Did you make your fortune using unethical principles as you have described in this thread? Maybe similar strategies on a bigger scale?

Keep in mind that based on his posts he flies Coach. Business and First is always in Group 1.

If he collected his points as a travelling sales man then you can only assume.

What's odd, is the people who I have noticed cheating most frequently are middle aged women (some with mean looks and stubbly chins hahaha) well actually I have only noticed them ad they seem to be caught out most and stand next to check in like a lemon instead of heading for the back of the queue.

This is pretty far off topic, but I'll answer it: I merely rode the internet bubble, and cashed out when it was very obvious that we could not sustain the valuation that the market had given us. Actually, had I acted unethically, I could have locked in 2-3 times the amount that I actually did cash out. I made almost all of my money (mid 7 figures pre-tax) on one year of vested stock options that had gone up 14-fold from my strike price. Knowing as I did that we were not possibly going to sustain that valuation, I could have bought an option collar for the 3 additional years of options that had not yet vested by the time our over-valuation became public knowledge - but I didn't, because, as an officer with a fiduciary duty to attempt to maximize our stock's value, I took the position that trading in put options that only would be in the money if our stock price dropped would be a violation of that fiduciary duty.

The surprise was actually on me when I learned how many of my superiors in my own company as well as other officers in other companies within the same industry had done that regardless of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. And frankly, the SEC has only pursued the very largest of these folks - people who's cash-outs were in the 9-figure range who had used option collars to lock substantial gains when they knew full well their stock valuation was higher than would be sustainable.

And yes, I fly in coach, unless I can get an upgrade with an economical expenditure of miles. And no, I was never a salesman - I was a marketing director, and then later a VP of strategic business development - which basically involved using our over-inflated stock as currency in acquiring adjacent technologies and product portfolios to our own.

Off topic but just wanted to say that I applaud your choice.

Steve Jobs did not make any single stride (large or small) in science or literature.

Not true. Pixar, which Jobs was one of the founders and major source of funding for, is the most influential creator of computer generated graphics in the arts that exists anywhere. He also made major strides in "etc." And the question I replied to specifically asked about "science, literature, etc." And in fact he created one of the most successful, influential, and valuable companies on the planet in Apple Computer, as well as being instrumental in the creation of the most important company in the field of of computer generated real time 3D graphics in Pixar, certainly qualifies him.

Actually it doesn't. Being innovative in packaging an existing collection of knowledge into polished commercial products does not equate to making strides in science! There were nothing scientifically new about any of the technology underlying the products and services provided by Pixar or Apple computer. From the concrete stuff like the gui/mouse (Xerox engineers), to the abstract stuff like the Hairy ball theorem (Henri Poincare), or the theoretical foundation of computing (Godel, Turing, Church), were not contributed to in any form whatsoever by Steve Jobs.

I don't think however Steve Jobs has necessarily cheated though (he knew how to play the game within the rules for the most part) so in my mind he is not like the people who cheats boarding zones. Those people deserve to be sent to back of the line!

Pixar made fundamental strides in the creation of art - specifically, the use of computer graphics in cinematography. And in actual fact, Jobs cheated Wozniak out of his full share of the proceeds during the creation of the circuit board for the original Apple 1 by lying to him about how much they were going to be paid for it, and he has always been known to push beyond the rules.

In any case, the "etc." I was referring to was the creating of massive wealth and the first broadly useful products out of existing technology, where the wealth and useful products did not exist before, which is arguably a more important achievement for humanity than the underlying technology itself is.

Not reading seven pages of this crap, all I will say is that if the just-world theory is legitimate, people who intentionally board before their zone is called probably belong in the like the first circle of Dante's Inferno. Like the folks who don't re-rack their weights at the gym, or help themselves to half the serving tray at a buffet when it just got replenished, they are not bad enough to be in the bottom circles.

I wish GAs would actively deny boarding to people who are out of line. The scanner should make a loud buzzing sound and the GA should politely inform them that it's not their turn to board. Should they raise a stink, security can be called.

Just board in your damn group people, it ain't hard.

Nobody said it was hard - the issue is the financial risk that I might need to incur in doing so. And if I were guaranteed a place in the overhead bin for camera gear that is too valuable to stow as checked bags, I would. Until the Airlines can assure me that any item in my carry-on bags would be replaced at full replacement value if it is lost or stolen while it's on their watch between my checking the bag and my receiving my bags from baggage claim, I am forced to seek other means of protecting my valuable possessions. And under the current situation, the only means I know of to do that is to assure that I get a space in a bin that is within my field of vision during the flight.

People keep talking about what is or is not reasonable here. I ask this: Is it reasonable that airlines do not fully cover the cost of lost or stolen high value possessions while they are in their care on the way to/from the baggage hold? If you believe that this is reasonable, then I would counter that taking the necessary measures to protect my valuables from theft on a flight is at least as reasonable - and I don't know how to do that under the current conditions if the bags containing those valuables are forced to be outside of my control while boarding and during the duration of the flight.

lhgreengd, I agree with you 100%. But the airline apologists will say you should not travel with such valuable carry-on, because you cannot guarantee with certainty that you will never be forced to check your bag.

Do you never fly connecting flights? What if your first leg is delayed, and you end up being one of the last to board your connector flight?

What if you are stopped by TSA during one if their infamous gate checks? 50 people go past you while TSA paws through your bags and gives you a massage.

That's a fair point, and I do agree that airlines should be held responsible for the luggage that they carry.

I suppose no rule is always 100% fair when applied 100% of the time. Let me put it this way: there's a difference between someone in your situation and someone who just wants to get on early for the sake of getting on early.

If you really have EXPENSIVE camera "stuff", independent of airline issues (you don't spend 100% of your time flying:p), having a rider to your homeowners insurance to cover these would be prudent.
Hypothetical: the airline does cover camera equip. in checked luggage--but through negligence on your part (it was improperly packed by you), it gets tricky in placing the blame. The way airlines unbundled fees, maybe they should charge extra (in addition to luggage fees), separately for insurance.:D--I don't think the airlines want to become insurance agents.

:cool: