At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
Now see what you've gone and done. Soiled your nice t-shirt.
At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
Wow. You think the company, or even the technology we use today would be where it's at without him? Even those who dislike him as a person know how influential he is to the company and the field in general.
By downplaying the libertarian movement, you would rather see yet greater tyranny by the transfer-payment loving government welfare queens? Big government ALWAYS MEANS LESS FREEDOM, taxation is legalized theft -- it should therefore be minimized. If you don't understand THAT from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Also, do you realize that a minimum wage CREATES unemployment?! It does, but that is basic economics, most Americans never learn -- another reason government has failed in education -- just look at American's education scoring Vs. the rest of the world!
MORE government regulation simply stifles innovation and small business owners who have some great ideas.
If you want to know what the REAL Tea Party is, it is libertarian and for principled SMALLER GOVERNMENT, see: http://campaignforliberty.com
The libertarian philosophy is principled, NOT "overly simple-minded" -- you sir are simply misinformed.
Since you say "MANKIND IS NOT, IN GENERAL, A DECENT AND COMPASSIONATE SPECIES" -- why on earth would you want to concentrate the power of theft and tyranny in government -- that is just asking for unconstitutional dictators.
Anyone who thinks government can produce jobs -- I have a bridge to sell them in London. Government NEVER produces wealth, it ONLY CONSUMES WEALTH.
If you want to learn more about why liberty is good for We The People, start reading Reason:
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
WOW, really?! You have NO understanding of the Constitution's requirement to be a natural born citizen to be President of the US!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomPumpkin
Although I hate to bite on an obvious troll attempt, you're ignoring one crucial point. Is he qualified? I don't mean is he some arbitrary number, or born on some arbitrary plot of land. Can he lead the country? Does he have the skills and abilities? Who gives a rat's a$$ if he was born outside the U.S., to non-american parents?
He's lived here for quite some time, and he's just about as american as anybody I know. You're trying to convince the country that this man should not be president because some "piece of paper" he can't produce? How valuable is a piece of paper? (Godwin's Law incoming) Why don't you ask Hitler what value a piece of paper holds? A piece of paper is just that. Makes good fire kindling, but it's all about people, and how they act. Not what's written down on a piece of paper.
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
Pardon if I'm pointing out an obvious, but oft overlooked point... "The Tea Party" has little to do with Libertarianism. They are largely disaffected neo-conservatives with an axe to grind. I claim no part of their agenda and birther nonsense (just one of many disagreements).
Beck? No thanks, but Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel -- MUCH better freedom fighters!!
Wrong again -- I have never identified with the far right -- ever. Liberty and freedom is squarely libertarian territory. Wonder where you stand, take the quick quiz here:
Amazing how no facts are presented in your post, merely attack -- nice knee-jerk reaction -- have any reasoned points to make??
Anyone who loves liberty would NOT vote for McCain/Palin nor Obama/Biden -- they would be voting for Ron Paul (or some other libertarian if running) hands-down.
As for the history lesson -- when big government fuses with big business -- THAT is called FASCISM.
Do you know who REALLY controls the US? It is not politicians, but international bankers behind the private Federal Reserve -- and you wonder why they fight a complete audit of their activities so vehemently!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
The "Tea Party" was largely co-opted by the Republican Party establishment. If you want to know who the real libertarian-republicans are, get connected to the Campaign for Liberty: http://campaignforliberty.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Pardon if I'm pointing out an obvious, but oft overlooked point... "The Tea Party" has little to do with Libertarianism. They are largely disaffected neo-conservatives with an axe to grind. I claim no part of their agenda and birther nonsense (just one of many disagreements).
Presidents Day should be done away with -- more indoctrination of the government school version of what is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Why shouldn't L'ism get a bad rap here? Humorlessly and relentlessly the advocates have hijacked the topic for their own narrow ideological self-promotion. Off topic besides.
What we had was a good story about a positive event: for a change (after eight years of doctrinaire, laissez-faire ignore-ance), we have a president who realizes the direction that America should be taking in its early post-industrial ascendency.
