[an]

[quote=CA renter]No Gates or Brin/Page? How not?[/quote]
I would give credits for today’s computer and its GUI to the scientists at Xerox PARC, not Gate or Jobs. They both basically took a lot of those research and create viable products/companies out of them. Although first Mac came out in 1984, first Windows came out in 1983. Here’s a history of Windows: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history. Both the first Windows and the first Mac have a mouse, but that was developed initially by Xerox PARC as well. So, in essence, Mac and Windows came out at right around the same time. Gates was just more success than Jobs in monetizing AND expanding Windows’ market share through software licensing vs a one stop shop. We’re seeing a similar result happening today w/ smartphone OS (Android vs iOS). Although Gates, Jobs, Brin/Page were all founders of companies with a product that’s original. Gates and Brin/Page were able to change the landscape of how we use computer and how we search for information on the Internet. After almost 30 years, PC and Windows still have the lion share of the market. Google have the lion share of the search market and Android is blowing past iOS after just 3 years. Make no mistake, Jobs is up there in importance, I just don’t think his company made as big of an impact as Windows, Google Search, and Android. This is just MHO though. This is also why I put him in the Jack Welch category (both are great CEO who turn around failing companies).

In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]No Gates or Brin/Page? How not?[/quote]
I would give credits for today’s computer and its GUI to the scientists at Xerox PARC, not Gate or Jobs. They both basically took a lot of those research and create viable products/companies out of them. Although first Mac came out in 1984, first Windows came out in 1983. Here’s a history of Windows: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history. Both the first Windows and the first Mac have a mouse, but that was developed initially by Xerox PARC as well. So, in essence, Mac and Windows came out at right around the same time. Gates was just more success than Jobs in monetizing AND expanding Windows’ market share through software licensing vs a one stop shop. We’re seeing a similar result happening today w/ smartphone OS (Android vs iOS). Although Gates, Jobs, Brin/Page were all founders of companies with a product that’s original. Gates and Brin/Page were able to change the landscape of how we use computer and how we search for information on the Internet. After almost 30 years, PC and Windows still have the lion share of the market. Google have the lion share of the search market and Android is blowing past iOS after just 3 years. Make no mistake, Jobs is up there in importance, I just don’t think his company made as big of an impact as Windows, Google Search, and Android. This is just MHO though. This is also why I put him in the Jack Welch category (both are great CEO who turn around failing companies).

In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]You can frame it anyway you want, but Paul is in favor of state laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and opposes the federal government enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Neither libertarian nor constitutional. (And you are aware that there are only limited federal laws against murder? I think they’re just primarily applicable in cases of kidnapping and terrorism. And a few others, like…you can’t kill the President. It is primarily an issue of state jurisdiction.) I’m with Paul on the marijuana laws. It should be governed by states, just as the sale of alcohol is. Unfortunately the federal government has no respect for these state laws.[/quote]
Last I check, presidents don’t run states, governors do. So, it doesn’t matter if Paul favor prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. Again, this is what he said about gay marriage:
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
“Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

Murder was only an example. Terrorism is another. My example might not be very good, but I’m sure you get my point.

BTW, if Paul gets his way, then the federal government will respect the state laws with regards to marijuana, abortion, gay marriages, etc. I can think of some president who are supposedly liberal, yet don’t respect the state laws WRT marijuana. I’ve seen various accounts where business men/women who open legal dispensaries according to state/city laws & regulations get raided and jailed by the federal law enforcement.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]You can frame it anyway you want, but Paul is in favor of state laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and opposes the federal government enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Neither libertarian nor constitutional. (And you are aware that there are only limited federal laws against murder? I think they’re just primarily applicable in cases of kidnapping and terrorism. And a few others, like…you can’t kill the President. It is primarily an issue of state jurisdiction.) I’m with Paul on the marijuana laws. It should be governed by states, just as the sale of alcohol is. Unfortunately the federal government has no respect for these state laws.[/quote]
Last I check, presidents don’t run states, governors do. So, it doesn’t matter if Paul favor prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. Again, this is what he said about gay marriage:
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
“Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

Murder was only an example. Terrorism is another. My example might not be very good, but I’m sure you get my point.

