Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States 888
Will Foster writes "There is a groundswell of support for electing Steve Jobs President of the United States." I'll vote for him if I can write in my vote -- with a Newton stylus!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Economists state their GNP growth projections to the nearest tenth of a percentage point to prove they have a sense of humor. -- Edgar R. Fiedler
Stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Eat up martha (Score:2, Funny)
Jobs TV Spot (Score:5, Funny)
It was kinda.....a bummer.
Re:Eat up martha (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now: Fiscal iBudget, Cute (but slow) Warplanes, State of the Union adress will attract more geeks and will spring rumor sites discussing possible announcements about lowering crime, spending more money on education, etc.
Wrong Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
Woz would make a great technical or education advisor, but probably a lousy president.
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Interesting)
Somehow though I find it easier to blame GW for his foreign policy, than to blame Jimmy Carter for his national policy. Maybe if I were more hawkish I would rationalize the other way though -- we could have started bombing OPEC members for example, until they agreed to lower their oil prices.
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel free to substitute neo-imperialism for imperialism if that makes you feel better. Quibbling over semantics is boring, so I won't stand on the word.
Conceptually the US holds most of the world's nations in thrall. US law supercedes the laws of Guam and the US Virgin Islands even though those nations have no vote in the US. US law reaches into most of the world's countries -- from countries that would fail without being propped up by US military support, to indictment of foreign citizens who have no business interactions with the US over violations of US law, to coercion through fear and threats of force to stances on foreign policy, the US interferes with other countries sovereignty. In the sense that empires remove from their occupied countries the right to self determination, there are very few countries in the world that aren't subjugated to US neo-imperialism.
If I call that imperialism, rather than neo-imperialism, then it is only because the latter is more difficult to write.
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
And then there's
I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member - Groucho Marx
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
You guys must be kidding! Insightful? The guy thinks Dubya is up there doing "leadership"?
No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right? And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right? And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right? And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right? And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right? And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right? And, and...
Dude, pass me the fucking pipe!
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think so. Sure, it may only be a side effect, but I think it will happen, and I think that it is actually in the West's long-term strategic interest to do so. The whole Middle East is full of disenfranchised people held in line by a combination of propaganda blaming infidels (the carrot) and secret police (the stick). It's a powder keg waiting to go off. A truly democratic regime in the region will bleed off a lot of the pressure.
And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right?
I got news for you: jacking up the price of oil is the economic equivalent of sending the Navy to blockade a port. Both are forms of economic warfare, and both are a threat.
And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right?
So, let's see what you're saying here, Dubya is bad because he's ignoring the economy, and Dubya is bad because he's trying to see off a far worse economic threat. Which is it to be? Or have you made up your mind that anything he does is wrong by definition?
Personally, I'd rather see the money spent on a way to make the West independent of the Middle East for energy (like fusion research), but even you cannot deny that defense spending creates jobs. That's a historical fact.
And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right?
I read in the Washington Post that the top 5% of earners pay 41% of the total Federal tax collected annually. That's an awful lot. I think those folks have been carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden for a long time. BTW, those on $30k/year or less effectively pay no Federal tax at all.
And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right? And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right?
Yeah, I agree with you here. The moral of the story: if you want to be critical of someone, and be taken seriously yourself, criticise them for what they actually have done, don't go off on an unsubstantiated rant about irrelevant issues.
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Funny)
Should I assume you're saying this because Clinton got a blowjob while Dubya has to ask Bush Sr. for permission first?
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Informative)
The top 25% paid 84% in 2000.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
Real fair. Nothing like punishing the successful.
Leave it to the left wingers to come up with asinine plans like "tax credits" to people who don't even pay taxes.
Re:Flat tax? (Score:4, Insightful)
Complaining that a flat tax affects you more adversely than somebody else is as misguided as complaining that you were always called last in school because everything was done alphabetically and your name happens to begin with a Z. It's a fair system, but some people get better breaks than others. Equality of effects is impossible. You see what has happened in the U.S. with an attempt to create a perfect tax code. Endless opportunities to exploit loopholes. Nobody can understand it. Get 100 CPAs to do your taxes, and you'll get 100 different sets of results. No joke, this is true. It's far better to aim for a simple, easily understandable, reasonably fair system like a low flat tax.
