Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Technology

Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google? 378

Posted by samzenpus
from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.
Edsj writes "According to The New Yorker: 'Schmidt, according to associates, lost some energy and focus after losing the China decision. At the same time, Google was becoming defensive. All of their social-network efforts had faltered. Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work. Complaints about Google bureaucracy intensified. Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google over privacy, copyright, and size issues. The “don’t be evil” brand was getting tarnished, and the founders were restive. Schmidt started to think of departing. Nudged by a board-member friend and an outside adviser that he had to re-energize himself, he decided after Labor Day that he could reboot. He couldn't.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?

Comments Filter:
  • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:18PM (#34974510) Journal

    So basically what they're saying is "Eric Schmidt is pro-evil".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Corporations are "pro-evil"

      Evil is power.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        By that logic everyone is pro-evil.
        • by Carewolf (581105) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:33PM (#34974640) Homepage

          Because everybody is a corporation?(!)

          Corporation as a construct are intended to behave in psychopathic manors. Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths,

          • by vshade (1451739)
            Most people are not psychopaths? Don't you read internet comments?
          • by Joren (312641) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:02PM (#34974892) Homepage

            Because everybody is a corporation?(!)

            Corporation as a construct are intended to behave in psychopathic manors. Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths,

            Then that's a problem, because with the economy as it is I don't think we have the resources to design and build psychopathic manors large enough to house each corporation. Plus, the work required to ensure that each manor was sufficiently psychopathic... nevermind the environmental impact statements...

          • No, corporations are designed to maximize profits which in a free economy leads to greater wealth in that economy. For example, thanks to corporations such as HP, Sony, Dell and other computer manufacturers, we are able to have a quality of life people could only dream of just thirty years ago. Just think about how much things have changed for the better. And all that wouldn't happen without computer manufacturers cutting prices to improve their bottom line. If computers still cost $3,000 for a basic model
            • Some things have improved, some things have gotten worse. It's hard to say, overall, that most people in the USA are much happier than the Haudenosaunee (Iroqois) were 500 years ago, even living a bit longer perhaps on average. Are those alive now in the USA much happier or more physically fit than the Arawak in Haiti who Columbus and his successors wiped out?

              See, for example:
              http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html [historyisaweapon.com]
              "Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from th

            • But due to people acting in their own self-interest, we've developed modern techniques of agriculture to the point where everyone can be fully fed unless they are under an oppressive government (such as most of Africa).

              Or the nearly 10 million Americans that are forced to skip meals or eat too little each year.

              To nearly all the rest of your comments, I thank unions more than corporations for all of that. Corporations that sell to the middle class only exist because there is a middle class.

            • by sjames (1099)

              You seem confused. There is a such thing as business without massive psychopathic mega-corps. Nobody here claims that business is bad. Technology has given us those things you talk about. The home computer exists because of individuals in garages doing their thing. Businesses then manufactured and distributed them.

              Safe water, btw came from public works, not mega-corporations. It's still that way, at least where I live.

              You might be surprised to learn that Adam Smith was the first of many advocates of capital

          • by marcello_dl (667940) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @04:26PM (#34975476) Homepage Journal

            > Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths.

            I see what you just did to paranoids fearing a mutants` invasion, you 3+ handed monster!

    • So basically what they're saying is "Eric Schmidt is pro-evil".

      Yes. in fact he was so 'pro-evil' that he'll be played by Dr. Evil in the Google movie.

    • Edsj writes
      "According to The New Yorker: 'It seems Eric Schmidt didn't like the decision to deliver uncensored searches in China. It is reported the decision to withdraw censored searches in China was made by co-founder Larry Page sided with his founding partner, Sergey Brin and probably an internal battle for power begun. Schmidt also wasn't happy with the 'don't be evil' policy, something the Google founders were prepared to protect anytime. Schmidt lost some energy and focus after losing the China internal battle and decided to leave the position of CEO. It is also reported that the chairman position is a temporary one until he finds another business to take care.'"

      Quoting the original summary for posterity.

