The key thing is that you get a voting seat on the board. I like the one suggestion of you being chairman/CTO while the more traditional background goes to the CEO. But maybe you really do want to run the day to day operations, staffing, bills, etc.. I'd think you have more technical work to do if you're starting small. Biggest mistake I ever saw in a startup was starting with a CEO, CFO, etc.. and so on and hasving no actual product.
I'm personally of the mind to hire the CEO as a non-founder and go with an upside down pyramid with the real power in the hands of the founders. But that's me.
Try 12-14 years ago and SGI instead of 3dfx. SLI is pretty close to the multi-pipe configurations SGI had on their ONYX systems -- generally up to 3 parallel reality engines in a single machine.
Of course, that machine cost upwards of $700k. But multiple CPUs (2,3,4) were pretty typical.
I'm pretty sure this google news is just a reannouncement, since privacy protection seemed to be the intent from the beginning--but they certainly did a horrible job on the PR...
On the other hand, from what I hear, Yahoo! is still busy cooperating with China and landing dissidents in jail by releasing their "private" information. I must have missed the constant stream of/. front page stories about Yahoo! being evil, but the google ones have been just great!
Re:That took longer then I thought
on
AMD Subpoenas Skype
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not to defend Skype or Intel (I agree with you on the generalities), but Skype does have a right to arbitrarily limit its service and offer an upgraded experience for more money as long as the terms are clear. Many companies do that, even offering free vs. premium service.
It would have even been possible for them to ask, say, "$5 for 5 callers, $10 for 10." Intel could have then said "We'll pay the extra $5 upgrade cost if you use an Intel processor!"
But that scenario gives people the option of paying for 10 users if they want (regardless of CPU) and makes clear this is a marketing/promotional arrangement between two companies, not a technological limit of AMD.
And in that case AMD could also offer the theoretical $5 deal to match... which is what makes this whole Intel/Skype thing anticompetitive and grossly unfair (not to mention stupid).
Whoever wrote the originally submitted article doesn't know too much about the subject, like the difference between Google Maps and Google Earth, or that Google Earth has existed since 2000 under its previous name, Keyhole, or that the key thing is not just being able to see a nice picture (which we could do from static aerial, satellite photos since the 90s) but how it all integrates and navigates as a whole.
But the main point is: Yes, cures are hard. Exactly. And that means they're not good investments for for-profit companies, since the R&D is so high compared to, say, ADHD drugs.
And that's why we need public science. We didn't wait for a private company to go to the moon, or even to build a bridge to Brooklyn. We do public work in such big, public-service areas, and that's what's failing.
I'm not saying there's no place for commercial science. But right now, Bush is in "privatize" mode and the result will be fewer cures and much less science, since so much is proprietary.
The short-term solution, IMO: attach strings to the R&D tax credits for drug companies to encourage more long-term benefit to society (it's corporate welfare, might as well make it work-fare). And increase public science budgets to restore US leadership in the sciences. The means are there if the will exists.
The point is that drug companies will choose to chase the profits, as is reasonably for a private for-profit entity.
That isn't the same as doing the best thing for society. If pure capitalism can't solve certain problems, we have other mechanisms, not the least of which is putting some restrictions on the R&D tax credits to promote R&D in the public good.
Not saying Viagra is bad, just not the most critical issue to solve. How many companies are investing in vaccine work? (legal issues notwithstanding)
Do companies really have incentives to offer cures when long-term treatments might be more profitable?
You're confusing budgets with the number and size of grants that are actually getting funded. Lots of money is going to WMD. How much to public science?
Talk to scientists and see how many are leaving academia this year or next because funding isn't there.
I know many people who do basic open science research and the number of students isn't the issue--funding is. US public funding in biological research has, according to their estimates, been cut in half over recent (Bush) years. Where the top 15-25% of grant proposals were funded not too long ago, only the top 10% are funded today (and don't even ask how they're scored...). That means most of these new students may ultimaely wind up having no choice but to take limited industry jobs or find other lines of work. Forget about high-paying salaries (which are already lower for non-commercial scientists), this is about basic survival in their field of choice, and the benefit we get from their hard work.
What's so bad about commercial research vs. public? Obviously, the profit motive cuts both ways. Drugs and therapies are developed which will make the most profit, not necessarily do the most good. It's viagra vs. a cure for AIDS. They find lots of treatments, but not a lot of cures. Why is that?
