centuren

Can you provide more details on this? By "little cottage", I assume this was meant for one (you), and $130K might be a bit steep for a single-person, experimental venture. 10 AC is hardly a small area, though, and suggests potential to expand it to, say, a 3-10 person number. If the marginal costs required to increase water, electricity, etc, to support such levels don't add to the final price tag dramatically, it could be quite interesting.

To be honest, I got lost with the concept of dragging text as a productivity tool. Why don't you stick with copy and paste for a while (combined with the convenient window switching keyboard short cut), and see if you end up taking the quotes away from "improvement".

I've imposed my own ban on TechCrunch, with the BlockSite extension for Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145). I actually installed it specifically to prevent getting lured to TechCrunch articles from sites like HN where I'm just looking at headlines. It's the only site I have listed, and the links show up as visited and unclickable, saving me wasting precious minutes everyday.

1) Obama's campaign used the Internet as a resource skillfully. 2) Obama winning is a historic event (demographically). 3) ... techcrunch deadline ... 4) "Obama would not have won without the internet"

No point in discussing validity.

I went to school at Rose Hulman in Terre Haute, IN, where an impressive concentration of hackers attend. They've even got Rose Ventures (http://www.rhventures.org/), a start up friendly organization (using appropriately educated students as cheap labor for small companies).

I installed the BlockSite addon for Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145) specifically to disable techcrunch.com links on this site.

It's works WONDERFULLY! I see a sensational headline, and even if I give into impulse and click on it, it's not an active link, and I'm reminded about headline pandering without having wasted the time to read the blog post.

"Good to be able to rant rant, nicer to somehow get links to even the silliest of them. His complaint about the buzz behind web development this days renders your use of "Web 2.0 engineers" an absolute absurdity (talk about having drunk the "Kool-Aid" you're complaining about). As for APIs, all developers use tools they find accessible and productive. Those they don't, they don't use. A string of social networking sites have brought in massive amounts of profits; it would be silly for the market to ignore that. However a particular Google product/service fares is always irrelevant, when considered against the bigger picture of their continuing growth and success as a business.

If he's asking why we should care about OpenSocial, OpenID, and Google Gears, he's a little too late; I don't care, not enough to find any interest in his post beyond a fascination with it's complete separation from anything relevant or substantial. Perhaps he'd like to complain about Google Web Toolkit next? I suppose he may have already. In any case, good job riding the Google hype to get hits on content so completely pointless!

Congratulations to Aaron Holesgrove for his comment also. His amusement at watching a company, whose search and ad SOFTWARE has so utterly blown away the competition and dominated the market, do something as bizarre as act like the software company they've ALWAYS been, is a fantastic blend of lack of comprehension and emotional reaction to hype.

This response was a mandatory attempt to reclaim the time lost here with a rant of my own, only tailored to the specific absurdities at hand."

Seriously! Who keeps posting these silly little blog entries that don't say anything? They are listed as though they contain valid content, and then are so short and pointless that it's impossible to abort reading them before they are over (and the stupidity is experienced).

If these somehow keep making it to the front page, I'm certainly going to leave this site out of my routine entirely.

I don't understand exactly which version of Linux he's been deploying that makes this a time saver. You can install Linux with 95% of what you need (and nothing more) with plenty of distros, and one command gets you the rest of the way.

The rest of the work is custom (user access, software specific requirements, etc). I'm also the lead sys-admin for a dot-com company, and I think I can safely say I've NEVER had a Linux install that wasn't, in his words, something that I "can just deploy, configure and turn off what I don't need?"

That's the reason we use it.