BTW, if Paul gets his way, then the federal government will respect the state laws with regards to marijuana, abortion, gay marriages, etc. I can think of some president who are supposedly liberal, yet don’t respect the state laws WRT marijuana. I’ve seen various accounts where business men/women who open legal dispensaries according to state/city laws & regulations get raided and jailed by the federal law enforcement.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]You can frame it anyway you want, but Paul is in favor of state laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and opposes the federal government enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Neither libertarian nor constitutional. (And you are aware that there are only limited federal laws against murder? I think they’re just primarily applicable in cases of kidnapping and terrorism. And a few others, like…you can’t kill the President. It is primarily an issue of state jurisdiction.) I’m with Paul on the marijuana laws. It should be governed by states, just as the sale of alcohol is. Unfortunately the federal government has no respect for these state laws.[/quote]
Last I check, presidents don’t run states, governors do. So, it doesn’t matter if Paul favor prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. Again, this is what he said about gay marriage:
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
“Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

Murder was only an example. Terrorism is another. My example might not be very good, but I’m sure you get my point.

BTW, if Paul gets his way, then the federal government will respect the state laws with regards to marijuana, abortion, gay marriages, etc. I can think of some president who are supposedly liberal, yet don’t respect the state laws WRT marijuana. I’ve seen various accounts where business men/women who open legal dispensaries according to state/city laws & regulations get raided and jailed by the federal law enforcement.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]You can frame it anyway you want, but Paul is in favor of state laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and opposes the federal government enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Neither libertarian nor constitutional. (And you are aware that there are only limited federal laws against murder? I think they’re just primarily applicable in cases of kidnapping and terrorism. And a few others, like…you can’t kill the President. It is primarily an issue of state jurisdiction.) I’m with Paul on the marijuana laws. It should be governed by states, just as the sale of alcohol is. Unfortunately the federal government has no respect for these state laws.[/quote]
Last I check, presidents don’t run states, governors do. So, it doesn’t matter if Paul favor prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. Again, this is what he said about gay marriage:
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
“Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

Murder was only an example. Terrorism is another. My example might not be very good, but I’m sure you get my point.

BTW, if Paul gets his way, then the federal government will respect the state laws with regards to marijuana, abortion, gay marriages, etc. I can think of some president who are supposedly liberal, yet don’t respect the state laws WRT marijuana. I’ve seen various accounts where business men/women who open legal dispensaries according to state/city laws & regulations get raided and jailed by the federal law enforcement.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]You can frame it anyway you want, but Paul is in favor of state laws prohibiting gay marriage and abortion, and opposes the federal government enforcing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Neither libertarian nor constitutional. (And you are aware that there are only limited federal laws against murder? I think they’re just primarily applicable in cases of kidnapping and terrorism. And a few others, like…you can’t kill the President. It is primarily an issue of state jurisdiction.) I’m with Paul on the marijuana laws. It should be governed by states, just as the sale of alcohol is. Unfortunately the federal government has no respect for these state laws.[/quote]
Last I check, presidents don’t run states, governors do. So, it doesn’t matter if Paul favor prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. Again, this is what he said about gay marriage:
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
“Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.”

Murder was only an example. Terrorism is another. My example might not be very good, but I’m sure you get my point.

BTW, if Paul gets his way, then the federal government will respect the state laws with regards to marijuana, abortion, gay marriages, etc. I can think of some president who are supposedly liberal, yet don’t respect the state laws WRT marijuana. I’ve seen various accounts where business men/women who open legal dispensaries according to state/city laws & regulations get raided and jailed by the federal law enforcement.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

Housing and CD.

[an]

Housing and CD.

[an]

Housing and CD.

[Author]

Posts