And we, as consumers and tax payers, pay for it on both ends -- welfare (tax breaks) for big pharma, plus higher health care costs and "prescription drug benefits" that benefit the drug companies bottom lines. Prices keep rising as we keep paying.
Also consider that science works through openness and peer review. But if scientists can only function inside for-profit companies and those companies are better served by keeping everything a trade secret? We're back to the days of alchemy. The un-scientific revolution.
While I'm one of those who bought a card expecting something that I could use for the next 3-5 years, I'm also hoping this helps kill DRM, at least a little. If no one can watch the damn HD movies they're protecting, then MPAA might have a lot of explaining to do when the sales numbers come in. Good job, you protected it so well we couldn't watch it.
Don't sue ATI. Don't even buy ATI or NVidia if you don't have to. Keep your current video card for the next 3 years and stick to good old DVDs--at least until someone figures out what great/cheap HD-DVD player has a secret "strip HDMI" code and we get our fair use rights back.
Because otherwise, at some point, any rights we think we still have will be taken away on a whim, and we'll be living in a world where MPAA can remove even our memories of movies we've seen (unless we pay extra for that particular right).
"Looking to congress for guidance" isn't a cop out. It's a polite way of telling Congress that if it takes the lead instead of hiding its collective head up its respective ass, others might follow.
In this case, Republicans with no voting record on Civil Liberties, who rally the troops on Flag Burning, are hardly the ones I think we need to look to for hearings on free speech in China, especially considering their friends, the Bush Administration, is pressuring Google for private search information in America.
I'm frankly sick of this "but it's their motto" argument. So a company tries to do the best it can and gets slammed for a perceived mistake when other companies don't even try to do the right thing? Cisco, Yahoo, Microsoft anyone? Are they somehow off the hook because they don't even seem to make the attempt?
I am glad you try to avoid Chinese products. That is something.
As for the complexity of the issue, consider this. To avoid Chinese ISPs filtering the international lines, Google has to put servers in China. Those servers are subject to Chinese law and can be owned by China anytime, along with its support staff, etc... Civil disobediance is not really an option, unless Google wants to make a futile statement by having their servers confiscated (staff in jail is not an option, I hope). They can afford the servers, but it's not a particularly smart or useful thing to do. They've gotten much more attention this way, though that attention should be more focused on China, IMO.
So it really does come down to putting servers in China or relying on the poor status quo, or filtering China completely to make a stand. I think they chose the _least_ of all evils, which is sometimes the best you can do.
I've heard that it was temporarily redirected, but I'm not sure if that's China's doing or Google's (China was previously redirecting Google.com to other search engines). According to Google's official statement, Google.com is as available there as possible. If they are lying, it would surprise me.
There are other ways of offering proxies that people are working on. There is no perfect solution thus far.
I find it interesting you dismiss the arguments as "strawmen," which I take to imply that no, you don't personally boycott China and that makes you seem hypocritcal.
Yet somehow, Google, a business, in business to make money in its stated mission and under its _self-determined_ mantra, is under a more stringent ethical bind than are you, an individual, making broad statements about what _others_ should do. Now, if Google were criticizing other companies for doing business with China and then doing it themselves, then the situation would be reversed and I'd agree with you.
But if you want to argue moral relativism, Chinese censorship can be defended (though not by me) on similar grounds from the perspective of benefiting "order" and "social good" (by their definition). If we are to simply ignore any "evil" that can be argued by someone as a "good," then we can't make _any_ moral judgements. And yet you make moral judgements about Google. That's curious.
In fact, the only thing you can fairly slam Google for is the business issue, where it is entirely possible that their choice to offer Google.cn could hurt their long-term mission. I doubt it though. The most likely scenario for Google boycotting China results in China developing their own Google. If Google can become China's premiere search engine by far, then they have some leverage to offer more, not less, content in the future.
Also consider that the Republicans who organized this hearing aren't necessarily the most "human rights" oriented bunch (see their voting records). While they may want to bash China for its evils (and ignore our own), the agenda may be even simpler:
Google stood up to the Bush administration.
But it isn't like this administration to try to get back at its perceived adversaries, is it?
The logical flaw with your post is even more glaring. If the best way to deal with countries that do evil is to completely avoid doing business with them, then:
1) NO foreign companies should do business with China -- are you proposing this? Do you personally boycott products made in China? Or do you benefit from cheap Chinese labor? Should the US government cut off ties? What about all that US debt China holds? Should we demand to buy it back?
