Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Androoooooooooooid!!!!!!!!
Woot! the Devs have built a largely functional and FAST android port that works on my phone. It's like a breath of fresh air after being enslaved by windows mobile.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Adorable Dystopia
Naturally I am a touch on the obsessed with dystopian visions. And I have a long standing love of all things lego (they are one of my fondest childhood memories). And so with that I link to you...
Legoland Hell (AKA: 'Containment' by Nannan Zhang and Tyler Clites
Legoland Hell (AKA: 'Containment' by Nannan Zhang and Tyler Clites
Sunday, June 20, 2010
On a lighter (but related) note
I am however going to be starting a Cyberpunk game. first time in probably a decade, and I will be dusting off my referee hat. No idea what I am going to do, but then thats generally kind of how I do it anyway.
Should be good. going to be full of mood, element, style and maybe even some bloodshed.
Should be good. going to be full of mood, element, style and maybe even some bloodshed.
Cyberpunk est mort, vive le Cyberpunk!
Ah it seems that we are in a state where this applies. The original cyberpunk movement, with it's roots extending deep back into the early origins of computer sciences (the late 60's), peaking around 1994 or so.
Those heady days for me, just after High School where the convergence of cultures created a hotbed for a social, political, and literary storm known collectively as 'Cyberpunk'. The popularity of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson, P.K. Dick etc) espoused a collective thought of dystopia, miasma and contrarily, a hopefulness brought about by enabling the common man access to heretofore unprecedented levels of access to information.
It was a time when 'Information Needs to be Free' was common, in the hearts and tongues of those of the movement. The movement is not dead, but sleeping. And lacks identity. Those in the movement have buckled down, gotten jobs, families, etc. They have not entirely abandoned their hopes, dreams and nightmares, but they have set them aside.
From 1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
And much of this does indeed seem to be where the status of the 'movement' such as it ever was, rests.
However just a bit further down is this gem:
(1 Corinthians 13:12 'βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι'
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
Which is both more allegorical and certainly representative of a core principal of (at least in my mind) 'teh movement'. To me, this passage says, "We see where the world could be, in it's darkest reflection". And by that token means that those that do see it's darkest reflection, are the most well-suited to survive, thrive, and provide for others.
This is an open call. If you have ever used the term cyberpunk to describe yourself, (or one of the ancillary/alternate labels such as cypherpunk, phreaker, cracker, black-hat, white-hat, etc etc etc) then please remember why you got involved in the first place. Tell me what your philosophy is, where it has changed, where it has adapted.
I expect it has changed, as 'Cyberpunk' as a definition was certainly nothing more than a placeholder for something we all collectively felt but lacked the words to describe. If there is truly one consistency, it is that we believe in the organic and adaptive nature of any system that humanity comes into contact with.
Oh and please don't let the biblical quotes fool you; I am by no means dogmatic nor even particularly Christian. They just make excellent allegory.
Those heady days for me, just after High School where the convergence of cultures created a hotbed for a social, political, and literary storm known collectively as 'Cyberpunk'. The popularity of fiction (Gibson, Stephenson, P.K. Dick etc) espoused a collective thought of dystopia, miasma and contrarily, a hopefulness brought about by enabling the common man access to heretofore unprecedented levels of access to information.
It was a time when 'Information Needs to be Free' was common, in the hearts and tongues of those of the movement. The movement is not dead, but sleeping. And lacks identity. Those in the movement have buckled down, gotten jobs, families, etc. They have not entirely abandoned their hopes, dreams and nightmares, but they have set them aside.
From 1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
And much of this does indeed seem to be where the status of the 'movement' such as it ever was, rests.
However just a bit further down is this gem:
(1 Corinthians 13:12 'βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι'
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
Which is both more allegorical and certainly representative of a core principal of (at least in my mind) 'teh movement'. To me, this passage says, "We see where the world could be, in it's darkest reflection". And by that token means that those that do see it's darkest reflection, are the most well-suited to survive, thrive, and provide for others.
This is an open call. If you have ever used the term cyberpunk to describe yourself, (or one of the ancillary/alternate labels such as cypherpunk, phreaker, cracker, black-hat, white-hat, etc etc etc) then please remember why you got involved in the first place. Tell me what your philosophy is, where it has changed, where it has adapted.
I expect it has changed, as 'Cyberpunk' as a definition was certainly nothing more than a placeholder for something we all collectively felt but lacked the words to describe. If there is truly one consistency, it is that we believe in the organic and adaptive nature of any system that humanity comes into contact with.
Oh and please don't let the biblical quotes fool you; I am by no means dogmatic nor even particularly Christian. They just make excellent allegory.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Corporate Ethics and the New Amerika
I posted a response to an article on Gizmodo today. I realized that this is something I have implied before but I feel I may need to spell out.
I believe in the core of me that our government is largely controlled by Corporate America. Keep with me here, as this is where it gets tangled. These corporations and special interest groups spend ridiculous amounts of money directing the voting of the Congress. And since I have a lot of difficulty with where this country has been going over the last decade, I feel I can place a lot of the blame squarely on them (as well as Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. since a lot of the corporate entitlement came during their runs, though Clinton was no saint either).
It occurred to me that when I purchase something from a company I am always trying to determine if it is a company or person that I feel is treating the world in a responsible way. Are they making decisions and acting in a way that I can approve of, or at least tolerate without being angry? If not then I will find an alternative provider. In this sense I think of my expenditure of cash as a 'vote'.
Each dollar I spend is one more going to fuel the corporate machine, and each dollar they spend I feel a responsibility to making sure that it is spent in accordance with my wishes.
I wish everyone treated their purchases with the same due consideration that my family and I do.
I believe in the core of me that our government is largely controlled by Corporate America. Keep with me here, as this is where it gets tangled. These corporations and special interest groups spend ridiculous amounts of money directing the voting of the Congress. And since I have a lot of difficulty with where this country has been going over the last decade, I feel I can place a lot of the blame squarely on them (as well as Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. since a lot of the corporate entitlement came during their runs, though Clinton was no saint either).
It occurred to me that when I purchase something from a company I am always trying to determine if it is a company or person that I feel is treating the world in a responsible way. Are they making decisions and acting in a way that I can approve of, or at least tolerate without being angry? If not then I will find an alternative provider. In this sense I think of my expenditure of cash as a 'vote'.
Each dollar I spend is one more going to fuel the corporate machine, and each dollar they spend I feel a responsibility to making sure that it is spent in accordance with my wishes.
I wish everyone treated their purchases with the same due consideration that my family and I do.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Problem with Militias
I believe I come from a somewhat unique point of view; My father was a soldier, then a police officer, and now a government administrator. My mother has had any number of roles, few of them careers in any way shape or form. However as she has gotten older she has become much more of a journalist and activist, in her close associations with the local SEIU (union).
Bearing those things in mind you also have to include the following. My childhood was spent largely in one of the reddest states ever (I remember the Bush Sr. Election when I was in Jr. High), then moved to one of the bluest states ever (California) at the age of 15. I will put it out there right now that I am a progressive, and as such my opinions will be colored by that.
Firstly I will say that the idea of militias are very much in keeping with what our forefathers had in mind. And so in principal I am not opposed to their formation. But the application is where things start to diverge. One of the fundamental problems is where this sense of 'self defense' comes from. The essential belief that their 'way' is under attack is a fallacy at the heart of it, especially since (at least with the current crop of militias) the most vocal opponents of social entitlements are in fact receiving unemployment or disability insurance themselves. The hypocrisy is staggering to behold.
