Slashdot Mirror

It's a great foundation, and I think they're terrific. However, while Bill Gates is a big shareholder of Microsoft, and he is the owner of the Foundation, they don't appear to be related at all. That is, Microsoft's will is not expressed via the Foundation, which is a good thing. They're more concerned with at-risk children, and the welfare of the planet, which doesn't necessary align with Microsoft's business plan.

But, I went to the link, and it doesn't mention anything about training U.S. programmers to help the crisis. In fact, if you look here at this link, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/ you'll see the only thing they're trying to do is make sure U.S. students graduate from high school:

    "Significantly increasing the number of students who graduate from high school with the skills needed to succeed in college and work"

Which I find is terrific. I love that Bill and Melinda have really stepped up and helped.

However, I'm asking what Microsoft (not Bill Gates) is doing to help the situation. I would be interesting to see if they're spending more on H1-B lobbying, or actually spending money in the areas that I mentioned (or indeed any sort of Computer Science/Programmer training and encouragement). Do you know where we might find out how much is spent in those areas?

Um.. you do know he gave almost all his money to charity, right?

I guess you haven't heard of the The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Or maybe it's just popular to rip on the guy. Oh don't get me wrong; I'm sure he still has a nice house.

The problem with your little scenario is that there is no legal structure to the Bill Gates "Foundation". Zippo. None. Da nada. Please tell me, I'm interested. I notice that you don't refute this point.

The point is so ridiculous that I didn't think it would require refutation. "The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is committed to providing clear, timely information on our finances and grantmaking efforts. Our annual reports from 1998 to present ... are available at the links below."

If everything is above board, then I really will call Gates a good man.

You've got the links. The ball is in your court. But anyhow, I didn't ask anyone to call Gates a good man. Please just praise the good things he does and criticize the bad, as opposed to demonizing him unthinkingly. It's the basic consideration that we owe every human being.

Like these? financial statement

Reading the Gates Foundation website, it would appear that all is hunky-dory. Lots of feel-good stories about funding various feel-good projects. It does read as if the Gates have turned over a new leaf. Yet their guiding principles leave a lot to be desired. For example, "philanthropy" is only part of their aim, and they report only those parts of their operation that *are philanthopic. Could it be that reporting "oh we invest in " would tarnish their fledgling's reputation? If the two aims did not conflict, why not report their operations in toto? Why not adopt a legal framework for their operations which would go some way to clarifying their operations? What have they got to hide? Even ENRON gave a better account of their operations than this. So now, when I read articles like this, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It smacks of being under-hand. Bill Gates - and I believe it is he who sets the tenor of the foundation - is, in my eyes, trying to have his cake and eat it. That's the crux of the problem.

FWIW. I don't particularly mind investment in big multinationals - my morals aren't that high-minded and occasionally they do good - but don't multinationals receive enough Gubmint aid already? The long list includes Aribus, British Aerospace, ELF, Boeing etc etc etc etc. Each sit at the tax-trough day-in-day-out. The only reason for the Gates Foundation to invest in these big companies *is* profit. Now their "guiding principles" don't preclude this but, really, they - and no one else - shouldn't be surprised if others look askance at the grand total of their operations. Currently, it looks like to me that the Foundation is their to make the Gates and Buffet look good. Nothing more.

I highly doubt that this company would fail if not for the Gates Foundation investment, if they have a solid business model then they will have investors and they will make money, so one could say that the plant is going to be there anyways so it is good that a portion of the proceeds are going to helping the locals.

The Gates Foundation is not an environmental group, I fail to see why they should concern themselves with something that is not in their "Guiding Principals" found here: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/OurValues/G uidingPrinciples.htm

One reason many libraries favor IE is that they get a lot of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

Try these guys http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

Read the Gates Foundation page on what they're doing about sub Sahara African malaria and then read Plague Time by Paul Ewald describing precisely why none of the approaches used by the Gates Foundation can be really effective against a sexually reproducing, horizontally transmitted pathogen like malaria -- and describing the approach that actually works -- which of course the Gates Foundation can't pursue because none of the grant writers are serious about really stopping the scourge of malaria.

The tricky part is reading between the lines...

From TFA:

[Gates on "powerful ideas"]

If I knew medicine like I do computers, I would like to be able to control the [human] immune system, to fight against the onset of disease on a world level ... but I think the idea of the PC still would have topped that.

