Oops. Something didn't work quite right and we are unable to show the page you requested right now. Rest assured, Google engineers are already springing into action to solve the problem.
Having a company full of alpha dog, intellectual talent can present unique situations. Google CEO Eric Schmidt wants to foster that young company feel as the company tries to make it possible to be "part of a start-up within Google."
I believe alpha dogs leaving to do their own thing is quite normal and should be expected. Accepting that some of your brightest talent will leave the nest to pursue their passions should be an embraced value. No hard feelings, okay?
I think Eric misses the point in saying "being part of a startup within Google". How do you stop a monoculture from creeping in and taking over your organization? Big companies have this problem and Google, I would guess, is no exception.
Maybe foster an environment where new ideas (coming from the outside) are brought into the fold (in the form of more startup acquisitions)? I'm sure this causes it's own problems where founders must now deal with the internal workings of a giant acquirer.
I would call this "organizational drag". Too many people with too many inputs into too few decisions. This provides just the right amount of friction to squeeze out anyone who truly wants to scratch their itch. Put another way, if you put up enough barriers, some will attempt to navigate your organizational obstacle course but others will simply see your barriers, and the organization itself, as the problem to solve.
I don't know if funding actual startups would be something Google should look into but I don't think Google could ever bring back that small startup feeling; that's just wishful thinking.
High population density leads to greater exchange of ideas and skills and prevents the loss of new innovations.
Loss of life and innovations can still happen with high density population centers, although less often (as long as information is also exchanged/shared between centers).
Higher population density also means more expensive and more deadly natural disasters.
If, today, a devastating earthquake/hurricane/volcano eruption/mack truck sized meteor hits NYC there would be enormous consequences.
The same or worse event occurring 100,000 years ago wouldn't have been such a big deal with no people around.
I think the future is very bright yet any sort of disaster your can think of will be leveraged against us that much more by increased population density.
Sometimes I scan the titles and give my votes to these articles on the frontpage thus having these links saved in an easily retrievable list for later consumption.
It would be nice to have a separate bookmarking capability distinct from the ability to vote.