A&E's Top 100 Men of the Millenium
Wind Blows
ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
IQ of the population is that low.
Gee.. how many Todd, Nates and Vapors can be out there? Are they the
true representation of our country? Scary.
Nate
wrote:
>On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
Where did jobs end up? Probably at gate's feet, groveling for more
cash.
>
>Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
Gates didn't invent the transistor.
>computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
Gates popularized the personal compute and made them easy for everyone
to own.
The internet was originally a military project.
>IQ of the population is that low.
You seem to be on the left side of the bell curve.
>
>Gee.. how many Todd, Nates and Vapors can be out there? Are they the
>true representation of our country? Scary.
You can figure that out fairly easily.
.95X
where X = the number of all computer users.
Johnny Lee
> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>
> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
> IQ of the population is that low.
According to Al Gore, he invented (or helped invent) the Internet.
George Graves
<4EE59F585E0ADFDE.8377BDFB...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:44:50 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>
>
>Where did jobs end up? Probably at gate's feet, groveling for more
>cash.
Nate, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! Why would a profitable company need more cash
from Gates? You never miss a chance to dis Apple or Macs, do you?
Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
--
George Graves
Ryan John Cousineau
>Wind Blows wrote:
>> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>
>> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
>> IQ of the population is that low.
>According to Al Gore, he invented (or helped invent) the Internet.
The whole list was an utterly pop-culture-loaded pile of crap. I stopped
watching when Princess Diana made it onto the list, with a higher ranking
than Enrico Fermi. Also, Louis Armstrong (yes, the jazz trumpeter) made it
onto the list, ahead of King Sulemain I, the man who conquered everything
up to Constantinople (Istanbul). But that's okay, he was behind Princess
Diana.
Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
included on a list of the 100 "top" people? Is Satchmo really one of them?
As for Princess Diana, I tend to feel that Princess Grace was more
important than her. At least Ms. Rainier (nee Kelly) made some good movies
before her early exit. I highly recommend "To Catch a Thief"
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm."
-Colette
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article
><4EE59F585E0ADFDE.8377BDFB...@lp.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:44:50 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>>ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>
>>
>>Where did jobs end up? Probably at gate's feet, groveling for more
>>cash.
>
>Nate, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! Why would a profitable company need more cash
>from Gates? You never miss a chance to dis Apple or Macs, do you?
>
>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
I knew the list was bullshit when I didn't find my name on it. What a
crock!
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
Mark A Ritchie
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
> mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
> has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
> could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
> Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
> disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
> where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
I can agree with that. Bill Gates in their list makes no more sense than
including Rockefeller (Was he included? I only saw the last hour.).
Beyond accummulating and spending incredible wealth, what has/did either
man contribute to the human race?
If you instead decide to include Steve Jobs on the list, do you also
include Jef Raskin or Steve Wozniak?
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
John C. Randolph
Ryan John Cousineau wrote:
> Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
> included on a list of the 100 "top" people?
Yes. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are all important enough to make this list.
>Is Satchmo really one of them?
No. He was good, but he didn't change the world.
-jcr
Nate
>In article
><4EE59F585E0ADFDE.8377BDFB...@lp.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:44:50 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>>ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>
>>
>>Where did jobs end up? Probably at gate's feet, groveling for more
>>cash.
>
>Nate, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! Why would a profitable company need more cash
>from Gates? You never miss a chance to dis Apple or Macs, do you?
George, I am surprised and cut to the bone byt your reply. I don't
believe I ever mentioned apple or macs. <snicker>
>
>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
You name 5, that only leaves 95 to go. Somebody needed to flesh out
the number. Maybe he just beat out william shatner.
>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
Like it or not, gates is the reason computers are in 50% of american
households.
The Lord Of Lemmings
<267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:44:13 -0700, gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves)
>wrote:
>>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>
>Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
>civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
Pfft. Compaq and other PC cloners brought computers to the masses. If
Bill Gates hadn't written DOS someone else would have. It's not like it's
all that difficult to write an OS of the level of DOS.
(OK, I couldn't do it, but that's beside the point. I'm not a CS major, even.
--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|
Nate
Lemmings) wrote:
>In article
><267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:44:13 -0700, gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves)
>>wrote:
>>>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>>>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>>>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>>
>>Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
>>civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
>Pfft. Compaq and other PC cloners brought computers to the masses. If
>Bill Gates hadn't written DOS someone else would have. It's not like it's
>all that difficult to write an OS of the level of DOS.
I really think computers got into the hands of the masses starting in
1995. Before then computers were still almost a novelty. Today you
are expected to own one.
>
>(OK, I couldn't do it, but that's beside the point. I'm not a CS major, even.
Not too many could.
Andy Walton
Cousineau) wrote:
:Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
:included on a list of the 100 "top" people? Is Satchmo really one of them?
If I were to pick five musicians, yes. My list (I can't bring myself to
limit it to 5 at this hour) is based on those who invented (or
popularized) a new form, and had the greatest impact on all who came
after. I've pretty much chosen one name for each major musical movement.
In chronological order:
1. Guido of Arezzo (invented musical notation, a written language for music)
2. Pope Gregory (Gregorian chant)
3. Giovanni Gabrielli (Renaissance music, polyrhythm)
4. Johann Sebastian Bach (Baroque, new levels of complexity)
5. Sidney Lanier (popular song -- via the growing sheet music trade,
normalized pop culture around the world)
6. Louis Armstrong (though you could make the case for Scott Joplin instead)
7. Woody Guthrie (elevated music as a political statement; spiritual
father of every protest singer that followed)
8. Elvis Presley (more of a popularizer than an innovator)
If I had a sixth, I'd wedge either Sinatra or Ellington between Armstrong
and Presley. Whether the top 100 people should include that many musicians
is an open question; I've never sat down and compiled such a list. And no
one would tune in for an hour-long TV show on Guido of Arezzo anyway.
:As for Princess Diana, I tend to feel that Princess Grace was more
:important than her.
Agreed, but if the criterion is lasting impact on the world, neither makes
the cut. If the list os top 100 pop culture figures, both do.
:At least Ms. Rainier (nee Kelly)
Mme. Grimaldi, wasn't it?
--
"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element; I want to know
His thoughts; the rest are details." -- Albert Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Andy Walton
:Yes. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are all important enough to make this list.
:
:>Is Satchmo really one of them?
:
:No. He was good, but he didn't change the world.
I disagree. Without Beethoven, there still could have been Mozart. They
made incremental changes to what came before. Without Louis Armstrong (and
the musical movement of which he was at the forefront), very little of the
popular culture that followed would be the same.
--
"Web pages are like babies -- creation involves a level of enthusiasm
that does not necessarily carry over into maintenance." --Joe Chew
Andy Walton
:>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
:>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
:>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
:
:Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
:civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Computers came to the masses
through the following steps:
1. Jack St. Clair Kilby receives U.S. patent #3,138,743 for the monolithic
integrated ciscuit, or microchip. As chips become more and more
complicated, they will make it practical to build a computer around a
single processor. CREDIT: Kilby, with a nod to Bell Labs for inventing the
transistor.
2. The Altair brings the cost of owning a computer within reach. Credit;
MITS (I forget the founder's name)
3. The floppy disc offers vast capacity, fast, easy, inexpensive storage
(all relative terms; remember the times). Credit: IBM.
4. The MOdulator-DEModulator is invented. This device allows terminals to
talk to computers over ordinary phone lines, taking computing out of its
air-conditioned temple and making it possible anywhere with AC current and
a POTS line. I couldn't find who invented the Modem originally. IBM?
Univac?
5. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency creates ARPAnet, a system
of standards by which a variety of computers can talk to each other from
anywhere. This will eventually become the internet. Credit: The U.S.
Military-Industrial Complex.
6. The Apple (and, more so, the Apple II) is an out-of-the-box machine
that a user with minimal training can operate. Electric Pencil (word
processing) and VisiCalc (spreadsheet) make it a tool rather than a hobby.
Those programs also drmonstrate the viability of a retail (i.e.
"shrink-wrap") software business. Apple shares this step with Commodore,
Texas Instruments, Radio Shack, and some all but forgotten bit players.
Credit: Steve Wozniak.
7. IBM releases a microcomputer under its name. This gains the little
machines instant credibility with Big Business. Once desktop computers
become ubiquitous in offices, they become more attractive for homes as
they are (a) less remote and frightening, and (b) manufactured in
ever-increasing numbers, making price drops all but inevitable. Credit:
IBM.
8. Xerox PARC invents the GUI, which will eventually make computers more
accessible. Credit: Xerox.
9. CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics, develops the World Wide
Web, putting a GUI on the internet. Now, a desktop computer is no longer a
stand-alone machine, but a window on the world. Credit: CERN.
In none of those steps was Bill Gates' involvement critical. In all but
one, it was non-existent. If IBM had gone with CP/M rather than DOS, none
of the steps above would have been substantially altered. The IBM PC
would have carried the IBM heft with any OS. Had Microsoft not existed,
any OS developer would have developed a widespread GUI.
You're trying to paint Gates as the Henry Ford of computing; if any
individual deserves that title, I'd say it's Steve Wozniak, though
Commodore may more closely fit the analogy (and I can't name any leading
individuals there during those years). Actually, there is no individual
that did it alone -- it was the whole Homebrew scene of the '70s, coupled
with new chips like the Zilog Z80, Intel 8008, et. al. that made the idea
practical.
--
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -- Isaac Asimov
Glen Warner
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
> mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
> has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world?
Heh. Someone (not me) posted this ... somewhere (most likely here). I
saved it and present it again (apologies to the original poster, but I
couldn't resist).
________________________________________*___________________________________
"For some odd reason, people consider Bill Gates to be a genius. I can't
think of any genius-like accomplishments. Here's a list:
1. Paul Allen coerced him into helping found Microsoft. Gates was a follower.
2. Co-wrote a BASIC. Not a big deal at the time.
3. Microsoft bought DOS from some poor sap.
4. Got his mom (who knows John Akers) to get the IBM PC deal for him.
5. After seeing the Mac, decided Windows could be a good idea.
6. Uses unfair trade practices to maintain a monopoly on software. The FTC
is after Microsoft for this."
________________________________________*___________________________________
Yep, all this got Big Bill to position #41!
--gdw
--
Remove the 'NYET' and you'll be all set.
Bob Hoye
Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
> nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:44:13 -0700, gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves)
> >wrote:
> >>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
> >>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
> >>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
> >
> >Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
> >civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
> Pfft. Compaq and other PC cloners brought computers to the masses. If
> Bill Gates hadn't written DOS someone else would have.
Someone else DID write DOS - Gates just bought it.
> It's not like it's all that difficult to write an OS of the level of DOS.
>
> (OK, I couldn't do it, but that's beside the point. I'm not a CS major, even.
Bob Hoye
Jim
am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:
[snip]>Pfft. Compaq and other PC cloners brought computers to the masses. If
>Bill Gates hadn't written DOS someone else would have. It's not like it's
>all that difficult to write an OS of the level of DOS.
Others did it (DRDOS, et al). Gates's genius was in always finding the
most efficient way of squashing them, legal or not.
--
Jim Naylor
jrna...@concentric.net
Michael J. Stango
am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:
>[snip]>Pfft. Compaq and other PC cloners brought computers to the masses. If
>Bill Gates hadn't written DOS someone else would have. It's not like it's
>all that difficult to write an OS of the level of DOS.
Don't forget, someone else DID write DOS! Bill Gates merely bought it from
that poor sap for $50k or so, IIRC.
He licensed DOS to IBM before securing the rights to it, thus marking the
first time of many that Microsoft has begun to market or sell something
they didn't actually have.