Translation: "Y'all better be glad I'm just screwing up your PC."

[Gates on how Live.com competes with Google]

Competition between our two companies will be good for the whole industry.

...until we leverage all the content out of Google with IP lawsuits.

[Gates on recent struggles with the EU]

We have worked out our differences. If they wanted us to leave out some of our components for some reason, we could have delivered a European version of Vista for them. But it turned out that wasn't necessary.

Interesting that there's no specific mention of what was modified to make the European Edition "unnecessary". It's obvious that Vista is still packing Windows Media Player (component in question) Is this IE/Netscape all over again)?

[Gates on the next 10 years]

We're on to another wave of innovation; we just need to make sure the United States continues to stay right up there in relation to the rest of the world.

This is after quoting all the "amazing stuff" that's coming with the Xbox360, Zune and voice recognition. Yes, World, be like the good ol' U.S. of A-holes! Cave-in to an oppression of content not seen since the book burnings of 1938 Germany!

[Gates on the delays of Vista]

Yes, it's later than we planned. But we want it to be right. It reminds me of when we released Windows 95 late that year, taking much longer than we planned.

...and we all know how "right" Windoze95 turned out to be. (...but it's got a killer version of MS-DOS!)

[Gates on the exposure of medical research furthered by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]

I get a little upset with the media, which will cover a plane crash in India that killed 100 people, but it won't cover the fact that 1,000 times that many died in Africa today from malnutrition or disease.

Of course! That's why Billy has a problem with the media. ...or is it another reason?

If Gates did turn out to be a doctor, I'm sure he'd be a plastic surgeon. If he can't make you well, he can at least make you look good.

Actually, Bill Gates' money is probably being spent very efficiently. There are a number of diseases that are prevelant, cause a lot of long term harm, and relatively low cost to treat. For example, malaria not only kills more than a million people a year, but it infects up to half a billion people a year. Some malaria infections are chronic and may linger for years or even decades. Tuberculosis is another disease that can debilitate rather than kill cleanly. And it is still pretty curable despite the advent of drug resistant strains.

Clean up your books, give all your extra personal cash to Bill Gates, and the government will forgive you for a generous bribe... uh, donatation... to the Republician National Committee.

'Careful, Gates calls people with ideas like yours "Terrorists."'

That's as absurdly over the top as calling linux a "cancer." Has Microsoft ever labeled anyone a terrorist? Realize that the Gates's foundation (started in 2000) has helped the world more than any linux user. You sound ridiculous.

What a good idea.

Seriously though, as someone noted not too long ago, with his rather large charitable donations, doesn't it sort of seem like Gates has managed to turn into some kind post-modern Robin Hood?

-Ted

It could help the parent of said child know that the child has measles and get them to the hospital.

This is not the US we are talking about here. Recognition of disease is not the problem. People can't just hop into the family car and drive the kid to the hospital. Poor people who make up the majority of South Asia have no cars and few hospitals. Medical care is extremely limited. Having laptops doesn't solve people's basic needs. Vaccination and antibiotics do help and are much needed. This is the problem.

Bill Gates for all his evil has realized this and made it the focus of the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation's support for public health initiatives in poor countries now rivals the aid provided by countries such as the US.

There are other foundations such as the Measels Initiative, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization working on global public health problems as well.

Just for the record, ever since Bill Gates quit his day job at Microsoft he has been running one of the largest privately funded health and education initiatives to allieviate misery worldwide. His project has been so successful that he has been able to convince Warren Buffet to donate the bulk of his wealth to the fund, too. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

To Bob the issues surrounding Net Neutrality come down to billability and infrastructure. While saying they are doing us favors, ISPs are really offering us services they can bill for. Nothing is aimed at helping us, while everything is aimed at creating a billable event.

Take WiFi hotspots, for example. Why should the telephone or cable company care about who connects to my WiFi access point? They are my bits, not the ISP's. I paid for them. If I can download gigabytes of pornography why can't I share my hotspot with someone walking down the street wanting to check his e-mail? Frankston's analogy for this is accusing someone of stealing your porch light by using it to read a street sign.

Well we did [build public infrastructure], didn't we, with the National Information Infrastructure program of the 1990s, which was intended to bring fiber straight to most American homes? About $200 billion in tax credits and incentives went primarily to telephone companies participating in the NII program. What happened with that? They took the money, that's what, and gave us little or nothing in return.

