Eric Schmidt a Contender For US Commerce Secretary 47
itwbennett writes "Rumor has it that the man who while CEO of Google was, at best, blithe about user privacy, is on a short list to replace Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. Schmidt has competition, though, including former Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, according to Bloomberg."
Change! (Score:1, Informative)
I, for one, welcome our new boss overlord, the same as our old boss overlord.
Re: (Score:1)
So the US Commerce will now be in Beta forever? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that seems to be the way that Google works. I guess if Eric Schmidt gets chosen, that will be his first move: Declare all Commerce to be Beta. So if there are any problems with the US Commerce, he can just say, "Hey, this is all still Beta . . . problems are to be expected."
Not qualified (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, he's creepy, but he isn't a tax cheat... or is he?
[citation needed]
Revolving Door (Score:2)
There sure has been a lot of revolving door action in this administration, for a President who vowed there would be none. It's business as usual, as conflicts of interest abound with the appointment of big private industry leaders to significant posts and the vacating of significant posts leads to those persons capitalizing on their position (and, often, the actions they took while holding that position which just so happen to be in the same field of interest as the company's they're now leaving for) to pri
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, if only that were true. Unfortunately, we have people like Vivek Kundra and his whole wealth of "experience" and "knowledge" that undermines that whole idea. I think everyone recognizes titles as the rewards they are and the whole "okay, I did your bidding, now employ me" model.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a revolving door in every administration.
Not every administration runs and is elected purely on the notion that it will "be different from all of those other administrations that you've hated for so long."
Obama: We are the ones that we've been waiting for.
Really???
I'm kind of sick of the spin here. (Score:5, Interesting)
blithe/blTH/Adjective
1. Showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.
2. Happy or joyous.
But when Eric Schmidt reminded everyone that he is bound by law to hand over your search history and that googling "how to murder my wife" was a really stupid thing to do before you go and murder your wife, I'd hardly consider his comments to be joyous or cheerfully indifferent.
I know that there is an unreasonable hatred of Google around here, but seriously, stop trying to spin this quote into some sort of distopian doomsaying.
And while I'm at it, I'm going to pre-emptivly rant about how it's not "Do no evil", it's "don't be evil". Just wait, someone will drag that minor grammar mistake out. Well you sir can consider yourself ranted against.
Re: (Score:1)
Understands the 'Net (Score:4, Insightful)
At least if Schmidt gets appointed, there will be *SOMEONE* in DC who understands the Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad math. (Score:2)
Average a high, 3-digit IQ with hundreds of double and single digit IQs, and you'll find that the quotient is only raised by a disparagingly small amount.
Re: (Score:1)
4 in a row (Score:4, Insightful)
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
Look at the last 4 story posts by soulskill. Looks like the cover of a gossip magazine. Here I am being ironic pointing this out. Guess I need to be angry at myself first, then. I'm just getting older and cranky. I think a lot of us are around here. I stopped putting energy into this system. I'm sorry everyone. I bring this place down too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
I'd like to discuss the idea that you mentioned, including the quotation. I don't really care who said it, or under what circumstances she said it. But the idea itself certainly has merit. I wonder if there's a way we could prove or disprove it.
Re: (Score:2)
A person would be awful boring if they only discussed ideas. What if all their ideas are crap? Are they then a great mind? Just asking...
1. "Great minds discuss ideas" does not mean "all people who discuss ideas have great minds."
2. Many people find discussion of ideas boring.
3. The fact that most "great minds" do not have television shows where people can watch them discuss ideas is probably related to 2.
4. The proliferation of television shows where crap ideas are discussed highlights the truth of 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, if you want an idea to gain some merit, you have to push forward the people more likely to advance them.
I would post as anonymous for augmented irony, but karma is good for my skin problem.
Re: (Score:2)
As author of the GP, I was really going for "+5 Funny".
I used the quote, and refused to talk about the people or event, but only wanted to discuss the idea - to show I have a great mind.
But it apparently went over everyone's head. I guess my mind is either too great, or just not very funny.
Re: (Score:2)
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
"America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, bad-ass speed."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
Unqualified Weasels All Around (Score:2)
Is this Russian roulette or what?
Wise choice. (Score:2)
Someone as naive as Eric Schmidt would be perfect, because hes naive but also commercially connected.
Wow great work (Score:2)
Two megacorp CEOs are not only eligible for, but are candidates for the position of commerce secretary. Real smart guys. Real smart.
Re: (Score:1)
Jeffrey Kindler (Score:1)
Just what you need (Score:2)
With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.
Perfect for Government (Score:2)
http://gawker.com/#!5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yet another fucking idiot using this misquote to manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what was actually said.
What Schmidt actually said was (paraphrased): "If you do stupid shit you don't want people to know about, don't post it on the internet. Google can't save your ass, neither technically (there are other search engines) nor legally (Google is not immune to legal subpoena)."
Instead of recognizing Schmidt for being one of the few (influential) people out there who actually recognize an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sorry, but I am tired of people calling people assholes and fucking idiots because they disagree with the idea or sentiment being proposed. Grow up.
I did not misquote the man, I put his words down verbatim and took the trouble to find the video so that people could judge the content for themselves.
The whole point of the debate is, what if you are not doing stupid shit? What if you are doing research on terrorists because you want to know what makes them tick? What if you looking up something that is n
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, since you bother to reply I'll take back calling you names, and apologize for that.
However, while your quote is not falsified by changing the words, I still see it as voluntarily misleading by only quoting the first part, which is really only hedging for what he actually has to say, which is: "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United St