Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Opens Up About Steve Jobs

Nerval's Lobster writes "Former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates displayed a bit of emotion when talking to CBS's 60 Minutes about Steve Jobs. The interview didn't focus entirely on the relationship between the two men, with most of its running time devoted instead to Gates's charitable efforts. But when the conversation shifted to their last meeting before Jobs's death from cancer in 2011, Gates—normally so cerebral—seemed a bit sad. 'When he was sick I got to go down and spend time with him,' Gates said, describing their meeting as 'forward looking.' Jobs spent a portion of their time together showing off designs for his yacht, which he would never see completed—something that Gates defended when the interviewer seemed a little bit incredulous. 'Thinking about your potential mortality isn't very constructive,' he said. Gates also praised Steve Jobs's marketing and design skills: 'He understood, he had an intuitive sense for marketing that was amazing.' In contrast to his subtle—and not so subtle—digs at the iPad over the years, Gates conceded that Apple had 'put the pieces together in a way that succeeded' with regard to tablets. Gates's magnanimity toward his former rival and Apple is a reflection, perhaps, of his current position in life: it's been nearly five years since his last full-time day at Microsoft, and all of his efforts seem focused on his philanthropic endeavors. He simply has no reason to rip a rival limb from limb in the same way he did as Microsoft CEO."

294 comments

  1. must... protect.... god... by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

    insert Bill Gates slam here
    insert Steve Jobs supreme being statement here
    *phew* day saved.

    Sent from my AT&T iPad

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Death is the great equalizer. In his pale presence they forgot their old squabbles and jealousies..."
      Norman Douglas, South Wind

      Seems fitting.

    2. Re:must... protect.... god... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      SMITE HIM WITH LUMIAS!

      I've got to change my default font, I first read that as "SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS!" which was of course incorrect... a slightly amusing visual but incorrect none the less.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:must... protect.... god... by Dins · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've got to change my default font, I first read that as "SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS!" which was of course incorrect...

      I would pay good money to see someone smited (smitten?) with llamas.

    4. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've got to change my default font, I first read that as "SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS!" which was of course incorrect...

      I would pay good money to see someone smited (smitten?) with llamas.

      Smote

    5. Re:must... protect.... god... by dsvick · · Score: 3, Funny

      According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smitten?s=t, you're ok with smitten. However you should probably be a bit more specific about which definition you mean. One would be rather amusing to see, the other sort of disgusting in a beastial sort of way

      And, I'm not sure the llamas would appreciate either

    6. Re:must... protect.... god... by quarterbuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, Llamas kick Winamps Ass?

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    7. Re:must... protect.... god... by Dins · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's exactly why I posted it that way. I sort of figured smitten was correct. But saying someone was "smitten with llamas" just sounds...wrong.

    8. Re:must... protect.... god... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did someone ask you to care? The fact that rather than skip over it, you took time to point out how much you don't care says something about you though.

    9. Re:must... protect.... god... by Black+LED · · Score: 2

      If you don't care, then you are on the wrong site.

      Even though Bill and Steve were fierce competitors, they were sort of two halves of a whole. The "yin" and "yang", so to say. When you've known somebody for that long and had such an intense common interest, animosity tends to get lost if something truly bad happens to the other.

    10. Re: must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would pay good money to see someone smite him with llamas.

    11. Re:must... protect.... god... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The fact that rather than skip over it, you took time to point out how much you don't care says something about you though.

      I hope you're aware of the irony of you saying that. Why didn't you just skip over my post?

    12. Re:must... protect.... god... by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      If you don't care, then you are on the wrong site.

      No, my comment was about "human interest" stories that involve famous people. It's like asking which presidential candidate you'd rather have a beer with. Who cares? I don't know either of these people personally. I also don't trust any description of what "they're really like" when it comes to people with carefully polished public images.

    13. Re:must... protect.... god... by vivek7006 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My Humble prediction: By the end of this century, Bill Gates will be remembered as a Nobel Prize winning humanitarian while Steve Jobs will be relegated to the dustbin of douchebags

    14. Re: must... protect.... god... by Dins · · Score: 1

      There you go.

      Sometimes I miss the forest for the trees...

    15. Re:must... protect.... god... by Black+LED · · Score: 2

      I'm saying that coming to a site that focuses almost exclusively on computer technology and then complaining when topics relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology arise is silly. Whatever your interests are, I'm sure there is a site for it. Why not find that instead?

      And Bill Gates is probably the last famous person I would say had a polished public image. He's always struck me as being a pretty real person, as far as famous people go.

    16. Re:must... protect.... god... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not the one trying to make a song and dance over "I don't care".

      So no, there is no irony. Just your hatred of a dead man.

    17. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think indestructible devices with Windows 8 on them is about the most painful thing in existence for an Apple fanboy. ;)

    18. Re:must... protect.... god... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Just your hatred of a dead man.

      Where did I say I hated anyone?

    19. Re:must... protect.... god... by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      I'm saying that coming to a site that focuses almost exclusively on computer technology and then complaining when topics relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology arise is silly.

      I do have an interest in computer technology, but I disagree that it's a topic "relating to two of the biggest influences upon that technology". It's merely a discussion about how one famous guy on TV seemed to feel about his former collaborator/rival. What next, a discussion about how Bill Gates feels about his wife and kids? It would have as much relevance to the technology.

    20. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeff Minter, call your office!

    21. Re:must... protect.... god... by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

      I was smitten by a llama once. Her name was Doris. She was an accountant. We met at one of those speed dating things, and just hit it off. Ah, Doris...

    22. Re:must... protect.... god... by denobug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My Humble prediction: By the end of this century, Bill Gates will be remembered as a Nobel Prize winning humanitarian while Steve Jobs will be relegated to the dustbin of douchebags

      That might be true. But for many of us that might live until 3/4 of this century We will continue to write how much they respect one another. That should be enough to keep Steve's reputation as a tech genius and Bill as a prodigy turn hard-driving tech executive turn philanthropist. You can probably equate Bill and Steve's relationship to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Plenty of people after them will be intrigued by their personal relationship with one another.

    23. Re:must... protect.... god... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      I've got to change my default font, I first read that as "SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS!" which was of course incorrect...

      I would pay good money to see someone smited (smitten?) with llamas.

      Not me. It's alpacas or nothing.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    24. Re:must... protect.... god... by AbsGeekNZ · · Score: 1

      Smitten with llamas? loving the llama?

    25. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bill Gates will be remembered as a Nobel Prize winning humanitarian

      JD Rockefeller Sr. is still reviled because of his merciless monopolism, despite granting his fortune to charity.

    26. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news is that current Nokias are just as fragile or robust as anything else. It was only the early models that were rugged, mostly because they were simple.

    27. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a roundabout, indirect criticism of Apple, that makes you a hater.

    28. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You jest, I'm sure.

      But there're enough of the people on slashdot and ars these days who will froth at the mouth if anyone dares say anything positive about Apple ever; that it's actually becoming fun to deify Steve Jobs just to watch the hysterics.

      I never used to see the fun in trolling before. But now I'm seeing the fun.

    29. Re:must... protect.... god... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0

      Even though Bill and Steve were fierce competitors, they were sort of two halves of a whole. The "yin" and "yang", so to say.

      Yeah, like Hitler and... Randall Flagg.

    30. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin. You lose.

    31. Re:must... protect.... god... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "That should be enough to keep Steve's reputation as a tech genius"

      Even Gates didn't support that myth, re-read what he said. Gates made it pretty clear that he felt Steve was a marketing and design genius, and says nothing about him being a tech genius. It does say Apple did a good job with the iPad, but Apple always consisted of more than just Steve and Steve always had little impact on the actual "tech" portion of Apple - even in the early days that was pretty much all Woz.

      But therein lies Steve's image problem, whilst technology is generally seen as being a great good in the world, design and marketing don't have the same reputation - they're seen as relatively shallow contributions to society in contrast to technology (and philanthropy).

      Steve's real place in history if anything will likely be alongside some of the most famous fashion designers if anything, because he knew how to make technology cool and how to make it fashionable.

      It's the classic battle between the arts and the sciences - Steve's achievements were firmly in the arts, "tech genius" falsely implies his achievements were in the sciences.

    32. Re:must... protect.... god... by catmistake · · Score: 2

      While I admire Mr. Gates immensely, I also pity him... such a success, yet always in living in the shadow of Steve. Both mere mortal men, one an ego-maniac with unbridled drive, and the other that is all too human and owes it all to his mother's promiscuity, and one very clever idea (licensing). While Steve failed time and again, and through sheer will was able to overcome adversity to turn his tiny creation into the largest richest company the world has ever known, Bill leveraged his initial conditions to maintain a notable status quo. What is saddest of all, however, is that Bill has your love and doesn't value it... he just wants to be loved by those that loved Steve.

    33. Re:must... protect.... god... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You made a roundabout, indirect criticism of Apple, that makes you a hater.

      Not to mention a blasphemer and a heretic. I even got modded down from 2 to 0 for my original "who cares" post. Can I atone by flagellating myself while walking on my knees through the streets of Cupertino?

    34. Re:must... protect.... god... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you were on a site then general revolve around politics, that question would be relevant. That wouldn't mean everyone would find that question interesting. You don't find an interviews discussing the two biggest influence in the tech market interesting, and that's fine. Saying that it doesn't belong, or that no one will care about it on a tech site is ludicrous at best, selfish at the worst.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:must... protect.... god... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hitler? seriously?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for pointing out the FUCKING TRUTH.

    37. Re:must... protect.... god... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I think it is a simple Google-search away.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    38. Re:must... protect.... god... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      He, like Bill Gates, was just faced with his own mortality which reveled his true nature as a toddler in a man's body. Cut him some slack.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    39. Re:must... protect.... god... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Damn dude....you just blew my fucking mind.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    40. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he stole money by destroying other companies, cornering markets and then "giving it to the needy". A FUCKING SAINT-HOLE, I assume.

    41. Re:must... protect.... god... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That hatred? It's still showing.

    42. Re:must... protect.... god... by JDHannan · · Score: 1

      Whip. Llamas WHIP winamp's ass

    43. Re:must... protect.... god... by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      I call dibs for Gates on Randall Flagg

    44. Re:must... protect.... god... by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
      I'm sure people always spit when they enter Rockafeller Plaza.

      Most people seem to have a pretty bad attachment to actual historical fact, preferring shiny objects.

    45. Re:must... protect.... god... by romons · · Score: 1

      I'm no jobs groupie. However, he was the first to recognize the commercial possibilities of personal computers. That alone should give him a higher standing than what you allow. He was also the first to recognize the commercial possibilities of a graphical user interface, the first to really buy into the idea that computer generated animated films were viable, and the first to really recognize the idea that your phone would be your computer instead of just your phone. He was the guy who made music downloads possible.

      I worked for apple during the years between Jobs, from 1988 to 1993. Nothing new came out then, even when exciting things were happening in the company internally. Nobody would take a risk on anything new. We were basically waiting for Steve Jobs to return (most of us didn't know it at the time). His ability as a leader, as an alpha-geek, made him able to take those risks, to drive folks to do things they normally wouldn't do. Who believed that killing the clones made sense? Who believed that dressing up 10 year old computers in translucent cases would make sense? Who believed that switching to a *nix kernel, or switching to using intel chips, or having a computer company go into first music, and then telephones made sense? Only Jobs. I haven't a clue how he did it, but he changed things around us. There is really no way to deny that.

      You could make the argument that he made Microsoft as well; without windows, and the mac version of word and excel, what would microsoft be today? Can you say 'digital research'?

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    46. Re:must... protect.... god... by Anastomosis · · Score: 1

      He didn't skip it because he did care about your post. No irony there.

    47. Re:must... protect.... god... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "I'm no jobs groupie. However, he was the first to recognize the commercial possibilities of personal computers. That alone should give him a higher standing than what you allow. He was also the first to recognize the commercial possibilities of a graphical user interface, the first to really buy into the idea that computer generated animated films were viable, and the first to really recognize the idea that your phone would be your computer instead of just your phone. He was the guy who made music downloads possible. "

      Sorry but a lot of this is just patently false. Especially so the latter ones - my Nokia 7650 from 5 years before the iPhone came out had a camera, apps, ran ports of games like Doom, had a web browser and so on - the idea of a phone as a computer was determined many many years before Apple even considered seriously entering the market. HP's iPaq range was even closer in this regard when they turned them from PDAs into phones.

      Music downloads were also possible way before iTunes, both legal and illegal.

