rsmiller510's comments

That's not a given by any means. For all we know, the next big thing is being started by some kid in a dorm room right this minute. I would hate to think it was otherwise and I believe there will always be a new disruptor. Technology marches on and we have not reached the end, not by a long shot.

I agree with what you're saying, but in thinking about this we can also have crowd funding without implying an equity stake in the company. Diaspora, the Facebook alternative started by some young NYU grads a couple of years ago, got off the ground with $10,000 in crowd funding without any equity stakes being sold. People did it because they wanted to support the idea. I think this is probably true about most crowd funded projects whether it's the arts or someone's cross-country trip.

Can't believe they settled in just two hours. The claim must have been as specious as it appeared, but like most trolls, they might have lost the battle, but they'll crawl back to wherever they come from and regroup for the next battle.

It seems like of course you should be able to do this, but the article brings up some valid concerns. Still, I think it's a bit condescending to say to people we're just protecting you when most of us understand the risks involved with a startup. Most aren't Facebook. Most are the company you never heard of because it failed after 6 months.

This is outstanding reporting requesting and staying on the request for information, and it's a fascinating look at Jobs and the government process of vetting White House appointments in 1991.

Note that they are still obsessed with the idea of anyone belonging to or contributing to the Communist Party and even checked if had relatives in foreign countries who might have been Communists (they couldn't find any).

I also particularly like the comments from people who knew him in the background check documents--not always a flattering picture, that's for sure (but we knew that).

joshu, The fact is that the writer of this post and the person who posted were two different people, so regardless of what you think of self-promotion, it simply wasn't relevant in this instance.

Joshu, I'm not sure what exactly you're complaining about. The person who posted the link is not the same person who wrote it. They just happen to work at the same site with oh 50 or 60 other writers. But even if the author had promoted her own story, so what? I can tell you that as a writer, I promote my own work on social sites because being read is a goal of mine and also because page views make my editors happy and keep me working. I make no apologies for that. It's actually part of what any good writer should be doing. After I publish a post I usually spend a good 20-30 minutes promoting it on social sites--so people know it's there and actually read it.