thereason

My vision for these boards is not to display graphics, but to send/receive data from the internet and a local network. I'm not going to use a Pi to watch movies or some other resource-intensive task. I'd just as soon use the power of GPU that comes with Pi for some other task besides video.

What would be interesting is if one of these boards would be designed such that, by pure coincidence, it could fit into an Apple form factor (cheap/old/maybe used). I've read that in, e.g., Vietnam, people with soldering irons do all sorts of hackish things to iPhones.

Or maybe a market for curved edge form factor casings develops. Maybe it already exists. But I never saw any Apple-like form factors in the mini-ITX offerings. Whenever you see something with a cool form factor, it seems it's always a proprietary package, hermetically sealed, not easy to tinker with.

This reminded me of Tim OReilly trying to explain how sed works back in the 1980's. In his case it was a monk/scribe instead of an imp. Nice work.

Is the sedation COW?

But wouldn't IQ, education, etc. be factors in whether someone would even make it into the YC class?

If investors are not concerned with these factors, should they be relevant in the YC (or any incubator) application process?

(I realize asking this may be stirring a hornet's nest, and to anyone reading who is offended I apologize, but I am sincerely interested in the mind of the investor and their evaluation process.)

How many investors do you think were reading every amendment to the S-1 up to May 9? Not even considering how many did not read the S-1 to begin with.

The use of the Greenshoe tactic to make the price appear stable also seems to suggest they were targeting naive investors who would only be watching the share price after trading began, having no regard for who was buying them.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

As for Henry Blodget, while he may be biased in favor of sensationalism to garner pageviews, he seems to be in a unique position to comment on this sort of maneuvering to manipulate naive "web investors". He was once in the center of it, during the first Bubble. We cannot say the same for the WSJ's writers.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

"a low level interface to the GPU command buffer"

This sounds cool. Is this a standard feature in Chrome?

So he is addressing the fact it's still difficult to have the full 4GB "addressable"?

Just trying to understand his comment.

"I don't care about their IQ, education, etc."

Would you say that is true of the other investors as well?

Are investors informed of the IQ, education, etc. of the each member in the group?

"Virtual memory - useless with 4GB RAM"

So when, if ever, are we going to see it disappear? (If disks are always going to be cheaper than RAM?)

Some kernels allow you to disable swapping to disk, and others run quite well without any swap, but this the notion of "swap" still seems tightly integrated into most OS's. And I'm still seeing gimmicks like "Increase your system memory with [some catchy product name, but is actually nothing more than a multi-GB USB stick you plug in to give you more swap]."

Will we ever move beyond the concept of swapping to disk?

Instead of hiding it, why don't we ditch it altogether? HTTP is simpler, more direct and easier to debug. By sticking to HTTP, we might get closer to a situation where "everyone does it the same". Life might be easier.

Nah, it would never work. Pay no mind. I'm just a fool.

http://apc.io is the original source.

It has a nice photo of Allen and Gates.

Now, what I'm wondering is how easy it is to replace Android with your own OS. I want to know about the bootloader.

People should read your comment a few times to let it sink in.

But, iRobot, why should we care about efficiencies? Energy grows on trees.

I predict we are going to see many, many more ARM devices. And Apple is going to lead the way.

This is going to bother some people who like to write bloated, inefficient code. Their focus is on multi-core and concurrency. But to do simple things (retrieving text, images, audio, or video via http, sending/receiving email, etc), one does not need that much power.

The rise of ARM will create opportunity for a different set of programmers who are more efficiency-conscious.

I'm loving this sequence of events just for opportunity to see the cognitive dissonance of some HN commenters in action.

The FB IPO strategy was to wait for the peak (or "plateau", if you prefer) in their growth, collect money from the public and then, for the insiders, quickly cash out.

As for why they wanted to collect money from the public through an IPO, we can call it greed, but truthfully it was also the logical thing to do for the company. They knew were not going to grow revenues any further from the Facebook "business model". Revenues would slowly decline going forward. The novelty factor would disappear and advertisers would learn. But with an IPO they could bring in many years worth of revenue, by selling worthless shares to gullible investors, and extend the life of "Facebook Corporation". As long as Facebook has cash, they can stay "in the game". Like Microsoft, they do not need to innovate, they can just acquire or copy new players as they come along. They just sit and wait for the competition to arise, then quickly snuff it out, with cash.

New ideas and innovation are what can kill a company like Facebook (or Yahoo, or Microsoft, or so many others). The way you stay in the game is by having the cash to purchase the work of the innovators who would otherwise render your business obsolete.

I thought "and their "lung cancer"" was the best part.

The fact that some on HN cannot detect the sense of humor is a little scary.

People here are bearish on FB because they 1. have a conscience and 2. understand the company's business (the simple technology).

People here are bullish on FB because they either 1. lack a conscience or 2. do not understand the company's business (the simple technology), or both.