Bill Gates is more powerful than Steve Jobs. Osama bin Laden still has a bit more clout than Julian Assange. And Larry Ellison doesn't matter at all. "There are 6.8 billion people on the planet. Here are the 68 who matter," is how Forbes introduces its latest exercise in list-making fun and games: "The World's Most Powerful …
Yeah, yeah, but which one is the hottest
Also, are they goers? Do they go a bit? Nudge, nudge, wink wink, he said knowingly.
Im afraid we dont own a camera,
Oh, candid? I bet she does, I bet she does...
FOR MOST PEOPLE .. the feeling is the same
FOR MOST OF THE 6.8 billion people,
FORBES DON'T MATTER A BIT
... or creatively insane?
No title required
Lady Gaga and Beyonce aren't even on that list and they always features high on them for being such an influence (Lady Gaga especially).
I wouldn't pay too much attention to this guy's idea of who's the most powerful in the world.
Powerful not influential.
I would hardly call a couple of pop tarts powerful and that's why they aren't on the list.
But you do have a point at not taking things like this seriously.
This is more about Forbes' overblown sense of self importance than reality.
I agree that pop princesses _shouldn't_ have any power, but they do have some, and I would have thought that they had far more real power than an eejit like Mark Zuckerberg, who clearly hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.
Beyonce is No. 2 and Lady Gaga No. 4 on the world's most influential celebrity list.
Paris because she isn't on it at all.
So what will win
Gates v Jobs anger?
Lack of anyone to do with Linux anger?
Anger at the Pope?
Or just jokes about the loverly Miss Hilton being missed out?
This isn't meant to be inflammatory, but how much is Jobs involved in Apple's creative process nowadays?
I'd always assumed he long ago gave up with that side of things and was more like Sugar, in that he hires good people to do the thinking for him.
That's not a dig at either person; I'm aware that Sugar was never the brains behind anything Amstrad did.
Of course Bill Gates hasn't been CEO of Microsoft for more than a decade, I guess his "power" comes from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Alan Sugar: I remember when he posted on DigitalSpy for a while, years ago when it was still more techie than these days now it's all Celeb and Soap and shite, he attacked anyone who said Amstrad kit was rubbish ... he was hilarious.
Alan Sugar? Amstrad?
Even if Jobs were just a ruthless capitalist who walked in and started running things at the top of Apple, the analogy still wouldn't hold. Apple have become an increasingly visionary tech company during his term.
Must ... brew ... more ... coffee ... The cobwebs are tightening.
Jobs vs Gates
I'm not I agreement with Forbes. I look at it a different way. If any of said people died and a generic replacement came in, how much of a difference would it make? If billg were to pass to the great Registry in the sky, would the decisions Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation be much different?
I suspect that Steve Jobs' departure would have a much more profound effect on the production of new toys that make us all feel so good. I also suspect that Apple wouldn't have 50bn in cash for too much longer either.
I also wonder about Obama. If he is so powerful, why has he done so little? Because the houses of congress have blocked his plans? Because he has no cash to play with? Because he's a lazy fecker? If any of these is true, I can't see why he's at position no. 2.
And the pope? What power does he really have? If he issued some papal bull stating that iPads make the baby Jesus cry, would there be a marked decline in the sales of iPads? If he said that abortion is really OK and not that bad, would their be many more abortions in the world? I doubt it.
The most powerful person in the world is someone we have never heard of, who probably uses Forbes for bathroom tissue.
Now where's my White Persian, I feel an urge to stroke it, Mr. Bond.
Jobs (for regular folk) are more important than Jobs, Gates or even Larry.
Obama probably on the list for potential military power, rather than political or economic. He could, by himself, order anything short of a nuclear strike, anywhere in the world. (I believe nukes require (at least) a second man to agree before launch codes are given, except in response to an attack.)
As for the Pope, I think he should probably be a bit lower on that list. (How many divisions has the Pope?)
Would a few frothing fanaticals count? I'm sure they're out there...
Come on, Reg, where's your dignity?
You get pretty close to gutter journalism sometimes and generally I can dismiss your errant ways as a bit of childish fun, but promulgating verbatim what Forbes declares to be important is beyond the pale. Get a grip of yourselves, for crying out loud, or I'll take my business back to Facebook.