Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   "Outliers" author and part-time Art Garfunkel impersonator predicts that in 50 years, people will "revere" Bill Gates, and not know who the hell Steve Jobs was   (cnn.com) divider line 112
    More: Unlikely, Art Garfunkel, Malcolm Gladwell, Bill Gates, best-selling author, outliers, charitable work, Walter Isaacson  
•       •       •

2086 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jun 2012 at 10:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-09 09:03:59 AM  
Steve Jobs spent his life making products. Bill Gates heads a foundation that uses his personal wealth for such things as trying to vaccinate people in third world countries from preventable diseases or curing people of malaria.

I know which one is more worthy of my respect.
 
2012-06-09 09:15:19 AM  
Yeah, but where does he stand on the Bonham vs. Moon question?
 
2012-06-09 09:36:30 AM  
And 30 years after that someone will "rediscover" Strve Jobs.

I'm not going to correct that spelling. I'm on a iPad and I find it fitting.
 
2012-06-09 10:40:17 AM  

RexTalionis: Steve Jobs spent his life making products. Bill Gates heads a foundation that uses his personal wealth for such things as trying to vaccinate people in third world countries from preventable diseases or curing people of malaria.

I know which one is more worthy of my respect.


I may be misremembering, but didn't Bill Gates slip a notch on the list of wealthiest people because he had given so much away to his charity? I greatly enjoy my Apple products and dislike my Windows machines at work, but Bill Gates seems pretty awesome.
 
2012-06-09 10:41:32 AM  
While Bill Gates has done and is doing some phenomenal stuff in this world he may be looked at the same way we look at Andrew Carnegie and the others like him today.

Steve Jobs may be looked at like a philosopher and have many amazingly wrong and hilariously selfless things ascribed to him.
 
2012-06-09 10:42:46 AM  

Makh: Andrew Carnegie

and by that I mean the Andrew Carnegie Foundation and the likes.
 
2012-06-09 10:49:01 AM  
Apple's going to outlast MS because corporations are people, my friend! but not, you know, real actual people. They're not people. Also, freedom is slavery, war is peace.
 
2012-06-09 10:51:30 AM  
Bill Gates: Made a fortune selling everyone and their sister barely functional software passed off as "innovative", gave tons of money away to really great causes without tooting his own horn about it.

Steve Jorbs: Made a fortune selling decent hardware that ran solid but exclusionary software, at a price few could afford. Pretty much kept all his money because fark you, that's why.

Personally, I'd like to forget the both of them. At least Gates has one decently redeeming quality about him though.
 
2012-06-09 10:51:51 AM  

JerseyTim: And 30 years after that someone will "rediscover" Strve Jobs.


First we need to actually discover this Strve Jobs a first time.
 
2012-06-09 10:51:57 AM  

Makh: While Bill Gates has done and is doing some phenomenal stuff in this world he may be looked at the same way we look at Andrew Carnegie and the others like him today.

Steve Jobs may be looked at like a philosopher and have many amazingly wrong and hilariously selfless things ascribed to him.


Not to mention its only a matter of time before articles or books start coming out talking about what a piece of shiat he was behind the scenes.

I could see Jobs being forgotten, outside of the ipod/iphone what will really survive and even those may be replaced in a few years, products die, philanthropy lives on........
 
2012-06-09 10:52:44 AM  
In 50 years the average person on the street won't know a thing about either of them.

Bookmark this page - and come back in 2062. You'll see.
 
2012-06-09 11:07:50 AM  
Gates is just another Rockefeller. Sure, they both set up charitable foundations, but they both got their money from ruthless (and illegal) business practices, leaving a wake of financial ruin behind them.

He gets no respect from me.

Heck, I could be charitable with your money, too.
 
2012-06-09 11:09:25 AM  

Balchinian: Bill Gates: Made a fortune selling everyone and their sister barely functional software passed off as "innovative", gave tons of money away to really great causes without tooting his own horn about it.

Steve Jorbs: Made a fortune selling decent hardware that ran solid but exclusionary software, at a price few could afford. Pretty much kept all his money because fark you, that's why.