There's no sense in getting upset that somebody's got it better than you. If you are not satisfied with what you have now, you will never be satisfied. If you desire to be rich, rich will never be quite rich enough. Don't believe me? Ask a rich person who always wanted to be rich, and you will find a miserable person (assuming they could be intimate and honest with you). Also, look at the people who are always lobbying for equality of effects. 140 years after emancipation, the "civil rights" industry is bigger than it's ever been. The more civil rights they attain, the more civil rights they demand. Jesse Jackson and his ilk are never satisfied. That is the destructive nature of envy. It will destroy your happiness, and you will never be satisfied. Don't be angry that the world isn't fair. Sure, we should fight obvious injustices and wrongful discrimination, but we shouldn't try to micromanage every aspect of life.
Re:Flat tax? (Score:4, Interesting)
A flat tax with no exemptions or deductions would ensure that the rich paid their share. And in your example, the poor guy paid $30 for the same government services the rich guy paid $300 for. Somehow, I doubt he used as much governmental resources as 10 poor people. And don't forget that due to exemptions and deductions he got $285 of that $300 back in a refund. At least with a flat tax both people get to keep the same portion of THEIR OWN money. The rich might keep more, but that's hardly unfair since they make more in the first place. Perhaps you'd rather they were taxed $930 out of that $1000 so both people ended up with $70? What's the incentive for improvement then?
Anything but a flat tax with no exemptions/deductions either favors or is unfair to the rich. Graduated tax with deductions/exemptions is a smokescreen so the truly rich can avoid paying taxes while he tells the poor he pays more than they do.
By the way, I'm not rich.
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
How could you know that? Big Brother should keep his nose out of our spending habits anyway.
Not really a valid statement - the IRS looks at our spending habits, quite rightly.
Still, grandparent's point is correct... If you give a tax cut to people who are strapped for cash, they'll spend that tax cut - it will go back into the economy. If you give a tax cut to people who are not strapped for cash, they'll spend part of it, and put the rest in savings - taking it out of the economy. This helps no one except that one person.
This is the flaw in trickle-down economics - %100 of the cash does not "trickle-down" to the lower levels... instead, each level takes a cut, putting some of what they receive into savings, and when you get to the bottom, there's none left.
"If instead of giving $20,000 to one wealthy person, you gave $5,000 to 4 middle class people, you'll get more spending."
It doesn't work that way. The government doesn't have any money to give. It has no wealth and generates no wealth. "Giving $20,000 to a wealthy person" is actually "refraining from confiscating $20,000 that a wealthy person has earned."
This is semantics and doesn't actually reply to grandparent's point.
Beyond that point on diction, you've overlooked a key fact. Let me ask you a couple questions. Would you say that most employers are rich or poor? Have you ever been hired by a poor man? Perhaps, but it was probably for a low-paying, undesirable job. Obviously, employment makes people richer than they would be otherwise. If employers have more money (through tax breaks or otherwise), they are able to pay more and better salaries. Smart employers would use that extra money to invest in their business, which usually entails a need for more employees, rather than splurging it on themselves. It's simply smart investment strategy. Higher salaries attract a higher caliber of applicants, and in turn, generally causes more growth for the business. Not all rich people directly hire people, but they invest their money in other businesses. More growth in business leads to more employment opportunities. As technology improves, machines take over low-paying jobs. This produces more efficiency, more wealth, and more sophisticated ways of doing things, which produces more high-paying jobs for people.
Yes, to a degree - smart employers (in fact all employers, smart or dumb) only spend part of their income investing back in their business... they also save part of it for their retirements, personal wealth, etc. Less than %100 of their income returns to the economy.