The other problem I have is that these people see themselves as islands, and that everyone has a right to be an individual. This is something I can in concept agree with but where it breaks for me is this: EVERYTHING YOU DO AFFECTS SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. No one is excluded. And, when following that logic you cannot make decisions based solely on your own (selfish) point of view with no consideration for your fellow man. This is isolationist, and is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to wars, famine, disease, depravity and destruction. Not understanding the interconnectedness of all things may well be the most sacrilegious thing I can think of in fact. Even 'removing' yourself from society does not exclude you from this interaction entirely. Your consumption of food, energy and resources continues to go on, either eating stored food, bought food, or killing animals and eating plants somewhere has an affect on someone, even if it's not obvious to you.
At any rate, I am also not surprised that the overwhelming majority of this is from the extreme conservative perspective. Conservatism in thought strikes me as a fundamental thinking pattern, a thinking pattern based on scarcity. So this is why it is not surprising to see so many poor involved in the conservative movement where on the surface the poor should constantly be backing progressive, social expansion movements. Because the poor are, well, poor, they are coming from a mindset of scarcity which will in turn, make them want to defend what little they have. Even though the status quo is crappy for them, they feel like change will only be for the worse. Not to mention that conservative politicians figured this out pretty early into the birth of the middle class and have always played on the fears of the working man. 'Redistribution of wealth' is the constant refrain, when in fact, especially now, those working class people that have had their income ripped from their hands by irresponsible corporate behavior couple with a lack of oversight from the government. So exactly who's wealth is being redistributed? mine? I work. I pay taxes. I have had a whole whopping 3 weeks of disability (State Disability I might add), as my benefits.
I am middle-class. And I pay for those people out of work right now. And you know what, I don't mind. Do you know why? Because I feel like it's the only way I can help out right now, and I badly want to. I am generally a very caring person but I am also very absent-minded and kind of lazy about stuff like that.
The good things about militias are that they are very community oriented. They want to assist in taking care of the town's business, they want to help the community. As the conservative movement has pointed out, the line between helping the community, and becoming a politically motivated group is a very very fine line however. It boggles my mind that the conservative movement would get so upset at Acorn, who tries to help people re-educate and improve their lives and yet completely sidestep Community Organizers like the Hutaree, who also helped the community in search and rescue operations, but have also been busily recruiting with the full intent of violently opposing the government.
This is going to result in a cop getting shot simply because he is trying to do his job.
Bearing those things in mind you also have to include the following. My childhood was spent largely in one of the reddest states ever (I remember the Bush Sr. Election when I was in Jr. High), then moved to one of the bluest states ever (California) at the age of 15. I will put it out there right now that I am a progressive, and as such my opinions will be colored by that.
Firstly I will say that the idea of militias are very much in keeping with what our forefathers had in mind. And so in principal I am not opposed to their formation. But the application is where things start to diverge. One of the fundamental problems is where this sense of 'self defense' comes from. The essential belief that their 'way' is under attack is a fallacy at the heart of it, especially since (at least with the current crop of militias) the most vocal opponents of social entitlements are in fact receiving unemployment or disability insurance themselves. The hypocrisy is staggering to behold.
The other problem I have is that these people see themselves as islands, and that everyone has a right to be an individual. This is something I can in concept agree with but where it breaks for me is this: EVERYTHING YOU DO AFFECTS SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. No one is excluded. And, when following that logic you cannot make decisions based solely on your own (selfish) point of view with no consideration for your fellow man. This is isolationist, and is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to wars, famine, disease, depravity and destruction. Not understanding the interconnectedness of all things may well be the most sacrilegious thing I can think of in fact. Even 'removing' yourself from society does not exclude you from this interaction entirely. Your consumption of food, energy and resources continues to go on, either eating stored food, bought food, or killing animals and eating plants somewhere has an affect on someone, even if it's not obvious to you.
