Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates's The Road Ahead, 15 Years Later
smooth wombat writes "It's been 15 years since Bill Gates wrote his book The Road Ahead, in which he talks about how technology would shape the future. In the intervening years, technology has changed many aspects of our lives for better and worse. So how did Bill do on his predictions? The Atlantic takes a look at the hits and misses of some of his prognostications. Overall, it appears Bill let optimism guide his thoughts, except when it came to the Internet — his biggest miss of all."
Bing and Google actually both give pretty much the same results. Bing itself was innovative from Microsoft, even so far that Google copied Bing's sidebar from them, and Bing was the first one to demonstrate and introduce real-time 3D video mapped into street view.
As far as for the GP;
They are excellent at marketing their products and at keeping a healthy business although.
But this is true for every large corporation. Actually even more so for Apple, who haven't actually done much else than polished BSD and open source projects. Microsoft still spends millions into R&D while Apple does nothing like that. Google isn't really that innovative either. They're different, sure, but any larger "innovation" they've done has come from smaller companies they have bought (Maps, Earth, YouTube and so on).
I think Courier was quite innovative. Visual Studio per se probably isn't innovative, but it's a really stable product and better than anything else on the market. Microsoft also used to publish great and also innovative games (why not anymore?)
While some large corporations do R&D, it's almost always the small startups that are the most innovative ones. It's also obvious why - they can take some risks, and while most of them fail, some of them come out with a great idea. Large companies cant afford taking that kind of risks and losing.
EVERYTHING is like that though.
/.ers are miserable fucking people!!! STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever hear the phrase Standing on the Shoulder of Giants?!?!
Nothing in Math, or Physics, or Medicine has ever been done 'from scratch'.
I am so sick of hearing this negative shit because
I understand that you're a socialist, and would like to see people like Bill Gates (or anyone who buys, sells and trades stuff for that matter) terrorized and murdered, but how exactly does Bill Gates "oppress" me by the mere fact of him possessing wealth? Furthermore, what makes him a "sociopath" in the first place?
I would put it this way: a sensible person doesn't really want that much power, because (to steal from Stan Lee) with great power comes great responsibility. Having lots of responsibility is extremely unpleasant; it's impossible to be sure that you're doing everything you can, and people will inevitably get hurt. There are reasons to take on responsibility, such as financial reward, satisfying some compulsion to achieve something, or satisfying a perceived obligation. However, it's still unpleasant, and a sensible person won't seek to continue to hold responsibility for longer than is needed. Therefore, that sensible person also won't seek extreme amounts of power.
This has got to be some of the dumbest, most ignorant shit I've ever read.
"Sensible people don't want power"? No, only the meek and cowards don't want any power. Every human with any measure of courage wants SOME kind of power, and every man gravitates towards positions of power as suit his strengths and ambition. You're saying that those who strive for great things and positions of great responsibility and power are not normal. You're right--they're above normal, and indeed they're made of better stuff than you. If it weren't for people like them, men who would ride up and take charge and lead people to achieve goals, people like you would still be huddled in caves in Africa.
However, what I'm trying to argue against is the childish idea that having power is awesome fun, and it allows you to simply do what you want without drawbacks. .....which nobody but kids and a few scattered, isolated grown-up fools actually believe, and so is therefore irrelevant to anything in this discussion.
Your argument is basically a giant strawman fallacy designed to project negative associations onto those who seek power, to thus serve as a positive explanation for your own inability to put yourself "out in front of the pack" and take charge of anything. "It's not because I'm a coward who is unsure of my ability to function under pressure and make good decisions; it's because I'm not a sociopath."
Your statements make it obvious that you feel insecure about your status as a beta (or gamma) male. Just as those who are truly suicidal tend to kill themselves without warning, as opposed to making dramatic suicide attempts to gain attention: those who truly don't care about attaining power and whose only wish is to remain in the shadows with no responsibility would simply do so; they would not feel the need to drag down power-seekers on slashdot labelling them as "sociopaths" or idiots.