The T Word
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
It is rare when my two primary gigs — technology and finance — intersect in some philosophically satisfying way but it happened recently when Goldman Sachs was being charged with civil fraud by the SEC and I was speaking the same day at the Palmetto Open Source Software Conference (POSSCON) in Columbia, South Carolina. Just minutes before my time to speak I realized that what I had to talk about was trust — the T-word — a word which has very different meanings in each of these realms.
Trust is present or it is absent. Grab a nerd and he’ll tell you that even the absence of trust is a measure of trust and that particular measure is zero. When trust is non-zero (which is better, believe me) it is based on one of two methodologies — empiricism or transparency (the other T-word).
The empirical way to create trust is by not trusting anybody. Here I literally mean canceling out of the equation trust as we know it in any interpersonal sense. This can be done through hedging or laying-off the risk ASAP to a rube. Goldman appears to have done both. The essence of empirical trust in this instance is “I trust because I don’t need to trust because I am (or soon will be in the rube scenario) immune to harm.” This immunity comes from a mathematical proof, whether that proof is provided by a strongly encrypted password on a computer file or by the hedging of counter-parties in some complex financial derivatives play. Empirical trust is a zero-sum game.
It also has no soul.
We see empirical trust in the current REPO-based big bank funding system that has collateral obligations being swapped back and forth like loyalty oaths in Catch-22. The big banks don’t trust each other and for good reason, because they’ve all been lying all along and now that has been revealed. That’s why the lending market has been starved despite the best efforts of the Fed and Treasury to get banks lending again.
Trust through transparency is a completely different creature based on the novel idea that people say what they mean, do what they say they will, and make things that work because you can see how they work inside. Those workings are transparent, get it?
Transparent trust is the basis of Open Source software, which is code that is written for free by volunteers and shared openly with the world. Bill Gates, when he first heard about Open Source, called it communism. But in this case at least it is communism that seems to work.
Open Source works precisely because there is no money in it. If there is no obvious financial reward what’s mainly left is doing it for glory. Linus Torvalds, the original author of the Linux operating system, likes to point out that Microsoft ships new products to meet revenue goals while volunteer Linux developers ship new products when they are ready. To do it any other way would be embarrassing. Viewed in this way Windows Vista, which was two years late but still terrible, suddenly begins to make sense.
Open Source software authors have their names on the product and their reputations at stake, so they make sure the code they ship is as good as it can be. How quaint.
Contrast this with Lehman’s Repo 105 gambit or Goldman’s custom ABACUS CDO’s for Paulson & Co. What Lehman and Goldman sought was the exact opposite of transparency. They sought opacity and hid behind it. They didn’t tell any more than they were legally required to about what was really going on. They lied.
There’s a funny thing about lying — it only works well when done by a slim minority. Nobody wants a strong reliable currency more than does organized crime, for example, which operates mainly in cash. It doesn’t matter how much you steal if the money is worthless, so Tony Soprano was a fiscal conservative.
Empirical trust says that if we properly hedge our bets it won’t matter who is telling the truth. But that just as firmly proves that we have no ethical expectations and no reason to do the right thing, especially if doing the wrong thing is more profitable.
There is an irony here and it is that Open Source software is very successful on Wall Street, where it dominates, while proprietary products from companies like Microsoft and even Oracle are in relative decline. Linux, Java, and a vast array of similar Open Source products are at the very basis of these Wall Street calculations that have been getting us in such trouble. One of the big reasons why Open Source has become so successful is because banks like Goldman have embraced it. They’ve done so because in the case of technology for running your business, transparency is a no-brainer and empirical trust, well that’s just stupid.
Another good, well-rounded article from (one) of the best in this business. I don’t have anything to add to the article, but i’m just thinking that if you do a redesign, properly utilized social media in this blog, you can really brought this site to even greater popularity.
I mean, really, more people need to read this blog!
Mmm. yes, maybe Cringely could do a bit more “social mediatizing”. But it seems his popularity on the web is beyond his control. Read his column on Google’s blacklist http://www.cringely.com/2010/03/is-there-a-google-news-blacklist/
Sorry, but your assumption that Open Source rules roost in IBs is just incorrect. As a development manager in the industry I can assure you there is a huge amount of propritary tools in the development stack and what most banks are looking for is not transparancy but readily available skillset.
