Slashdot Mirror
Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon
netbuzz writes "Dilbert's Scott Adams kicked off the idea in his November 19th blog post, saying there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure in less time than it takes to get a new operating system out the door. Today, the idea is moving forward with a brand-new 'Bill Gates for President' Web site. Adams is also back on the campaign trail, flogging the site and Gates' candidacy." A blog post at Network World includes a lot of eye-rolling about this idea, but neither Adams nor the folks at the 'Gates for President' website seem to be taking this lightly.
Hmmm...I seem to remember that Bill say that he was going to be stepping down as Microsoft CEO in a couple of years...right about when the 2008 Presidential campaign would be heating up.
Microsoft decided to get into the console gaming arena without any prior experience. Perhaps Bill is thinking this same thing with politics. After all, Arnold Schwatzenegger and Jesse Ventura both won state governorships primarily on name recognition. And as much as I despise is company's tactics, he is quite intelligent and has real management skills.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
I personally welcome our new DOS-stealing philanthopist overlord.
But on a serious note, it might be nice to have a president who has become more philanthropist than tycoon and who is notable because of his business and humanitarian accomplishments, not because of a life of playing to political interests. He already has extensive experience with large organizations. Might be more interested in following his own vision than listening to what the people want, though, although that seems to be the case with most great leaders...
Steve Forbes for president? Or Ross Perot? Look how far those two smart, rich, successful businessmen went.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
at least open source paid for by governments.
How we know is more important than what we know.
My calendar is about to say December 1, not April 1. This is really dumb. I don't bash Bill Gates a lot. I admire him in some ways. But come on, who wants a president whose company has been conviceted of being an illegal monopoly, that has been found gulty of being a predator, that has stifled innovation while claiming the opposite, that has run roughshod over consumer rights and then tried to weasel out of every penalty anyone ever tried to impose on it?
Oh, wait... is he running as a Republican?
No.
If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.
One of the major reasons the US is so sucessfull is that it created multiple layers of bureaucracy (Senate, House, Executive Branch, Legal system, State governments, etc.) instead of making one thing that just works well.
Fast governments do things without thinking, ignoring the wisdom of "hey, maybe we ought to stop and think about it before we make abortion illegal", and just go ahead and passes laws that people think they want when they are scared and terrified, instead of thinking long and hard about the long term consequences of it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Um.....
No.
Good government is reasonable and thinks and debates until it's time to do something, then goes out and does it. "Inefficiency" and "Debate" are two completely different things, and equating them is like equating "debating the war in Iraq" with "not supporting our troops..." They are two completely different things that look somewhat alike to the unaware observer. I guess the real problem with our government is the people it has come to represent. Let me put it this way:
The seventh most visited site in the US is run by less than 50 people.
If that isn't a small number of people doing something beneficial for an extremely large number, I don't know what is. That's what I want out of government - run the water, run the electricity, run the courts system so it's fair, provide a social safety net, create an armed force that can defend our interests at home as effectively as necessary as cheaply as possible, push the economy to a high rate of growth, etc. And do it with as small a portion of the population and the population's resources as possible. The way our government is run now is completely purpose-less and the majority of it is done out of either sheer habit or the self-interest of politicians.
My little site.
Fast != Efficient
A machine that shreds your paper in one second but requires two passes is faster but less efficient than a machine that shreds your paper in two seconds but only requires one pass.
It would be nice to see a government that does things slowly but still does it without graft and undue waste.
It would also be nice to see a chorus line of my favorite porn stars lining up to serve me for the remainder of my lifetime, and about equally likely...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
An economically-efficient government could provide the same social services while charging less tax.
I think an ideal government would be slow to change laws and efficient with spending.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
On the flip side, special interest groups declare bankruptancy. Groups claim they became ineffective because when ever they tried to buy Bill Gates he declined expressing that he already had enough headaches trying to spend the billions he already has.
He would have the capability to do his own thing, 100%, all the way. No political backing, no SIG's, no anything. Pick his agenda, pick his priorities, open office to anyone without a corporate interest. Now that would be interesting.
I'm kind of confused, all the posts here on Slashdot talk about how Bill Gates shouldn't be president because [insert other person here] would be better. Or that he ran a company convicted of being an illegal monopoly.
Why isn't anyone discussing how his years of experience both managing a bank account the size of a small country's GDP and running a huge corporation would be beneficial/detrimental to him being a President? Seems to me like everyone here is arguing emotion. For example, "I don't like him" isn't a useful tidbit of information.
> Government is SUPPOSED to be inefficient.
>If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.
this is about the dumbest thing I've read in some time. You're confusing a system of checks and balances with ineffiency.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
And as much as I despise is company's tactics, he is quite intelligent and has real management skills.
The very same things which make us hate M$... ...would probably make him an exceptional President. All except enforcing the use of Microsoft software in government.
He's brilliantly intelligent, with an amazing ability to run a company. His ruthless determination to implement his ideas would be a terrific asset. His management and business experience is likely to make him a Republican, though at least socially he seems to be quite liberal.
