User 227036

In a move that could put net-neutrality at risk, Google (GOOG) has approached major phone and cable internet carriers, offering to pay them to fast-track its content. Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO), and internet scholars have also recently softened their commitment to open and unbiased internet traffic.

The WSJ article is misleading. Google's actually trying to colocate with major carriers, not get priority for its traffic.

A World Without Shorts

I am completely befuddled. What should I do with SKF now?

Attention Locusts: The Party Is Moving to Merrill and AIG

Banks are all about trust - it is the one sector where it is so easy to start rumors and cause a run on the bank.

You're misunderstanding what people are supposed to trust here. It's not that a reputation or share price should remain at a certain level. People trust a bank not to do something so stupid that, were they to come asking, said bank would have their money.

These shorted banks, victims of baseless rumors, are in a prime position to make a fortune. All they have to do is buy back some shares. If they just want to be punitive to the shorts, they can just pay a huge dividend. They have a lot of options available to them to fight these shorts.

I wonder why these banks are letting these shorts let their shares become worthless? Oh, right, because these banks don't have any money. Makes them pretty worthless as banks, doesn't it?

What (If Anything) Google Chrome Will Mean for Businesses

<blockquote>
The point: Google is tying browsing, your personal history, your apps and your data together.
</blockquote>

This is not what Chrome is about. Chrome's security features actually make this more difficult for google. Chrome is about making a web-based app platform a commodity instead of a hard-to-install set of configuration options and plugins.

Chrome is about widening the highways where google owns the billboards. Tying your browsing habits together is done by other divisions, i.e. the doubleclick acquisition.