Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Permalink for comment 493774
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-01-13
I'm talking about influence not fame. They aren't the same.
Brunel, like James Watt, is well known in Britain but no longer influential.
The Rockefeller trust is one of the most influential NGOs in the world. It has a major influence on Western government policies - particularly the environment. The Carnegie Trust still has a major influence in Scottish education. Whether the average person has ever heard of either man is not important.
Alfred Nobel only became a benefactor because his obituary was published by mistake in a Paris newspaper. When he discovered he was considered one of the most evil men in the world (because his explosives were used for warfare) he decided to promote peace.
Jobs will have no influence at all beyond the next Apple product cycle. The Gates Foundation will probably still be highly influential in another 100 years time.