| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft as America | |
|
||
| Time: 00:15 EST/05:15 GMT | News Source: Economist | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
HE DOES not rock on his chair when thinking (and sometimes saying) that a reporter's question is the height of stupidity, as Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder does. Nor does he jump about a stage, screaming “I love this company”, like Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive. Craig Mundie, the software giant's chief technical officer, is not a typical Microsoftie. He has even been known to say such reasonable things as: “We have no right to autonomous execution. We have to be a responsible leader.” It all sounds a bit like Colin Powell on one of his rare trips to Old Europe. This is no accident. Although there may be only superficial similarities between Mr Gates and George Bush (relative lack of sophistication, accident-prone speeches), and Mr Ballmer seems more a fusion of Dick Cheney (power behind throne) and Donald Rumsfeld (tells it like it is), Mr Mundie is unambiguously the secretary of state of the United States of Windows. As such, he is yet another sign, alongside the restructuring announced this week to improve financial control and the decision to forgo share options, that the global software bully has, to quote Mr Mundie, “recently exited adolescence”. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:47:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (66.20.202.235) at 7/25/2003 6:04:27 AM |
|
The comparison is groundless: US deficit is going to reach $455 billion, MS has more than $45 billion in cash.
US unemployement is rampant and MS is hiring more 3000 people etc. etc. . |
| #2 By 2960 (68.100.231.92) at 7/25/2003 8:13:14 AM |
|
"MS is hiring more 3000 people etc. etc. ."
The question is, where... ? TL |
| #3 By 13998 (193.67.187.139) at 7/25/2003 8:26:58 AM |
|
Technically being elected (in Bush's case it is disputable if he was really elected) as the president of a country does not make any one more intelligent.
I agree with you #1. |
| #4 By 1896 (66.20.202.235) at 7/25/2003 8:53:44 AM |
| #4 Based on what they stated mostly in the US. |
| #5 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 7/25/2003 9:26:15 AM |
|
Gates has had the luxury of being the "dictator" of his own software monopoly. Furthermore, his technical knowledge allowed him to delve into the decisions and processes made throughout the company over the years.
The President has to deal with an oversized tripartite government, a strong opposition party, the rest of the world, and, in the case of Bush, every person out there, still clinging to the 2000 election, who cannot comprehend state election laws. Certainly, the U.S. government should be run like a business. However, our government, unlike Microsoft, is entrusted with defending our freedoms, our nation, and our ideals. The extent of MS's concern is "Where do you want to go today?" Although, that would make for a humorous big brother government slogan. ;-) The comparison in the article is simplistic. The insults made by the commentators here even more so. |
| #6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/25/2003 10:15:20 AM |
|
Also, blaming the deficit solely on the President is disingenuous since Congress (both Dems and Reps) are largely responsible for it.
The tax cut is largely irrelevant to the discussion, the problem is both the President spending gobs of money on this and that and Congress spending gobs of money on this and that. Federal spending rose from $1.8 trillion in FY2002 to $2.3 trillion in FY2003. That's about a $500 billion (plus or few a couple dozen here or there) increase, and that's just an ESTIMATE. It could be worse in the years to come. Spending is the problem. Don't let the Democrats or Republicans trick you into thinking that tax cuts are the problem. They both want you to keep your eye off the ball which is their out-of-control spending. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/25/2003 10:15:55 AM |
|
TheCodeFoundry - "Nice of you to call the President of the United States, Command in Chief of our Military and has a Yale and Harvard education a moron. "
I'm going to apologize for XMLSOAP's statement. He probably just didn't know any better having been subjected to 10 years of conservatives using far more derogatory terms to describe our President. ch - "still clinging to the 2000 election, who cannot comprehend state election laws. " Which election laws might those be? As I recall the 2000 election scandal was handled within the court system. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, July 25, 2003 at 10:17. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/25/2003 10:37:46 AM |
|
daz - "The tax cut is largely irrelevant to the discussion, the problem is both the President spending gobs of money on this and that and Congress spending gobs of money on this and that. "
I guess I'm puzzled by this statement. Since tax rates are directly relational to the amount of money brought into the public coffers, in what way are they then irrelevant to a discussion of budget deficits? "Don't let the Democrats or Republicans trick you into thinking that tax cuts are the problem. They both want you to keep your eye off the ball which is their out-of-control spending. " Don't let daz trick you into thinking the tax cuts aren't the problem. |
| #9 By 1896 (66.20.202.235) at 7/25/2003 11:19:00 AM |
|
#12 So in your opinion more than 40% of the US citizens are "childish whiners who can't understand why he's doing such a good job"?