      "I haven't a clue how he did it, but he changed things around us. There is really no way to deny that. "

      This is only true if you live an Apple centric world and only consumed things via Apple - e.g. if you didn't download any music until iTunes came about.

      "You could make the argument that he made Microsoft as well; without windows, and the mac version of word and excel, what would microsoft be today? Can you say 'digital research'?"

      This seems especially silly given that Apple would've gone under without Microsoft's bailout.

      The biggest problem with your comment is most of those ideas didn't even come from Jobs, they came from Apple staff, sure Steve recognised them as worthwhile to go ahead with, but Jobs was not the visionary behind any of them.

      I think if anything your distorted view of what he as a person chose and did highlights just how good he was of marketing, not just Apple and it's products but himself. He made himself a messiah who from your comments you would believe was the mind behind every innovation at Apple - he wasn't, he was just the guy who picked the good ideas and signed off on them then drove them forward to popularity with excellent marketing. Given this I think you are a Jobs groupie - you're attributing ideas to him that weren't his.

    48. Re:must... protect.... god... by DocMinde · · Score: 1

      Actually... Steve Jobs, via his company Apple, made it "cool" to have a smartphone... the iPhone is so intuitive that you don't have to be a member of the Cult to recognize how easy it is to use. iPad is the same. And the various iPods. Now, as to "where MS would be without Apple"... They would probably steal IBM's OS/2 code and make... oh wait.... Now... The relationship between Steve and William, is probably akin to St Helens and Wigan Warriors... both wants desperately to beat the other, but without them it would be like "who are we going to fight with now?" kindof thing. But outside of the pitch, both teams and players are good buds and go down to the local pub to grab a pint or three. That's usually how rivalry is... as long as you're wearing the other teams shirt, you're "enemy number 1" but once the game is over, you're me buddy as always... it's just how things are.

    49. Re:must... protect.... god... by romons · · Score: 1

      Sorry but a lot of this is just patently false. Especially so the latter ones - my Nokia 7650 from 5 years before the iPhone came out had a camera, apps, ran ports of games like Doom, had a web browser and so on - the idea of a phone as a computer was determined many many years before Apple even considered seriously entering the market. HP's iPaq range was even closer in this regard when they turned them from PDAs into phones.

      Sigh. There were also lots of MP3 players before the ipod made them mainstream. I was not asserting that Steve Jobs invented the telephone. I was saying that before the iphone, folks didn't consider giving up their laptops. The app store built a wonderful framework for building and monetizing real world applications for phones. Before that, you were living on the leavings of the guys porting Doom to a proprietary Nokia OS.

      Music downloads were also possible way before iTunes, both legal and illegal.

      Actually, they weren't. Illegal downloads were possible. Legal downloads were very hard, simply because the owners of the media weren't willing to play. Jobs made that possible.

      "I haven't a clue how he did it, but he changed things around us. There is really no way to deny that. "

      This is only true if you live an Apple centric world and only consumed things via Apple - e.g. if you didn't download any music until iTunes came about.

      Wrongo, moosebreath. Apple made it possible to GET the media. ITunes worked on windows too. Nobody would have trusted the clowns at napster to sell their music.

      "You could make the argument that he made Microsoft as well; without windows, and the mac version of word and excel, what would microsoft be today? Can you say 'digital research'?"

      This seems especially silly given that Apple would've gone under without Microsoft's bailout.

      Look up the history. That Microsoft bailout happened years later, after Microsoft was in control of the software industry, after Jobs came back to Apple in 96. Think back to the windows 3 days. They stole the underlying ideas for windows 3 (and the APIs) from the Mac OS code they had access to for Word and Excel development.

      The biggest problem with your comment is most of those ideas didn't even come from Jobs, they came from Apple staff,

      Again, nobody said Steve Jobs invented anything. He recognized things that were totally cool, and made them better by being a total compulsive asshole about them. He DID do this. Read the Isaacson biography. Much of the technology you use every day, INCLUDING linux and windows, owes a huge debt to Steve Jobs and his hideous obsessive compulsive disorder.

      sure Steve recognised them as worthwhile to go ahead with, but Jobs was not the visionary behind any of them.

      I think if anything your distorted view of what he as a person chose and did highlights just how good he was of marketing, not just Apple and it's products but himself. He made himself a messiah who from your comments you would believe was the mind behind every innovation at Apple - he wasn't, he was just the guy who picked the good ideas and signed off on them then drove them forward to popularity with excellent marketing. Given this I think you are a Jobs groupie - you're attributing ideas to him that weren't his.

      Again, sigh... Marketing is much more important than technology. You can have the best tech, and yet still fail in the marketplace because your ADs suck. Also, as I said before, Apple was useless without Steve Jobs. I was there, I know. All they cared about was monetizing the Macintosh, coming out with new versions that worked in a 'business environment'. It drove their market share from 15% to 7% in 5 years. Jobs didn't invent anything. Nobody says he invented technology. He saw things that nobody else saw and ran with them. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn't have the cool toys we have now. If you think that opinion makes me a groupie, you don't know what a groupie is.

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    50. Re:must... protect.... god... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "I was saying that before the iphone, folks didn't consider giving up their laptops."

      People don't now. They are completely different use cases, anything an iPhone can do a pre-iPhone smartphone could do pretty well relative to the obvious differences in hardware advancements, even the old 7650. I guess if you worked at Apple you live in the US and hence have the very US-centric view of the smartphone market - it wasn't like that here in Europe or over in Asia, we already had everything the iPhone offered before it offered it other than mainstream touchscreen interfaces - we did have stylus interfaces with the iPaq though. I recall going to Canada even in 2005 and wowing everyone with my colour screen camera phone that could install apps and comfortably play MP3s in a decent music player whilst also having GPS and mapping and this is the point - most European and Japanese smartphone features had a year or two before the iPhones release features that the iPhone didn't have until it's 2nd or 3rd iteration.

      "The app store built a wonderful framework for building and monetizing real world applications for phones. Before that, you were living on the leavings of the guys porting Doom to a proprietary Nokia OS."

      This shows complete and utter ignorance of the smartphone market, it's as if you think the smartphone market started with the iPhone, it didn't. A number of companies had app stores before the original iPhone again which didn't have one. The mobile app industry was already worth billions in Europe and Asia before the iPhone even came along.

      I'm not saying the iPhone didn't change things in the smartphone world, but it didn't change the things you think it did except perhaps in the North American market which was about 5 years behind much of the rest of the world. America has always been a tech leader in most fields but historically cellphones and smartphones is one of those markets that America was horribly backwards in and basing your worldview on the history of smartphones whilst only knowing about or understanding the North American market is bound to grossly warp your sense of what phones that were about beforehand could do.

      "Actually, they weren't. Illegal downloads were possible. Legal downloads were very hard, simply because the owners of the media weren't willing to play. Jobs made that possible. "

      I suppose that depends what particular music you were after, but it's irrelevant anyway, mainstream or indie, legal or illegal, it's pretty obvious Jobs didn't invent online music downloads, it's pretty obvious he simply built his own implementation of an already well established idea. Was his popular? without a doubt, because he could link it to his hardware business, but he certainly didn't event it. Hell, iTunes wasn't even an Apple innovation, they bought it in for crying out loud.

      "Wrongo, moosebreath. Apple made it possible to GET the media. ITunes worked on windows too. Nobody would have trusted the clowns at napster to sell their music. "

      Wrongo fuckwad. See above, it's pretty obvious that you could get the media regardless, the fact you think otherwise shows you live very desperately deep inside the reality distortion field.

      "Look up the history. That Microsoft bailout happened years later, after Microsoft was in control of the software industry, after Jobs came back to Apple in 96. Think back to the windows 3 days. They stole the underlying ideas for windows 3 (and the APIs) from the Mac OS code they had access to for Word and Excel development."

      Write and Apple stole it from PARC. Apple stole the idea of a wheel to scroll through lists on it's MP3 player from Creative's side scrolling wheel, they stole the idea of a touchscreen smartphone from LG and HP, they stole the idea of a touchscreen tablet from various sci-fi authors and Microsoft et. al's attempts before them. So what? You're giving Steve credit for things he didn't create all the same and accusing Microsoft of stealing ideas whilst pretending Apple didn't, that's fanboyism at it's fine

    51. Re:must... protect.... god... by romons · · Score: 1

      "He DID do this. Read the Isaacson biography."

      Because biographies are obviously highly objective sources of information. No thanks I'll stick to getting my knowledge on the topic from more objective historical references thank you very much.

      Sigh. You are talking about they guy who wrote the Einstein, Franklin, and Kissinger bios. You know nothing, and you are also unwilling to learn. Good for you, keep that anti-apple bias as pure as you can. Don't let it be corrupted by facts. We all know how annoying and inconvenient they can be.

      I don't think your opinion in your final paragraph makes you a groupie because suddenly you're agreeing with my original point - that Jobs' skill was in running a company and marketing. I do however think all the bollocks giving Jobs credit for things that weren't his idea makes you a groupie though.

      My argument all along (aside from the divergence towards your suggestion Jobs was responsible for ideas that weren't his) has simply been that Jobs strengths weren't technical, hence calling him a "technical genius" is fucking stupid, that's all.

      I never said anything like what you apparently misread in my post. I never said Jobs was a 'technical genius'. (What I know of Jobs is that he was a mediocre engineer. He was never gifted with the ability to design a system, or to build new tech from scratch. That all came from the Isaacson Biography, by the way.) Your animosity towards anything related to Jobs or Apple seems to have blinded you. Go read my post again, I have been saying the same thing all along. You owe me an apology, and you owe yourself a remedial reading class.

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    52. Re: must... protect.... god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are usually laws against being smitten with llamas ...
      Except in the ACT Australia it's perfectly legal.

    53. Re:must... protect.... god... by yurigoul · · Score: 1

      If you really understand it you automatically come out a liberal or - even worse for you Americans - a European left wing (in other words: off the scale for you Americans - tut mir leit)

  2. Coming soon! by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft Yacht(tm).

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Coming soon! by avandesande · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not square enough. Barge?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Coming soon! by Bigby · · Score: 2

      Apple iBoat (because Yacht is too specific)

    3. Re:Coming soon! by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 2

      ahem, iirc. it was Steve who took pride in stealing other's ideas ;)

    4. Re:Coming soon! by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not square enough. Barge?

      As long as it doesn't have rounded corners.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    5. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      ahem, iirc. it was Steve who took pride in stealing other's ideas ;)

      A particular irony with Microsoft is that in many cases, MS Research develops a technology, licenses it (unbeknownst to the masses) to a 3rd party, and later releases a product with the same capability and is accused of copying. Most of what MSR does is licensed that way, and a not-inconsequential portion of it eventually comes back.

      That's why very interesting tech, like the Courier and the adaptive keyboard that made the media rounds a couple years ago, never get to market. Something is done with a partner, and that partnership ends before a product hits the market. Microsoft keeps the IP and maybe licenses it in the future, maybe not. That's why they spend $10B a year in research and rack in a huge amount of revenue from the IP that comes out of it.

    6. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ahem, iirc. it was Steve who took pride in stealing other's ideas ;)

      Sure, but now a yacht with rounded corners? There's a patent (pending) for that!

    7. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're holding it WRONG!

    8. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be brown.

    9. Re:Coming soon! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      They already have one

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht)

      Paul Allen actually has a second one that is almost 100m long as well. He's a fan of big yachts.

    10. Re:Coming soon! by santax · · Score: 1

      Didn't Steve call that yacht the i-Sore?

    11. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 8 makes me want to yacht

    12. Re:Coming soon! by jafac · · Score: 2

      Gonna just squirt on down to Cabo on my Yune.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:Coming soon! by taj · · Score: 1

      it has round corners now.

    14. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not square enough. Barge?

      As long as it doesn't have rounded corners.

      You fail at originality. Have an idea, will you?

    15. Re:Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit! That's not a yacht, that's a fuckin cruiser.

    16. Re:Coming soon! by DocMinde · · Score: 1

      Is there an app for that?

  3. Competition is often complex. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We hear and see stories about bitter company rivals. However at the same time they are also partners.
    For the most part it is business it isn't personal.
    In areas where they are competing in the same spot, they will be quite bitter rivals, however if a different product supports the other company they will be best friends.

    Microsoft Fought OS's while partnered in Office.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Competition is often complex. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see the same thing among lawyers... they may be bitter rivals in court, but then go out for drinks and have a few laughs afterwards. You have to figure two people in direct competition will probably have more in common with each other than with another random person. Just because they are professional rivals doesn't mean they can't have a great personal relationship.

