<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for richardgiles</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-e83d3704" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/richardgiles/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 03:55:54 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Inquisitr&amp;#8217;s 1st birthday + April stats</title><link>http://www.duncanriley.com/2009/05/06/inquisitrs-1st-birthday-april-stats/#comment-9049353</link><description>Great work Duncan. Good to hear all is going really well!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Hope to catch you back west for a beer soon!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">richardgiles</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 03:55:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Internet filtering: stop Australia importing stupidity from China</title><link>http://doingwords.com/?p=959#comment-3336486</link><description>Wow, thanks Alan. Good to know I'm up their with smart dudes like yourself!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rich</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">richardgiles</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:17:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: IT&amp;#8217;S OVER! POP GOES THE BUBBLE.</title><link>http://www.inquisitr.com/4855/its-over-pop-goes-the-bubble/#comment-2960766</link><description>I wouldn't call it a bubble. It just happens to look like a recession is on the horizon. As they always are.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The bubble at the beginning of the decade was an investment bubble, because yes, investment in the tech sector was over blown. However, this time around almost everyone has been more rational.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I hate the term "bubble" when used to describe the tech sector at the moment. It's not about to burst, because it isn't a bubble. It may turn into a recession.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">richardgiles</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:58:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dembot - Why Mahalo is Fundamentally Flawed</title><link>http://dembot.com/post/19305296#comment-12809</link><description>I don't work at Mahalo. Met him once, and have chatted online maybe one other time.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">richardgiles</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:36:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dembot - Why Mahalo is Fundamentally Flawed</title><link>http://dembot.com/post/19305296#comment-12299</link><description>I hate to defend Jason -- I'd imagine it's more fun rattling his cage -- but I think your argument isn't valid.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The main point you make is that Mahalo can not be trusted because it makes money from advertising. You seem to suggest that they get paid every time you click a link, which I just don't see on Mahalo. The links I've clicked when using Mahalo have been internal, or those that appear to be unpaid links, not adverts. I'm sure they make money from some obvious adverts, like other sites.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So, the reason I think your argument isn't valid is that every prominent search engine makes money from clicks. We can't complain that people make money, we all need it to continue running the business.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So, your rational would suggest all prominent search engines are reckless.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">richardgiles</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:42:33 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>