Well-known venture capitalist and blogger Fred Wilson will be at Google Wednesday to give a talk about “disruptive industries.”

The Googlers should be mighty interested given that the object of their current annoyance and desire, Twitter, is one of the hottest start-up investments of late for Wilson’s Union Square Ventures.

Before Google (GOOG) execs–you know who you are, David Lawee and Marissa Mayer–try to hand over a big bag of money to Wilson to stop the microblogging madness, Wilson asked readers in a post to help him improve the talk.

Here is his speech deck and the description of the talk (a common occurrence at Google’s Silicon Valley campus, by the way):

Fred will be talking about “disruptive industries.” Media/entertainment has taken the brunt of the disruptive force of the Internet and Internet technology but that’s just the start. What industries are next? Energy, education, consumer finance, and health care all seem ripe. What are those industries going to look like in 20 years, 40 years, 60 years?

BoomTown strives to bring readers the very best in internal memo decoding, and this one is just too good to pass up.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sent a short memo to employees this afternoon about finally hiring someone to head the software giant’s lackluster digital efforts.

That someone, as this column reported earlier today before the official announcement, was former Yahoo (YHOO) tech star Qi Lu. He will become president of the Online Services Group at Microsoft (MSFT), right after the new year.

Thus, let us try to read between the lines:

What Steve wrote: From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Microsoft–All Employees (QBDG)
Subject: New Leader of Online Services Group

Search, advertising and online services are critical to Microsoft’s long-term strategy. To succeed, we need the right talent. Today, I’m pleased to announce that Qi Lu will join Microsoft as president of our Online Services Group. Qi will oversee all efforts in search, our online advertising platform, and all of our online information and communications services. Qi will join Microsoft on Jan. 5 and report to me.

Translation: Really, taking five months to pick someone to head Microsoft’s most critical arena for the future is not a long time. If you’re counting in dog years, that is! Woof!

But, I digress, we have a winner and, best of all, he’s from Yahoo, costing us $39.9 billion less than it would have cost to get Lu with the whole company.

What Steve wrote: Qi is one of the most respected technical minds in the industry. He comes to Microsoft after 10 years at Yahoo, where he most recently served as executive vice president of engineering for all of Yahoo’s search and advertising development efforts. Before joining Yahoo, Qi was a researcher at IBM’s Almaden Research Center. He has a doctorate in computer science from Carnegie Mellon, and he holds 20 U.S. patents.

Translation: Did I mention that Lu is from Yahoo? Let me say it again: Yahoo. The YAHOO that refused to take our $31 a share offer. That Yahoo. The Yahoo where–at one time–engineers would never consider leaving the Jedi forces of Silicon Valley to join the Death Star.

Jerry Yang, I am your bother.

Also, did I mention 20 patents?

What Steve wrote: Qi’s combination of deep technical expertise, proven leadership capability and broad business knowledge is rare in our industry. There is no one better qualified to guide our work to reinvent search and online advertising.

Translation: By “reinvent,” I mean, stop the endless flow of cash out of Microsoft pockets, even as Google (GOOG) is minting money in the basement of that irksome Googleplex in the search business.

If Lu manages not to lose, say, $3.23 trillion dollars, I will consider it a job well done!

What Steve wrote: While I’m excited that Qi is joining Microsoft, I’m sorry to share the news that Brian McAndrews has decided to transition out of the company. Brian came to us with the acquisition of aQuantive in 2007. Since then, he has helped build a world-class business in online advertising that provides a solid foundation for future growth. I have great respect for the important contributions Brian has made to Microsoft, and I wish him the very best in the future.

Translation: OK, so I dragged my feet on this selection process long enough to make Brian feel really badly, given he wanted the job too.

But, he’s an “ad” guy and Microsoft’s track record with those who don’t consider pocket protectors the height of fashion is, shall we say, rocky.

But don’t feel bad for Brian–Microsoft bought aQuantive for $6 billion last year, and he was CEO. You do the math.

Of course, it would be deeply ironic if Brian suddenly was in the running for the now-open Yahoo CEO job and I was facing him over the negotiating table over the search deal Microsoft has been salivating over, despite trying to seem only mildly interested.

Brian, honey, don’t take it personally that I went for the geek. It’s in my DNA.

What Steve wrote: On Monday at 4 p.m. Pacific Time, Qi will join me at Café RedWest for an Employee Town Hall. I encourage you to attend or to watch the webcast. If you have questions for Qi or me, please send them in advance to and we’ll try to answer as many as possible.

Steve

Translation: Free nachos and unintelligible discussions about algorithms for all!

When reports came out last week that Google and Yahoo were downsizing their controversial search advertising deal, I told a Yahoo exec I happened to be having dinner with that that it was the surest sign that the search giant was about to dump the long-suffering Internet portal.

The exec, who made the case that the deal was always tactical, and not strategic, laughed. For all its problems, Yahoo (YHOO) has always been a straight-up player and such sneaky machinations are not its strong suit.

Google, not so much.

After all, Google (GOOG) had already tried using The Wall Street Journal the week before to try out an our-way-or-the-highway tactic to play chicken with the Justice Department, to no avail.

