|
|
|
|
Bill Gates took a silly little operating system called DOS and turned it into a fortune. Isnt this what every American wants to do. I agree that Microsoft has done a lot of questionable things but do you actually think Mr. Gates is sitting in an office directing everything that the company does? I saw an interview with him one time, he had no idea how much money his house was costing to be built. Do you think he is concerned with the running of Microsoft? He hires people to make these decisions and see that things run well and make money. Bill Gates made his money, its his money, not yours, not mine, not anybodies but his. I saw another show that was talking about how much money he has given away. I dont remember the exact figure but it was millions and millions of dollars. He has provided scholorships for poor students, given money to schools who couldnt aford computers for the schools. In my state he gave a county a huge sum of money so they could update their library and paid for the internet connection. By the way, this is his money hes giving away, not Microsofts.
All the people who bitch and moan about how much money he has, they are just plain jealous. I hate hearing people who dont have complain about people who do and are just too lazy to get off their lazy asses.
Ok this tirade is over ;-D Happy happy everybody.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian,
>Do you think he is concerned with the running of Microsoft?
Of course he is. He is chairman and chief software architect. That means:
i. as chairman, he knows all major financial dealings, policy decisions, which companies to buy, which product lines to develop, how to relate to other companies.
ii. as chief software architect, he is at least responsible for overseeing how his products are put together, if not actually putting them together himself. However, as a manager, he is responsible for everything that his software developers do under him.
>I saw an interview with him one time, he had no idea how much money his house was costing to be built.
Many people won't know how much their houses will cost to be built until they are given a final quote by their developers. I don't think that's got anything to do with Microsoft.
>He hires people to make these decisions and see that things run well and make money.
No, he hires people to summarise the decisions and pass them to him for approval. Or tells other people to do things for him. He's not as concerned with the day-to-day running now he's Chairman and not CEO, but he is still very much in charge.
I'm not arguing against you, though, Brian. I don't like his company's products and business practices (do you like Wal-Mart, incidentally?), but I don't deny that he does good things with his money. I do think he has a lot more say in how his company runs that you think he does, however.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually dont have any idea how much Gates is involved with the company. the main point is people who cut him down for making money. I would like to be the richest man in the world.
As far as Walmart is concerned. Nobody has to shop there.
oh and the home was nearly finished. The news people knew what it cost. I guess it boils down to "If you ask how much it cost you cant aford it"
I would never argue with you, your too cute.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. No, there's nothing wrong with someone making a lot of money by being good at what he does. Nor is there any obligation for him to do anything with it, like giving it away or spending it -- though it's good for other people and good for the economy if he does.
I, personally, don't want to be the richest man in the world -- I would rather be considered the greatest film-maker.  (I sincerely doubt that's going to happen, though!) Film is one area where greatness is not really related to financial success. Stephen Spielberg, for instance, is very commercial and entertaining but not artistically groundbreaking. Art-house and independent films are often retrospectively regarded as incredibly significant, and yet they made no money at all. 'Course, you're entitled to disagree with me there.
Microsoft is a bit like Wal-Mart -- there are places where it's very difficult to buy from anywhere else. Certainly for people without a lot of money, I understand Wal-Mart is the only real "alternative". Consumer choice is reduced, and once these companies start getting to a certain size they start pushing smaller competitors out, as they can't compete or there isn't room for them. I don't think that's a very good thing in a free market, but it is probably inevitable.
Brian, I think you are really cute too (and I say that without any idea what you look like in real life!).
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings
I agree with you in that Mr. Gates sets corporate policy, and I don't like their attitude about competition and competitors. If they can't buy them, or usurp their idea/innovation, then they attempt to run them out of business.
I also think that in the long run the lack of open architecture will lessen the value of the platform.
Regards
Rick
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
I would never argue with you, your too cute.
David wrote:
Brian, I think you are really cute too
Ah. So here we have a mutual admiration society! Now that's double cute!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point being that Bill Gates is filthy rich and were not. While everybody is cutting him down he is laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings
Ethics and morals are not suppose to fluctuate based on one's bank balance. His wealth is of no interest to me, as my lack of it is of no interest to him.
I have made a point of avoiding his products because I don't agree with his corporate philosophy. I think it is very interesting that our government would sue Microsoft as a monopoly, and at the same time there are government websites that only work if you use IE.
Regards
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon said,
>I also think that in the long run the lack of open architecture will lessen the value of the platform.
True, true -- so that's why we should all be using open source, open operating systems such as GNU/Linux on hardware developed by open-source-friendly companies.
