meterplech

Even if it is paid by someone with inherent interest it can still have some level of validity. It is definitely economically inefficient to have someone who reaps so much traffic and revenue to not have to pay their costs, and it inherently makes it costs more for everyone else, hurting other web based companies if Google gets a great deal.

It should be noted that most people actually get their jobs through their social networks (as discussed in books like Tipping Point) as well as other research into Management.

So, I think the logical result of these ideas is that the way to success for those at Ivies (and schools like Stanford etc...) is that their social networks include many other highly motivated and successful people. However, anyone at any large university has a huge network to possibly tap, including thousands of talented students, alumni, and world class professors. Thus, I think the more logical result is that motivated students at any large school do well by building large and powerful social networks.

This is certainly interesting. I think the more tailored view is that there are many people who have the necessary risk threshold, creativity, and ambition to undergo the challenge of working at or running a start-up. However, for everyone else, including brilliant people seeking greater financial security working at a large company can have many benefits.

Also, large companies like Google can give their employees freedom of action (20% of their time in fact), as well as the resources to actually see their ideas put in action.

There are a few serious problems with this. First, this could also have the adverse result of making the eventual collapse even worse. I think that it is much easier to handle less serious but more frequent collapses, as opposed to the Great Depression once a decade.

Second, there's a reason states don't print their own currency and the EU has adopted a common currency: it makes economic coordination so much more efficient. If each state had its own currency we would waste efficiency constantly exchanging currency, and out of state business would become subject to the volatile exchange fund market. Sure, this idea may solve one problem, but it certainly creates many more.

This definitely shows the potential of artificial intelligence to run real life simulations. Perhaps current gaming companies will eventually make large portions of their income through these sort of tailor made simulations.

Wonderful. One giant Web2.0 company with no profit decides not to acquire another. How long can both of these companies wait before they produce profit? The more logical acquisition of Twitter is definitely Google, as they are the only web giant that really knows how to monetize users.

It sounds like a great idea to let government regulate food. A very successful country did just that, the USSR. Where people stocked up on such nonessentials as butter when the factories finally could produce it.

Point being, arbitration and market forces will always ensure there are more resources available because the government is a monopoly with no challengers. In any markets with competition prices are lower, and more output is available. Besides, does anyone really think that governments can better judge and hedge the risk of various crop failures etc than the market?

First, this app shows Google's stunning ability to innovate across all platforms. While there are some certainly some flaws, this clearly is revolutionary technology, and it seems prophetic that Apple held this technology back for whatever reason, even if only for two days. Surely if this app can be held back it seems like iPhone developers are going to be in for a headache in the future.