Personally I disagree with your judgement about the President job but this doesn't mean I think you are a retarded or an ignorant who does not understand the complexity of geopolitical relationships. "Liberty of thought is the life of the soul." (Voltaire, the inspirer of the Founding Fathers) |
| #10 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 7/25/2003 11:34:55 AM |
|
regardless of your feelings toward President Bush's policies... its not right to talk about him like some of you do. Wait until he's out of office, at least.
And btw... anyone with GWB's life couldn't possibly be an idiot. You all are closed minded. Its just that simple. I met Dan Quayle once... the king of the "moron" comments. I consider myself a reasonable assessor of people. Let me tell you. That man had an amazing mind. I'm not commenting on his beliefs. I'm just telling you he was extremely intelligent, well-read, and very likeable. Just an outstanding person. I suspect Clinton is the same way. Bush too. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/25/2003 11:55:48 AM |
|
parker - "I get the feeling most of George Bush's critics are childish whiners who can't understand why he's doing such a good job, and making the previous administration look really, really bad in comparison."
Pardon me? good job? previous administration look really, really bad? On what basis could you possibly make such claims? mooresa56 - "regardless of your feelings toward President Bush's policies... its not right to talk about him like some of you do." I really appreciate this sentiment, ever since I was a kid and I heard people making fun of President Carter I've always thought it disrespectful. Unfortunately, I just wish you abided by this yourself. Unfortunately you and daz simply follow the model of Ann Coulter. :( |
| #12 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/25/2003 12:13:02 PM |
|
soda: The tax cut was a drop in the bucket compared with the escalating spending in Congress. The tax cut was $350b which is nothing, really. Spending increased $500b this year on top of $350b (IIRC) last year, on top of >200b the year before, etc, etc, etc.
It's been growing for years with no end in site. What the President (any president, not just GWB) did or does has little effect on Congress' drunk-sailor spending. Congresspeople will go out and slam the current President for this bill or that bill, while spending billions on some stupid frivolou Bull-weavel anus research project in their home state. The problem is that Congress is robbing America blind and funding projects which do not address any of the major problems in America (education, defense, etc). A tax cut was an attempt to send a signal to Congress that America will no longer tolerate Congress' drunk spending and that tax revenue is not an unlimited source of revenue with which they can blow on stupid, ultimately useless side/special-interest projects. Of course, Congress watered down and destroyed the tax bill so it was nothing but a drop in the bucket. The President got a little victory and so he was content with that, but ultimately, the American public got screwed. - Congress spends too much - Current President tries to fight it, gets slaughtered in the press - Deficit ensues - Congress blames it on President, raises taxes, forces President to sign it (this happened to Bush41 and Clinton on at least 1 occasion each) - (repeat ad infinitum) Congresspeople brag about how many cents on the tax-spent dollar they bring home to their consitutents. It's like Jefferson said: "Democracies cannot exist as a permanent form of government: They will only exist until the people find that they can vote money to themselves from the public treasury and until politicians find that they can distribute that money in order to buy votes and perpetuate themselves in power. Hence democracies always collapse over weak fiscal policy to be followed by dictatorship." Alexander Tytler also said about the same thing (a popular quote): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury" This is what we're seeing. Representatives are essentially voting money from the coffers to buy votes and the sitting President is all but helpless to prevent it. In many cases, he's a willing accomplice. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/25/2003 12:18:53 PM |
|
CooCooCaChoo - "The state of the economy in the US has NOTHING to do with GWB. The economy was going down hill before GWB arrived on the scene. I am no GWB fanboy but if a person can't see a cylical cycle then maybe they shouldn't comment on issues they know nothing about. "
