I love when technologists drink the cool-aid, it really makes for funny blogging.

In this post about Mahalo by Andrew Baron he has one of the funniest lines I've read in a long time. You should go read it in context, but the line is:

"Mahalo is fundamentally flawed because its purpose is to provide useful, valuable information about a specific subject matter, but ultimately so that users who are looking for that information will be lead astray by clicking on less relevant advertising.

Mahalo is unlike Google which uses advertising to help pay for the technology of generating great search returns"

Huh? So Mahalo is bad because the money generated goes to the founders, but Google is good because the money generated goes into search technology. Can he actually believe such a ludicrous statement? Last time I checked the Google founders flew around in a 767 they own for fun and company masseuses are becoming millionaires. So I guess not every dollar is going back into search result technology eh.