The only thing that is a true Gates innovation is "vaporware"
~Philly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Stango --who is known as 'mjstango' at his ISP, 'home.com'
"If Netscape started successfully selling an office application suite,
guess what would suddenly be given away for free and considered part
of Windows?"
Wind Blows
>
<snip>
>
> I disagree. Without Beethoven, there still could have been Mozart. They
> made incremental changes to what came before.
Haydn (sp?) was the grand daddy, Mozart the father and Beethoven the
son. Don't remember where I read that, but I find it pretty accurate.
All were barely contemporaries. They took the torch from one another.
Did you know that Beethoven at 18 was Mozart's apprentice? He even
filled-up some notes in some of Mozart's work. Those are the three big
ones, IMHO. Personally, I preferr Mozart. Piano Concerto #51 (?) -Elvira
Madigan - is an amazing masterpiece. You can play that tune with two
fingers in the piano. BTW, if they were alive today, they will be using
Macs :-)
Wind Blows
>
> In article
> <267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
> nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
> :>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
> :>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
> :
> :Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
> :civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
> through the following steps:
>
> 1. Jack St. Clair Kilby receives U.S. patent #3,138,743 for the monolithic
> integrated ciscuit, or microchip. As chips become more and more
> complicated, they will make it practical to build a computer around a
> single processor. CREDIT: Kilby, with a nod to Bell Labs for inventing the
> transistor.
>
Don't forget Intel's Robert Noyce. He and Kirby are acknowledged as
co-inventors of the IC. Also, Shockely, Brattain (sp?) and a third guy
invented the transistor before them. The very first step for the birth
of the PC.
> 2. The Altair brings the cost of owning a computer within reach. Credit;
> MITS (I forget the founder's name)
>
One can barely define the Altair as being a PC. It was more a techie
curiosity. IMO, I'll replace your step 2 with the Micropocessor (Intel
with the 4004). A chip that was design by Intel as a subcontract to a
Japanese pocket calculator maker (forgot the name). The thing did not
meet spec, so the contract was cancelled. Intel put it on the market
anyways. Some people, not Intel, realized its potential for being a
micro computer in a chip. BTW, the 4004 turned to the 8008, then 8080,
then 8088, then 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, Pentium and now Itanium.
Talking about modern technologies on the Wintel world!
> 3. The floppy disc offers vast capacity, fast, easy, inexpensive storage
> (all relative terms; remember the times). Credit: IBM.
>
> 4. The MOdulator-DEModulator is invented. This device allows terminals to
> talk to computers over ordinary phone lines, taking computing out of its
> air-conditioned temple and making it possible anywhere with AC current and
> a POTS line. I couldn't find who invented the Modem originally. IBM?
> Univac?
>
> 5. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency creates ARPAnet, a system
> of standards by which a variety of computers can talk to each other from
> anywhere. This will eventually become the internet. Credit: The U.S.
> Military-Industrial Complex.
>
> 6. The Apple (and, more so, the Apple II) is an out-of-the-box machine
> that a user with minimal training can operate. Electric Pencil (word
> processing) and VisiCalc (spreadsheet) make it a tool rather than a hobby.
> Those programs also drmonstrate the viability of a retail (i.e.
> "shrink-wrap") software business. Apple shares this step with Commodore,
> Texas Instruments, Radio Shack, and some all but forgotten bit players.
> Credit: Steve Wozniak.
>
The first PC indeed. IMO, if anybody deserves to be in the list in
Wosniak.
> 7. IBM releases a microcomputer under its name. This gains the little
> machines instant credibility with Big Business. Once desktop computers
> become ubiquitous in offices, they become more attractive for homes as
> they are (a) less remote and frightening, and (b) manufactured in
> ever-increasing numbers, making price drops all but inevitable. Credit:
> IBM.
>
> 8. Xerox PARC invents the GUI, which will eventually make computers more
> accessible. Credit: Xerox.
>
But Xerox got it from SRI (Stanford Research Institute) from the minds
of the inventor of the mouse, Doug Engelbart. He also participated in
the first transmission of the Internet (UCLA? to SRI). His team (but not
him) was hired later by Xerox PARC. He is my second candidate for the
list.
> 9. CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics, develops the World Wide
> Web, putting a GUI on the internet. Now, a desktop computer is no longer a
> stand-alone machine, but a window on the world. Credit: CERN.
>
> In none of those steps was Bill Gates' involvement critical. In all but
> one, it was non-existent. If IBM had gone with CP/M rather than DOS, none
> of the steps above would have been substantially altered. The IBM PC
> would have carried the IBM heft with any OS. Had Microsoft not existed,
> any OS developer would have developed a widespread GUI.
>
> You're trying to paint Gates as the Henry Ford of computing; if any
> individual deserves that title, I'd say it's Steve Wozniak, though
> Commodore may more closely fit the analogy (and I can't name any leading
> individuals there during those years). Actually, there is no individual
> that did it alone -- it was the whole Homebrew scene of the '70s, coupled
> with new chips like the Zilog Z80, Intel 8008, et. al. that made the idea
> practical.
I like the quotation of Larry Ellison (Oracle): "Gates likes to think
about him as an Edison, but he is just another Rockefeller".
Good post.
Nate
Walton) wrote:
>In article
><267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
> :>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
> :>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
> :>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
> :
> :Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
> :civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
>That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Computers came to the masses
>through the following steps:
it really depends on what you call "the masses". Computer use didn't
really explode until 1995. Sure, prople had PC and macs, but nearly
as many as today.
George Graves
gdwarn...@ricochet.net (Glen Warner) wrote:
>In article <gmgraves-121...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>> Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>> mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>> has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world?
>
>Heh. Someone (not me) posted this ... somewhere (most likely here). I
>saved it and present it again (apologies to the original poster, but I
>couldn't resist).
>
>________________________________________*___________________________________
>
>"For some odd reason, people consider Bill Gates to be a genius. I can't
>think of any genius-like accomplishments. Here's a list:
>
>1. Paul Allen coerced him into helping found Microsoft. Gates was a follower.
>2. Co-wrote a BASIC. Not a big deal at the time.
>3. Microsoft bought DOS from some poor sap.
>4. Got his mom (who knows John Akers) to get the IBM PC deal for him.
>5. After seeing the Mac, decided Windows could be a good idea.
>6. Uses unfair trade practices to maintain a monopoly on software. The FTC
>is after Microsoft for this."
>
>________________________________________*___________________________________
>
>Yep, all this got Big Bill to position #41!
Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
--
George Graves
George Graves
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:44:13 -0700, gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves)
>wrote:
>
>>In article
>><4EE59F585E0ADFDE.8377BDFB...@lp.airnews.net>,
>>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:44:50 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>>>ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where did jobs end up? Probably at gate's feet, groveling for more
>>>cash.
>>
>>Nate, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! Why would a profitable company need more cash
>>from Gates? You never miss a chance to dis Apple or Macs, do you?
>
>
>George, I am surprised and cut to the bone byt your reply. I don't
>believe I ever mentioned apple or macs. <snicker>
>
>
>>
>>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>
>Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
>civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
No, not important. Oh, there are computer pioneers who deserve credit, but
Gates ain't one of them. I'll be willing to bet that in 500 years (if not
sooner), no one will even remember Gates, but they will still be listening
to Beethoven, reading Shakespeare, Obeying Newtonian physics and
remembering Gutenberg.
>>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
>
>You name 5, that only leaves 95 to go. Somebody needed to flesh out
>the number. Maybe he just beat out william shatner.
He doesn't belong on that list. I can name many people who were more
influential. Off the top of my head: Nietzsche, Debussy, Sartre, Van Gogh,
Admiral Lord Nelson, etc., etc., etc.
>
>>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
>
>
>Like it or not, gates is the reason computers are in 50% of american
>households.
No, he's not. He's the reason why 94% of those 50% use Windows.
--
George Graves
George Graves
>Johnny Lee <johnl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Wind Blows wrote:
>
>>> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>>
>>> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>>> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>>> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
>>> IQ of the population is that low.
>
>>According to Al Gore, he invented (or helped invent) the Internet.
>
>The whole list was an utterly pop-culture-loaded pile of crap. I stopped
>watching when Princess Diana made it onto the list, with a higher ranking
>than Enrico Fermi. Also, Louis Armstrong (yes, the jazz trumpeter) made it
>onto the list, ahead of King Sulemain I, the man who conquered everything
>up to Constantinople (Istanbul). But that's okay, he was behind Princess
>Diana.
>
>Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
>included on a list of the 100 "top" people?
Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Wagner
Brahms
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Aaron Copland
Debussy
Vivaldi
Etc., Etc., Etc.
Is Satchmo really one of them?
Not really. There are film directors who deserve to be on the list too,
but Spielberg isn't one of them (he WAS on the list). John Ford, C.B.
Demille, Hitchcock.
>As for Princess Diana, I tend to feel that Princess Grace was more
>important than her. At least Ms. Rainier (nee Kelly) made some good movies
>before her early exit. I highly recommend "To Catch a Thief"
Or 'Rear Window'.
--
George Graves
Jim
Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
>>
>> Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
>> the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
>> something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>
>The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
>probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
What a crock! There were a dozen alternative mfgr's., large and small
waiting in the wings with better alternatives. Hell, man, *CP/M* could
have been upgraded by a grad student and done the job.
The peecee market as we know it was invented when the business world was
so hungry for a single standard OS that if IBM had bought *anything* else
for the XT with a similar license, that is what would have prevailed at
the time.
And DOS wouldn't have survived DRDOS.
And billygates company, which was producing loads of smelly crap such as
edlin, that it would never have survived the marketplace without IBM and
would have been a fart in a gale, instead of a becoming a gale of farts.
--
"A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without a
bunch of bricks tied to its head."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Naylor
jrna...@concentric.net
Nate
wrote:
>>>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>>>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>>>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>>
>>Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
>>civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
>No, not important. Oh, there are computer pioneers who deserve credit, but
>Gates ain't one of them. I'll be willing to bet that in 500 years (if not
>sooner), no one will even remember Gates, but they will still be listening
>to Beethoven, reading Shakespeare, Obeying Newtonian physics and
>remembering Gutenberg.
Once again, George, you have named 5 important people. You still have
95 to go. Gates may not be another Bard, but he has played a role in
empowering the masses with abilities once only afforded to
superpowers.
>
>>>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>>>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
>>
>>You name 5, that only leaves 95 to go. Somebody needed to flesh out
>>the number. Maybe he just beat out william shatner.
>
>He doesn't belong on that list. I can name many people who were more
>influential. Off the top of my head: Nietzsche, Debussy, Sartre, Van Gogh,
>Admiral Lord Nelson, etc., etc., etc.
Well, that brings you up to 10. BTW, what makes Van Gogh so
important? I'd think you would choose Ruebens as a more important
precursor of Van Gogh.
>
>>
>>>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>>>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
>>
>>
>>Like it or not, gates is the reason computers are in 50% of american
>>households.
>
>No, he's not. He's the reason why 94% of those 50% use Windows.
Without Windows, you would not have seen the explosion which put
computers in those homes. Apple, Atari, Amiga, OS2 and Unix never
came close.
Wind Blows
>
> George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
> >
> > Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
> > the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
> > something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>
> The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
> probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
You said it. Probably. Now mention one of the 100 of truly deserving
people of the last millenium that *probably* did something of value for
humankind. Did Alexander Graham Bell (listed after Gates) *probably*
invented the telephone? Did the Wright Brothers *probably* were the
first ones to fly an airplane? There is a huge difference between
probably doing something and actually doing it.
Gates is just one more of the many egotistical tycoons the world has
produced, nothing more.
Nate
wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
>> >
>> > Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
>> > the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
>> > something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>>
>> The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
>> probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
>
>You said it. Probably. Now mention one of the 100 of truly deserving
>people of the last millenium that *probably* did something of value for
>humankind. Did Alexander Graham Bell (listed after Gates) *probably*
Would you like to say outright that the telephone would have never
been built if Bell never lived?