2) Google and other international companies should not do business with any country that does "evil," in the general accepted sense of the word. Certainly censorship isn't the only evil in the world. There's torture, genocide, invading other countries on false pretexts. Be careful what you wish for.
That's the most lopsided biased synopsis I've seen in a while. The most obvious omissions are:
+ Chinese Language Google.com continues to be available in China, unfiltered by Google. + Chinese ISPs do filter this and make it painful to use, but that is definitely beyond Google's control. + Offering Google.cn only increases information availability and Google clearly marks when results are censored.
If doing business with China is truly evil, then let's hear about your personal pledge to boycott Chinese goods, electronics, clothing. Or is hypocrisy only a problem for others?
"But they said they won't be evil." Give me a break. If doing business with China is evil (and it's not unreasonable to take that stance, if you're consistent), I'd much rather have a company that _tries_ to do the right thing and succeeds 90% of the time than one that never tries at all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, no matter how many "rights" RIAA (or MPAA) "sell" you, they reserve the right to screw you down the line. DRM = Deceptive Restrictive Media = Death to Real Music.
If the music mafia is posturing to sue me or arrest me for using a right they agreed I had when I bought my CDs, then I think it's time for another class action lawsuit or boycott. They can give me my money back now -- all of it -- and have my precious CDs.
No. I think a lot has changed. There are certainly Senators around today who argue for a greater good that doesn't necessarily benefit them, their constituents, or supporters. But I can't imagine today's Congress coming up with anything like the Constitution or the Bill or Rights if given the chance.
I think today's Congressthings would, if not for the constitution, abdicate to a dictatorship as long as they keep the ability to wrestle over more dollars for their home districts and their financial supporters (who are increasingly remote, which I think would have seemed treasonous 200 years ago).
And are you sure it's better than 99% of what's out there? And if there's room for improvement, why not try?
It's not too often I hear someone argue that the problem with America is too much Democracy.
While I'd agree that a dumbed-down, manipulated populace can undermine a democratic system, I don't know if that's what we're dealing with. I think we may be dealing with the opposite: the illusion of Democracy for the purpose of manipulating the people. I wouldn't say that except that the "wedge" issues that are supposedly being used to manipulate our growing democratic powers are things we don't often change our minds about. We're being sorted, stamped, and labeled, rather than having our minds changed or manipulated (except for the illusion that we have some control over the "non-wedge" issues).
And I don't think we've ever seen a true example of a Democracy of informed citizens in action in the real world, so I'm not quite ready to put it down to "bad idea."
Frankly, those elements of our Republic which you (and our founding Fathers) espouse are being washed down the drain as we speak. We're going/gone right back to having an Emperor and a Senate of wealthy self-interests. It's all very democratic, if you happen to be a Senator or Emperor. It seems somehow more Feudal than Republican.
What would happen inside China if Google said their China-based servers were not going to censor anymore? Would they even have the opportunity to fight the shutdown, whether it's an impossible battle or not?
I imagine the servers would just get owned, the operators punished, and the case closed. If there's no way to escalate wrongful unconstitutional decisions to an honest, lawful court, then there's no point except to the exercise except civil disobedience. Is Google in the business of civil disobedience? Is any company? Aren't we expecting too much?
I mean, it's fair to say you want to boycott Google, or better yet, Chinese products. But I can't expect Google to do anything but possibly pull out of China as an alternative.
If congress won't even stop US companies from relocating offshore to avoid US taxes, won't do a damn thing about the trade deficit WITH CHINA, they're going to somehow get up the courage to enforce American laws (which may or may not be set aside by the executive) on (what would become) foreign subsidiaries?
Can we say publicity stunt?
Next thing you know, they'll try declaring search engines "munitions."
Here's a better idea Congressthing, pass a law that the US will cut off ALL trade and diplomatic relations with China until they meet certain human rights standards.
Why should companies be penalized for something the US gov't isn't willing to do itself?
Forgot to add a bit on the censorship = market plunge claim. I seriously doubt Wall St. would punish any company for doing business with China. Any stock with the word China in it is very hot right now. If anything, that decision by Google should have caused a surge. I think it's the earnings issue plus the looming government slapdown that has Wall St. spooked.
Slashdot Mirror
The key thing is that you get a voting seat on the board. I like the one suggestion of you being chairman/CTO while the more traditional background goes to the CEO. But maybe you really do want to run the day to day operations, staffing, bills, etc.. I'd think you have more technical work to do if you're starting small. Biggest mistake I ever saw in a startup was starting with a CEO, CFO, etc.. and so on and hasving no actual product.