Indeed GS would be the worst case example as they make huge use of their very own proprietary language Slang in an effort to gain competative advantage.
slang is smalltalk derivative. S-Lang is a programmers library.
Both open source, unless the slang you refer to is an internal product with the same name. If so, it suggests poverty of imagination.
BTW, I think Bobs articles are simple to read and easy to follow.
For those where english is a second language this may be hard, but to try to simply already simplified text (sometimes) destroys effective communication.
Bob, your article suggests to me that modern bankers/financial types are salesman personalities, not the conservative careful management types with calculators as of yesteryear. Well, at least before deregulation.
Hey Cringely:
I think Thomas Sowell expressed the essence of the situation better here:
Uncommon Knowledge: Dr. Thomas Sowell on Intellectuls and Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2tUhMJ_hfg
He wasn’t talking about Goldman-Sachs or Microsoft or Apple or OpenSource, but I think he explains them better than you have.
I’m just sayin’.
Hi Bob,
Your above article is pretty hard to understand. Could you please write in simpler words or at least in understandable way?? As these days I a following Google’s philosophy and its says “Simplicity is Powerful”.
Cheers
Pratim
Pratim,
There’s a competing philosophy that says people should learn to read complex writing: “Simplemindedness takes away our power.”
Pratim, I agree with you. Some more explanation is called for. I’m sure there are many levels of trust, but so what? Also, we engineers tend to associate the word “emperical” with “experiment” or “observation of what actually happened” or “experience”. We trust because of previous experience. How is the column going to help us understand more than we already do about the risks of business and investing?
@Ronc: You’re leaving out half the definition. The first half is indeed “derived from observation”. But the full definition is “[derived from observation] alone, in the absence of scientific method or theory”.
Empirical proof is one of the requirements of scientific proof, yes… but by itself is not science.
And that was Bob’s point. You can base trust on things as they seem to be… or you can have [scientific] proof for why that thing or person is trustworthy.
Thought provoking article. The remarks on lying only working when done by a slim minority are spot on. The crisis part of the financial crisis occurred because too many people has been lying for too long and been getting away with it.
On the other hand, surely empirical trust as you define it is not really trust at all.
I was with you until the last paragraph. The reason Wall Street uses open Source software is because they are cheap and OSS is reliable.
> On the other hand, surely empirical trust
> as you define it is not really trust at all.
Perhaps we should call it “faith”?
> On the other hand, surely empirical trust
> as you define it is not really trust at all.
Isn’t that the point of the article? Thus he wrote “The empirical way to create trust is by not trusting anybody. Here I literally mean canceling out of the equation trust as we know it in any interpersonal sense.” It’s kinda like peace through mutually assured destruction.
>> The reason Wall Street uses open Source software
>> is because they are cheap and OSS is reliable.
And why is it reliable? Because many eyes make shallow bugs? (I.e. because of transparency?)
My father used to say “There is no such thing as a secret.” The truth of the lie will always reveal itself. I hope.
The two parties involved were not rubes at all. They were both very sophisticated. They knew *precisely* what was in the derivatives. The counter party to Paulson had every right to have any portion of the basket of investments removed or replaced. Paulson, at the time, had no reputation of being a master mind, as he appears to have now.
This is just the SEC trying to drum up trouble. It was a perfectly fair transaction, and Goldman Sachs lost money on the deal.
Great article but there was one other type of trust not mentioned that comes into play with the financial crisis (and other trust systems). That is the third-party validation of the financial instrument or, user ID, etc. In the case of the financial crisis it was the bond rating companies that the “rubes” were counting on to be truthful. They weren’t. Obviously.
Simple terms: we are the rubes, the insurers of last resort, who voluntarily, by supporting flamboyant criminals, offer our future efforts and those of our decedents to guarantee the success of their every enterprise.
Example: On one side, we sue GS. On the other, through AIG, we insure them against lawsuits. Either way, we promise to make them whole. Quite a deal.
That simple enough? Now what are we going to do about?
Dearest Bobinator,
Don’t you know that Saturday blog posts are enshrined in a perpetual mist of sweaty outgoings from home-bodied sloths????
Yours always,
Paul the Pie
Excellent. Ought to be required reading in every economics and civics (do they even teach that, anymore?) class.