Personally, I'd like to forget the both of them. At least Gates has one decently redeeming quality about him though.


I know it's cool to hate on Microsoft (Hey, you dropped a $, shouldn't it be M$?), but I think it's disingenious at best to call most versions of windows 'barely functional'. There are obvious crapfests like ME and Vista.

Jobs was a micromanaging, selfish, dick. But he was also a man with an iron mind and a singular vision who dragged his company kicking and screaming to the top of success charts. Gates made a fortune of fortunes, then gave it all to people who needed it the most.

Both are men worthy of praise in completely different ways. Jobs because of his vision, dedication, and skill. Gates for his alltruism and charity.
 
2012-06-09 11:10:58 AM  

sphere of acceptable risk: Gates is just another Rockefeller. Sure, they both set up charitable foundations, but they both got their money from ruthless (and illegal) business practices, leaving a wake of financial ruin behind them.

He gets no respect from me.

Heck, I could be charitable with your money, too.


Sorry, but if you really know anything about Rockefeller you'd know there is no comparison.
 
2012-06-09 11:24:04 AM  

sphere of acceptable risk: Gates is just another Rockefeller. Sure, they both set up charitable foundations, but they both got their money from ruthless (and illegal) business practices, leaving a wake of financial ruin behind them.

He gets no respect from me.

Heck, I could be charitable with your money, too.


This.
 
2012-06-09 11:33:29 AM  
Makes sense. When most people hear Alfred Nobel they think Nobel prize not inventing dynamite. The Gates foundation will be his legacy not Microsoft.
 
2012-06-09 11:34:35 AM  

Makh: While Bill Gates has done and is doing some phenomenal stuff in this world he may be looked at the same way we look at Andrew Carnegie and the others like him today.

Steve Jobs may be looked at like a philosopher and have many amazingly wrong and hilariously selfless things ascribed to him.


When another company comes along and does what apple does better we'll forget about him. Except when it becomes cool on whatever iteration of fark exists to make fun of people remember the good old days when we had to carry our iphones instead of having our rectal implant phones.
 
2012-06-09 11:35:27 AM  

SharkTrager: sphere of acceptable risk: Gates is just another Rockefeller. Sure, they both set up charitable foundations, but they both got their money from ruthless (and illegal) business practices, leaving a wake of financial ruin behind them.

He gets no respect from me.

Heck, I could be charitable with your money, too.

Sorry, but if you really know anything about Rockefeller you'd know there is no comparison.


Please to enlighten.

They both crushed their competition by illegally abusing their monopolies. Different industries, same behavior.
 
2012-06-09 11:53:22 AM  
It's Tesla/Edison all over again. Tesla was the true genius, but who does everyone remember as they guy who "invented" electricity?

Jobs/Gates will be the same. Plus, as previously mentioned, Gates' philanthropy will long outlive Jobs' trinkets.
 
2012-06-09 11:57:57 AM  
You can't swing a cat around here without hitting a statue of Jonas Salk. But if you say Edison or Ford, people reply "Huh? What are those words?"

/I like Gladwell, but he has a hard-on for Gates. I like Gates, too.
 
2012-06-09 12:00:07 PM  
Steve who?

Okay, seriously. Apple's line of product was always the "cool, expensive, but ultimately not-quite-as-useful" product. After years of subsisting on sales of this hardware, they knock out an mp3 player, and then a phone - which is actually useful - and the cultural environment was wanting it. That is to say, Apple's always marketed to hipsters, but there was a nice conflux of sudden usefulness + large style change so that hipsters were "in". Apple's kit certainly are not bad products, but after 20 years of bashing his head against a wall, it's nice to see he got a flash of success before he kicked off.

Gates was a fantastic corporate thief. But more importantly, he had a vision, a simple vision, and a relatively altruistic one compared to Jobs' - he wanted a computer in nearly every home. Which is pretty much true. If Microsoft had puttered along like Jobs did, trying to sell to an elitist market, the world would be much, much different today, much less computer-friendly.


In 50 years, Gates would be rightly revered, he changed the world. Jobs just made some money by selling something stylish.
 
