Slashdot Mirror
Gates Pledges $750M to Vaccinate Children
chriskzoo5 writes "The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is pledging $750M to vaccinate children worldwide over the next 10 years. Much maligned for his business practices, is this proof that sometimes the ends justify the means? Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity."
"Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity." There cannot be some charity contest between Linux and Windows! Anyway, most of the Linux community's displeasure is with Micro$oft and its activities, not Bill Gates the individual himself
The Linux community will match it when they have as much money as Gates. Not many people or companies have $750Mil to give.
Is it possible to mod a news article as flamebait?
Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity.
How can we? We don't sell anything.
However, we can provide these children with a free open-source operating
system that runs will on older machines, and comes with thousands of applications,
tutorials and how-to's.
Someone mod this -1 Troll...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Well, about 1/7 of the worlds population would have to give a dollar. Only counting working people, that goes way up.
Just think, to amass this much 'generosity' how much the world must have already paid to him (including developing countries).
Money fades, Linux stays forever. Of course, if everyone who uses Linux were to donate the cost of a winXP home license to a needy cause, that would be sensational.
Good pulicity for them though. In other news SCO donate free 'SCOnix' (?) licenses to hungry children.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
...done by free software developers is charity, anyway. It might not be vaccinating kids, but at least they'll be able to afford a free OS when they don't die of whatever would have killed them before Mr Gates came along.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
The difference? One of them is someone who can afford to make such a generous donation, while the other is still making his software available for free over the Internet. That makes that last remark pretty insensitive and gratuitous, IMHO.
I know which one I admire the most. But, heck, that's a personal view.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
There's many Linux clusters hard at work calculating new drugs and new treatments against illnesses.
Linux doesn't cost money, it costs effort. Linux also doesn't donate money, the community donates effort.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Vaccinating children worldwide can only be a good thing. Indeed, Microsoft pumps a lot of money into various charitable causes --- again, only a good thing.
But what does this have to do with the Linux community? Microsoft's raison d'etre is profit, and given the amount it makes, it has a social obligation. In this way, it fulfils it. The Linux community is driven by the product itself, not sales figures. "Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity" is not only irrelevant, it verges on being not very nice.
If a gangster throws a block party for his neighbors, it doesn't justify all the people he killed in his work. It's still a nice party, and he's still a gangster.
until I realized that the worst thing you could do is decrease child mortality without changing the conditions that require having large families, e.g. poverty mostly. If you don't do that then you end up with a huge populations of mostly young, poor, unemployed people. A recipe for social unrest.
Given that there are plenty of weathly people who give nothing to charity, anything Bill gives is better than that - whatever the percentage.
Is this a huge amount for him? It would be like if I had a hundred bucks and I gave the homeless guy on the street a $1.50
Unless you live in your parents basement and own nothing, I very much doubt you are worth only $100.
Your post makes it sound like you don't think that his 750 million is particulary generious. Given that he didn't have to make the donation and could have easily kept the money for himself (benefiting no-one but him), I would say you're wrong.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
First of all, I'm quite sure that 750 million is more than 1.5% of his total assets.
Second of all, even if it's only 1.5% of his assets, it's a good thing, how many of you have donated 1.5%?
Why don't we all try to donate 1.5% of our assets instead of whining about the poster's flamebait.
I am not exactly a fan of Microsoft, but come on. The knee-jerk anti Microsoft tilt of /. is amazing. I can see it now. There will be some post rated funny talking about how little Gates has spent to vaccinate Windows PCs against viruses, and it will completely trivialize what is being done here. I can't understand how anyone could come up with any negative aspect of this $750 million gift. Does an orphan in Guatemala care about how terrible Windows is? At least give the guy credit where credit is due.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
well it is bill gates that donated the money, not the microsoft windows community. While i dont use MS products Bill Gates is a very generous person compared to many other billionaires, and an article ofhis generosity should not be turned into a flame war. It is probably the wording of the story that will cause this.
No, this goes some of the way to making up for the means - still positive. But it does not justify the means.
If you need a Free Software example to follow, turn to that of the author of Vim who has used his work to entreat users to donate to the needy in Uganda. But don't piss on a $750 million donation to some of the worst off on this planet; that's really low class and unless you've solved the problem already don't disparage the people who are taking a crack at it.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
... as being somewhat similar to so-called 'celebrities' announcing million-dollar donations to charity. The fact that they seem to expect everyone to fall on their knees and worship this display of magnanimity doesn't alter the fact that it is a worthwhile gesture, but any charitable donation should be a matter of private conscience rather than a public show.