An evening news story described a Good Samaritan who bled to death after getting stabbed while interrupting an assault in New York. People passed him by for hours without intervening. No one wanted to get involved or assumed someone else would. This apparently included the original victim of the assault. Leverage that up and itʻs no wonder Goldman-Sachs got away like they did.
No one wants to get involved and those that do have nobody watching their back.
This is a great post, but I thought when you mentioned the intersection between finance and technology that you were going to talk about the new SEC proposed regulation that rules for cashflow waterfalls in complex ABS securities were going to be defined in Python code and distributed to investors by the firm structuring the deal. Please do a follow up post/addendum with your thoughts on this.
http://jrvarma.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-sec-and-the-python/
I always thought that on Wall Street it was understood that you cannot trust the other guy and his representations? Isn’t that the whole point of caveat emptor? Which is, of course, the defense that Goldman will use.
It’s only in hindsight that some people look like evil geniuses and others look like poor suckers. When they placed their bets, at the end of the day half were going to look smart and half were going to look stupid.
The problem with asset bubbles is that there is a gross imbalance — too many people are lining up on one side of the equation, looking smart until they look very very stupid.
As a principal, ‘Caveat Emptor’ can only apply between approximate equals i.e. one bank to another, one person to another. Where you have a licensed institution dealing with a lesser counterparty (and these days we are all ‘less’ than GS) the licensing authority (USA, Fed, whatever) has an obligation to ensure fairness, hence the ‘regulatory framework’ (however inadequate or inadequately implemented). GS are not entitled to ‘CE’ as a defense.
It is however a truism of any market that at the moment of transaction both parties assume they are ‘astute’ and it is only with hindsight the winners and losers can be differentiated.
A plaseilngy rational answer. Good to hear from you.
gUfrHs rmmrjrvzjzag
Cringely, your reporting on the financial market crisis continues to completely miss the root of the problem: why the banks gave loans to people that they knew could not repay them.
Banks don’t make nearly enough money in transaction fees to make writing bad loans profitable and they lose their shirts in foreclosures, so it’s nonsense to say the banks were doing this in pursuit of some fantasy short-term gains.
Banks made these loans for one reason only: because the government was holing a gun to their head. For forty years there has been increasing pressure from congress, the Justice Department, and activist courts to make banks give loans to low-income and minority populations so that they can share in the American dream of home ownership. A noble political aspiration, but as we have all witnessed, it’s economic suicide. Fannie and Freddie lowered lending standards at the behest of certain “charitable” souls in congress, not because they thought it made sound financial sense.
The market clearly has done some nonsensical things in response to the conundrum they were placed in. But this Goldman Sachs fiasco is just a symptom of the disease, not the cause. This prosecution is a red herring on the part of Congress and the administration to take the focus off their own culpability in this crisis. I hate to see you fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Thanks for adding the voice of truth and common sense. Yes, the government underminded the trust we placed in the banking system: everyone has a right to home ownership whether they can afford it or not. It’s like in the former USSR the government dictated the price of toilet paper until there were long lines of people waiting to buy it.
That’s crap. A friend of mine was a mortgage broker for Countrywide, she and her colleagues were making a fortune writing loans that they knew their customers couldn’t handle, which were then repackaged and sold to investors as AAA rated investments. The customers were suppposed to refinance before the teaser rate expired, and it worked pretty well until the bubble finally burst.
Nobody held a gun to their heads, it was all about the Benjamins. I’ll grant you it’s possible that the government got the ball rolling, but once the suits figured out how to game the system and pass off the toxic loans, they pulled out all the stops.
These fees that the front-end brokers made were a pittance compared to the losses the banks knew they would take if they approved the loans.
The banks only began approving the crap loans after being sued hundreds of times by groups like Acorn and under renewed threat of government sanction by the Justice Department during the ’90s. The floodgates opened when congress successfully leaned on Fanny and Freddie to lower lending standards so that banks could share the risk by securitizing the portfolios through the bond market.
The practices that your friend at Countrywide participated in could not and would not have have happened if the banks were left to rely on their own risk assessments for making loans. This was not the free market at work. This crisis is the direct result of government meddling (Democrat and Republican) in the home mortgage lending market.
Very true and ironic that the bubble should get going about the time we were suffering our biggest loses in Iraq. Amazing how a false real estate can take peoples minds off a failing war policy..
