Microsoft After Gates. (And Bill After Microsoft.)

Zanax should take his own medicine. Outlandish? So you think cheating and lying yields unprecedented success? So, it's a bad thing that Microsoft positioned itself to be a denominator to many innovative, creative and problem solving numerators? And to think I was slightly embarrassed about my comments here on newsweek yesterday. IT IS NEWSWEEK!

What are you the cooler ? I certainly don't want to go to Vegas with you! How in the world does one lose money investing in MSFT? I know the stock has been flat the last 5 yrs, but seriously? There are lots of "bad" stocks out there, but Microsoft?

Last time I checked, investing money doesn't always mean you make money. There are no garuntees. It is a well studied form of gambling and nothing else--and you can't lose what you don't put in. So, take some responsibility for yourself. If you hadn't invested it, you wouldn't have lost it. Not every stock makes money. That's an economic fact, not mine. Amazing how someone can willingly put money into something at THEIR own risk--then blame someone else for not yeilding them a profit. LOL.

I am stating fact, not opinion. If you want to point out the "inconsitancies" please feel free to do so.
I have.
Freedom is not CONSITANT with creating entities that can delinate what others do with the money they have made. Like is said, that is socialism. People have tried that system. It doesn't work.
Try studying history while you're at it, because you are abundantly bereft of knowldedge in this subject.
You see when you start down the path you are talking about, YOU have to remember--someone has to decide how wealthy is wealthy. Billions? Millions? What if some idiot like you decided people that made $100, 000 a year is too much? What if a man started with nothing, and then worked hard to become wealthy. Explain why he should be forced to take the money he worked for and use it to make a difference in the world. Freedom gives that man the perogitive to do so, OR NOT to do so. That is choice, and that is freedom. Because a common man BECOMES an extremely wealthy man does not mean that the world becomes HIS responsibility. They're are those who choose to be philanthropic, like Gates, and those who do not. Like I said, your open opinions in opositiion to the facts of economics, and how capitalist societies work make you look stupid. The more you bloivate your contradictions to what freedom means, the more you make that point for me

I say moron, because you are diplaying a-typical opinions based on personal belief and not fact. Stop twisting the words. I never said I believed people should make money by whatever means--I said by whatever means in which he made it, it is his money. You see how that flew right over your head, and you construed it into a trite argument that had nothing to do with what I was saying. Socialism, which is what you are talking about, is not freedom. That we should supress the accumulation of the few, because it is not fair to the many, is a socialistic notion and not bound withing the constructs of freedom. Restraining the abilities of anyone is not freedom. You can't understand that because you're application of this knowledge is based on those who have, and those who have not. But if someone came and told you tomorrow that they had to decrease you earned income, because it was not fair to people lower down the ladder than you, I doubt you would make the same argument. Because, somehow, making too much money only applies those making incredible amounts of it. Everyone in a free society has the oppurtunity to do the same. That is what capitalism is all about. What you are talking about doesn't work. Period. Just look at how many socailistic societies exist in harmony today for frame of reference. Even Russia found the communistic lifestyle to be undproductive, and have since switched to capitalism. You want to be intelligent, provide cause and effect, fact based , components to your arguments, instead of just spouting off what you think.
Saying that you can become rich--just not too rich--within free societies is an oxymoron. Restriction is not freedom--and it makes no sense to say that someone can make billions--but after they do--WE should decide what they can do with that money. That he does not have to give away a dime is not perspective, genius--IT IS A FACT. There is no entity that can force Bill Gates to donate one penny of his money by way of charitable contribution if he CHOOSES not to. If there is tell me one.
Go back to college. Study economics. Learn the difference between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism. Then come back and see me. You will find "freedom" is limited in the first two, much more so than the third.
See, I don't equate freedom with making money. It is the catalyst that provides a nonrestrictive means to make as much as you want. Deciding when someone has made too much, and then deciding to "reduce" them is restrictive, and therefore NOT synonomous with the word freedom. And if you actually followed the case of Bill Gates, then you would also understand that the court cases against him are over, and the merits of monopoly practice is now a redundant issue. He is still a billionaire, it is still HIS money, and he is still FREE to do with it as he pleases. That is a fact, not an opinion. And school is out.

Moron.

Yeah, I really like that Pie in the face of Gates video. But I am surprised that's as bad as it's been. It's especially surprising because he's ruined so many lives and companies that worse hasn't happened to him. But then, there is Karma enroute.

To Bill Gates: CONGRATULATIONS! I think it's admirable that you will be dedicating the majority of your efforts toward philanthropy! To reply to the comment, it is ridiculous to declare that any one body should become the sole proprietor of the foundation's total funds. There are several worthy causes, organizations, foundations, and groups of people that could benefit from these funds; and without Bill and Melinda deciding together, any one organization with total control of these funds risks being corrupt. 3.7 Billion dollars is a lot of money, that wouldn't be there without the Gates, so let it be used to support causes across the spectrum, worldwide; instead of narrowing its support to causes through the perspective of an organization narrowed by its identity. Furthermore, Humanism is a CLASSICAL term, dating back to ROMAN times [revived during the Renaissance]. It denotes a philosophy where the following causes are heralded/supported: The Arts/Humanities, Education, Civic Duty, Individual Achievement, Progress. This funding is due to Bill and Melinda's individual achievements and should continue to reflect that, in the true spirit of humanism. These funds, therefore, should also support causes, as I said, ACROSS the humanist spectrum, not funneled into one area. And to the "comrade" comment, GET OVER YOURSELF. True communism, as true republic is based on the SAME classical model. It is only due to their skewing and becoming EXTREME that these philosophies are BOTH corrupt. Just as Hitler's notion of 'ethnic cleansing' was evil, so is an atrocity like the CIA's Operation Condor - [it's operation where military despotic forms of government were set up and supported by the CIA in order to "deter/stop the spread of communism" in South and Central America from 1973-1980's]. It is thanks to both of these despicable operations that heinous crimes and genocide occurred. The only difference is one was done sub-versively [Condor], and in the name of "national security"; while the other was purported in the FALSE AND SKEWED name of a philosophy it perverted. ANY philosophy perverted and taken to the extreme becomes corrupt, and evil.

Stunning - Comrade let us know how things are working out in your socialist or communist regime. Has it been the utopia you hoped it would be?

He didn't create DOS. He bought it.

Just because Bill doesn't care about Malaria, or people, or being innovative, or other small companies does not make him a bad man. Just because he only cares about money does not make him a bad man. Just because his software sucks and he pushes it like drugs, and the EU thinks he has monopolistic ways does not make him a bad man. But add it up and it does make him a bad man.