Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon 654
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.
Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
You must have heard that a couple of years ago.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd rather vote for Jack Thomps... wait, what the fuck am I saying?!! *shoots self*
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Geeks for President! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] 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)
[...] 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)
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)
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)
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
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want an example of a well-run business, look at IBM, which has been around for a century or so, or at Google, which has products that their customers actually get excited about.
If Bill ran the USG the way he's run MS, he'd raise taxes and fund all kinds of hairbrained initiatives which would be expensive, poorly thought-out, and would flop. The only thing he'd do well is use the US's dominant position, unethically, to gain more power from the rest of the world, at everyone else's expense, and make the US even more hated than it is now.
Would this be the first time a crook became prez? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
And, as long as the playing field stays reasonably level, you can have another 230 years of managed corruption to show for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 $50 billion net worth. In a land of "Who wants to be a millionaire", most of the shallow end of the gene pool can't be bothered with actually analyzing the skills and merits (or lack thereof) of their political candidates.
This story is one of the biggest meta-trolls posted in Slashdot history. Honestly, what qualifies a newspaper cartoonist to advocate the political candidacy of one of the least qualified personalities imaginable other than the possible humor value when he laughs about it with friends a year from now?
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
If he could do for the US what he did for operating systems, then the US would own the whole world, but it would be a crappy place to live and wouldn't work very well.
Re:Bill DID say he was leaving microsoft... (Score:5, Funny)
The very same things which make us hate M$... (Score:3, Insightful)
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$... ...would probably make him an exceptional President. All except enforcing the use of Microsoft software in government.
He's brilliantly intelligent, with an amazing ability to run a company. His ruthless determination to implement his ideas would be a terrific asset. His management and business experience is likely to make him a Republican, though at least so
Re:The very same things which make us hate M$... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The very same things which make us hate M$... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates would make a horrible president because the country is not run like a dictatorship like all companies are. At MS he was the dictator, what he said went and anybody who questioned him could be canned. As a president you have to work with the congress. Bush had a compliant congress who were sycophantic to an obscene degree but even then he failed miserably in just about everything he tried.
Gates is not used to compromising, he is not used to being disagreed with. He would make a horrible president.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What is he going to do, round up all the Mac users?
Yes.
Imagine if ... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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
Re:Imagine if ... (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone will forget Cheney once vice president Ballmer is in office. He breaks tie votes in the senate... with a chair!
A philanthropist President (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Now, now. He didn't steal it. He bought it legitimately.
BSoD (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*except the president. Though it's probably supposed to be some kind of ordeal that's supposed to have a humbling effect...
I mean, you can walk to either of those two states from anywhere in DC in less time than it takes to commute to Manhattan from long island.
Re:BSoD (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry.
shock! (Score:5, Funny)
Have things really got that bad?
Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush was never really unsuccessful in business. Some of the companies he headed failed, but he always made out like a bandit. Of course with his father in the President's seat, and all his family ties in Washington, no SEC investigation ever got very far. He repeatedly sold shares of the companies he was heading before they released bad financial news to the publ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Buffett didn't come up with that. John Rawls did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that he knows and repeated it is enough for me; I wouldn't expect a Super Rich Presidential Candidate to have originated all of his ideas. We're talking about politics here, not academics.
Perot actually did rather well (about 19% popular) (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yes, but Forbes apparently a) owns a mirror and b) has stopped let his mother pick out his clothes for him.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Expect a ban on open source.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Expect a ban on open source.. (Score:5, Funny)
Worst idea I've ever heard. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worst idea I've ever heard. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Worst idea I've ever heard. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Fast != Efficient
A machine that shreds your
Re:Worst idea I've ever heard. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
>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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The original American system was a huge success, allowing all kinds of different people to create their own communities where they were free to hate each other all they wanted to. Most of the time they were able to settle their differences all by themselves, without any sort of Federal interference. And where they could never find the middle ground, they got over it. It was OK, in thos
Is it April Fools Day already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait... is he running as a Republican?
Re: (Score:3)
There's no way that he'd get my vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Top Ten Reasons Bill Gates Would Run for President (Score:5, Funny)
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
RE: Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon (Score:3, Insightful)
Qualifications? (Score:5, Funny)
Careful what ya wish for, I suppose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Very excellent point (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I wouldn't vote for Gates... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
a waste of materiel (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate application of the Dilbert Principle (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
WordPress Error (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot it!!
Quick, someone tell Digg, then Fark!
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
Crow T. Trollbot
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And the streamlined verbal economy of Crow T. Trollbot!
Just one question (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
A Real Review of Bill Gates (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nice try though, you almost had a point.
I solemnly swear to embrace the Constitution... (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? (Score:3)
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?
Only 4 jobs prepare someone to be President (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Top ten actions of the new president Gates (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Scott said it best:
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.
Re:First day on the Job (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? Well, Billg is a very smart guy, he's extremely intense, extremely intelligent - can pick out and remember the smallest details from specs that are hundreds of pages long - and has generally been a pretty good leader for Microsoft. Not many people can make the transition from running a small business with 3 employees to having that business become the biggest software company in the world, with over 60,000 employees. He did, and he did it well. He's got real talent.
However, Microsoft is also a frigging bureaucratic mess of unbelievable proportions. A lot of you have probalby read that Joel on Software article about the shutdown menu in Vista, and the dev's response to it in which he describes a year-long process of weekly meetings mostly spent arguing over design features. The thing is, the whole company is like that. While I'm pretty sure Billg is a nice guy (I don't know him pesonally, but it's my impression) and he's very smart and I'm sure he has far more integrity than most politicians, I don't really want to put anyone who oversaw the creation of such a bureaucracy in charge of the government. After all, it took government far longer to evolve such a horrid bureacracy, Microsoft did it in only 30 years, and most of that happened in the last 20.
So, while I have tremendous respect for Billg for his accomplishments at Microsoft, and also for Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs for their accomplishments, I wouldn't like to see any of them become president of the United States, thank you very much (not that Linus could, because of the stricture on being a citizen by birth, of course).