Slashdot Mirror
Paul Allen the 'Accidental Zillionaire'
An anonymous reader writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting story about Paul Allen, "the accidental zillionaire". Allen is the owner of the world's biggest private yacht and a huge landowner in the Seattle area in addition to his traditional accolades of helping to found Microsoft along with several other companies and foundations."
millionaire - so common, the hoi polloi .....
billionaire - fewer, somewhat dodgy
trillionaire - hmmm tricky, size of the US deficit
zillionaire - more money than that?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
It runs on IIS. What are the odds?
Does that make the rest of us accidental nillionaires?
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.htmNorthwest 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.
And we don't care.
Allen and Gates went to the Lakeside School, not the nonexistent Lakewood School. Whatever.
ScienceSeeker.org
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.
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"
Have you ever read Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Some other interesting things that apparently came with it:
Jeremy Logan's Website.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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:
But then, hey, what do I know? I'm not married. I don't have those blinders on my eyes yet ...
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?
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.
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%
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.