2012-06-09 12:10:38 PM  
...If Microsoft had puttered along like Jobs did, trying to sell to an elitist market, the world would be much, much different today, much less computer-friendly...

Woz wanted to give away the software and Jobs wanted to make a low-cost computer so everyone would buy in. Jobs was on his way out at Apple when the prices were set. Mac stagnated and was overpriced when he was out, applying his dumb luck to Pixar. When he got back to Apple, there was no reason to reduce prices.
 
2012-06-09 12:11:18 PM  
Macrohards for Gates, Jobs gets a limp tiny softie. Good to know.
 
2012-06-09 12:11:20 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: In 50 years the average person on the street won't know a thing about either of them.

Bookmark this page - and come back in 2062. You'll see.


50 years from now I'll still be banging Kaley Cuoco.

/this is not a bookmark
 
2012-06-09 12:15:58 PM  

flaminio: It's Tesla/Edison all over again. Tesla was the true genius, but who does everyone remember as they guy who "invented" electricity?


the prehistoric batteries in the middle east predate edison and tesla by several millenia. just sayin'.

And check out "Lies My Teacher Told Me," someone suggested it and it's an amazing piece of work, and you should order yourselves copies of it; the first 75 pages alone are profound and I'll never tell another helen keller joke again.

/and she was socialist
//its the heroisation of white culture at the expense of minority contributions, predating jebus
/and the queen supposedly talked about the uh, Arhtthaldfggafbwharble machine, it tracked the celestial motions of earth and half the rest in the system, and it as well predates christianity, for one.
 
2012-06-09 12:20:37 PM  
Nobody thought the earth was flat by the time Columbus made his discovery; in fact they knew it was round but underestimated its sheer size (which the uh... 'mystics' like Archimedes had done -- accurately -- several thousand years before.

They were in search of tradable materials, including slaves, which they sent back to Spain (the queen was against the slave trade, however, and sold jewelry to release some). They were blocked to the southeast by the muslims they'd angered with their crusades. duh. and they didn't want to go around the tip of africa.

And half the world's global crops today are the direct result of Columbus' sheer luck of finding America but the appearance of American natives threw the RCC into a tailspin; they understood muslims rejected christianity, but indians just worshipped nature.
 
2012-06-09 12:25:11 PM  

Dear Jerk: Woz wanted to give away the software and Jobs wanted to make a low-cost computer so everyone would buy in. Jobs was on his way out at Apple when the prices were set. Mac stagnated and was overpriced when he was out, applying his dumb luck to Pixar. When he got back to Apple, there was no reason to reduce prices.


Except that he did. Apple completely remade every product line with new price points. The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade

/both Jobs and Gates will be remembered 50 years from now and Gladwell won't even be a footnote in the history books
 
2012-06-09 12:39:28 PM  
People remember Edison for the light bulb but not nearly as many remember Tesla for the ability to power said light bulb without having a generator in your backyard so who really knows what history will remember.
 
2012-06-09 12:44:03 PM  

gingerjet: /both Jobs and Gates will be remembered 50 years from now and Gladwell won't even be a footnote in the history books


i98.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-09 12:45:15 PM  
 
2012-06-09 12:55:36 PM  

gingerjet: The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade


Casual comparison shopping at the Apple Store and at Newegg disproves this assertion.

The cheapest Mac Pro has a quad core 2.8GHz Xeon processor, 3 GB of RAM, 1TB HD & a Radion 1GB 5770.
All for the low low price of $2,499.00

For that kind of scratch you can buy a respectable gaming machine that would eat the Mac Pro's lunch.
 
2012-06-09 12:56:43 PM  

Dear Jerk: ...If Microsoft had puttered along like Jobs did, trying to sell to an elitist market, the world would be much, much different today, much less computer-friendly...

Woz wanted to give away the software and Jobs wanted to make a low-cost computer so everyone would buy in. Jobs was on his way out at Apple when the prices were set. Mac stagnated and was overpriced when he was out, applying his dumb luck to Pixar. When he got back to Apple, there was no reason to reduce prices.


Huh. I'd always understood that Jobs was the bold, money-hungry partner of the two Steves. I have trouble crediting that take on it, given the history of Apple's hardware and then Jobs' NeXT company - which was another specialty market.

