Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Government Politics

Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon 654

Posted by Zonk
from the jobs-for-vice-president dept.
netbuzz writes "Dilbert's Scott Adams kicked off the idea in his November 19th blog post, saying there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure in less time than it takes to get a new operating system out the door. Today, the idea is moving forward with a brand-new 'Bill Gates for President' Web site. Adams is also back on the campaign trail, flogging the site and Gates' candidacy." A blog post at Network World includes a lot of eye-rolling about this idea, but neither Adams nor the folks at the 'Gates for President' website seem to be taking this lightly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon

Comments Filter:
  • by gevmage (213603) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:25PM (#17056146) Homepage

    Hmmm...I seem to remember that Bill say that he was going to be stepping down as Microsoft CEO in a couple of years...right about when the 2008 Presidential campaign would be heating up.

    Microsoft decided to get into the console gaming arena without any prior experience. Perhaps Bill is thinking this same thing with politics. After all, Arnold Schwatzenegger and Jesse Ventura both won state governorships primarily on name recognition. And as much as I despise is company's tactics, he is quite intelligent and has real management skills.

    • Hmmm...I seem to remember that Bill say that he was going to be stepping down as Microsoft CEO in a couple of years...

      You must have heard that a couple of years ago.

    • by HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:28PM (#17056260)
      I'd rather vote for John Cusack.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Firehed (942385)
      While I can't say I love the idea, I'd probably rather have Bill as President than most of the people who run. I certainly don't care for much of his software or related practices (WGA, anyone?), but he is a smart man.

      Of course, I don't see the OpenDocument movement in Mass. going through if this were to happen. But, in honesty, if that's the biggest problem that came from his theoretical presidency, I'd be thrilled.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Moofie (22272)
        "but he is a smart man."

        How do you figure?

        Seriously. Since kinda writing Basic a million years ago, what has he done that makes you think he's anything other than a rich kid who was in the right place at the right time?
        • Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shaneh0 (624603)
          Build a multi-billion dollar corporation?

          Seriously, if you claim that was just dumb luck, well, don't expect me to respond. There are a million things that could've killed Microsoft (or any company) in its infancy.

          Yes, we can tell you hate microsoft, but lets not discount how difficult it is to build a successful business, let alone the most successful business in its industry.
          • Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:48PM (#17057646)
            Successful? Absolutely. Ethical? Not a bit. Everything Microsoft did in order to gain its "successful" position has been completely ethically bankrupt--unfair competition, shady deals, outright theft (see Stac), the list goes on and on.

            Is Bill smart? Certainly. Probably not that much technically (as is often said, what has he done himself since the Altair days?), but businesswise he's probably better than the very best Mafia dons in being able to barely skirt the law and use every dirty trick he can invent in making his business more successful, no matter who it hurts.

            But the question is, do you really want someone smart, in a criminal way, to run the country? I certainly don't.

            However, it seems we keep electing criminals to office anyway (Bush, Delay, etc.), and our current criminal president is utterly incompetent, so maybe we'd do better with a smart criminal like Bill...

            • Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by ruben.gutierrez (913239) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:59PM (#17057864)
              A criminally smart President doesn't mean a criminal President. It would be a good thing, as long as he could be kept in check. Think about security companies who hire top-notch crackers as consultants. It's because of their criminal (aka street?) smarts. Smart is smart, regardless of the subject.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Shaper_pmp (825142)
                You have spent six years failing to "keep in check" a president with the brains of a concussed chicken.

                You want to elect an evil genius, on the basis that while he might be evil, the genius part would be great if you can keep him in check?

                Prove your democracy's "checks and balances" can handle something as dangerous as a baby's rattle without fucking up international politics, then maybe we'll look at getting you that really handy assault rifle, mmmkay?

                "Smart is smart, regardless of the subject."

                Yes, but yo
            • by MikeFM (12491) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @08:23PM (#17058940) Homepage Journal
              If I had to pick geek icons for office I'd like to see Linus as President and RMS as vice president. Mr. Torvalds is a very good leader - he motivates people, he listens to people, he does a good job at picking others to lead under him. He is intelligent, much more ethical than Mr. Gates, and I think a far better leader than Mr. Gates. RMS would be a good VP because he is to crazy to give power to directly but he often has good points and knows how to get his voice out there to actually make a difference in the world.

