@Baroness: I think it's up to Tim Cook to mention (or not). Not Ryan Tate in some yellow-journalistic link-bait hed.
@Baroness: Yes, thanks, I'm clearly right. (While not nearly as prolix as you.)

There may be no secret (although the information is certainly not "common knowledge"). There's certainly no shame. But Cook's privacy is his, and he's done nothing to put it out there for Gawker's use.
@Baroness: Nope. Outing Tim Cook is up to Tim Cook. Not Gawker.
@muppet_baby: Yes but isn't it Tim Cook's decision, and not Ryan Tate and Nick Denton's, whether or not to broadcast his sexual orientation?
@Swifter: Gawker generally, and Ryan Tate specifically have been guilty of this specie of bullshit too many times. Yes Cook is a public figure but his private life is private. Let him out himself if/when he wants to. Shameful if you ask me.
Wow he looks terrible.
This is the worst thing I've read on Gawker since Emily Gould left.
Notes on Chatroulette:

-- There was never a business there.
-- Had VCs really been "clamoring" to invest they would have.
-- But they weren't. (Mildly and momentarily curious at best.) And they didn't.
-- Comparison to Pointcast and Napster abjectly nonsensical. I will give you Hot/Not.
@Ryan Tate: There would be (and presumably there is) some allocation to US entity for the value of the IP but that's pretty fuzzy, unaddressed by current tax law, and probably very difficult to regulate in any case.

The larger point to this whole tempest, which has been made by many others on the greater Internets, is that the problem is with tax law (I think more UK/abroad than even US) and who would expect Google to behave any differently than it does until they fix the law?

(If they were double-Irishing US profits then 1) the story would be entirely different; and 2) they probably would have been caught and screwed long ago [but they're not that stupid -- just evil].)
Not to offer a serious comment but:

Unclear to me that GOOG would be paying US taxes on income/profits generated outside the US in any case.

So this (I believe) is less an issue for the US Treasury issue than it is for the UK and other foreign countries where Google does material business.
Gisele is clearly a phenomenon. But I really wish she'd put some pants on that kid.
Hey who doesn't love a priced seed round?

Mikey will name names. Multiple posts. Pageviews.

TC is actually worth $100M now. Who'dve thunk it.
Om I think it looks Awesome?

It does make me wonder what they're going to call Steinhauer's TOURIST, optioned by Cloons. [www.nytimes.com]

But highly Netflixable.
And in case anyone has forgotten Conde Nast continues to demonstrate how badly they suck.

Kim France started lucky, worked there 10 yrs, made the magazine.

Fine to change leadership but she should have been let go with some level of dignity and class.

Losers.
Seems odd (wrong?) to post accuser's photo?
Look how gd cute Owen looks.

Hope he's doing better.

Bet he shagged her after...
@jackbarber: Although if she's only in for 2 weeks the whole things becomes more publicity stunt than anything else and I start feeling a little less sorry for her, not to mention optimistic that she might learn any lesson.
@CanadianSL: I'm not suggesting that Lindsay shouldn't be going to jail -- as I said the judge had no real option given her (idiotic) behavior the past couple years.

Whether it's the best thing for her -- I'm not really qualified to opine. Moot point / fait accompli in any case.

I just don't share in the glee that is implicit in much of the coverage of her downward spiral.

Not to mention (not yours but) the majority of the comments to this thread.
For whatever reason this culmination of the Lohan to jail narrative doesn't make me feel all that good.

Lindsey's been acting like an idiot for a long while now, so I guess on a certain level she deserves this. And the judge really had no other option.

But no moralizing can quite dislodge my initial reaction to all these stories, the photos in particular, which is that I feel sorry for her.
Tomorrow's News
More Stories…