But I'll admit that it could be true. Regardless, I think the main thrust of my point still stands. Neat factoid, though, if it is true.
 
2012-06-09 12:57:39 PM  
rooftop235
Steve Jobs was well known to NOT donate to charity. Hell, he wouldn't even register a car because he didn't want a tag. It was a way to avoid certain taxes.

His wife runs a foundation. He was never interested. He didn't tag his car because of stalkers and paparazzi. If he was interested in avoiding taxes, he could have set up a charity.
 
2012-06-09 12:59:22 PM  
Jesus, enough with the "Steve Jobs changed the world" crap. No. He changed what consumer electronics look like. Okay, so he came up with a few neat, and incredibly popular, pieces of industrial design.

That's not world changing. Hate to break it to you, but world changing is stuff like Gates is doing- curing malaria, reworking educational methods...

He won't be particularly well known or remembered 10 years from now, much less 50.
 
2012-06-09 12:59:44 PM  

sphere of acceptable risk: SharkTrager: sphere of acceptable risk: Gates is just another Rockefeller. Sure, they both set up charitable foundations, but they both got their money from ruthless (and illegal) business practices, leaving a wake of financial ruin behind them.

He gets no respect from me.

Heck, I could be charitable with your money, too.

Sorry, but if you really know anything about Rockefeller you'd know there is no comparison.

Please to enlighten.

They both crushed their competition by illegally abusing their monopolies. Different industries, same behavior.


In the case of Microsoft, though, "illegally abusing their monopoly" basically amounts to shipping an OS with a web browser and media player preinstalled. Oh, the horror!

Microsoft had a monopoly more because they had the dumb luck to be shipping the least worst operating system option in the 90s. IBM was moving away from the consumer market, Mac OS 7 - 9 were kind of crap and only available on limited hardware, and Linux required you to compile drivers yourself just to add a network card at the time. I just don't know what realistic alternative there was to Windows back then when they established their monopoly. It's not like BeOS would have been on a quarter of desktops today had Bill Gates been less cut throat.
 
2012-06-09 01:04:42 PM  

red5ish: gingerjet: The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade

Casual comparison shopping at the Apple Store and at Newegg disproves this assertion.

The cheapest Mac Pro has a quad core 2.8GHz Xeon processor, 3 GB of RAM, 1TB HD & a Radion 1GB 5770.
All for the low low price of $2,499.00

For that kind of scratch you can buy a respectable gaming machine that would eat the Mac Pro's lunch.


The Mac Pro is a workstation aimed at graphics professionals. Compare it to Xeon powered Dell workstation and see how much of a price premium there is, especially when you get to the 12-core models.
 
2012-06-09 01:05:42 PM  

Dear Jerk: rooftop235
Steve Jobs was well known to NOT donate to charity. Hell, he wouldn't even register a car because he didn't want a tag. It was a way to avoid certain taxes.

His wife runs a foundation. He was never interested. He didn't tag his car because of stalkers and paparazzi. If he was interested in avoiding taxes, he could have set up a charity.


Look for the hundred thousand dollar Mercedes with no plates driving around. It's not like he parked at a Merc dealership whenever whe went out.
 
2012-06-09 01:09:57 PM  

Mad_Radhu: It's not like BeOS would have been on a quarter of desktops today had Bill Gates been less cut throat.


Gates's real win was Office. And even Corel's suite. Seriously. It was the thing where, "I do this thing at work", and then "I can afford to do this same thing at home!". That's all it was. And it worked. The browser, the media player, it was just a sideshow. It was all about training people to use one thing in the workplace, and then making it entirely available for them to use at home, at a price they could afford.
 
