Paul Allen the 'Accidental Zillionaire'

What is a zillionaire? by ytr · 2005-12-25 22:41 · Score: 4, Funny

millionaire - so common, the hoi polloi
billionaire - fewer, somewhat dodgy
trillionaire - hmmm tricky, size of the US deficit .....
zillionaire - more money than that?

Re:What is a zillionaire? by ciroknight · 2005-12-25 22:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

zillionaire - more money than what?

Jeebus.

Anyways, I would hardly call it "accidential". It wasn't any accident that Microsoft got to license their OS to the IBM (and compatible) machines, it was cold and calculated. While they might not have known they'd end up being some of the richest people to have ever lived, they had to have known that they were never going to have to worry about money again in their lives.

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 22:59 · Score: 0

Yeah, but does he run Linux?
Re:What is a zillionaire? by alicenextdoor · 2005-12-25 23:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Marital status: Single
Worth: $US21 billion, seventh richest person in the world, says Forbes Magazine, 2005
A clear case of too many LAN parties...

--
of course, biting monkeys is not to everyone's taste - Konrad Lorenz
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Trurl's+Machine · 2005-12-25 23:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyways, I would hardly call it "accidential". It wasn't any accident that Microsoft got to license their OS to the IBM (and compatible) machines, it was cold and calculated. While they might not have known they'd end up being some of the richest people to have ever lived, they had to have known that they were never going to have to worry about money again in their lives.

Since early 1980's? Probably they knew that. But in early 1970's, Allen and Gates were just a couple of nerdy students, sharing a belief that the future is in household computers. While in that age everyone else shared a belief that a "computer" is meant to be maintained and operated only by specially trained staff wearing laboratory overalls. Yes, their deal with IBM was no accident but in order to get that deal, they had to establish their position in the 8-bit personal computing world - writing BASIC for Altair and Apple, and lot of stuff for CP/M (originally that was the IBM's system of choice for their first PC). That was largely an accident - lots of companies active in the 8-bit market (such as Altair or Digital Research, makers of the CP/M) simply didn't make it in 1980's.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by hendersj · 2005-12-25 23:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, I don't know that I'd call it accidental, but there was a rather significant luck factor involved; if Gary Kildall had pursued the opportunity (and there are several stories about why he didn't - ranging from opting to fly his plane instead of meet with IBM to refusing to sign an NDA; according to Gordon Eubanks, Kildall just wasn't interested in porting CP/M to the 8088 processor). If Seattle Computer Products hadn't sold QDOS to MicroSoft, things also would have been pretty different.

--
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by theGeekDude · 2005-12-25 23:13 · Score: 1

Exactly how many billions make a zillion?

--
Dont waste you time reading stupid sigs like this.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by ceeam · 2005-12-25 23:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Since early 1980's? Probably they knew that. But in early 1970's, Allen and Gates were just a couple of nerdy students, sharing a belief that the future is in household computers.

And I guess having very rich parents with "connections" helps too.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by aussie_a · 2005-12-26 00:06 · Score: 2, Funny

It depends if you're talking American zillions or real zillions. Much like with billionaires, Americans like to have a fairly low bar (comparitively speaking of course) for zillionaires.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by QuantumG · 2005-12-26 01:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Gates' father's influence on Microsoft can't be ignored. He taught his son a healthy respect for the law. That is, always stay within the letter of the law but feel free to bend it as much as possible and if you do feel the desire to break it, try to find a good patsy to hide behind. I can remember having a long argument with a coworker about Microsoft not paying any taxes. His opinion was that Microsoft is following the letter of the law and therefore is doing nothing wrong. My opinion was that Microsoft is just sponging off the community by refusing to pay any taxes, even if it means paying more for tax lawyers than they would have to pay in taxes if they weren't so set on not paying taxes. And the fact that they force their employees to accept stock which has absolutely no value so they can avoid taxes, implicating every one of them in their immoral actions is most deplorable.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Gorshkov · 2005-12-26 01:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

While they might not have known they'd end up being some of the richest people to have ever lived, they had to have known that they were never going to have to worry about money again in their lives.

Hardly. IBM, when they came out with the original PC, estimated that total sales for the PC would be in the neighbourhood of about 250,000 for the life of the product. Back then, IBM worked on 5-10 year product cycles.

If anything, at their most optimistic, they probably hoped it would settle their student loans.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Liam+Slider · 2005-12-26 02:43 · Score: 1

writing BASIC for Altair and Apple, and lot of stuff for CP/M (originally that was the IBM's system of choice for their first PC)
You mean extorting, and blackmailing...tactics that Gates was a master at even back then.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by sheridan3003 · 2005-12-26 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Chance favors the prepared mind.

They were lucky, but they also had some idea of what they were getting into. Taking advantage of an opportunity means recognizing that you have an opportunity to take advantage of.

--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougneedham
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 03:17 · Score: 0

millionaire - so common, the hoi polloi
billionaire - fewer, somewhat dodgy
trillionaire - hmmm tricky, size of the US deficit .....
zillionaire - more money than that?

To put it simply: Allen is richer than God, and Gates is richer than Allen.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by writermike · 2005-12-26 04:03 · Score: 1

Anyways, I would hardly call it "accidential".

Heh. That reminds me of that Louie Anderson joke.

"People would say, 'Does he know he's that fat?'
Like I woke up one morning and said, 'oh noooooooooooooooooooooo...'"

--
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by metlin · 2005-12-26 04:22 · Score: 1

There are several kids with rich parents and connections who amount to nothing. Credit them for being enterprising enough to have used it well. In their position, if you had such connections, would not have?
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 04:31 · Score: 1, Funny

I'd like some of this Microsoft stock that has absolutely no value. If you have any around just taking up space, let me know and I'll get it out of your way.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by DoctorFrog · 2005-12-26 04:34 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I understand President Bush got very upset upon learning that three Brazilian soldiers had died in Iraq.
"How did we go from a couple of thousand to three brazillion?!?"
Re:What is a zillionaire? by diegof79 · 2005-12-26 04:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait

>Since early 1980's? Probably they knew that. But in early 1970's, Allen and
>Gates were just a couple of nerdy students, sharing a belief that the
>future is in household computers.While in that age everyone else shared a
>belief that a "computer" is meant to be maintained and operated only by
>specially trained staff wearing laboratory overalls.

This sounds like an history rewrite from Orwell's 1984.
Probably in early 1970's, Allen and Gates only want to do money.
Note that in 60's a group of people started to develop personal computers, see http://www.smalltalk.org/smalltalk/TheEarlyHistory OfSmalltalk_Abstract.html.
(in fact they develop things that even today are advanced, ie. compare the early St with Java/C#)

So don't believe this lie. Gates and Allen weren't "visionaries" of personal computers.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Tablizer · 2005-12-26 06:59 · Score: 1

Yes, their deal with IBM was no accident but in order to get that deal, they had to establish their position in the 8-bit personal computing world - writing BASIC for Altair and Apple, and lot of stuff for CP/M (originally that was the IBM's system of choice for their first PC). That was largely an accident - lots of companies active in the 8-bit market...simply didn't make it in 1980's.

You mean there were other 8-bit BASIC interpreter writers back then? If so, didn't Gate's team have a jump start on them? Plus, Gate's Basic was becoming a defacto standard. If you went with another party you risked imcompatibility, and ROM was too expensive to spend extra code on compatibility issues.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Phantom+Zmoove · 2005-12-26 07:18 · Score: 1

Yes but those rich kids who amount to nothing are still living better than me, and I work my ass off everyday. If you start at the top, its harder to fail. I'm leaning in the direction of, had they not started off rich, they never would have gotten to where they are today.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by metlin · 2005-12-26 07:51 · Score: 1

I'm not saying it's fair, just that a lot of those rich kids while away doing nothing, rather than use the connections to make it big in life.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 08:47 · Score: 0

A person's marital status cannot be single. A person's civil status can be single.
Marital refers to marriaga and that (at least as far as I know) means two people
in some kind of union.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by The-Bus · 2005-12-26 10:42 · Score: 1

Well, he's smart. If he was married, he'd be off the top twenty. If he had kids, he'd be off the top 50. Don't you know how expensive it ia to buy an Xbox 360 off eBay nowadays? And you'd know he'd have to get a bunch for his nieces and nephews.

