fnid

Not according to MW:

    Innovation
    1 : the introduction of something new
    2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

There is already an overabundance of ads on the internet. I block ads and when I go to someone else's computer and browse around, I'm absolutely amazed at how many ads there are. Flash ads that show stuff outside the flash container. Blinking banner ads, flash movies that play sound...

Their browsing experience is horribly slow. The browser is slowed down by flash. The blinking is totally distracting. The ad based internet is a travesty.

Contrary to popular belief, Google is not an innovator. Even their own CEO has admitted this. Google takes existing ideas and improves upon them, they rarely invent new ideas.

Think of a new idea Google has come up with. News? Gmail? Search? Maps? nope... most of their innovative stuff is acquired, not innovated internally.

How long until Apple gives him the smackdown? I'm starting a pool. I take week 3 from now.

In 20 years, there is going to be a wave of concern that we aren't praising our kids enough.

Look at all the compliants:

    117		regarding Advertising Issues  
    178		regarding Billing or Collection Issues  
    4		regarding Contract Issues  
    14		regarding Customer Service Issues  
    35		regarding Delivery Issues  
    3		regarding Guarantee or Warranty Issues  
    5		regarding Product Issues  
    556		regarding Refund or Exchange Issues  
    220		regarding Sales Practice Issues  
    2		regarding Service Issues

They probably just refund the money or something, but if this many people complain, how many don't?

It's a bit extreme to put them in jail. I too think their actions are deplorable, but jail? We didn't even put the criminals behind the financial collapse in jail, why put morally reprehensible scientists in jail? I'd say the financial criminals caused more problems than the climate team.

I suppose since the Smithsonian is backwards looking, they would, in 1989 have no idea how big the Internet would be come even just a few short years later.

How valuable that thing is... and it just sits there, unguarded. Humble.

Leaders follow someone I suppose and in the military, breaking ranks isn't appreciated much. He was following his Commander in Chief's direction. Perhaps he was doing it as a sense of honor to his country. I don't disagree with what you are saying. I was one of those who believed they'd never find WMD's in Iraq and was very disappointed when I saw Powell towing the line.

I was disappointed precisely because I do believe he is a good man and wants to do what is best. I too thought he was destined to be president some day. He would have been a candidate I would want to vote for.

Many times we learn more from failure than success. I say in this instance, Powell has learned a great deal and could be a better leader because of it.

In the end, his mistake was following and not being a leader when he should have been.

I doubted your comment, then I looked it up, sure enough, according to Wikipedia Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

Whether or not that was why he was promoted, I don't know. It may have had a part in it. From reading more, it seems like he's a Macnamara type who thinks some evil is done in the name of good.

In the end it is about content. I prefer Hulu now to Youtube, because Hulu has better content. If MS can successfully convince enough publications to allow them to exclusively offer their content for search, then that will take a bite out of Google.

The question is, how much will it cost? The formula is pretty easy. MS will have to pay the publishers more than they are making in ad revenue from the visitors Google sends them. As a publisher, wouldn't you prefer to have $100 from microsoft to delist from google if you only get $50 from google referals?

I celebrated Thanksgiving in Canada and now I'm celebrating it in the U.S. Twice as thankful as most.

The problem with this post is that it neglects recouping non-marginal costs. If the factory costs you $100 Million to build and you sell the cars for $20,000, which is the marginal cost, how are you going to recover the $100 Million?

Would you prefer to have the means justify the ends? If you say, "Hey capitalism is great." but it results in the destruction of our civilization, then is that okay?

I just came up with that. Usually people say, "The ends justify the means." But I've never known of someone to take it the other way. Thinking about it that way though, it seems that is precisely what we do with Capitalism. We know that greed is bad and leads to bad things, but we justify those ends because the alternative means, that is, a bit of loss of individualism and sacrifice of public property is, by capitalists, considered a severe punishment to the self.

So we say things like, "Bankers destroying the economy is okay, because we were more free until it happened." We say, "Environmental destruction is okay, because only a socialist world could prevent it." We say, "Big SUVs and houses and consumerism are good, because the government shouldn't interfere in people's personal decisions."

But the end product of all that is a less habitable planet and less happy place for future generations -- and not only future generations, but these generations in the future.