My only fear with President Gates is that he has the same ruthless determination and utter self-assurance that he's doing a good thing for the world with only one other person: Adolf Hitler.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Build a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Seriously, if you claim that was just dumb luck, well, don't expect me to respond. There are a million things that could've killed Microsoft (or any company) in its infancy.
Yes, we can tell you hate microsoft, but lets not discount how difficult it is to build a successful business, let alone the most successful business in its industry.
What we really need to do is stop electing old-money millionaires. New-money [m|b]illionaires often have proved their skills in attaining their wealth. Things like fiscal responsibility and ability to predict how the world will change as time passes are often key ingredients in people amassing a large fortune without receiving a large part of it from parents.
While I'm about the biggest Microsoft critic there is here, would it really be so bad to have a president who:
a) Understands how bad an unbalanced budget really is.
b) Sees the value of research and development as a means of staying ahead of the competition.
c) Has no need to be beholden to any campaign contributors (why would Gates even bother to waste his time raising money when the cost of a campaign is a tiny fraction of his net worth?)
d) Understands that the internet isn't just a series of tubes.
e) Actually consider the position of hardware manufacturers when content companies decide they need some incredibly short-sighted piece of legislation to retain their monopoly.
f) Understands the problems inherant in the US patent situation and how it stifles innovation by both small companies / individuals as well as for large companies like Microsoft.
It would seem that regardless of political affiliation, a Gates presidency would mean a positive difference in a number of the slashdot-discussed political issues.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Everything in DC outside of the actual Federal Buildings should rightly go back to Maryland (just like Alexandria and Arlington went back to Virginia around 1840). Of course, even Maryland is too smart to agree to that.
Sorry.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I didn't mean to elect Bill Gates specifically. I meant it would be nice if there was a president that I could relate to and we both shared the same interests in Computer Science. Not just anyone who knows how to save a text document to disk.
America didn't even use the American style for more than a century. In reality, it probably only lasted until the Civil War.
The original American system was a huge success, allowing all kinds of different people to create their own communities where they were free to hate each other all they wanted to. Most of the time they were able to settle their differences all by themselves, without any sort of Federal interference. And where they could never find the middle ground, they got over it. It was OK, in those days, for people to have their own bigoted opinions of each other. The laws of the land were based on natural, rights which were understood to NOT be granted by the government or even by the common consent of the people.
Unfortunately, rich men needed us all to be very predictable. There is no way to support a mass-production economy unless artificial needs can be instilled in everyone. How can that be done unless the population is secularized with economic dogmas, political correctness, and layers of bureaucracy?
Americans have lived in an artificial humanity for so long, we don't even know what natural rights feel like any more. Our 18th century impartial observers of humanity would be horrified to know what we think our "rights" are today.
James Otis knew that America's torch had been lit on the flames of Great Britain. John Locke was English. Adam Smith was Scottish. Their ideas, among others, fueled the American revolution.
Make no mistake - we still have our Tories. Ever since the revolution, they've been begging to get back into the good ol' boys club (a.k.a class system) that we left when we turned our back on the old Empire. We're nearly there.
If I had to pick geek icons for office I'd like to see Linus as President and RMS as vice president. Mr. Torvalds is a very good leader - he motivates people, he listens to people, he does a good job at picking others to lead under him. He is intelligent, much more ethical than Mr. Gates, and I think a far better leader than Mr. Gates. RMS would be a good VP because he is to crazy to give power to directly but he often has good points and knows how to get his voice out there to actually make a difference in the world.
Sure Linus is from Finland but I'm willing to vote for him - something I'll never do for Mr. Gates. If I can't have Linus then I'd consider people from the EFF or any major American free software hacker. Seriously - I'll vote for you if you run guys. We need a pro consumer and pro science/technology President.
I think I'm scared. What if the election comes down to being between Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates? I'd have to kill myself rather than be around when either of those two takes the lead of our country. Hillary is just an off her rocker lib that's never done anything but spout crap and Bill would slaughter fair use and similar consumer protection and anti-trust laws.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Bill Gates was running an organization that is more like the USSR than like a democracy: he had nearly absolute power to do as he pleased and he was planning his economy centrally. He could get rid of people he didn't like, he could create and kill projects as he pleased, etc. He also got a huge war-chest of money and a monopoly handed to him on a silver plate by IBM.
Perhaps people forget, but the USSR was initially very successful, both economically and scientifically (e.g., Sputnik). But a few decades later, it all fell apart. And it's no accident that Microsoft is slowly collapsing under its own weight, despite still having huge amounts of money. Organizations like the USSR and like Microsoft simply aren't successful long-term.
Overall, their job experience simply doesn't qualify US business leaders for high political office (of course, some of them may still figure it out and end up being good politicians, but that's not because of their business experience). To succeed as a politician in a democracy, people need to negotiate, compromise, build alliances, convince, have charisma, and do something reasonable even in the face of severe budget shortfalls. Gates doesn't strike as being capable of doing any of those well.