I think someone would have come up with the idea. Does that make Bell
less important?
>invented the telephone? Did the Wright Brothers *probably* were the
Would you also like to say that we would not have airplanes were it
not for the Wrights?
I think someone would have come up with the idea. Does that make
Orville and Wilbur less important?
>first ones to fly an airplane? There is a huge difference between
>probably doing something and actually doing it.
Gates ACTUALLY made the computer available to the masses.
>
>Gates is just one more of the many egotistical tycoons the world has
>produced, nothing more.
He made that money by popularizing the PC.
Eric Bennett
> That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Computers came to the masses
> through the following steps:
Mmmm... nice to see the original inventors getting some credit instead
of the marketers.
[snip list]
> 9. CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics, develops the World Wide
> Web, putting a GUI on the internet. Now, a desktop computer is no longer a
> stand-alone machine, but a window on the world. Credit: CERN.
Tim Berners-Lee, to be more specific.
--
Eric Bennett ( er...@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,
even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
Eric Bennett
>
> George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
> >
> > Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
> > the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
> > something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>
> The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
> probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
Tim Paterson was on the list?
I didn't think so.
And DOS was reverse-engineered version of Kildall's CP/M.
Was Gary Kildall on the list? I didn't think do.
George Graves
<DCA14E91A483A7F0.A364B9E4...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:30:24 -0700, gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is ludicrous! I
>>>>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what the hell
>>>>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world? How
>>>
>>>Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that affords
>>>civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>>
>>No, not important. Oh, there are computer pioneers who deserve credit, but
>>Gates ain't one of them. I'll be willing to bet that in 500 years (if not
>>sooner), no one will even remember Gates, but they will still be listening
>>to Beethoven, reading Shakespeare, Obeying Newtonian physics and
>>remembering Gutenberg.
>
>Once again, George, you have named 5 important people. You still have
>95 to go. Gates may not be another Bard, but he has played a role in
>empowering the masses with abilities once only afforded to
>superpowers.
Actually, accept for Gates and one or two others (like Reagan and Steven
Spielberg) I agree with most of the list, if not the actual ranking.
>
>>
>>>>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>>>>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
>>>
>>>You name 5, that only leaves 95 to go. Somebody needed to flesh out
>>>the number. Maybe he just beat out william shatner.
>>
>>He doesn't belong on that list. I can name many people who were more
>>influential. Off the top of my head: Nietzsche, Debussy, Sartre, Van Gogh,
>>Admiral Lord Nelson, etc., etc., etc.
>
>Well, that brings you up to 10. BTW, what makes Van Gogh so
>important? I'd think you would choose Ruebens as a more important
>precursor of Van Gogh.
OK, I'd go for Ruebens, but Van Gogh is representative of the
impressionist movement, which is the first modern art movement. Either one
of them would be a suitable replacement for those who do not belong on
the list (like Gates).
>>>>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>>>>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like it or not, gates is the reason computers are in 50% of american
>>>households.
>>
>>No, he's not. He's the reason why 94% of those 50% use Windows.
>
>Without Windows, you would not have seen the explosion which put
>computers in those homes. Apple, Atari, Amiga, OS2 and Unix never
>came close.
Something else would have come along. Something less derivative and
possibly better (which wouldn't be hard).
--
George Graves
George Graves
>George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
>>
>> Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
>> the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
>> something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>
>The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
>probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
I think that's wrong. Without DOS there would still have been CPM or Unix.
They are certainly similar enough IN CONCEPT to be interchangeable.
--
George Graves
Eric Bennett
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> >Without Windows, you would not have seen the explosion which put
> >computers in those homes. Apple, Atari, Amiga, OS2 and Unix never
> >came close.
>
> Something else would have come along. Something less derivative and
> possibly better (which wouldn't be hard).
There were other things around at the time. Windows just won out because
Microsoft could force-bundle it with DOS.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley
Eric Bennett
In fact the only reason IBM didn't end up with CP/M was that Gary Kildall
wouldn't promise to deliver a 16-bit version of CP/M in IBM's time frame.
If Kildall had played the Gates game of promising something he knew he
couldn't deliver on time, IBM might not ever have licensed an OS from
Microsoft at all.
George Graves
<7816D3EEABE8BBD5.26C30925...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:50:07 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong on
>>> > the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has CREATED
>>> > something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>>>
>>> The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap OSes)
>>> probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
>>
>>You said it. Probably. Now mention one of the 100 of truly deserving
>>people of the last millenium that *probably* did something of value for
>>humankind. Did Alexander Graham Bell (listed after Gates) *probably*
>
>
>Would you like to say outright that the telephone would have never
>been built if Bell never lived?
Inventions are kind of up for grabs. They occur when the time is ripe.
Often a needed piece of technology falls into place making the heretofore
impossible possible. Bell gets the credit for inventing the telephone, but
there were at least two other people who had stumbled upon the same
concept simultaneously with Bell. One was another American (Bell got to
the patent office first), and the other was some Frog -er Frenchman.
Edison got to invent the phonograph because metal foil had been invented.
He got to invent modern motion pictures because somebody first invented
clear celluloid.
>I think someone would have come up with the idea. Does that make Bell
>less important?
No. But consider this. Bell had a certain 'flair' for self promotion,
which surely helped to get the telephone adopted and implemeted fairly
quickly. Would one of these other inventors who came up with the same idea
at the same time have had the marketing and business acumen demonstrated
by Bell, and would the phone have been as successful an invention for them
as it was for him?
>>invented the telephone? Did the Wright Brothers *probably* were the
>
>Would you also like to say that we would not have airplanes were it
>not for the Wrights?
In this case it would likely have been MANY more years before successful
flight would have been achieved were it not for the Wrights. Now, I have
good reason for saying this. I'm not talking through my hat here.
It is a little publicized fact that one of the basic reasons why no one
was successful at attaining true powered flight before Kitty Hawk, was
because they were all basing their research on an incorrect set of ground
rules. Almost all early flight pioneers based their work on the flight
theories of Otto Lilienthal. This late 19th Century German glider
experimenter was considered "the source" for all known scientific flight
experiments. The problem was that Lilienthal was wrong. He made three
fatal errors (literally, those errors killed him) that, had they continued
to be used as a basis for flight research would have almost ensured that
man would never fly successfully. 1) Lilienthal never perceived the need
for three axis control. 2) His formulas and data used to compute lift were
wrong 3) His airfoil and wing shapes were incorrect making the resultant
craft hoplessly unwieldy and hard to control. The Wrights used
Lilienthal's data to build their first glider in 1901. Being very
pragmatic, when the glider failed to perform, they decided that it HAD to
be the data, not their execution that was the problem. No other flight
researcher had ever even QUESTIONED Lilienthal's calculations; not
Langley, not Maxim, NOBODY. This caused the Wrights to abandon Lilienthal
and start over. It was their genius to build the world's first wind tunnel
to assist them in formulating new data about the properties of lift and
control surfaces. Without this piece of genius, it might have been another
10 - 15 years before anyone else either thought to challenge Lilienthal's
data or come up with a better way to research lift, wing design, propeller
design, and control surfaces (the wind tunnel).
>I think someone would have come up with the idea. Does that make
>Orville and Wilbur less important?
They are very important. They gave us flight when everyone else on earth
was on the wrong track.
>>first ones to fly an airplane? There is a huge difference between
>>probably doing something and actually doing it.
>
>
>Gates ACTUALLY made the computer available to the masses.
IBM did that. Gates merely supplied an OS that he BOUGHT from someone
else. It was IBM's insistence that the OS NOT be able to run on any other
hardware that made them choose to 'develop' a proprietary OS with ROM
calls in it. Otherwise they could have chosen Unix or CP/M. Gates did
nothing except pull the wool over the eyes of big blue and saddle them
with a CP/M varient called DOS.
>>Gates is just one more of the many egotistical tycoons the world has
>>produced, nothing more.
He's a businessman. He buys and sells, he doesn't create. If you put Gates
on such a list, can Donald Trump be far behind?
>He made that money by popularizing the PC.
A mere side effect. One which probably surprised him as much as it
surprised anybody.
--
George Graves
Robert Fovell
Mcleanzep wrote:
>
> George Graves wrote:
>
> >Gates ain't one of them. I'll be willing to bet that in 500 years (if not
> >sooner), no one will even remember Gates, but they will still be listening
> >to Beethoven, reading Shakespeare, Obeying Newtonian physics and
> >remembering Gutenberg.
>
> Who's Gutenberg? :-)
Steve Gutenberg, the actor, made the list? LOL. I see he made another,
somewhat less prestigious, list as well:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/1035/thing.html
:-)
[Hint for the clueless (not you, James): This is a satirical response.]
--
Robert Fovell / UCLA Atmospheric Sciences / Los Angeles, CA
Parodies of Mac bashers: http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell >>new URL<<
"That's not what a Mac does. I want Mac on the PC,
I want Mac on the PC." -- Bill Gates
bobsun
George Graves wrote in message ...
Probably. he was a much more influential musician and composer than many of
the others you list. You may not like his music, or the consequences of it,
but it is more "important" to most of humankind today than the classical
composers that you favor.
>Not really. There are film directors who deserve to be on the list too,
>but Spielberg isn't one of them (he WAS on the list). John Ford, C.B.
>Demille, Hitchcock.
Agreed. Spielberg has good connections.
>
>>As for Princess Diana, I tend to feel that Princess Grace was more
>>important than her. At least Ms. Rainier (nee Kelly) made some good movies
>>before her early exit. I highly recommend "To Catch a Thief"
>
>Or 'Rear Window'.
>
>--
>George Graves
btw, where can you find this list?
bobsun
bobsun
George Graves wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>
>
>IBM did that. Gates merely supplied an OS that he BOUGHT from someone
>else. It was IBM's insistence that the OS NOT be able to run on any other
>hardware that made them choose to 'develop' a proprietary OS with ROM
>calls in it. Otherwise they could have chosen Unix or CP/M. Gates did
>nothing except pull the wool over the eyes of big blue and saddle them
>with a CP/M varient called DOS.
>
>>>Gates is just one more of the many egotistical tycoons the world has
>>>produced, nothing more.
>
>He's a businessman. He buys and sells, he doesn't create. If you put Gates
>on such a list, can Donald Trump be far behind?
>
>>He made that money by popularizing the PC.
>
>A mere side effect. One which probably surprised him as much as it
>surprised anybody.
>
>--
>George Graves
I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another "egotistical
tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and sold
to the average person - a revolutionary idea at the time. Even more than
Gates, he was ruthless in his business practices and had few, if any
redeeming personal qualities. His impact on our world today, however, is
matched by few. For good or bad, the consumer economy that is enveloping the
whole world today owes much to Henry Ford. Gates, to a lesser extent, did
the same thing with one niche - the software business. Your misunderstanding
is your belief that "buying and selling" doesn't involve creativity.
Christopher Smith
Christopher Smith
> In article <fcj2u7...@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher
> Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> They are certainly similar enough IN CONCEPT to be interchangeable.
But CPM or Unix were both *very* expensive and usually only supplied with a
proprietry single sourced hardware platform (like MacOS or most commercial
Unixes). OSes back then were usually tied to a specific platform - if not
by hardware dependency then by licensing agreement. DOS OTOH would run on
_any_ compatible x86 computer which _anyone_ could build (after Phoenix
reverse engineered the BIOS).
Without DOS, or an equivalent thereof, Phoenix would have had no reason to
reverse engineer the BIOS, since they wouldn't have had an OS to run on it.
