product, well, that's a bit too much.

Traditional record companies haven't realized that they are extinct too.

When I started PCDJ in 1999, we couldn't get agreement from anyone to allow us to digitize music for use with the player, so in essence, a DJ would have to rip his whole collection rather than just purchase in MP3 format. MP3 format was evil as it promoted "stealing" in the eyes of these guys.

The thing that isn't looked at is the stats of the music business were going up until the RIAA shut down Napster. People were previewing music and then going out and buying it. Some guys didn't, but they would have never purchased the music anyway.

Then the industry stopped taking chances and developing new acts. (That started somewhat before 1999, but continued.) Do you realize the amazing artists that would have been dropped after one album under current standards? Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Led Zepplin, Nirvana, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, etc.

So, these guys and the way they operate are dead, they just haven't realized it yet.

I suspect that the artist of now and the future is going to make a living with touring and mechandizing and much less from album sales.

Also, one other thing to note with iTunes, etc. A singles market is what is now viable and in truth the cost of delivery for digital downloads is practically nothing, so although the dollar amount for sales is down, the profit should theoretically be up because of no cost of delivery, no traditional retail middleman.

Anyway, that's my .02