Anything Else

Medical Confessions:

Do men or women make better patients?

Dr Everything Women argue but take advice; men accept advice but rarely follow it.

Forbes:

So what is Facebook's destiny?

Microsoft's investment in October 2007 was based on an estimated valuation of $15 billion. If we apply a 15X revenue multiple (higher than that of Google's 11), and let's assume for a moment due to its extraordinarily high monetizing potential (See: " Facebook's Monetization Strategy") to its estimated revenue of $350 million, its optimistic valuation turns out to be $5.25 billion. Based on that, we get an EBITDA multiple of 105, which is much higher than Google's 29. Moreover, we may see Facebook's valuation get a cold shower, given that even Google just missed its earnings because it is finding it difficult to monetize its social networking sites. Even News Corp.'s MySpace, which Google has pledged to support to the tune of $900 million over three years, is having trouble figuring out how to monetize its popularity.

No investment banker in his or her right mind would be willing to take Facebook public at a $15 billion valuation. Facebook could try the same kind of auction-based initial public offering that Google popularized. But investors have to be really stupid to pay this astronomical value for a company that is still in its adolescence with an unproven road map for sustainable revenue and profitability (at that scale).

Would anyone buy the company? Most certainly not at that valuation.

Looks to me like Facebook has been frozen--frozen by Microsoft's brilliant business acumen, and by Zuckerberg's adolescent ego.

...

Microsoft must have reasoned like this: "Google must not acquire Facebook. Neither should Yahoo!. Let's play to this kid's ego, and by sprinkling $250 million on the exercise, we can establish an artificially high valuation that would bring their options of exit down to zero."

On the receiving end, 23-year-old Mark Zuckerberg must have been thinking, "I must be a real stud. I've got Microsoft eating out of my hands!" If some adult at the investor table tried to mumble that this valuation may cause problems, he was appropriately silenced by the euphoria of the $15 billion.

Smart indeed.

There is a controversy in the air because of Wikipedia refusing to take down pictures of historical paintings, sensitive to Muslims. Which is understandable, given the ever so brittle muslim sensitivities, but I was quite surprised to read this on their online petitions:

In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed.

Emphasis mine.This is just too much, I guess Flickr should expect a fatwa anytime now for showing pictures of millions of humans. Initially I thought it was some kind of error, may be by capitalizing the Human, they mean some special humans especially revered by them, not just ordinary human beings, but then came across this post by the person behind the petition:

The first question is. Is pictures or illustrations of humans are allowed in Islam?
And the answer is NOT. And this is exactly opposite to Paul M. Cobb. This Islamic Law is derived from Quran and authentic HADITH, and both Quran and Hadith belong from the life of Muhammad to its not a 20th century Law. I know before 20th century there was no Fatwa about this but there was a common understanding between Muslims on this issue. The art of pictures and illustration of Muhammad (PBUH) was only practiced in Iran or Shia Muslims. One thing is very important in this issue, not all Shia practice this. Even then painting of face was not allowed in Shia community. That is why you will find majority of illustrations with a white blank face or a face covered with Vail. But in 20th century some illustrations showing face were discovered and then Muslim scholars decided to put a Fatwa or Islamic Law in place to block this move.

I wonder how is Internet legal in Muslim countries! Or even news papers. Or movies or arts.

I can understand the out cry against cartoons or other pictures intended as mocking or insulting Islam, but these are historical pictures done by Muslim artists under Muslim kings.

This significance of this episode in my opinion is this: a well meaning, educated and moderate Muslim will hate this, and will want the photos to be taken down, where as a well meaning, educated and moderate westerner will want the photos to stay. Unlike the cartoons, Wikipedia is not going to go away and fade into history. This could be the first time the veil of "its only the extremists who hate each other" will be lifted.

Only time will tell. 

PS: On why the pictures should be removed.

Is boiling.

PS: I know frogs are more intelligent than people.

PPS: Counterpoint.