I'm not saying it would never have happened without DOS, just that DOS is
one of the primary reasons the PC market exists in the form it does today,
and no other OS at the time was in the same position.
Mcleanzep
Nate
wrote:
>Actually, accept for Gates and one or two others (like Reagan and Steven
>Spielberg) I agree with most of the list, if not the actual ranking.
Between about #5 and 100 it's all about the same. I agree concerning
Reagan and Spielburg.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>could A&E DARE to rank Gates in the same list with people like Beethoven,
>>>>>Mozart, Shakespeare, Issac Newton, Albert Einstien, et al? Its a goddamn
>>>>
>>>>You name 5, that only leaves 95 to go. Somebody needed to flesh out
>>>>the number. Maybe he just beat out william shatner.
>>>
>>>He doesn't belong on that list. I can name many people who were more
>>>influential. Off the top of my head: Nietzsche, Debussy, Sartre, Van Gogh,
>>>Admiral Lord Nelson, etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>Well, that brings you up to 10. BTW, what makes Van Gogh so
>>important? I'd think you would choose Ruebens as a more important
>>precursor of Van Gogh.
>
>OK, I'd go for Ruebens, but Van Gogh is representative of the
>impressionist movement, which is the first modern art movement. Either one
>of them would be a suitable replacement for those who do not belong on
>the list (like Gates).
>
Van Gogh was more of an expressionist. Manet is really the "father'
of impressionism. Impressionism is usually represented by Monet
(Water Lillies).
>>>>>disgrace, that's what it is. Oh, and Jobs place on "the list"? He ended up
>>>>>where Gates should have been - nowhere to be seen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like it or not, gates is the reason computers are in 50% of american
>>>>households.
>>>
>>>No, he's not. He's the reason why 94% of those 50% use Windows.
>>
>>Without Windows, you would not have seen the explosion which put
>>computers in those homes. Apple, Atari, Amiga, OS2 and Unix never
>>came close.
>
>Something else would have come along. Something less derivative and
>possibly better (which wouldn't be hard).
We might also be flying in solar powered jets and using amplified
brain waves to communicate over vast distances. Are you ready to
remove the Wrights and Bell from the list as well?
Eric Bennett
"Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> writes:
Without DOS, or an equivalent thereof, Phoenix would have had no
reason to
reverse engineer the BIOS, since they wouldn't have had an OS to run
on it.
I'm not saying it would never have happened without DOS, just that DOS
is
one of the primary reasons the PC market exists in the form it does
today,
and no other OS at the time was in the same position.
If IBM had known that Tim Paterson had DOS, they could have gotten it
directly from Seattle Computer Products without Gates' middleman
services. Gates should not get any great amount of credit for
reselling somebody else's product. Certainly not enough credit to put
him on this list. If DOS changed the world, credit Tim Paterson and/or
Gary Kildall (since QDOS was an enhanced clone of Kildall's CP/M). And
no, I don't think either of those folks belong on the list either.
Christopher Smith
Eric Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:7u3peg$pi8$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <6643u7...@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>
> "Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> writes:
>
> Without DOS, or an equivalent thereof, Phoenix would have had no
> reason to
> reverse engineer the BIOS, since they wouldn't have had an OS to run
> on it.
> I'm not saying it would never have happened without DOS, just that DOS
> is
> one of the primary reasons the PC market exists in the form it does
> today,
> and no other OS at the time was in the same position.
>
>
>
> If IBM had known that Tim Paterson had DOS, they could have gotten it
> directly from Seattle Computer Products without Gates' middleman
> services.
True. But that's like saying even if Apple hadn't made the Mac we still
would have had a GUI because there were other companies working on it. You
can play "what if" to your heart's content, but this is what actually
happened.
> Gates should not get any great amount of credit for
> reselling somebody else's product.
I'm not crediting him for that. I'm crediting him for having the foresight
to retain control of the OS and thus make it not tied to any manufacturers
machine. And make it cheap.
> Certainly not enough credit to put
> him on this list.
I'll agree with that.
> If DOS changed the world, credit Tim Paterson and/or
> Gary Kildall (since QDOS was an enhanced clone of Kildall's CP/M). And
> no, I don't think either of those folks belong on the list either.
It wasn't DOS itself that changed the world, but the idea it promoted.
Christopher Smith
Jim <jrna...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:jrnaylor-131...@ts001d42.wic-ks.concentric.net...
> In article <fcj2u7...@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher
> Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
> >news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
> >>
> >> Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong
on
> >> the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has
CREATED
> >> something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
> >
> >The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap
OSes)
> >probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
>
> waiting in the wings with better alternatives. Hell, man, *CP/M* could
> have been upgraded by a grad student and done the job.
But we're not talking about "what ifs", we're talking about what actually
happened.
Someone would have come out with an equivalent of the Mac if Apple hadn't -
but does that make the fact Apple *did* any less important ?
> The peecee market as we know it was invented when the business world was
> so hungry for a single standard OS that if IBM had bought *anything* else
> for the XT with a similar license, that is what would have prevailed at
> the time.
Definitely, but they chose DOS. It's not DOS in itself that was
responsible, but the idea behind it of removing the control of the hardware
and OS from a single source.
> And DOS wouldn't have survived DRDOS.
Maybe, maybe not. Without a time machine it's kinda hard to make any
provable statements.
> And billygates company, which was producing loads of smelly crap such as
> edlin, that it would never have survived the marketplace without IBM and
> would have been a fart in a gale, instead of a becoming a gale of farts.
Once again, kinda hard to prove this wihtout a time machine.
Jason S.
>Would you like to say outright that the telephone would have never
>been built if Bell never lived?
>I think someone would have come up with the idea. Does that make Bell
>less important?
http://www.oberlin.edu/~EOG/OYTT-images/ElishaGray.html
;)
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Jason S.
>The only thing that is a true Gates innovation is "vaporware"
No, he stole that from IBM.
Jason S.
>>Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
>>included on a list of the 100 "top" people?
>Beethoven
>Mozart
>Bach
>Wagner
I agree with these.
>Brahms
>Sibelius
>Tchaikovsky
>Aaron Copland
>Debussy
>Vivaldi
Where's Chopin? He was *far* more important than anyone in this last
group, equal to Wagner, and perhaps more important than Mozart as well.
Mcleanzep
> reselling somebody else's product.
I don't think Bill Gates accomplishments are really that big at all, and I
don't think he could ever dominate any other industry. He doesn't have the
talent. His only talent is aggressiveness. Let's face it, the computer
software market naturally tends toward a monopoly. There SHOULD be a
Microsoft. Unlike almost any other product, in the computer industry, in any
given category there tends to be only one or two possible popular products
because there needs to be a standard and people need to be compatible. It's
not that MS Office is a masterpiece, it's just not practical for business to
use three different products because that would require retraining of new
employees. So people learn the most popular, which pushes it toward the
standard.
Once MS had the DOS success, they had essentially an endless stream of money
to throw at new projects. One spreadsheet isn't that different from another,
and with an army of programmers and the ability to set low prices and take a
loss until you are the standard, it's not really that hard to take over more
areas using the initial success. It's like if you have a huge economic
advantage in raising cows for beef, it isn't really that difficult to dominate
the burger chain market. I also think Bill Gates was a pure businessman, while
a lot of the other industry leaders were geeks who were more interested in
improving one good product that they had created than dominating everything.
I'm not saying that Bill Gates is not very smart or a good businessman, but
not by historical proportions. I think that Steve Jobs could probably listen
to potential plans for something like a restaurant or department store chain
and pick a successful one and throw in some good ideas because he has a knack
for people, whereas Bill Gates probably couldn't do any better than the average
guy person with an MBA.
James
Jim
Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>Jim <jrna...@concentric.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>> And billygates company, which was producing loads of smelly crap such as
>> edlin, that it would never have survived the marketplace without IBM and
>> would have been a fart in a gale, instead of a becoming a gale of farts.
>
>Once again, kinda hard to prove this wihtout a time machine.
Oh come on, Chris! Even you wouldn't have bought stock in the company if
you had had to edit .bat files with edlin, release after release of the
latest and smelliest M$ crap back in the early days of customer be damned
M$ product "releases" (I have similar releases nearly every day, myself).
If Gates product had been forced to stand on it's merits, alone, I think
we all can agree that it would not have survived. And we don't NEED no
steenkin' time machine to KNOW that!
--
Jim Naylor
jrna...@concentric.net
Mcleanzep
sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea ever.
James
Eric Bennett
Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
average
IQ of the population is that low.
This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
they asked important current world figures in various areas.
My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
Almost none of the people from the past 50 years who were on that list
really deserve to be there.
I also think there should be someone on the list who was involved in
the formulation of quantum mechanics.
And putting the guy who cloned Dolly on there while leaving out Watson
& Crick and various others who made much more fundamental discoveries
about molecular biology--discoveries which lead to not only cloning but
other important advances in medicine and biology as well--is very
peculiar.
Eric Bennett
lo...@my.sig (Michael J. Stango) writes:
Don't forget, someone else DID write DOS! Bill Gates merely bought it
from
that poor sap for $50k or so, IIRC.
He licensed DOS to IBM before securing the rights to it, thus marking
the
first time of many that Microsoft has begun to market or sell
something
they didn't actually have.
The only thing that is a true Gates innovation is "vaporware"
Gates didn't buy DOS directly from the author. He bought it from the
author's employer.
And didn't IBM pioneer vaporware as a FUD tactic?
Eric Bennett
mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
There's a list at www.biography.com.
Wind Blows
>
<snip>
>
> This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
> they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>
In the TV show they said it was a combination of many people, including
the public. I do not know what type of poll, if any, was conducted. I
have not visited their website though.
Gregory L. Hansen
Eric Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <38025A...@none.com>
>Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
>
> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>
> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
>average
> IQ of the population is that low.
>
>
>
>
>they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>
>rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
>included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
>Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
>
>Almost none of the people from the past 50 years who were on that list
>really deserve to be there.
>
>I also think there should be someone on the list who was involved in
>the formulation of quantum mechanics.
>
>And putting the guy who cloned Dolly on there while leaving out Watson
>& Crick and various others who made much more fundamental discoveries
>about molecular biology--discoveries which lead to not only cloning but
>other important advances in medicine and biology as well--is very
>peculiar.
I pretty much agree with your entire gripe. I think the problem is, for
instance, Gates is on the list because he's current news. The Dolly
cloners is on the list because they're current news, while Watson and
Crick are history. Did John Wayne make the list? Did Elvis Presley make
the list? If this is the top 100 people of the *millenium*, does Oprah
really belong there when, oh, say, Sir Godfrey probably didn't make it?
I think a case could be made for dropping Michael Jackson and including
General Guderian, who pretty much invented modern tank and mobile warfare.
I don't care if one out of a hundred people know who Guderian was, I think
modern mechanized forces have had more influence on the world than
"Thriller" (e.g. World War II and the Blitzkrieg).
It would be interesting to see what a list of the 100 most influential
people of the millenium would look like if it was compiled twenty years
from now, after Bill Gates becomes history and Oprah becomes something the
grandparents talk about.
--
No electrons were harmed in the posting of this message.
jo...@my-deja.com
38ld175.dialup.mindspring.com>,
att...@mindspring.com (Andy Walton) wrote:
> In article
> <267100D77AB66FD4.591A7EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
> nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
> :>Also, I think that the inclusion of Gates in the top 100 is
ludicrous! I
> :>mean, other than being in the right place at the right time, what
the hell
> :>has he done? What positive thing has he contributed to the world?
How
> :
> :Brought computers to the masses. Given the power which that
affords
> :civilization, I'd say it fairly important.