You interpret the role of government in fostering the computer and internet revolution much too narrowly. Maybe you weren't there. What Kennedy (and perhaps Eisenhower a bit before him) did was create an entire climate of innovation and evolution of key technologies. It wasn't a matter of "pipes" for the internet. It was about broad goals of technological accomplishment.
"Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
NASA should be fully privatized -- that would be a LOT CHEAPER to deliver the same types of projects! Government has ZERO incentive to be cost-effective -- NO competitive pressures. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about space exploration?! The only role for government in space is defense.
Are you honestly trying to hold-up the government as an innovator that creates wealth and jobs? All government does is rob Peter to pay Paulette -- consuming wealth only.
The President just wants to get re-elected -- he is in campaign mode -- don't you see? Why else do you think he wants to raise the debt-ceiling AGAIN and put even more generations in indentured servitude in ridiculous interest payments on debt! Don't you know that SSNs are used as a way to figure how much can be borrowed? We will end up like Greece if these imprudent spend-drunk politicians continue!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
All controlled by networked computers such as the ones you libertarians are wasting our time with to this day, not having seen that the future belongs to those who can cooperate around the world through mutual interest and knowledge. Our Prez understands this, and that's why he was talking to these people.
Edit: By the way, the NASA computer-contolled network was established before AT&T and Western Electric had deployed any of their electronic switching equipment. We were still on dial phones switched by relays stacked in ten-story central-office buildings.
This is still the General Discussion forum, not PoliticalOutsider. Just because an article mentions Obama doesn't automatically mean there's a stage for political pundits to drive the thread completely off-topic.
The reason for the thread is that Steve Jobs was at the event and he hasn't been mentioned in the last 20 or so posts. It's natural that some politics will creep in but it's getting into a full-blown PO thread.
Anyone have more insight as to why this dinner took place and why those specific people may have been invited? Is it normal for a president to do this sort of thing? Also, with Obama being a Blackberry user, you'd think he might invite one of them.
One vague reason given for the dinner was about job creation but Twitter, Netflix and Facebook reps seem a bit redundant here. Even Yahoo to some extent. Also, I can't imagine such a diverse group having much interesting to say to each other beyond the usual mundane pleasantries. Here is the list of attendees as a reminder:
John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo!
John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems
Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle
Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
John Hennessy, president, Stanford University
Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple
Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech
Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google
Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group
Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.
It seems to me that in life you are either arrogant, moderate or a doormat. If you choose either of the latter then you set yourself up for disrespect because at some point someone else who is arrogant will come along to displace you so either you have the balls to believe that what you're doing is right and fight back or you're out.
It's human nature to gravitate towards laziness, complacency, comfort and that is entirely contrary to achieving excellence. It makes sense that the driving force has to go beyond the reasonable limits to maintain a reasonable effort from their workforce. It's easy to place labels on people based on stories but your judgements go as far as the stories and those fall far short of describing the subjects of those stories fully.
To most, if not all of us, the people at that table including the president are icons. Labels on large boxes full of things we don't ever get to see and we judge those labels because it's all we are able to do but they are in the position they are in because they don't care about how we judge them. They do what they think is right just like the rest of us and we are all judged by our results.
The reason for the thread is that Steve Jobs was at the event and he hasn't been mentioned in the last 20 or so posts. It's natural that some politics will creep in but it's getting into a full-blown PO thread.
Anyone have more insight as to why this dinner took place and why those specific people may have been invited? Is it normal for a president to do this sort of thing? Also, with Obama being a Blackberry user, you'd think he might invite one of them.
One vague reason given for the dinner was about job creation but Twitter, Netflix and Facebook reps seem a bit redundant here. Even Yahoo to some extent. Also, I can't imagine such a diverse group having much interesting to say to each other beyond the usual mundane pleasantries. Here is the list of attendees as a reminder:
John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo!
John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems
Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle
Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
John Hennessy, president, Stanford University
Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple
Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech
Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google
Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group
Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook
And let us not forget Valerie Jarrett, which indicates this meeting was about broad international strategy. No special insight from me, but it's a reasonable guess that this was about what the software and internet side of Silicon Valley sees for the future of the world, so no IBM, no RiM, and no HP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about space exploration?! The only role for government in space is defense.
Are you honestly trying to hold-up the government as an innovator that creates wealth and jobs? All government does is rob Peter to pay Paulette -- consuming wealth only.
I will try one more time. Government can foster a climate for innovation by making national goals, carried out in programs, usually in the U.S. realized by private contractors. Govt can also fund research and development on technologies deemed strategic. This is how we got the internet, GPS, weather prediction, etc. It could be argued that solid state electronics and integrated circuitry were greatly accelerated by the demands of aerospace funded by govt.
Government does not innovate; it causes others to do so on a large scale. I am sorry to have to spell out something so elementary, but I find your libertarian way of thinking curious and fascinating. I want to see if you will grant this one point.
Edit: I just read james Surowiecki's 'Financial Page' in the Feb14&21 New Yorker on exactly this subject. He's a very smart guy; he's saying the same thing about R&D, and this is before the Woodside pow-wow. Meanwhile North Africa is in the process of showing us what Nokia, Twitter and Facebook have wrought, without anyone having predicted it, except of course for McLuhan 35 years ago.
Comments
At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
It's truly a shame about that house.
At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
Now see what you've gone and done. Soiled your nice t-shirt.
It's truly a shame about that house.
At least there's a good chance the man responsible for its destruction will be dead before he'll ever have a chance to live in the abomination he's likely to have built after destroying an irreplaceable piece of history.
I only wish he could have died soon enough to preserve the house.
And with any luck, once he's gone Apple will become a more open company. We shouldn't have to jailbreak our phones, there should be a simple "I want to run unapproved software" option like many Android phones have. And then with any luck we'll be able to change our own batteries again.
(No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.)
Wow. You think the company, or even the technology we use today would be where it's at without him? Even those who dislike him as a person know how influential he is to the company and the field in general.
Why does this picture look like a meeting of evil overlords conjuring plans to take over the world.
Cause your an idiot. Go Packers!
By downplaying the libertarian movement, you would rather see yet greater tyranny by the transfer-payment loving government welfare queens? Big government ALWAYS MEANS LESS FREEDOM, taxation is legalized theft -- it should therefore be minimized. If you don't understand THAT from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Also, do you realize that a minimum wage CREATES unemployment?! It does, but that is basic economics, most Americans never learn -- another reason government has failed in education -- just look at American's education scoring Vs. the rest of the world!
MORE government regulation simply stifles innovation and small business owners who have some great ideas.
If you want to know what the REAL Tea Party is, it is libertarian and for principled SMALLER GOVERNMENT, see: http://campaignforliberty.com
The libertarian philosophy is principled, NOT "overly simple-minded"
Since you say "MANKIND IS NOT, IN GENERAL, A DECENT AND COMPASSIONATE SPECIES" -- why on earth would you want to concentrate the power of theft and tyranny in government -- that is just asking for unconstitutional dictators.
Anyone who thinks government can produce jobs -- I have a bridge to sell them in London. Government NEVER produces wealth, it ONLY CONSUMES WEALTH.
If you want to learn more about why liberty is good for We The People, start reading Reason:
http://reason.com/
and Liberty:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
Although I hate to bite on an obvious troll attempt, you're ignoring one crucial point. Is he qualified? I don't mean is he some arbitrary number, or born on some arbitrary plot of land. Can he lead the country? Does he have the skills and abilities? Who gives a rat's a$$ if he was born outside the U.S., to non-american parents?
He's lived here for quite some time, and he's just about as american as anybody I know. You're trying to convince the country that this man should not be president because some "piece of paper" he can't produce? How valuable is a piece of paper? (Godwin's Law incoming) Why don't you ask Hitler what value a piece of paper holds? A piece of paper is just that. Makes good fire kindling, but it's all about people, and how they act. Not what's written down on a piece of paper.