Also, as other posts have pointed out, Gates can comfortably afford the amount that has been pledged. Does that make it somehow more worthwhile than a private individual lending a hand to a stranger, be it through a few quid in a charity box or a few hours of work on a free software project?
The big pharmaceutical companies have to profit, that's the whole purpose behind those "save the African children" campaigns. Providing their villages with clean water will cost less than vaccinating them and it will help the fight against epidemic diseases more. Sanitation eradicated such diseases in Europe BEFORE large scale vaccinations were made.
"[...] I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."
"What man?"
"Robin Hood."
Rearden looked at him blankly, not understanding.
"He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich-or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich."
"What in blazes do you mean?"
"If you remember the stories you've read about me in the newspapers, before they stopped printing them, you know that I have never robbed a private ship and never taken any private property. Nor have I ever robbed a military vessel - because the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of a government. But I have seized every loot carrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others. I seized the boats that sailed under the flag of the idea which I am fighting: the idea that need is a sacred idol requiring human sacrifices - that the need of some men is the knife of a guillotine hanging over others - that all of us must live with our work, our hopes, our plans, our efforts at the mercy of the moment when that knife will descend upon us - and that the extent of our ability is the extent of our danger, so that success will bring our heads down on the block, while failure will give us the right to pull the cord. This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures - the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich - whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant - while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is to be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."
Rearden listened, feeling numb. But under the numbness, like the first thrust of a seed breaking through, he felt an emotion he could not identify except that it seemed familiar and very distant, like something experienced and renounced long ago.
( excerpt from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" )
Circumcision is child abuse.
... Loudly donate the millions.
It's the practice of cut throats, executives and vagabonds the world over to legitimise their ill gotten gains by 'generously' returning a small part of their swag to the needy while quietly keeping the rest for themselves.
When someone's child dies of a disease that could easily been avoided the last thing he would be concerned with is what OS he should be running.
Priorities in generosity are wrong. I think health is probably more important than computers.
Once these countries have dealt with disease, food, debt, etc then what OS they have becomes a bit more of an issue.
Plus most third world countries couldn't give two shits about stealing software from another country.
The very airs the submitter adopts is obviously geared towards riling up a negative response against Gates. I think most slashdotters will realize this and see the donation for what it is - providing help to the less fortunate and not an avenue to decry Gates for not giving 99% of his net worth.
It is probably the wording of the story that will cause this.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
If we could moderate stories, I would have voted this one down. The act itself is worthy of praise, especially contrasted with Gates' business tactics. The submitter had no reason to insert those last two statements except to provoke negative comments. The "Linux Community" will have a helluva time being able to donate $750 million to people who desperately need some form of necessity, because many (most? almost all?) members of that community don't have anything close to the available cash or equivalents that Gates has at his fingertips.
"Do the ends justify the means?" Fuck no, and shame on the submitter for even turning this into a dicksize contest and inserting controversy where none should be needed. Gates' generosity does not justify his company's monopolistic tactics aimed at wiping out healthy competition (as a believer in the free market might say). I can donate $25 towards the purchase of necessary vaccines, and that in itself is a good act. Does the amount of money involved make the means any more or less justifiable? What is the metric for justifying the means?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The Linux community does donate to charities around the world. How many not-for-profit organizations use Open Source software? As a rough guess, I'd say that the Open Source community has donated, with their time and the software, an amount far greater than the $750 million that Gate has donated.
The truest measure of generosity is not what a person is willing to give, but what he retains for himself. Though Bill Gates donates millions of dollars, he retains the standard of living of a billionaire. His generosity is less than that of a middle-class man dropping a dollar in a Salvation army kettle, which in turn is less than that of a homeless man doing the same with his last dollar. It is certainly worthy of respect, but no more than these.
Some of us think that health is more important than "intellectual property". If it wasn't for the big patent-wielding pharmaceutical companies charging whatever they like for life-saving drugs and vaccines, do you suppose the cost that the WHO has to bear would be any less?
.....