>
> That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Computers came to the masses
> through the following steps:
>
> 1. Jack St. Clair Kilby receives U.S. patent #3,138,743 for the
monolithic
> integrated ciscuit, or microchip. As chips become more and more
> complicated, they will make it practical to build a computer around a
> single processor. CREDIT: Kilby, with a nod to Bell Labs for
inventing the
> transistor.
>
> 2. The Altair brings the cost of owning a computer within reach.
Credit;
> MITS (I forget the founder's name)
>
> 3. The floppy disc offers vast capacity, fast, easy, inexpensive
storage
> (all relative terms; remember the times). Credit: IBM.
>
> 4. The MOdulator-DEModulator is invented. This device allows
terminals to
> talk to computers over ordinary phone lines, taking computing out of
its
> air-conditioned temple and making it possible anywhere with AC
current and
> a POTS line. I couldn't find who invented the Modem originally. IBM?
> Univac?
>
> 5. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency creates ARPAnet, a
system
> of standards by which a variety of computers can talk to each other
from
> anywhere. This will eventually become the internet. Credit: The U.S.
> Military-Industrial Complex.
>
> 6. The Apple (and, more so, the Apple II) is an out-of-the-box machine
> that a user with minimal training can operate. Electric Pencil (word
> processing) and VisiCalc (spreadsheet) make it a tool rather than a
hobby.
> Those programs also drmonstrate the viability of a retail (i.e.
> "shrink-wrap") software business. Apple shares this step with
Commodore,
> Texas Instruments, Radio Shack, and some all but forgotten bit
players.
> Credit: Steve Wozniak.
>
> 7. IBM releases a microcomputer under its name. This gains the little
> machines instant credibility with Big Business. Once desktop computers
> become ubiquitous in offices, they become more attractive for homes as
> they are (a) less remote and frightening, and (b) manufactured in
> ever-increasing numbers, making price drops all but inevitable.
Credit:
> IBM.
>
> 8. Xerox PARC invents the GUI, which will eventually make computers
more
> accessible. Credit: Xerox.
>
> 9. CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics, develops the World
Wide
> Web, putting a GUI on the internet. Now, a desktop computer is no
longer a
> stand-alone machine, but a window on the world. Credit: CERN.
>
> In none of those steps was Bill Gates' involvement critical. In all
but
> one, it was non-existent. If IBM had gone with CP/M rather than DOS,
none
> of the steps above would have been substantially altered. The IBM PC
> would have carried the IBM heft with any OS. Had Microsoft not
existed,
> any OS developer would have developed a widespread GUI.
I disagree. I don't think he deserves the credit for licensing DOS to
IBM because, you're absolutely right, anyone could have done that. He
deserves the credit for not only having the vision of a computer in
every home, but the credit for doing more toward making that a reality
than anyone else.
I'm not a big MS fan; I think there is much for which they richly
deserve criticism if not outright condemnation. However, they do
deserve a bit more credit than you're willing to give them.
> You're trying to paint Gates as the Henry Ford of computing; if any
> individual deserves that title, I'd say it's Steve Wozniak, though
> Commodore may more closely fit the analogy (and I can't name any
leading
> individuals there during those years). Actually, there is no
individual
> that did it alone -- it was the whole Homebrew scene of the '70s,
coupled
> with new chips like the Zilog Z80, Intel 8008, et. al. that made the
idea
> practical.
Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
available to the masses. People will say that Fords weren't the first,
most technologically advanced, reliable or even the best quality cars
ever made (nor are they now) but they were the ones who put a car in
the hands of the average person.
Didn't Karl Benz get into the car business before Henry Ford did? I
seem to recall that he invented the automatic transmission more than
100 years ago so his cars could rightfully be considered more advanced
and perhaps even "better". However, who is remembered as the father of
the modern automobile? 1,000 years from now, Bill Gates will very
likely be remembered as the father of the information age.
> --
> "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -- Isaac
Asimov
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com *
http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mcleanzep
don't think Elvis or the Beatles is really much more responsible than many
others, but rock and roll, for better or worse, is appealing to a much wider
audience than classical or Jazz music, because it is simpler. I think that
back in the 1940's lots of average people didn't really have record collections
or care about music. Music was then what reading books is like now or was 20
years ago, when a lot, but not the majority of people read. Now almost every
teenager has a CD collection, even though the music sucks. Rock and roll has
been around for 45 years, and probably will be in another 55 more, so it is
pretty important.
James
Eric Bennett
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> I pretty much agree with your entire gripe. I think the problem is, for
> instance, Gates is on the list because he's current news. The Dolly
> cloners is on the list because they're current news, while Watson and
> Crick are history. Did John Wayne make the list? Did Elvis Presley make
> the list?
Wayne didn't but Presley did. Personally I don't think Presley belongs
there either... The Beatles can stay, but get rid of Elvis.
> If this is the top 100 people of the *millenium*, does Oprah
> really belong there when, oh, say, Sir Godfrey probably didn't make it?
> I think a case could be made for dropping Michael Jackson and including
> General Guderian, who pretty much invented modern tank and mobile warfare.
Actually I believe those ideas came from a couple of British military
theorists, but Guderian and Manstein and other various German commanders
were the first to put them to use.
> I don't care if one out of a hundred people know who Guderian was, I think
> modern mechanized forces have had more influence on the world than
> "Thriller" (e.g. World War II and the Blitzkrieg).
>
> It would be interesting to see what a list of the 100 most influential
> people of the millenium would look like if it was compiled twenty years
> from now, after Bill Gates becomes history and Oprah becomes something the
> grandparents talk about.
I have some more gripes... too many British and American authors. Jane
Austen? Augh. And they duplicated things too much. I have no problem
with putting Martin Luther King on there, but do we really need "first
black person to sing at the Met"? And the feminism is similarly
duplicated... do we need "first woman in space", "first woman on the
Supreme Court", etc. etc. No. Fine, pick a couple of the people who
brought these issues out into the open, but don't include "first woman to
do X" for so many values of X.
Alan Baker
Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>news:gmgraves-131...@oak-pm1-36-164.dialup.slip.net...
>> In article <fcj2u7...@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher
>> Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >George Graves <gmgr...@slip.net> wrote in message
>> >news:gmgraves-131...@sja-pm2-4-132.dialup.slip.net...
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, and I'm still fuming about it. There are others who don't belong
>on
>> >> the list either (Steven Spielberg!???), but at least Spielberg has
>CREATED
>> >> something even if it is crass, commercial, and of no lasting value.
>> >
>> >The PC market as we know it (cheap, open hardware platform and cheap
>OSes)
>> >probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for DOS.
>>
>> I think that's wrong. Without DOS there would still have been CPM or Unix.
>> They are certainly similar enough IN CONCEPT to be interchangeable.
>
>But CPM or Unix were both *very* expensive and usually only supplied with a
>proprietry single sourced hardware platform (like MacOS or most commercial
>Unixes). OSes back then were usually tied to a specific platform - if not
>by hardware dependency then by licensing agreement. DOS OTOH would run on
>_any_ compatible x86 computer which _anyone_ could build (after Phoenix
>reverse engineered the BIOS).
>
>Without DOS, or an equivalent thereof, Phoenix would have had no reason to
>reverse engineer the BIOS, since they wouldn't have had an OS to run on it.
>I'm not saying it would never have happened without DOS, just that DOS is
>one of the primary reasons the PC market exists in the form it does today,
>and no other OS at the time was in the same position.
But PC/MS-DOS was in reality QDOS re-worked (which itself was a clone of
CP/M to run on the 8086 processor). Hence, QDOS was in that position. The
reason Microsoft got the job and not someone else was that Gates' mother
new someone on the IBM board of directors and at that he had to have two
bites at the cherry to realize what he was being offered.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
George Graves
<bob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So move over Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Isaac Newton. Make room for
Donald Trump. He's as creative as you were.
--
George Graves
George Graves
Bennett) wrote:
>In article <38025A...@none.com>
>Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
>
> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>
> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
>average
> IQ of the population is that low.
>
>
>
>
>This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
>they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>
>My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
>rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
>included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
>Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
Neither of which were on the list.
>Almost none of the people from the past 50 years who were on that list
>really deserve to be there.
Hard to say from today's prespective. One would have to wait another
couple of hundred years to say for sure who is going to fall off the list.
Reagan, for instance, was there because his policies of the 1980's
hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; I.E. he won the cold war for us,
or so its seems to us, today. In another several hundred years, the
perspective of history might have changed so much that Reagan's hand in
the affair will shift from a major to a minor role. We just don't know. If
he REALLY was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, then he
belongs on the list (irrespective of what any of us might think about the
man personally), if he didn't play the major role, then he doesn't belong.
There are others who simply DO NOT belong. Satchmo doesn't belong (even
though I always liked his work - even his "singing" had a certain charm).
One has to ask oneself: Why Satchmo? Why not Benny Goodman, or Duke
Ellington? I think this one's rather arbitrary. Spielberg doesn't belong.
He's not a great director. He's certainly no John Ford, Frank Capra,
Michael Curtiz' Alfred Hitchcock or C.B. DeMille. Certainly, DeMille had
more of an impact on how narrative films are made. It makes little sense,
given their avowed criteria for choosing for the list.
--
George Graves
Wind Blows
>
<snip>
>
> Didn't Karl Benz get into the car business before Henry Ford did? I
> seem to recall that he invented the automatic transmission more than
> 100 years ago so his cars could rightfully be considered more advanced
> and perhaps even "better". However, who is remembered as the father of
> the modern automobile? 1,000 years from now, Bill Gates will very
> likely be remembered as the father of the information age.
>
> > --
Henry Ford major contribution to humankind was the invention of the
manufacturing assembly line not the automobile. Before him, *all*
producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the vision of making the
product move along a line of stationary workers, each one doing only one
specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction in manufacturing costs.
Ford contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did
that, but for the invention of the assembly line.
Gates? Not even close. What would you do with MS'software if you didn't
have a personal computer a printer and an internet? He didn't
contributed, not even indirectly, to the development of those things or
nothing in any area that someone can say: "Gee ...Gates invented that".
1,000 years from know, Gates will be rememberd like the guy that was the
richest man alive at one point, that made his money by absorbing
technologies made by others, sometimes illegaly, and that got caught by
the DOJ of the US.
Eric Bennett
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> In article <7u3orv$pi8$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
> Bennett) wrote:
>
> >In article <38025A...@none.com>
> >Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
> >
> > On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
> > ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
> >
> > Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
> > make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
> > computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
> >average
> > IQ of the population is that low.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
> >they asked important current world figures in various areas.
> >
> >My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
> >rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
> >included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
> >Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
>
> Neither of which were on the list.
They are on the list at www.biography.com.
Did they do a *different* list on the show?
George Graves
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>In article <7u599i$72m$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>> I pretty much agree with your entire gripe. I think the problem is, for
>> instance, Gates is on the list because he's current news. The Dolly
>> cloners is on the list because they're current news, while Watson and
>> Crick are history. Did John Wayne make the list? Did Elvis Presley make
>> the list?
>
>Wayne didn't but Presley did. Personally I don't think Presley belongs
>there either... The Beatles can stay, but get rid of Elvis.
Beetles don't belong there either. They wrote songs. So did Irving Berlin
and Cole Porter. Neither of them are even in the top 250 (at
biography.com). This is a case of the "baby Boomer" generation asserting
their own egos.
>
>> If this is the top 100 people of the *millenium*, does Oprah
>> really belong there when, oh, say, Sir Godfrey probably didn't make it?
>> I think a case could be made for dropping Michael Jackson and including
>> General Guderian, who pretty much invented modern tank and mobile warfare.
Oprah wasn't on the top 100 list, neither was Michael Jackson.
>Actually I believe those ideas came from a couple of British military
>theorists, but Guderian and Manstein and other various German commanders
>were the first to put them to use.