I'm personally of the mind to hire the CEO as a non-founder and go with an upside down pyramid with the real power in the hands of the founders. But that's me.
Good luck.
Try 12-14 years ago and SGI instead of 3dfx. SLI is pretty close to the multi-pipe configurations SGI had on their ONYX systems -- generally up to 3 parallel reality engines in a single machine.
Of course, that machine cost upwards of $700k. But multiple CPUs (2,3,4) were pretty typical.
I'm pretty sure this google news is just a reannouncement, since privacy protection seemed to be the intent from the beginning--but they certainly did a horrible job on the PR...
/. front page stories about Yahoo! being evil, but the google ones have been just great!
On the other hand, from what I hear, Yahoo! is still busy cooperating with China and landing dissidents in jail by releasing their "private" information. I must have missed the constant stream of
Not to defend Skype or Intel (I agree with you on the generalities), but Skype does have a right to arbitrarily limit its service and offer an upgraded experience for more money as long as the terms are clear. Many companies do that, even offering free vs. premium service.
It would have even been possible for them to ask, say, "$5 for 5 callers, $10 for 10." Intel could have then said "We'll pay the extra $5 upgrade cost if you use an Intel processor!"
But that scenario gives people the option of paying for 10 users if they want (regardless of CPU) and makes clear this is a marketing/promotional arrangement between two companies, not a technological limit of AMD.
And in that case AMD could also offer the theoretical $5 deal to match... which is what makes this whole Intel/Skype thing anticompetitive and grossly unfair (not to mention stupid).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7078/fu ll/439776a.html
Whoever wrote the originally submitted article doesn't know too much about the subject, like the difference between Google Maps and Google Earth, or that Google Earth has existed since 2000 under its previous name, Keyhole, or that the key thing is not just being able to see a nice picture (which we could do from static aerial, satellite photos since the 90s) but how it all integrates and navigates as a whole.
FYI, for some anti-viral medications, see: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/effect/infect ions.shtml
But the main point is: Yes, cures are hard. Exactly. And that means they're not good investments for for-profit companies, since the R&D is so high compared to, say, ADHD drugs.
And that's why we need public science. We didn't wait for a private company to go to the moon, or even to build a bridge to Brooklyn. We do public work in such big, public-service areas, and that's what's failing.
I'm not saying there's no place for commercial science. But right now, Bush is in "privatize" mode and the result will be fewer cures and much less science, since so much is proprietary.
The short-term solution, IMO: attach strings to the R&D tax credits for drug companies to encourage more long-term benefit to society (it's corporate welfare, might as well make it work-fare). And increase public science budgets to restore US leadership in the sciences. The means are there if the will exists.
The point is that drug companies will choose to chase the profits, as is reasonably for a private for-profit entity.
That isn't the same as doing the best thing for society. If pure capitalism can't solve certain problems, we have other mechanisms, not the least of which is putting some restrictions on the R&D tax credits to promote R&D in the public good.
Not saying Viagra is bad, just not the most critical issue to solve. How many companies are investing in vaccine work? (legal issues notwithstanding)
Do companies really have incentives to offer cures when long-term treatments might be more profitable?
You're confusing budgets with the number and size of grants that are actually getting funded. Lots of money is going to WMD. How much to public science?
Talk to scientists and see how many are leaving academia this year or next because funding isn't there.
I know many people who do basic open science research and the number of students isn't the issue--funding is. US public funding in biological research has, according to their estimates, been cut in half over recent (Bush) years. Where the top 15-25% of grant proposals were funded not too long ago, only the top 10% are funded today (and don't even ask how they're scored...). That means most of these new students may ultimaely wind up having no choice but to take limited industry jobs or find other lines of work. Forget about high-paying salaries (which are already lower for non-commercial scientists), this is about basic survival in their field of choice, and the benefit we get from their hard work.
What's so bad about commercial research vs. public? Obviously, the profit motive cuts both ways. Drugs and therapies are developed which will make the most profit, not necessarily do the most good. It's viagra vs. a cure for AIDS. They find lots of treatments, but not a lot of cures. Why is that?
And we, as consumers and tax payers, pay for it on both ends -- welfare (tax breaks) for big pharma, plus higher health care costs and "prescription drug benefits" that benefit the drug companies bottom lines. Prices keep rising as we keep paying.
