sbronstein

> How can something's "market rate" be non-profitable for the producer?

You are confusing 'making a living' with making something. Even if a driver only nets $3.37/hour, that is still 'profit'. Just not enough to feed/house/etc yourself if it's your primary source of income.

There is a 5 user minimum for Google Apps for Work Unlimited.

My big problem with Chrome tabs is that over time, they start consuming all of my CPU resources and I have to go in and kill a bunch of 'Chrome Renderer' processes to get the load back down to a reasonable level.

This also happens if Chrome crashes / I quit or force-quit out of Chrome and then restart. I don't really want it to open however many tabs I had open, I just want to be able to see what tabs were open. I would be happy with it creating the tabs with the title at the top but not loading it. Short of that, One-Tab is a decent way to help with this issue.

Yeah after re-reading I think you are correct. And yes, I certainly agree that it was a real vulnerability!

> We think it’s a rather significant hole in a strong authentication system if a user still has some form of “password” that is sufficient to take over full control of his account.

I don't really understand this sentence...they say that Google (post-fix) no longer enables access to security-specific pages unless you do two factor auth, so doesn't that mean that post-fix you cannot fully take over someone's Google account without two factor auth?

Yeah, I kept reading down to see where he would clarify that by 'web-first' he meant 'mobile-web-first' but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The tools for building mobile web apps aren't as good as they should (and hopefully will soon) be but it's certainly possible and gives you the flexibility to rapidly iterate, get the user up-and-running as fast as possible, etc.

Numbers for an iTunes single: Best case is generally an indie artist who has a 50/50 split with their label. So for an iTunes single, the label gets at most $0.70 (and if they use an aggregator then say $0.63). Divide by two and you are at $0.32-0.35/track. So basically you need to divide all of your equivalence numbers by 3. Instead of 300 plays, it's one hundred plays. 3 times a day for ~30 days or once a day for one hundred days.

OLCG: "For example, you may want to split a div with a "span8" class into three. However, 8 is not cleanly divisible by three."

Kickstrap has implemented One Line CSS Grid for this case which could just as easily be handled by making the row fluid with three span4s. Or am I missing something?

No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.

When you say "we all came in under founders common stock", you mean that you WILL all have founders common stock once the incorporation papers are signed, yes? You said above that they weren't signed yet?

Founders should always have vesting. It is going to permanently screw up your company if this guy has some large percentage of the company and isn't a part of its success. Plus the rest of you should have vesting anyway in case another founder doesn't work out for whatever reason. Everyone should ALWAYS have vesting.

So my advice is that, if you haven't yet signed the papers, you should go back and put vesting on all of the founder's shares, including his, of course.

Another problem with this article is that only one of the three acquisitions he cites was actually your standard 'acqui-hire'.

Teachstreet was doing great until Google changed their algorithm last year. That apparently killed their traffic and so they started looking for a buyer since their main business was no longer viable. So yes, a talent acq, but not in the way that he suggests.

Lala's technology supposedly formed the basis for iTunes Match and iCloud. I personally think that there may have been a bidding war between Apple and Google (because IMO $85M was ridiculously high for LaLa) but that's just my own hypothesis. Regardless, not a talent acquisition.

Summify was a 'traditional' talent acq. of the type Twitter, FB, and Google have been doing of late. So he is one for three of the examples he chose to cite in his article.

I agree, basic grammar is important, but ESPECIALLY important in your headline.

Yeah, its actually pretty dumb IMO that they say the money will go to hosting. With AWS etc you only use what you pay for and the costs should be pretty minimal for beta testing and then covered by subscription fees once they launch.

Money going towards mobile dev makes more sense although is much more risky to back given the short timeframe and limited budget even if they meet their goal.

Look Joey, if you want to argue that the DMCA is flawed and we should have a stronger law to protect rightsholders, then you really need to spell out what you want that law to look like. Because it turns out that whenever anyone tries to suggest a "compromise", that compromise will break the internet in some fundamental way. That is the point that tomjen3 is making.

So tell us - how to you propose to "fix" the DMCA? Because if you won't give us any specifics except saying that the DMCA is flawed, and you won't come out against SOPA, then guess what - the recording industry is just showing the rest of us who you really are.