Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Cool! :-) Bill Gates rocking Just saw this link on another site - interesting http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/video_bill_gate.html FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 At 06:19 PM 3/23/2006, you wrote: Just saw this link on another site - interesting http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/video_bill_gate.html Yes, that is very Aspie'ish and I know that he use to dress like a " nerd " and not hit the shower as often as he maybe should have and a lot of other Aspies things... (I met him once back in about 1977 at a seminar on the Altair 8800 computer and Altair Basic that he write) But there as some things that make me question how Aspie he is... I like to think that Aspie's are by nature honorable to a fault... But selling IBM a piece of software someone else wrote and then buy the rights to it from the writer for next to nothing is not IMHO honorable... There are other less than honorable things that Microsoft has done over the year I could bring up... Having that sort of predator instinct less common in Aspies as a rule... Although I wish I had I had it too... but then I wouldn't be me... Ender... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I can actually see the logic in the buy/sell situation you described, Ender. If no laws were broken in the process, why would Bill Gates feel what he had done was immoral or amoral? Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I can actually see the logic in the buy/sell situation you described, Ender. If no laws were broken in the process, why would Bill Gates feel what he had done was immoral or amoral? Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 At 11:02 AM 3/24/2006, you wrote: >I can actually see the logic in the buy/sell situation you described, >Ender. If no laws were broken in the process, why would Bill Gates >feel what he had done was immoral or amoral? > >Raven The guy he did it to was at the time a " friend " and he didn't act as a friend... He was at IBM trying to say his basic but they weren't interested in that... but they were interested in the operating system he was running it on... (The Kildall (spelling?) the had written CP/M the OS that Seattle Software had hacked (this was back before software patents)... The IBM guys were pissed that Kildall was out when they tried to call about buying CP/M for the planned IBM-PC... " How dare he not be there to take " Big Blue's " call... " of course he was not expecting them to call in the first place. And Gates happened to be there was there with an alterative... (CP/M was a better and more stable OS but like with BetaMax the better product didn't win) Not illegal maybe not unethical or even immoral, but at least a bit disloyal... and taken with Microsoft's selective memory of promises made to developers and their OEM license practices if demonstrates a very predatory self serving nature... Ender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 ly, I'm sick and tired of reading this self-appointed stereotype " Aspies are generally honorable, honest, etc. " when I've seen more than enough evidence to disprove that online and elsewhere (I won't mention names, and I'm sure someone will squawk anyway) and in reality, in that case of reselling the OS after buying what the other guy thought was a fair price, that was completely legitimate and simply comes down to being good business. If the guy wasn't available to take IBM's call at the time, that's simply how reality works: if you don't get a quick enough answer to whether you can get something from someone you tried to get a hold of, you move on, and if someone else just happens to have the same or almost the same thing for a reasonable price, you buy it, because not doing so costs more money when time is of the essence. Now the licensing of MS-DOS with all the forced requirements not to load other OS's on the same machine on bootup, etc. that's a different story, and has been ruled on. At the time that license agreement was signed between IBM and Microsoft, there was no conflict, really, as there was no computer hardware or OS monopoly in play: there were several other computers available for sale with their own mutations of operating systems, and you can be fairly sure no other computer manufacturers sold their hardware with any other OS than the ones they installed or provided (considering most computers in most of the 80's didn't have hard drives, installation was what was on the boot floppy) and that was expected. Where Microsoft went wrong was in licensing out MS-DOS to OEM's with the practice of penalizing them on price if they decided to have the option of another OS installed on the same machine. If Microsoft had simply stated " If you buy this many copies you get a certain price per copy " that would still be perfectly legal, assuming all companies got treated equally and weren't penalized for supporting other operating systems. Here's the question: where is the evidence that states who made that decision for those licensing punishments? Remember, Bill Gates is was not the only decision maker for the corporation at the later dates when the issue raised its head with clones: until Compaq came along, there were no truly PC-Compatible systems not made by IBM, though IIRC there were some other mostly compatible Intel-based systems using MS-DOS, and chances are the manufacturers of those boxes were happy to have an existing useful (not perfect or best available for power: I could talk more on that) operating system that was sufficiently tested and had software available for it already. After all, hardware without useful software is just an inefficient room heater! > >I can actually see the logic in the buy/sell situation you described, > >Ender. If no laws were broken in the process, why would Bill Gates > >feel what he had done was immoral or amoral? > > > >Raven > > The guy he did it to was at the time a " friend " and he didn't act as > a friend... He was at IBM trying to say his basic but they weren't > interested in that... but they were interested in the operating > system he was running it on... (The Kildall (spelling?) the had > written CP/M the OS that Seattle Software had hacked (this was back > before software patents)... The IBM guys were pissed that Kildall was > out when they tried to call about buying CP/M for the planned > IBM-PC... " How dare he not be there to take " Big Blue's " call... " of > course he was not expecting them to call in the first place. And > Gates happened to be there was there with an alterative... (CP/M was > a better and more stable OS but like with BetaMax the better product > didn't win) > > Not illegal maybe not unethical or even immoral, but at least a bit > disloyal... and taken with Microsoft's selective memory of promises > made to developers and their OEM license practices if demonstrates a > very predatory self serving nature... > > Ender > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 " Not illegal maybe not unethical or even immoral, but at least a bit disloyal... and taken with Microsoft's selective memory of promises made to developers and their OEM license practices if demonstrates a very predatory self serving nature... " I do not know about the alleged selective memory of promises made to developers to which you refer, however, there is no disloyalty in making the most of an opportunity that presents itself to a business person. This happens in the music industry on a regular basis and professionals who are secure in their abilities do not feel it is disloyal for one to get something in business that all of them were vying for in the first place. Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 --Oh yeah,Bill Gates is no angel,that's for sure.While Aspies seem to have more difficulty lying than NTs,we are human like everyone else and have the same flaws as all humans...yes,we do lie,cheat,steal,have nasty sexual fantasies,etc etc. Kajira - In , strictnon_conformist <no_reply@...> wrote: > > ly, I'm sick and tired of reading this self-appointed stereotype > " Aspies are generally honorable, honest, etc. " when I've seen more > than enough evidence to disprove that online and elsewhere (I won't > mention names, and I'm sure someone will squawk anyway) and in > reality, in that case of reselling the OS after buying what the other > guy thought was a fair price, that was completely legitimate and > simply comes down to being good business. If the guy wasn't available > to take IBM's call at the time, that's simply how reality works: if > you don't get a quick enough answer to whether you can get something > from someone you tried to get a hold of, you move on, and if someone > else just happens to have the same or almost the same thing for a > reasonable price, you buy it, because not doing so costs more money > when time is of the essence. > > Now the licensing of MS-DOS with all the forced requirements not to > load other OS's on the same machine on bootup, etc. that's a different > story, and has been ruled on. At the time that license agreement was > signed between IBM and Microsoft, there was no conflict, really, as > there was no computer hardware or OS monopoly in play: there were > several other computers available for sale with their own mutations of > operating systems, and you can be fairly sure no other computer > manufacturers sold their hardware with any other OS than the ones they > installed or provided (considering most computers in most of the 80's > didn't have hard drives, installation was what was on the boot floppy) > and that was expected. Where Microsoft went wrong was in licensing > out MS-DOS to OEM's with the practice of penalizing them on price if > they decided to have the option of another OS installed on the same > machine. If Microsoft had simply stated " If you buy this many copies > you get a certain price per copy " that would still be perfectly legal, > assuming all companies got treated equally and weren't penalized for > supporting other operating systems. > > Here's the question: where is the evidence that states who made that > decision for those licensing punishments? Remember, Bill Gates is was > not the only decision maker for the corporation at the later dates > when the issue raised its head with clones: until Compaq came along, > there were no truly PC-Compatible systems not made by IBM, though IIRC > there were some other mostly compatible Intel-based systems using > MS-DOS, and chances are the manufacturers of those boxes were happy to > have an existing useful (not perfect or best available for power: I > could talk more on that) operating system that was sufficiently tested > and had software available for it already. After all, hardware > without useful software is just an inefficient room heater! > > > > > > >I can actually see the logic in the buy/sell situation you described, > > >Ender. If no laws were broken in the process, why would Bill Gates > > >feel what he had done was immoral or amoral? > > > > > >Raven > > > > The guy he did it to was at the time a " friend " and he didn't act as > > a friend... He was at IBM trying to say his basic but they weren't > > interested in that... but they were interested in the operating > > system he was running it on... (The Kildall (spelling?) the had > > written CP/M the OS that Seattle Software had hacked (this was back > > before software patents)... The IBM guys were pissed that Kildall was > > out when they tried to call about buying CP/M for the planned > > IBM-PC... " How dare he not be there to take " Big Blue's " call... " of > > course he was not expecting them to call in the first place. And > > Gates happened to be there was there with an alterative... (CP/M was > > a better and more stable OS but like with BetaMax the better product > > didn't win) > > > > Not illegal maybe not unethical or even immoral, but at least a bit > > disloyal... and taken with Microsoft's selective memory of promises > > made to developers and their OEM license practices if demonstrates a > > very predatory self serving nature... > > > > Ender > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 I think aspies can lie easily if they have a calculated logical reason for it worked out in advance. Whether it is to protect themselves or to do wrong to others. It's only setting up a complex lie in a spur-of-the-moment social situation that we may find difficult. Look at AFF. and I can admit that during my last 20 months at school, when I was back there only to escape from my psychiatrists and they would get me for failing to cope if I tried to leave school before finishing my A-level courses - I had a good survival reason for lying by hiding my true intentions to reject and disown my teachers' plans and rebel against school at the end of the courses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Maurice: > I think aspies can lie easily if they have a calculated logical > reason for it worked out in advance. Whether it is to protect > themselves or to do wrong to others. It's only setting up a > complex lie in a spur-of-the-moment social situation that > we may find difficult. Yes, this is exactly what I suspect as well. Leif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 I do agree as well. And I like how you were able to explain this, Maurice. Lida Maurice: > I think aspies can lie easily if they have a calculated logical > reason for it worked out in advance. Whether it is to protect > themselves or to do wrong to others. It's only setting up a > complex lie in a spur-of-the-moment social situation that > we may find difficult. Yes, this is exactly what I suspect as well. Leif FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.