Also consider that science works through openness and peer review. But if scientists can only function inside for-profit companies and those companies are better served by keeping everything a trade secret? We're back to the days of alchemy. The un-scientific revolution.
While I'm one of those who bought a card expecting something that I could use for the next 3-5 years, I'm also hoping this helps kill DRM, at least a little. If no one can watch the damn HD movies they're protecting, then MPAA might have a lot of explaining to do when the sales numbers come in. Good job, you protected it so well we couldn't watch it.
Don't sue ATI. Don't even buy ATI or NVidia if you don't have to. Keep your current video card for the next 3 years and stick to good old DVDs--at least until someone figures out what great/cheap HD-DVD player has a secret "strip HDMI" code and we get our fair use rights back.
Because otherwise, at some point, any rights we think we still have will be taken away on a whim, and we'll be living in a world where MPAA can remove even our memories of movies we've seen (unless we pay extra for that particular right).
"Looking to congress for guidance" isn't a cop out. It's a polite way of telling Congress that if it takes the lead instead of hiding its collective head up its respective ass, others might follow.
In this case, Republicans with no voting record on Civil Liberties, who rally the troops on Flag Burning, are hardly the ones I think we need to look to for hearings on free speech in China, especially considering their friends, the Bush Administration, is pressuring Google for private search information in America.
I'm frankly sick of this "but it's their motto" argument. So a company tries to do the best it can and gets slammed for a perceived mistake when other companies don't even try to do the right thing? Cisco, Yahoo, Microsoft anyone? Are they somehow off the hook because they don't even seem to make the attempt?
I am glad you try to avoid Chinese products. That is something.
As for the complexity of the issue, consider this. To avoid Chinese ISPs filtering the international lines, Google has to put servers in China. Those servers are subject to Chinese law and can be owned by China anytime, along with its support staff, etc... Civil disobediance is not really an option, unless Google wants to make a futile statement by having their servers confiscated (staff in jail is not an option, I hope). They can afford the servers, but it's not a particularly smart or useful thing to do. They've gotten much more attention this way, though that attention should be more focused on China, IMO.
So it really does come down to putting servers in China or relying on the poor status quo, or filtering China completely to make a stand. I think they chose the _least_ of all evils, which is sometimes the best you can do.
I've heard that it was temporarily redirected, but I'm not sure if that's China's doing or Google's (China was previously redirecting Google.com to other search engines). According to Google's official statement, Google.com is as available there as possible. If they are lying, it would surprise me.
There are other ways of offering proxies that people are working on. There is no perfect solution thus far.
I find it interesting you dismiss the arguments as "strawmen," which I take to imply that no, you don't personally boycott China and that makes you seem hypocritcal.
Yet somehow, Google, a business, in business to make money in its stated mission and under its _self-determined_ mantra, is under a more stringent ethical bind than are you, an individual, making broad statements about what _others_ should do. Now, if Google were criticizing other companies for doing business with China and then doing it themselves, then the situation would be reversed and I'd agree with you.
But if you want to argue moral relativism, Chinese censorship can be defended (though not by me) on similar grounds from the perspective of benefiting "order" and "social good" (by their definition). If we are to simply ignore any "evil" that can be argued by someone as a "good," then we can't make _any_ moral judgements. And yet you make moral judgements about Google. That's curious.
In fact, the only thing you can fairly slam Google for is the business issue, where it is entirely possible that their choice to offer Google.cn could hurt their long-term mission. I doubt it though. The most likely scenario for Google boycotting China results in China developing their own Google. If Google can become China's premiere search engine by far, then they have some leverage to offer more, not less, content in the future.
Also consider that the Republicans who organized this hearing aren't necessarily the most "human rights" oriented bunch (see their voting records). While they may want to bash China for its evils (and ignore our own), the agenda may be even simpler:
Google stood up to the Bush administration.
But it isn't like this administration to try to get back at its perceived adversaries, is it?
The logical flaw with your post is even more glaring. If the best way to deal with countries that do evil is to completely avoid doing business with them, then:
1) NO foreign companies should do business with China -- are you proposing this? Do you personally boycott products made in China? Or do you benefit from cheap Chinese labor? Should the US government cut off ties? What about all that US debt China holds? Should we demand to buy it back?
2) Google and other international companies should not do business with any country that does "evil," in the general accepted sense of the word. Certainly censorship isn't the only evil in the world. There's torture, genocide, invading other countries on false pretexts. Be careful what you wish for.