You certainly have the right to state that, but you would be wrong. Economic conditions clearly are influenced heavily by a number of factors under governmental control. Tarriffs, tax incentives, spending priorities, deficits, other investments and so on. Every little thing has an impact and causes ripples... sometimes those ripples become waves, sometimes they create hurricaines of destruction. It all depends, and it is the job of our politicians to be honest with themselves and come to recognize when things go bad. "As for the so-called Bill Clinton boom times, they were due to massive public spending on IT infrastructure such as the computers in schools programme. " Private spending you mean. Public spending was held in check during the Clinton era, which is how we arrived towards a balanced budget. No, it was more than that. The end of the Cold War brought with it a decline in the military industrial complex. This resulted in a shift of corporate development away from military sales towards consumer goods and services. There were other factors as well, shifts in monetary policy and a hard desire to balance the budget through more efficient lending and borrowing, etc. Also the 1990's were heavily influenced by the emergence of the 401k plans, which brought trillions of dollars into a market facilitating corporate investment. Again, I go back to the point above regarded the effects government can have on the economy. The problem that Bush and the GOP has today is not being willing to understand the current context of our economic problems. What we have today is the equivalent of a hangover from over-indulgence. Because of the fantastic amounts of investment in the late 1990's we were left in a position of over-investment. This is why the GOP solution of encouraging investment hasn't done anything to improve the economy. But then it's my opinion that the GOP really doesn't care. The tax cuts followed a pattern of tax "reform", i.e. shifting tax burden from one area to another. It was part of a greater deception, using the recession as an excuse to change fiscal policy rather than having anything to do with economic stimulus. Unfortunately the GOP is largely driven by political ideology rather than an intense desire to try to do what's right given the present circumstances. I'm not going to agree or disagree on points 2 through 4. I just wanted to point out how Federal programs can have ripple effects through the economy, both from a positive and a negative sense. |
| #14 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/25/2003 12:26:05 PM |
|
#15: It's funny you bash on Bush personally like that because you can find almost identical quotes from liberals in the 80's about Reagan and it turns out he was one of the greatest Presidents of our time and managed to bring us through one of the hardest and most decisive moments in US history and, indeed, the world. He knew that the only way to deal with a snake like the Soviet Union was to stand up to them and look them in the eye and stare them down and they would back off.
All the liberals were crying nuclear holocaust because they thought appeasement was the answer. Not suprisingly, they took the same tact against Saddam and everyone else and look where it got us after 8 years of it? We now have a thriving (well, much less now, but in 2000 it was) global terrorist network, half a dozen rogue regimes terrorizing their own people and providing safe haven to global terrorists and DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS for use against us, primarily. Bush may be a straight-talkin' hip-shooter and uncouth, but he gets the job done. Make fun of his impedements, but when you're lying in your bed NOT dying from a radiological attack or a biological attack from said terrorists or rogue regimes, you can just thank him, and not his predecessor. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/25/2003 12:27:14 PM |
|
daz - "What the President (any president, not just GWB) did or does has little effect on Congress' drunk-sailor spending. "
I see where you are going here. This is the same excuse which was used by GW's father... that he wasn't responsible for the problems, it was all because of Congress. But Congress is now controlled by the Republicans, and GW Bush is leader of that party. What you are now saying is that GW Bush is incapable of providing leadership because he is unable to control Congressional spending priorities. I do agree on that point. It's time for new leadership. http://www.draftclark2004.com |
| #16 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 2:26:23 PM |
|
#19 daz, you've really deluded yourself into believing that killing all of our enemies will bring about peace. Ever bother to put down your gun and ask yourself why do they hate us?