    2. Re:Competition is often complex. by alen · · Score: 2

      kind of like athletes?

      chances are these people went to school together or have friends in common and see each other at holidays or common functions

      i've known officers in the army who trained each other in west point and ended up in the same unit or assuming command of a unit from a former upper classman

    3. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In addition to both being fellow business competitors, Jobs and Gates are also both highly successful sociopaths. Gates knows quite well that emulating compassion and humanity for the media is a savvy move; I'm sure Jobs would have done the same for him, had the situation been reversed.

    4. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "kill the baby" but nothing personal right? FYI, it is personal when you put people out of work and that is what Microsoft has done and worked to do over and over so they could save their own business, products and position in the market. There is next to no partnership with Microsoft which ends well for the other company because everything they do and have done has been about making sure Microsoft controls and owns the market. They don't provide software for a competing product until it is so very painfully obvious they can't own that market and even then those products are slow to market and less feature complete compared to their Windows based counter parts.

      As for these comments about Steve Jobs not being venomous rivalry backed, well Bill is a good marketing man and knows he'd only harm is position if he badmouthed Jobs. Jobs is gone, he's being held high in the press and public eye since his passing and any good PR person knows you don't hit a dead guy in public when he's liked that much.

    5. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not always. Fore example, some lawyers, especially those who represent patent and copyright trolls, are sincerely loathed by other attorneys, and for them, it is deeply personal.

    6. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like when I play chess with my friend, I want to destroy him, then whoever wins, we drink another beer?

    7. Re:Competition is often complex. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand the cynicism, but I don't see what benefit there is to an uber-billionaire who no longer runs anything except a philanthropic organization where he gives away his own money, to worry about "emulating compassion and humanity for the media".

      Ultimately, I don't care, either. Actions speak louder than words. Emulate whatever the fuck you want, as long as you're giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to solve fundamental problems in the world and try to build a structure with which your money will provide the most long-term benefits continued far into the future.

    8. Re:Competition is often complex. by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you look at what Bill Gates has been doing with his time and money since he quit Microsoft, it's hard to make the case that he is lacking compassion and humanity. He is doing more and higher-profile philanthropy than any other billionaire I can think of, and doing a lot more good in the world than an average citizen like me is in a position to.

      Which is not to say he's a saint. How he got his money is certainly open to criticism: I certainly disapprove of that.

      If you feel {compelled, qualified, entitled} to assess the man's character, please consider all the facts. Myself, I don't really know the guy.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    9. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      Like that, only that you'd have been happier to so thoroughly destroy him that he could never play chess again, and take every cent that he had, and leave him homeless to die starving on the street. The only reason you don't is that you're not *that* much better a player than him --- so until then, you act friendly and drink beer together.

    10. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that, psychologically speaking, either are sociopaths? Do you have any evidence that they lack emotion, or are you just throwing around words without knowing what they really imply?

    11. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I've seen Gates spending a lot of "charity" money to coerce poor countries into accepting Big Pharma's terms for "intellectual property" --- to make sure they can't produce cheap medications for themselves, but are ever reliant on (tax-deductible) contributions from wealthy benefactors. I've seen millions poured into "educational reform," to encourage profitable privatization and the creation of corporate-friendly obedient peon mills. Yes, the Gates "philanthropic" foundations have done some good things, but if you look more closely at their records, they're often involved in empire building to assure that the future of the world is still at the mercy of power-hungry multibillionaires.

    12. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. It is the same reason that makes my brain cave in when people are saying silly things like "Why would Playstation let Xbox have bluray, that would be helping them" (yes, typed as that, not even the company names... that is the level of brains those types typically have)

      Business is business. Companies regularly have sub-sections of their company competing and helping each other indirectly and even directly in some cases.
      You might not even agree with a business partners ethics, but they are still paying you for stuff, screw the ethics of it.

      Many people come across these situations, such as IBM dealing with Nazi Germany, or the creators of encrypted networks having to come to the realization that they are also helping terrorists, pedos, human traffickers and other shady types communicate too, that is the price of true freedom. To have censorship introduces an unwelcome avenue for abuse. To balance those being suppressed by oppressive oversight to those being abused physically, some even meet each other at times. (although there was a system in some program that let the community rate things positively, so only things the community wants at the top results is shown. Open to abuse, still)
      There is rarely ever black and white situations in these scenarios, they are mainly many shades of grey.

    13. Re:Competition is often complex. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1, Troll

      If you look at what Bill Gates has been doing with his time and money since he quit Microsoft, it's hard to make the case that he is lacking compassion and humanity.

      Really? How about this: http://jennydaviesdevelopment.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/gates-foundation-doing-good-or-causing-harm/

      "The Gates Foundation has invested more than $400 million in oil firms in the Niger Delta which are responsible for pollution that many blame for respiratory problems among the local population The Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst polluting companies in the United States and Canada "

    14. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because Bill Gates cares about how much money the pharmaceutical industry makes. It all makes sense now!

    15. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0, Troll

      When you have billions of dollars of your own money invested in Big Pharma, you sure do. You know Bill Gates doesn't keep all his money in Microsoft stock? He (and his heirs) are massive beneficiaries of profits for pharmaceutical companies and private education investments. "Big Charity" to coerce national level decision making is just another profitable business/investment decision.

    16. Re:Competition is often complex. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Hardly the same thing. Athletes often have friends on rival teams, but officers aren't usually pals with their counterparts in enemy armies.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Competition is often complex. by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I prefer Bill Gates trying and perhaps failing at charity in an attempt to be a decent person to Bill Gates trying and succeeding in being a douchebag.

      Actually operating a charity is not as easy as you think it is. It's not just a matter of wrapping up some food and sending it to starving kids in Ethiopia. If that were the case, we'd have solved hunger long ago, as we already make more than enough food for every person on Earth.

    18. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He knows what they imply, it's just more satisfying for him to believe that there must be some sort of simple answer like "they're all monsters", that explains the state of the world and how rich people get rich.

      And yeah, some of those guys probably are sociopaths, but many of them are people who just worked hard when they got opportunities that matched their skills. Admittedly, those opportunities do not always fall evenly, but you don't have to lack compassion or emotion to receive them.

      The problem is that rich people crop up when inequalities can be turned into revenue generating opportunities, and those opportunities are caused by situations that we often put in place to help more than just rich people.

      But that's also why you used to be able to pay an unskilled auto worker $70,000 a year to fetch tools from a tool bin. Trade barriers or knowledge barriers kept the people who were willing to do it for $700 a year from actually getting a chance at the job. So that auto worker had a nice little house and car, and the unemployed foreign worker starved or worked in something so dangerous that a westerner wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

    19. Re:Competition is often complex. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I have always suspected that Bill G. believed he was doing the public a favor by strong arming them into a common platform. Paternalistic or Sociopath?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    20. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enemy armies?

    21. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is the people running charity suffers harsher criticism than the worst blood-sucking toxin-spilling corporations you don't even know the names of.

      *Anybody* running a charity should be commended, even if misguided. If the intention is good, it can't be all worse than the lowest sociopath corporations.

    22. Re:Competition is often complex. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer Bill Gates trying and perhaps failing at charity in an attempt to be a decent person to Bill Gates trying and succeeding in being a douchebag.

      Actually operating a charity is not as easy as you think it is. It's not just a matter of wrapping up some food and sending it to starving kids in Ethiopia. If that were the case, we'd have solved hunger long ago, as we already make more than enough food for every person on Earth.

      The issue isn't Bill Gates "trying and perhaps failing at charity". The problem is that an enormous amount of the work done by his foundation is actually harmful, not beneficial.

      Why has the Gates Foundation invested hundreds of millions of dollars in oil companies in Africa (who are among the biggest polluters and whose pollution is causing substantial harm to the local people)? Why has the foundation invested in dozens of the worst polluting companies in the U.S. and Canada? Why has the foundation invested enormous amounts of money in big pharma companies who are actively fighting against making inexpensive medications available to developing nations?

      Why? Because that's how Bill Gates and all his billionaire friends make money, now and in the future. Less than 20% of Gates' wealth comes from Microsoft stock.

    23. Re:Competition is often complex. by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That might be true, if he actually had heirs. Mr. Gates has already stated that he is not leaving anything to his kids, and he has enough money to last him until he dies, so it kind of makes your argument kind of silly.

    24. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0

      Both? A sociopath won't have much concept of the interests of others as distinct from their own. To a sociopath, doing what's right for *yourself* is identical to doing what's right for the world. Paternalism is fundamentally sociopathic.

    25. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates plans to give away 95% of his fortune: http://archive.is/20120719/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11565953.
      Let's be honest. Do you really think Bill Gates thinks he can achieve more than a 20x return with the assets he doesn't sell off? I don't think the conspiracy you're looking for exists. If this was the case, why would he intentionally make the operation of the organization transparent? Is Warren Buffett in on the conspiracy too? I honestly think you're grasping at straws.

    26. Re:Competition is often complex. by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Would you like to donate to the Human Fund? It's a charity I started and my intentions are good (TM). Please send check payable to myself at 55 Lonely Drive, Houston TX. Thanks!

    27. Re:Competition is often complex. by sgent · · Score: 2

      Umm.... I'm not so sure about that. Especially in civil wars, high ranking officers are often friends with each other.

      US Grant and Robert E. Lee is the classic example, but there are numerous others.

    28. Re:Competition is often complex. by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gates had stated through his entire career at Microsoft that he would give most of his fortune to charity and he does appear to be doing that,

      I do not wish to speak ill of the dead but Jobs was not renowned for any charitable works and certainly made little mention of them.

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    29. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope he doesn't change his mind. Or wasn't lying.

    30. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a) Probably wasn't lying. I'd rather believe Bill Gates is just a guy with more money than he knows what to do with than that he is some conspiratorial sociopath who, together with Warren Buffett, is planning to make even more ludicrous sums of money before he bites the dust. I dunno, which do you think seems more plausible?

      b) There wouldn't be any reason for him to change his mind. He has more money than God and he didn't exactly get rich by being easily moved from his courses of action.

    31. Re:Competition is often complex. by griffinme · · Score: 2

      Many officers knew each other before the war but Grant was a nobody before the war. Lee had been important before the war (He had an almost perfect record at West Point). They had met once in Mexico but Lee didn't remember the meeting. It was rumored that Lee was offered command of the entire army in the North but declined when Virginia went with the South. But there were many moments were former friends and even families would be on opposite sides. This led to some very hard feelings especially in areas where both sides recruited like Kentucky.

      Eventually they would go on to fight one of the bloodiest wars the US has ever known. More Americans died in that war than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more.

      --
      Is he strong? Listen bud, He's got radioactive blood.
    32. Re:Competition is often complex. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      You see the same thing among lawyers... they may be bitter rivals in court, but then go out for drinks and have a few laughs afterwards. You have to figure two people in direct competition will probably have more in common with each other than with another random person. Just because they are professional rivals doesn't mean they can't have a great personal relationship.

      Actually, years back, we used to have this type of thing with our lawmakers in Washington, DC.

      I think it was Tip O'Neal and Reagan, that would fight tooth and nail over political issues, but at the EOD, they were known to have a drink together as friends.

      Unfortunately our "great unifier" hasn't turned out to be one, and things are as polarized as they can get these days.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:Competition is often complex. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Gates knows quite well that emulating compassion and humanity for the media is a savvy move;

      To what end? There's the flaw in the logic of your cynicism. When you're one of the richest people in the world, and you've retired young. You do whatever makes you happy, without needing to care less about the media or anyone else thinks.

      So why do an interview? I haven't seen this one, but they are generally to push some charitable enterprise.

    34. Re:Competition is often complex. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      "The Gates Foundation has invested more than $400 million in oil firms in the Niger Delta which are responsible for pollution that many blame for respiratory problems among the local population

      Well, killing them off is certainly ONE way to help eradicate hunger in those areas.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:Competition is often complex. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that he has more money than anyone could spend in ten lifetimes, Gates' philanthropy is like you buying a hamburger for a homeless man. I'm just not impressed. I'm far more impressed with the hungry man who shares half that hamburger with another homeless man.

      You do realise that no-one is doing anything to try and impress you. Your attempts to judge the worthiness of other people's charity is not only unseemly, it's irrelevant.