              Sure Linus is from Finland but I'm willing to vote for him - something I'll never do for Mr. Gates. If I can't have Linus then I'd consider people from the EFF or any major American free software hacker. Seriously - I'll vote for you if you run guys. We need a pro consumer and pro science/technology President.

              I think I'm scared. What if the election comes down to being between Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates? I'd have to kill myself rather than be around when either of those two takes the lead of our country. Hillary is just an off her rocker lib that's never done anything but spout crap and Bill would slaughter fair use and similar consumer protection and anti-trust laws.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Grishnakh (216268)
                If I had to pick geek icons for office I'd like to see Linus as President and RMS as vice president. Mr. Torvalds is a very good leader - he motivates people, he listens to people, he does a good job at picking others to lead under him. He is intelligent, much more ethical than Mr. Gates, and I think a far better leader than Mr. Gates. RMS would be a good VP because he is to crazy to give power to directly but he often has good points and knows how to get his voice out there to actually make a difference in
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by drsmithy (35869)

              [...] outright theft (see Stac), [...]

              Since when is a patent violation "theft" ?

              Besides, I thought we'd all agreed that software patents were bad, mmkay ?

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by zenyu (248067)

                [...] outright theft (see Stac), [...]


                Since when is a patent violation "theft" ?

                Besides, I thought we'd all agreed that software patents were bad, mmkay ?


                It was the clear copyright infingement that riled most people.

                Microsoft copy-n-pasted the code!

                Also, it was a depressing to see how badly our legal system handled the infraction, Stac was killed causing everyone there to lose their jobs and breaking up a good development team. The only relief was a few hundred million dollars for the investors in the com
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Skim123 (3322)

              When was our last ethical president in office? Jimmy Carter, maybe. But at least Gates isn't a coke-snorting, drunk, or a shady land deal who uses his power to put interns in questionable positions, or makes backdoor, pre-election day deals with radical Muslims, or secretely bombs countries that we've not gone to war with, and so on. I mean, this century has seen some pretty unethical presidents.

              But what most people forget is that a large part of politics is... politics. Someone who can bring different sid

            • Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by rucs_hack (784150) on Friday December 01, 2006 @05:42AM (#17062972)
              I'm in an odd position. I respect Bill gates for his achievements, but dislike Microsoft as it stands (and cannot beleive Ballmer is in chanrge, wtf's up with that?). Barely anyone remembers that Microsoft were once the good guys saving us from the evils of IBM and Unix (back when unix was a million flavors, and they were all damn expensive, before the wonder that is Linux).

              Bill is a shark. If he took his business abilities, which are somewhat fearsome, and turned them to politics, then interesting things could result. Look what happened when he turned to Charity, the biggest infusion of private funds into charitable works *in* *history*.

              However, is that really what America needs? I don't think so, not right now. Incidentally England was run by businessmen in the 18th and 19th century. The empire wasn't about glory, it was about profit. We did rather well out of it, even though people try and pretend that england was some kind of holy democracy. Remember the Suiz Canal Crisis? Think the motivation was political? Hell no, it was pure business reasoning. Ok it went badly for us, but that was because the climate had changed. The same reasoning had made us the most powerful nation on the planet, but its time had passed.

              The fact is that at certain points in history, businessmen have been the right people to run things.

              Remember that War of independence you had? Who were the initial group that started it all. Politicians? Nope, Businessmen....

              Who were the people who did the most to ensure America's technological dominance and ultimate victory in WWII? Businessmen. When politicians make war armaments decisions entirely you get bad decisions, History showed this clearly. For example, the UK's war spending and research was almost entirely government controlled. That's why we rejected the Jet until the war was almost over. Would a businessman have done that? Oh hell no.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by MickDownUnder (627418)
              I think everything Microsoft has done has been completely ethical within the context of the global corporate system.

