You mean like Al Gore who made $98 million off of AGW publications and who happens to have significant investments in alternative energy companies? Or how about GE who manufactures Windmills, or Solar Panel Producers, or battery makers (cars), etc? The list goes on and on from both sides...

To assume only the side you oppose has a vested interest is just plain ignorant.

A perfect example of why there needs to be challenege from outsiders in systems is best illustrated when banks wiped out an estimated $4 trillion from the economy over the past 3 years due to bad stastical assumptions. We may have avoided a crisis had "amatures" been able to challenge the assumptions that subprime mortgage defaults were uncorrelated accross markets and defaults would remain at 5% indefinetly. The banks at the time shrouded these assumptions as "proprietary" and refused to publish individual loans in mtge prospectus's (they still don't). The financial worlds version of peer review (Regulators & Ratings Agencies) happened to have vested interests and were the only ones able to view and approve these assumptions (seeing any similarties yet...). Had people come in and said, "woah, this doesn't look right," maybe things would be a little bit different today.

Maybe I'm not a scientists but what's wrong with people looking over data before we invest trillions in infastructure changes to combat global warming only to find out the temp goes up anyway...

Only 10% of your life is being assulted by ads!? I envy you brother...

Agreed. After the super-hype/dissapointment around the iPad, this is to control overzelous inviduals sepculating things thy can't do.

In addition to your perspective, I don't see them taking off until storage capacity is in line with traditional HDD. Will the average consumer recognize the benefits of an SSD or will they say ohh this drives got 10x the capacity of that one, why on earth would I want to pay more for the small one?

Ahh, glad to see that party propoganda has served you well! Before you go pointing fingers at one party or the other (Republican's in this case) take note that the Glass-Segal act was repelead in 1999 while Bill Clinton was in office. The party with the biggest push to remove Glass-Segal was the Democrats who pushed for affordable housing for all American's (admittedly Rep's where completely on board with this as well, but organizations like ACORN where some of the biggest lobbyists of this bill). In order to get banks to lend to sub-prime individuals, they required the repeal of Glass-Segal so that they could pool and securitize sub-prime mtge's alongside prime ones while swapping away the risk.

I abosoultely agree that both parties where at fault for letting the one slip, and they probably should re-insitute Glass-Segal; there should be seperation of investment and commerical banking. Just don't be surprised when you hear an uproar from both parties when interest rates rise and consumer credit dries up...

I would advise; however, that you do a bit of research before you go make blindly partisan comments like the one above.

Based on the price of the AAPL stock today, I would have to say that it appears journalist are the only ones who think so...

As stated above, the problem with this is, as these types of devices continue to be developed they encroach on the free and open market. Those people with the 10% expertise to take advantage of openess are also the same people who are trying to develop the next generation of products. If we prohibit them from making amazing advances BECAUSE of the closed ended software, we end up hurting natural progression. The 90% of the masses that it just works for don't realize that that same closed nature might be preventing them from accessing software they might really want...

If we are only teens right now, I cannot imagine what is in store for us when we enter our college years...

Finally! I now might be competitive in COD: MW2!

I've been reading the WSJ front to back for my job every day for a time period that extends well before and after the buyout. I'm a bit confused on how both of you think that the paper has really changed that much over these two years. The only noticable difference is the right skewed bias in the opinion section but other than that the reporting has remained as objective as it ever was (specifically in the section that matters most: Money & Investing). The DJ fought very hard to make sure credibility wouldn't be tainted by NewsCorp during the transition. Murdoch understands market efficency though, wants to make money, and knows investors wouldn't tolerate financial reporting that was anything BUT objective.

Yeah the guy is a greedy SOB, there's no denying that; and yes, FOX news is ABSOLUTELY bias, but no moreso than CNN. Just because a person might agree with CNN doens't make trash they spew out any less credible than Fox's.

Yes, the WSJ, a purely factless and biased media outlet... Just because the guy owns FOX doesn't mean all his organizations are biased, get your facts straight then try again.

Nice to see an internet executive like this recognize that there is "no free lunch." As much as you hear people bemoan a pay for content system, the fact is journalists require salaries, expenses, etc. The pay per story idea of .01 per story that gets auto deducted or has greater advertising capabilities is great. Yeah, free stuff is great, but what news can you get for free if the journalists aren't around any longer...