At any rate, I am also not surprised that the overwhelming majority of this is from the extreme conservative perspective. Conservatism in thought strikes me as a fundamental thinking pattern, a thinking pattern based on scarcity. So this is why it is not surprising to see so many poor involved in the conservative movement where on the surface the poor should constantly be backing progressive, social expansion movements. Because the poor are, well, poor, they are coming from a mindset of scarcity which will in turn, make them want to defend what little they have. Even though the status quo is crappy for them, they feel like change will only be for the worse. Not to mention that conservative politicians figured this out pretty early into the birth of the middle class and have always played on the fears of the working man. 'Redistribution of wealth' is the constant refrain, when in fact, especially now, those working class people that have had their income ripped from their hands by irresponsible corporate behavior couple with a lack of oversight from the government. So exactly who's wealth is being redistributed? mine? I work. I pay taxes. I have had a whole whopping 3 weeks of disability (State Disability I might add), as my benefits.
I am middle-class. And I pay for those people out of work right now. And you know what, I don't mind. Do you know why? Because I feel like it's the only way I can help out right now, and I badly want to. I am generally a very caring person but I am also very absent-minded and kind of lazy about stuff like that.
The good things about militias are that they are very community oriented. They want to assist in taking care of the town's business, they want to help the community. As the conservative movement has pointed out, the line between helping the community, and becoming a politically motivated group is a very very fine line however. It boggles my mind that the conservative movement would get so upset at Acorn, who tries to help people re-educate and improve their lives and yet completely sidestep Community Organizers like the Hutaree, who also helped the community in search and rescue operations, but have also been busily recruiting with the full intent of violently opposing the government.
This is going to result in a cop getting shot simply because he is trying to do his job.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Viral Marketing, Conference Formats, etc
So in reading an article on modern marketing, Conference Format Fails, I realize that our consumption model is changing rather dynamically here in america. The article is largely a reference to conferences and how they no longer meet the needs they once did, that our consumption model is much more interactive and informed. What I wonder is if this is in general changing our consumption model, from what clothes we buy, where we shop, what we eat. In thinking about it I think that it is, that we now make (and expect to be able to make) more informed decisions about what we buy.
As an example, when going to the grocery store we can make an informed decision about which one is closer, we can plan our route via GPS or google maps to make sure and hit all of our stops in the shortest and most efficient trip possible and even know how long it takes to do so. We can then choose products and goods for their cost vs. social cost (choosing earth-friendly, or organic choices to improve our health etc). Due to marketing services and rss / twitter alerts we can get real-time alerts to 'phantom' deals, those sales that last hours or minutes and can get the best deal before product is shipped off to secondary retailers (like Nordstrom Rack, Ross etc).
We can compare prices, build quality, customer service etc on every product or sevice under the sun. For the first time ever, we have almost 100% transparency to the consumer process. I don't see how this could NOT shape our buying habits.
As a person interested in marketing, with this new turn in consumer habits I have to wonder if the first piece of advice a marketing company shouldn't give is to have a quality service or product.
As an example, when going to the grocery store we can make an informed decision about which one is closer, we can plan our route via GPS or google maps to make sure and hit all of our stops in the shortest and most efficient trip possible and even know how long it takes to do so. We can then choose products and goods for their cost vs. social cost (choosing earth-friendly, or organic choices to improve our health etc). Due to marketing services and rss / twitter alerts we can get real-time alerts to 'phantom' deals, those sales that last hours or minutes and can get the best deal before product is shipped off to secondary retailers (like Nordstrom Rack, Ross etc).
We can compare prices, build quality, customer service etc on every product or sevice under the sun. For the first time ever, we have almost 100% transparency to the consumer process. I don't see how this could NOT shape our buying habits.
As a person interested in marketing, with this new turn in consumer habits I have to wonder if the first piece of advice a marketing company shouldn't give is to have a quality service or product.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Anger, hurt, frustration
I work for 2 companies. One of which is part time at best, usually 2 - 4 hours a week sporadically. The last week or two I have had to take a couple calls while on shift at my other 'regular' job. The total amount of time is quite limited, maybe half an hour to an hour of time spent, taken away from my regular job. I keep close track of the time and make it up in the morning or at night if it is there. If anything is of immediate concern with my regular job, it always takes priority. However some of my coworkers seem to think I don't work 'for the company' anymore. I have had some absences that I have not clearly defined for them (multiple doctors appt's for my wife, a recurring psychiatrist appointment for myself, a root canal etc) that I have not wanted to share. It appears I will have to. ugh. I hate having to defend myself when I have proven myself over and over to be a reliable employee with one exception: communicating what is going on with me to those who have no business caring about it since they don't report to me and I don't report to them.