I don't think it is true that extroverts don't think before speaking. The difference between I/E is that introverts think about what they are saying and extroverts think about how what they are going to say will affect those they are saying it to.

Introverts care less about the feelings and emotions of their co-conversationalists and extroverts are more socially motivated to say nice things that make the group feel good or work better.

I think both introverts and extroverts think about what they are going to say. The question is, what do they tend to say once they've thought about it?

http://www.healthline.com/adamcontent/suicide-and-suicidal-b...

   *Critical signs:
      Direct or indirect threats to commit suicide

I think what you are saying is not in-line with the expert opinion. Regardless of whether or not it is true, I do not believe it is, but I'm not an expert, saying it or trying to convince others to believe it so they don't do something to avert a suicide in the case where someone threatens it is morally reprehensible.

The repercussion of you being wrong and someone listening to you is deadly. The repercussion of you being right and someone ignoring you could save a life.

You really need to be careful how you talk. It's really quite disgusting what you have said here.

at 6:30, he mentions there are only small groups in nature, but neglects ants and bees and others in the insect world.

it's "prince" of persia.

From the title, i thought they found something, but a skeptical first read indicates they just got it working again apparently, but haven't found anything. The success is, they unbroke it.

Listen to Phil Helmuth talk about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpMELRn8_l0

Basically, the online casinos are making so much money, they want it to be on the up and up so they can keep taking the rakes.

You can read a lot into playing style online too. How long does someone think before hitting raise? What kinds of hands have they pushed all in with in the past? What kinds of bets/raises do they respond to? When do they fold? Do they call a lot or raise? Re-raise? How do they play in position?

It's fun because you can still read people's minds. You can predict what they have. You know what the outs are, you get people to fold. You can manipulate their minds and effect behaviors.

I highly doubt this. Have you ever hustled? It's extremely hard to hustle the hustlers. He was playing the top players in the entire world, not some fish filled pond in Atlantic City.

which browsers support this?

I think if the earth has actually been cooling since 1980, that's pretty good evidence we can wait. It's actually evidence that it isn't human action causing the climate change, so we can forget about trying to change whatever behaviors it is of ours that are causing it and focus on the real problem: How do we adapt to a warmer planet?

That is the real problem with the whole debate. It is centered on "humans have cause climate change." If the reality is that the sun is causing climate change or, "Climate change happens in cycles," which it has since the earth formed, then the response and the path forward is very different from the ones currently proposed.

EDIT: You know, in a way, saying climate change is human responsibility is enabling us to avoid doing what we have to do now. For example, if sea levels will continue to rise for 100 years, we should stop all new coastal development. Saying humans can stop the warming and lower the sea levels allows us to keep building on the coasts. Essentially, saying, "In the future, we can stop climate change" allows us to do nothing in the present.

Imagine the difference if we knew it was not caused by humans or in fact, there is nothing we can do, the planet will continue to get hotter for 100 years, then we start building cities underground, moving civilization to the poles of the earth, inventing more heat tolerant crops, better local climate control, etc.

Politics got injected because a lot of money is being spent on climate change research, clean energy, carbon credits, etc. Kyoto was all politics. A lot of money stands to be made or lost on climate change issues. You think Al Gore is doing what he is doing for free?

It's interesting that she thinks more women need to succeed for other women. Why can't women just succeed for themselves? Have the passion and drive to create -- for themselves? Why does it need to be for someone else?

I reckon few men think to themselves, "I need to be successful to be an inspiration to other men. To show other men that men can succeed at this."

I'm not sure they are talking about the same kind of exercise. One is about building muscle mass, the other is cardio. Increased muscle mass does increase resting metabolism.

gone quite poorly is a relative term. If your perspective is the wealth creation for the new private owners of the utilities, it has gone very very well in fact as they have made lots of money.

But there are few, if any examples anywhere in the world where privatization of public utilities has made the services cheaper or better for the consumers.

Well, I don't trust priceline anymore. I used to recommend them to everyone, but not anymore. I booked hotels and rental cars frequently when I traveled and I need another one soon, but I think I might not use them this time.

Humans can rationalize anything: http://habitatchronicles.com/2006/12/smart-people-can-ration...

You frame a problem in a context, or a time frame, or a motivation and you can argue whatever point you want.

All predictions about the future are by definition opinion.