It's kind of like a cold, cover the symptoms and ignore the cure. Now I'm for defending ourselves (yeah I'm a vet-4 years active duty-most overseas-middle east) but killing all our enemies without coming to grips with why we have enemies is very short sighted and will ultimately lead to a worsening situation. As for RR and the B wall, it would never have come down had Gorby not been in charge, as everyone old enough to have been there knows. Bush is nothing more than a bull in a china shop. Short sighted and with no real leadership. Our consumer driven economy which is based largely on consumer confidence is in horrible shape because most Americans don’t have ANY confidence in Bush jr. as an economic leader. Not like we viewed Clinton’s grasp of economics as evidenced by the greatest economic expansion this nation ever experienced under his great leadership! |
| #17 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 7/25/2003 2:56:40 PM |
|
#15: What the heck has he been doing for the last 40years? sitting in a tent in the middle of texas oblivious to the other 5.8billion people who live in this world?
What are you talking about? There's a world outside of Texas? ;-) I heard the Comptroller of Texas on the radio the other day. She mentioned that Texas has the 8th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest per capita. So sitting in a tent in the middle of Texas doesn't sound so bad after all... -ch (from Texas) |
| #18 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 4:15:40 PM |
| #22 your comments demonstrate a lack of how the Texas political system works. It’s different from most states because in Texas the governor is really nothing more than a figurehead. |
| #19 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/25/2003 5:01:45 PM |
|
#21, putting down your weapons isn't always the answer, either. Few relish war, but as someone pointed out here before, our defeated enemies have often become some of our strongest allies. If you follow representatives in the Middle East from our country and others, you'll see that, while there's disagreement about how to handle things, many of them realize that force is perhaps the only way that can bring about a relative peace there. Some say that over there, there is respect for force. It's a pipe dream to believe that we're going to have much luck to get them to "understand us"--they've been fed a line of you-know-what for a long time... some of it maybe true, but also filled with lies. That said, not even the neo-cons are arguing to "kill all our enemies."
As for economic expansion, Clinton was at the wheel at the right time. Most Democrats and Republicans aren't that far apart when it comes to managing the economy; the strength of the economy is determined far more by the state of the various industries (in the case of the 90s expansion, technology fueled a lot of it... and we also saw that it became grossly inflated) rather than by the government. |
| #20 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 5:09:18 PM |
|
#24 Clinton was a total failure as President? Sorry Parker but only in your right wing eyes. As for appearing strong (by starting wars) vs. actually being strong (as in maintaining a really strong economy) your man Bush is totally an utterly, a complete failure. When you have to tell people you’re in charge, then you’re really not in charge.
A Helen Thomas said: "Bush is the worst President this nation has ever had." |
| #21 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 6:00:53 PM |
|
#25 'put down your weapons..." I certainly never said anything like that! Lets put it this way, I believe you should carry a big stick and speak softly (TR?). War is the bottom line last resort political solution.
Or would you rather condone how some Jews and Arabs believe when they both say... "yes I too want peace, but first I must kill all of my enemies". What a wonderful world huh? |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/25/2003 6:35:45 PM |
|
#27--sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you said that... it's just that the commentary that I've heard from those that have spent years as diplomats in the Middle East seem to agree at least to some extent that military action is required to deal with some of the forces at work in that region. As for the Jews and Arabs, it's a bit of a different situation, due to the ancient resentment that exists there (among other things)... if anything, it requires a third party. It was a coalition that went into Iraq, not just one country.
There's a fine distinction that I think should be made regarding the success of this administration and/or the war. It won't be the military might that is viewed as a failure, it will be either the diplomacy efforts (or lack thereof) or the rebuilding effort, or both. It is conceivable--though seemingly unlikely, at this point--that we will come to regard this moment in history as visionary, and that we had the only leadership that could see the "light at the end of the tunnel," that the French, German, et. al governments were misguided in their beliefs of how to achieve peace; it's possible that through strength, resolve, and a non-gutless approach towards governments and forces that cause problems and rebuff the UN and others, we could be doing the future a favor. It's hard to say, because we don't know what the other outcomes could have been. |
| #23 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/25/2003 7:08:18 PM |
|
Thanks for completely exaggerating everything I said. Of course I didn't mean we should kill all our enemies, but sooner or later, the world must be rid of Communism/Tyranny/Dictatorship and if we can take a big chunk of it out now through militarily (Iraq, maybe Iran and Syria), economicly and culturaly (China), and diplomatic (North Korea eventually), the world will be a better place.