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:What is a zillionaire? by siriuskase · 2005-12-26 11:18 · Score: 1

Just because some rich, well connected kids amount to nothing doesn't mean it's worthless. A lot more kids without rich, well connected parents amount to nothing. And some talented, hard working kids without rwcp wind up in the burbs with lazy rich kids. Many and connections aint everything, but it helps.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:What is a zillionaire? by jZnat · 2005-12-26 16:06 · Score: 1

Good job bastardising that joke.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:What is a zillionaire? by DoctorFrog · 2005-12-26 17:20 · Score: 1

Thank you sir! One good bastard deserves another, as they say (or should).
Re:What is a zillionaire? by rtb61 · 2005-12-29 13:27 · Score: 1

What is interesting is how the turned out once they had made their money. One seems content to enjoy and invest in new and different businesses and the other uses it to damage co-operative open source software development and the future it brings in bridging the digital divide, whilst manipulating politics and bringing modern marketing to new levels of deciet because he still doesn't have enough (his penchant for repeatadly manipulating tax avoiding charitable pledges for maximum marketing purposes and the political manipulation of less wealthy countries, is well known).
For one you good say good luck and enjoy, for the other just go away and choke on your own greed and ego. Old saying; it's ok to be rich, it's ok to be greedy but it is in terribly, terribly poor taste to be both i.e. with a lot of money you can do a lot of damage to your own society in your in-ability to sate your own greed, whilst paying no heed to the damage you do.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:What is a zillionaire? by QuantumG · 2006-01-01 14:59 · Score: 1

Here's what you do. Issue your employees options to buy stock at 10% greater than market value at the time of exercising. Now you can immediately claim those options as a loss. Your employees don't need to claim them as a capital gain until they excercise them, which they never will because they can get a better deal on the open market. There ya go, you just printed your own tax credits.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

EMP by Valcoramizer · 2005-12-25 22:42 · Score: 1

I bet he smashes the guitar... no? It's early.

--
We raise our slide-rules high.

Re:EMP by Ucklak · 2005-12-26 01:24 · Score: 1

just chairs.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-12-25 22:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

He did well by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 22:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Investing in the right company means he did something right.. That also means that he was not a rich man by accident.

Still I wonder why so many geeks are online on x-mas. Oh wait, I am too.

NO CARRIER

Re:He did well by Debiant · 2005-12-25 23:09 · Score: 1

What, is it Christmas already?!
I was just yesterday surfing!

Gosh, I guess installing linux really takes some time...;-)

--
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
Re:He did well by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

You expect to get a score 5 for funny now, dont you?... wish your comments where hot like me...
Re:He did well by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 00:39 · Score: 1

Investing in the right company means he did something right..

He probably wrote the lion's share of the BASIC interpreter that brought MS into existence, (it's pretty well documented that BG's coding skills are mostly a PR fantasy.)

After that, it was mostly luck: IBM pissing off Gary Kildall and having to come to MS for a CP/M knock-off, and then MS being in the right place and time to catch IBM's fumble in the whole PS/2-OS/2 debacle.

I believe he quit Microsoft due to illness by jt2377 · 2005-12-25 23:05 · Score: 1

i think that's when he call it quit. he and bill was at the right place at the right time. it didn't hurt when bill's mom was able to arrange a meeting for him with IBM. MS-DOS, baby!

Re:I believe he quit Microsoft due to illness by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:57 · Score: 0

Thanks for adding that to the discussion, it never mentioned that in the article, oh wait, yes it did.
Re:I believe he quit Microsoft due to illness by westlake · 2005-12-26 00:16 · Score: 1

it didn't hurt when bill's mom was able to arrange a meeting for him with IBM. MS-DOS, baby!
Microsoft had become the dominant player in microcomputer languages. Gates was not an unknown quantity to IBM.
Re:I believe he quit Microsoft due to illness by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 01:09 · Score: 0

MS-DOS, baby!

MotherS-Dos!

His hompage by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:06 · Score: 4, Funny

http://www.paulallen.com/

It runs on IIS. What are the odds?

Re:His hompage by oztiks · 2005-12-26 01:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Doesnt account for the fact the site was written in Dreamweaver and not Frontpage.

Badly mind you, the footer is full of  's .... nasty
Re:His hompage by DigiShaman · 2005-12-26 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Even worse, I cannot use the back-button in IE. It's an ego-webpage-trap.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

So... by AgentX24 · 2005-12-25 23:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Does that make the rest of us accidental nillionaires?

Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm a multi-nillionaire. Now excuse me, sir, while I firmly stick my nose up in the air.

ISS by Debiant · 2005-12-25 23:12 · Score: 1

Higher than running with ISS?

--
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line

Not a more perfect plan for world domination... by Zantetsuken · 2005-12-25 23:15 · Score: 1

With the removal of the hyphen and thanks to some clever software, astute deals, a once-in-a-lifetime deal with IBM and a touch of ruthlessness, world domination followed.

Muahahaha

In the book Hard Drive, authors James Wallace and Jim Erickson say that Allen was a much easier person to get along with. While Gates was often impossible, prone to fits of temper and an uncompromising workaholic, Allen had a life outside of work. He was interested in technology, rock music and science fiction. "Paul tended to be a lot more patient about things than Bill. That was always a very nice counter," Wallace and Erickson quote an early Microsoft employee.

sounds like Gates was kinda a whiner...

last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...

Re:Not a more perfect plan for world domination... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:22 · Score: 1, Informative

last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...

Not really. What would you do? A zillion in unrealised P&L as stock and a desire for big boats. I'd sell too - and he's described as having interests outside work - so why not? And I think there's proably a few people with a lot of faith in their organisation but still hold less than $3 billion in stock. Why hold for stock based gains when you've more money than you, your family and probably everyone you know will ever need?
Re:Not a more perfect plan for world domination... by LordLucless · 2005-12-25 23:52 · Score: 1

Or he's just a cautious investor and wanted to diversify? Don't keep all your eggs in the same basket, and all that.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Not a more perfect plan for world domination... by aussie_a · 2005-12-26 00:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...

I think it's more likely he began to want (or perhaps needed) to liquidate his funds. He doesn't actually have a job now, right? If not, then his expensive lifestyle (from his homes and boats to his football teams and charity work) is a drain on his money. I'm sure he's planned it so he'll never have to worry about money ever again, nor will his favourite family members, but that plan most likely does involve liquidating his Microsoft stock. After all, I doubt he cares enough about Microsoft to use his stock to play an active role (does his stock give him enough power to play a role? I'm not sure how much $3 billion actually is in terms of Microsoft stock, although yes, I do realise it's a lot ;)). So what else is he going to do with it? I'm sure he'll leave more then enough to look after those he cares about.
Re:Not a more perfect plan for world domination... by mc6809e · 2005-12-26 00:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

last of all: "Allen has been selling his Microsoft shares since he left the company, but still owns more than $3 billion worth.", sounds like somebody started to loose faith in the company there...

Well, if he wants to own anything other than a piece of microsoft, he'll have to sell those shares. Living in a shack with $3 billion in paper wealth is silly. Of course he wants to turn those shares into other things.

largest yacht by realkiwi · 2005-12-25 23:18 · Score: 1

Isn't Larry's yacht the new largest?

--
realkiwi

Re:largest yacht by blosphere · 2005-12-25 23:24 · Score: 5, Informative

No, The largest yatch is owned by the Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the Crown Prince of Dubai, the name is 'Platinum'

Allen's boat was designed by the same company btw.

I do think he has the biggest yatch in US
Linky. http://www.bostonboating.com/platinum.htm
Re:largest yacht by realkiwi · 2005-12-26 00:21 · Score: 1

Oh that's finished now? I saw a show on TV in November and the boat was still being built when it was filmed. Hmm April launch. Thanks! So Larry was biggest for a few months. I still think his yacht is the best looking.

--
realkiwi
Re:largest yacht by JeremyALogan · 2005-12-26 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative
Here's a link to a page with lots and lots of pictures of Paul's boat, "Octopus" (outside pics only). If you poke around the site a bit you can also find a page of pictures for the "Platinum" as well as several other ships that are larger than Octopus.

Some other interesting things that apparently came with it:
- Tender - 63ft "Man of War"
- Submarine - Nomad 1000 (world's first luxury submarine)
- Helicopter - Sirkorsky S76
--
Jeremy Logan's Website.
Re:largest yacht by daBass · 2005-12-26 02:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Not sure if you can call a yacht belonging to any crown prince "privately owned", though.

Maybe legally, but if you are heir of a dictator monarchy with a license to print money (ie: open the oil wells), it certainly isn't as impressive as it belonging to some nerd who actually founded a company...
Re:largest yacht by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 02:30 · Score: 0

Download the Powerpoint presentation found in this article...http://www.yachtcrew-cv.com/paulallen.ht m I believe the yacht has 2 helicopters (and 2 helipads!), a 10 man sub, and 7 tenders. Nice ride!
Re:largest yacht by coastal984 · 2005-12-26 13:21 · Score: 1

Yes, it is. Power & Motoryacht Magazine does an annual list of the largest private yachts - Larry's tops the list: Link

Allen bought Washington state referendum by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:19 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWel fare_Nader.html

Hijacking local democracy

Perhaps nothing illustrates the ruthlessness and shameless power plays of the corporate welfare kings than their extortionate demands for state and local subsidies on threat of picking up and moving elsewhere.