              Breaking agreements, or acting upon an agreement that is inconsistent with the original spirit of the agreement is part and parcel of modern business practices. It's purely about the bottom line. If a corporate believes there is an advantage out of acting in a manner inconsistent with an agreement, than it will cost them in terms of possible law suits and litigation, then of course they are
          • Anyone else getting tired of corporations getting fined instead of their leaders going to jail for crimes committed?
          • Re:Uh... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by The_Wilschon (782534) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @07:49PM (#17058502) Homepage
            One might suggest that the reason that it is difficult to build a successful business is ethics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never performed the experiment of trying to build to separate businesses, one ethically and one like MS. Has anyone else done this and produced some results? How much easier does a complete lack of concern for one's fellow man make business building?
            • Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by kjart (941720) on Friday December 01, 2006 @07:17AM (#17063374)

              One might suggest that the reason that it is difficult to build a successful business is ethics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never performed the experiment of trying to build to separate businesses, one ethically and one like MS. Has anyone else done this and produced some results? How much easier does a complete lack of concern for one's fellow man make business building?

              I'm sorry, but since when is Bill Gates some sort of evil supervillain? It's one thing to complain about strongarm, monopolistic business practices and quite another to claim he has a "complete lack of concern for one's fellow man". I know this is Slashdot, but I find it hard to believe that what you typed is actually something other than parody of the groupthink.

              Is Bill Gates a cutthroat business man? Yes, he is, like many, many people out there (though more successful than most). Does this make him some sort of monster? No, it certainly does not, and I believe his philanthropy can attest to that as well.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by megaditto (982598)

          what has he done that makes you think he's anything other than a rich kid who was in the right place at the right time?

          Bush Jr. was also a rich kid, in the right place, and at the right time; yet somehow his every single business venture ended up in a miserable failure (Arbusto Energy, Harken, Spectrum, Rangers, Sammy Sosa fuckup, etc. etc.)

          So I might, just might be willing to give Bill Gates a try.

          Unfortunately, not being a sociopathic sadist, Gates is at real disadvantage.

      • While I can't say I love the idea, I'd probably rather have Bill as President than most of the people who run.

        I was thinking this too. How sad that one of the most reviled of businessmen is actually attractive compared to so much of the other options when it comes to President.

        • by westlake (615356) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @07:02PM (#17057884)
          How sad that one of the most reviled of businessmen is actually attractive compared to so much of the other options when it comes to President.

          reviled by the Geek, perhaps. but not by TIME magazine. and not by the population generally. which has never shared the Geek's hatred of Microsoft.

          a poster the other day had the right idea when he wrote that the Borg icon for Gates was a desperately lame and tired old joke that has no resonance beyond Slashdot.

          • by cshotton (46965) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @07:52PM (#17058542) Homepage
            reviled by the Geek, perhaps. but not by TIME magazine. and not by the population generally. which has never shared the Geek's hatred of Microsoft.

            All that shows is Gates' ability to retain a competent PR firm to groom his image in such a way that his misanthropic tendencies, dubious business practices, and outdated technical expertise are hidden behind the gloss of a $50 billion net worth. In a land of "Who wants to be a millionaire", most of the shallow end of the gene pool can't be bothered with actually analyzing the skills and merits (or lack thereof) of their political candidates.

            This story is one of the biggest meta-trolls posted in Slashdot history. Honestly, what qualifies a newspaper cartoonist to advocate the political candidacy of one of the least qualified personalities imaginable other than the possible humor value when he laughs about it with friends a year from now?
    • by Intron (870560) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:12PM (#17057108)
      But Bill Gates wasn't in Predator.
    • And as much as I despise is company's tactics, he is quite intelligent and has real management skills.

      The very same things which make us hate M$... ...would probably make him an exceptional President. All except enforcing the use of Microsoft software in government.