Using the higher $1,500 figure, the cost to finance the system over 10 years at today's prime rate would be $17.42 per month.

One billion dollars each in seed capital from Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and Google would be enough to set neighborhood network dominos falling in communities throughout America with no tax money ever required. And they'd get their money back, both directly and indirectly, many times over.

First off, there was no need to AC.

Second, just save yourself the future frustration. It sure sounds like you're already buying a Mac, and just don't know what color to get.

The sooner Microsoft flops, the sooner we can all forget how Bill Gates is so damn rich and realize how golly gosh darn NICE he is!

The choice of corrective treatment, rather than proactive, means that there will be an ongoing demand for the pills, which will then be bought from the same pharma.

Corrective treatment rather than proactive? Your inaccuracies are really pissing me off. Do you understand that we aren't talking here about Linux versus Windows but rather the survival of hundreds of millions of people? Do you feel any responsibility to tell the truth? Do you feel any responsibility to give credit where it is due? At this point, Bill Gates (evil genious that he is) is looking a lot better than you. To quote:

Every year, millions of children in the developing world die or become seriously ill because they do not receive immunizations that are standard in the developed world. In 2000, the foundation joined with a diverse group of public and private partners to create the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) to help ensure that all children have access to vaccines. The foundation has provided a total of $1.5 billion to GAVI since its inception, including a $750 million grant announced in January 2005. Also in 2005, GAVI generated unprecedented support from donor countries.

With the support of a $35 million foundation grant, the Seattle-based organization PATH is working with the government of Zambia and other partners to help cut malaria deaths in that country by 75 percent. The partnership--called MACEPA, for Malaria Control and Evaluation Partnership in Africa--will document the impact of a national malaria-control program that will provide widespread access to insecticide-treated bed nets, effective drug treatment, and other tools. MACEPA's findings will provide critical information for other malaria-affected countries and donors.

While providing greater access to current tools could significantly reduce malaria deaths, developing new tools is also an urgent priority. In October, we announced grants totaling $258.3 million to spur innovation in three critical areas of malaria prevention and treatment:

• Malaria vaccine: The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative is working with GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and African scientists to conduct advanced clinical trials of the RTS,S vaccine candidate, which has been shown to protect young children from severe malaria over an 18-month period.
• New drugs: The Medicines for Malaria Venture is developing a new generation of malaria treatments, an effort that has gained new urgency as drug resistance has rendered the cheapest and most widely used malaria drugs useless in many parts of Africa.
• Mosquito control: The Innovative Vector Control Consortium, based at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, is developing new methods for controlling malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, including longer-lasting bed nets and more effective, safer insecticides.

The choice of corrective treatment, rather than proactive, means that there will be an ongoing demand for the pills, which will then be bought from the same pharma.

Corrective treatment rather than proactive? Your inaccuracies are really pissing me off. Do you understand that we aren't talking here about Linux versus Windows but rather the survival of hundreds of millions of people? Do you feel any responsibility to tell the truth? Do you feel any responsibility to give credit where it is due? At this point, Bill Gates (evil genious that he is) is looking a lot better than you. To quote:

Every year, millions of children in the developing world die or become seriously ill because they do not receive immunizations that are standard in the developed world. In 2000, the foundation joined with a diverse group of public and private partners to create the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) to help ensure that all children have access to vaccines. The foundation has provided a total of $1.5 billion to GAVI since its inception, including a $750 million grant announced in January 2005. Also in 2005, GAVI generated unprecedented support from donor countries.

With the support of a $35 million foundation grant, the Seattle-based organization PATH is working with the government of Zambia and other partners to help cut malaria deaths in that country by 75 percent. The partnership--called MACEPA, for Malaria Control and Evaluation Partnership in Africa--will document the impact of a national malaria-control program that will provide widespread access to insecticide-treated bed nets, effective drug treatment, and other tools. MACEPA's findings will provide critical information for other malaria-affected countries and donors.