  • Ahhhahahaahaa... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You're killing me. The CEO of one of the most well known companies in the world steps down because he doesn't like the company motto and the new man at the top upholds "don't be evil". Hilarious. How do you come up with this stuff?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:20PM (#34974526)

    You heard it here first.

    • by HateBreeder (656491) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:35PM (#34974668)

      Seeing as he is/was in apple's board of directors, that's not so far fetched.

    • by JamesP (688957)

      Yes

      But they're going to take Steve Jobs brain and put it in Eric Schmidt

      Turtlenecks are forbidden until 2 years after the surgery.

  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:22PM (#34974540)
    As far as I know the share structure of Google gives enough voting rights to the founders to retain absolute control even with a minority of the shares.
    • by iammani (1392285)

      You can still sue them, claiming they are not working for the benefit of the shareholders (even if you are in the minority). Being a publicly listed corporation has its disadvantages too.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:38PM (#34974690)

        Actually you can't. You can only sue them claiming they are not acting in accordance with the company bylaws. Google's bylaws allow for significant activity that is not in the benefit of, or might even be contrary to, the economic benefit of its shareholders. If the shareholders don't like that they shouldn't have bought the stock.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Amorymeltzer (1213818)

      As far as I know the share structure of Google gives enough voting rights to the founders to retain absolute control even with a minority of the shares.

      Hey, no complaining. If it's good enough for Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprise it's good enough for Page/Brin and Google.

  • well then good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:23PM (#34974558) Homepage Journal

    don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, mr. schit

    sergey brin emigrated to the usa at age 6 from russia. it is my understanding his strong anti-censorship views comes from what his parents imparted on him from their experience in the totalitarian ussr

    so good for you mr. brin, bless you. maybe google can be a force for good in this world and not a data abusing behemoth like facebook as long as you draw breath

    • Two sides to every story -

      I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

      I don't think that's a force for good at all, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent.

      • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:06PM (#34974920) Journal

        They had the choice of obeying China's laws or being shut down, and they were shut down. I see where you're coming from, but it's not like they wilfully tried to continue running while breaking the law, or attempted to hide what they were doing - they were open about their position, and China responded. To say they were ignoring the laws implies (to me, at least) that they were trying to get away with doing so, rather than making a direct and public stand. Agree with it or not, that's the difference between crime and civil disobedience.

      • by khallow (566160) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:13PM (#34974964)

        I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

        Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.

        • by syousef (465911)

          I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

          Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.

          But haven't you heard? Google is not like other companies: It has it's own NAVY (http://www.theonion.com/audio/google-steps-in-to-help-us-with-google-navy,12948/ and http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/09/06/1755216.shtml [slashdot.org]) and Airforce (http://seoblackhat.com/2008/10/24/google-air-force-alpha/)

        • by Haedrian (1676506)

          I'm sure Google did that because they believe in the right of unfiltered search results, and not because in China they are not the dominant search engine.

          Or are our search engine companies the Vigilantes of the future? Saving us from the evil governments who want to take away our freedom?

          Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality

          • by khallow (566160)
            Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. What you're implying here is that because Google was the top search engine in China, that they thought they could push China around? Do you really want to stay on record as claiming that?

            Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality

            Today it was about the rule of law, not just censorship. And the bad guys won. Remember that.

            • by Haedrian (1676506)

              I said no such thing. I said in fact that they are NOT the dominant search engine.

              Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?

              The loyalty of a company is - in the end - to its shareholders. Shareholders want more profits, and everything a company does is an attempt to do that.

              • by khallow (566160)

                Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?

                Because it harms their growth elsewhere. Theft of IP is a real problem especially in a place like China which heavily favors local businesses over foreign.

