BillG still rules.
April 28, 2001 7:04 PM Subscribe
BillG still rules. Forbes says Sunday Times erred, Gates is worth $59 billion, Walton - a paltry $17 billion
Go, Bill, go! Don't let a bunch of dime-store cowboys get the better of you!
And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I've been rooting for Bill for a long time. It angers me that people are always trying to "bring him down a notch" or otherwise dent his armor.
posted by davidmsc at 11:56 PM on April 28, 2001
And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I've been rooting for Bill for a long time. It angers me that people are always trying to "bring him down a notch" or otherwise dent his armor.
posted by davidmsc at 11:56 PM on April 28, 2001
It's always heartwarming to see the slaves rooting for the Massah with the biggest plantation.
posted by Optamystic at 12:31 AM on April 29, 2001
posted by Optamystic at 12:31 AM on April 29, 2001
Bill Gates = Massah? Please re-adjust your percepto-meter...
posted by owillis at 2:02 AM on April 29, 2001
posted by owillis at 2:02 AM on April 29, 2001
owillis, the power Bill wields, the sheer volume of cash he's got, his penchant for using same to push the US Government around... For the purposes of this argument, why not 'Massah'?
Nothing against Mr. Gates as a person. From what I've read, he remembers when he wasn't a self-made tetrazillionaire, and he tries to keep it reasonably real in his genuinely outlandish personal situation.
But -- geezus. I think they made the word Billion up for him personally.
Well y'know, they might as well have.
posted by chicobangs at 8:33 AM on April 29, 2001
Nothing against Mr. Gates as a person. From what I've read, he remembers when he wasn't a self-made tetrazillionaire, and he tries to keep it reasonably real in his genuinely outlandish personal situation.
But -- geezus. I think they made the word Billion up for him personally.
Well y'know, they might as well have.
posted by chicobangs at 8:33 AM on April 29, 2001
chicobangs, I can't relate to 57 billion either.
BUT, suppose he could sell his Microsoft stock without wrecking the world economy and stash the money in the bank at 3% where he wouldn't have to worry about it.
I figure his interest income would be like $195,000 an hour.
(57,000,000,000 x .03)/365/24=195,205
posted by steve_high at 8:38 AM on April 29, 2001
BUT, suppose he could sell his Microsoft stock without wrecking the world economy and stash the money in the bank at 3% where he wouldn't have to worry about it.
I figure his interest income would be like $195,000 an hour.
(57,000,000,000 x .03)/365/24=195,205
posted by steve_high at 8:38 AM on April 29, 2001
You know, I thought that number was low...
And still home in time for dinner, help his daughter with her homework, catch a bit of the Mariners game, maybe a snog with the wife and eight blissful hours of sleep.
I can understand the allure of such a lifestyle.
posted by chicobangs at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2001
And still home in time for dinner, help his daughter with her homework, catch a bit of the Mariners game, maybe a snog with the wife and eight blissful hours of sleep.
I can understand the allure of such a lifestyle.
posted by chicobangs at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2001
I see the government pushing Bill Gates around a lot more than the other way...
posted by owillis at 10:10 AM on April 29, 2001
posted by owillis at 10:10 AM on April 29, 2001
chicobangs: his penchant for using same to push the US Government around
Um...I think it's the other way around...you might recall that teenysy-weensy little governmental abuse called "lawsuit" against Microsoft...? The full weight of the US government slammed down against a legal company engaging in routine business practices; the US government telling consumers that IT knows best what software is "best" and which software society should use. Uh-uh. Consumers have always been free to use other operating systems, browsers, and software programs. While Microsoft's may not be the "best," technically or aesthetically, consumers have spoken with their wallets by consistently choosing to use MS products, primarily for the relative ease-of-use, interoperability with other programs, and consistency throughout. And for this, Gates is reviled as a demon? Truly tragic.