While providing greater access to current tools could significantly reduce malaria deaths, developing new tools is also an urgent priority. In October, we announced grants totaling $258.3 million to spur innovation in three critical areas of malaria prevention and treatment:

• Malaria vaccine: The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative is working with GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and African scientists to conduct advanced clinical trials of the RTS,S vaccine candidate, which has been shown to protect young children from severe malaria over an 18-month period.
• New drugs: The Medicines for Malaria Venture is developing a new generation of malaria treatments, an effort that has gained new urgency as drug resistance has rendered the cheapest and most widely used malaria drugs useless in many parts of Africa.
• Mosquito control: The Innovative Vector Control Consortium, based at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, is developing new methods for controlling malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, including longer-lasting bed nets and more effective, safer insecticides.

Of course, at this point, probably 80% is being spent on global health

which means that even if all their remaining budget was spent on US educational programs, it would only be a relatively small portion of their total annual spending.

As some of us may know there is a project named One-Laptop-Per-Child that wants to "evolutionize how we educate the world's children".
They chose Redhat OS for their system after offers from MS and Apple to prevent monopoly and restrictions they will imply, and to protect children to be dependent to one company even for a charity like job like this.
But transferring so much money to a monopoly established charity foundation like gate's does not sounds good.
They can simply offer too much charity to poor people of their own products and just make them dependent to some companies.
Offering that amount of money as charity is not simply a good thing to do. The way you will spend it shows the real value of it not the amount of it.

this is fucking awesome

Yeah, maybe. I have a lot of respect for Buffet, he always seems to have played it straight (though I am no expert on him). My main concern about giving such a huge proportion to the Gates Foundation is that it seems to have a rather skewed donation bias - it's most famous for global health (awesome) but it also gives massive amounts to very specific areas of Washington and Oregon ... a postcode "lottery" hardly seems like a fair use of resources and if a government had that money it'd be lampooned for such a weird selection of good causes.

Gates also has interesting ideas about education. It gives grants to scholars from "low income and minority backgrounds" and he believes high schools are obsolete. He feels that this is because low income/minority people don't get His scholarship fund gives me cause for concern for three reasons:

• It only gives grants to Americans. This is despite the fact that Gates and Buffet got their money from all over the world.

• It's run by the "United Negro College Fund", which doesn't sound particularly unbiased to me. It's a blatantly racist scheme, as their website makes clear:

  The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS), funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to provide outstanding African American, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian Pacific Islander Americans, and Hispanic American students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education, in all discipline areas and a graduate education for those students pursuing studies in mathematics, science, engineering, education, or library science.

  Sorry, but whatever the statistics say, I think anybody should be able to apply regardless of background. It's just pushing some PC agenda otherwise.

• Despite having a grant of over a billion dollars it only seems to have about 20 students ?!?

I applaud the work done on polio and global health as that is truly something that benefits all humanity and would be hard to achieve via other means. But while it's easy to be dazzled by the sheer numbers here I'm not at all sure that I trust the B&MG Foundation to spend their money in a way that would be selected by the masses.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). I believe I am only flinging doubt of Microsoft's intent as they market it. Just as I doubt a company like Exxon Mobile is really concerned about the quality of the environment. I am not sure how you would interpret my words as fearful. Do my words cause you fear and anxiety? I could only see this if you believed something that happens to be not true. For example you might believe Microsoft is there to protect you and do the right thing. When someone contradicts your belief then that thought might cause you anxiety and fear. There is nothing I can see that is uncertain in my statement unless you feel I am uncertain in what I am talking about. I respect that. That is your choice. I am not a self proclaimed expect. But I have been in this industry for 20+ years and have a little bit of experience. Everyone makes the best interpretation of events as they can unless you are an insider and have special knowlege. Notice I did not attack you for your opinion. And there are many things in this world I will never have evidence of but I still can make a valid asserting based on reason, logic, and past behavior. For example, I have no direct evidence that OJ is guilty. All I have is circumstantial evidence and testimony given to me mostly by the media.

I doubt, as others do, Microsoft's charity intentions just as I would any large corporation that gives a huge amount of their own product in the name of some kind charity cause and publicizes it. That is why charities get rated every year on how the money is spent by various third party entites that are interested in digging through the marketing and trying to reword the true contributors. Microsoft has never been a big contributor of cash. They prefer to contribute software because it is in their best interest to do so.