That's the most lopsided biased synopsis I've seen in a while. The most obvious omissions are:
+ Chinese Language Google.com continues to be available in China, unfiltered by Google.
+ Chinese ISPs do filter this and make it painful to use, but that is definitely beyond Google's control.
+ Offering Google.cn only increases information availability and Google clearly marks when results are censored.
If doing business with China is truly evil, then let's hear about your personal pledge to boycott Chinese goods, electronics, clothing. Or is hypocrisy only a problem for others?
"But they said they won't be evil." Give me a break. If doing business with China is evil (and it's not unreasonable to take that stance, if you're consistent), I'd much rather have a company that _tries_ to do the right thing and succeeds 90% of the time than one that never tries at all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, no matter how many "rights" RIAA (or MPAA) "sell" you, they reserve the right to screw you down the line. DRM = Deceptive Restrictive Media = Death to Real Music.
If the music mafia is posturing to sue me or arrest me for using a right they agreed I had when I bought my CDs, then I think it's time for another class action lawsuit or boycott. They can give me my money back now -- all of it -- and have my precious CDs.
No. I think a lot has changed. There are certainly Senators around today who argue for a greater good that doesn't necessarily benefit them, their constituents, or supporters. But I can't imagine today's Congress coming up with anything like the Constitution or the Bill or Rights if given the chance.
I think today's Congressthings would, if not for the constitution, abdicate to a dictatorship as long as they keep the ability to wrestle over more dollars for their home districts and their financial supporters (who are increasingly remote, which I think would have seemed treasonous 200 years ago).
And are you sure it's better than 99% of what's out there? And if there's room for improvement, why not try?
It's not too often I hear someone argue that the problem with America is too much Democracy.
While I'd agree that a dumbed-down, manipulated populace can undermine a democratic system, I don't know if that's what we're dealing with. I think we may be dealing with the opposite: the illusion of Democracy for the purpose of manipulating the people. I wouldn't say that except that the "wedge" issues that are supposedly being used to manipulate our growing democratic powers are things we don't often change our minds about. We're being sorted, stamped, and labeled, rather than having our minds changed or manipulated (except for the illusion that we have some control over the "non-wedge" issues).
And I don't think we've ever seen a true example of a Democracy of informed citizens in action in the real world, so I'm not quite ready to put it down to "bad idea."
Frankly, those elements of our Republic which you (and our founding Fathers) espouse are being washed down the drain as we speak. We're going/gone right back to having an Emperor and a Senate of wealthy self-interests. It's all very democratic, if you happen to be a Senator or Emperor. It seems somehow more Feudal than Republican.
What would happen inside China if Google said their China-based servers were not going to censor anymore? Would they even have the opportunity to fight the shutdown, whether it's an impossible battle or not?
I imagine the servers would just get owned, the operators punished, and the case closed. If there's no way to escalate wrongful unconstitutional decisions to an honest, lawful court, then there's no point except to the exercise except civil disobedience. Is Google in the business of civil disobedience? Is any company? Aren't we expecting too much?
I mean, it's fair to say you want to boycott Google, or better yet, Chinese products. But I can't expect Google to do anything but possibly pull out of China as an alternative.
See my comment on a previous story:
7 05660
h p?can_id=H2371103
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177193&cid=14
In a nutshell, I think the Bushies are going after Google as retribution for defying the Justice Dept's hunger for private search data.
Chris Smith's voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.p
Notice the votes with/against ACLU and other "rights" organizations. That's all I know about him, but I'm highly suspicious.
If congress won't even stop US companies from relocating offshore to avoid US taxes, won't do a damn thing about the trade deficit WITH CHINA, they're going to somehow get up the courage to enforce American laws (which may or may not be set aside by the executive) on (what would become) foreign subsidiaries?
Can we say publicity stunt?
Next thing you know, they'll try declaring search engines "munitions."
Here's a better idea Congressthing, pass a law that the US will cut off ALL trade and diplomatic relations with China until they meet certain human rights standards.
Why should companies be penalized for something the US gov't isn't willing to do itself?
And "making more money" caused their overall revenue to be lower (than expected)?
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
Forgot to add a bit on the censorship = market plunge claim. I seriously doubt Wall St. would punish any company for doing business with China. Any stock with the word China in it is very hot right now. If anything, that decision by Google should have caused a surge. I think it's the earnings issue plus the looming government slapdown that has Wall St. spooked.