posted by davidmsc at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2001
Um...I think it's the other way around...you might recall that teenysy-weensy little governmental abuse called "lawsuit" against Microsoft...? The full weight of the US government slammed down against a legal company engaging in routine business practices; the US government telling consumers that IT knows best what software is "best" and which software society should use. Uh-uh. Consumers have always been free to use other operating systems, browsers, and software programs. While Microsoft's may not be the "best," technically or aesthetically, consumers have spoken with their wallets by consistently choosing to use MS products, primarily for the relative ease-of-use, interoperability with other programs, and consistency throughout. And for this, Gates is reviled as a demon? Truly tragic.
posted by davidmsc at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2001
Well, that's that, then. Guess all that discovery, testimony, lawyering, etc. was unnecessary. We should have just asked David! :)
posted by rodii at 11:57 AM on April 29, 2001
posted by rodii at 11:57 AM on April 29, 2001
The full weight of the US government slammed down against a legal company engaging in routine business practices...
I don't know what planet you came from, David, but doing things like threatening computer manufacturers with loss of Windows 95 licenses if they installed their major competitor's browser is neither ‘legal’ nor ‘routine business practice’.
The US government was not “telling consumers that IT knows best what software is "best" and which software society should use.” Microsoft, on the other hand, was leveraging its power in the OS market to do just that.
I'm all for allowing people who have legitimately earned their wealth to enjoy it, but I cannot condone MS strongarming companies into using their software. That's like paying the Mafia for ‘protection’.
posted by Danelope at 1:16 PM on April 29, 2001
I don't know what planet you came from, David, but doing things like threatening computer manufacturers with loss of Windows 95 licenses if they installed their major competitor's browser is neither ‘legal’ nor ‘routine business practice’.
The US government was not “telling consumers that IT knows best what software is "best" and which software society should use.” Microsoft, on the other hand, was leveraging its power in the OS market to do just that.
I'm all for allowing people who have legitimately earned their wealth to enjoy it, but I cannot condone MS strongarming companies into using their software. That's like paying the Mafia for ‘protection’.
posted by Danelope at 1:16 PM on April 29, 2001
Some people here seems to have a hard time telling power (as in force) and power (as in earned credibility, respect and influence) apart.
posted by frednorman at 3:26 PM on April 29, 2001
posted by frednorman at 3:26 PM on April 29, 2001
making windows incompatible with DRDOS on purpose
A beta of Windows 3.x was incompatible with DR-DOS. Not the shipping version. It's perfectly reasonable to want a more consistent platform for beta testing.
threating OEMs for providing a copy of NS
This has never been proven...
generally illegally roughing up any company smaller than his
... and this is utter BS.
posted by drothgery at 5:35 PM on April 29, 2001
A beta of Windows 3.x was incompatible with DR-DOS. Not the shipping version. It's perfectly reasonable to want a more consistent platform for beta testing.
threating OEMs for providing a copy of NS
This has never been proven...
generally illegally roughing up any company smaller than his
... and this is utter BS.
posted by drothgery at 5:35 PM on April 29, 2001
My favorite quote about the wealth recalculation, from The Register:
... after a certain point of extravagance, does it really matter who's got more or less? Can a guy worth $50 billion eat tastier food, travel in greater luxury, achieve a firmer erection, buy more legislators, send his kids to better schools, than one worth $5 billion?
posted by darukaru at 5:47 PM on April 29, 2001
... after a certain point of extravagance, does it really matter who's got more or less? Can a guy worth $50 billion eat tastier food, travel in greater luxury, achieve a firmer erection, buy more legislators, send his kids to better schools, than one worth $5 billion?
posted by darukaru at 5:47 PM on April 29, 2001
« Older Safe House--for the spy in all of us. | The Tibet Game Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
How many zeroes is that, exactly?
Never mind. God bless 'em, but these are numbers that I physically cannot relate to.
posted by chicobangs at 10:27 PM on April 28, 2001