As I wrote:

And, while it might be testing the Justice Department in hopes of salvaging the deal, I suspect Google–as much as its founders want to help out Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and block Microsoft at the same time–is just now figuring out that walking might actually be the best move.”

Then in a sudden switcheroo just days later, Google was doing the docile-dog play, using the Journal again to signal that it was willing to compromise drastically to do a deal and trying more to look cooperative with the Justice Department.

Now, Google is not some Internet Sybil–way out of the deal one week and in another. Instead, it was creating what one might call “plausible deniability,” a Washington, D.C. term that essentially means covering your own petard.

Despite Google’s last-minute theatrics of cooperation, I am sure the decision had long been made at its California Googleplex lair that it would bow out.

After all, many top execs at the company were dead set against it from the start, mostly due to the undue scrutiny it would bring to Google. Those execs now had plenty of ammo to mercilessly strafe the deal from behind.

Early on, that was also a big worry of Google’s own operatives in D.C., who expressed concern–largely ignored at HQ, where execs really do see themselves as not even slightly evil–about its growing image as a scary behemoth.

Well, that picture is now most definitely solidified in the minds of regulators, helped along by the dangerous pontificating by CEO Eric Schmidt a little while back, who haughtily declared that Google would move forward with or without government approval.

“Time is money in our business,” said Schmidt, in a quote that I am sure he would like to take back now.

It was just the arrogant kind of attitude that Microsoft (MSFT) lobbyists, who have been hitting this deal hard like an old bass drum, needed in order to paint an ugly picture of Google in D.C.

And–more troublesome for Google–it gave advertisers and publishers, many of whom have long harbored fear of the company’s growing power, the courage to speak out, which they did in droves, along with many public interest groups.

But, as has been clear for a while, the Justice Department–after making its own big and noisy deal in its veiled public leaks of outside litigators and such–had to move forward with a lawsuit, and before the election was over.

And, indeed, as I have long maintained, stopping the deal was the right move all along, because a partnership between the No. 1 and No. 2 players just never should be allowed, however slight in its configuration.

As I wrote in April:

So, any further hook-up between the two seems sure to become the Justice Department Lawyer Employment Act of 2008, the likes of which we have not seen since Microsoft got its turn at being deservedly whacked for being a monopolist back in the last century.

Let’s face it, outside of those who cannot seem to shake the annoying Kumbaya mentality over at Google, a Yahoo-Google partnership is simply fantastical, like some out-of-control Dr. Seuss ditty.

They could not, would not with a goat. They would not, could not on a boat. They will not share an algorithm, they will not, will not, Jerry-I-Am.”

Because, although Google has almost none of the obvious menacing aggression that characterized Microsoft when it thoroughly dominated tech, the government was never going to allow such a clearly dominant company in search to strike such a deal, given the obvious antitrust implications.

As I also said then: “It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

Thus, the die was cast for the inevitable dumping of Yahoo, in a hasta-la-vista-baby letter this morning terminating the partnership, which Yahoo should have seen coming many miles away.

Sources close to the company, which has been justifiably irked about how Google has handled itself with the Justice Department, said execs at Yahoo might have expected the move, but were deeply disappointed too.

(Here is Yahoo President Sue Decker’s memo on the collapse of the partnership.)

At least the very least, Yahoo did use the deal to escape the clutches of Microsoft in the midst of an ugly takeover battle, which investors now wish it had not, given its stock price is now half of what it was then.

And, indeed, it was perfectly tactical in that regard, using the software giant’s archrival, Google, to poke Microsoft relentlessly.

But Google would only prod so much, until it adversely impacted its own main goal of quiet but inevitable domination over search and, in fact, all online advertising.

When it did just that, dragging Google into a thorny briar patch, the company inevitably resorted to one of its internal mantras, “Feed the winners, starve the losers.”

Time will tell just how much a loser Yahoo will be from this latest bump in its current pothole-filled journey.

As to the candy-colored Google image? Well, it’s definitely not as sweet as it used to be.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Today comes news that jumping-on-prone California Attorney General Jerry Brown is thinking of climbing onto the federal government bandwagon heading right for the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., to stop the search giant’s online advertising deal with Yahoo.

Brown joins big advertisers, newspapers and whatever mudslingers Microsoft (MSFT) can gather (and, let it be said, Microsoft can sling a lot of slimy mud).

They are all are coalescing around the notion that Google cannot have even the slightest possibility of getting its big mitts into the innards of Yahoo (YHOO).

Even though its stock has suffered of late, in part due to the possibility of a tussle with the government, Google (GOOG) has consistently argued that the arrangement does not hinder competition.

Google has also insisted that it will move ahead with the deal–which was struck as a parry to Microsoft’s attempt to buy Yahoo and is set to begin next month–no matter what.

I actually believe Google execs when they say this because they have shown a strong streak of stubbornness on controversial issues–witness the company not backing down from the Viacom lawsuit–about which they believe they are in the right.

Still, while Google would by no means control a lot of Yahoo’s search ads, the fact that the pair together have an 80 percent share of the search market apparently frightens ordinary mortals outside the Google bubble.