The drug companies do this all the time in Africa. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders. That is why the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is free to donate their funds as they see fit. Corporations are self-serving entities. Individuals humans can be compassionate. There is no executive duty to Microsoft's share holders for the Gate Foundation. Gates and his wife (along with various board members) can decide what causes they are interested in such as disease eradication research funding. Such R&D spending is not done by large drug companies because the consumer markets are not there to support blockbuster drug sales of malaria. We have eradicated malaria in most developed countries. But 3rd world counties' general populations have little money - hence little market potential. This is the ugly underbelly of capitalism. Gates would like to change the world by filling in such a gap. One of his goals is to help these underserved people of the world. He can do this via grants from the B&M Gates Foundation. Microsoft can not donate a billion dollars each year to something that isn't going to benefit their shareholders. They must account for ever dollar they give away and how it can help their bottom line. Sure, some money is given no strings attached but as a whole Microsoft has always looked at free software as a way to get them established on Microsoft software. It is good business - many companies do this. Gates is on record saying that if the US govt can't pressure the Chinese govt to stop copying Windows and Office then at least they are using Windows and Office. He hopes to one day get licensing fees from them. All I am saying is wake up and don't think corporation are there to serve the public's interest. They are not. It would be a breach of fiducary duty to do so. They are beholden to the interests of their stockholders. No big deal. Just be aware of it and don't hold your belief in humanity based on the actions of corporations. I would recommed that you lighten up a little. Hostility is not flattering of help you live longer.

Hey AC - why don't you actually find out what the foundation does before you scream about Microsoft?

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Then consider this - if Microsoft were not doing what you claimed, would another company? Could it be that your system of government allows for corruption and lots of companies would leap into Microsoft's place if they could? I've heard of more than a few examples of Indian corruption (not that it's unique to India) and I don't see Microsoft as anything unusual in your allegations.

I don't like Microsoft's business tactics, and I won't be placed on their side. However, even after all that I still see that Gates using his *personal fortune* in the way he does is a net positive.

If you really disagree, outline to me exactly why funding research into HIV/AIDS and malaria cures is so bad or why immunising about 80 million children against diseases like hepatitis B and yellow fever. Malaria is resurging around the world but virtually no-one was tackling it until the foundation stepped in with their money. Tell me why that's morbid and twisted.

When you understand what the foundation does, maybe you'll view it differently. It's not part of Microsoft you know.

He started the foundation in 1994. The monopoly trial started in May of 1998.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/QuickFacts/ Timeline/

View with suspicion popular the memes.

Mr. Gates is a complete stranger to philanthropy.

Belinda and Gates are attacking a different set of problems and they're doing it everywhere. I think their viewpoint is that this project's priorities are out of whack. Education is great, provided the person will live to use it.

We believe health is the cornerstone of human development. When health takes hold, life improves by all measures. Conversely, poor health aggravates poverty, poverty deepens disease, and nations trapped in this spiral will not escape without the world's help. In Africa, the cost of malaria in terms of treatment and lost productivity is estimated to be $12 billion a year. The continent's gross domestic product could be $100 billion higher today if malaria had been eliminated in the 1960s. And if HIV infection rates continue at their present levels, the world will likely see 45 million new infections by 2010 and lose nearly 70 million people by 2020. That's 70 million of the most productive members of society - health workers, educators, and parents.

Therefore, the foundation's Global Health program works to ensure that lifesaving advances in health are created and shared with those who need them most. Our primary focus areas are HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria, child survival and childhood immunization, and maternal and reproductive health.

To begin, we invest heavily in research to help discover new and better products, particularly vaccines. The foundation also supports work to develop products that can be manufactured and distributed. Then, once a product is developed, we work to make sure that there are systems in place to adopt and sustain these new drugs as they become available. The foundation is a major supporter of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). This alliance has provided basic immunizations to over 8 million children who would not otherwise have been immunized. As a result, GAVI has already saved an estimated 500,000 children's lives.

The most pessimistic person could view this project akin to what Apple did when working with schools to get Apple software & hardware in cheap: become the defacto standard via goodwill. Get in early so that when they leave school they come back. Besides, that same person's pessimistic view will believe that they'll be stolen from schools as they'll be the most valuable thing in the school. (due to the fantastic engineering fortitude which is obvious to all).

>> Its just a shame they haven't brought principles to their vast wealth.

Silly me. I keep forgetting how unpricinpled the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is.

Thanks for the timely reminder!

