GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request -- OrlandoSentinel.com

On Monday, Obama is to announce plans to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.

So, let me get this straight - the government is willing to lend billions more to GM, so long as they get to define the leadership team?

Also worth noting: President Obama is going to announce a restructuring plan. But President Obama (as well as the U.S. Government) has no stake in GM, other than as a lender. Now as a small business owner, I take input and advice from my investors, but they don't define how we structure the company. If they don't like what I'm doing, they don't lend us the money. Wouldn't a similar strategy make sense here?

It's also a bit disturbing to me that Obama, a guy with absolutely NO experience running a business, is doing this. I mean, it took me over three years to figure out how to make a small business profitable, and Obama is going to help a conglomerate like GM figure it out? Admittedly Obama appears to be a smart guy, but that seems a bit outside the realm of realism to me.

It's an interesting read, one more attempt to justify Linux on the client:
Is Ballmer conceding victory to Linux Netbooks? | The Open Road - CNET News

I found this amazingly naive though - and a clear demonstration that someone doesn't understand Microsoft's business model.

At the end of the day, I can't see MSFT abandoning or conceding this (or any) client market.  I'm reminded of Pen Windows, a miserable product written with one goal in mind: put Go Computing out of business (which it effectively did).

The value to MSFT in this sort of skirmish has nothing whatsoever with profit - it has to do with marker share, and familiarity.

In reverse order - Familiarity is of paramount importance to Microsoft.  Bringing a lightweight version of the Windows UI to netbooks means transferring that familiarity from user desktops or laptops.  Conversely, allowing Linux (or more appropriately, either GNOME or KDE) to have the market risks a reverse transference of that familiarity.  If users become comfortable with a Linux UI on a netbook, it's that much easier to accept it on a primary system.

As for market share, well that's everything to MSFT because it ensures compatability requirements.  Cross functionality between Windows and non-Windows systems is partial at best, despite what many would have you believe.  Thus pushing Active X (as an example) onto a lightweight IE on a netbook ensures the continuation of a dominant market share (you didn't think Active X is broadly used because it is best, did you?).  Expect similar implementations of Word, Excel, and Outlook, and some Frankenstienian method of management via AD, GPO, and System Center.

Conceding the market?  What was this guy thinking?

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown - Telegraph

Wow - this is a very disconcerting read if you ask me.  If this is true, I think we are in for a very long 4 years.

Quotes worth noting:

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown

Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime ministe

those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

I hope it's not true, but I wonder if it is? 

Obama Proposes New Wireless Spectrum Fee

Holy crow, spectrum fees on the wireless carriers that starts at $50Mill and raises to $550 Mill by 2019.  In the current economic environment, and over the next few years, why would anyone think it's a good idea to tag this onto cellular costs?

It'll be passed directly to customers, so it is in effect just one more tax disguised as a carrier fee.  This one makes little sense to me - it's just an opportunity for the government to charge for something that should be free.