Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Oct 2011 00:02 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 492200
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links




Member since:
2008-09-11
I'll choose the latter. As far as the good or bad outweighing the other... I think the bad far outweighs the good. Most of the good he did was for himself and Apple shareholders; most of the bad he did was for the world of computing and software.
True enough. Maybe in contrast with mr. Gates which did many good things after he has resigned from MS. But still, many if not most very rich people and billionaires do what common people consider "bad things" as they roam the jungle of capitalism and try to become richer. And being "bad" and eventually greedy doesn't mean that a person deserves to die.
My prediction... in 30 years the puzzle pieces for the cure to cancer will be held by 7 different companies as greedy as Steve and Apple. They won't be able to come to an agreement and put their pieces together to save a single life.
If there will be a cure for cancer, I bet that the "Apples" of pharmaceutical and bioengineering companies will patent some ideas and sue the competition for patent infringement.