813 karma · joined December 23, 2009
It is at the time when the definition of a word changes that the greatest oppertunities present themselves.
There is no iPad market, there is no tablet market - there is a computer market. This is what MS is up against...
[Sent from my iPod touch]
Lack of single-minded focus is NOT Google's problem. They have others.
[sent from my Chrome Browser]
As domainers would say - ding-ding-ding we have a winner!
Do your best to draw it straight. Slanted it will come out anyway. -- Mr. Someone, 2010
Sister Anna: Do you ever see the Hand of God in what you do?
Creasy: No, not for a long time.
Sister Anna: The Bible says, "Do not be over come with evil, but overcome...?
Creasy: But overcome evil with good."
Creasy: [in spanish] That's Romans Chapter 12 Verse 21.
Creasy: I am the sheep that got lost, Madre.
-- Man on Fire (2004) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328107/
(P.S - maybe I was wrong, maybe it is not a cultural bias. Maybe it is just the difference between -- cliché warning -- knowing the path and walking the path).
I didn't invent it.
The concept of "turning the other cheek" is about 2,000 years old. The concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is over twice that old. They represent two different schools of thought that have been debated enough.
PG introduced "turning the other cheek" as a means to resolve "the pain of having ... controversy constantly reintroduced as the top idea ..." and this is biased. There is another way to resolve the issue, it just comes from another culture.
(Or in other words, it is true that "someone who does you an injury hurts you twice: first by the injury itself, and second by taking up your time afterward thinking about it.". You can "at least avoid the second half" - or - you can try and hurt them twice, no matter the cost. Culture choice.)
(if you've been taught to turn the other cheek you will not see why, but if you've been taught another way, you will. This is cultural and fundamental)
Your definition of "productive" has the same bias.
Turning the other cheek is by origin an alternative to an eye-for-an-eye. For a mind that can only be freed with an eye-for-an-eye settlement, turning the other cheek won't do it. But an eye-for-an-eye approach can be productive:
And Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" And he bent with all his might so that the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he killed in his life.
> Turning the other cheek turns out to have selfish advantages.
It is only true if someones self is defined by the culture of turning the other cheek. There are other ways to define self and solve a dispute. For example:
And Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!"
That's also a valid selfish conclusion.
There is absolutely no chance of this happening.
The reverse though is another story. It may encourage start-ups to fight back. And win.
Google is at an extreme risk of staying Google in a world that will not tolerate that any more. This by itself is enough trouble. Leave MS alone.
Gatekeepers focus on the gate. The garden it keeps? Not so interesting.
BINGO.
The simplest way is via a YouTube embed. So if it isn't ready for YouTube, it isn't ready for the web.
b. search for [vevo]. http://twitter.com/#search?q=vevo
c. second Top Tweet as of 16:10 PST is a protected tweet: http://twitter.com/gagadaily/status/15721434645
This demonstrates a case where random user can view the content of a Protected Tweet.
In this case it seems the Retweet is making something private into something public.
B: "No, I'm not"
A: "Told you"