>
>> I don't care if one out of a hundred people know who Guderian was, I think
>> modern mechanized forces have had more influence on the world than
>> "Thriller" (e.g. World War II and the Blitzkrieg).
>>
>> It would be interesting to see what a list of the 100 most influential
>> people of the millenium would look like if it was compiled twenty years
>> from now, after Bill Gates becomes history and Oprah becomes something the
>> grandparents talk about.
Exactly.
>I have some more gripes... too many British and American authors. Jane
>Austen? Augh. And they duplicated things too much. I have no problem
>with putting Martin Luther King on there, but do we really need "first
>black person to sing at the Met"?
You must be looking at the top 250 list posted at biography.com. For some
reason they haven't updated the web site with the winners. The "first
black person to sing at the Met" isn't on the final 100. But I question
the inclusion on the top 250 as well.
>
>The And the feminism is similarly
>duplicated... do we need "first woman in space", "first woman on the
>Supreme Court", etc. etc. No. Fine, pick a couple of the people who
>brought these issues out into the open, but don't include "first woman to
>do X" for so many values of X.
Well, most of those didn't make it either. But enough did: Susan B.
Anthony et al. Most was redundant.
--
George Graves
Wind Blows
>
<snip>
>
> I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
> important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another "egotistical
> tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
> production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and sold
> to the average person - a revolutionary idea at the time.
<snip>
Baloney. Ford is not remembeerd for that. Henry Ford major contribution
to humankind was the invention of the manufacturing assembly line.
Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the
vision of making the product move along a line of stationary workers,
each one doing only one specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction
in manufacturing costs that benefited not only for the automobile but
*all* products being manufactured in the world. Now and then. Ford
contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did that, but
for the invention of the assembly line. Gates? Not even close in his
contribution (if any).
Eric Bennett
> Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
> rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
> didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
> making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
> available to the masses.
How much of a vision is that? In a competitive market things are going to
get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
cloners.
Jason McNorton
> In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
> gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
> > Bennett) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <38025A...@none.com>
> > >Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
> > >
> > > On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
> > > ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
> > >
> > > Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
> > > make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
> > > computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
> > >average
> > > IQ of the population is that low.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
> > >they asked important current world figures in various areas.
> > >
> > >My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
> > >rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
> > >included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
> > >Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
> >
> > Neither of which were on the list.
>
>
> They are on the list at www.biography.com.
>
> Did they do a *different* list on the show?
There is a list of 250 people who were under consideration. The final
list is 100, and does not include Winfrey and Jackson.
Mcleanzep
>there either... The Beatles can stay, but get rid of Elvis.
roll. He opened up the door for the sound of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones
and many others.
George Graves
mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
> I don't see what's wrong with thinking that rock and roll is important.
Because its your music of choice, perhaps?
>I don't think Elvis or the Beatles is really much more responsible than many
>others, but rock and roll, for better or worse, is appealing to a much wider
>audience than classical or Jazz music, because it is simpler.
Simple-minded? I agree. And we aren't (or shouldn't be) talking about
popularity here. We are (or should be) talking about lasting cultural
values. Will any early rock have the legs to outlive those generations
whose music it was? I seriously doubt it. I doubt seriously if there will
be any Dion fans in the twenty-second century. But second-guessing history
is a fruitless task, and I could just as well be wrong, but tell me, how
many popular songs from the 1870's are YOU aware of?
>I think that
>back in the 1940's lots of average people didn't really have record collections
>or care about music.
I think that you don't know what you are talikng about, here.
>Music was then what reading books is like now or was 20
>years ago, when a lot, but not the majority of people read.
Your ignorance is showing.
>Now almost every
>teenager has a CD collection, even though the music sucks.
In the 40's, 50's and 60's 'every' teenager had a record collection. That
hasn't changed.
>Rock and roll has
>been around for 45 years, and probably will be in another 55 more, so it is
>pretty important.
But it changes with every new group of teens who pass through the
population. None of it has much appeal to members of older generations.
I.E. people who were teens in the fifties, diodn't think much of the rock
of the sixties. Those raised in the 60's didn't like the music of the
seventies, etc. The music is still around because each of those
generations are still around and still like "their" music. In another 30
years or so, you will see access to most early rock go away, because there
won't be anybody left alive who still wants to listen to it. Then, with
that perspective, we will see that certain tunes will remain with us.
Those are the ones with legs. I'll give you an example. The general
populace knows a few "gay nineties" hits from the late 19th century.
Everybody knows "Bicycle Built For Two", "Strawberry Blonde", and
"Daisey". But what of the other hundreds and thousands of popular tunes
written and widely performed during that era? They are forgotten, no
longer part of the public conciousness. Popular culture, is by definition
topical. Some small percentage of each generation's culture might acquire
the term "classic", but most of it dies with its generation.
--
George Graves
George Graves
Bennett) wrote:
>In article <6643u7...@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>
>"Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> writes:
>
> Without DOS, or an equivalent thereof, Phoenix would have had no
>reason to
> reverse engineer the BIOS, since they wouldn't have had an OS to run
>on it.
> I'm not saying it would never have happened without DOS, just that DOS
>is
> one of the primary reasons the PC market exists in the form it does
>today,
> and no other OS at the time was in the same position.
>
>
>
>If IBM had known that Tim Paterson had DOS, they could have gotten it
>directly from Seattle Computer Products without Gates' middleman
>services. Gates should not get any great amount of credit for
>reselling somebody else's product. Certainly not enough credit to put
>him on this list. If DOS changed the world, credit Tim Paterson and/or
>Gary Kildall (since QDOS was an enhanced clone of Kildall's CP/M). And
>no, I don't think either of those folks belong on the list either.
I agree completely.
--
George Graves
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Didn't Karl Benz get into the car business before Henry Ford did? I
>> seem to recall that he invented the automatic transmission more than
>> 100 years ago so his cars could rightfully be considered more advanced
>> and perhaps even "better". However, who is remembered as the father of
>> the modern automobile? 1,000 years from now, Bill Gates will very
>> likely be remembered as the father of the information age.
>>
>> > --
>
>Henry Ford major contribution to humankind was the invention of the
>manufacturing assembly line not the automobile.
Ford didn't invent the assembly line Raymond Olds did. Ford did vastly
improve it and made it more efficient. What Ford's major contribution
was was recognizing that you could make a buttload of money by pricing
a car cheap enough that nearly anyone could afford it. Score another
for greed the major force in the improvement of mankind.
> Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the vision of making the
>product move along a line of stationary workers, each one doing only one
>specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction in manufacturing costs.
>Ford contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did
>that, but for the invention of the assembly line.
No one person was actually responsible for the invention of the
automobile.
>
>Gates? Not even close. What would you do with MS'software if you didn't
>have a personal computer a printer and an internet? He didn't
>contributed, not even indirectly, to the development of those things or
>nothing in any area that someone can say: "Gee ...Gates invented that".
>1,000 years from know, Gates will be rememberd like the guy that was the
>richest man alive at one point, that made his money by absorbing
>technologies made by others, sometimes illegaly, and that got caught by
>the DOJ of the US.
Much like the auto there is no one person that we can point to and say
they are responsile for the current state of computing.
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
George Graves
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM wrote:
>George Graves posted the following first-level quoted material to
comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>>>Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
>>>included on a list of the 100 "top" people?
>
>>Beethoven
>>Mozart
>>Bach
>>Wagner
>
>I agree with these.
>
>>Brahms
>>Sibelius
>>Tchaikovsky
>>Aaron Copland
>>Debussy
>>Vivaldi
>
>Where's Chopin? He was *far* more important than anyone in this last
>group, equal to Wagner, and perhaps more important than Mozart as well.
Ok, I'll go along with Chopin. My list wasn't meant to be comprehensive,
just a list to show that there are more than 5 musicians that I could come
up with off the top of my head who deserve to be on A&E's list MORE than
Satchmo. Believe me, there are hundreds more.
--
George Graves
George Graves
<bob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>George Graves wrote in message ...
>>In article <7u0170$8j3$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, rcou...@sfu.ca (Ryan John
>>Cousineau) wrote:
>>
>>>Johnny Lee <johnl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Wind Blows wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>>>>> ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>>>>> make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>>>>> computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the average
>>>>> IQ of the population is that low.
>>>
>>>>According to Al Gore, he invented (or helped invent) the Internet.
>>>
>>>The whole list was an utterly pop-culture-loaded pile of crap. I stopped
>>>watching when Princess Diana made it onto the list, with a higher ranking
>>>than Enrico Fermi. Also, Louis Armstrong (yes, the jazz trumpeter) made it
>>>onto the list, ahead of King Sulemain I, the man who conquered everything
>>>up to Constantinople (Istanbul). But that's okay, he was behind Princess
>>>Diana.
>>>
>>>Are there even 5 musicians in this millenium important enough to be
>>>included on a list of the 100 "top" people?
>>Beethoven
>>Mozart
>>Bach
>>Wagner
>>Brahms
>>Sibelius
>>Tchaikovsky
>>Aaron Copland
>>Debussy
>>Vivaldi
>>Etc., Etc., Etc.
>>
>> Is Satchmo really one of them?
>
>
>Probably. he was a much more influential musician and composer than many of
>the others you list. You may not like his music, or the consequences of it,
>but it is more "important" to most of humankind today than the classical
>composers that you favor.
Mmmm, but I do Like Satchmo's music. That's not at all the point. Lets go
forward in time another millenium. Now lets look at that list again. Will
Satchmo still be considered a seminal musical figure? I'll guarantee that
most of the composers on my short list, above, still will be. They've
already stood the test of time.
>>Not really. There are film directors who deserve to be on the list too,
>>but Spielberg isn't one of them (he WAS on the list). John Ford, C.B.
>>Demille, Hitchcock.
>
>Agreed. Spielberg has good connections.
>>
>>>As for Princess Diana, I tend to feel that Princess Grace was more
>>>important than her. At least Ms. Rainier (nee Kelly) made some good movies
>>>before her early exit. I highly recommend "To Catch a Thief"
>>
>>Or 'Rear Window'.
>>
>>--
>>George Graves
>
>
>btw, where can you find this list?
A&E has posted the top 250 (from which the top 100 were chosen) on their
biography.com website. They have not yet updated it with the final list
(at least not as of today, October 14).
--
George Graves
Mcleanzep
workers, each one doing only one specific task. That
the automobile but *all* products being manufactured in the world.
>
One might also argue that it lead to greater ignorance among workers, and
less pride in their work.
Steve
Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <7u5fof$7sa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
> > rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
> > didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
> > making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
> > available to the masses.
The folks on the list are supposed to be the ones that had a real
impact on how things were viewed, to fundamentally change how people
think.
Ford's introduction of mass manufacturing changed how people think
about manufacturing which could be spread to a variety of industries.
Ford was not exactly known for being a champion of the people either.
How has Gates fundamentally changed how people think about computers?
What innovation did he show that computers couldn't have done without?
Moreso than the invention of the semiconductor? If there were no
Gates, there would still be computers and networks. People would still
find them indispensible. If Gates had died in 1980, do people really
think that computers would be any less important or prevalent than they
are now?
He's a brilliant tactician and businessman, but so was Sam Walton.
Gates just happened to be in the right industry at the right time and
made the right decisions. Somebody else mentioned something about
wealth which is a joke too. Gates is rich and influential, but in
terms of wealth vs. the world, or even the US, as a whole, he's
nothing. I mean, could he have single handedly helped stabilize the
U.S. financial system a la JP Morgan?
The thing that surprised me the most was the Wright Bros. relatively
low rank. The desire to truly fly has been one of man's most
deeply-rooted ambitions for centuries after centuries with a bazillion
failures. Its impact and the balls and dedication required by them to
make it work is pretty mind-boggling.
> How much of a vision is that? In a competitive market things are going to
> get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
> cloners.
In fact, what is the only component of a PC to consistently increase
its share of the costs of a computer vs. the other components year
after year? (I'll give you a hint. It crashes a lot.)
Steve
--
To reply by e-mail, remove ALL CAPS from e-mail address...$%!!! spammers...
George Graves
> Does someone have an URL for the top 100 list? I didn't see it at A&E's
>sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
>selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea ever.
As of today, Oct. 14, there is only the top 250 list from which the top
100 were chosen.
--
George Graves
George Graves
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>In article <19991014113626...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
>mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
>
>> Does someone have an URL for the top 100 list? I didn't see it at A&E's
>> sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
>> selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea ever.
>>
>> James
>
>There's a list at www.biography.com.
But its not the final list from which the top 100 were chosen. That isn't
posted.
--
George Graves
Mcleanzep
>Simple-minded? I agree. And we aren't (or shouldn't be) talking about
>popularity here
Why not? Who are you to decide what people should listen to? Rock and roll
has been around for 45 years, and will be around for many. many more years in
one form or another. Some of it is most definitely brilliant and timeless.
"American Pie" is as enduring a song as any other American song ever written.
>None of it has much appeal to members of older generations.
>I.E. people who were teens in the fifties, diodn't think much of the rock
>of the sixties. Those raised in the 60's didn't like the music of the
>seventies, etc.
This is very stereotypical and not true at. I personally like almost all
forms of rock and roll from the 50's on. Bob Dylan particularly is timeless.
There are albums that just came out that I can recommend to people who are
music lovers that are 50 years old that haven't listened to the radio in 10
years and they will like them. Young kids are still turning each other on to
Led Zeppelin albums that came out 30 years ago and would be doing moreso if
radio stations had any values to preserve older music. I love old country
music, banjo music, and American standards too, but some rock and roll is just
as good.
>Everybody knows "Bicycle Built For Two", "Strawberry Blonde", and
>"Daisey
George, I and most people 30 years old or younger don't know those songs.
That is not because they, or modern rock and roll are not worthy of living on,
but because TV has made idiots out of everyone and almost no parents today
share the music they grew up with with their kids, they just leave them to
whatever's popular. 20 year olds today don't even know Beatle's songs. When
people have a lack of customs and traditions, it is hard for things to live on
forever.
R. Tang
Ah, but there's a biasing factor in that you're concentrating on
composers and Satchmo's influence is more on performance. It wasn't until
this century that individuals COULD be influential. Also, it's also true
that jazz as a form wasn't invented until recently, so there's a biasing
factor there.
Is jazz an art form that spans the centuries? Well, that's another
question; I happen to think so, so as an individual performer, he might
qualify....
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Wind Blows
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:37:54 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> seem to recall that he invented the automatic transmission more than
> >> 100 years ago so his cars could rightfully be considered more advanced
> >> and perhaps even "better". However, who is remembered as the father of
> >> the modern automobile? 1,000 years from now, Bill Gates will very
> >> likely be remembered as the father of the information age.
> >>
> >> > --
> >
> >manufacturing assembly line not the automobile.
>
> Ford didn't invent the assembly line Raymond Olds did. Ford did vastly
> improve it and made it more efficient.
Really? I was not aware of that. Everytime I hear about Ford, he is
mentioned as the the inventor of the manufacturing assembly line. I'll
check Olds, though.
>What Ford's major contribution
> was was recognizing that you could make a buttload of money by pricing
> a car cheap enough that nearly anyone could afford it. Score another
> for greed the major force in the improvement of mankind.
>
Ok. But Ford built the whole car. Gates, as some people will like to
compare with, only did the software. Computer cloners were the ones that
made PCs hardware affordable to the masses. Not Gates. BTW, remember how
much was a Radio Shack TRS80? Cheaper than many of todays computers.
> > Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the vision of making the
> >product move along a line of stationary workers, each one doing only one
> >specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction in manufacturing costs.
> >Ford contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did
> >that, but for the invention of the assembly line.
>
> No one person was actually responsible for the invention of the
> automobile.
> >
I was always under the impression that Karl Benz was the first one to
build a practical combustion engine automobile back in the 1800's. Maybe
some of our German friends can (dis)confirm this.
> >Gates? Not even close. What would you do with MS'software if you didn't
> >have a personal computer a printer and an internet? He didn't
> >contributed, not even indirectly, to the development of those things or
> >nothing in any area that someone can say: "Gee ...Gates invented that".
> >1,000 years from know, Gates will be rememberd like the guy that was the
> >richest man alive at one point, that made his money by absorbing
> >technologies made by others, sometimes illegaly, and that got caught by
> >the DOJ of the US.
>
> Much like the auto there is no one person that we can point to and say
> they are responsile for the current state of computing.
> --
>
Agreed.
Eric Bennett
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> In article <19991014113626...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
>
> > Does someone have an URL for the top 100 list? I didn't see it at A&E's
> >sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
> >selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea ever.
>
> As of today, Oct. 14, there is only the top 250 list from which the top
> 100 were chosen.
>
> <http://www.biography.com>
Where? The only list I saw had about 150 people on it. So I'm rather
confused about what that list actually represents.
Eric Bennett
(Jason McNorton) wrote:
> In article Eric Bennett, er...@pobox.com says...
> > In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
> > gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> >
> > > Neither of which were on the list.
> >
> >
> > They are on the list at www.biography.com.
> >
> > Did they do a *different* list on the show?
>
> There is a list of 250 people who were under consideration. The final
> list is 100, and does not include Winfrey and Jackson.
That list (at www.biography.com) only has about 150 people on it though...
Eric Bennett
Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Eric Bennett" <er...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:ericb-14109...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu...
> > In article <7u5fof$7sa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
> > > rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
> > > didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
> > > making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
> > > available to the masses.
> >
> >
> > How much of a vision is that? In a competitive market things are going to
> > get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
> > cloners.
>
> And what was it that made the clones viable ? DOS.
No more so than x86 chips from Intel.
Steve
<478F0405E6E0B6D2.FE975542...@lp.airnews.net>,
Nate <nhu...@scenedesign.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:25:13 -0500, Steve <SPMSXs...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >How has Gates fundamentally changed how people think about computers?
>
> Affordable computers has lead to greater computer use. Greater
> computer use has lead to new paradigms for problem solving.
The need for computers and its increasing importance was independent of
Gates. Given this intrinsic demand, the market will drive prices down
as folks try to take advantage of it. This would have happened with or
without Gates, maybe faster, maybe slower, but it would not have been
the equivalent of the Dark Ages had Gates decided that he wanted to be
a monk instead.
> >What innovation did he show that computers couldn't have done without?
>
> Inexpensive OS which ran on computers anyone could build.
By this reasoning, people could say that Jobs should be considered
because he made a computer that anyone could USE, and they would have
been just as wrong about its importance in a millennium.
Gates' absence might have changed things a bit, but he's just a piece
of the advancement of computing. It would have happened with or
without him. Maybe not the same way, but it would have happened
regardless.
Steve
--
To reply by e-mail, remove ALL CAPS from the e-mail address...#$%!! spammers...
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:37:54 -0800, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com>
>> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >>
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >> Didn't Karl Benz get into the car business before Henry Ford did? I
>> >> seem to recall that he invented the automatic transmission more than
>> >> 100 years ago so his cars could rightfully be considered more advanced
>> >> and perhaps even "better". However, who is remembered as the father of
>> >> the modern automobile? 1,000 years from now, Bill Gates will very
>> >> likely be remembered as the father of the information age.
>> >>
>> >> > --
>> >
>> >Henry Ford major contribution to humankind was the invention of the
>> >manufacturing assembly line not the automobile.
>>
>> Ford didn't invent the assembly line Raymond Olds did. Ford did vastly
>> improve it and made it more efficient.
>
>Really? I was not aware of that. Everytime I hear about Ford, he is
>mentioned as the the inventor of the manufacturing assembly line. I'll
>check Olds, though.
Olds had the cars stationary and the workers moved from car to car.
>
>>What Ford's major contribution
>> was was recognizing that you could make a buttload of money by pricing
>> a car cheap enough that nearly anyone could afford it. Score another
>> for greed the major force in the improvement of mankind.
>>
>
>Ok. But Ford built the whole car. Gates, as some people will like to
>compare with, only did the software. Computer cloners were the ones that
>made PCs hardware affordable to the masses. Not Gates. BTW, remember how
>much was a Radio Shack TRS80? Cheaper than many of todays computers.
>
>> > Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the vision of making the
>> >product move along a line of stationary workers, each one doing only one
>> >specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction in manufacturing costs.
>> >Ford contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did
>> >that, but for the invention of the assembly line.
>>
>> No one person was actually responsible for the invention of the
>> automobile.
>> >
>
>I was always under the impression that Karl Benz was the first one to
>build a practical combustion engine automobile back in the 1800's. Maybe
>some of our German friends can (dis)confirm this.
There were some people using steam engines to build powered vehicles
in the early 1800s. They were far too large and fuel hungry to be
practical though. So a lot of the groundwork was already in place by
the time Benz came along. That doesn't take away any from his
accomplishments.
>
>> >Gates? Not even close. What would you do with MS'software if you didn't
>> >have a personal computer a printer and an internet? He didn't
>> >contributed, not even indirectly, to the development of those things or
>> >nothing in any area that someone can say: "Gee ...Gates invented that".
>> >1,000 years from know, Gates will be rememberd like the guy that was the
>> >richest man alive at one point, that made his money by absorbing
>> >technologies made by others, sometimes illegaly, and that got caught by
>> >the DOJ of the US.
>>
>> Much like the auto there is no one person that we can point to and say
>> they are responsile for the current state of computing.
>> --
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
>> http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
--
Mayor Of R'lyeh
L. Hansen) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article <38065C...@none.com>, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> wrote:
>>bobsun wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
>>> important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another "egotistical
>>> tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
>>> production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and sold
>>> to the average person - a revolutionary idea at the time.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Baloney. Ford is not remembeerd for that. Henry Ford major contribution
>>to humankind was the invention of the manufacturing assembly line.
>>Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the
>>vision of making the product move along a line of stationary workers,
>>each one doing only one specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction
>>in manufacturing costs that benefited not only for the automobile but
>>*all* products being manufactured in the world. Now and then. Ford
>>contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did that, but
>>for the invention of the assembly line. Gates? Not even close in his
>>contribution (if any).
>
>
>What about that guy who invented standardized parts, is he on the list?
>He should be.
Eli Whitney. I didn't see him.
>
>The story is he took a contract to provide guns for the U.S. Army at a
>surprisingly low price. At the time, every weapon made, like anything
>else, required a lot of final fitting to get the peices together. This
>guy had all the parts made to specs that were almost unreasonable for the
>technology of the time. When the general came to collect the rifles, all
>he saw were barrels full of parts. The general was upset. The guy told
>him to select ten parts from each barrel, and before the general's eyes he
>put together ten rifles.
>
>And now we have 4-40 screws and USB and other standards that just make it
>so much easier to build things that we couldn't possibly have the
>technology of today without it.
George Graves
>In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>> In article <19991014113626...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
>> mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
>>
>> > Does someone have an URL for the top 100 list? I didn't see it at A&E's
>> >sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
>> >selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea ever.
>>
>> As of today, Oct. 14, there is only the top 250 list from which the top
>> 100 were chosen.
>>
>> <http://www.biography.com>
>
>Where? The only list I saw had about 150 people on it. So I'm rather
>confused about what that list actually represents.
Really? I didn't bother to count, just took their word for it.
--
George Graves
George Graves
>In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>> In article <7u3orv$pi8$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
>> Bennett) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38025A...@none.com>
>> >Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
>> >
>> > On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>> > ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>> >
>> > Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>> > make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>> > computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
>> >average
>> > IQ of the population is that low.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
>> >they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>> >
>> >My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
>> >rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
>> >included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
>> >Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
>>
>> Neither of which were on the list.
>
>
>They are on the list at www.biography.com.
>
>Did they do a *different* list on the show?
Yes, They had the top 100, not the top 250, and they were ranked in
importance from 100 to Number 1.
Many of the people on the list at biography.com did NOT make the final cut.
--
George Graves
George Graves
>In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>> In article <7u3orv$pi8$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
>> Bennett) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38025A...@none.com>
>> >Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
>> >
>> > On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>> > ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>> >
>> > Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>> > make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>> > computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
>> >average
>> > IQ of the population is that low.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
>> >they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>> >
>> >My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
>> >rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
>> >included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
>> >Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
>>
>> Neither of which were on the list.
>
>
>They are on the list at www.biography.com.
>
>Did they do a *different* list on the show?
Yes. They did the top 100. Ranked in importance from 100 to number 1. Many
of the people on the list at biography.com didn't make the final cut.
--
George Graves
George Graves
>In article Eric Bennett, er...@pobox.com says...
>> In article <gmgraves-141...@sja-pm3-29-221.dialup.slip.net>,
>> gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <7u3orv$pi8$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
>> > Bennett) wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article <38025A...@none.com>
>> > >Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > On A&E's top 100 people of the millenium poll, Bill Gates came up #41
>> > > ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers.
>> > >
>> > > Amazing what power can do. To the public opinion, Gates managed to
>> > > make his own the invention of the transistor, the IC, the personal
>> > > computer and the Internet. I am really scared to think if the
>> > >average
>> > > IQ of the population is that low.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >This wasn't a public opinion poll was it? On the A&E web site it says
>> > >they asked important current world figures in various areas.
>> > >
>> > >My own gripes: no, Gates does not belong on that list--I would much
>> > >rather see Alan Turing on the list than Gates (but at least they
>> > >included Babbage). But Gates is hardly the worst entry... Oprah
>> > >Winfrey? Michael Jackson? <thunk>
>> >
>> > Neither of which were on the list.
>>
>>
>> They are on the list at www.biography.com.
>>
>> Did they do a *different* list on the show?
>
>There is a list of 250 people who were under consideration. The final
>list is 100, and does not include Winfrey and Jackson.
Thank the heavens!
--
George Graves
George Graves
mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
>George Graves wrote:
>
>>Simple-minded? I agree. And we aren't (or shouldn't be) talking about
>>popularity here
>
> Why not? Who are you to decide what people should listen to?
Chill out! Nobody is trying to tell you what to listen to. If you think
that is what my post was about, you need to take a remedial reading
comprehension course.
The subject at hand is how influential certain people have been over the
last 1000 years. Nobody is attacking your personal music choice, just
wondering what lasting importance it (or any other popular culture, from
any other time) has to the last millenium.
>Rock and roll
>has been around for 45 years, and will be around for many. many more years in
>one form or another. Some of it is most definitely brilliant and timeless.
>"American Pie" is as enduring a song as any other American song ever written.
You forgot to say that that's your opinion. Mine or someone else's might
be different. In fact mine is different. I find both the lyrics and
"melody" banal beyond belief.
>>None of it has much appeal to members of older generations.
>>I.E. people who were teens in the fifties, diodn't think much of the rock
>>of the sixties. Those raised in the 60's didn't like the music of the
>>seventies, etc.
>
>This is very stereotypical and not true at. I personally like almost all
>forms of rock and roll from the 50's on.
What does that have to do with it? How old are you? I was in my early
teens in the late 50's I like the rock of that era as much as anyone. But
like most people in my age group, as the decades wore on, i found the
music less and less accessable to me. The stuff they have now is totally
alien to me. But the kids of today love it. My older cousins raised in the
late forties and early fifties hated laste 50's rock and 60's rock too,
and couldn't understand why I liked it. Its a lot easier. IMO, to go
backwards. I like a lot of the big band stuff of the late thirties and
forties (the same stuff my older cousins grew up with. I like theirs, they
didn't like mine.
>Bob Dylan particularly is timeless.
I never liked his "performance", but some of his songs are good,
especially when performed by someone who had performing talent like Joan
Baez or Ian and Sylvia.
>There are albums that just came out that I can recommend to people who are
>music lovers that are 50 years old that haven't listened to the radio in 10
>years and they will like them. Young kids are still turning each other on to
>Led Zeppelin albums that came out 30 years ago and would be doing moreso if
>radio stations had any values to preserve older music. I love old country
>music, banjo music, and American standards too, but some rock and roll is just
>as good.
>
>>Everybody knows "Bicycle Built For Two", "Strawberry Blonde", and
>>"Daisey
>
>George, I and most people 30 years old or younger don't know those songs.
Which only strengthens my point.
>That is not because they, or modern rock and roll are not worthy of living on,
>but because TV has made idiots out of everyone and almost no parents today
>share the music they grew up with with their kids, they just leave them to
>whatever's popular. 20 year olds today don't even know Beatle's songs. When
>people have a lack of customs and traditions, it is hard for things to live on
>forever.
So what I am saying IS true. These popular rock songs will NOT outlive the
age groups which made them popular.
--
George Graves
George Graves
mcle...@aol.com (Mcleanzep) wrote:
True, and most of them have acknowledged him somewhere along their careers.
--
George Graves
George Graves
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <38065C...@none.com>, Wind Blows <wind...@none.com> wrote:
>>bobsun wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
>>> important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another "egotistical
>>> tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
>>> production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and sold
>>> to the average person - a revolutionary idea at the time.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Baloney. Ford is not remembeerd for that. Henry Ford major contribution
>>to humankind was the invention of the manufacturing assembly line.
>>Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one. Ford had the
>>vision of making the product move along a line of stationary workers,
>>each one doing only one specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction
>>in manufacturing costs that benefited not only for the automobile but
>>*all* products being manufactured in the world. Now and then. Ford
>>contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did that, but
>>for the invention of the assembly line. Gates? Not even close in his
>>contribution (if any).
>
>
>What about that guy who invented standardized parts, is he on the list?
>He should be.
Eli Whitney.
--
George Graves
bobsun
George Graves wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>IBM did that. Gates merely supplied an OS that he BOUGHT from someone
>>>else. It was IBM's insistence that the OS NOT be able to run on any other
>>>hardware that made them choose to 'develop' a proprietary OS with ROM
>>>calls in it. Otherwise they could have chosen Unix or CP/M. Gates did
>>>nothing except pull the wool over the eyes of big blue and saddle them
>>>with a CP/M varient called DOS.
>>>
>>>>>Gates is just one more of the many egotistical tycoons the world has
>>>>>produced, nothing more.
>>>
>>>He's a businessman. He buys and sells, he doesn't create. If you put
Gates
>>>on such a list, can Donald Trump be far behind?
>>>
>>>>He made that money by popularizing the PC.
>>>
>>>A mere side effect. One which probably surprised him as much as it
>>>surprised anybody.
>>>
>>>--
>>>George Graves
>>
>>
>>I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
>>important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another "egotistical
>>tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
>>production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and
sold
>>Gates, he was ruthless in his business practices and had few, if any
>>redeeming personal qualities. His impact on our world today, however, is
>>matched by few. For good or bad, the consumer economy that is enveloping
the
>>whole world today owes much to Henry Ford. Gates, to a lesser extent, did
>>the same thing with one niche - the software business. Your
misunderstanding
>>is your belief that "buying and selling" doesn't involve creativity.
>
>So move over Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Isaac Newton. Make room for
>Donald Trump. He's as creative as you were.
>
>--
>George Graves
reducio ad absurdum
Donald Trump: Henry Ford::Alice Cooper:Beethoven
bobsun
bobsun
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>In article <7u5fof$7sa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
>> rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
>> didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
>> making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
>> available to the masses.
>
>
>How much of a vision is that? In a competitive market things are going to
>get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
>cloners.
Easy to say that now. At the beginning of this century, that would have been
counterintuitive. Ford was considered very radical for what he did. Some
accused him of being a socialist for raising wages to $5/day.
bobsun
bobsun
Steve wrote in message <141019991725138036%SPMSXs...@pobox.com>...
>> > Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
>> > rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
>> > didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
>> > making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
>> > available to the masses.
>
>impact on how things were viewed, to fundamentally change how people
>think.
>
>Ford's introduction of mass manufacturing changed how people think
>about manufacturing which could be spread to a variety of industries.
>Ford was not exactly known for being a champion of the people either.
>
>Gates, there would still be computers and networks. People would still
>find them indispensible. If Gates had died in 1980, do people really
>think that computers would be any less important or prevalent than they
>are now?
>
>He's a brilliant tactician and businessman, but so was Sam Walton.
>Gates just happened to be in the right industry at the right time and
>made the right decisions. Somebody else mentioned something about
>wealth which is a joke too. Gates is rich and influential, but in
>terms of wealth vs. the world, or even the US, as a whole, he's
>nothing. I mean, could he have single handedly helped stabilize the
>U.S. financial system a la JP Morgan?
>
>The thing that surprised me the most was the Wright Bros. relatively
>low rank. The desire to truly fly has been one of man's most
>deeply-rooted ambitions for centuries after centuries with a bazillion
>failures. Its impact and the balls and dedication required by them to
>make it work is pretty mind-boggling.
>
to
>> get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
>> cloners.
>
>its share of the costs of a computer vs. the other components year
>Steve
The monitor.
but mine seems to stay on my desk ok. Try moving it farther from the edge.
bobsun
bobsun
Wind Blows wrote in message <38065C...@none.com>...
>bobsun wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>
>> I don't see Gates as one of the "top 100" either. But he did do something
>> important, much in the same way that Henry Ford did - another
"egotistical
>> tycoon". Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent mass
>> production. But did invent a concept that automobiles could be made and
sold
>> to the average person - a revolutionary idea at the time.
>
>
>Baloney. Ford is not remembeerd for that. Henry Ford major contribution
>to humankind was the invention of the manufacturing assembly line.
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!
There were assembly lines long before Ford. He did refine the concept
considerably at the River Rouge plant. In fact, that plant borrowed many
concepts, and even some equipment from Chicago meat packing plants
>Before him, *all* producst were manufactured one by one.
Not true. see above. back to your history books, Try something more advanced
than the Jr. hi version, tho.
Ford had the
>vision of making the product move along a line of stationary workers,
>each one doing only one specific task. That led to a dramatic reduction
>in manufacturing costs that benefited not only for the automobile but
>*all* products being manufactured in the world. Now and then. Ford
>contribution was not the invention of the automobile, Benz did that, but
>for the invention of the assembly line.
Gates? Not even close in his
>contribution (if any).
Gates "invented" the concept of a software mass market, thus the (imperfect)
analogy. BG (before gates) software was closely tied to hardware. IBM, for
example, provided virtually all of the software that ran on their
mainframes. Apple started out with the same vision.
bobsun
Christopher Smith
Mcleanzep <mcle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991014113626...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> Does someone have an URL for the top 100 list? I didn't see it at A&E's
> sight. Personally I would put Darwin at the top as the theory of natural
> selection is IMO opinion probably the most powerful and important idea
ever.
Unless you live in Kansas ;).
Christopher Smith
>
>
> > Actually, your analogy is pretty apt. I think Bill Gates could be
> > rightfully considered the Henry Ford of the computer world. Henry Ford
> > didn't invent the automobile and he certainly wasn't the only one
> > making them, but he was the one who had the vision of making the car
> > available to the masses.
>
>
> get cheaper. And who took the big step that made computing cheaper? The
> cloners.
And what was it that made the clones viable ? DOS.