enomar

I think its been shown before that Google (and others) often buy for the talent as much as the product.

For those (like me) that don't know what Bumptop is... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Rm4jSRB... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iPF39PX...

I left and advised everyone I know to do the same. Privacy was never an issue for me, but Facebook keeps changing the rules. I can't keep up.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline/ http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-further-reduce...

Are there any existing android phones that have FM hardware? I assume the FM radio support is for future phones...right?

I'd like to hear from those that wouldn't do this. What are your reasons for not trusting this site?

I hate rich text copy/paste. I probably only want to copy formatting 5% of the time. Do any operating systems provide ways to configure how copy/paste works?

Much of what you're referring to is historical. Google fixed their serving infrastructure in early 2009 to be faster and much more reliable. Also as someone else posted, FF was incorrectly blaming the last thing on page for being slow, which was ga.js. That's been fixed in 3.6. Additionally, they've released asynchronous tracking, which you should definitely try.

When you're writing a third party script you don't have control over where in the page someone will put it. Having code to detect DOM ready is useful in these cases.

I don't think he was necessarily suggesting putting GA at the bottom of the page. I read this as, "put the DOM ready detection" at the end of the page.

The author is ignoring that:

A) Most sites do have content with which async GA can load in parallel.

B) Where you put the GA snippet is a trade-off. Putting after window.onload will decrease the time it takes to get to window.onload, but it will also lessen the accuracy of your data; especially your bounce rate.

C) If you're worried about delaying user visible functionality that is tied to window.onload, you shouldn't be tying that functionality to window.onload in the first place. There are better ways to detect when the DOM is ready to use.

Crazy that these actually work. There are a lot of them too:

http://code.google.com/p/gag/

@AnimalsHarmedDuringTheMaking @CarbonFootprint @NameCourtesyOfTranslationParty @ProbablyIllegalIn @SafeForSpeedsNotExceeding @WrittenWhile @ThisHadBetterBe @ThisHadBetterNotBe @Noop @Roulette @InfiniteImprobabilityDriveFactor @Alliteration @Haiku @HapaxLegomenon @Metaphor @ThisWouldBeOneLineIn @Magic @ShoutOutTo @ObligatoryQuote @Hack @WTF @LOL @Booyah @Facepalm

Possible, yes, but worth dedicating an engineer's time?

A little warning please. I can't stand links to videos that auto-start.

I didn't get it at first either. I think if you explain the context is in your profile, more people might understand.

Please don't give Google any ideas. I'm still mad they're calling tags "labels".

Using well known terminology helps people understand the metaphor. I also think "follow" is for social interactions whereas "subscribe" fits better into a publishing metaphor.

It's a public thread. You'd rather the dev's ignore what people say about their product on an open discussion?

I'd rather have all of these things be interoperable, so I don't have to start using TheNextBigThing when everyone gets tired of Facebook.

Just think if email worked like social networks; I'd have to log into hotmail to send messages to bob@hotmail.com and yahoo to send anything to sally@yahoo.com.

Koch said the iPhone is the new IE6 of 2000. As in, really great and popular.

He's just advocating we don't make the same mistake we made in 2000 (only developing for one platform).

Exactly. This is why it's better to link to the original material instead of some sensationalist headline.

http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-voice-for...

References please. I suspect you're right, but I'd never claim it as fact without some evidence.

What exactly is the point of this? Aren't visualizations supposed to provide some kind of new context or insight? All this really does is show that I have to scroll a lot to see 20k images. It's kind of like showing a bar graph with one data point.

What about making the images small so you can see them on one page. Perhaps you could compare them to the sizes of other companies. You probably don't have this data, but showing geographic or job-role distribution would also be interesting. Or, you could show a visualization of profit per employee.

Surprised vi works, but hitting backspace made my browser go back in the history.

I hope Chrome OS includes something like this. Ssh support would be especially useful.

You may want to consider playing with other color schemes. IMHO, the current palette makes the site look a little dated.

Default settings definitely matter. It would be a huge win for Bing. The bar for most people to change settings is very high. Being the default is almost as good as being the only choice.

That would be a fine argument if these products were simply desktop apps.

Reputation matters when it comes to web apps. If you don't trust MS with your data it's perfectly reasonable to avoid using any app that would send your data to the MS cloud.