    36. Re:Competition is often complex. by Holi · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone on the left or in the administration has used the term the "Great Unifier (or Uniter)" ever. So it seems to be a pseudo derogatory term created by the right as a play on their "Great Disaster (wait that should be Decider)".

      I don;t think it's Obama's fault for the division. Heck the dividers came out in force before he even started his first term. So before you blame the Pres for the division let's actually take a look at who is doing the dividing.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    37. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that's a touch bit callous. So you want him to just invest in oil and be a dick or just do charitable work? He can't do both because it's a conflict of interest. That's seems silly. Sure you don't have to paint him as a saint for doing both but to say he should stop doing charitable work because of it is just well I don't even know the word. At least he's doing something what the hell have any of us done?

      I would also like to see the sources on your statements. While I do believe that he hasn't made a huge impact his work out of any individuals charitable work has the potential to do the most to help people. Removing that just because he has investments in these companies is silly.

    38. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he's trying.

    39. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still didn't mean he had to quit his job and focus completely on his philanthropy. He's bleeding money to the point that he's no longer the most wealthy man on the planet, he has dumped million into charity and have been quoted as saying they plan on using 95% of their wealth on it. Sure they will still be wealthy but holy shit man that's a ton of money. Shaming him into philanthropy I highly doubt it, lighting a fire under his ass and having him go head first into it maybe. Inspiration to do things can come from different sources why berate him for that.

      No one is a fan of Bills business practices, he leveraged things in his favor and was ruthless sometimes illegally so. But that was business and this is him post business. Get over it, the guy in your article did and that was 10 years ago.

    40. Re:Competition is often complex. by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      I don;t think it's Obama's fault for the division.

      No, Obama didn't start the fire, so to speak...

      But I believe he and his administration have pushed it as far as they possibly can, and have become one of the main polarizing factors we have in govt and society today.

      When he was running, there was quite a lot of talk of him bringing people together, reaching across aisles, being a govt. of openness, etc.

      That just goes against what his real ideology is IMHO.

      I see him and the current administration as being more devicive (sp?) than any other previous administration going back like to Nixon.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    41. Re:Competition is often complex. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great fortunes are curses onto the kids.

      Gates knows that. He doesn't want his kids/grandkids turning out like a Hilton, Getty, Rockefeller or Kennedy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, you might be surprised how often US or Commonwealth miltary have professional friendships or even (former) drinking buddies in "enemy" forces. First off; all NATO forces have extensive joint exercises in member countries. These are weeks, even months long operations, so there is plenty of time for off duty fraternization. (you wouldn't believe the capacity Finn and Norwegian enlisted men have for vodka and akvavit!)

        Many times members of non-NATO forces are invited to be Foreign Observers during these Operations. e.g. we always invite the (post Cold War) Russians when doing big exercises in the Nordic countries so they won't get nervous at all the forces amassing on their border. They do the same for us as well.

      Then there is the fact that the US offers training and exchange programs to foreign military officers. Many Iraqi officers had the benefit of formal training in US military staff schools.
      (I've long suspected that in addition to ensuring military stability in potential allies, these programs have the unspoken purpose of making sure potential enemies are properly apprised of just how big, advanced, equipped and prepared American and Commonwealth forces are. You're a lot less likely to advise your political leader(s) in favour of a war with the US if you know from close personal experience how able they/we are to kick your asses to hell and gone)

        The CIA and covert community has long been rumoured to host similar programs for guerillas, contras et al as well. As a result; when the political winds change, the drinking buddy you met while training last year might well be serving in an army you are tasked with destroying today. My best friend did 3 separate tours in Cyprus, quite often he'd drink Ouzo with the Greeks one week, Raki with the Turks another week (bored enlisted men get into all sorts of no-nos) and every day while on duty be prepared to shoot at or be shot by either group.

    43. Re:Competition is often complex. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The issue is actually easy.
      Corporations are in it to make more money. They will try to do choices that will maximize their money. However Charities have a lot of addenda across them. Some of them are actually just like the corporation and are in it for the money, they will spend 70 cents for every dollar so they can keep 30 cents for every dollar. They are others who will say feed the children, so they can convince them to join their cult or religion.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    44. Re: Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's it like, being ignorant and blinkered?

    45. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, because the previous administration was known to be so bipartisan that a unifier was necessary... wait..

    46. Re:Competition is often complex. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      That bitterness is making you twisted.

      It's perfectly possible to have hated Gates for what he did with Microsoft without having to twist the world so his charity isn't really a charity but an organ of evil.

    47. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because we need energy

    48. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree - Gates didn't come by his wealth ethically. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his philanthropy now is an attempt to clear his debt to society and to appease the history books...

      If he really wants to do go, he should be cracking the future energy problem. I wonder how much the Gates foundation is investing in solar and fusion, and methods for creating infrastructure to propagate those...

    49. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More Americans died in that war than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more."\

      All the combatants on both sides were American.

    50. Re:Competition is often complex. by Princeofcups · · Score: 0

      Emulate whatever the fuck you want, as long as you're giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to solve fundamental problems in the world and try to build a structure with which your money will provide the most long-term benefits continued far into the future.

      Start by giving it back to all the people who lost their jobs because of Bill's illegal slash and burn tactics. How about all the money extorted from governments for Microsoft systems that cost them more in the long run, that could have been used to solve their internal problems. How about paying all the taxes on his wealth that he criminally hides in things like, oh, foundations. Now he gives away a few dollars to appease his ego, and people forgive him? Fuck that.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    51. Re:Competition is often complex. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      We hear and see stories about bitter company rivals.

      You'd be surprised. Very often, two companies that you'd think compete are actually aiming at subtly different customers and can achieve more by working together.

    52. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      I do judge Gate's philanthropic works on their own merits, independent of Microsoft. That's why, when I see the Gates Foundation name showing up as the major donor for all sorts of things that *I already think are twisted evil* before I knew Gates was involved, I get pretty cynical. I don't like the push for poorer countries to sign on to international "intellectual property" treaties to prevent them from mass-producing life-saving medications without generating profit for Western pharmaceutical oligopolies --- and I disliked that *regardless* of Gates' involvement. I don't like the push for destroying public education, replacing it with for-profit corporate indoctrination centers run by the same folks behind the private prison industry --- and I disliked that *without* knowing Gates had a hand in it. I don't hate many of the things that Gates' "philanthropy" does because of Gates; I hate Gates for funneling lots of fake philanthropic money towards causes that are *massively harmful* to humanity.

    53. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Human Fund.

      Feeding children one human at a time (tm)

    54. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you possibly think that Bill Gates was not involved in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? At any rate, you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. In order for this to be a vast money-making scheme for Bill, countless (very rich) people would have to be in on the conspiracy. Do you think that Warren Buffett, the man who's lived in the same house for over 50 years, really just wants to get richer and damn the means to get there? Why would Bill Gates make such a terrible organization run transparently so that people can trace where funds go? Why would Bill Gates care about his personal wealth when he doesn't plan to give his children billions of dollars and he already has vast sums? You're operating over tenuous threads of logic and whenever someone asks you these questions in this comment tree, you just don't respond.

    55. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what else those oil companies are responsible for?

      Producing oil, which is then sold to make a profit, which in turn fills the coffers of a local government. Not to mention cheap energy etc. Yes, it's dirty, but it's available here and now with minimal expense to provide for the needs of the local population, as opposed to solar and wind pipe dreams.

    56. Re:Competition is often complex. by brausch · · Score: 1

      Civil War had more American military deaths than WW2 by around 50%.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    57. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0

      How could you possibly think that Bill Gates was not involved in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

      When the heck did I say that? I said that there were perverse political causes that I opposed, and *then* I found out that the Gates foundation was heavily supporting them.

      Why would Bill Gates make such a terrible organization run transparently so that people can trace where funds go?

      Because his "philanthropy" has an amazing PR team, so they can *openly* fund terrible things by *calling them good ideas,* like "education reform" and "strengthened intellectual property rights." Also, there's a lot of under-the-table strong-arming before the funds move: you know that $XX million dollars were given to such-and-such a country, conveniently *after* key politicians agree to "unrelated" corporate-friendly causes. The Gates Foundation provides a fully-tax-deductible corporate lobbying and investment fund. And whenever anyone does call them out for their transparent investments in destructive companies, it's "why do you hate charity for poor African children?"

      Why would Bill Gates care about his personal wealth when he doesn't plan to give his children billions of dollars and he already has vast sums?

      Why would Gates have bothered going beyond being a mere multi-hundred-millionaire in the first place? As I've argued elsewhere, Gates is apparently motivated by *power and control* over others --- amassing giant heaps of money is one way to get this, but so is being able to throw around heaps of your own and others' money for "charity."

    58. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don;t think it's Obama's fault for the division.

      No, Obama didn't start the fire, so to speak...

      But I believe he and his administration have pushed it as far as they possibly can, and have become one of the main polarizing factors we have in govt and society today.

      When he was running, there was quite a lot of talk of him bringing people together, reaching across aisles, being a govt. of openness, etc.

      That just goes against what his real ideology is IMHO.

      I see him and the current administration as being more devicive (sp?) than any other previous administration going back like to Nixon.

      Is there anything, major and specific, that the Republicans have compromised on that you can use to blame Obama for? I'm an (I) but as far as I can tell, we have a 1980's style Republican in the office of the President. Elections have been such that the rest of the Republican's have just moved so far to the right that old style Republican's now make up the core of the Democratic party and the old Left is now (still) sitting in Occupy Wall Street camps, being mostly ignored by the media.

      Did the Republicans agree to raise income taxes on the top 2% yet? How about giving parity to labor and capital int he tax rates - I see labor taxed at ~35% and capital at under 15% after deductions are taken into account. Is Social Security Tax now paid on dividends? No, of course not, that would increase equity in the US and reduce the horrible shift in the US Gini index.

      So, please enlighten us all, what is a major sacrifice the Republican party has made in efforts to be bi-partisan? It's not real control, defense cuts, coal or oil subsidies. I don't recall them even voting to increase taxes so the damn FDA can have a meat inspector visit a plant every year, much less the chemical ones like West Texas. What mega-multi-billion dollar program they ran in favor of are they willing to cut?

    59. Re:Competition is often complex. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      More like Grant and Longstreet, who were cousins-in-law.

    60. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why, when I see the Gates Foundation name showing up as the major donor for all sorts of things that *I already think are twisted evil* before I knew Gates was involved, I get pretty cynical.

      Possibly you meant that he wasn't involved in specific donations, but I'm pretty sure I would assume Gates was involved in major donations from the Foundation without evidence to the contrary.

      Because his "philanthropy" has an amazing PR team, so they can *openly* fund terrible things by *calling them good ideas,* like "education reform" and "strengthened intellectual property rights." Also, there's a lot of under-the-table strong-arming before the funds move: you know that $XX million dollars were given to such-and-such a country, conveniently *after* key politicians agree to "unrelated" corporate-friendly causes. The Gates Foundation provides a fully-tax-deductible corporate lobbying and investment fund. And whenever anyone does call them out for their transparent investments in destructive companies, it's "why do you hate charity for poor African children?"

      Okay, so why don't they just not provide any of that information, so people don't even know that they're investing in destructive companies? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

      Why would Gates have bothered going beyond being a mere multi-hundred-millionaire in the first place? As I've argued elsewhere, Gates is apparently motivated by *power and control* over others --- amassing giant heaps of money is one way to get this, but so is being able to throw around heaps of your own and others' money for "charity."

      Few people set out for the day going, "my goal is to become a billionaire". Bill Gates' interest was in growing Microsoft since it was his company, and because of his equity it also happened to make him even richer than multi-millionaire. What was he going to do, say "OK, this is honestly too much money now, I'm going to sell off my equity before I become a billionaire"? The *power and control* line just makes you sound more like a conspiracy theorist, not less. It just seems to me like Bill Gates is motivated by building organizations, not necessarily amassing vast sums of money.

      By the way, you still haven't answered the other questions yet.

    61. Re:Competition is often complex. by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Do you know how much these drugs cost to create and get approved for sale?

      HERE

      Also, the IP clauses shouldn't be an issue... they last for 20 years, and most of the time the drug patent is submitted prior to clinical trials. I am way over simplifying this though, as there are other items that can be done to extend.

      It would also be nice if people could start trying to actually back up their points with some solid proof/articles.

    62. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Okay, so why don't they just not provide any of that information, so people don't even know that they're investing in destructive companies?