A good start for policy is to not allow their spread in the first place. Carter allowed the Middle East to become a breading ground of tyrannical dictatorship and hatred towards the west, and Clinton helped perpetuate it and also allowed North Korea to get away with murder (literally). Also interesting is that Carter actually negotiated the deal for the Light Water reactors which the NK completely violated and led us to the current crisis. If Carter could just move to Tahiti and leave everyone alone, the world would be a much better place. For every HFH house he built, he endangered the lives of 500 South Koreans with nuclear holocaust or conventional desctruction at the hands of the North Koreans. What Reagan taught us was that appeasement of tyranny is not an option. We tried it in WWII (FDR) and failed, we tried it right after WWII (Truman) and failed, Kennedy figured it out (Cuban Missle Crisis), but Johnson screwed it up again, Nixon didn't get it either. Ford did nothing. Carter got it horribly, and disasterously wrong, but Reagan got it right. Bush41 had it kinda right, but didn't follow through. Clinton got it right some times, but botched it on others, and Bush 43... it's too early to tell. He got it right with Iraq, but we'll see what happens with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The North Korea thing will either be a huge, brilliant success, or a dismal, disasterous failure. As far as Soda's comments about Bush controlling the Republicans in Congress... You don't follow politics much do you? See, in the 90's, everyone was clammoring for balanced budget, so Congress follows along, and then as soon as everyone's eye is off the ball (and on the President), they resume their evil ways and hang the President out to dry. In fact, they did this against Clinton in the early years and he got hammered for it. Then when we got reelected, he had more clout and could tell Congress where to stick it and could hang them out ot dry a little and put the pressure on them. Bush appears unable to do that, or only do it part way (since he did get a LITTLE tax cut through, which is better than nothing). We need a President to stand up and slam congress up and down for spending. So far, Bush isn't doing it, and the Democrats are only proposing more spending. Howard Dean, avoiding being called the dreaded "L" word has labelled himself "Fiscally Conservative". He does this while he proposes record spending proposals for health care, welfare, social security, and other liberal social projects. The Democrats are doomed on this one, I'm afraid. They're running against Bush, rather than FOR themselves. In fact, I saw a Kucinich sticker that said, "Anyone but Bush". That's great. Great slogan! "We have nothing, vote for me just so he doesn't do anything else". That's always a great running platform and has worked so well for Democrats in the past (1998, 2002 to name a few) The Democrats have no platform. They're just throwing anything and everything at bush, hoping something sticks, which so far, not much has except for the 16-words B.S.. Once the WMD's are found (and there are more and more rumors that they've found something really big and they're evaluating it now, but nothing confirmed yet), the Democrats will be left holding the bag and all the jackasses bashing the President today will have Zero clout in 2004. And then Hillary will step in.... Notice how quiet Hillary has been? Yep. You heard it right. |
| #24 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 8:00:38 PM |
|
I see daz and parker are two birds of a feather. Blame all failures on democrats and credit all democrats’ success on republicans. As right wing republicans you certainly espouse your parties’ mantra..."my way or the highway'!
You guys aren't a part of any solution but are really part of the problem of divisive politics that threaten to ruin this great nation. Thank god your guys and others like you (hard core right wing/republicans) make up only 38% of our great nation. BTW my degree is in Political Science so spare me the crap about not knowing anything about politics ok! |
| #25 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 7/25/2003 8:52:37 PM |
|
BTW, didn't your republican majority house the other day vote down a personal liberties part of the so-called Patriot Act that HT so blasted? And haven't quite a large number of cities and state refused by charter to obey it? Also a lot of people believe the most dangerous person in America today is the current AG.
But I’m tired of this stupid, childish drivel and have more important things to do, like watching paint dry. Have a nice day :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:47:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
