adventureful

His billion dollar marker is drastically high. He has been living in dotcom fantasy land for far too long.

There's no reason you can't raise $250k for 25% from an angel investor, to build a $10 or $20 million business. That's a helluva result to put it mildly. You know, building an actual business that produces actual profits, not vaporware built-to-flip companies that produce nothing and only exist in a tiny corner of the economy.

The stock market hasn't moved in real terms in 13 years or so. Interest rates are on the floor. Any investor outside the big VC game would kill for a 10 or 20 fold return over 10 or 20 years. There's a beautiful thing called dividends, which a successful business can pay to its owners. Dixon doesn't seem to know anything about that however, as his assumed scenarios require the big exit and ignore any other possibilities.

If you take $250k, and you build a $10 or $20 million valuation business, it's not difficult to kick off a very nice dividend to the investor that provides a stellar return on their capital. AND if you ever choose to sell, said investor also gets their big exit as well. You can also buy their stock back at the higher valuation and they get their exit that way. These types of results are common in the real economy, but not so common in the fantasy dotcom economy.

It became an inconvenient statement once Apple conquered the known universe. As is so typical with power and success.

It'll actually end up being a tax benefit while costing them no actual red ink.

The problem with using coercion is, the people using it never believe it's useless regardless of what's coming out of your mouth.

In an actual free market, collusion between companies is legal and occurs regularly.

You're talking about a regulated market in which labor is protected by government intervention from collusion between companies.

There has been talk about Google stealing Yahoo back away from Microsoft on an ad deal, so that would also be another reason. It could be worth hundreds of millions per year to land that deal with Yahoo. The legal hurdles are huge though.

There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this is a complete non-issue.

One to grow on.

I find the China Study and Dr. Esselstyn's work to be far more interesting in regards to the results of a diet rich in the consumption of animal cholesterol and animal protein.

There are two big evils in American lifestyles: hyper consumption of sugar, and lack of exercise.

Americans walk a fraction as much as their grandparents every day, and consume several times more sugar. Worse, we consume insane quantities of high fructose corn syrup and its variants.

In the 1970s the US Government massively subsidized corn crops, which led to the creation of high fructose corn syrup. It's no coincidence our obesity epidemic really exploded from roughly then forward.

The caves and small places of Earth say otherwise. So do the intense environments on Earth that we've found life in. It's at least as plausible that life can hang on, sheltered in the smallest of places, as it can anywhere else. Micro organics often don't mind if you put them in a small place, with little sunlight, high or low heat, high or low oxygen, etc.

The biggest problem would be if the changes Mars underwent were too fundamentally anti-life for anything to survive whether it was in a cave or anywhere else.

In my opinion, we're going to find out on Mars that there are forms of microbes that can hang on in sedentary 'ready' state for a billion years, in extreme environments, just waiting to jump back to activity. Most of Mars will be barren, but there will be small pockets of microbes (most likely in a sheltered cave, under ice, or similar) in a form of extreme suspended animation.

Only 158 million of Facebook's 800x million users visit in any given month?

That's a dead link.