2012-06-09 01:11:33 PM  

gingerjet: Except that he did. Apple completely remade every product line with new price points. The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade


Apple iMac: €1449,-
- 2.7 GHz, i5, 6mb l3 cache
- 4 GB, 1333 DDR3 RAM
- 1TB, 7200 RPM HDD
- AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB
-Build in Wi-Fi
- 21,5 inch monitor
- Mouse/keyboard

Self build: €1251,- (give or take a few euro shipping costs)
- Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V (€155)
- CPU Intel Core i7 3770 Boxed, 3,4 GHz (€265)
- RAM G.Skill F3-12800CL7Q-8GBECO, 8GB (€98)
- Housing MS-Tech LC-05B, includes 550W PSU (€46)
- HDD Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001, 2TB (€105)
- Graphic card MSI R6870 Twin Frozr II (€182)
- Monitor Samsung Syncmaster T24A350 (€215)
- Mouse Logitech MX518 Optical Gaming Mouse (€45)
- Keyboard Logitech Gaming Keyboard G105 (€50)
- Windows 7 (€90)

And I get a far superior computer with €240 to spare on something I might have forgotten. So how isn't Apple overpriced? The iPhone 4s (32gb) is €100 more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy SIII (16GB, 78Gb if I place a €60 memory card). iPods are similarly way overpriced for something you'll keep in a pocket most of the time.

The only thing where there might be some price similarity is in the high end laptops but I don't feel like comparing those at the moment.
 
2012-06-09 01:11:59 PM  
starsrift
Huh. I'd always understood that Jobs was the bold, money-hungry partner of the two Steves...

Jobs hated people and businesses who were in it for the money. It's true he was more of a businessman than Woz, but who isn't. Jobs' focus was on design and user experience, and how those two relate. His other guiding interest was the union of the humanities and technology. He became very good at realizing his vision and he made a gob of dough.
Incidentally, his intent at Next was to buck Apple and produce the affordable computer he originally wanted, but he was uncompromising on design and ran the price through the roof. Live and learn. The Next OS because the base of OSX.
 
2012-06-09 01:19:21 PM  
Jobs will be remembered as the modern Edison.

Gates will be remembered as the modern Carnegie.
 
2012-06-09 01:23:54 PM  
Somehow, this seems appropriate.

lolpics.se
 
2012-06-09 01:33:05 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: In 50 years the average person on the street won't know a thing about either of them.

Bookmark this page - and come back in 2062. You'll see.


and the UN unazied the world.

I predict there will be huge round mirror like doughnut shaped statues that are labeled Sony and Phillips.

upload.wikimedia.org


In the end It all depends on how many textbooks and movies mention their names. And more importantly if people still use what they made.
 
2012-06-09 01:35:12 PM  
Steve who? ... no seriously. Steve who?
 
2012-06-09 01:37:40 PM  

DerAppie: gingerjet: Except that he did. Apple completely remade every product line with new price points. The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade

Apple iMac: €1449,-
- 2.7 GHz, i5, 6mb l3 cache
- 4 GB, 1333 DDR3 RAM
- 1TB, 7200 RPM HDD
- AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB
-Build in Wi-Fi
- 21,5 inch monitor
- Mouse/keyboard

Self build: €1251,- (give or take a few euro shipping costs)
- Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V (€155)
- CPU Intel Core i7 3770 Boxed, 3,4 GHz (€265)
- RAM G.Skill F3-12800CL7Q-8GBECO, 8GB (€98)
- Housing MS-Tech LC-05B, includes 550W PSU (€46)
- HDD Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001, 2TB (€105)
- Graphic card MSI R6870 Twin Frozr II (€182)
- Monitor Samsung Syncmaster T24A350 (€215)
- Mouse Logitech MX518 Optical Gaming Mouse (€45)
- Keyboard Logitech Gaming Keyboard G105 (€50)
- Windows 7 (€90)

And I get a far superior computer with €240 to spare on something I might have forgotten. So how isn't Apple overpriced? The iPhone 4s (32gb) is €100 more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy SIII (16GB, 78Gb if I place a €60 memory card). iPods are similarly way overpriced for something you'll keep in a pocket most of the time.

The only thing where there might be some price similarity is in the high end laptops but I don't feel like comparing those at the moment.


Those machines are two different animals, though. Yours is built for expandability at the expense of having a lot more cables and a big tower taking up space either on or under the desk. The iMac, on the other hand, trades some power for a small footprint and significantly less cabling. Even though it has less horsepower, the iMac also has a few other advantages to your build such as built-in 5GHz wireless networking and Bluetooth. ALso, even though the display is physically smaller it is higher quality IPS display compared to the cheap TN panel the Samsung is using.