And no case illustrates the hijacking of democratic procedures more clearly than billionaire Paul Allen's buying of an especially-made-for-Allen Washington state referendum to approve $300 million in public subsidies to build a football stadium for his Seattle Seahawks. Mega-billionaire Allen, co-founder of Microsoft with Bill Gates and one of the richest men in the world, bought the referendum both literally and figuratively.

In a stunningly brazen maneuver, he paid the state of Washington for the costs of running the special referendum election in June 1997. Although later challenged as a violation of the state's constitution, the state Supreme Court upheld the private financing of the election. But even the Supreme Court majority which upheld the constitutionality of the election purchase blanched at its political ramifications. "Troubling questions may arise, such as whether any wealthy entity could persuade the legislature to place a measure on the ballot provided the costs of the election were paid," wrote Justice Barbara Madsen for the majority.

Having paid for the issue to get on the ballot, Allen then waged a $6.3 million campaign-the most expensive in Washington state history-to convince voters to support the $300 million public subsidy to the stadium. He devoted $2.3 million to radio and TV ads. In total, Allen outspent opponents of the referendum by a 42-to-1 margin.

Allen's investment proved just enough: Washington voters, initially opposed by overwhelming numbers to the idea of public funding for the stadium, approved the referendum with a 51 percent majority.

Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Kierthos · 2005-12-25 23:27 · Score: 1

Okay, then if he's a mega-billionaire, and paid for the cost of the election and many millions for a media campaign... why the hell didn't he just pay for the stadium himself?

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Hungry+Admin · 2005-12-25 23:33 · Score: 1

You don't get rich by spending 300 million dollars instead of just greasing the skids with 10 or 20 million and letting taxes do the rest for you...

--
Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by TallMatthew · 2005-12-25 23:33 · Score: 1

A $6.3M political investment to avoid spending $300M for a new football stadium? Nice play. Go Seahawks.
Maybe Google will buy the 49ers and we can replace Candlestick with something fancy. Googlestick? I like it.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by jcr · 2005-12-26 00:41 · Score: 1

..and yet, for all that, he could only cast one vote, right?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 01:34 · Score: 0

As far as I know, Candlestick is known as Monster Park.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 01:37 · Score: 0

You are a naive dumbass. Money makes the legions of idiots vote a certain way. Look at the fuckheads in California who said "NO" to some mild reforms (reform being the reasons they tossed out Davis and put in Arnold in the first place) and also said "NO" to getting rid of gerrymandering, one of the worst cancers ever to afflict the democratic process. All because the state employee unions spent hundreds of millions on lying ads.
This is NOT democracy. Rich people buying the votes of morons is not democracy.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Kierthos · 2005-12-26 01:45 · Score: 1

Okay, true... it just seems like every year I hear about some football or baseball team owner bitching about the host city not wanting to buy a new stadium (in some cases for no other reason that the old stadium has lost the 'new car' smell), so I'm a little touchy about mega-billionaires trying to soak taxpayers to pay for a new stadium when, in Allen's case, he could probably just ask Bill Gates to check behind the couch cushions and find $300 mil to fund the damn thing.

But hey, I'm more of a Steelers fan then a Seahawks fan. (Actually, I'm more of a Dolphins fan then a Seahawks fan, and I )^$#'ing hate the Dolphins.)

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by B5Fan · 2005-12-26 03:11 · Score: 1

a 42-to-1 margin

So 42 is the answer!

--
Borg:"Lawsuits are irrelevant. GPL3 is irrelevant. DRM is good. We understand security... Alert! MS are assimilating us!
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by jcr · 2005-12-26 06:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

You are a naive dumbass

My, what an articulate rebuttal of my statement. You must be one of those sore losers I keep seeing around here.

Rich people buying the votes of morons is not democracy.

Rich people spending their money on propaganda isn't buying votes, paying people cash for their votes is. If you have evidence of vote buying, tell the relevant authorities; it's a felony, and you have a duty to report it.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by defaria · 2005-12-26 06:50 · Score: 1

Paying the costs for running a special referendum is not purchasing a state referendum. Spending money to advertise is also not buying a state referendum. Are you so stupid to believe this? Are you that mindless that if somebody spends a bunch of money on advertising for a proposition you are somehow gonna change your mind and vote for something you previously thought was a bad idea? If so then all I can say is you deserve what you get!
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by sarge+apone · 2005-12-26 06:58 · Score: 1, Funny

Wow, such objective reporting. They seemed to get all their facts straight then presented this unbiased article to a wide general-interest audience. Let's mod this "+5, Informative" for well-rounded news reporting!

--
Best Free Utilities for Windows
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by antispam_ben · 2005-12-26 08:13 · Score: 1

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWel fare_Nader.html

Hijacking local democracy

Perhaps nothing illustrates the ruthlessness and shameless power plays of the corporate welfare kings than their extortionate demands for state and local subsidies on threat of picking up and moving elsewhere.

So far it sounds like a professional sports team/franchise.

...an especially-made-for-Allen Washington state referendum to approve $300 million in public subsidies to build a football stadium for his Seattle Seahawks.

Oh, it IS...

I don't condone or defend this action (the private leveraging of public funds) in any way, but this (threatening to leave, "we need better facilities so The Public can better enjoy Major League Sports, it'll make more jobs," bla bla bla) is Standard Operating Procedure for most any major sports team in any major city to get a better stadium and such.

--
Tag lost or not installed.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by LtOcelot · 2005-12-26 10:10 · Score: 1

Some people are indeed that stupid and buyable, and Allen used them to drag down the 49% who weren't fooled. Presumably the poster you're responding to would have been numbered in the latter group.

On a side note, count this as another piece of evidence for why "winner-takes-all-with-simple-majority" systems are inherently crap.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by MojoStan · 2005-12-26 12:40 · Score: 1
I also don't want to condone or defend P. Allen's actions regarding the $300 million referendum, but the deal seems reasonable to me (with my limited knowledge of the situation) when you include some details that the GP conveniently left out of his comment:
- Although Quest Field and Exhibition Center was built primarily for P. Allen's Seahawks, the stadium is owned by the city of Seattle, not P. Allen.
- The stadium/exhibition center's initial budget (minus overruns) was $430 million. P. Allen agreed to pay the remaining $130 million plus cost overruns if the $300 million referendum passed. That must be the most any pro sports owner has ever paid for a stadium that wasn't his.
--
TO START PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by Nethead · 2005-12-26 14:51 · Score: 1

AND the Seahawks had a 13-2 season this year!

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Re:Allen bought Washington state referendum by EternityInterface · 2005-12-28 15:44 · Score: 0

Rich people spending their money on propaganda = democracy

?

--
the sun is god

Achievement list... by Chaffar · 2005-12-25 23:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Born: January 21, 1953, Seattle, Washington 1975: Co-founds Microsoft Corporation with Bill Gates 1983: Develops Hodgkin's disease

So this man is responsible for the development of Microsoft AND Hodgkin's disease? The man's the devil himself :0!

Re:Achievement list... by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2005-12-26 07:50 · Score: 1

Blasphemer
--Bill Gates
Re:Achievement list... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 10:22 · Score: 0

And he created Ticketmaster. Evil indeed.

Cramer said Allen is an idiot by BadassJesus · 2005-12-25 23:37 · Score: 1

Allen sank Charter Communication when Cramer was on board (held large long position).
Cramer even called him "bad guy" 3x times on his show when he was discussing his fund loses.
One of the funniest Real Money shows ever aired though.

Re:Cramer said Allen is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 00:29 · Score: 0

Most anything that Paul touches turns to crap. He's developing a huge Belltown (hip, expensive area in Seattle) condo building -- I advise everyone to sell now as real estate prices can only go down now.

Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-25 23:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Northwest franchises and real estate: Seattle Seahawks NFL football (First and Goal, Stadium construction company, includes all proceeds from new stadium, exhibition hall, and related revenues); Portland Trailblazers NBA basketball (Rose Garden Arena); South Lake Union Seaport Park redevelopment; Formal Naval Reserve Base (a 12 acre, $35 million park); Lake Union (223,000 square feet total ownership, $400 million total development costs so far); Quendall Landing in Renton (68 acres mixed business and residential real estate, $500 million to develop so far); Experience Music Project; Cinerama; Union Station & surrounding real estate; and leases extensive space at Smith Tower. International real estate: The Hospital--an Art space in Camden, England. Radio: KEXP (Seattle, non-commercial, underwriting agreement with Univ. of Washington); OneOnOne Sports (radio syndication network, also owns three commercial radio stations in Chicago); and two commercial radio stations in Portland. Charity and other organizations: Clear Blue sky--Production company for Indy films; The Paul G. Allen Foundation for Medical Research; The Allen Foundation for the Arts; The Allen Foundation for Music; The Paul G. Allen Forest Protection Foundation; and The Paul G. Allen Virtual Education Foundation. Cash: $28 billion in assets; $1.04 billion in public funds. Investments through Vulcan Ventures (Full or partial ownership): 800.com; Allegiance Telecom Inc.; Aluentive; Apex Learning; ARI Network Services; BOPS; Caspian Networks; Charter Communications; click2learn.com; Colorado Microdisplay; Command Audio; Cyber Source; Dick's Clothing and Sporting Goods; Diego Broadband Inc.; Dreamworks SKG; Drugstore.com; e-Media, LLC; e-Steel; Edison Schools; Encryptix, Inc.; eStyle, Inc.; Fantasma Networks; Fatbrain.com; Genomix; Go2Net Inc.; HarvardNet Inc.; Health Answers Inc.; High Speed Access Corp.; IFILM; imandi.com; Installations Inc.; inviso; iVast; IVT; Kestrel Solutions; LiquidAudio Inc. Magis Networks; Metricom Inc.; myplay Inc.; NetSchools Corp.; Northpoint Communications; oncology.com; OnePage Inc.; Oxygen Media; Paraform Inc.; RCN Corportation; Replay TV Inc.; RioPort Inc.; Rocket Network Inc. Sandbox.com; ScienceMedia; Sharewave Inc.; Stamps.com; Structural GenomiX; TechTV; Terra Stor; The Sporting News; Transmeta; Triscend Corporation; Tularik Inc.; USA Networks Inc.; Versata Inc.; Vulcan Northwest Inc.; Vulcan Ventures Inc.; Wavetrace; Wink Comm; and Xcyte Therapies.

Re:FYI by tomythius · 2005-12-26 00:22 · Score: 1

Vulcan Ventures Inc. I thought doctor evil owned this? A link maybe?

--
Tom says so, QED.

Re:FYI by ian_mackereth · 2005-12-26 00:41 · Score: 2, Funny

It's an Australian paper, so that's not a football franchise, it's a gridiron team.

And we don't care.

Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 00:43 · Score: 0

The information you have given is very interesting and I wonder where you got it from and if your interested in sharing that information , thanks for the information already provided anyway.

Correction by word+munger · 2005-12-26 00:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Allen and Gates went to the Lakeside School, not the nonexistent Lakewood School. Whatever.

--
ScienceSeeker.org

Re:Correction by gangien · 2005-12-26 20:17 · Score: 1

yeah and how much that school has changed apparently... with all their donations. but whatever, my senior year in HS we kicked their ass in their homecoming game :)

No accident by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 01:04 · Score: 0

Personally, I arrived at my impoverished state through careful, meticulous planning.

So he's single? Why is that? by putko · 2005-12-26 01:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You read TFA and it turns out he's single, and he's living with his mom (well, mom lives in his giant housing compound, with him).

It must drive his mom nuts. No grandchildren. A genetic cul-de-sac. And he's one of the richest guys in the US? If he isn't gay, he's kinda screwing up here.

One would think that with all that money, he could just rent wombs from desperate women, impregnate them and so on. Then his mom would stop the nagging.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:So he's single? Why is that? by Saint+Stephen · 2005-12-26 04:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Paul Allen is indeed a homosexual. As is Charles Simonyi. (Not a joke.) Geez, I thought this had been common knowledge for about a million years.
Re:So he's single? Why is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 07:10 · Score: 0

Think for a minute. He can have the hottest, most compliant call-girls money can buy delivered to his house in 30 minutes or less, and not even notice the credit card bill. A man can have children at any age, he's probably just having a good time for now.

IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by tomcres · 2005-12-26 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, it doesn't matter whether IBM picked up on DOS, CP/M, or something else. IBM was a business machine, almost never found in homes. Why would you use it at home? There were cheaper computers better suited for home applications available from Commodore, Atari, and Apple (OK, Apple wasn't all that cheap, but still cheaper than IBM at the time).

What really made the PC ubiquitously popular was Compaq's reverse-engineering of the IBM BIOS. This meant that you no longer had to pay top dollar for something that was truly IBM compatible. This, coupled with the adoption of the ISA bus by all of the PC manufacturers, is what made the PC the king of the hill. All of a sudden, Intel (and others) had a real incentive to make faster, more capable CPUs (because IBM wasn't the only game in town anymore for the x86), and because of standards like the ISA bus, card manufacturers had a broader audience to develop things like SoundBlaster. It was because of this opening up of the hardware to virtually anyone that the PC became popular. It had absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft or DOS. Remember, also, that Microsoft also produced the BASIC in every single Commodore 8-bit computer from the PET through the 128, and so they made money on the millions of those sold, in addition to MS-DOS/PC-DOS.

Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by qzulla · 2005-12-26 06:02 · Score: 1

Remember, also, that Microsoft also produced the BASIC in every single Commodore 8-bit computer from the PET through the 128, and so they made money on the millions of those sold, in addition to MS-DOS/PC-DOS.
They also wrote the BASIC for the Amiga. AFAIK the only MS product for it.
And it kinda sucked. A lot.
qz
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by MetaKey · 2005-12-26 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, IBM published the BIOS openly. You could purchase it directly from IBM for $60. It arrived in a nice 3 ring binder. It was very well documented and the actual assembler source code was included. I now deeply regret having disposed of my copy - probably 20 years ago...
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by hendersj · 2005-12-26 06:58 · Score: 1

It probably would've made a difference to Paul Allen and his zillions of dollars, which was the topic of discussion to which I was referring.

If Kildall had taken to producing an OS for the PC, MicroSoft may never have had the chance to produce BASIC for it, and those who made their millions/billions may not have been quite so successful.

--
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by damsa · 2005-12-26 07:36 · Score: 1

They also made Basic for the Apple IIs. That's how Microsoft leveraged Apple to do stuff on the Mac, like remove MacBasic from the market.
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by sgt_doom · 2005-12-26 09:46 · Score: 1

You hit it exactly right - I believe it has a name: SYNERGY.
The synergy of the moment catapulted what should have been a rather mediocre company into the stellar limits of finance. Such is life....
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by ignavus · 2005-12-26 14:21 · Score: 2, Informative

"What really made the PC ubiquitously popular was Compaq's reverse-engineering of the IBM BIOS."

Um, wasn't it *Phoenix Technologies* that reverse engineered the IBM BIOS, i.e. produced an IBM-compatible BIOS so that other manufacturers could make IBM clones?

--
I am anarch of all I survey.
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by Nethead · 2005-12-26 14:45 · Score: 1

You, sir, are correct.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Re:IBM didn't make a difference; Compaq did by Nethead · 2005-12-26 14:56 · Score: 1

Don't forget the RadioShack TRS-80's, CoCo, and TRS-100 (laptop.) Do you still say Trash-80 when talking about them? ;)

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

He's a Virus Developer! I knew it! by oztiks · 2005-12-26 01:22 · Score: 3, Funny

1983: Develops Hodgkin's disease and leaves Microsoft. Makes full recovery

Ya think that when writing an artical where a portion of the audience are going to be geeks and/or programmers they wouldnt use words like "develops" to describe what happened to him, rather "contracting" a virus would sound more appropriate. It makes him sound like he wrote the Hodgkin's virus in his multi-zillion dallor basement.

Perhaps, Insted of "Makes full recovery" it should read "Was able to restore Paul Allen from tape backup"

Re:He's a Virus Developer! I knew it! by slashmojo · 2005-12-26 03:16 · Score: 1

rather "contracting" a virus would sound more appropriate
As long as he didn't outsource that contract to india.. ;)
Re:He's a Virus Developer! I knew it! by VP · 2005-12-26 07:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Hodgkin's disease is not a viral infection, it is a type of cancer...

Interesting by Lxy · 2005-12-26 01:22 · Score: 1, Troll

Everyone picks on Bill Gates for being evil, yet he makes the cover of Time for his generosity. The article fails to mention what good things Paul Allen has done with his money, but I don't see him on the cover of Time.

Is it possible that Gates is just the poster boy and Allen is the real devil behind Microsoft?

I once saw a documentary on the Homebrew Computer Club of which Paul Allen was a member. Apparently Allen was upset because the club was interested in freely publishing designs and details of the machines they built. Allen felt that the designs should be patented and sold for big bucks. That's when he left to cofound Microsoft.

Forget Gates, Allen is the asshole behind Microsoft.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq

Re:Interesting by Vanye1 · 2005-12-26 01:48 · Score: 1

Forget Gates, Allen is the asshole behind Microsoft.

How can he, when he left the company?