      He's brilliantly intelligent, with an amazing ability to run a company. His ruthless determination to implement his ideas would be a terrific asset. His management and business experience is likely to make him a Republican, though at least so

  • by Salvance (1014001) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:25PM (#17056170) Homepage Journal
    Geez ... if people thought Dick Cheney was cold and ruthless, wait until they have Bill Gates in charge. Plus, imagine some of the innovations we'd see:

    Pres Gates Day 1: The U.S. needs to become the most innovative country in the world, so I have decided in interest of attaining this goal we will rebuild Washington D.C. ... the new city will be named Capitol 2.0
    Pres Gates Day 365: The Capital 2.0 is running ahead of schedule, I know it's been tough living and working out of trailers, but we should be finished within a year
    Pres Gates Day 700: Due to the new competition from Tokyo's rebuilding operations, we have decided to restart our Capitol 2.0 project, but the delay will be worth it since our new Capitol will be even better than the original one planned
    Pres Gates Day 1000: We have found that the Capitol 2.0 subway system was incompatible with the Capitol 2.0 sewage system, so we will rebuild DC's old subway system and try to make it work within the Capitol 2.0 structure
    Pres Gates on his last day: On my final day in office, I am proud to unveil Capitol 2.0 ... at first you may think it looks just like DC, but we actually repainted all the buildings, and added innovative new parking meters that destroy your car if you try to park in same parking spot more than 3 times.
  • by traindirector (1001483) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:26PM (#17056174)

    I personally welcome our new DOS-stealing philanthopist overlord.

    But on a serious note, it might be nice to have a president who has become more philanthropist than tycoon and who is notable because of his business and humanitarian accomplishments, not because of a life of playing to political interests. He already has extensive experience with large organizations. Might be more interested in following his own vision than listening to what the people want, though, although that seems to be the case with most great leaders...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I personally welcome our new DOS-stealing philanthopist overlord.

      Now, now. He didn't steal it. He bought it legitimately.
  • BSoD (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dutchmaan (442553) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:26PM (#17056196) Homepage
    "Blue State of Death" ?
  • shock! (Score:5, Funny)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:26PM (#17056202) Journal
    "there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure in less time than it takes to get a new operating system out the door"

    Have things really got that bad?
  • Remember (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s20451 (410424) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:26PM (#17056212) Journal
    Steve Forbes for president? Or Ross Perot? Look how far those two smart, rich, successful businessmen went.

    • Re:Remember (Score:5, Funny)

      by DeepHurtn! (773713) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:41PM (#17056526)
      Yes, as George W. Bush has clearly demonstrated, the key to success in politics is to be an unsuccessful yet still rich businessman.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by internic (453511)

      Actually, if you recall Perot was doing quite well in the polls (even leading at one point) up until the point where he effecitively dropped out of the race [wikipedia.org] (later to return) and thereby shot himself in the foot. His problem wasn't being smart, rich, and successful but rather that his on again, off again candidacy and claims of "republican dirty tricks" made him seem crazy.

    • Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drooling-dog (189103) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:47PM (#17057636)
      If I were going to vote for a Super Rich Guy President, Warren Buffett might deserve a look. I've seen/read a few interviews, and was fairly impressed.

      A point he made once that was worth remembering (paraphrasing a bit)...

      Imagine that you're still unborn, in the womb, and are given the opportunity to choose the kind of world in which you'll be living after you're born. The only catch is that you can't know the circumstances of your birth - rich/poor, black/white, European/Somalian, healthy/sick, etc. Now, what kind of world do you choose when you have no idea where you'll fit into it? Buffett said that's the world you should be striving for.
    • Perot got almost 19% [wikipedia.org] of the popular vote - Clinton won with only 43%!

      That was running against a rather centrist democrat. What would happen if a third party candidate as viable as Perot ran against far more extemeist candidates from both the Republicans and Democrat sides? I think the tenor of politics has polarized so much that a third choice is very viable right now, if they are the right person (I'm not sure Gates has the personality for this) and have enough financial backing (there Gates is doing jus
  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:27PM (#17056224) Homepage Journal
    at least open source paid for by governments.
    • by McFortner (881162) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:43PM (#17056558)
      I have seen the future....

      President Gates was quoted as saying regarding the MicroSoft investigation, "Justice Department investigation? What Justice Department investigation?" MicroSoft stock prices climbed 200 points today when Wall Street heard the news.