Again, it really depends on what you are looking for. If you are a gamer that needs to be constantly upgrading the hardware, then the iMac isn't the machine for you. For someone that isn't going to be upgrading constantly and wants everyone integrated, it is a much better choice. Some of the arguments are akin to someone saying that the BMW M3 they bought is a terrible car because it can't haul the cargo an F-150 can. Different people have different needs.
 
2012-06-09 01:38:37 PM  
Stop telling me who to care about.
 
2012-06-09 01:47:23 PM  

Mad_Radhu: The Mac Pro is a workstation aimed at graphics professionals. Compare it to Xeon powered Dell workstation and see how much of a price premium there is, especially when you get to the 12-core models.


If I was looking for a high-end workstation for a graphics professional I would certainly check out Apple's products. If I was looking for a desktop computer I'd go for a more powerful non-Apple machine and get more for my money.

If you compare the prices of laptops - Apple and non-Apple - the price difference is quite large for machines with similar specs.
The statement The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade is just not true. There is still a large premium on the "Apple/Mac" brand.

Comparison shopping for laptops with a $2,000.00 limit yields many more powerful and less expensive non-Apple options.

This is not a secret. I'm not making this up. I'm not bagging on Apple, either. I'm just saying that Apple products are considerably more expensive than comparable non-Apple products.

You probably are right about high-end workstations, but when it comes to consumer products Apple is still quite expensive.
 
2012-06-09 01:56:32 PM  

red5ish: Mad_Radhu: The Mac Pro is a workstation aimed at graphics professionals. Compare it to Xeon powered Dell workstation and see how much of a price premium there is, especially when you get to the 12-core models.

If I was looking for a high-end workstation for a graphics professional I would certainly check out Apple's products. If I was looking for a desktop computer I'd go for a more powerful non-Apple machine and get more for my money.

If you compare the prices of laptops - Apple and non-Apple - the price difference is quite large for machines with similar specs.
The statement The "Apple is overpriced" argument hasn't been true for at least a decade is just not true. There is still a large premium on the "Apple/Mac" brand.

Comparison shopping for laptops with a $2,000.00 limit yields many more powerful and less expensive non-Apple options.

This is not a secret. I'm not making this up. I'm not bagging on Apple, either. I'm just saying that Apple products are considerably more expensive than comparable non-Apple products.

You probably are right about high-end workstations, but when it comes to consumer products Apple is still quite expensive.


I totally agree that the MacBook Pro prices are totally out if line with the rest of the laptop market. The Airs actually aren't too bad, though, in comparison to Ultrabook prices. Apple really varies a lot in how much of a premium they ask for on different product lines.
 
2012-06-09 01:57:38 PM  
Steve Jobs:
Co Founder Apple.
Bought and revolutionized Pixar in 1986.
Founded Next Computers after he was forced out at Apple. Next became Apple OS X when Jobs returned to Apple.

Returned to Apple where he helped:
Revolutionize the home computer
Revolutionize the music industry
create the most popular tablet computer in the world
Revolutionized the laptop
Make Apple the biggest company in the world.


As someone who revolutionized the computer industry, the music industry and the movie animation industry, I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs will be remembered for a very long time.

This takes nothing away from Gates, who will also be remembered for his philanthropy and the DOS/Windows OS.
 
2012-06-09 01:59:53 PM  

Balchinian: Bill Gates: Made a fortune selling everyone and their sister barely functional software passed off as "innovative", gave tons of money away to really great causes without tooting his own horn about it.

Steve Jorbs: Made a fortune selling decent hardware that ran solid but exclusionary software, at a price few could afford. Pretty much kept all his money because fark you, that's why.



Actually we don't know whether he gave to causes or not. What if we find out that he did, and on a huge scale, but didn't toot his own horn about it like Bill Gates?

Jobs' involvement in the first real personal computer will keep his legacy alive. Look at how geeks worship him today. Gates technological legacy may die while his philanthropic legacy lives. Why does one have to disappear and the other thrive?
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report