Gates is still there. The company still does Evil, Nasty things (tm). Ergo, Allen is not the asshole behind Microsoft.
Re:Interesting by AndroidCat · 2005-12-26 01:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you ever read Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists?

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Interesting by pommiekiwifruit · 2005-12-26 02:50 · Score: 1

what good things Paul Allen has done with his money
Well he's hardly Bill Gates in the generousity stakes, but IIRC he did put up some money ($100m or so) to reverse engineer the human brain, which is kinda cool.
Re:Interesting by Liam+Slider · 2005-12-26 03:09 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Everyone picks on Bill Gates for being evil, yet he makes the cover of Time for his generosity.

Have you ever noticed, that when Gates and Microsoft are getting a beating in the media...suddenly Gates starts making huge donations? Or whenever a government is acting like it's about to curb stomp Microsoft....he has a nice huge donation ready for that country? I certainly have.

Around the area I live, back in the 20s, there was a famous group of gangsters known as The Shelton Gang. One of the big bosses of the Shelton Gang, was a gangster by the name of Charlie Birger (along with the Shelton brothers). This man was a pimp, a smuggler, a murderer, and runner of many fine illegal gambling operations throughout this part of my home State. He was a slick one, always dressing in the finest clothes, driving a fancy car, having many homes....

...Charlie Birger was also a "generous" man. Very charitable, giving money to the needy, paying off people's mortages, giving money to school children, giving people money to start up their businesses...no strings attached, he gave heavily to the local church. Why, the people absolutely loved Charlie Birger. He was a very beloved man for his charitable works....which is exactly what he wanted. It didn't make him any less of a gangster.

Same with Gates. He's no less of a gangster, because of his charitable works.
Re:Interesting by keraneuology · 2005-12-26 03:23 · Score: 1

Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

I dunno... he sure seems pretty pleased to have hired thousands of programmers and attempt to deluge the market with Micro-Soft Bob and Windows ME. (I always find it amusing that Bill rewarded the manager of MS' biggest market flop - Bob - with an engagement ring.)

--
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Re:Interesting by metlin · 2005-12-26 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Wow.

Only on Slashdot would you have a businessman of a technology company being compared to a pimp, a smuggler and a murderer.

What the hell are you talking about?! How many people has Microsoft (or Bill Gates) killed? Does he own a freakin' whorehouse or a casino? The only thing he has done is conduct a business the way every business is conducted - to maximize profit.

Microsoft is a business entity. They are a corporation. Like every other corporation out there, their purpose is to enhance the shareholder value, period. That does not make them any more or less evil. They just are that way. And they are giving back to society, a lot more than most companies ever have.

You know something? I would *much* rather have Microsoft profit in billions and spend money towards helping something more important than code, like AIDS or Cancer, than feel bad for a two penny company that could not take care of itself. Business is like the animal kingdom, there are predators and preys and it is not good or evil, merely the survival of the fittest.

If you have a good idea and good management, you can surivive. Look at Google, they are the perfect example.

Stop making ridiculous comparisons. While Microsoft maybe a ruthless business, they are contributing a whole lot to society. I would much rather have that. And you, my good sir, what have you done to the well being of the society lately? Helped cure anything?

Bloody trolls.
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 05:09 · Score: 0

"I always find it amusing that Bill rewarded the manager of MS' biggest market flop - Bob - with an engagement ring."

Maybe Melinda gives good head?
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft has broken the law and abused their monopoly position. They have been found guilty of this by the courts. So they have not just done what a company is supposed to do, they have seriously broken the law. And as anybody with a bit of understanding of our economic system knows, abusing a monopoly is about the most harmful there is to the economy. Microsoft has hindered a lot of progress and stopped many innovative companies (illegally).

It is hard to measure white-collar crime and corruption in human lives, but I think society in general underestimate the harm these crimes do.
Re:Interesting by Liam+Slider · 2005-12-26 07:05 · Score: 1

What the hell are you talking about?! How many people has Microsoft (or Bill Gates) killed? Does he own a freakin' whorehouse or a casino? The only thing he has done is conduct a business the way every business is conducted - to maximize profit.

Oh yes, every businessman is a convicted monopolist. And every businessman builds his buisness through tactics that can be called nothing less than extortion, fraud, and IP theft. Sure, every business in the US conducts it's business via illegal and immoral means.

Gates is a gangster. He may be using a different racket, but it's the same old game.
Re:Interesting by damsa · 2005-12-26 07:53 · Score: 1

If you call a lifetime of sex with Bill Gates a reward. I suppose some could find that as a reward.
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 09:51 · Score: 0

Paul Allen is a monster.

The people who work for him are bastards.

We were contracting for a anonymous private christmas party here, they haggled us down and down with a sob story until we were giving them non-profit rates because they had a spiel of "It's for a local company that is going through hard times".

We verbally agreeed on the contract, then got an NDA for Vulcan.

I backed out of the contract as I felt they had negotiated in bad faith. They obviously agreed as they never filed against my corporation. I will never forget the conversation:
her -- "For all that Paul has done for Seattle... you should want to volunteer your services"
me -- "yeah, he saved the cinerama.. but he is still the 11th richest man in human history. and you want us to give you a better rate than we gave to the northwest burn foundatiuon fundraiser? GFY"

Never sued us... but they did blacklist us.

I can name a dozen or so people that have been put out of business here.

contractors artists, vendors... Seattle is rife with in dependednt businesses that went under because Microsoft millionaires know how to hold payment on your services until your company goes out of business. The guy renting my shop out back went outr of business because of Bill Gates house and the fact that Bill has a better attoeney and simply said... "sosueme". Bill is nowhere near as good at Paul in stopping payment for services rendered. They are the king grifters in this world.

And how about Mr. Hendrix's gold record collection. Paul wanted to buy all of Jimi's gold records from the Hendrix family for a couple hundred thousand. They said no. Paul said fine.

three months later their home was broken into, the gold records stolen, no real investigation and they never turned up on the black market.

Paul Allen is the monster of seattle.
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 10:46 · Score: 0

But Paul Allen does own Ticketmaster.com, which is pure evil. I picture him sitting in his evil lair one day meeting with his minions: "...and we shall charge $10 on every ticket to every public event in the world, and then we shall charge the performers a management fee, and then we shall charge the venue do organize it. Muahahaha muahaha!"
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 12:29 · Score: 0

For half of $50 billion +/-, international power, fame and prestige and the ability to look like one of the world's greatest people just because I spend somebody else's money sex with bill could be my weekly 15 second price.

Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 02:03 · Score: 0

And then, somewhere around the age of 76, he dies of natural causes. Game over. Boy, that was fun.

Maybe it's a financial decision? by raehl · 2005-12-26 03:06 · Score: 1

Marraige could cost him half a zillion dollars. That's expensive!

--
paintball

Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by ccmay · 2005-12-26 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think prenuptials and such are pathetic. If you don't love a woman enough to risk losing some money to her, especially if she's raising your kids, then you just shouldn't get married.
-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by ConsistentChaos · 2005-12-26 04:23 · Score: 1

If you DON'T see the need for a pre-nup, you're incredibly naive. Love is an emotion, and as such, can and does change.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 06:12 · Score: 0

I guess you don't have much to lose then.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by damsa · 2005-12-26 07:50 · Score: 1

In Washington, anything made pre marriage is not subject to community property. So it wouldn't cost Allen half a zillion dollars.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Osty · 2005-12-26 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
I think prenuptials and such are pathetic. If you don't love a woman enough to risk losing some money to her, especially if she's raising your kids, then you just shouldn't get married.

Are you a woman? Because there's no benefit to a man in marriage. Besides, with > 50% of all marriages ending in divorce these days, a pre-nup is simply good preparation. Rather than accepting, "If you loved me, you wouldn't ask me to sign a pre-nup," turn it around on her and say, "If you loved me, you'd want to sign a pre-nup," instead.

As for not "[loving] a woman enough to risk losing some money," what the hell is wrong with you? There's absolutely nothing wrong with spending money on a woman (within limits of course, though those limits relax a bit once she's a wife rather than a girlfriend), but that doesn't mean you should be willing to give up half or more of your worth (or worse, your potential worth). Consider it this way: A man gets nothing concrete out of a marriage (assuming the "average" man who is making a living for himself, not some freeloader who marries a rich wife). There are some benefits, but you're much less likely to find a woman today who will follow the three-Fs: feed me, fuck me, and fold my laundry. Women, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot. Assuming she plays her cards right (again, staying away from the freeloading losers), she can basically get a free ride, quit her job (assuming she had one in the first place), bloat up, cut her hair, and not have to do one lick of work around the house (that's what maids are for!). And a couple years into the marriage, when she gets bored, she can up and leave and take half or more of your stuff ("or more" meaning any vaginamony money she's "entitled" to, as well as any child support if you were stupid enough to get a kid on her).