        • Pray tell (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Chicken_Kickers (1062164) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @04:49PM (#34975600)
          Sigh. Not this shit again. Is China the evil villain now? I wasn't paying attention to Faux News. I am still at EyeRaan as the Axis of Evil chapter. In my non-American view, the US is the short, medium and long term threat to freedom in the world. The last global economic meltdown originated from there. The most Draconian laws (copyright, intellectual property laws, RIAA etc.) emanates from America. America can and did invade any country it likes on any pretense and get away with it. It can kidnap, imprison without trial and torture anyone regardless of nationality and get away with it. It has nuclear, chemical and biological weapon stockpiles that at any moment could fall into the hands of Sarah Palins and their ilk. It has mercenary fanatical soldiers who will carry out any order, even shooting civilians in cold blood. And worst of all, Americans still believe that they are the good guys. This belief is what scares me. Historically, China on the other hand had not much interest in the outside world other than the buffer zones around it. China want to become a world player but from what I have seen, it does not want to become the world police, judge and executioner.
          • by khallow (566160)

            Historically, China on the other hand had not much interest in the outside world other than the buffer zones around it. China want to become a world player but from what I have seen, it does not want to become the world police, judge and executioner.

            Historical China is nothing like modern China. The country is positioned to become in a few decades the dominant country on a very small Earth. With that comes naturally the roles of world police, judge, and executioner. Further, there is a long term trend towards the infamously named "One World Order", that is, a supernational level of government. As long as the most powerful country in the world is authoritarian, that's going to tend to make any supernational creations by this government authoritarian as

            • Re:Pray tell (Score:4, Interesting)

              by grcumb (781340) on Monday January 24, 2011 @01:45AM (#34978630) Homepage Journal

              Of all of your idiotic claims about the US, only one holds water, that the global meltdown started in the US. But bad crises and wars start somewhere, you can't blame based on where they start. For example, the Second World War started in Poland and the First World War started in Serbia. So are Poland and Serbia responsible for their respective world wars?

              Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:

              WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.

              So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.

              WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.

      • by CodeBuster (516420) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:20PM (#34975006)
        Governments are far more dangerous than corporations. Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally. The governments have the armies and the guns, remember? In fact, since we are on the subject of China, wasn't it Mao Zedong who said that, "Political power flows from the barrel of the gun"? Indeed, I am often frustrated by those who fail to grasp the irony of advocating for more government power to regulate individual economic activities without realizing that those same powers invariably destroy the individual liberties and freedoms which they claim they want to protect and preserve. They cannot have it both ways. They are either being disingenuous, as those with an anti-freedom progressive agenda often are, or naïve or both. As much as I distrust the motivations of some corporations I distrust governments even more . So I view Google's defiance of the Chinese government as a victory for freedom and individual liberty. In my opinion the governments of the world need to be taken down a notch or two, if only to remind them that it is the people who are sovereign, not the governments elected by them. Too much government control, too much nanny state and too much power over people's lives is the real danger. Those who continually seek to enhance the power of the state over the individual should be careful what they wish for; they might actually receive it and if they do, they will deserve it.
        • by bmo (77928) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:54PM (#34975280)

          Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.

          So do corporations.

          C.f., the Banana Wars and the United Fruit Company, and the "privatization" of the Iraq war. Oh, and let's not forget the US railroads in the 19'th century. Among other things.

          I love how you guys try to absolve corporations of their sins. The doublethink in your head must be nearly crippling.

          --
          BMO

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            No one is forced to support a corporation, whereas governments rule through coercive force. I know that doesn't sink into you anti-corporation people too well, but since most of your views are founded on poor understanding of reality in the first place, I don't worry too much about that.

            • by PCM2 (4486)

              No one is forced to support a corporation

              Really? Suppose your corrupt government sells your water supply to private interests? (Yes, I know this was the plot of Quantum of Solace, but that script was based on actual events [wikipedia.org].)

          • "How many divisions" (Score:5, Informative)

            by mangu (126918) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @06:09PM (#34976156)

            Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.

            So do corporations.

            For a corporation to do that, two conditions must be met first:

            1) there must exist a government
            2) that government must be corrupt

            Without a corrupt government, corporations do not have the powers you mention.

            Without any government at all, let's say as happens in some parts of Africa, no corporations exist.

          • You will note that in each of those cases companies acted in concert with or under the orders of governments. It was the governments who provided the means, the corporations and special interests merely pulled the strings and therein lies the danger of concentrated government power. It creates an irresistible temptation for powerful individuals or corporations to co-opt and misuse that power for their own purposes. Power is and always will be abused, despite our best intentions, because mankind is sinful an
        • by lennier (44736)

          The governments have the armies and the guns, remember?