Fabulous article. I’ve been reading RXC forever & I found this perhaps the best ever.
It is an interesting article but I feel is nearly exactly wrong. Transparency is a means of hedging and gaining empirical trust. You don’t trust me to do a good job, well then you can look at the code. Same with required reporting of financial information. In fact open source is the very definition of this sort of hedging empirical trust. Stallman and other authors of the OSS licenses don’t trust people to use and give back to the community, fearing that people would just take the free software and then use it in proprietary software so they legally required that source code of any changes be published (when the software is made available to public). This is exactly a the type of hedge you describe. In this case it you say that you can look at my code but once you do you can’t use it for yourself without being bound to show it as well.
As can be seen by the OSS example these empirical means of ensuring trustworthiness are not worthless and do not necessarily lead to deceit. In fact they tend to build a culture of actual trust. This is the very essence of a lawful society. And once laws are applied with reasonable consistency and fairness most people and even corporations tend not to break them even if they have opportunity.
Mighty post, Mr. C. Thank you.
There is a lot more to be mined from this seam, regarding the long term contrast/contest between the fundamental organising principles of vectors of closed knowledge (capitalism and markets) and vectors of open knowledge (networks and open source software).
Although it has little money the open knowledge world will win, I believe, because it will build a world where money becomes irrelevant (strange as that may seem). Mr Gates was right when he saw OSS as communism but this is a communism that works!
[...] I, Cringely » The T Word – Cringely on technology – Trust. [...]
People don’t use open source because they trust it — they use it because its free.
Either explanation can be true without making the other false.
People use open source because it works
Looks like the Pope disagrees with you:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/04/margaret-warner-pope-describes-dangers-of-new-digital-age.html
The pope is merely pointing to the digital divide as another source if inequality among mankind. It will be until everyone has equal access to information on the Internet. However, most of us fail to realize that those who don’t have a computer have an advantage in that they don’t waste half their time working on it and the other half playing with it.
It’s good to see someone following Bob’s advice to offer humorous posts – the catholic church and transparancy – great joke!
What is great about this article is that it bridges technology and society issues. Sure you could go into more depth on any of the issues, and I am sure you will in next articles! Yes, it isn’t uncovering some profound secret of Silicon Valley or predicting what will happen in twenty years.
But even a Saturday sloth is refreshing sometimes, thanks Bob!
PS I also permanently admire the level of discussion under each article, almost all worth reading…pretty unique really.
We got lucky a few years ago. First we discovered Jim Cramer on CNBC. While I am not sure his stock picks are the best — his advice on taking responsibility for managing your investments is spot on. Second we almost used one of the big investment houses to manage our savings. Being smarter, Jim Cramer trained investors we noticed 2 things — First 6% of our money would have disappeared for commissions and management fees day one. Second the rate of return was no better than most managed porfolio’s. You were not getting anything special AND you were losing 6%. So we went to a low fee, discount service; picked our own mutual funds; diversified our portfolio; and kept the middleman and his/her self serving idea away from our money.
One has to ask — what do firms like Goldman Sacks REALLY do for the common investor?
[...] Cringely has written a pretty good post comparing open source software and Goldman Sachs. The underlying theme is trust. Here is the link. [...]
[...] (using BlogBridge, of course) . Welcome, and thanks for visiting!I am not sure exactly what this article about Trust means exactly, but it’s thought provoking, don’t you think? “Trust is present or [...]
Love the article, but a few factual corrections. Linus Torvalds did not create the “Linux operating system”. He in fact only created the kernel. The operating system, GNU, was created by a lot of different people.
>When trust is non-zero (which is better, believe me)
I don’t see how it could be. If trust is somewhere between 0 and 100% you don’t know when to believe somebody. If it’s 0 at least you can take measures to deal with it.
G-S may have construed their behavior as technically legal. Lord knows, almost everything is nowadays. But in fact, what they did, and others like them such as Magnetar (I think that’s correct) have done is frankly fraud in a basic sense. They purposely created a “shitty” product and went looking for idiots to buy it. Then they insured themselves against the certain failure of the product.
What this required is recognizing that the insurers were under-pricing their assumption of the risk. Thus the payoff would be high in case of failure. That part is probably OK. The insurers offered a price to offset the risk and didn’t do their homework.