Actually, most hardware architectures these days are fairly open, in that they are supported by most major operating environments, many of which are open (the BSDs; Linux; other UNIXes; dozens of lesser operating systems). Windows is the only major closed software architecture.
Heaven knows what would have happened if Microsoft had taken an Apple-style approach and only let their operating system run on proprietary hardware. They probably wouldn't be in the position they are today, come to think of it. The worry is that now they have got there, they will try and make a closed architecture a requirement (for "security reasons"/to prevent piracy).
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon:
>I have made a point of avoiding [Bill Gates's] products because I don't agree with his corporate philosophy.
Out of interest, Simon, do you buy computers with Microsoft products pre-installed? What operating system do you run? Mac OS? Linux?
I'm a Linux person and I make a point of not buying duplicate software when I can help it. That said, I have a licence for Windows XP because it came with a laptop I bought a few years ago, so I am entitled to use Windows occasionally when I have no alternative.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government creates monopolies all the time. In our county only NES can supply electricity. Comcast is the only cable network.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the UK, BT (formerly British Telecom) owns practically all of the wired telephone network. However, as they have a former state-owned monopoly, they are heavily regulated to prevent them from abusing their position -- they are forced to license their network to competitors and let them install their own equipment at exchanges, etc. If NES or Comcast put in their networks themselves, then it is okay for them to have a monopoly: if another supplier wants to come along, they can still do the same. I don't know if that's the case or not.
There is a difference between simply having a monopoly (which is not illegal) and using it to force out potential competitors (which, I understand, is). It's all very complicated and I don't really pretend to understand it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope it won't happen but it wouldn't surprise me if MS attempted to do something like that. In Europe, at least, I hope that the EU would prevent such an idea from materializing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Deeej
Mostly I have handiman specials built by me, running lunix, dos(DR5) and xp (on the laptop that I use to interface with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protction.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
Greetings Deeej
Mostly I have handiman specials built by me, running lunix, dos(DR5) and xp (on the laptop that I use to interface with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protction.
Regards-
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First of all, I entirely agree with Brian that there is no justification for criticism of Bill Gates simply because of his financial success. It's certainly true that he is philanthropic to a degree rarely seen for over a century.
Secondly, I don't want to deliver a treatise on economics, but there are some features of monopolies which are certainly distasteful. Of course, all Governments have the ability to regulate competition, but several seem very reluctant to do so. We need to accept that man is naturally acquisitive. That characteristic not only drives entrepreneurs to ever greater achievements; it also breeds corruption and dishonesty.
The United Kingdom has been committed to free trade for centuries - slavishly so, in fact, because the government's failure to enter the grain market for fear of artificially inflating prices was perhaps the largest single factor causing the acute hardship following the Irish potato famine. Ulster - the North-Eastern quarter of Ireland - was exporting vast grain surpluses while the other three provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connaught were starving. The United States claims to support free trade, but in fact it has far more legislation insulating American businesses from competition that either the UK or the EU.
But if we are to have genuinely free trade, the government needs to have regulatory powers to prevent abuse of market influence. We have in the UK an agency with the imposing title of 'The Monopolies and Mergers Commission'; its function is to regulate monopolies, but it seems to do very little unless a take-over bid is made.
That's fine, as far as it goes. But Microsoft has been allowed to acquire such a large proportion of the world market that it has, in a very real sense, become immune to competition.
To use a couple of UK examples: there are three major groups which currently control the greater part of the public transport industry in the UK. If, in a given city, two groups hold sway, and one seeks to acquire the local interests of the other, the M&M Commision will step in to ensure that competition is not suppressed. That's fine; it happened in Liverpool not long ago. But consider what happened in Darlington, a largish town not far from where I live. Darlington Corporation was providing bus services, as it had done for decades. Enter Stagecoach Group (led, incidentally, by a self-admitted homophobe!), offering substantial incentives to Corporation drivers to resign from the Corporation and to work for Stagecoach. Result? The Corporation-owned bus company is forced into bankruptcy, and Stagecoach acquires control of urban services without competition. The passengers pay more, and - in the end - the drivers who defected to Stagecoach find themselves no better off than they were before. That's definitely not fine, but no-one intervened to prevent it from happening.
The sad fact is that Microsoft has followed the second of these routes far too often. It has used its market share to suppress competition, and that cannot be in anyone's interests. But the company was acting in an entirely predictable way, and the blame must lie at the door of the US government for allowing it to happen.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's lunix? A typo for Linux?
If you mean Linux, what distribution?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
No Message Body
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: cute 