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
Pardon if I'm pointing out an obvious, but oft overlooked point... "The Tea Party" has little to do with Libertarianism. They are largely disaffected neo-conservatives with an axe to grind. I claim no part of their agenda and birther nonsense (just one of many disagreements).
Wrong again -- I have never identified with the far right -- ever. Liberty and freedom is squarely libertarian territory. Wonder where you stand, take the quick quiz here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Amazing how no facts are presented in your post, merely attack -- nice knee-jerk reaction -- have any reasoned points to make??
Anyone who loves liberty would NOT vote for McCain/Palin nor Obama/Biden -- they would be voting for Ron Paul (or some other libertarian if running) hands-down.
As for the history lesson -- when big government fuses with big business -- THAT is called FASCISM.
Watch this free documentary movie:
http://freedomtofascism.com
Also, it is not about a "Tea Party", but it IS about a Campaign for Liberty!!! http://campaignforliberty.com
Do you know who REALLY controls the US? It is not politicians, but international bankers behind the private Federal Reserve -- and you wonder why they fight a complete audit of their activities so vehemently!
Wow, did Glen Beck's amygdala just vomit on this guy's keyboard?
It is amazing how the brains of the far right all seem to operate with the same patterns of sweaty anger, delusion and hubris AND that it is reflected in how they write their posts.
If libriumforall here actually allowed oxygen to reach his brain, he might understand the balance between the economy and government. He might admit that the government's temporary majority ownership of fewer than 5 corporations in an economy of 100,000's companies is not socialism. Increasing the tax on income above $200k by less than 4% is not socialism. Regulating Wall Street is not socialism. ... and maybe he might be able to answer this very simple question: Who do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet voted for?
Hint: It wasn't for McCain/Palin.
What the Tea Party folks tend to forget is that the Boston Tea Party was not initiated because the King of England increased the tea tax on the American colonists - it was because they LOWERED the tax on the multinational corporation East India Company which in turn gave it an unfair advantage over the small business owners. In this scenario, the Republicans are George III.
Sorry for the history lesson in an otherwise interesting thread.
Pardon if I'm pointing out an obvious, but oft overlooked point... "The Tea Party" has little to do with Libertarianism. They are largely disaffected neo-conservatives with an axe to grind. I claim no part of their agenda and birther nonsense (just one of many disagreements).
Part 1:
http://usaguns.net/patriot/pg/videos...ts-day-2212011
Part 2:
http://usaguns.net/patriot/pg/videos...ts-day-2212011
Presidents Day should be done away with -- more indoctrination of the government school version of what is good.
Why shouldn't L'ism get a bad rap here? Humorlessly and relentlessly the advocates have hijacked the topic for their own narrow ideological self-promotion. Off topic besides.
What we had was a good story about a positive event: for a change (after eight years of doctrinaire, laissez-faire ignore-ance), we have a president who realizes the direction that America should be taking in its early post-industrial ascendency.
You interpret the role of government in fostering the computer and internet revolution much too narrowly. Maybe you weren't there. What Kennedy (and perhaps Eisenhower a bit before him) did was create an entire climate of innovation and evolution of key technologies. It wasn't a matter of "pipes" for the internet. It was about broad goals of technological accomplishment.
"Your old road is rapidly aging,
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a-changing."
Are you honestly trying to hold-up the government as an innovator that creates wealth and jobs?
The President just wants to get re-elected -- he is in campaign mode -- don't you see? Why else do you think he wants to raise the debt-ceiling AGAIN and put even more generations in indentured servitude in ridiculous interest payments on debt! Don't you know that SSNs are used as a way to figure how much can be borrowed? We will end up like Greece if these imprudent spend-drunk politicians continue!
All controlled by networked computers such as the ones you libertarians are wasting our time with to this day, not having seen that the future belongs to those who can cooperate around the world through mutual interest and knowledge. Our Prez understands this, and that's why he was talking to these people.