On the bright side, it's nice to see MS money going to a good cause. I bet Bill Gates is rolling over in his coffin at the thought.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_ Foundation

On the bright side, it's nice to see MS money going to a good cause. I bet Bill Gates is rolling over in his coffin at the thought.

You do realise that the Gates Foundation has given grants worth $10.2 billion since its inception, right?

Bash MS and Gates all you like, but at least bash them for legitimate reasons, and Gates' lack of caring about good causes isn't one of them.

On the bright side, it's nice to see MS money going to a good cause. I bet Bill Gates is rolling over in his coffin at the thought.

You do realise that the Gates Foundation has given grants worth $10.2 billion since its inception, right?

Bash MS and Gates all you like, but at least bash them for legitimate reasons, and Gates' lack of caring about good causes isn't one of them.

Yeah, those knuckleheads are wasting their time trying to keep people alive. Silly bastards.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Di seases/

someone is out-charitying him

You're kidding, right? You think a $100 laptop project -- working with $29 million dollars donated by some tech companies -- has surpassed the Gates Foundation's $10 billion in donations to nonprofits (particularly to solve health issues in Third World countries)? Try working in the international nonprofit sector for awhile, you'll start getting ticked at Negroponte too. These kids needs nutrition, vaccines, and education. A laptop might help with the latter, but good teachers, clinics, and/or radio networks would solve this problem MUCH MORE CHEAPLY.

Negroponte is a visionary, and I like him a lot, but in this case he is using a chainsaw to hammer a nail.

Donations are NOT forthcoming. Any comments?

Sure. How about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? What about
Andrew Carnegie, who gave almost all of his money to charitable causes? What about Doug Flutie? Or Dan Marino? The list goes on.

There are plenty of "rich guys" who give back to society. I'm not trying to say that these people live(d) spartan lives, nor that I'm their biggest fan, but they certainly put up the money for the less fortunate.

While I think Gates is right to mock these laptops, I don't think he understands the realities of the problems of helping others around the world. The only thing that helps others is letting them find or create their own opportunities to better their futures. Taking care of people today is counter-productive and can destroy opportunities in the future.

Just to extend your point a bit. I hope someone can get this quote source as I do not have it but, I remember Bill Gates said something which I found really important in an interview related to his malaria fight fund donations.

The quote was something like "Unfortunately, it is not possible, with human viruses, to give money to a group of people and tell them, go ahead, make a cure for Malaria. It just does not works like that".

With this what I want to show is that, this pharmaceutical companies cant do the same as say, Intel, that just throw some money to the PentiumV chip and say to the team "go ahead, make a 8 GHZ chip".

The process of finding medicine *really* useful against viruses is ten (if nota hundred) times more difficult. And besides that, after they've got the medicine they *must* pass the FDA regulations. To what does Intel needs to comply? some quite trivial FCC regulations.

So, yes, I defend the pharmaceutical companies. I agree that they seem to do something really antiethic, to profit by selling things that save lifes. But, in our current economy there is no other way it can be done. What some governments do (I can ONLY speak for the Mexico government) is subsidise (spell?) the medicines with the Social Security System. You have to see how cheap are the medicines in Mexico when you have IMSS, not even that, the service you can get for free (I was in the hospital for 3 months when I was a kid).

I think that is the best way to do it, but of course, we can blame our governments for removing our Social Security services :)

Another perspective maybe not based on specific single charities?

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/FactShe et/default.htm

"Endowment: $28.8 billion
Total grant commitments since inception: $9,259,952,552
Total 2004 grant payments: $1,255,762,783"

A lot of money for a few PR stunts most people never hear about... And CEOs, etc are held BY LAW to do what will make the most amount of money for the shareholders. Microsoft's money isn't Bill's money. If all of his empire away now, he loses Microsoft. That'd be a pretty big thing to ask of someone. And hell, Bill stepped down from the CEO role to focus more on the development end of things. Balmer seems to have more fun in the business end of things anyways. Hey, I'm not calling the guy a saint but he'll do his fair share in the end.

Well, it would seem that he's trying, but with $60 billion, it takes a LOT:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ ...Enough so to be named Time People of the Year.
Setting aside the business ethics used to make the money, I'd say he's found at least one good way to use it.
Now about that Olympic swimming pool of puddding...

