7 Mar
2001
7 Mar
'01
11:07 a.m.
At this point, I respectfully request your defination of "stupid" and
"smart".
Bill Gates isn't stupid. If he is, he's riding the stupid train straight to
the bank - the head of one of the top technologies companies in the world,
let alone being one of the richest men in the world. I don't think stupidity
got him there, even if he isn't 37337.
Were the people who wrote smtp stupid, or delivering stupidity to the
masses? All I need to mention is Robert Morris here. And there are tons of
other holes in all other computer systems, some more blatent than others.
Just FYI, my rent and food is paid by supporting technology. Be that
Microsoft products (which I do support), or others like Linux and FreeBSD
(which I also do support). Just as an example of how indifferent I am to the
whole MS vs. the world thing, if you to know my opinion what a perfect world
would be, it would be one dominated by VMS. And I am serious. (the VMS of
the DEC era before Compaq "aquired" them).
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would be someone else, and we'd be bashing on
them right now.
Just because you're not at university does not mean that you are stupid.
those
Under this argument, we should also blame the
likes of IBM, or
Commodore, Apple and Atari for bringing computing to the masses?
No, because the masses aren't necessarily stupid. I would argue that machines were more about bringing the masses cheaper
machines, so that
more
smart people would be able to learn about computing.
And how does one get "smart", unless one has readily available technology?
Remember, those people you call "smart" were once those same people you
callously label "stupid", but they had to start somewhere.