Edit: By the way, the NASA computer-contolled network was established before AT&T and Western Electric had deployed any of their electronic switching equipment. We were still on dial phones switched by relays stacked in ten-story central-office buildings.
The reason for the thread is that Steve Jobs was at the event and he hasn't been mentioned in the last 20 or so posts. It's natural that some politics will creep in but it's getting into a full-blown PO thread.
Anyone have more insight as to why this dinner took place and why those specific people may have been invited? Is it normal for a president to do this sort of thing? Also, with Obama being a Blackberry user, you'd think he might invite one of them.
One vague reason given for the dinner was about job creation but Twitter, Netflix and Facebook reps seem a bit redundant here. Even Yahoo to some extent. Also, I can't imagine such a diverse group having much interesting to say to each other beyond the usual mundane pleasantries. Here is the list of attendees as a reminder:
John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo!
John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems
Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle
Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
John Hennessy, president, Stanford University
Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple
Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech
Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google
Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group
Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook
No, I don't like Steve Jobs. There was a reason he was fired in the '80s, and he should have stayed fired. And if not that, brought back only as a marketing VP. He should NEVER have been CEO.
It seems to me that in life you are either arrogant, moderate or a doormat. If you choose either of the latter then you set yourself up for disrespect because at some point someone else who is arrogant will come along to displace you so either you have the balls to believe that what you're doing is right and fight back or you're out.
It's human nature to gravitate towards laziness, complacency, comfort and that is entirely contrary to achieving excellence. It makes sense that the driving force has to go beyond the reasonable limits to maintain a reasonable effort from their workforce. It's easy to place labels on people based on stories but your judgements go as far as the stories and those fall far short of describing the subjects of those stories fully.
To most, if not all of us, the people at that table including the president are icons. Labels on large boxes full of things we don't ever get to see and we judge those labels because it's all we are able to do but they are in the position they are in because they don't care about how we judge them. They do what they think is right just like the rest of us and we are all judged by our results.
I wonder if steak was on the menu...
Jobs wouldn't have eaten it, and it would have been detrimental to his health to have done so.
The reason for the thread is that Steve Jobs was at the event and he hasn't been mentioned in the last 20 or so posts. It's natural that some politics will creep in but it's getting into a full-blown PO thread.
Anyone have more insight as to why this dinner took place and why those specific people may have been invited? Is it normal for a president to do this sort of thing? Also, with Obama being a Blackberry user, you'd think he might invite one of them.
One vague reason given for the dinner was about job creation but Twitter, Netflix and Facebook reps seem a bit redundant here. Even Yahoo to some extent. Also, I can't imagine such a diverse group having much interesting to say to each other beyond the usual mundane pleasantries. Here is the list of attendees as a reminder:
John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo!
John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems
Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle
Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
John Hennessy, president, Stanford University
Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple
Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech
Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google
Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group
Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook
And let us not forget Valerie Jarrett, which indicates this meeting was about broad international strategy. No special insight from me, but it's a reasonable guess that this was about what the software and internet side of Silicon Valley sees for the future of the world, so no IBM, no RiM, and no HP.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about space exploration?! The only role for government in space is defense.
Are you honestly trying to hold-up the government as an innovator that creates wealth and jobs?
I will try one more time. Government can foster a climate for innovation by making national goals, carried out in programs, usually in the U.S. realized by private contractors. Govt can also fund research and development on technologies deemed strategic. This is how we got the internet, GPS, weather prediction, etc. It could be argued that solid state electronics and integrated circuitry were greatly accelerated by the demands of aerospace funded by govt.
Government does not innovate; it causes others to do so on a large scale. I am sorry to have to spell out something so elementary, but I find your libertarian way of thinking curious and fascinating. I want to see if you will grant this one point.
Edit: I just read james Surowiecki's 'Financial Page' in the Feb14&21 New Yorker on exactly this subject. He's a very smart guy; he's saying the same thing about R&D, and this is before the Woodside pow-wow. Meanwhile North Africa is in the process of showing us what Nokia, Twitter and Facebook have wrought, without anyone having predicted it, except of course for McLuhan 35 years ago.