You think marriage is about love? Wake up, buddy! Maybe you're worth nothing, with no potential earning capacity either. Go ahead, get married. Those of us trying to make something of ourselves know better. Beyond that, a few simple rules will keep you safe:
- No marrying until you're at least 25, and preferably older. That goes both parties. She may be the most mature 19 year old you've ever known, but she's still a 19 year old. She hasn't yet developed who she really is yet. Do you want to take a chance that she'll change her mind in a couple years and take your money?
- Get a pre-nup. I don't care if you have no money now. If you have the capability to earn money in the future, or you have a decent inheritance that may come your way, or you think you might win the lottery, get a pre-nup.
- Keep separate accounts. It's fine to have a shared account, but you should also have his/hers accounts. That's money that's just yours, for your use only. Remember, she's basically going to rule the shared account, so if you ever want to make any purchasing decisions of your own it's best to keep some money separate.
- If you're going to have kids (and I'd seriously suggest you don't, but some people just can't help themselves), you must be married a MINIMUM of five years. If you can last five years, there's a good chance your marriage will last longer. If you can't last five years, you have no business bringing a child into the world. You owe it to that potential life to make sure you're stable in your relationship before giving birth to another living, breathing human being.
But then, hey, what do I know? I'm not married. I don't have those blinders on my eyes yet ...
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Voltageaav · 2005-12-26 10:31 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I just logged in on the off chance that I would have some mod points so I could mod you up to the point that you deserve, but I don't. I'm 22 and I have Far Far too many friends who are married and have kids. Don't get me wrong, I think marriage is a great thing and I love kids as well, but I also have Far too many friends who are now divorced. As for the money aspect, it seems a bit cold at first, but it really does make sense.

--
Someone save me from this sanity.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by beeplet · 2005-12-26 11:38 · Score: 1

Consider it this way: A man gets nothing concrete out of a marriage (assuming the "average" man who is making a living for himself, not some freeloader who marries a rich wife). There are some benefits, but you're much less likely to find a woman today who will follow the three-Fs: feed me, fuck me, and fold my laundry. Women, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot. Assuming she plays her cards right (again, staying away from the freeloading losers), she can basically get a free ride, quit her job (assuming she had one in the first place), bloat up, cut her hair, and not have to do one lick of work around the house (that's what maids are for!).

So what you're saying, basically, is that a selfish, loveless single life is better than a selfish, loveless marriage? Wow, go figure! That is not the kind of relationship that the grandparent post was referring to, however.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Osty · 2005-12-26 13:06 · Score: 1

So what you're saying, basically, is that a selfish, loveless single life is better than a selfish, loveless marriage? Wow, go figure! That is not the kind of relationship that the grandparent post was referring to, however.

What else is there? Sorry if I sound jaded, but love fades and human nature is selfish. After that you need a strong, stable, healthy partnership if you want to last. Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Because people are in LOVE! They've got to get married, or they don't love each other! And in two years, when that love fades, they find they have nothing else in common and are stuck in a loveless marriage. And it's going to fall apart on them, because while he now has incentive to stay, she doesn't. In fact, she has every incentive to leave and go find another sucker to marry. While I won't deny that loving marriages do exist, they are now and always have been a scant minority. If you're in such a relationship, good luck (let's hope you're not blinding yourself to the truth). If you're not, or you're coherent enough to see a couple years into the future, why not protect yourself with a pre-nup? (pre-nups aren't just for guys. They can help women as well, though that's much more rare.)
Tell me this. If marriage is not about money, why do women compare engagement rings? Why must I spend 2 months of my salary (which is a very considerable sum, and could easily buy a nice car instead) on an engagement ring? If you're truly in love, wouldn't a $100 CZ ring be just fine? Why must women insist on big, lavish weddings costing tens of thousands of dollars? If you truly loved me, wouldn't a small ceremony at City Hall or a church of choice consisting of our closest friends and family be more intimate and meaningful? These rituals leading up to marriage are enough to put a couple into extreme debt, which is no way to start off a life together. If you truly loved me, you wouldn't start off a life-long partnership and relationship asking for more and more money from me to prove my love. (btw, "you" refers to the generic female "you", and "me" refers to the generic male "me", not you and me personally. Obviously.)
And let's not forget the benefits of being single. Completely aside from not being tied to any single woman, my money is my own to spend. I don't have to justify a big screen TV and huge home theatre through cajolling and begging or bribery (if you let me buy this, I'll let you buy 15 pairs of shoes). I can buy and drive a Porsche (and I do) without you complaining that there's no trunk space or the wind ruins your hair or there's no room for the child seat or that you don't like the looks I get when I drive it. I can afford to buy a big house and put in a wet bar, pool table, workshop, home theatre, etc. And when I'm looking for that house, I'm free to use my own criteria such as a three-car garage and a deck rather than enough bedrooms for kids and a nursery. I can have as many different computers as I can buy or build without caring about cables going this way and that, or that you wanted to buy a $600 purse instead. I can spend my money on video games and entertainment rather than buying the kids clothes for school. I can save for my own retirement without having to also set aside money for college, and retirement for one is much cheaper than retirement for two. I can go out with the guys (well, the guys who are still allowed to go out, anyway), get rip-roaring drunk, and have a good old time. I can drink and smoke and spit and scratch and piss and watch sports and do all of the things that I enjoy without having to listen to nagging, bitching, whining, moaning, and complaining.
And to top it all off, I haven't yet reached my peak earning potential. Marriage puts an immediate stop to that, because you can no longer put in those late nights at work, or make those business trips to further your career, or pick up and leave for a better job in a different city or stat
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by honkycat · 2005-12-26 13:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow, whatever has happened to make you so bitter, I'm sorry man. Believe it or not, not everyone shares your materialistic, misogynistic view of the world. You would do well to learn how to look at things from a perspective other than your own.

You have made a choice -- you find that the single, childless lifestyle suits you. Great. You know what? It doesn't suit everyone. Some of us tried it and found that, despite the benefits it may afford, we weren't happy. Having another person involved in your life can (gasp) enrich it in ways that toys and cars just can't.

I actually agree with you on a lot, it seems. Getting married too young is usually a big mistake. Children should be born into a stable, supportive situation (whether or not it's a marriage). Fair prenups are a good thing.

On that last point -- I don't at all share your view that marriage is a universally a windfall for the woman and a burden for the man and that the purpose of the prenup is to protect his assets from being stolen. At least, it should not be. When you get into a marriage, you're forming an agreement that (in most cases) is going to set up a partnership to build and support a family. One aspect of that is that someone is likely going to have to forego a financially motivated career in order to maintain the household and rear the children. The agreement is normally that the one who doesn't give up that career compensates for this by supporting the other partner. That is absolutely fair and reasonable.

If the marriage doesn't survive, it's hardly unreasonable to share some portion of the assets and/or demand that the partner who maintained his/her career at least temporarily help support the homemaking partner. The assets belong to the family, regardless of whose name was on the paycheck that paid for them. Maintaining a home/raising children is a non-trivial contribution to the family's well-being.

A prenup that specifies exactly what the agreement is with respect to these sorts of things is, IMO, a good thing. It protects both partners and, since it's drawn up when everyone is on good terms, can be a fairer agreement. If you can't get together with your spouse-to-be and come to a reasonable, honest agreement about the terms, that's not going to be the biggest problem in your marriage.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by jcr · 2005-12-26 14:25 · Score: 1

If you don't love a woman enough to risk losing some money to her,

Money? If you're married, she's your next of kin, and can decide whether to pull the plug if you're in a coma. You'd better be able to trust her with your money, since you're going to be trusting her with your life.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by jcr · 2005-12-26 14:28 · Score: 1

Let me guess... Some chick just dumped you?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Osty · 2005-12-26 14:44 · Score: 1

Wow, whatever has happened to make you so bitter, I'm sorry man.

Why do you assume that something happened to me? The presumption that the "married with children" lifestyle is the ideal to strive for unless something "happened" is a little naive, don't you think? Take a look at the world. Take a look at TV[1] and see what's idolized. A guy doesn't need to have something "happen" to him to decide that the risk of divorce, alimony, child payments, etc simply aren't worth it.

You have made a choice -- you find that the single, childless lifestyle suits you. Great. You know what? It doesn't suit everyone. Some of us tried it and found that, despite the benefits it may afford, we weren't happy. Having another person involved in your life can (gasp) enrich it in ways that toys and cars just can't.