Most importantly, it is immoral for the government to tax people more than it absolutely has to. In discussing tax cuts, the government always asks, "Can we afford tax cuts?", but when discussing tax increases, they never stop to consider that the taxpayers are thinking, "Can we afford tax increases?" The taxpayers are forced to make sacrifices, but the government never considers doing without anything. It doesn't realize that it will stop getting golden eggs if it kills the golden goose to retrieve all the eggs inside at once.
That's a good point. Let's see who have proposed more spending... Hey, in every session of congress, it's the Republicans who are for increased spending! I completely agree with you, we should vote them out of office.
Seriously, though, this is the biggest spin that the Republicans have made - that Democrats are for 'big government' and Repubs are for 'fiscal responsibility'. In the last 50 years, Republicans have all been for increased spending at the expense of the federal deficit, and Democrats have all been for decreased spending and balanced budgets. Clinton did balance the budget and pay down the deficit by a sizable margin... Bush Jr. immediately unbalanced the budget and pushed the deficit back up - pre 9-11, too.
It is none of the government's business how anybody spends their own money. It should let all of us, rich and poor, keep as much of our money as possible and not be concerned with what we do with it.
Yes... except that it is the government's business how much money you earn vs. how much you spend... hence the IRS and taxes. They aren't looking at which pr0n magazines you're buying, though. Don't turn this discussion into FUD.
-T
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:3, Funny)
Jobs for Prez, and Woz for Veep?
Dudes, one civil war was enough, thank you :)
Re:Wrong Steve (Score:4, Funny)
I wanna see the Iraq war press conference where he runs around the stage dancing and shouting:
"Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans! Americans!"
well. . . (Score:5, Funny)
well, the mac community is probably larger than the perot community.
Re:well. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
If Jobs got to be the president of the USA, that would not be the first time that Perot got burned by Jobs. Perot was one of the largest investors in a little venture which was at one time known as NeXT. [jlc.net]
Re:before y'all laugh too much (Score:3, Insightful)
About voter turnout.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Turnout for primaries and local elections can fall *really* low.
I'm describing this because election theory is a personal interest, and because election stats are often misused to try to prove political arguments. The VAP problem shows how little the press knows what they're talking about. But I suppose Election 2000 cleared up the press's competence clearly enough. (Have you heard of VNS? Another wellspring of disaster. Groan.)
ANYWAY, the relevant point is that there's no obvious reason to assume that Mac users vary from the population at large. Many are too young or have other disabilities preventing voting. Some don't show up to vote. Also, I have no idea what Apple's 5% of computer sales translates into as a percentage of individuals. Nor are we users complete slaves: only some of us would vote for Jobs. It's thus a very long shot that Mac users would come anywhere near the 19% of turnout that went for Perot. Perhaps, joined by enough others, they could form the nucleus of a significant bloc. (I wonder what kind of candidate Jobs would make? I'm sure it would be interesting, but I'd rather he stay with Apple.)
website (Score:2, Funny)
Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Here's What He'll Say In The Interview (Score:5, Funny)
Barbara Walters: So, Mr. Jobs, why do you want to be President?
Steve Jobs: I don't want to sell sugared computers for the rest of my life. I want to change the world!
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but the internet browser was invented on one of his machines (NeXT workstation)
Sounds like a great idea... (Score:5, Funny)
By God, he might be the best president yet!
Re:Sounds like a great idea... (Score:3, Funny)
And in related news (Score:5, Funny)
Rumors that Bill Gates will be a Cheyney style puppetmas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H vice-president have not been confirmed.
Harmony? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is obviously one who doesn't compromise/deal well with others.
Re:Harmony? (Score:5, Funny)
Well we've got the exact opposite of a genius now. (Score:4, Funny)
Handwriting Recognition (Score:5, Funny)
<DUCKS>
(I know, I used to own one and the recoginition is better than that)
ObNewtonJoke (Score:5, Funny)
A: Faux. There to eat lemons, axe gravy soup.
Sorry...just couldn't resist.
The Flag (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Flag (Score:4, Funny)
Teacher: "Who can tell me what colors make up our country's flag? Jimmy?"
