Well, it would have all happened without Gates, and we'd all generally have software of better quality. Gates did a lot for himself and his shareholders, which I guess is the point of business - he didn't do so much for the world of computing.

That said, sure, Microsoft is a lot better than the businesses that merely push cash around and take a stack for themselves in the process.

Yes, it could certainly do without the "what she said" part. That's not the main content on the page, though.

That's what I said about Blippy, too. But then, I find so little use for most mainstream products and services (Facebook, cosmetics, Rice-a-Roni) that it is apparent people like me are not the target market.

It's significant that there are now two nascent companies with this specialization, and apparently investors are taking the idea seriously.

How long before Facebook adds 'Show your credit card purchases on your Wall', aka Beacon v2? I wouldn't be surprised if they refined it based on current observations and their past experience with Beacon. This would make investing in Blippy or Swipely seem a bit more risky.

That was my comment, too - it's interesting how a program like Kickstarter has become a viable alternative to something such as, well, ycombinator. Noted, though that you're only receiving money here and not the other related benefits, which can be substantial.

I would value the overall 'y combinator' experience and expertise as a higher benefit than just the money in the program.

Even if I had an idea which I could self fund, I would still consider applying to Y Combinator, as the experience and networking you would receive would definitely benefit a project greatly.

The only thing that gets on my wick a bit about Kick-starter is that the funders essentially get nothing (other than see the product get created). I.E. This product could go on to be valued at millions and you're initial $1000 contribution to the seed funding would be unrewarded.

Absolutely. My startup went through AlphaLab, and the connections and mentoring was worth quite a bit more than the money, BUT the money did let me quit my job. Which is invaluable in and of itself.

Follow and Block make sense as commands you can send through a message. But Accept? Why would you ever be able to control an action on someone else's account? It's rather odd that this exists at all.

If you've got your tweets protected (private), you have to accept users to allow them to follow you.

I think you've missed the point here. This isn't a command that tells your account to accept follow request, or adds someone to your following list - this is a command that instantly makes other people 'accept' a follow request from YOU. This works completely differently in how it would consider the username parameter, and in that the change is applied to the other person's account, not yours.

Yeah! BALLS TO THE WALL!

This is such an odd bug. I guess it goes to show that nobody knows what strange code which should have been removed four years ago lurks in the heart of Twitter.

That's because the school system, and especially the social system embedded in it, fails us thoroughly. As far as I could tell, it's actually designed to discourage gifted children from realizing their potential.

I like this idea, but I'm not sure about the words upon a bit of reflection.

It seems like clicking "Uninsightful/Agree" is agreeing that I believe things that are uninsightful? I imagine that would be the least used option.

Insightful/Disagree seems like a contradiction. If someone has stated a conclusion that I think is wrong, how could I see those opinions as containing notable insights?

Sure, sounds fine! Why not make a normal website that isn't under the control of some greedy corporation? That's what the internet is for, to me.

The internet is for a lot of things. A social network is for socializing. Fan sites or pages are a form of socializing.

Certainly Facebook is within their rights to prohibit this kind of thing. You can even see why they'd want to do it: to make Facebook more friendly to the paying customers (advertisers).

But it's an interesting question, how far down this road Facebook or any other site can travel before the utility of the site is reduced to the point that there aren't enough active users to attract paying customers.

I suppose you could say it's 'brave', though, in the same way that trying to swindle someone and hoping they don't notice is brave.

That's not what "brave" means.

/pedant: it is, actually. Definition is "ready to face danger or pain". "Brave" is mostly used approvingly, but it's also completely proper in sentences like "He decided the app should be IE-only, which was a brave move but one he felt was justified by ..."

Similarly with "daring" -- you often hear of "daring robberies" and the like.

Interesting point. "Brave" is usually considered to be a virtue, and people don't want to attribute virtues to scoundrels.

Ah, the joys of learning English from dictionary definitions instead of literary use.

Because dictionary definitions aren't based on literary use at all.

Sorry, you don't get to be all prescriptivist in telling someone what "brave" doesn't mean, then suddenly produce a descriptivist defence when you're called on it; they're incompatible.