      Well, a lot of the "transparent disclosure" that you're so proud of is *already mandated by law* for maintaining charity status. As for supporting some slimy causes publicly, a big reason is to use the positive PR of the "Gates Foundation" name to give a positive slant to crummy corporate chicanery and lobbying (and even get a tax write-off for funding things you'd be doing anyway).

      It just seems to me like Bill Gates is motivated by building organizations, not necessarily amassing vast sums of money.

      I'd agree with you there. Bill Gates wants to build massive controlling capitalist power structures --- to "solve" all the world's problems by putting an oligarchy in charge. This "organization building" --- to cement the power of global megacorporations that Gates invests in to run the world --- is exactly what I dislike Gates for.

      By the way, you still haven't answered the other questions yet.

      Sorry, I don't keep a comprehensive list of every random talking point from AC inquisitors. If you like long lists of points to address, I found this nicely compiled list of dastardly things the Gates Foundation has been (openly) doing. How about addressing a couple hundred of those?

    63. Re:Competition is often complex. by jafac · · Score: 2

      That's not actually true. He was "saving" us from a world dominated by overpriced IBM time-sharing systems, and Sun, SGI, workstations. The world of the vertically-integrated systems.

      There was no such thing as "personal computers" - and commodity hardware didn't really exist until the IBM PC and Apple I came on the market. As Microsoft was an independent software company, Bill Gates' "vision" was that by de-coupling the software from the hardware, he was providing a solution to the high-priced systems that the vertically-integrated competitors were selling.

      At least, that was the idea in the late 1980's, early 1990's. And it was really the truth. Your typical IBM PC, plus MS DOS, plus productivity software, was a crapload cheaper than all competitors. When competitors DID emerge, the productivity software didn't exist. And that's where the problem occurred, because that's where MS became a monopoly. The only thing that kept prices competitive was the competition in the hardware space, and the bundling deals.

      It's very different, in the post-2005-ish market, now that there are viable Linux solutions out there. Microsoft is hurting because of this. Most of their former competitors - if you hadn't noticed, are gone.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    64. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0

      Well, he's doing a terrible job. In 2012, Bill Gates got $7 *richer* after all his "charitable" donations --- to the foundation that serves as a lobbying/investment firm for Gate's for-profit holdings. The "philanthropy" is a scam front for investing money back to Bill Gates empire. You don't "accidentally" get $7 Billion richer in a year after "giving away" all your money. So, yes, based on 2012, Gates is earning an immense return on all that wealth he's "giving away."

    65. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Informative

      In 2012, Gates ended up 7 billion dollars *richer* after "giving away" billions --- to the "charity" that re-invests in the companies that Gates holds the rest of his fortune in. Pretty convenient to "accidentally" make 7 billion dollars in a year, while trying to "give away" your wealth. Almost as if the Gates Foundation was actually a wildly successful tax-sheltered front for advancing the extremely profitable interests that Gates is heavily invested in, that, after a few years of initial start-up investment, is now paying back ridiculously high dividends.

    66. Re:Competition is often complex. by varmfskii · · Score: 1

      There was no such thing as "personal computers" - and commodity hardware didn't really exist until the IBM PC and Apple I came on the market. As Microsoft was an independent software company, Bill Gates' "vision" was that by de-coupling the software from the hardware, he was providing a solution to the high-priced systems that the vertically-integrated competitors were selling.

      There were few personal computers before the Apple I and the market was emerging at the time. It was a significant machine, but it was by no means the first. As for the IBM PC, the personal computer was thriving before its introduction. You had both a large number of home computers and many economical business oriented personal computers. The dominant OS for business computing at the time (even though the first "killer app" for business was first introduced on the Apple ][) was CP/M and even well configured CP/M mahines were generally cheaper that the IBM 5150 (the fisr IBM PC model)

      At least, that was the idea in the late 1980's, early 1990's. And it was really the truth. Your typical IBM PC, plus MS DOS, plus productivity software, was a crapload cheaper than all competitors. When competitors DID emerge, the productivity software didn't exist. And that's where the problem occurred, because that's where MS became a monopoly. The only thing that kept prices competitive was the competition in the hardware space, and the bundling deals.

      Wrong!

    67. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, he should be forced to be taxed at an insane rate, because you know, the government is so much better at handling such an amount of money than a long time philanthropist.

      go away and die lefties.

    68. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You give millions to deal with malaria, someone bitches that someone made too much on the drugs.

      You give millions to to develop industry around the natural resource a region has, and you're a horrible polluting white satan.

      If you invest in local businesses, you'll be on the hook for everything those businesses ever do.

      But if you keep your money to yourself, or maybe buy yourself an insane yacht you'll never see... you still die rich and everyone scrambles to make movies and books about you. At worst they're only going to say the same awful shit they were going to say if you dumped billions of your own money into charity.

      Takes notes, people.

    69. Re:Competition is often complex. by taj · · Score: 1

      Partnering with office was defensive. It wasn't going to make Microsoft money but it would prevent the killer doc application starting on Apple. Look at graphic editing for example in which softie didn't preempt competition well.

    70. Re:Competition is often complex. by stymy · · Score: 2

      Actually, the reason the Gates Foundation invests in those companies is that the Foundation consists of 2 independent parts: the investment side and the charity side. The goal of the investment side is maximize the return on investment, while assuming low risk for long-term stability. The other side, obviously, focuses on the charity. Sometimes the 2 sides are at odds with one another, and so the structure is controversial, but what it does accomplish is to maximize how much money can be given to charity in the end.

    71. Re:Competition is often complex. by stymy · · Score: 1

      The goal of the Gates foundation is to be able to continue to carry out research and charity essentially forever. In order to do that, they have a large lump sum of money they invest, and then they use for charity the return they get from that. Also, it's rather hard to actually spend 40 BILLION dollars in a short period of time productively. There are only so many promising things to research, and excessive aid to poor countries can stifle their industries and thus hurt them in the long term. I suspect that's why the Gates Foundation seems to be focusing mainly on eradicating some very nasty diseases. So since they got all that money they can't spend well, they invest it. Seems reasonable. Besides, it's not like the Gates can the money back from the Foundation, making it the worst tax shelter ever.

    72. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 0

      Yet Gates' personal wealth grew tremendously, after "giving away" so much to the foundation --- not only recovering the donated amount, but returning it with 20% interest. Yes, a foundation will want investments for holding money until better uses can be found --- but the type of investment (and whether there are multibillion dollar conflicts of interest with the for-profit holdings of charity board members) is up for scrutiny.

      And yes, there are plenty of easy ways for Gates and his corporate buddies to get money back from the foundation: whenever the foundation spends money by giving it to a "corporate partner" to buy "charitable" items. For example, the Gates Foundation might buy medications --- with very low marginal production costs, but at high "market value" that third-world countries would never pay --- from a pharmaceutical giant, laundering tax-deducted "charity" money back into corporate profits.

    73. Re:Competition is often complex. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Almost as if the Gates Foundation was actually a wildly successful tax-sheltered front for advancing the extremely profitable interests that Gates is heavily invested in, that, after a few years of initial start-up investment, is now paying back ridiculously high dividends.

      Why would you think that? First, it is obvious that there are tax benefits to giving away money to charity. But these benefits are less than 100%. That is, if Bill Gates donates, say $3.4 billion to the foundation at a federal tax rate of 35% he will get back almost $1.2 billion in saved taxes (assuming as happened here that he was earning enough to make that happen). That means donating to charity is a money sink, though a subsidized one.

      What likely happened is that his investments did well. He has a lot more money where those donations came from. My take is that he would have earned somewhere around 9 billion after taxes for that year.

      There may also be an additional tax advantage to donating assets that have appreciated greatly.But it still strikes me, if he's not earning a vast amount of income or capital gains, then he doesn't have a need for a tax shelter.

    74. Re:Competition is often complex. by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      No, the $7B gain was *including* "donating" $36B to his "charity" --- Bill G's investments (in companies that benefit from his "philanthropic" advocacy for global corporatism) returned him $36+7 billion dollars (read the linked article). When you publicly say you're working towards "giving away all your money to charity," but your net worth is *growing* faster than you can give away, and your "charity" organization is linked to all sorts of shady moneygrubbing interests --- there's room for quite a bit of suspicion. Gates has, his whole life, been a ruthless empire-building, wealth-accumulating, screw-over-anyone-to-make-billions, sociopath. "Accidentally" using your "charity" as a massive corporate tax dodge and lobbying organization to turn a big profit on "philanthropy" seems in line with the available evidence.

    75. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! A good businessman in charge of a charity! We can't have that!

      So what if he is smart enough to invest his foundation's money wisely? That's an extra 7 billion dollars he can use for the greater good. The goal of a charity isn't to give money away as fast as possible and then close their doors. It's about making a long-term difference to people's lives.

    76. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So Bill, what are you going to do with all that money?"

      "Well, I have a three part plan.

      1) Deliberately deprive poor people of medicine
      2) Start up corporate indoctrination centers that are really prisons
      3) Bulldoze all 3rd world schools.

      Mwuuuhahahahaha!"

      Come on. There are plenty of actual evil people in the world without creating fictional bogeymen. Bill doesn't need the money. What on earth would be his motivation to do what you are claiming?

    77. Re:Competition is often complex. by able1234au · · Score: 1

      If you think the money in Nigeria goes back to the local community then you are completely deluded.

    78. Re:Competition is often complex. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      It was in fact quite common at one time. Kaiser Wilhelm (Victoria's grandson) was an Admiral of the British Navy and Colenel-In-Chief of the 1st Royal Dragoons and exchanges and friendships were common enough that meetings between opposing officers after engagements in the early days of the war were often friendly reunions.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    79. Re:Competition is often complex. by Tom · · Score: 2

      and doing a lot more good in the world than an average citizen like me is in a position to.

      That's true on an absolute scale, but not on a relative one.

      Bill Gates is only giving away money he doesn't need. He could burn 90% of his fortune today and it wouldn't make a dent to his style of living.

      A lot of average citizen are giving away money for good causes that they could very well use themselves, and that does make a difference to them.

      While Bill's money is more in absolute terms and has more effect and he can reach places you couldn't, it is very likely that you are making the bigger sacrifice.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    80. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lawyer is a lawyer, they don't care who they represent as long as there is money in it for them.

    81. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what have you done? Oh, that's right, you've done nothing. Shut up.

    82. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are a fucking idiot. Please keep posting, I haven't read stuff this hilarious and delusional in a while.

    83. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As Microsoft was an independent software company, Bill Gates' "vision" was that by de-coupling the software from the hardware, he was providing a solution to the high-priced systems that the vertically-integrated competitors were selling."

      I suggest you use your favourite search engine to look for "CP/M", an independent operating system that used commodity hardware in the 1970s, quite some time before Microsoft even thought of getting into operating systems. It was CP/M computers that the term "Personal Computer" was originally used for, as a way of distinguishing single-user business machines that came with disk drives and dedicated displays from home computers, which at that time tended to be connected to a TV, and mostly used cassette tapes for storage (although external disk drives could be added to some of them).

      Microsoft themselves produced several pieces of commercial CP/M software such as language compilers and the Multiplan spreadsheet (there may be others, but these are the ones I remember).

    84. Re:Competition is often complex. by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, the $7B gain was *including* "donating" $36B to his "charity"

      No, it wasn't. Though if that were the case, then he'd be about $30 billion poorer than if he had done that activity. Keep in mind that $7 billion is a profit over the period of a year while that $36 billion, donated over many years, includes donations from others (for example, Warren Buffet is a very significant contributor as well) and earned income on the donations that were already made.

      but your net worth is *growing* faster than you can give away, and your "charity" organization is linked to all sorts of shady moneygrubbing interests --- there's room for quite a bit of suspicion.

      For what? What's the actual evidence for a "massive corporate tax dodge"?

    85. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Thinking about your potential mortality isn't very constructive'

      potential

      He's a douchebag and he expects to live forever. He doesn't want anyone killing him for his inheritance. That is all.

    86. Re:Competition is often complex. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, constant compromise and calling out the stalling tactics of the pubs. Yeah, that sure is polarizing.

      That just goes against what his real ideology is IMHO."
      You opinion is counter to pretty much every topic he has brought up. He constantly reaches across the isle. It's take to to shake hands. .. unless you are Bill the galactic hero.

      try to use some facts when forming an opinion.
      How is constantly communicating and trying to compromise divisive? The pubs have refused to compromise and have constantly talked brought in irrelevance and non sequitors on every topic. If thing don't go there way? they use a filibusterer.
      If 92% of the population want something, they ignore them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    87. Re:Competition is often complex. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      TO make money in order to support long term efforts on the charity.