Your word usage betrays your bias. "Single" implies that the natural state is to be coupled, which simply is not true. "Childless" implies that I'm missing something, while I know that I'm not. I don't hate children, but I'd never want one of my own. I prefer to think of myself as "free" and "child-free". I'm beholden to no one (well, except for my boss and my mortgage broker, but our relationships are well-defined :), and I prefer it that way. I can do what I want, where I want, whenever I want, without any obligations or restrictions imposed upon me by anyone beyond myself (and the law, of course). While I won't deny that relationships can enrich your life in certain ways, I don't need another person to validate me or my worth. I have very good, close friends[2], and that's enriching enough. Maybe someday the "perfect woman" will come along and change things, but I don't hope and dream for that. I make my life as I see fit, and if the day comes where I find the right woman to marry (though still no kids, please!), I'll make up my mind as I've always done -- on my own, with my own best interests at heart.

I've chosen the path of personal freedom and self-fulfillment. What about you?

[1] Yes, I know, it's TV. But it does reflect society in a way that is not always flattering. How many commercials and sitcoms have you seen where the idiot husband screws things up and it's up to the heroine wife to set things right? If that doesn't reflect society's view of women vs. men at least somewhat, it wouldn't be so prevalent on TV, and it certainly wouldn't be used as an advertising method.

[2] I have friends who are in their mid-thirties and desparate to find the "right woman" to marry. I have friends who exist for no other purpose than to get pregnant. I have friends who married too young, and friends who have gone through messy divorces, and friends who're on track for divorce even though they can't see it yet. My best friends are actually a happily married couple (the key to their happiness? She's cool and parties with the guys, and he's allowed to do as he pleases. And neither of them want kids any time soon). I've seen it all, and I've been through much of it myself as well (luckily I've not been dumb enough to have kids or get married/divorced).
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by beeplet · 2005-12-26 15:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

If marriage is not about money, why do women compare engagement rings?

I don't know - I told my fiance not to buy me an engagement ring. There are women to whom ostentatious displays of wealth are not the most important thing. If you are only willing to look, you would find them.

And let's not forget the benefits of being single. Completely aside from not being tied to any single woman, my money is my own to spend.

This I find a kind of selfish observation. The value of money is in its use, and lots of people clearly feel that using their money to raise a family is money well spent. If you don't feel that way, that's ok, but there's no reason to imply that one choice is better than the other.

You also seem to underestimate the number of working wives and mothers - I hardly know anyone who was a stay-at-home mom. The stereotypical housewife arrangement from the 50s was a bad idea all around, not least for all the smart, educated women who gave up any hope of a career to become mothers. (That includes both my grandmothers, who had postgraduate degrees in science and later became unhappy housewives.) Being a full-time-parent is also a valid choice, but the emphasis is on the word choice - both partners need to agree that it's what they want to do.

Anyway, I agree with your basic point that prenups are a good idea, mostly because it is always a good idea to have a clear backup plan. My own parents had a messy and angry divorce, and I feel that anything to smooth the way would have been a good thing. What I don't agree with is that marriage itself is not a good value for the money.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by honkycat · 2005-12-26 15:22 · Score: 1

You have an extremely dim view of human relationships that seems to go far beyond simply choosing a "single, childless" lifestyle. That's why I asked what happened -- most people I know who pursue that same lifestyle don't seem as bitter about it as you do. That said, the particular phrasing was mostly my being trollish and I'm sorry about that.

You may note that I never said anything at all about the "married with children" lifestyle being an ideal. It's the particular choice I'm in the process of making, but I am quite aware that it's not the choice for everyone.

As for my "word usage betray[ing my] bias," I'm just baffled at your comment. As far as I know, "single, childless lifestyle" is a pretty emotionally neutral and accurate description of the lifestyle you choose. But since it seems you use the language differently from me, I'll define my terms. "Single" means "without a partner or spouse." "Childless" means "not having any offspring." "Lifestyle" means "way of living." That sounds pretty accurate to me. Any connotations you may draw from that phrase are purely your own -- I certainly did not imply anything, nor did I intend to. Don't blame me that the English language uses the same four letters for the suffix "-less" and the word "less." You're welcome to use "free" in place of "single" I suppose, but I think that makes it pretty clear which of us is trying to play lame rhetorical games.

I'm glad you are comfortable with your choices, but I find it unfortunate that you seem to have little respect for those who choose otherwise. Fulfillment in particular means very different things to different people.
Re:Maybe it's a financial decision? by Osty · 2005-12-26 15:45 · Score: 1

most people I know who pursue that same lifestyle don't seem as bitter about it as you do.

What bitterness I may have (and apparently I sound much more bitter online than I really do in person, for whatever reason) stems from a society that prizes marriage and children, to the point of using words like "childless" with sub-conscious negative connotations (you're "missing" children in your life), or assuming an unmarried middle aged guy is gay (I've got quite a few more years before I hit middle age, but I've been on the wrong end of gay assumptions simply because I'm in my late-20s and single). In the great tradition of Free Software, where "free" gets redefined, I'll play word games like that. Nothing against you personally. You just facilitated a rant, is all :).

Beyond that, I'm just trying to spread information (in my own biased way). In this case, it's about marriage and prenuptial agreements and the myth that asking for one implies that you don't love your spouse to be. I could've gone further. For example, you have to be very careful about how you broach the subject, to avoid the possibility of having the agreement nullified due to duress. Similarly, you need to get the prenup signed before any wedding preparations take place (forget the movies where the prenup is sprung on the prospective wife the night before her wedding -- you do that, and you're going to get a very nasty surprise in divorce court), again to avoid duress defenses. Most importantly, you and your wife-to-be need separate lawyers, and she needs to pay for her lawyer herself. Prenuptial agreements are very fragile contracts, and are unfortunately very easy to defeat in court. If you're going to go for the prenup (and I'd suggest you, and anybody getting married, do so), you need to make sure you do it right. Consult a lawyer.

Re:FYI by WindBourne · 2005-12-26 03:32 · Score: 1

Vulcan is Paul's. You can certainly google it. Or you can even search /., there have been plenty of links here.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by WindBourne · 2005-12-26 03:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

accidental. He actually wrote a major portion of the initial code, whereas BG wrote very little of it.
IIRC, It was IBM that approached them (the movie was incorrect).
In addition, it took several employees to talk BG into not moving to Unix from Dos (DOS numbers were awesome, where MS xenix was going nowhere).
Paul went on to develop a number of companies and technologies, but BG stayed with just one.
In addition, BG's thing has been to work with a monopoly that simply steals from others, while Paul develop new techs.

Offhand, I would call BG more the accidental, and Paul the brilliant one.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by klept · 2005-12-26 06:56 · Score: 1

Offhand, I would say you are right.
Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by Tablizer · 2005-12-26 07:02 · Score: 1

BG's thing has been to work with a monopoly that simply steals from others, while Paul develop new techs.

Yes, but Gates' approach appears more profitable. Go figure.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by Stormwatch · 2005-12-26 07:44 · Score: 1

it took several employees to talk BG into not moving to Unix from Dos (DOS numbers were awesome, where MS xenix was going nowhere).
From the Wikipedia article ...
In the late 1980s, Xenix was, according to Samuel J. Leffler et al. in The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System (1989), "probably the most widespread version of the UNIX operating system, according to the number of machines on which it runs" (p. 7).
Ironically, most Windows' rivals now are Unix-like. Brings a "what if?" to mind...

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by damsa · 2005-12-26 07:56 · Score: 1

I believe Paul Allen was the one to convince Bill Gates to drop out of college and start a company. Bill Gates is richer because, Allen got sick and had to give up stock before the big monopoly years.
Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by WindBourne · 2005-12-26 07:58 · Score: 1

That would be SCO xenix. MS actually had xenix first and sold it to SCO.

BG was intent on moving ppl off of dos onto xenix. In fact, the reason why DOS aquired real directories and corresponding commands (cd, mkdir/md, etc) was to make the transition to xenix easy, which had also aquired a number of dos commands.

Even though I am *nix fan, I would not have it any other way. Back then IBM was the bad guy and was stifling innovation. MS does now, so control needs to be taken from them. But at one time, the MS world was where the real innovation was occurring. Now, it is in the OSS world.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Interesting, that the refer to paul as the ... by antispam_ben · 2005-12-26 08:46 · Score: 1

accidental.

I presume, or at least suspect, this word comes from the title of the Robert Cringley book on those who started the personal computer revolution, "Accidental Empires."

--
Tag lost or not installed.

OSS: Intentional nillionaires not accidental by AHumbleOpinion · 2005-12-26 04:16 · Score: 1

Does that make the rest of us accidental nillionaires?

If you write open source software it is probably no accident that you are a nillionaire. ;-)

An obscure Paul Allen reference by BorgCopyeditor · 2005-12-26 05:03 · Score: 1

Arbeit ist Spiel! Time for a Tofutti break! (If you don't know what this is, just igFNORDnore it.)

--
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.

