“Earlier this week, fellow Fool Rick Munarriz wrote about Google CEO Eric Schmidt accepting a seat on Apple’s (Nasdaq: AAPL) board. Rick suggested that Schmidt’s move was about making life miserable for Microsoft. I’ve got a different idea,” Jack Uldrich writes for The Motley Fool.
“In the short term, I think it’s more about Apple landing a spot for its iTunes digital media service on Google’s toolbar, and Google finding new ways to leverage its advertising network. In the longer term, though the picture begins to get cloudy, I have a sneaking suspicion that video content will play an increasing role in the two companies’ future relationship,” Uldrich writes. “Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I see a link here, in the person of former Vice President Al Gore.”
“A board member at Apple and “special advisor” to Google, Gore recently turned Hollywood star with a leading role in the global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth. In addition to his political and environment interests, Gore is also the founder and owner of Current TV, a current-affairs TV channel that shows user-generated programs,” Uldrich writes. “I find Gore’s roles at Apple, Google, and Current TV particularly interesting.”
Uldrich writes, “It could be true that Google, Apple, and Current TV won’t do anything together to rival television — but color me skeptical. For one thing, Gore was also at the Edinburgh event, where he said that he hopes his new channel will reach 50 million people by 2010. A little help from Google and Apple could only help to meet such an ambitious goal… If Google does have plans to eventually rival TV, I’d simply encourage the company to be more candid about them. But then again, showing its hand so early might be just the sort of strategy that Al Gore would advise Google against.”
Full article here.
You know, because “Current TV” is soooo very successful and Al Gore’s strategic advice is soooo tremendously valuable – almost as much as Naomi Wolf’s.
The usual late-August Apple news lull seems to have caused a particularly virulent strain of daftness this year.
We think Apple put Google’s CEO on the board because Steve thought it made the boardroom table visually balanced from his perspective: four per side. Having four guys sitting on one side and just three on the other was driving him absolutely crazy! It’s really that simple.
Plus, as anybody knows, 8 is better than 7: the 8 spokes of the Dharmachakra, the 8 dynamics of life, tarot card No. 8 means “strength,” turn an 8 sideways and you have ∞, Carl Yastrzemski’s retired number, 8 maids a-milking, etc.
Related articles:
Google CEO on Apple’s board opens up many possibilities, including outdueling Microsoft – August 31, 2006
Re: Google CEO elected to Apple Computer’s Board of Directors – August 30, 2006
Dvorak: Does Apple’s board addtion of Google’s Schmidt portend Apple-Sun merger? – August 30, 2006
Apple and Google cozy up to make Microsoft jealous – August 30, 2006
Google CEO to help shape Apple’s future – August 30, 2006
Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt joins Apple’s Board of Directors – August 29, 2006
“Thank you for proving my point that the left, when it cannot claim innocence, purity, and irreproachability, starts the moral superiority game by suggesting that they have committed fewer and less egregious sins as their opponent..”
NO CLAIMS WERE MADE!!! It’s only your perceptions. Everything I quoted is from published sources that anyone can read. Can you present a cogent argument without an ad hominem attack? Your own comments establish not only beyond a resaonable but beyond all possible doubt that you are no different from those you attack.
Ch. Blackthorne, you did write, “Anyone care to compare and contrast Al Gore and Dick Cheney?”
Go ahead, you first. Begin with an exhaustive survey and analysis of the moral and ethical character of these two. Or where you suggesting we only examine and differentiate their taste in clothing?
Ch. Blackthorne:
I never claimed that Dick Cheney was a paragon of virtue. However, in spite of the numerous ethical flaws and intellectual shortcomings of Al Gore, you still have the attitude that Gore is above reproach. According to you, any criticism or bad press related to Al Gore is characterized as an ad hominem attack regardless of the veracity or accuracy of the reports.
I suppose, according your twisted logic, any examination, evaluation, negative commentary, disapproval of Gore is sacrilegious, something committed by right-wing infidels. Well, you may deify Al Gore in your own mind and grant him the status of a sinless divine being, but I won’t be worshipping at Al Gore’s Shrine of Sanctimonious Hypocrites.
My point is that it’s only a question of whose ox is getting gored (pardon the pun).
All I have read here about Gore has been ad hominem attacks, and I would like someone to produce real evidence about what makes Gore deserving criticism -other than his party affiliation which seems to reason enough for some – so that I can read and draw my own conclusions. I have no preconceptions about Gore.
Ch. Blackthorne:
For someone with “no preconceptions” you are incredibly opinionated and dogmatic. This makes you impossibly stupid, unimaginably ignorant, or excruciatingly hypocritical.
maczealot “For someone with “no preconceptions” you are incredibly opinionated and dogmatic..”