Jimmy: "Oooh! Oooh! Red, white, and blue!"
Teacher: "I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Becky?"
Becky: "Tangerine, Snow, and Key Lime!"
Teacher: "Correct!"
First Presidential Order (Score:5, Funny)
"I hereby declare that The White House will no longer be boring "beige", it shall be painted "Lickable Blueberry".
The Apple hoardes debate among themselves whether the country is now just "insanely" better, or "miraculously" better.
Oh, blueberry is so four years ago! (Score:5, Funny)
The capitol dome will be redone in anodized aluminum. It will also have firewire.
http://www.jobsforpresident.org/ (Score:5, Funny)
<rimshot
Re:http://www.jobsforpresident.org/ (Score:3, Funny)
That site had a TOTALLY different meaning during the last president's term. I don't care who we vote for as president, so long as we get Monica as vice president.
Wow! Great idea! (Score:2, Funny)
Best wishes,
Mike.
The state of the nation... (Score:5, Funny)
iHouse (Score:5, Funny)
Carrying handles would be useful though. Threat of Al-Qaeda? Just move Washington to the praries, they'll never find them there!
-Mark
Why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
Slogans: (Score:5, Funny)
Jobs for everyone.
iAmerica.
Lets all take acid.
What would he wear? (Score:2, Funny)
When you vote for Steve, you vote for Jobs.
Steve Jobs, the iPresident!
Re:What would he wear? (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't he a deadbeat dad? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad? (Score:5, Informative)
It'd build interest in the military! (Score:5, Funny)
Just gotta wonder how well those translucent plastic helmets will protect the heads of our soldiers....
flags (Score:2)
This is illegal... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve cannot be both God and President without violating some part of the constitution.
Of course, given recent events, that 'problem' can probably be remiedied.
Two years into the presidency (Score:5, Funny)
Oh that's just what we need... (Score:5, Funny)
*hoping that comment's poke at the iMac isn't too obscure.*
slashdotted already (Score:5, Informative)
Draft Committee to the 'Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States
We all want a world that is prosperous and sustainable. We have the technology and resources to create such a world. What is lacking are leaders with vision and will. I encourage you to be such a leader and welcome your participation in our campaign.
It is time that we base our decision-making on the time tested native American idea that all decisions should be made with our seventh generation of descendants in mind and in consultation with our elders. It is time to acknowledge that the earth is our mother and that we must take care of her. It is time to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from the earth. It is time to insure that all people have access to affordable health care and education.
It is time for American leaders to work with the Moslem world, China, India, Africa, Russia, Latin America, the European Union and all people's around the world to create the world we want. It is our destiny to play a leadership role in creating a new world.
We believe Steve Jobs is the man to help us achieve these goals. If you agree, join us, and together we can get it done!
A Biography of Steve Jobs
Editorials: 01/19/03 at 17:59:27 PST by aztc
Editorials Steve Paul Jobs
Born 1955 Los Altos CA; Evangelic bad boy who, with Steve Wozniak, co-founded Apple Computer Corporation and became a multimillionaire before the age of
Printerfriendly version - A Biography of Steve Jobs Send an e-mail to (26 reads) [ More ] [ 0 comments ]
Newsletters are archived under News
News: 01/18/03 at 18:24:03 PST by Admin
News Newsletters can only be sent by the top level admin. Please submit your plain text newsletter to webmaster@jobsforpresident.org
iTroops (Score:2)
Sporty new uniforms for our troops in Iraq, featuring graphite colored translucent plastics, and army jackets [apple.com] that all include a special pocket for an iPod, with buttons on the sleeves for when convenient control of your music is a matter of life and death!
I sense a spoof coming on.
Insanely Great? (Score:2)
would consider Jobs presidential material.
IMHO... the dude's a prick.
Foreign policy (Score:5, Funny)
The iRaqis would find themselves embraced by the developed world!