Allen's Helicopter by wk633 · 2005-12-26 05:34 · Score: 3, Funny

A few years ago Paul Allen parked his ship at Santa Barbara for a week. He spent his evenings flying around over the city in his helicopter. Fucking annoying noise. If he's got that much money, why doesn't he buy Blue Thunder?

But don't you forget... by viksit · 2005-12-26 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

that Paul Allen and SpaceshipOne might be just whats needed for privatized space flights to (no pun intended) take off. Why does everyone forget the good stuff like this which Allen's done?

And the good thing is, he funds ventures after deciding "if its something that he would love". I call that a rather smart way of judging what (not) to fund. Granted, that this may at times bump up pet projects when compared to something with a larger impact - but this is needed too! After all, we do have the 2 richest foundations in the world dealing with those issues (Gates and Grove).

--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...oh, wait a minute - he already does.

Re:FYI by plbg32 · 2005-12-26 07:58 · Score: 1

vulcan is the company that oversees all the others

Speaking of intimidation by litigation... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 08:21 · Score: 0

Okay, that's not what Paul Allen did, but you mentioned Satan The Snake...

As far as I know, Candlestick is known as M****** Park.

Be careful what Registered Trademarks you use, you could get sued. ISTR there are /. articles on that corp. For an alternative I suggest the 12-gauge zip cord at 30-odd cents per foot from another Big Satan, The Home Depot.

Paul Allen:Seattle::Thomas/Bruce Wayne:Gotham? by Aaron+England · 2005-12-26 08:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Is Paul Allen to Seattle as Thomas and Bruce Wayne were to Gotham City?

Evidence?

Has a huge house, more of a compound really.
Isn't married.
He has lots of fast cars.
One of the biggest philanthropists in America.
Funded medical research, mapping the human brain at the cellular level.
[Funded] the Experience Music project and the Science Fiction museum.
Art collection...rumoured to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Donated $20 million to develop a park which would have stretched from the downtown area to Lake Union.
Converting a nondescript belt of warehouses and commercial buildings into a biotech hub, while redeveloping environmentally friendly housing, and a waterfront park.

Now that we have evidence that he plays the role of philantropist-playboy by day can anyone pony-up the evidence that he lives the double life and is a crime-fighter by night?

Not Luck... by daddyrief · 2005-12-26 09:35 · Score: 0

It's not luck. It's being in the right place at the right time, and putting your money down where and when it counts.

--
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson

Marriaga? by Merdalors · 2005-12-26 09:45 · Score: 1

Marriaga?

Sounds like an exotic Caribbean drink, or a new latin dance. Can you smoke Marriaga?

Sorry, I realize it's a harmless typo, but you have given us a wonderful new word.

--
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.

Altruism by RgrRbbt · 2005-12-26 10:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

I seem to remember reading that Bill Gates only started his philanthopic spree when his mom confronted him about his vast wealth and insisted he donate much of it to charitable causes. (I hope I'm not getting my facts wrong here.)

Paul Allen has given a lot of money to medical research, but being ill seems to have been the impetus for that.

Both men also have their name slapped on many of the non-profit projects to which they donate.

I'm not saying this makes their contributations any less important. But it does seem to make the spirit of the donations a little less impressive, since the men likely would not have been so generous without such "external" pressures.

Does anyone agree or am I being too idealistic to hope for true altruism?

Cramer is an idiot, too. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 10:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

Cramer thinks swinging around huge hedge funds is directly applicable to strategies individual (and much poorer) investors can use.

I asked him a serious question many years ago (1997-98) on a serious investor-type chat why he kept pushing the pharmaceutical stocks in all his articles. All he had to say was "What, are you short on pharmaceuticals?" He then went on to answer questions about his family, etc.

The guy behaves just like a shady stock broker.

Not accidental at all by leoPetr · 2005-12-26 11:32 · Score: 1, Redundant

Paul Allen is the one who actually wrote the original Microsoft BASIC for the Altair 8800. Bill Gates knew how to sell things, but his technical skills were lacking compared to Paul's. Paul is far more deserving of his wealth than Bill.

--
My other body is also not wearing any.

Paul owns the Blazers, but not the Rose Garden by csb · 2005-12-26 12:36 · Score: 1

Although Paul still owns the Trail Blazers, he no longer controls the Rose Garden (the lovely 10-year-old arena that they play in). The arena holding company went bankrupt due to low Blazers attendance, few overall events, and the usual lax management.

The Rose Garden has been turned over to the receivers, who are now running it. Although they are at odds with Paul, one can't thrive without the other; so, they both want to bring fans back to the Blazers. The resulting advertisements can be amusing.

Years ago, Paul convinced the Portland city government to develop the whole Rose Quarter area, which was supposed to be this year-round center of activity. That never worked out -- it's mostly a ghost-town in between events, which means most of the time.

Ironically, the old Memorial Coliseum (also in the Rose Quarter) still gets lots of use (sports, conventions, &c.) but the city has big re-development plans for it. They considered a big-box store, or maybe a rec center... I can't remember how that came out.

Paul is having too much fun with the Seahawks to care about the moribund Trail Blazers. If he's smart, he'll sell it to somebody who actually cares about basketball, even if they don't have billions (fat lot of good all that money has done, anyways).

--
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management

prop 77 was too flawed by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-26 12:54 · Score: 0

>California ... said "NO" to getting rid of gerrymandering,
>one of the worst cancers ever to afflict the democratic
>process.
Have you read prop 77 and thought about what is wrong with it?

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop77/title_summa ry.shtml

I am definately a fan of legislation to reduce gerrymandering
but this legislation was too flawed for me to vote for it.

Specifically:
* Redistricting would have occurred *immediately* rather
than when schedualled to occur next (every 10 years).
* This would have legislated (into our constitution!)
a process that assumes that there are two major
parties in CA that are nearly equally popular.
Although this is true now, I think that it is
a big folly to pass legislation that assumes
this is true.
Pretend for a moment that CA had three parties with the
following representation:
65% A
20% B
15% all others
According to this legislation, three judges would be selected
to draw districts where one judge would be from party A,
one from party B and one essentially a coin toss between
a judge from party A and one from party B!

That said, I would love to see an automatic
politics-free way of creating numerous contiguous
small districts.

Microsoft vs. Wal-Mart by wk633 · 2005-12-26 15:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Let's keep the evil in perspective:

From: http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php/

A WAL-MART Worker may donate money from their paycheck to the CRITICAL NEED FUND, a program to aid other employees in times of crisis, like a fire or tornado.
In 2004, WAL-MART Employees gave OVER $5 MILLION to help fellow workers. The Walton Family gave $6,000

The WALTON FAMILY Has Given LESS THAN 1% of Their Wealth to Charity. Bill Gates has given 58%

Don't confirm without evidence by xtermin8 · 2005-12-26 16:11 · Score: 1

I thought Compaq reversed engineered the BIOS independently, and later started using Phoenix Technologies. If you had a link to a hisotry I'd love to click on it, but you seem to be intent on just being the previous poster's bitch

Re:Don't confirm without evidence by Nethead · 2005-12-26 16:18 · Score: 1

You, sir, are correct!

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

Re:Kildall did make a key difference by xtermin8 · 2005-12-26 16:20 · Score: 1

No, Microsoft was the premier provider of BASIC for a variety of platforms, including BASIC for CP/M (and Apple II series and many others.) If they weren't already important in languages, they would have never got a chance to produce an OS. Kildall did produce CP/M for the original PC, and it was available as soon as the PC was introduced. IBM just chose to offer it as an expensive extra instead of the free, default, pre-installed OS.

WRONG by xtermin8 · 2005-12-26 16:31 · Score: 1

In 1983, with the next generation of PC from IBM, the XT, the BIOS received a real boost in its firmware (nonvolatile software). It could now recognize the drives and video cards, but it could still not control them. Compaq and other OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) managed to "reverse engineer" IBM's little "black box" and created proprietary devices. This, in turn, led to compatibility problems with things like memory and peripherals. You had to go back to the OEM to upgrade. Just a year later, in 1984, Phoenix Technologies and AMI (American Megatrends Incorporated) came on the scene with commercially available BIOS. http://www.maconusersgroup.org/BiosBoot.html

Re:FYI by Skim123 · 2005-12-27 06:02 · Score: 1

He owns the Portland Trailblazers, too (an NBA team). But they've not been any good since 2000.

--

I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

The Octopus by orbit0r · 2006-01-08 14:07 · Score: 1

Just got back from Negril, Jamaica.. Paul's boat - the Octopus - was docked off cliff road in negril right off Rick's cafe. Quite the impressive yacht, according to what I've read, it's the largest privately held yacht in the world

Slashdot Mirror

Paul Allen the 'Accidental Zillionaire'

164 comments