Monday, March 1, 2010
"Dangerous Exercise in Democracy"
oh really??
Why do they let this little tart open her mouth? She is literally as vile as her father, and even less intelligent.
To whit, she speaks of this issue of voting for health care reform on reconciliation as if it were something unique to those 'dirty liberals'. However I beg to differ:
Historical use (from wikipedia)
Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is also worth noting that there has never in the history of America been a more partisan and obstructionist Senate. The conservatives have not broken ranks on even one thing, not one bill. They have towed the party line completely irregardless of all of their constituency. They claim that the public is against the public option (not true) that it is against health care reform (again, blatantly false, though there is a lot of opposition to the CURRENT bill). And yet they still stab their constituents in the back. Now that is not to say that there are not many many corrupt politicians on both sides. For instance I would love to kick little miss Blanche Lincoln squarely in the teeth, but it looks likely that she is going to be replaced in the primary by the current Arkansas Lt. Governer (Halter I think). There are others (and Pelosi isn't exactly my first choice) but thankfully MY state is represented accurately for me by Jeff Merkeley one of the most progressive voices in Congress. Wyden not so much but we do have a strong conservative movement here too, so that makes some sense (not to mention Nike is one of his biggest contributors).
Why do they let this little tart open her mouth? She is literally as vile as her father, and even less intelligent.
To whit, she speaks of this issue of voting for health care reform on reconciliation as if it were something unique to those 'dirty liberals'. However I beg to differ:
Historical use (from wikipedia)
Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is also worth noting that there has never in the history of America been a more partisan and obstructionist Senate. The conservatives have not broken ranks on even one thing, not one bill. They have towed the party line completely irregardless of all of their constituency. They claim that the public is against the public option (not true) that it is against health care reform (again, blatantly false, though there is a lot of opposition to the CURRENT bill). And yet they still stab their constituents in the back. Now that is not to say that there are not many many corrupt politicians on both sides. For instance I would love to kick little miss Blanche Lincoln squarely in the teeth, but it looks likely that she is going to be replaced in the primary by the current Arkansas Lt. Governer (Halter I think). There are others (and Pelosi isn't exactly my first choice) but thankfully MY state is represented accurately for me by Jeff Merkeley one of the most progressive voices in Congress. Wyden not so much but we do have a strong conservative movement here too, so that makes some sense (not to mention Nike is one of his biggest contributors).
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Muse, (the band)
For those of you who don't know I am a huge fan of Muse. This is a relatively recent thing (within the last 3 years) so I have gone and listened to most of their back catalogue as well the new stuff. Part of what I like is their variation, and their skill. Not to mention that I love Queen as well (and there are definite parallels).
So there is a contest here at our local radio station
As a result I submitted an ad based tightly on the Affiche Rouge poster from WWII. I will post my version after the contest (not sure if I am allowed otherwise).
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Anger, secondary emotion
I recently had it pointed out to me that anger is not quite how I thought of it before. Anger is in fact a secondary emotion, and not a primary one.
My first reaction was one of minor incredulity; it seems so basic and primal that I had assumed it was a 'primary' emotion. Part of this probably dovetails into my poor handling/understanding/comprehension of anger in general throughout my life.