I have an idea, if your fortune gets to be so large that even the IRS can't figure it all out, you should be required to give some of it away to the poor until they can do the necessary calculations.

Part of the problem is likely that Gates gives so much to the poor already. He's the richest man in the world, but name someone that gives more money to the poor than he.

The head of Bill Gates Charity is Mr. Gates ie Billy's father.

That's only sort of true. Bill Gates Senior is one of the three co-chairs of the charity (along with Melinda and Bill himself). As co-chairs, I'd be surprised if any of the three receives any salary from the foundation.

I'm sure most of the normal staff do receive salaries -- working for a charitable foundation doesn't relieve them from having to eat and such. The foundation website lists their executives. According to the foundation's tax return the total salary for all executives of the foundation totalled just over eight hundred thousand dollars. The rest of the employees received a total of about $18.7 million in salaries (though I've no idea how many employees that is, so it's hard to guess how well they're paid).

The foundation's web site also has links to various other financial info for anybody who really cares -- things like how the foundation has its money invested, but take careful note of the file sizes. The listing of the foundation's investments is over 2200 pages long, and is an 80+ megabyte download.

The head of Bill Gates Charity is Mr. Gates ie Billy's father.

That's only sort of true. Bill Gates Senior is one of the three co-chairs of the charity (along with Melinda and Bill himself). As co-chairs, I'd be surprised if any of the three receives any salary from the foundation.

I'm sure most of the normal staff do receive salaries -- working for a charitable foundation doesn't relieve them from having to eat and such. The foundation website lists their executives. According to the foundation's tax return the total salary for all executives of the foundation totalled just over eight hundred thousand dollars. The rest of the employees received a total of about $18.7 million in salaries (though I've no idea how many employees that is, so it's hard to guess how well they're paid).

The foundation's web site also has links to various other financial info for anybody who really cares -- things like how the foundation has its money invested, but take careful note of the file sizes. The listing of the foundation's investments is over 2200 pages long, and is an 80+ megabyte download.

The head of Bill Gates Charity is Mr. Gates ie Billy's father.

That's only sort of true. Bill Gates Senior is one of the three co-chairs of the charity (along with Melinda and Bill himself). As co-chairs, I'd be surprised if any of the three receives any salary from the foundation.

I'm sure most of the normal staff do receive salaries -- working for a charitable foundation doesn't relieve them from having to eat and such. The foundation website lists their executives. According to the foundation's tax return the total salary for all executives of the foundation totalled just over eight hundred thousand dollars. The rest of the employees received a total of about $18.7 million in salaries (though I've no idea how many employees that is, so it's hard to guess how well they're paid).

The foundation's web site also has links to various other financial info for anybody who really cares -- things like how the foundation has its money invested, but take careful note of the file sizes. The listing of the foundation's investments is over 2200 pages long, and is an 80+ megabyte download.

if you are going to measure their humanitarian efforts do you look at total $ they donate, or percent of their income? it may be more of a sacrifice for me to give $2000/year to a charity, but obviously that's not going to help stop the spread of anything.

what about people that actually do humanitarian work and not just donate some money that is probably a tax write-off and obviously used as a PR campaign anyway. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
you have to wonder when people have to keep reminding you about all the charitable things they do.

i can't listen to NPR for an hour without being reminded of what a good humanitarian effort the Gates foundation makes, or constant reports from the microsoft owned online magazine slate.com.

then again the same goes for NPR mentioning the kind grants from the walmart foundation, and we all know that that money is all donated by employees, not the Walton family. you can look up the charitable contributions of the actual family members and it is astonishing low. Gates is obviously far ahead of them on the decency scale.

If you check out the financials of the Gates Foundation you can see that they pay out three times less in contributions than what they earn from investments, nevermind the principle!

This is all just a form of tax evasion, with benefits. Not only do you get the tax advantages of being able to write off a portion of the charity, but if you happen to be so rich to afford your own "charitable foundation", there are other benefits as well!

For example, you can afford to pay your friends and family handsomely for their management of the foundation. In Bill's case, his Dad and a former Microsoft executive. Although I'm sure they just happen to be exactly the right kind of people to lead such an esteemed organization.

Also, you get the glamour and praise of fellow socialites and the plebs at large. This is especially helpful if you are battling an unfortunate image as a cold-hearted corporate capitalist. Now, people like the parent will kindly note your philanthropy at every turn. This is true even if your foundation does very little charitable work.