      In related news, Steve Job's execution as a Enemy of the State is scheduled to go on as planned at 9pm EST. Live, pay-per-view coverage can be found on MSNBC.com.

  • by MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) <dylan AT dylanbrams DOT com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:27PM (#17056230) Homepage Journal
    Maybe twenty years ago. Now I'm more behind Craig Newmark for president. If our government ran a fifth as efficient as his website does, I'd be ten times as happy as I am now with it.
    • by gurps_npc (621217) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:33PM (#17056368) Homepage
      Government is SUPPOSED to be inefficient.

      If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.

      One of the major reasons the US is so sucessfull is that it created multiple layers of bureaucracy (Senate, House, Executive Branch, Legal system, State governments, etc.) instead of making one thing that just works well.

      Fast governments do things without thinking, ignoring the wisdom of "hey, maybe we ought to stop and think about it before we make abortion illegal", and just go ahead and passes laws that people think they want when they are scared and terrified, instead of thinking long and hard about the long term consequences of it.

      • by MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) <dylan AT dylanbrams DOT com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:47PM (#17056636) Homepage Journal
        Um.....

        No.

        Good government is reasonable and thinks and debates until it's time to do something, then goes out and does it. "Inefficiency" and "Debate" are two completely different things, and equating them is like equating "debating the war in Iraq" with "not supporting our troops..." They are two completely different things that look somewhat alike to the unaware observer. I guess the real problem with our government is the people it has come to represent. Let me put it this way:

        The seventh most visited site in the US is run by less than 50 people.

        If that isn't a small number of people doing something beneficial for an extremely large number, I don't know what is. That's what I want out of government - run the water, run the electricity, run the courts system so it's fair, provide a social safety net, create an armed force that can defend our interests at home as effectively as necessary as cheaply as possible, push the economy to a high rate of growth, etc. And do it with as small a portion of the population and the population's resources as possible. The way our government is run now is completely purpose-less and the majority of it is done out of either sheer habit or the self-interest of politicians.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        Government is SUPPOSED to be inefficient. If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail. One of the major reasons the US is so sucessfull is that it created multiple layers of bureaucracy (Senate, House, Executive Branch, Legal system, State governments, etc.) instead of making one thing that just works well. Fast governments do things without thinking

        Fast != Efficient

        A machine that shreds your

      • by Lord Ender (156273) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:51PM (#17056720) Homepage
        inefficient

        You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

        An economically-efficient government could provide the same social services while charging less tax.

        I think an ideal government would be slow to change laws and efficient with spending.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bunions (970377)
        > Government is SUPPOSED to be inefficient.

        >If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.

        this is about the dumbest thing I've read in some time. You're confusing a system of checks and balances with ineffiency.
  • by PingXao (153057) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:27PM (#17056234)
    My calendar is about to say December 1, not April 1. This is really dumb. I don't bash Bill Gates a lot. I admire him in some ways. But come on, who wants a president whose company has been conviceted of being an illegal monopoly, that has been found gulty of being a predator, that has stifled innovation while claiming the opposite, that has run roughshod over consumer rights and then tried to weasel out of every penalty anyone ever tried to impose on it?

    Oh, wait... is he running as a Republican?
    • Don't forget the push that he and his company constantly make for things like removal of the cap on H1B's.

      There's no way that he'd get my vote.
  • by transporter_ii (986545) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:27PM (#17056238) Homepage
    1. He wants to buy an old Cesna, paintit flashy colors, and call it Air Force '95.
    2. He heard that some government agencies were using UNIX.
    3. He wants to get that illegal sports car in SF Bay into the US.
    4. He just thinks it would be neat to be president of two big thingies.
    5. He's hot for Janet Reno.
    6. His ego needs to be inflated.
    7. He lost the key to his mansion, so he needs a new place to live.
    8. He thinks that he can use MS Money to balance the budget.
    9. He feels that Perot just didn't throw enough money at it.
    10. He wants to make Windows '95 the official operating system of the USA.