And you’re not? Your capacity for projection is boundless.
Oh, my! Ch. Blackthorne is getting all pseudo-psychological with his accusations of “projection”.
Ch. Blackthorne:
I suppose that if you can make an objective and unprejudiced conclusion without a face-to-face encounter and proper analysis, then you are capable of believing any at all without any empirical evidence and disregarding factual evidence contrary to your predetermined biases.
“And you’re not?” Is this a careless admission that you really are “incredibly opinionated and dogmatic”? If you weren’t so serious, you would actually be funny.
That’s funny, Jeff, because my friends fighting in Iraq really like me, and completely respect that I have a backbone and stand up for my beliefs.
By the way, what do your friends fighting over there think of how it’s all progressed? How do they describe the current state of Iraq? Are they optimistic about the future there? Just curious.
And if you honestly think the opinions of a few liberals have any impact on how Iraq is being handled then you are living in the clouds. This administration has handled Iraq EXACTLY how it wanted to. The voices of dissent were TOTALLY ignored. Anyone who was and is behind Bush and Co. can take full responsibility (for once) for the mess in Iraq. You all got exactly what you bargained for, and right now the terrorists are loving it. Talk about making someone sick. You bloodthirsty fools did exactly what the terrorists hoped you would. Anyone who supported the Iraq war inadvertently supported the terrorist agenda.
Can we please just have our second American civil war start now and get it over with? I’ve been waiting for it to happen my entire life, and frankly, all this talk is just boring the hell out of me…
A second American Civil War could be a distinct possibility if the Neo-Cons fix another election. My guess is they’ll put Condaleeza Rice up for election next.
Diplomacy does not work when the goal of the other side is to see you dead.
This is an oversimplification and amounts to dehumanizing the enemy. The “other side” is made of humans. Humans can be reasoned with. Life is not like the movies. Obviously there are psychotics and occasionally the psychotics rise to power. For the most part, though, even psychotics can be dealt with as long as the balance of power favors the sane. Which brings me to your next point…
Diplomacy did not work with Hitler, defeating him did.
Psychotics with a war machines require different tactics. War may be inevitable in these circumstances due to balance of power issues but using this tactic with every case is naive and stupid. The whole problem with asymetrical situations like Israel v Hamas and Hezbollah is that the obviously stronger power feels that all military situations much be treated equally, which is misguided.
Diplomacy did not make America free from Britain, fighting them did.
Yes, I can see how political, diplomatic, and military theory from more than 200 years ago is so relevant to today.
Diplomacy did not stop the Hamas from attacking Israel.
The point is magnitude of the offense relative to magnitude of reaction. Israel can and should take a firm stance against the violence perpetrated against them, and pursue redress through legal and diplomatic means. But when it comes to aggressive invasion against a pitiful opponent as a means to securing a peace more conceptual than real, the result is sinking lower than your opponent. If that’s what you want out of society, fine, but I have no qualms about advocating a more enlightened and rational approach.
Israel just bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Do you think this will solve the problem with Hezbollah? Do you think this will give them cause to pursue them again in the future? If both solutions fail to resolve the problems that cause the violence, the tactics are reexamined and altered to accommodate our current understanding of the situation. Adapt to win, that’s the new mantra from the neocons, right? Well, the same goes for diplomacy. If diplomacy fails to resolve the underlying issues that create the violence, diplomacy must adapt. Again, the difference is in the number of innocents killed, infrastructure destroyed, and ordnance deployed.
Arafat demanded land for peace, Israel gave them land, yet the attacks continued.
This was because Arafat was a fool who knew nothing of diplomacy or statesmanship. The Palestinians’ biggest mistake was ever thinking that he would advance their cause at all. All progress between Israel and Palestine while he was alive happened despite him and, except for his most strident supporters, everyone else was glad when he died.
Nonetheless, he represents exactly the challenges that I described. You will have setbacks. Ask the British. Sometimes an asshole sneaks into the process. And maybe you have to wait for him to die.
This is not to say that there is no military action involved in diplomacy. But the scale of it must be appropriate to the circumstances. The insurgent/terrorist tact of integrating into the civilian populace is an effective tactic for both defense and recruitment. The last thing a stronger power should do is fall right into that trap.
You think that fanatical muslims can be negotiated with???????
Yes. Even if you used one more question mark, the answer would still be yes.
Please do me a favor and go try and negotiate with them. You’ll be headless in a nanosecond you moron.
Are you suggesting I walk into, say, an Iraqi insurgent stronghold and say, “I come in peace,” and see how that works out? Cuz that’s stupid. Diplomacy does not mean acting with blind faith (or rampant stupidity). In fact, it’s the exact opposite.
Terrorists only understand force. We need to take out Iran next. It has to be done. You’ll find out the hard way if it doesn’t happen you jack ass!
So are you a terrorist? Cuz it sounds like the only thing you understand is force.
“A second American Civil War could be a distinct possibility if the Neo-Cons fix another election.”
Gpstank, efwierd, daviduh,
I hope you all wind up in the middle of the next terrorist attack and we’ll see how understanding you aholes are then. I was in NYC close to the World Trade Center. You libs are absolutely effing disgusting people. The middle east has to be taken to it’s knees now before they get nukes and more powerfull. I hate you 3.
Well Antoine, it appears as though need something to hate. Liberals were just as affected by 9-11 as you were, pal. You don’t own that just because you feel the desire for blind revenge stronger than other people. And it is blind, Antoine, and foolish. Do you honestly think that by making innocent people suffer your wounds will be healed?
The ironic thing is that it’s the “liberals” who can save America from another hit, because liberals would wage this war with intelligence and aggression. Don’t forget Franklin D. Roosevelt was a democrat, and liberal.
Gstank you are one sick individual. Liberalism is a very bad disease.
Al Gore.
Get back on track.
Al Gore.
Al Gore.
Al Gore.
Apple Board of Directors.
Al Gore.
Al Gore is a moron, leading a pack of morons over a cliff with his global warming stick. Having Al “Sore Loser” Gore on the Apple board is a disgrace. Makes me seriously think about buying a Dell with Windows.
With his global warming scare, Al Gore could do more damage to the U.S. economy than any other activity (oil prices, middle east wars, you name it).
It is almost certain that the main cause of Earth’s warming and cooling over the ages is due to fluctations in the Sun’s total energy output. Chick Little’s like Al Gore want to believe that Man’s production of CO2 is the reason the Earth is warming a few degrees. The latest science shows that CO2 has contributed less than 1/4th of the apparent temperatue increase in the last century. (It can be argued that the Earth is only now recovering from the mini-ice age of the middle ages.)
Those who rail against CO2 (and energy sources such as fossil fuels) remind me of the nuclear energy scare mongers. These scare mongers are to be blamed for our dependence on fossil fuels to produce electricity – they can blames themselves for all of the CO2 production these days!
Al Gore is the chief idiot among these morons. Having him on the Apple board is a complete and utter disgrace. Steve Jobs screwed the pooch on this one…
GSpank I invite you and others to read
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060831-083928-6811r.htm
Al´s probably pissed about these stories:
Science tempers fears on climate change
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html
Ozone Hole Now Stable, Say Scientists
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=130007AE5WP2
Yeah, but Al would take credit for the good news.
Funny, Randy, I read it and agree with it totally. Amusing how you must have thought that it would somehow clash with my ideals. I would guess that’s because your brain has been scrambled by Fox News and other outlets into forming some sort of deranged notion as to what a “liberal” is.
“…because liberals would wage this war with intelligence and aggression.”
G-Spank:
Maybe you have a few examples of how well the Clinton-Gore administration handled terrorism; because I don’t remember which victories over terrorism this administration could claim credit. I seem to recall that Bill was more interested in getting his knob polished by Monica in the Oval Office than ordering retaliatory strikes for terrorist attacks on U.S. interests. In fact, it has been hypothesized, that Clinton’s paltry and limited attempts to inflict pain and suffering on terrorists and their supporters actually encouraged the terrorists to plan more devastating strikes. So, rather than acting quickly and decisively, Clinton actually assisted the terrorists by making U.S, appear weak and unwilling to fight.
Interesting, the only liberal that G-Spank can identify with to fight terrorism has been dead and buried over fifty years. Well, G-Spank, who is your nominee for the presidency in 2008? Hopefully, someone who isn’t as cold and moldy as FDR.
During FDR’s administration, over 35 million civilians died or were injured directly or indirectly by military and naval conflcit. Do you expect me to believe that any liberal today would authorize military and naval actions that would permit the death of 35 million civilians for the sake of total victory? If you know of anyone, please tell us.
G-S good news they want you, too!
“Qaeda urges non-Muslims to convert to Islam: video”
http://tinyurl.com/fhnpb
But maybe you already converted.
Islam – the religion of peace.
LOL.
The cult of hate is more like it.
you libs love to slam Fox News every chance you possibly can. Fox is one of the only news outlets that shows both sides of the story. All main stream media is so completely left wing it’s scary (CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc., etc., etc.). And you psycho libs love to slam the one main stream source that gives a real “fair and balanced” take on the news. Liberal-Psycho-Terrorist Loving-Liars are what you freaks are. Thank god for Bush.