But the buyers of the instruments are collateral damage. They were often incapable of analyzing the risk and TRUSTED G-S to look after their interests- not so far fetched given that Congress essentially did the same thing! I would bet that the original price of the bonds or whatever was chump change in comparison to the payoff from the insurance company.
I can almost grasp the thinking -the buyers are at so little risk in comparison to the payoff, it won’t hurt much….
That is fraud.
Regarding Montgomery’s comments about bank profits and risks- he fails to mention the collateralized mortgage certificates. The banks HAD NO RISK. They sold it and walked away.
I guess I need to clean up my first comment above. They actually had SOMEONE ELSE create a shitty product. Then G-S bought it. Then G-S bought insurance that was grossly underpriced.
I had confused the mortgage backed securities with the insurance issue.
The truth is, our Congress got gradually outsmarted over 30 years or so, which is not so difficult it seems.
Regulations are needed because businessmen who try to function by a moral code are often taken by those that do not. No rule of law, no trustworthy behavior. And the rule of law HAS TO BE ENFORCED or there is no rule of law.
Went back and listened to Thomas Sowell as suggested by Bozo. After listening to several of the talks I find I buy his arguments less and less. It comes down to not enough “citing”, ironically.
When he says that Rohm Emanual’s comment that one should never waste a good crises, he uses this as a point to condem the man. in fact, Rohm is as correct as Machiaveli ever was, and Cheney and Rove live(d) by this rule. They are tactitians and strategists more than policy wonks. And that is why they had/have their jobs. Which is not to say they don’t have personal policy goals, just that it isn’t specifically their job.
The comment suggests that because the New Dealers and the Obamanites needed a crises to impose changes (that they had wanted to impose for years but had been unable to previous to the crises) that they were wrong in their desire to make the reforms! What a remarkable turn of logic!
you do know this is game theory, right ?
Do the classifications, proprietary software becomes one of those games you hate to be in (“prisoner’s dillemma”, , asymmetric knowledge ones,”the painful nutcracker and the sodden berry pie”, etc.) and the open source one is a cooperative system–one of those game theory things that are not so bad.
>the original author of the Linux operating system
Really? Really?
I dont mind when the Twits and CNET of the world show us on a daily basis their lack of understanding of tech but cmon….
Linux is the creator of the KERNEL.
THATS WHAT HE DOES.
It is a small but important part of an operating system but it is not the operating system. I know how the OS name and kernel name is confusing for some but it should not be to a techie.
of course, I cant count how many times Ive read columnists talk about Torvalds and how he wants to do something about the desktop when anyone who has spent more than 15mins on the topic knows he has no say, he has no interest and has nothing to do with things outside his kingdom: the kernel.
People always confuse his role with that of Jobs or Gates and it really, really isnt the same.
MM
For me, the best operating system is Linux because it rarely hangs.”‘.
A genuinely great publish by you my friend. We have bookmarked this page and will occur back following several days to verify for any new posts which you make.
If you want to be a Forex trader, you need a plan or a strategy to decide what operations to perform. There are many different types of strategies, but none of them are of uniform size. Each operator must develop a strategy that suits them and their situation. Some traders only on fundamental analysis, where others are not motivated to use the technical analysis, but is much more common for investors to use a combination of both.
There is a saying in foreign exchange market, The trend is your friend. Because prices move in trends, find out if you can, and install these trends tend, it will be profitable. Technical analysis is based exclusively on research and analysis of these trends. The market is moving clearly identifiable patterns, the models are investigated for years and are well known. The learning of these patterns and develop the ability to read these trends is the basis for a good strategy for the technical analysis.
Many tools are available to analyze and understand market movements and patterns. At the beginning trader, you have every tool to study independently, to develop a good understanding of their function and use. A master of the tools, you may continue, while the education of the next tool that you want to learn. Since many of these tools are similar to the time it takes to learn a new instrument, shall continue to decline, as you become with several of them.
They are based on many business strategies of the Support and resistance to find levels. The level of support is what is covered than the lowest price of a currency, the currency on that level and then increase again. The amount of resistance, the opposite is the highest price that the currency, but is usually done. Once this is reached, it will be someday. It is natural that the level of support and resistance to change gradually over time.