    Ok, those look kind of dated...but still funny

    On the serious side, I wonder how many people with the power to see into the mysterious future, were tempted to e-mail the editor about a SERIOUS problem with this story!

    Transporter_ii
  • by BandwidthHog (257320) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:30PM (#17056294) Homepage Journal
    I’ve been saying for years that we need to stop electing millionaires.

    Careful what ya wish for, I suppose.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by curunir (98273) *
      What we really need to do is stop electing old-money millionaires. New-money [m|b]illionaires often have proved their skills in attaining their wealth. Things like fiscal responsibility and ability to predict how the world will change as time passes are often key ingredients in people amassing a large fortune without receiving a large part of it from parents.

      While I'm about the biggest Microsoft critic there is here, would it really be so bad to have a president who:
      a) Understands how bad an unbalanced bu
  • Prepare (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PortHaven (242123) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:31PM (#17056306) Homepage
    For innumerous jokes about constantly having to reboot the government. And the need for constant government upgrades.

    Let's forget open-source software for any public activities.

    Er...uh...*cowers*

    On the flip side, special interest groups declare bankruptancy. Groups claim they became ineffective because when ever they tried to buy Bill Gates he declined expressing that he already had enough headaches trying to spend the billions he already has.
    • On the flip side, special interest groups declare bankruptancy. Groups claim they became ineffective because when ever they tried to buy Bill Gates he declined expressing that he already had enough headaches trying to spend the billions he already has.

      He would have the capability to do his own thing, 100%, all the way. No political backing, no SIG's, no anything. Pick his agenda, pick his priorities, open office to anyone without a corporate interest. Now that would be interesting.
  • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:31PM (#17056320) Homepage
    ...but I wouldn't mind voting for Scott Adams!
    • by kalirion (728907)
      I wouldn't if I were you. In his blog, Scott Adams has repeatedly stated that we should always go with the majority opinion, no matter what that opinion is.
  • a waste of materiel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tverbeek (457094) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:31PM (#17056322) Homepage
    My main objection to a Gates presidency is that Bill can do far more good for the world as the head of a well-funded private foundation than he could possibly do as master of ceremonies and chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Now that he's stepping down as Borg Queen, he has an unprecedented opportunity to improve the quality of living for so much of the human population... why waste a man like that on a job where he'll have to negotiate with Congress, waste time overseeing dozens of secretaries, etc.
  • by archeopterix (594938) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:32PM (#17056324) Journal
    Thank you, Scott.
  • The IRONY (Score:4, Funny)

    by Absolut187 (816431) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:32PM (#17056326) Homepage
    I clicked the link for the "Bill Gates for President website"

    This is what I get:
    "Error establishing a database connection"

    How ironic. Bill Gates' presidential bid stymied by technical difficulties.

    And by "ironic" I mean "totally expected and predictable."
  • by NatasRevol (731260) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:32PM (#17056336) Journal
    One way to make sure it doesn't happen:

    Slashdot it!!

    Quick, someone tell Digg, then Fark!
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:34PM (#17056374)
    A politician with the honesty of Bill Clinton, the dashing presence of Michael Dukakis, the sexy charisma of Hubert Humphrey, the commanding stature of Joseph Lieberman, the popularity of Gray Davis, the humble background of John D. Rockefeller, the down-home charm of John Kerry, the electoral experience of Pat Robertson, the honesty of Dan Rostenkowski, and the huge following of Dennis Kucinich!

    Crow T. Trollbot

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CrashPoint (564165)
      A politician with the honesty of Bill Clinton, the dashing presence of Michael Dukakis, the sexy charisma of Hubert Humphrey, the commanding stature of Joseph Lieberman, the popularity of Gray Davis, the humble background of John D. Rockefeller, the down-home charm of John Kerry, the electoral experience of Pat Robertson, the honesty of Dan Rostenkowski, and the huge following of Dennis Kucinich!

      And the streamlined verbal economy of Crow T. Trollbot!
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:35PM (#17056412) Homepage Journal
    Will there be a "Cowboy Neal" option on the ballot?
  • by Absolut187 (816431) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:44PM (#17056578) Homepage

    "there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure.."