Actually, if you bothered to read the Gates foundation web page, you would see that most of the money has been allocated to a minority scholarship program, followed by a vaccination fund that targets the 75 poorest nations in the world - ie not just African countries. There are no AIDS grants mentioned, except for research into an AIDS vaccine. What AIDS-in-Africa charity are you talking about? And if you've been to an African country, you would see the immense good that NGO charities are doing efficiently with relatively small financial reserves. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your bigoted fantasy.

They also donate to local charities in the Pacific Northwest, these don't get as much publicity as the big AIDS donations, or software which have large dollar amounts but they make news here in the Pacific Northwest quite often.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 02657023_gates01m.html

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/StoryGallery

Who else do you know who has given half their disposable income? Let's compare Gates giving with some other billionaires who aren't so unpopular on slashdot. Larry Ellison: According to this thru Ellison Medical Foundation, Larry is giving $100 million over 5 years for research on aging. That's pocket change for a guy worth $17 billion. Warren Buffet, weighing in at $40 billion, gives away $12 million per year, according to BusinessWeek. Again, pocket change, though Buffet says he plans to eventually give 99% of his money to his foundation.

Here's an old story from 2001 about silicon valley philanthropy. According to it, only David Packard (foundation gives $500m/year) is in the same class as Gates.

At the bottom of this you'll find a Nov 2005 table listing 18 Americans worth over $10 billion. Have any of them given as large a percentage as Gates? I can't find any evidence if they have. My conclusion: compared to billionaires or to ordinary folks, Gates have given away an extrordinary proportion of his net worth.

By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with entities like the Gates, Ellison, and Packard foundations, it works like this. You can give away whatever amount of your wealth you want in any given year, and that amount will be deducted from the income on which you are taxed. One way to give it away is to establish a 501C(3) charity, such as these foundations, and endow it with a big chunk of cash. The foundation is required by law to give away at least 5% of its net worth per year. It also needs to be independent of its endower, so it can't be used as a vehicle to manipulate or control e.g. Microsoft. The Gates foundation got a $20 billion block of Microsoft stock from Gates in the late '90s and immediately sold the MS stock for more conservative investments. I assume it continues to invest its endowment and to give away the requisite 5%, which this year tops $1.1 billion. I believe Gates' father directs the foundation. From what I have seen, the foundation has a special interest in eradicating diseases in the developing world; hence their interest in tuberculosis and malaria. But heck, why listen to me when you cand surf the foundation and read about its priorities.

Who else do you know who has given half their disposable income? Let's compare Gates giving with some other billionaires who aren't so unpopular on slashdot. Larry Ellison: According to this thru Ellison Medical Foundation, Larry is giving $100 million over 5 years for research on aging. That's pocket change for a guy worth $17 billion. Warren Buffet, weighing in at $40 billion, gives away $12 million per year, according to BusinessWeek. Again, pocket change, though Buffet says he plans to eventually give 99% of his money to his foundation.

Here's an old story from 2001 about silicon valley philanthropy. According to it, only David Packard (foundation gives $500m/year) is in the same class as Gates.

At the bottom of this you'll find a Nov 2005 table listing 18 Americans worth over $10 billion. Have any of them given as large a percentage as Gates? I can't find any evidence if they have. My conclusion: compared to billionaires or to ordinary folks, Gates have given away an extrordinary proportion of his net worth.

By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with entities like the Gates, Ellison, and Packard foundations, it works like this. You can give away whatever amount of your wealth you want in any given year, and that amount will be deducted from the income on which you are taxed. One way to give it away is to establish a 501C(3) charity, such as these foundations, and endow it with a big chunk of cash. The foundation is required by law to give away at least 5% of its net worth per year. It also needs to be independent of its endower, so it can't be used as a vehicle to manipulate or control e.g. Microsoft. The Gates foundation got a $20 billion block of Microsoft stock from Gates in the late '90s and immediately sold the MS stock for more conservative investments. I assume it continues to invest its endowment and to give away the requisite 5%, which this year tops $1.1 billion. I believe Gates' father directs the foundation. From what I have seen, the foundation has a special interest in eradicating diseases in the developing world; hence their interest in tuberculosis and malaria. But heck, why listen to me when you cand surf the foundation and read about its priorities.