If a currency is soon beyond the normal level of support and resistance, then the currency should continue in this direction for some time. One currency will be as optimistic when it goes up, whether a currency is rising and breaking through its normal level of resistance continue to move upwards for a while.
You must determine the price tables contribute to the amount of pensions and the resistance of a coin. They study the maps on the search for a continuous pattern of high and low prices that the currency is higher. The more time you will take your card for more accurate and reliable analysis. You can then decide these levels, if you enter and leave a commerce.
This [url=http://www.forexstrategysite.com/]forex strategy[/url] is that the operators can be used, it is entirely based on technical analysis is based. To be truly effective needs analysis Forex traders who employ several strategies, depending on market conditions.
dispenses employ a terrific web site decent Gives with thanks for the working hard to assist me
shares utilize a great web page decent Gives with thanks for the hard work to support myself
Its amazing to me how many ways you can go about investing your money. I’ve found for me that best solution is both risky and low risk stocks. I tend to put about 1/2 my investments into low risk mutual funds that grow over time plus the other half in high risk high gain stocks. I recently got into day trading and I discovered that software stock picks are more reliable as they can automate a process that I cant do quickly enough. The guys over at PrometheusFinancials.Com have a fantastic system. You might want to check them out!
operating systems can either make or break your system that is why it is wise to choose a vey stable one.*”~
I hope you have a nice day! Very good article, well written and very thought out. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts in the future.
Hi i just thought I should leave a comment as i really likeyour website its so interesting, keep it up!
Great job on the blog, it looks outstanding. I am going to save it and will make sure to check weekly
That was one with essentially the most useful posts I have witnessed in a prolonged prolonged time. A wonderful deal of appreciated, I’m prone to want to hold around here considerably much more.
with regards to PC operating system, i love Windows XP and Linux.:.
you are professional.
Happy to see this, Your will be the Leadin the world!!
I just came across your post by chance. It’s great to see someone is putting this much thought into writing articles as good as this one which are available for free on the web!
great thanks man…
I’d come to set with you on this. Which is not something I typically do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!
Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.
really have got to point out you produce many great facts and definitely will put up a variety of options to add on just after a day or two.
You might haven’t intended to do so, but I think you’ve managed to express the state of mind that a lot of people are in. The sense of wanting to assist, but not knowing how or where, is something lots of us are going via.
in, much too long since the last time I was here needed to take some notes on. Well perfectly. I need this article to complete my assignment in college, fortunately for me it is on the same topic as this post. Thanks, great share.
I have been meaning to write about something like this on my site and this has given me an idea. TY.
Darn nice post. I don’t suppose you would mind if I added your blog to my linkexchange directory?
That’s an ingenious way of tnikhing about it.
VE4gpO ybxmnpmbtbwp
WoQeSl ifflainjrmyr
Great! Thanks for post
Simply, admirable what you have done here. It is pleasing to look you express from the heart and your clarity on this significant content can be easily looked. Remarkable post and will look forward to your future update.
admirable what you have done here. It is pleasing to look you express from the heart and your clarity on this significant content can be easily looked.
Online marketing is tough business; no marvel countless affiliates battle to make mere pennies. It is a great post with glorious ideas for amateur in addition to established affiliates. http://www.blackhattactics.net/make-youtube-your-best-affiliate-marketing-tool
This post dissolved my difficulties, Many thanks.
Hi Man, Your site was tooooooooooo slowly!!!! You Should change to a better one. check it! Top web hosting Reviews http://www.goo.gl/m6QA Whiche one was the best? Make your choice…
Your RSS feed doesn’t work in my browser (google chrome) how can I fix it?
Your work surely doesn’t miss out in offering useful data to readers. Nothing is better than knowing something new through reading. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
there are many different operating systems but of course i would still prefer to use linux for stability ~,-
I for one would like to commission a real study on open source software vs Microsoft being in decline.
thank you friends google post
interesting writeup, i’ve got to mention this to a friend of mine
Some really awesome stuff being done with HTML5. I really like the WebGL Globe and Surface.
modern floor lamp
Thank you for everything
Get the information any content. This method matter pursuits my family quite definitely together with due to we, Method learned modern
Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for information about this topic for a long time and yours is the greatest I’ve discovered till now. But, what about the bottom line? Are you positive concerning the source?
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of I, Cringely » Blog Archive The T Word – Cringely on technology . Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.