Technology President (Score:2)
Apple is avoiding DRM because they know that's what their customers want. As president, he'd know that's what the voters want
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
One thing's for sure. (Score:2)
The jobsforpresident website's so secure I don't even have access to read
(Is this the first time a presidential candidate has been slashdotted?)
now there's an inauguration I would watch (Score:2)
Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) he's someone who made something of himself, and wasn't just from a wealthy, powerful family
b) he's someone that has Vision and can seek it out (even if we might not agree with his Vision, he's definitely got it!)
c) he's arguably of above-average intelligence... try and say THAT of any of the other candidates!
If Nader wasn't running, I'd vote for Jobs just because I know that if Jobs won, he would make a decent go of it and maybe even get something real done.
Jobs over Nader (Score:5, Insightful)
Leadership requires the right mix of idealism and pragmatism, and Nader badly fails that test. If he actually WON the presidency, he'd be disasterous at it. And since even he knows that he isn't going to win, running mainly makes him just the Perot-of-the-left, working as a spoiler to get Bush reelected.
Please DELETE This Topic (Score:4, Funny)
Just because... (Score:2)
Great... (Score:2, Flamebait)
CowboyNeal for president. (Score:5, Interesting)
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36, 1984
Kent: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?
...
Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!
Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from senator Bob Dole.
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud] - The Simpsons, 4F02
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Debs
Bugger that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bugger that (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please. Bush was raised by monkeys... I can't see them rejecting a Finn.
The problem in living in the post-ironic era... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, say what you will about Jobs, but he certainly got a LOT more done in his 20's and 30's than our current President, and by all accounts wasn't that much more of a jerk.
And Jobs's rescue of Apple certainly shows that he has an extraordinary ability to balance short and long term needs. Given what they've had to work with, technically, from Motorola for the last few years, can you believe that Apple is not only extant, but profitable?
Anyway, I'd probably vote for him over a fair number of other politicians. While we know a lot of his youthful indiscretions, I think that's just because he's been famous for so long. I imagine our previous two presidents were just as wild in their youth. The real question is how good a job who he is now could do, and I'd say the evidence is promising, or at least intriguing.
For all the "Jobs is a visionary" rhetoric, running a company on a knifes-edge like Apple has been for the last half decade implies a good ability to roll with the punches, and be flexible when appropriate.
Reagan Without a Cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Later after watching "back to the future" there is a scene where marty tries to prove he's fromt he future. The professor asks "okay future boy, whos president." MArty answeres "ronald reagan" thus assuring the professor he's a lunatic: "Oh and who's the treasury secratary 'jack benny?'.
Later in the same movie, the professor is amazed by the video camera "a portable movie production studio....Great scott! no wonder your politicians have to be actors!". A banal observation unless you think of in the context of it dawning on a person from the 1950's.
So will we all be thinkng "great scott, no wonder all your presidents have to be CEO's of consumer products" when a visitor from the future comes back and tells us about president Jobs?
Just what we need.... (Score:3, Informative)
He would probably tell other countries that they would have to wait until the next Presidential Expo to get all of his foreign policy regulations, and not disclose to the public any information until said expos. Bah!
I'd vote him if he would be willing to... (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, why not... (Score:4, Funny)
Jaysyn
nut with a website == groundswell? (Score:5, Insightful)
John Cusak [cusackforpresident.com]
Pete Rose" [peteforpresident.com]
They Might Be Giants [dementia.org]
Cthulu [cthulhu.org]
And that's who I found in just a few minutes search.
Campaign slogans.... (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Jobs. Vote Different.
Steve wouldn't want the job unless... (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you that don't know, when Apple got round to issuing employee numbers, Steve Jobs was pretty peeved that he couldn't be employee number 1 as Steve Wozniak had already nabbed that priviledge for himself. Unable to convince Wozniak to change, Jobs took employee number 0 rather than be stuck behind Wozniak with the employee number 2 tag.
If Steve Jobs becomes president... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple users continue to amaze me. (Score:3, Insightful)
no no no you heard it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Plutocracy has one advantage (Score:4, Insightful)
What I mean is.. Suppose Bill Gates really did buy an election. Would he need to pay anyone back for the campaign expense? Or would he be free to act on his own will?
