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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.