      You're world view is..simplistic to say the lease.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    88. Re:Competition is often complex. by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

      Interesting comment (but I want to reply, so can't moderate)

      "More Americans died in [the Civil War] than WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Revolution... combined. Only WWII had more."

      re: WWII had more deaths: Yes (KIA) and No (total military deaths).

      Also, disease prevention and battlefield medicine had and has advanced, so while the proportion of non-combat military deaths to total military deaths decreased from the Civil War to WWII (better disease prevention/treatment), the proportion of combat deaths to total injuries also decreased from the Civil War to WWII, and has kept on decreasing through Vietnam and to Afghanistan/Iraq (better battlefield medicine)

      2/3 of Civil War military deaths were by disease, not combat injuries (dysentery, typhoid, TB, malaria, pneumonia). And if you got seriously injured, you were likely to die.

      By contrast, 77% of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars (post-2001) are combat deaths, not due to diseases. However, if you get shot, even severely wounded, you have a good chance of surviving.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    89. Re:Competition is often complex. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't realize that he is, in fact, trying to impress you. If he weren't, he wouldn't be advertising his philanthropy, but would do so quietly. And judging by your response and the moderation on my comment, he did a damned good job of impressing a whole lot of you.

    90. Re:Competition is often complex. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And what have you done?

      I'll tell you what I haven't done, and that's publicize my own giving. Alms should be given in secret.

      As to what I have done, I'm not going to brag about that, either.

    91. Re:Competition is often complex. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I'm an (I) but as far as I can tell, we have a 1980's style Republican in the office of the President.

      You lost me here.

      Obama is one of the most ideologic far left leaners that I've ever seen hold office in my life.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    92. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like Mafia bosses ? They first corner a market and then when each of them has cornered "his" market, they share a whore ?

    93. Re:Competition is often complex. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you.

      Apparently you don't share my opinion that he is, in fact, trying to impress you. If he weren't, I believe he wouldn't be advertising his philanthropy, but would do so quietly. But judging by your response and the moderation on my comment, I can see that few other people agree with my opinion either.

      On the one hand, someone as famous as Bill Gates is going to get invited to do interviews, and interviewers are going to ask him about his charity.

      On the other hand every charity desperately wants to have celebrities associated with them that talk as much about them as possible.

      On the (third!) hand Gates knows he can progress his charities aims by talking about them.

      Yet despite the perfectly reasonable and innocent explanations for why he would be talking about his charity, you seek to find alternative ones where his motivations are selfish.

      Look, I understand your hatred. I hated Microsoft and their abuse of monopoly and other dirty tricks, and the bad effect they had on the industry. And of course I rightly blamed Gates for that. And there's no forgiveness from me on that score. But that doesn't mean we have to hate him to the grave, even when he does good things, like trying to solve the world's malaria problem. I say good. I'm happy that he changed his life around from doing bad things to doing good. For sure he can afford to be charitable. But an awful lot of other rich people do not devote the second half of their life to charity.

    94. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When has Bill ever publicized his givings? He publicizes the charity, sure, all charities publicize themselves or they wouldn't have much of a charity, now would they?

      I used to work for the National MS Society and I used to tell a lot of people about the organization. That's not bragging about myself, that's making people aware of it and ways that they might be able to help if they are interested.

    95. Re:Competition is often complex. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Actually, let's quickly touch on Paris Hilton here. She was young, and she did all the things that a young person would do. She had sex, she drank (while underage...nobody in the middle classes does that, right?) and she was thoughtless and brash. She lived to party, and she had the money to do it. She threw tantrums...she did everything a 'normal' teenager does, but she did it with the benefit of the backdrop of money.

      I don't know if she was officially cut from the will, but it was certainly threatened. But she took advantage of the situation she was in (i.e., her famous name and her famous persona, deserved or not) and turned that into her own money. Even if Paris is cut from the will, she'll be a millionaire in her own right. She did have every advantage, but she could have squandered all those advantages and gone crawling back, but in the end, she made her own way.

      Maybe you don't think she's very nice, or very interesting or particularly admirable, but she's done quite a lot better than a lot of other rich kids.

    96. Re:Competition is often complex. by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hope my daughters can turn out to be disease ridden whores, but you know, rich. That's the important part.

    97. Re:Competition is often complex. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Those are good points, and I don't hate Gates, but he'll have to do a LOT of good to even begin to make up for the misery he's caused so many.

      The same goes for Rockefeller, whose money is still doing good a century later. He was worse than Gates; his evil killed people.

    98. Re:Competition is often complex. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The goal of the Gates foundation is to be able to continue to carry out research and charity essentially forever.

      I seem to recall that when the foundation was originally created, it wasn't intended to last forever (though I could remember that wrong or plans might have changed). And Buffet is making significant contributions to the foundation on the condition that they be used for charity that year and matched by the foundation.

    99. Re:Competition is often complex. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I'm late to the game, but anonymous charity is the best kind of charity. Nobody needs to know if you're charitable. Maybe he's not known for it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing it. I guess we'll never know, unless his family decides to say something about it.

    100. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, I don't care if Gates is gaining or losing money through charity - Apple sold millions of iPhone, which made them a f*cking rich company. But at the same time they dumped a lot of money on mobile device development, which resulted in not only super-fast quad-core 1.6GHz SoC but also things like super-cheap Android knockoff phones with full WebKit, available from $29-$49 in places like Mainland China. That's actually a huge contribution, what other people like OLPC has failed on(did ANYONE successfully distribute billions of mosquito net that African people can understand advantage of?). Profits can drive people, both employee and their customer, sometimes for efficiency as the result.

    101. Re:Competition is often complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome?

      You should seek treatment.

  4. Thinking about your mortality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thinking about your mortality is possibly the MOST constructive thing you can do, at least as far as not being an a-hole is concerned.

    1. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that's true then after reading Jobs biography I'd have to guess he spent no time thinking about his mortality.

    2. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Northern+Pike · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he should have said "'Obsessing' about your potential morality isn't very constructive". It is important to understand that our time is limited and it makes good sense to do the best you can while you can. Taken that way I think his comment rings true.

    3. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thinking about your mortality is valuable when you have all the time in the world ahead of you. Thinking about it when it is an immediate certainty is a detriment.

    4. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      A man that spends time thinking about mortality doesn't do shloads of LSD, go on some whack-a-nut "frutarian" diet, and put off tumor removal surgery for months.

      Many things can be said about Jobs, but rational concern for his own health was not one of them.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wasn't really focused on his concern for his own health or even mortality. I was saying that he was quite the a-hole.

      In fact I'll go on to say that for all the cool gadgets he brought to our stores a few years earlier than they would have arrived without his help, the world would have been a better place with out his colossal assholism even if we had to deal with out rounded corners.

    6. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh crap. I meant without, not with out.

    7. Re:Thinking about your mortality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      frutarian (with starches and b12 suppleements) is actually one of the best diets you can have, LSD is inocuous (as long as you don't jump from a building thinking you can fly) and putting of tumor removal, well everyone is afraid of going into surgery even if it is your only chance.

  5. Oh come on Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    'Thinking about your potential mortality isn't very constructive,
    That is bullshit, and he knows it. Wasting your last months on earth worrying about a design for a mega yacht somehow is constructive? I guess rich people really aren't like me. They don't seem to actually have a soul.

    1. Re:Oh come on Bill by 0racle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you suggesting wallowing in misery was a better way to spend their time together?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Oh come on Bill by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Haven't you read Maslow? According to a navel gazer, navel gazing (aka 'wallowing in misery') is the highest form of human activity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Oh come on Bill by Seumas · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's what he meant. It isn't personally constructive. A yacht may seem stupid to you, but it was important to a dying man and gave him something to occupy his time and energy, which is valuable in a time like that. Sure, maybe he could have spent his remaining months in his frail body overseas handing out cash or something, but whatever.

    4. Re:Oh come on Bill by GLMDesigns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is so wrong about a yacht? If he was looking at the design for a garden would you still spew such venom? He was designing something he found beautiful. Maybe he was keeping hope alive that he might sail it around the world; imagining the sunrises and the ocean sky. Is that so much different than you and I?

      Oh. I got it. He's got money. Therefore he's evil.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    5. Re:Oh come on Bill by TWiTfan · · Score: 1, Troll

      I suspect Gates is being magnanimous here. It seems quite likely that Gates was trying to talk with Jobs about the Gates Foundation and to seek his support in his waning days. The fact that Jobs (who had a notoriously anti-charity reputation) only wanted to talk about his damned yacht is telling. If that is true, then Gates is being quite generous to only mention the detail about his yacht, and not the part about Jobs rebuffing his charitable request.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    6. Re:Oh come on Bill by unimacs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My step-dad worked in construction his whole life and he loved it. He loved building things. Well after "retiring" he'd putter around in the workshop he had in the garage. Not long before he died he had me helping him build these modular tables and benches he could reposition for doing various things. His health had deteriorated quite a bit by this point and I strongly suspected he would die before getting much if any use from these tables.

      To me it seemed kind of pointless and physically it wasn't easy for him. As I suspected, it was only a few months later that he ended up in the hospital because of his ongoing heart problems, suffered a stroke and died.

      These tables were monstrous and incomplete. Nobody wanted them, so eventually they were dismantled.

      The missing part of the story is that this man survived over 40 years after open heart surgery and was relatively active in spite of several heat attacks and periodic bouts with other debilitating health problems. Part of the reason he managed to do this was that in spite of his often poor health he never stopped living the life he wanted to live. He may very well have known he'd never finish the tables, but he loved the process. It got him up in the morning.

      I think lots of people when faced with mortality will spend more time with their families and trying to do the things they wished they had been doing all their lives. Some people were already doing it. That may be the case with Jobs. I'm not saying he wasn't a jerk and that he didn't have regrets. I'm sure he did. But that doesn't change what brought him joy.

    7. Re:Oh come on Bill by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

      I am very sorry to have spent all my mod points earlier, troll-bashing. This is a great post.

    8. Re:Oh come on Bill by Like2Byte · · Score: 2

      And I'm sorry I have MOD points; but, wont give them to you today. I felt saying, "Thank you," directly to you was more important to me today. You brought a smile, a tear, and some humanity to /. today.

      Thank you.

    9. Re:Oh come on Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I buy yachts all the time. Jobs was totally one of us.

      Try tallying the carbon footprint and resource consumption of a yacht versus a garden. Also consider how many lives you could save with how much it costs to build a massive yacht.

    10. Re:Oh come on Bill by jafac · · Score: 1

      I may be paraphrasing Nathan Explosion here, but we're all facing mortality. Most of us are just in denial about it - most of the time.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:Oh come on Bill by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      Try tallying the carbon footprint and resource consumption of a yacht versus a garden.

      Heheheheheh, yeah, I'm sure you're really concerned about those things, even when not pretending to ``be an intellectual'' online social crusader, right?

      Also consider how many lives you could save with how much it costs to build a massive yacht.

      How many lives could you be saving right now, were you not posting on Slashdot? Zero, because you are a pathetic, autistic, worthless loser who has to play an armchair psychoanalyst and ethic philosopher just to muster enough petty joy to avoid killing yourself.

    12. Re:Oh come on Bill by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 2

      Oh. I got it. He's got money. Therefore he's evil

      Phew, glad I didn't have to point that out to you.

    13. Re:Oh come on Bill by Anastomosis · · Score: 1

      I felt this cracked.com article was pertinent here. When dealing with your own/loved one's impending/recent death, usually moping about thinking about it is not very helpful.
      http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-no-one-tells-you-about-dealing-with-death/
      Also, read the top comments. It was quite a good one.

  6. So...no more evil BORG icon by MindPrison · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...on Slashdot then?

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:So...no more evil BORG icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DICE wanted those Microsoft job postings

    2. Re:So...no more evil BORG icon by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always thought the Billy borg icon looked rather upbeat.

    3. Re:So...no more evil BORG icon by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Would you let yourself be implanted with a Microsoft device?? I wouldn't, and I am a device-implanted cyborg! So I think that gates-of-borg icon is hilarious for that reason.

      "Set your phasers on bluescreen!"

    4. Re:So...no more evil BORG icon by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And why not? He was on a multi-decade winning streak, I'd be upbeat too.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. Not very surprising. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whatever said and done in public, these college drop outs, they are a thick bunch. They stand up for one another.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Not very surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever said and done in public, these college drop outs, they are a thick bunch. They stand up for one another.

