jsm386

see: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+jidf

That said, I know Quora is the thing right now, but how does asking a question and getting yes/no from your friends have anything to do with Quora? Yes this is a Q & A service but Quora isn't a yes/no type of Q&A service. Also - this is amongst your friends, whearas Quora's popularity is being driven by the answers from 'experts/insiders/etc' to questions from 'outsiders.'

I don't want to just assume the headline is purposely click-bait so I'll just ask...how do you see this as Quora meets SMS?

FWIW, US gov is estimating closer to 2 billion http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/10/6024993-muba...

See: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/vanguards-broken-buy-ho... & http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/buy-hold-vs-trend/ - Yes both sources are the same author but I really respect Barry Ritholtz's views and he's hardly the only one making this argument.

Trying to pick individual stocks can be a foolish endeavor, but buying trends, whether it is index funds over certain periods, various sector/commodity ETFs, and yes, companies with great stories is what I try to do. I'm young (27), and the advice I've gotten consistently is at your age take some risks. So right now I have a managed portfolio, some bonds/MLP/MLP funds for income, and some short term positions in individual stocks and commodities. Oh, and a short on a particular content farm :)

There’s no great, complex explanation for why people who get one big thing right get most everything else wrong, argues Denrell. It’s simple: Those who correctly predict extreme events tend to have a greater tendency to make extreme predictions; and those who make extreme predictions tend to spend most of the time being wrong — on account of most of their predictions being, well, pretty extreme. There are few occurrences so out of the ordinary that someone, somewhere won’t have seen them coming, even if that person has seldom been right about anything else.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/09/...

I really don't understand that quote. I didn't watch the video so perhaps there is some context I am missing...How are apps a Ponzi scheme?

Check out CTIA's front group 'MyWireless.' They claim to be 'a nonpartisan non-profit advocacy organization, made up of wireless consumers, businesses and community leaders from around the country, supporting reasonable pro-consumer wireless policies.'

In fact they share an office with CTIA and have the same press contact as CTIA. Their net neutrality stance is what you would expect, though the writing is comical: These big online companies - and their blogosphere and celebrity supporters - want to stop wireless carriers from managing their wireless networks - especially wireless Internet...If the FCC and Congress let flashy online companies and their billionaire founders write regulations that favor their businesses, American wireless and Internet consumers will ultimately lose money, choices, security and quality.

Sad, shameless plug - I wrote about this last week. I really didn't expect this to happen so soon: http://blog.grouptexting.com/2010/12/22/lobbyists-astroturfe...

That seemed like a worst case scenario that we might expect down the road...not within days of the FCC giving mobile broadband a pass on net neutrality. Hopefully this move backfires and forces the FCC to revisit their ruling (http://gigaom.com/2010/12/28/who-wins-and-loses-under-the-fc...)

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus#Airing_of_Grievances

And as davidmathers pointed out: "Every fundamental law has exceptions."

Lehrer finds a really interesting angle to explain something, tries to apply that to a lot of things, and that's when it falls apart. See http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Was-Neuroscientist-Jonah-Lehrer...

SEOMoz has a keyword difficulty tool (http://www.seomoz.org/keyword-difficulty/). I've never looked in to the methodology they use but it seems fairly accurate in its difficulty measure.

Also - reading through the transcript this is possibly the most serious he's ever been in an interview. He actually talked about facts, answered questions, etc. instead of running on about how he likes to build doll houses.

The source of the bubbles is a mystery. One possibility is that they are fueled by a wave of star births and deaths at the center of the galaxy. Another option is a gigantic belch from the black hole known to reside, like Jabba the Hutt, at the center of the Milky Way. What it is apparently not is dark matter, the mysterious something that astronomers say makes up a quarter of the universe and holds galaxies together.

George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs. http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressive...

The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political document: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-R...

"Mobile is on a run rate of more than $1 billion. That is, people accessing Google services through mobile devices--not just Android--are adding $1 billion per year to Google's revenue."

"YouTube is monetizing over 2 billion views per week. That's an increase of 50% year over year."

Zuckerberg said that he hoped the privacy options would help to restore his reputation following student outrage over facemash.com, a website he created in the fall semester.

The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed.

Prior to this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural.

What I found most interesting about both of these critical pieces is how they are so divorced from any sort of appropriate context (see below for more on that). For the last couple of months there has been an interesting, important debate about women in tech/Silicon Valley, in particular at TC, and other spots. I don't see how you can come out with a piece like this one or the Beast one w/o talking about that...especially when you are bringing up COO Sheryl Sandberg's role in FB's current success (which is irrelevant to the movie).

Perhaps this is the only context that matters to them - the writer at Jezebel and the writer at Daily Beast both were students at Harvard in 2003.