This is a wonderful pic. Carter looks like a lolly-pop dude who wandered in. Clinton looks like he was wheeled in and has no clue where he is (someone dressed him nice though). Bush the younger seems happy to be allowed to stay up late. Obama and Bush the elder seem to be old buddies who just cashed out on some several-year-old scheme. I must seek a hi-res version!
- J Irving
This disappoints me. It was such a fantastic and rare opportunity for a memorable, once-in-a-career photograph...but all the pictures I've seen of it kind of suck. I don't think you can blame the photographer, though. I suspect that none of those men really had the time to hang around posing for thirty minutes while the photographer tried to capture the best light and stuff. (Also, I...
more...
- James (@willia4)
Someone needs to add some thought bubbles to this photo.
- Mike Doeff
James, not every picture needs to evaluated from a photographer's perspective - though I get what you are saying. Sometimes you see more if we pay attention to the actual content :). Not being snarky, just an observation because I have been guilty of the same quite often.
- The Fat Oracle
Two of the four who've already served were only in for one term (Carter & Bush Sr.). We'll see how Obama fares!
- Shawn Farner
Kamath - True. Not every picture does. But something like five living presidents deserves a little bit of care from the photographer, imho. But I'm sure those five living presidents wanted him to leave so they could get lunch. ;) So I'm not blaming him (or her; I haven't found the photo credit)
- James (@willia4)
ugh hate the drapes; did Carter really wear a brown suit??; LAG U R right Obama has the best suit, with hon mention 2 GW Sr. and finally do grown men really roll their foot like that when standing up???
- R. Ferguson
you know, the other thing that strikes me about this pic: they're all part of the same club. dig, if you will, this picture, but with hillary in it. change?...my *ss! .LOLz
- .LAG liked that
Helen: Well, that was almost 30 years ago. And until the recent spate of 40 something presidents, most of them where a lot older when first elected.
- The original Kevin
Actually Obama's pants look a tad too long. It is supposed to be a simple break at the shoe. Bush Jr has quite a bit of fabric there. Maybe Bush the Younger forgot his belt. Clinton's suit looks like it is off the rack at Macys or something lame. Carter is wearing brown shoes. Thought they taught him differently at the Naval Academy. But who am I to talk, wearing yesterday's sweats and a some giant Tigger slippers.
- Andrew Leyden
@xero i imagine jr has been through a lot the past 8 years. he's probably ready for a vodka and coke pretty badly right about now.
- Jason Shultz
from twhirl
@ANDREW: you're right, obama's pants break, just a smidge too much, but a brutha can rock that. If you look at his left hand, he's got no cuff showing there, so i'm scaling back my original sartorial accolades, but he's still the best-dressed of the bunch. carter, probably the kindest, most genuine human of them all, is the worst dressed: sack suit, pants too long, coat sleeves too long, poor color choice. he looks "country." .LOLz
- .LAG liked that
@LAG Just noticed the cuff thing. Also noticed what looks like a watch. Is Obama left-handed?
- Andrew Leyden
Should we be concerned that arguably the most powerful people in the free world all have issues with dressing themselves?
- Jason Shultz
from twhirl
@Jason It's Washington which is notoriously plain in the fashion department. I think we should only be concerned if their wives are still dressing them.
- Andrew Leyden
hey now, if my wife wants to dress (or undress) me I'll let her. ;)
- Jason Shultz
from twhirl
I think Sr has the best jacket (except for the shoulders), but Obama is wearing it the best. Carter looks horrible, and Clinton's jacket is far too long.
- xero
The Democrats wore red ties and the Republicans wore blue ties. And then Obama had to go and break the rules.
- Shawn Farner
Don't really understand how Arrington could be designated "on FriendFeed". He never participates -- just broadcasts. Others at least participate in the conversation. I would question how he could make your list at all let alone at number 1.
- Brian Sullivan
Of interest, none of the links work, as they are embedded with fastcompany.com followed by HTTP.
- Louis Gray
Maybe one of the "tech experts" knows some HTML..? ;-)
- Sprague D
Jess -- maybe Robert's post should be titled "Robert Scoble's 10 Favorite Tech Experts who happen to have accounts on FriendFeed" ?
- Brian Sullivan
It's Monday, Robert needed a post, and for hits, it has to be a post involving a list. Ergo, pick 10 people, one of whom has never, to the best of my knowledge, posted a single thing to FriendFeed that wasn't done by his bot, leave off all women (hello? Kara? Orli? Orli has participated more this week than Arrington has done in FF's entire existence), and once again, stirs the proverbial sh*t on FriendFeed. At some point, if people dont' come up with something to talk about on FriendFeed BESIDES politics...
- Cyndy
... and FriendFeed, the whole thing will just wink out of existence.
- Cyndy
Very useful matching of names to enterprises for those who don't know.
- Sean McBride
Most probably I'm missing something (or I have a different definition for tech expert), but some of them have nothing to do with technology. Anyways, it is a good Monday post to generate traffic.
- Alex Popescu
Alex: which ones don't have anything to do with technology? Seems like a pretty safe soft-tech list. And let me add my generic feigned outrage thinly veiling my jealousy of not being on a top ten list here.
- Mark Trapp
Mark: IMO there is a big difference between being a tech expert and living around technology. I fail to see how a PR, social media, etc. person is a tech expert.
- Alex Popescu
Several of those people are very active on FriendFeed. Arrington shows up because so many people read TechCrunch. Mark Wilson, thanks for the mention, but I am not sure if my name can be mentioned in a top 10 list that includes some of those folks.
- Rob Diana
Not even going to bother looking at this list after the previous one that was completely without filter and a little ridiculous. Will probably feel the need to diss it because I will disagree when I have no right to - it's his favorite list and all power to him.
- The Fat Oracle
I love web 2.0. It's the one era you can wake up and decide you're an expert in something, even if you have no real track record beforehand, or if you do and nobody knew about it/no recognizable proof, etc. :)
- Patricia
I'd suggest that no list of any topic of any length by any person will be agreeable to all. And don't let my PR/Marketing background fool you. I'm all tech, all day long. :-)
- Louis Gray
Patricia, come on over here and sit next to me. I won't for a second pretend that I could architect something like Facebook, but I have forgotten more about development than certain people ever knew. I'm waiting for a "return to basics" mentality to prevail.
- Cyndy
I'm declaring myself an expert on experts. :)
- Patricia
No surprises here, it's always the same people.
- Amit Morson
Not sure what the problem is the title of the article says "Robert Scoble's Favorite," so that's what it is, his favorites. It's kind of clear that his favorite may not be your favorite. And it's who he considers a tech authority, which my also come under a different definition and categorization than your own. Like Shey and Sarah, and oh so many others, just add your favorites in your own list, or even here.
- Lynne d Johnson
Lynne -- there is no problem that I can see. Robert writes posts so that others read, comment and discuss. I think that is what we are doing?
- Brian Sullivan
@Brian Sullivan - of course. It just seemed that people were taking this one quite personally.
- Lynne d Johnson
This is awesome!! Phew, I read the whole thing!! Saw it earlier this morning and was really impressed with it, except they forgot 1 very key word - NUKULAR!!!
- Susan Beebe
"So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities. Why? A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now."
- Dan Hsiao
from Bookmarklet
Having no money makes it easy to follow buffet's other advice - which is to invest a significant proportion of one's net worth in 'value' stocks.
- Robin Barooah
"You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy."
- j1m
@chris the article explicitly says up to 20 years. And that is only assuming the worst case scenario that this year marks the exact same historical pattern and government attitude towards the market. (post made from iPhone)
- paulm