    Except, of course, the security and stability of its most popular computer operating system.
  • by iONiUM (530420) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:01PM (#17056924) Homepage Journal
    I'm kind of confused, all the posts here on Slashdot talk about how Bill Gates shouldn't be president because [insert other person here] would be better. Or that he ran a company convicted of being an illegal monopoly.

    Why isn't anyone discussing how his years of experience both managing a bank account the size of a small country's GDP and running a huge corporation would be beneficial/detrimental to him being a President? Seems to me like everyone here is arguing emotion. For example, "I don't like him" isn't a useful tidbit of information.
  • by Peter Trepan (572016) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:03PM (#17056956)
    ...and extend it...
  • by Wylfing (144940) <brian&wylfing,net> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @06:23PM (#17057324) Homepage Journal

    I admit to not having read a great deal of the comments so far. I assume there are the usual high temperatures.

    What I want to post about, though, is that this is not a bad idea. I don't care what you think about Bill or Microsoft, there is one thing that is indisputable: Bill (and by extension MS under Bill) is fantastic as the underdog. Look at the evidence, the history. Whenever Bill has been the low man he has always shone and come out on top.

    Now, for our Rush audience, it might be necessary to say it, the U.S.A. is in an underdog position right now. We have a gigantic amount of things we need to dig out from underneath of. We need to get back to our more respectable levels of performance. Plus, our William is more-or-less politically unaligned. He'd essentially have to run as a 3rd party -- another underdog situation for him to triumph over, which, as we know, he excels at. Also he has the large-scale management experience necessary for the job.

    So we have a man who is godly when put in the exact position demanded here, and has the experience and charisma required to make it happen (seriously, Bill is a geek but he is capable of motivating people to his point of view). Why would we not want to have him as President?

  • by deanoaz (843940) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @07:47PM (#17058484)
    In U.S. history people from following classes have been elected President:

    1. State Governors
    2. Vice-Presidents
    3. U.S. Congressional Representatives
    4. Generals
    5 (almost never, but once in a century or so) a U.S. Senator

    This means that the following people will NOT be elected President in 2008:

    Bill Gates
    Condoleeza Rice
    Rudy Guliani

    and the following people have a real chance only if their opponent is also a U.S. Senator:

    John Kerry
    Hillary Clinton
    John McCain
    John Edwards
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @07:51PM (#17058538)

    I know there's already a top ten list related but bear with me...

    The Top Ten Actions of The Newly Elected President Gates

    10) Air Force One? To paraphrase the Stones, Paint it Brown!
    9) Civics classes in school now include mandatory read of "The Road Ahead".
    8) Stallman put on "Do Not Fly or Speak" list.
    7) What's key to the countries economy? Housing Developers, Housing Developers, Housing Developers! Oops, wrong pres.
    6) All military fighter jets retrofitted with iDrive, trunk opening code wired to missile launch.
    5) Congress split into Congress Home and Congress Business divisions (you can guess where all the current members go)
    4) "The White House isn't wired for GigE? Where's my hammer"
    3) Calling Jobs, Ellison, and McNeal and making them sing "Hail to the Chief".
    2) Nuclear command infrastructure wired to Vista speech recognition, hijinks ensue.
    1) "Hey pie guy, where ya' going?" "I'm going to Gitmo!".
  • He's got my vote... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zaphod2016 (971897) on Friday December 01, 2006 @03:50AM (#17062408) Homepage
    As I sit here typing this comment into Firefox on my MacBook running OS X, you would be hard-pressed to call me a M$ fanboy. However, I have to admit, if he runs, he's got my vote.

    Scott said it best:

    The man took one look at capitalism and beat it like a 14-year old boy with unrestricted Internet access. Bill Gates is a winner. Wouldn't you prefer having him on your side for a change, beating the crap out of North Korea instead of Netscape?


    Like it or not, capitalism is the name of our American game. Compared to Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Condi Rice or (God help us) Rudy Giuliani-- it's the first name I've heard that hasn't made me cringe.

    Plus it sets a nice prescedent. As far as I'm concerned, we geeks should be running the show.

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...