See this link for reference: Anger As a Secondary Emotion
With that in mind it changes my relationship to anger quite a bit. Part of my issue with anger has to do with my relationship to my mother, and her lack of control around it. She was uncontrollably angry throughout so much of her life, and I have seen it destroy so many things in her life. It has done terrible levels of damage to her personal relationships, she has lost jobs because of it, and gained a reputation as difficult to work with in many parts of her life. Because of that I vowed to myself when I was a small child to 'never be angry'. While this was not necessarily a healthy thing, my goal I think was admirable; so as a result I am changing that vow to be something healthier: 'I will not let anger rule me or those I care about'
That of course has many ramifications, but essentially what it means is that if someone is angry I will work to find out what is hurting them, as anger is almost universally about some kind of hurt, physical or emotional. What it means is that I will always strive to communicate deeper with people about what is hurting them. This goes for me as well; communicating my own hurt has never been something I have been very good at, but my eyes have been opened by my child. I will need to communicate these things far more clearly with her in my life.
My first reaction was one of minor incredulity; it seems so basic and primal that I had assumed it was a 'primary' emotion. Part of this probably dovetails into my poor handling/understanding/comprehension of anger in general throughout my life.
See this link for reference: Anger As a Secondary Emotion
With that in mind it changes my relationship to anger quite a bit. Part of my issue with anger has to do with my relationship to my mother, and her lack of control around it. She was uncontrollably angry throughout so much of her life, and I have seen it destroy so many things in her life. It has done terrible levels of damage to her personal relationships, she has lost jobs because of it, and gained a reputation as difficult to work with in many parts of her life. Because of that I vowed to myself when I was a small child to 'never be angry'. While this was not necessarily a healthy thing, my goal I think was admirable; so as a result I am changing that vow to be something healthier: 'I will not let anger rule me or those I care about'
That of course has many ramifications, but essentially what it means is that if someone is angry I will work to find out what is hurting them, as anger is almost universally about some kind of hurt, physical or emotional. What it means is that I will always strive to communicate deeper with people about what is hurting them. This goes for me as well; communicating my own hurt has never been something I have been very good at, but my eyes have been opened by my child. I will need to communicate these things far more clearly with her in my life.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
On public opinion
It is interesting, but I drew an odd parallel between myself and those entities known as corporations. I find that so many of the decisions of management hinge at least marginally on egotism, much like those of the common man. Unfortunately CEO's, COO's, CTO and to a lesser extent, CFO's are an incredibly egotistical bunch, bordering on narcissism.
As I discovered recently in a therapy session, my own ego is so bereft of actual faith in myself, that my ego has inflated to mammoth proportions. I can also assume that this is probably the case for these people I am so willing to judge so readily.
The post came up in reference to an article I read on Gizmodo, regarding an email on how Microsoft essentially failed with regards to iTunes and they knew it. The email was from 2003, indicating that they just weren't able to cut deals with the music industry like Apple was.
I argued that it was because Microsoft (particularly at the time) was being assaulted on all sides regarding anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, and that the cases were incredibly public, thus souring people on business deals with them. In other words their aggression towards the DoJ and other governments, as well as Sun, and others, had colored them as someone not to do business with. In other words, a matter of PR and perception (right or wrong).
It's funny how perception can play out both in business and in your personal life.
Gizmodo - Itunes-Microsoft-fail
So I guess the big question is, if I am in therapy, why isn't corporate america?
As I discovered recently in a therapy session, my own ego is so bereft of actual faith in myself, that my ego has inflated to mammoth proportions. I can also assume that this is probably the case for these people I am so willing to judge so readily.
The post came up in reference to an article I read on Gizmodo, regarding an email on how Microsoft essentially failed with regards to iTunes and they knew it. The email was from 2003, indicating that they just weren't able to cut deals with the music industry like Apple was.
I argued that it was because Microsoft (particularly at the time) was being assaulted on all sides regarding anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, and that the cases were incredibly public, thus souring people on business deals with them. In other words their aggression towards the DoJ and other governments, as well as Sun, and others, had colored them as someone not to do business with. In other words, a matter of PR and perception (right or wrong).
It's funny how perception can play out both in business and in your personal life.
Gizmodo - Itunes-Microsoft-fail
So I guess the big question is, if I am in therapy, why isn't corporate america?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)