Maybe–even though Google exhibits none of the thuggish behavior that so characterized Microsoft’s monopolistic hegemony–it should.

Because added to that, Google just keeps announcing more and more earth-girding moves, such as today’s O3b Networks.

This joint project with Liberty Global aims to deliver cheap Web connectivity to Africa and other emerging markets.

O3b stands for “other 3 billion” and it is an admirable effort, as well as a good idea for making Google even more globally ubiquitous as the way people access the Internet.

And also today, more proof of Google’s dominance, with comScore’s latest stats on video use on the Web in July.

No shock–Google properties, primarily YouTube, accounted for 44 percent of the 11.4 billion videos viewed in the month.

Fox Interactive Media was a distant second with 3.9 percent, while Microsoft sites clocked in at 2.5 percent, Yahoo at 2.4 percent, Hulu at 1 percent and AOL at 0.8 percent.

Users on Google sites watched an average of 54.7 videos each, compared to 11.7 videos for Disney and Viacom, the next closest in videos-watched numbers.

While a lot of the media companies have more ad-rich premium content than Google, it is still a picture of one huge giant and a lot of teeny pygmies in the video space.

You see the pattern here, don’t you? So do regulators.

One has to wonder exactly when Google will see it.

And in that spirit, here’s “Walk Away Renée,” done by a very talented singer (but not The Left Banke, which did it originally).

I found it on–of course!–YouTube:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Then again, this is Google (GOOG), so you know they love to talk, because they are super-duper smart, I am told.

I will be posting video later, but thus far: A roomful of press in Building 43 at Google’s HQ in Mountain View, Calif. Tasty snacks, as expected, but unusually caloric (many tiny pastries, heavy cream, very small amounts of fruit).

First up: Sundar Pichal, Chrome honcho!

Google’s VP Product Management, who rode herd on this project to create the search giant’s own piece of software to navigate the Internet, apologizes for the snafu that resulted in this announcement being made a day early.

Google Fedexed a comic book it is using to talk about the technical aspects of Chrome to a Germany-based blogger too early.

Ooops, the Big Brains of Google jinxed by some mailing room goof and express mail! How deliciously ironic is that?

Now, Pichal talks about a bunch of info that has been previously released about Chrome being built on WebKit, being available in 100 countries and being open source (a new open-source project launching today is called Chromium).

As to why Google makes a browser? ‘”We live on the Web,” said Pichal.

Um, doesn’t Google actually own the Internet, and we are all just serfs on its vast lands?

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

It looks like Facebook will definitely be moving from its funky multi- building setup in downtown Palo Alto, Calif., to a centralized campus in Silicon Valley by early next year, said several sources.

The high-profile social networking company–which has been undergoing a major managerial shift of late, as it matures from its start-up status to that of a more established Web player–has been growing quickly–to almost 600 employees today from a couple hundred last year.

It is not clear when the move will take place, but sources said it is likely to start by the beginning of next year, as there are multiple permits, design issues and other logistical issues to resolve.

But, one thing is clear: Facebook will relocate its Palo Alto-based HQ–scattered in about five buildings throughout the suburban town–to a single location.

New HQ possibilities include, first and foremost, the old Hewlett-Packard buildings on Page Mill Road, nearby to the west of Palo Alto.

Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prefers to remain near Palo Alto, sources said.

But Facebook has also been looking at locations in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, further south, as well as also considering a San Francisco location in the city’s recently redeveloped Mission Bay area.

Until now, Facebook has expanded by filling up rented buildings throughout Palo Alto, the picturesque town right next to Stanford University.

The appeal of being located in Palo Alto–full of shops, restaurants movies and also within walking distance of the main train station into San Francisco–has been a draw for its employees, who have, until recently, gotten some rental subsidies for being located near its offices.

But–as it has grown–Facebook’s presence in town has also become a problem for it and also the town’s citizens, as its swarms of employees have taken up too much space and parking in the increasingly crowded streets.

Growing further in Palo Alto is almost impossible, given the lack of office space and the higher expense, compared to the more typical office-park setups off Highway 101 in Silicon Valley that most Internet companies settle into.

Given Facebook’s plans to grow to 1,000 employees by the end of this year, it’s not a surprise that managers would be thinking of the next home for the company, making a move that is typical for most start-ups.

Sheryl Sandberg, the COO brought in from Google (GOOG) recently, saw such a thing happen to the search giant, which now has a large campus called the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif.

Over the past six months, there has been a lot of upgrading of Facebook’s looser culture to bring it up to a more professional operation it needs to be if it wants to IPO at some point.

That has meant a lot of internal rejiggering, as well as what BoomTown can only describe as a maturing of its frat-like culture.

There have also been departures of several of its early employees, which also always happens as start-ups mature. Those who have left include: former top exec Owen Van Natta and CTO Adam D’Angelo.

And, just last week, Matt Cohler, its VP of Product Management and longtime adviser to Zuckerberg, announced he will leave Facebook in the fall to become a venture capital partner at Benchmark Capital.