      Yes they do, when its good for public image.

      Had gates stood up for jobs, shown him public respect and been friends in public then that's another story. But to show compassion and explain friendship when the other person has died? Eh, that's just playing a game of putting on a good face. Kind of like how everyone did nothing but say Michael Jackson was a pathetic joke and make fun of him, but as soon as he dies people line up to talk about what a great amazing legend he was and the bright shining example of humanity.

      Its all bullshit.

    2. Re:Not very surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we do. Frat boy.

    3. Re:Not very surprising. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing for sure - there are few people who are as crass as RMS when discussing someone like Jobs, even if they were rivals during the time the deceased was alive. Gates did the dignified thing he could do, and separated his corporate rivalry with Apple from anything personal to say about Jobs. As for the yachts, it's called a hobby - different people have different ones, be it flying, sking, sailing, whitewater rafting, coding, travelling and so on

  8. 1st rule in business by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You never talk bad (in public) about a rival who is dead. It's poor form.

    Had Jobs still been alive, things would be different.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:1st rule in business by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just a matter of bad form. It's just a matter of something most people would never want to do, Gates included. It's exciting and driving to compete with a rival and to egg that rivalry on. When a respected rival passes -- especially one who was part of this back and forth spurring on for decades through something as amazing as the revolution of computing -- it's a huge personal loss. It's something and someone you miss.

    2. Re:1st rule in business by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just that. Talking about how everything good at Apple came from the brilliant mind of a now-dead guy actually is a dig at (present-day) Apple. It serves to undermine confidence in Apple's prospects, and feeds the meme of Apple's inevitable post-Jobs decline, without explicitly stating that.

    3. Re:1st rule in business by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      And here I thought the first rule in business was "do things that will make money." ;-)

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:1st rule in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Despite the business rivalry Gates and Jobs seemed to get along well in public, at least when the cameras were rolling. I've seen interviews with them on stage together and they seemed respectful of each other.

      Most people don't want to speak ill of the deceased, even if they were rivals. Of course Richard Stallman is an exception. He was badmouthing Jobs before the man's corpse was cold. RMS has zero class, he could learn a thing or two from Gates.

    5. Re:1st rule in business by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's because talking smack is only a part of the game. It's not personal. To keep talking smack once the competition is takes things from professional to personal, which is indeed bad form.

      These types of people only stop competing with each other at death, so the smack talk will continue until somebody dies.

      Note this doesn't mean Bill Gates is no longer competing with Apple. It's just that he's aiming in Tim Cook's direction now.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:1st rule in business by tippe · · Score: 0

      This is very insightful. Why do my mod points always run out just before I need them...?

    7. Re:1st rule in business by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RMS is stone-cold focused. Not saying that makes him very comfortable to be around, but you always know he's being sincere.

    8. Re:1st rule in business by unixisc · · Score: 2

      He did have a more dignified alternative if he wanted to be sincere - not commenting on Jobs in the first place. Few would have held that against him.

    9. Re:1st rule in business by caywen · · Score: 1
    10. Re:1st rule in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [RMS] was badmouthing Jobs before the man's corpse was cold.

      People were doing the same thing right after Osama bin Laden's passing. Who gives a motherfuck?

    11. Re:1st rule in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment reminded me of Darius III of Persia. He was Alexander's rival, for all intents and purposes; and, upon Alexander learning of his fate, he set off on a hunt for Darius's killer until found and castigated the guilty as traitors would have been treated. All whilst gving Darius III the proper funerary rites.

    12. Re:1st rule in business by jafac · · Score: 1

      I don't expect this much class from Ellison. I really don't.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:1st rule in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS is a disgusting attention whore. He has no concept of what it means to live in a society.

    14. Re:1st rule in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretend being unaffected by passing of a man is one of the ways to show respect to - don't know if RMS had that in mind though, probably not.

  9. Gates's current position in life... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gates's magnanimity toward his former rival and Apple is a reflection, perhaps, of his current position in life:

    Yeah, Gates being alive and Jobs being dead, mainly.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Gates's current position in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs has been pretty silent about Gates lately, IIRC.

    2. Re:Gates's current position in life... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      I've heard that Gates is considering necrophiliac cannibalism just so he can finally say that Jobs has no taste.

    3. Re:Gates's current position in life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would necrophilia have to do with it?

    4. Re:Gates's current position in life... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Duh, the preference of eating dead people over live ones, of course.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  10. Both are assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, it's a shame a vindictive billionaire, who disavowed his daughter for nearly 20 years, didn't get to see his yacht finished before he died.

    1. Re:Both are assholes by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a shame a vindictive billionaire, who disavowed his daughter for nearly 20 years, didn't get to see his yacht finished before he died.

      Having worked for Steve, twice, you don't know a fucking thing about the man. You also don't know the inheritance he set aside for his little daughter whose mother pissed away on her own selfish desires. Lisa is the only one in that relationship who gets to bitch about the lack of one. They sure made up for lost time so please I doubt she gives two shits what your cowardly comment thinks.

  11. Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've long been fascinated by the evolution of Bill Gates. I cut my teeth in this field as an engineer at Netscape, where I watched along with the rest of the industry as Microsoft did what they did to Netscape and all of the following legal proceedings and DoJ activities ensued. While I still respected the story and beginning of Gates (reading everything I could about him, when I was a teenager), I hated Mr. Borg with a passion and everything about Microsoft. It was what drove me to the arms of Linux and, ultimately, Unix (and my career therein).

    Then, he decided to move on from just leading a tech and business army and raking in cash to making finding a way to properly use that cash for the betterment of man. We saw a completely different side of him. Perhaps a new side of the guy that game with maturity and wisdom. I gained a completely new respect for him. I still disagree with some of his views, completely disagree with some of his former business practices, am frustrated and dismayed with a lot of Microsoft's current endeavors and decisions . . . but as a man -- I've come to have a lot of admiration for what he's doing. He's a great example for the rest of the world's wealthiest in doing something truly constructive and beneficial with their unimaginable wealth.

    Americans love a success story and we love a story of personal redemption. The only thing we love more than hating someone is them turning things around and giving us reasons to be in their corner. This is one of those stories. And, personally, I find his activities a solid reminder in my own personal life to remember how fortunate I am in my career. As a direct result, I make a point of doing what I can to support things like Engineers Without Borders. I bet many other engineers out there have found the same respect and inspiration.

    I also find it sad that, for as inspiring as I found Jobs as far as business and design, there is simply no similar compelling feeling in that same way, after his passing.

    1. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uhm, he actually makes money on his "charities", which in really just funnel funds to MS through the backdoor. All the excusive MS-only licenses he sells to entire third world nations in exchange for healthcare donations are probably not doing them a net favor.

    2. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Some people are just there for the money. Others are all about the game. I think this is especially prevalent in Lawyers and Engineers. You want to win - whatever game it is you're playing. When Gates played computer monopoly, he played to win. Now he's playing save the world.

      I'm not sure whether Jobs was just about the money (though I suspect it), whether he felt his defeat early on meant he could never play another game, or if his early death simply meant he never had the option to switch games.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also find it sad that, for as inspiring as I found Jobs as far as business and design, there is simply no similar compelling feeling in that same way, after his passing.

      Gates' very own Jacob Marley.

    4. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      No, Jobs wasn't about the money either. He was about making the world look the way he wanted it to. It's just that the money was both the means of doing it, and the measure of his success.

      While I doubt he was upset with the money, nothing I know about him leads me to believe that it did more than enable him to be as ambitious as he wanted to be. I think he would have been almost as happy as a bum on the street if he's seen that everyone was walking around with one of his products in their pocket and his idea of design was being copied everywhere.

      To me, that's all about the game. But then, after a certain level of income, it ceases to be real anyway. You're just keeping score.

    5. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2

      Like you, I've been watching the evolution of Gates from the early days. I started out disliking him and his predatory business practices. In the early days it seemed to me like he stole almost all of the good things that made Microsoft strong (DOS-CPM, Windows-MacOS, MSN-Internet, Zune-iPod, etc). The company used highly unethical means to absorb, overpower, or destroy competitors. It's products seemed nothing more that badly cloned copies of more innovative ideas.

      Over time though I have watched him develop from a robber-baron into a humanitarian who's charity work is invaluable to innumerable people. His character has mellowed, and although Microsoft itself still has many of it's old evil traits I no longer see him as inseparable from that.

      He has become...strangely likeable to me, and I never thought I would say that.

      If what I remember hearing is correct, when he dies he will leave a nominal amount to his family / friends, and the vast bulk of his earnings will go to charities. I have no reason at all now to call him anything but a good man.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    6. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Quila · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, marrying a woman who probably told him "you're a dick, fix it." Won't be the first time a guy was whipped into shape by a good woman.

    7. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by jitterman · · Score: 1

      You've put into words (quite nicely) what I've thought. Thanks for a positive contribution.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    8. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      Well, except for provide roads, school systems, emergency medicine, justice systems, police protection, fire protection, civil defense, national defense, libraries, research subsidies...

      Yup, all nothing.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    9. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Well, except for provide roads, school systems, emergency medicine, justice systems, police protection, fire protection, civil defense, national defense, libraries, research subsidies...

      The majority of what you mentioned, is taken care of by my LOCAL taxes I pay to city and state, and no problem there...but the IRS has precious little to do with that since it is at the federal level.

      If the Feds stuck to only collecting for the things they are constitutionally mandated to (a few things like defense) I'd not gripe nearly as much since they'd not try to take nearly as much of my money as they do now.

      The govt is in our pockets way too much...and well, now that we're seeing that the IRS themselves are picking winners and losers based on political affiliation, well, I just lost more respect for them, which until now, I didn't think was possible.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netscape did what they did to themselves. The garbage they pumped out at the time would have sent netscape into a downward spiral even without MS. As a stouch Netscape supporter of the time we were appalled and embaressed and the poor quality of the browser at the time, so much so that a multi million dollar project we were on we decided to eat crow and swap to ie not because of MS, but purely because of the atrocious code quality coming out of netscape that was seriously endangering our project.

    11. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Tom · · Score: 1

      but as a man -- I've come to have a lot of admiration for what he's doing. He's a great example for the rest of the world's wealthiest in doing something truly constructive and beneficial with their unimaginable wealth.

      I'm still kind of torn on that. Once you dig beneath the surface, a lot of his current activities aren't entirely white, either. His health activities usually focus on one big provider of the pharmaceuticals, usually one he has stocks in, and generally has the tendency to drive everyone else out of the market. That reminds me a lot of the "old" Bill Gates, and it means that for all the good it does, it also makes people dependent on him, this time not with their computers but with their lives.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cut my teeth in this field as an engineer at Netscape, where I watched along with the rest of the industry as Microsoft did what they did to Netscape and all of the following legal proceedings and DoJ activities ensued.

      No you didn't, you lying shill!

    13. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think Gates may never have been an inherently "evil" person as he's sometimes painted. I think he always genuinely felt he was doing the right thing, that by pushing Microsoft as he did he was pushing computing and by pushing computing he was helping humanity. I recall him saying, with quite some quite genuine seeming distress and frustration that he simply couldn't understand why he was being attacked and penalised for wanting to tie the browser and OS together - in his mind he felt he was genuinely making technical progression.

      I think the problem he had was that of naivety. He was a guy who'd been too successful and made too much money at far too young an age - his life had changed so quickly and been so hectic that I suspect he'd simply never had time to really stop, step back, and think about his actions.

      But I think this is why when he started to step back from Microsoft he suddenly did have time to do this.

      I think he really genuinely always felt that he was doing good but only when his life finally reached a point where he actually had a bit of time to stop and think was he able to reconcile what he wanted to do and felt he was doing with the realities of the world around him.

    14. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Jobs wasn't about the money. Period.

      FTFY. Steve Jobs raised his family in the suburbs, and had a penis so large that he never needed 1.5 acres of house. The entire lot that Steve's house sat on would fit comfortably into about a third of Bill Gates house. Steve was about ideas. Bill is about imature angst... and waffling... first he was about becoming the largest financial success, now... he's desperately trying to atone it.

    15. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a good woman

      slightly misogynistic... all women are good. Ironically, they are also evil. There's mathematical proof of this.

      Women = time x money

      Time IS money

      Women = money x money = money ^ 2

      Money is the root of all evil

      money = sqrt(evil) => money^2 = evil

      women = money^2

      women = evil

    16. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true only if you are very very stupid. There are worthwhile (or at least interesting) things that you can do with 50 billion that are simply out of reach with just 5. Such as a permanent Mars base. Or a Moon colony. Or a fleet of commercial fusion reactors in the next decade.

