A Quote by Max Mosley

There's something seriously wrong with Google. Technologically, they're brilliant, sensational. But morally, its management is completely adolescent. The company is so big and so arrogant, they do whatever they like, they think they are above the law.
I think Google's a brilliant company, filled with brilliant people who have done brilliant things.
Do I think that if Google wanted to go acquire a competitor, another big company, we should say no? Of course. We shouldn't be approving them acquiring AT&T or Sprint or some big company.
Google (and Bing and Yahoo!) don't 'owe' any company traffic. If a company has to spend more on advertising on Google, in addition to investing in search-engine-optimization, that is not a violation of any law.
We should never present flesh as somehow morally distinguishable from dairy. To the extent it is morally wrong to eat flesh, it is as morally wrong - and possibly more morally wrong - to consume dairy
I prize the purity of his character as highly as I do that of hers. As a moral being, whatever it is morally wrong for her to do,it is morally wrong for him to do. The fallacious doctrine of male and female virtues has well nigh ruined all that is morally great and lovely in his character: he has been quite as deep a sufferer by it as woman, though mostly in different respects and by other processes.
I think I've always been able to see what's coming, and when I was joining Google, people always said, 'Why are you joining this company?' It was so small at the time. I could see the importance of Google. I could see the way it was going to grow; it was going to become a big company.
I think there are probably too many asset management companies in the world, and I think the place to be is either big or small. The area where it is probably more difficult to be is in the middle ground, where you've got that cost of regulation, you've got the cost of buying your own research, you've got all the costs of running an asset management company without the benefits of a big income producing asset.
Sensation is an element of what I do, and why not? It's not sensational for the sake of being sensational, but it's sensational art... It's like touching skin.
To create a big company, you need more partners, as it is hard to handle such a project alone. Such projects bring access to the expertise and management resources of the partners, and their connections above all.
There's something wrong with the system when you've got someone who can provide so much to a company and can be enthusiastic, but isn't management material or whatever. So a lot of that just gets defined as the person who speaks with the loudest voice and gets up there with the most arrogance and overly confident, chest-beating approach. Those are the ones that are going to get the golden ring.
I have more faith in doing something creative for a cable station or something like Yahoo or Google or Amazon. What Netflix did with 'House of Cards' and David Fincher was brilliant. That is inspiring to me. I think there is more chance for creativity in animation, it just hasn't happened there yet.
When you're starting a company, almost anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and it will probably look like and feel like you made the absolute wrong decision to start the company. If you're not absolutely determined to solve a problem or see something through, it might not make sense to keep going.
Even companies that do big business online struggle to be noticed by Google users. The Web, after all, is home to some 120 million Internet domains and tens of billions of indexed pages. But every company, big or small, can draw more Google traffic by using search-engine optimization - SEO, for short.
I thought heroin was evil and morally, myself, I thought that pot was okay. That it wasn't a bad thing and so therefore thought I wasn't doing a bad thing. I knew I was breaking the law but I thought that the law was wrong also. So I morally justified what I was doing.
So he's above the law because he's a celebrity or something. Just because you're Russell Crowe doesn't mean you can do whatever you like.
I think that argument is completely morally bankrupt, and I think people know that when they make it. There's a very big difference between having a sincere, passionate interest in a topic and being a paid shill. Particularly for PR firms, it's something they should really very strongly avoid: ever touching an article.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!