          Colt, Group 4 LLC, Xe and McDonnell-Douglas would beg to differ.

          But the government does have the money to pay the people who actually make the guns.

      • I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

        Most debates about rights and freedoms are about large and powerful organisations wanting to be bigger than the government.

      • by selven (1556643)

        Revenue of Google: 29.321 billion
        GDP of China: 4.99 trillion

        Sorry, but governments now are stronger than corporations will ever be.

      • by frieko (855745)
        Back here in the states a large corporation gets above the law simply by purchasing as much government as it requires. I wouldn't call what google did a precedent (other than the fact that for once I happen to agree with the corporation's position.)
  • by PPalmgren (1009823) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:23PM (#34974564)

    A CEO getting butthurt over not following something in their company core values shouldn't be running that company. Not everything can be easily quantifiable by dollars and cents, but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.

    • by GWBasic (900357)

      A CEO getting butthurt over not following something in their company core values shouldn't be running that company. Not everything can be easily quantifiable by dollars and cents, but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.

      Or perhaps Schidmt's interpretation of "don't be evil" was different. I think he thought they could still not be evil by working with China.

    • by openfrog (897716)

      ...but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.

      Right on!

      Furthermore, it can be argued that making money is secondary, or at least only a secondary consequence of more fundamental things here. Corporations make money as a result of providing a valuable service to their customers, after all, and here the "customers" are first and foremost Netizens. Brin and Page's corporate values, Google's success and the respect this company has earned in the Net community and here on Slashdot is for me the living demonstration that the "greed is good" ideology peddled

    • by fermion (181285)
      It is more likely that as an employee he decided that is was impossible to maintain the official stated core values while producing the cash flow required by the founders.

      China boils down to the future of the company as a cash sown. China is acknowledged as the greatest emerging market. Those who are not interested in playing ball with government get to honor core US values, but also are prevented from enjoying the profits that will come from China. Those who do play will be portrayed as evil, but get

      • by PPalmgren (1009823) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @04:05PM (#34975338)

        A majority of Google's business model relies on an open and free internet. Censorship and government control pass the decision-making on what product the use from the consumers to government authorities. To play in to that philosophy is the beginning of the end of Google.

        Also, their stance gives them a selling point and differentiator in their domestic market. There are significant benefits for their decision that do not comprimise the core company values, thus hurting the identity of the company. When the scales are even, you go with the gold not the gamble.

  • Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?

    ...we must establish when he was supposed to leave. Only then can we begin to meaningfully speculate.

    Otherwise, everything fronted here as the answer is just hearsay.

  • by emurphy42 (631808) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:27PM (#34974592) Homepage

    or at least not clearly right. Context from TFA:

    Schmidt, according to associates, lost some energy and focus after losing the China decision. At the same time, Google was becoming defensive. All of their social-network efforts had faltered. Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work. Complaints about Google bureaucracy intensified. Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google over privacy, copyright, and size issues. The “don’t be evil” brand was getting tarnished, and the founders were restive. Schmidt started to think of departing.

    This doesn't mean that Schmidt wanted to move away from "don't be evil", he may have just been worn out from trying to uphold it for as large and diverse a company as Google is.

    • by dr2chase (653338)
      Maybe. If you look at some of the issues listed, arguably they are fall out from being a little half-hearted in the pursuit of non-evil. Schmidt's remarks on privacy were not helpful for the company image. Size they can do little about (I mean, come on, "Google", it's a huge number, for a huge company), but privacy and copyright, absolutely, they could do better than they did, especially privacy.

      The other advantage of "don't be evil" is that it removes a huge number of the choices that you might oth
    • by emurphy42 (631808)
      Note that the write-up has since been fixed (to quote basically the same part I did, plus a bit extra). See the original submission [slashdot.org] to see how it looked before.
    • by lennier (44736)

      he may have just been worn out from trying to uphold it for as large and diverse a company as Google is.

      In support of our corporate "alignment diversity" initiative, Google are now revising our policy from "don't be evil" to "chaotic neutral Fridays".

      We want to create a work culture where all ethical stances are welcome - especially in Marketing.

  • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:50PM (#34974800) Journal

    Why lolcats added to headline proofreading department?

  • Good track record (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:05PM (#34974908) Homepage

    10 years as CEO of a Fortune 500 company isn't a bad record. The average is 6.5 years. Schmidt leaves with Google much larger than when he started, profitable, and in good condition. He's done far better than the CEOs of most of the Fortune 500 in the last decade.

    • Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving. He did good things for the company, they had some disagreements, and now he's moving on. That sounds like the story of many of the millions of people who search for new jobs every year.
      • by jopsen (885607)

        Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving.

        Otherwise it wouldn't be news worthy... :)

    • Re:Good track record (Score:4, Interesting)

      by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:45PM (#34975216) Journal
      Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google. Facebook might be nice if you want to pretend you're still in a college frat house with toys and a full bar [time.com]. That kind of thing appeals to college students (including me when I was in college), but if you're the type of programmer who wants to work at a place where you can do interesting programming things, Google is WAY better than Facebook.

      Google has a lot of interesting projects going on, with 20% (somewhat) discretionary time, but Facebook has a single website that I almost wish didn't exist. No question where I'd rather work.
      • Re:Good track record (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PCM2 (4486) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @07:09PM (#34976542) Homepage

        Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google.

        Yeah, I think someone's been doing a few too many lunches with Facebook reps. I've never heard this one. To be perfectly honest, the one company I still hear "vital engineers" talk about working for (if they can't work at Google) is Microsoft. /.ers may hate Microsoft on principle, but where else could you go and end up working on .... well, you name it. Look at all the stuff coming out of Microsoft Research, even if it's never productized. An engineer who goes to work for a start-up might get to work on one really interesting idea, for stock options. An engineer who goes to Microsoft and gets disillusioned with one idea can get transferred to another one and still keep seniority and a highly competitive compensation package. Facebook? It might have a big valuation, but it sounds like just another Web start-up to me -- a few opportunities for engineers, but a lot more for marketing types and other "visionaries."

  • Schmidt, and most of the upper portion of Google management is evil. However, Google is not alone in its desire to own the world of information. Apple, M$, the US Gov, other governments... The real issue is where Schmidt and others like him will land when their time on this planet is over.
  • Part of the Obama administration, in the spring. You heard it here first, unless you already read John Dvorak's Second Opinion -- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eric-schmidts-next-act-bodes-well-for-tech-2011-01-21 [marketwatch.com] .
  • Wait for it; Schmidt will be named to his buddy Obama's "White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness", and it was thought best he not be GOOG CEO while doing so.

  • by foobsr (693224) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:23PM (#34975040) Homepage Journal
    From TFS: "Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work."

    Could someone explain?

    CC.
    • by mysterons (1472839) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:38PM (#34975170)

      --stock options: Facebook is/was pre-IPO. If you want to get rich as an engineer you would work there. You will never get that rich at Google.

      --freedom: Google is a large company and it is hard to get stuff done. Facebook is small.

      --Google is perceived as no longer being the place where the best work.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's nonsense that's continuously propagated by Facebook employees. Out of my graduating class at MIT the top places to work were Google, Microsoft Research and small startups. Facebook acquired some of low end students, but not much else. Very few of the top students would even genuinely entertain offers from Facebook because the problems Facebook works on aren't interesting.

  • by eples (239989) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @04:19PM (#34975440)

    the place vital engineers wanted to work

    Leave Google to go work on PHP spaghetti code? Puhleese.

    Maybe people have left Google, but show us the numbers. I highly doubt they went to FACEBOOK.

    • by dknight (202308) *

      I work in the industry, and that is EXACTLY the case. Lots of good engineers have left google to go work for facebook (the company I work for has gotten quite a few from google and facebook ourselves)

  • by dbIII (701233) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @07:06PM (#34976534)
    Google's PR problems started at the same time that Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp saw them as a serious competitor for the advertising dollar. That is why "Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google" after Murdoch went around the world talking to governments about the evils of the net and most likely calling in favours. Even the streetview wireless thing was really a non-event until it was blown way out of proportion by the Murdoch press.

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...