    17. Re:Bill Gates is a fascinating turn-around story. by Highland+Deck+Box · · Score: 2

      I've never really understood the whole billionaire philanthropist thing. Instead of being a ruthless anti-competition asshole while making your billions, couldn't you have been slightly less of a dick, made a little less money and then not have to spend your retirement years trying to clear your name with charity stuff? Why not just be a decent human being in the first place?

  12. Picture of Bill tearing up by Tator+Tot · · Score: 4, Funny

    I found a picture of Bill as he's discussing his friendship with Steve Jobs.

    --
    To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
    1. Re:Picture of Bill tearing up by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      was afraid that was going to be goatse

  13. What did you expect them to discuss? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jobs' charity efforts?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:What did you expect them to discuss? by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Jobs' charity efforts?

      Steve did charity. He never advertised it. He also set aside his wealth for life wife to see fit that his charities he never broadcast were continued along with her own philanthropic works.

  14. NO . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, a weeping clown.

  15. He's over it by poisonborz · · Score: 0

    The more Bill Gates interviews I read, the more assured I am that he really is tired of the tech industry. He won't be a Wozniak-type of guy who will critically observe MS or other companies, judge platforms or review products. He endorses coding, talks about future technologies in broad terms, but he must be really pressed by reporters to share anything relevant to current affairs. He couldn't care less.

  16. Magnanimity... by nine-times · · Score: 2

    Gates's magnanimity toward his former rival and Apple is a reflection, perhaps, of his current position in life: it's been nearly five years since his last full-time day at Microsoft, and all of his efforts seem focused on his philanthropic endeavors. He simply has no reason to rip a rival limb from limb in the same way he did as Microsoft CEO.

    Well... there's not much of a reason to rip a rival limb from limb when he's already dead. It'd be in pretty poor taste, actually, and I'd expect Gates to avoid badmouthing Jobs if only to avoid looking like an asshole.

    Also, their relationship was reportedly far less adversarial than people tended to assume. Most of the people who were supposedly in-the-know claimed that they were friends to some extent, and got along pretty well in spite of disagreeing on a lot of things.

  17. 3 Bill by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    I never use an MS product aside from the XBox by choice, and I use OSX daily, but I think Bill Gates is a legitimately OK dude. I think if he made a return to MS, he could really turn things around for them, particularly with the lessons that Apple has taught the industry.

    Also, it occurs me that such an obviously massive geek could be the antidote to the ultra-consumer tech. industry.

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  18. Please don't link to the actual CBS video by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By all means, please DO NOT link us to http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146679n .

    May not work on an iPad or Windows 8 tablet.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  19. link to interview by Mr.+White · · Score: 1

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146679n

  20. wasting time by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many years ago, I once spent a Saturday trying to make the Catalan solids out of wood, using cheap tilt vises, a homemade rotary table, and a poor man's milling machine (an end mill in a cheap drill press that couldn't hold it steady). Didn't get very far-- the tools simply didn't have the precision needed to do a good job. Even though we economized too much on the tools, they were still ridiculously expensive. Why did I try that way? I was following my father's vision of how such a thing should be done, and machinery was what he grew up with. Another Saturday, I used a different approach of making a paper model and filling the interior with epoxy. This worked much better but still had problems. For one, epoxy has a shelf life. It will not harden properly if it is too old, and this was. Another is that epoxy generates heat when it is curing, and this was a large enough mass to become almost too hot to touch. I don't know if an even larger mass could get hot enough to cause real problems such as fires and melting, but it was something to keep in mind. Then my father wanted to employ number punches to number the sides, as if hardened epoxy was just as malleable as metal. To satisfy him, I tried it, and of course the epoxy shattered. Today, those shapes would be a trivial job for a 3D printer.

    The point? If I had spent those Saturdays playing computer games, no one would have thought anything of it. But when I mentioned this use of a Saturday, I got a lot of strange looks, and a few queries about why I had "wasted" my time so. My brother warned his fiancee, who dislikes nerds, that I was likely to show off those polyhedrons. It was almost as if I had contracted a contagious disease, the way people acted about the whole thing. Nice when your own brother inoculates his circle against your weirdness, so that they all know to keep their distance and not give you any opportunities to bore the hell out of them and show off how nerdy you really are.

    You don't know what specifically Jobs and Gates were discussing about yachts. If it was ways of fitting the ship for cleanup of oil spills, plastics, or other pollution, or for some sort of science like ocean or hydrothermal vent research, or as a test bed for Internet communication over vast expanses of empty ocean (think how that could benefit the Pirate Bay), I would not call that a waste of time. And even if it was none of that, it likely was something of some use. I hardly think Jobs and Gates would have discussed the sort of crass, trashy thing a moronic joker like Donald Trump would do, such as solid gold plumbing fixtures which serves no good purpose, as it is only to inspire jealousy by rubbing in how incredibly filthy rich the owner is, and that only works on fellow fools.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  21. Attended a lecture by him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I had the opportunity to attend an event where he spoke on stage. I have never, ever, been as awed by someone speaking as at that moment.

    The man is scary sharp, very focussed and when he singles you out in the crown (and he does if you mess up on the 'open source' terminology) you are in for a lousy few minutes. Not because he dresses you down in public, but because he looks at you directly. Which is quite unnerving to say the least.

    He may look like a hobo but his eyes are full of blue fire. As I said, he is truly scary to be around.

    And, for the record, I agree with his views on most things.

  22. Michael jackson again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone spent decades making fun of Michael Jackson, hating him, taking cheap shots at him while his career faded into obscurity occasionally littered with awful chance at giving it another go and so on. But as soon as Jackson dies then suddenly everyone acts like they thought he was mankind's greatest hero, a true legend in the music industry and the great person to have ever lived. Now that he is dead no one ever has a single negative thing to say about him and people will now angrily defend his awesome legacy when just before his death they would laugh right a long with the rest of the world at his pathetic antics.

    1. Re:Michael jackson again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I thought of Steve Jobs as a hero, best innovator, and so "magically" talented even before he died....even before there was any sign that he might die...

    2. Re:Michael jackson again. by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      then the reality distortion field worked

  23. why did you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you have to post this and make me cry again? I haven't cried about Steve Jobs' death since two weeks after it happened.

    Sent from my heart

  24. dude, it was only 10 seconds of the interview by ulricr · · Score: 1

    dude, it was only 10 seconds of the interview, at about 10 min in here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146679n this article summary is longer than the comment

  25. I'd say Gates' magnanimity is a reflection of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reality. I'm no Apple fan boy, but what is Gates going to rip on Jobs and Apple about? Single-handedly creating the tablet market that MS has been trying--and failing-- to jumpstart for a decade? The steaming pile of fail that is Windows 8? Apple has been kicking butt since 2000 while MS has brought us Zune and Vista.

  26. oh wow by cheap.computer · · Score: 1

    what jobs said in the end ....

  27. MSBill donates to himself. by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Wow. I completely agree with you. Sorry that some idiots are modding you a "troll" for this statement. If I had any mod points, I'd remedy that. Strangely, I was getting 15 mod points daily until about three weeks ago when I made a comment about getting so many mod points, and suddenly I haven't had any mod points at all since then. My behavior online here hasn't changed at all (frequency of logging in, frequency of posting, frequency of my ;>) smileys and bold-facing...) C'est tres etrange.
    .
    Did you catch the point once where Grandma Bush of the presidential dynasty donated $100kUSA to a Texas school system with the money earmarked for software purchases from one of her grand-children's software company? Isn't that a hell-of-a-sneaky way to "gift" money to your grandchildren and sneak around the IRS tax-free gift limit of $11kUSA per year? ? ? If it weren't such a fucked up sleazy thing to do and immoral at that, I guess I'd be impressed by it. I always thought that Barbara Bush was one of the "good ones", along with her husband in some ways, but that certainly changed my mind about her.

    1. Re:MSBill donates to himself. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Oh god, that's disgusting! She basically just gave a school district stuff in a really round-about way right there. How many goats do you have to sacrifice to be that evil?

    2. Re:MSBill donates to himself. by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      No, you fool, she gave her grandson $100,000.00 for some software that may or may not have been worth anything at all. She gave a directed donation that could only be used to buy that particular software. It's the same as when MS "donates" software with a high-dollar-value to a school district and tries to lock them into the MS tool chain or upgrade cycle. It's not so much a "donation" as a self-serving transfer of money with tax benefits accruing to the so-called "donor". So STFU about goats if you're not going to bother catching the point.

    3. Re:MSBill donates to himself. by femtobyte · · Score: 0

      You mean she gave her grandkid $100k, to provide software (which typically has a marginal cost of approximately $0) to the school district, that the district would not have bought at the $100k price in the first place (or possibly even wanted/needed at all). There's little indication that the school district got anywhere close to $100k of actual value out of the deal --- but the federal government certainly did lose several tens of thousands in taxes (to be foisted off onto the backs of taxpayers too poor to evade). So, yes, it's a transparently scummy scam to pull.

    4. Re:MSBill donates to himself. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      that may or may not have been worth anything at all

      Well gosh, I don't know what to say. With that amount of evidence we might as well just skip to sentencing.

      It's the same as when MS "donates" software with a high-dollar-value to a school district and tries to lock them into the MS tool chain or upgrade cycle.

      I have to admit, I am guilty of this. I gave a guy a car once, and he planned his life around the use of that car. Now he is doomed to the hell that is the GMC part dealers or upgrade cycle. I can't believe how selfish it was of me. Shame on me.

  28. Re:With all due credit to their rivals by ppanon · · Score: 1

    it was their idiotic decision to rewrite their browser from scratch in Java that doomed them.

    That would have been idiotic, if it were true. However there is no Java in Mozilla Firefox or Seamonkey.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  29. SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS by emaname · · Score: 1

    Cue John Cleese...

    "Look out, there are llamas!"

    Early Python sketch...

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    1. Re:SMITE HIM WITH LLAMAS by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      "Pero las llamas son peligrosas. Si usted ve una llama donde hay genteï nadando, usted gritar: ÂCuidado! ÂLlamas!"

      Not in any way related to Ralph the Wonder Llama.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  30. End Game by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    The Gates' Enemy is Down

    1. Re:End Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gates' Enemy is Down

      Yes, thank you for the clever Ender's Game reference, which you wouldn't have made if they weren't releasing a movie based on the book this year.

    2. Re: End Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jokes based on current events. No wai

  31. Jobs and Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only people who have created and achieved something life, who generated wealth and donated most to charity know the value of friendship and the art of giving.
    Whether you approve or disapprove is not changing any thing to late Jobs or Bill Gates. The turning point in life comes at some age or after some major events that transforms the person. Jobs did not give to charity does not matter because his plan was not known to us. What is the story here is some persons who was successful financially finds a cause to spend his fortune and another uses his vision and creativity to produce products used by millions. All other discussions are pointless.

  32. also... by Tom · · Score: 1

    ...business hostilities are often for show. A huge number of big-corp CEOs are well acquainted with each other or friends, even if their companies fight bitter battles.
    In a position like that, you learn to make a difference between the personal and the business. When I rose to a position where I was dealing with the C-Levels directly years ago, I quickly found out that behind closed doors you would regularily get statements like "I'd personally like to do that, but (corporate politics or business reason) I can't." - and sometimes the talk would end there and sometimes it would go into finding a way to get it done. I've been to court with business opponents and shared a ride and a nice conversation with them to the courthouse.

    Never confuse the personal relations of two people with the business relations of their companies.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  33. I read that headline too fast by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates opens up Steve Jobs. "Yup, still dead."

  34. thats somehow exactly how I want the world to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how these two were rivals of legendary proportions and yet they clearly had some form of friendship that survived all those years of fighting. Its like the legendary cutscene from halo where sgt johnson and an elite stop fighting and hug before the ring blows up. I *just* realized how nerdy that sounded.

  35. Bill Gates proves that he's ancient news. by Imaman · · Score: 1

    Bill is a relic from ancient times
    An ancient species with highly dualistic traits.
    He's an entrepeneur
    AND a human being!

    Remarkable, really.

  36. Now they're even! by blueboy13 · · Score: 1

    You see even superhuman CEOs have a human side to them after all. Too bad that he didn't say this mushy stuff to Jobs when he was still alive. Now Gates probably regrets all the mean things he to Jobs....nah!!