He could theoretically run on issues and voters could predict his behavior by what he says, rather than who is funding him.
Re:Plutocracy has one advantage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Plutocracy has one advantage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know (Score:4, Interesting)
Weren't you around when monopoly was downgraded from 'Near complete control of a market' to 'Makes a product that isn't free'?
Re:I don't know (Score:3, Informative)
odd then that Macs contain
1) processors made by IBM or Motorola (which you could probably source if you knew where to look.)
2) standard 184 or 168 (or 144) pin DDR/SDR/SO- dimms containing the ram
3) standard ATA harddisks
etc.
There's plenty of third party parts for apple machines.
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Informative)
Monopolies are NOT illegal.
Abusing the power that a monopoly position gives you IS illegal.
Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly, Apple didn't.
Got it now?
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
The platform, however, is beautifully open. IBM makes a PowerPC proccessor call the Power4, and (today) has revealed a reference model PDA based on the PowerPC architecture.
Apple is extremely strict with their trademark rights, but they rarely overstep the intent, let alone the letter, of the law.
Jobs has my vote just for his insight that DRM will fail, and his strong resolution to never integrate it into MacOS.
Re:Elect Linus Torvalds as president! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:$1 a year salary (Score:3, Funny)
PS: profit
Re:i'd vote bill gates (Score:5, Funny)
i figure within the first year of his presidency, we'll see a lowball purchase of canada, and a strategic partnership with mexico which will allow us to rob them of all their intellectual property (tacos). then onward through our nato pals through europe and the buyout of japan's assets when their economy finally collapses.
fear for those who oppose us, for we will bomb them with american culture and actual bombs until they are morally and financially bankrupt (not to mention dead). meanwhile we will be enjoying a time of economic prosperity and healthy stock options, as the rest of the world will be locked into america.net
i'm voting gates in 2004.
onward to victory!
Re:Joke? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re 1: Actually, this shows an ability to say "I was wrong" and closing the chapter. And the Lisa wasn't entirely landfilled, as it came back as the deluxe "big brother" to the Macintosh (Macintosh XL, IIRC).
Re 2: You make is sound as if the Lisa was the reason Jobs left Apple, instead of the failed coup against John Sculley. That incident has left him with a lot of experience. As for NeXT, it let him develop the technologies that would let him "reconquor" Apple. His more recent history shows that he does learn from mistakes, despite what people say.
Re 3: This is different from the current administration how? Fleischer, Rove, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are all great lovers of secret dealings. I think a President Jobs would deliver his State of the Union address in a black mock turtleneck with "Just one more thing"...
Re 4: No matter what you call it, it's effective marketing, and no different than what goes on in Washington almost every day. That, and your example is easily rebutted: how fast was the connection? How many bottlenects did you experience? Did you test loading loacal files to check the rendering engine speeds? You get my drift.
Still, I don't think Jobs is right for the job--at least not yet. I don't subscribe to the PHB philosophy that a good manager can manage everything. Managing a public office is a lot different from managing a company. If Steve really were interested, he'd run for a governor's post first.
Re:Don't discount this type of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm not an American, but...
Bush's election was, seen from here, curious. It was 'won' in a state where the election officials were appointed by his own brother, and some very odd decisions were made about eligible voters and how votes should be counted. It doesn't, to an ignorant foreigner, look like a proper democratic procedure.
The Enron business was, to put it mildly, also interesting. From a foreign perspective, the fact that Bush was obiously quite close to the Enron people is troubling, particularly seeing how much the former senior people of Enrond have been allowed to get away with.
The relationship between Iraq's oil fields and the business interests of the Bush family also looks a bit odd.
You may say you had more corrupt governments in the 19th Century. I can't say, because I'm not that familiar with US history. But a situation in which a family can put a member into power by other members manipulating the electoral process, and then lead the whole nation into a war in order to bolster that family's commercial interests while simultaneously allowing friends and supporters to get away with the largest single theft in human history, seems to this foreigner to be corruption on a truly epic scale.