If only it was as easy to steal chemical formulas as it is to steal software
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
It's good to see that there are people out there who don't sit on their fortune, but do something good with it. Way to go Bill. (now please, stop making operating systems and port the other products to OS/X)
if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants
How much is Linux worth? Whats the aggregate value of the problems that have been solved in this world using Linux? How many economies has Linux stimulated? $750 is a fantastic donation, and a great thing to do, but giving money is not the only form of charity. I think you'll find the most generous donations (and the one people often find hardest to make) are those of time, and effort, not money.
Wow, just because $750M seems like nothing, how many people that have that much money would donate it. Despite popular opinion, Bill gates is not the only person with a lot of money in the world.
some guy has donated a HUGE amount of money to charity, and all he get's is
"it's only loose change to him, I'm not impressed" oh come on, how many of you have honestly donated %1.5 of your assets?
and
"the linux community is providing free software for the people in deprived countries, I know which I prefer" yeah, and I'm sure they'll be greatful for the free sopftware when they have terminal illnesses.
some people really need to grow up. Whatever your feelings on Bill Gates as head of the evil empire, I do not see how you can possibly castigate him for his acts of charity.
What are you talking about? Gates has always been a huge charity donor.
I always find it humorous when rich people are lauded for giving away their money, and damned for earning it in the first place.
In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation. This in turn spurred rapid technical innovation and price reductions, making computers affordable enough that nearly everyone could own one. This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living. The propagation of personal computers in turn allowed for the explosive growth of the internet, which in turn created a demand for broadband service, thereby triggering a revolution in the communications industry as well.
And you could go on all day listing the scientific advancements and economic opportunities made possible by the availability of cheap computing power.
Bill Gates may have given $10 million for AIDS awareness in Africa, but for all that, how much of an impact has that made on AIDS? Damn little, as far as I can see.
Ironically, while the wealthy are damned for earning their money and lauded for giving it away, Gates, like most of the filthy rich capitalists, did more for the "Good of Society" and the advancement of humanity in the process of earning his money than he will ever conceivably be able to do by giving it away.
The fact is, Bill Gates is associated with Microsoft, and vice-versa. Everybody does it without thinking.
If Microsoft does something bad, Bill gets flack. If Bill does something good, Microsoft looks good.
Although the donation was from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it's still bonus points to Microsoft.
Back in 2002, Bill Gates, via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donated $100 million towards fighting AIDS in India. He did this at a time when Microsoft's conduct was being questioned in the Anti-Trust case, and at a time where he had said "India is of strategic importance".
Some said that Bill was doing it to 'persuade' India to go with Microsoft (kind of like a guilt trip), and others said that Bill is really just a nice guy. How can we tell?
I have one question for Bill:
Next time you donate large amounts of cash, would you do it anonymously? Or would there be no 'benefit' in this?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Well Said!
There are two issues here.
The first being that Bill Gates is donating a sizeable amount of money to charity and that is wonderful and very kind. Regardless of all the people that hate Bill Gates, donating money to a charity is still a very noble thing to do, you have to at least admit that.
Secondly there's the asinine comment about whether or not the Linux community can match his generosity...I don't think you can even compare the two considering the differences between them. One is a major multi-national company and the other is a large group of people working on a more or less free product that doesn't generate mass amounts of revenue. Now why did the OP have to go and fuck up a story with a positive spin by making it into a bitter competition and finger pointing fiasco?
I reject your reality and substitute my own
Let's see, expressed as a total of my reserve capital... minus outstanding debts... carry the one... I've donated twice as much as Bill, with my 20 dollar donation to the Tsunami relief fund.
In general I find the kind of people likely to give their money away, are not the kind of people likely to have any money to give.
(No offence meant to Mr. Gates, as he has given a lot more of his money to charitable causes than a lot of people, and even more importantly he seems to really care about them. No matter what you think about his business practices, the Bill and Melinda gates foundation has the largest endowment of any chairitible organization created in recent memory and will be doing positive things for the world long after the man has taken his blue screen of death to the black screen of death. Plus the B&M tend to be focused on practical things, and are pretty good about how they deal out grants.)
The ______ Agenda
How many more Windows users can $750 million buy? Not a bad investment.
This entire article just blew up my bullshit detector.
First, the Borg icon - this is the Gates Foundation, not Microsoft. As much as I despise Gates, his Foundation is doing a lot of good things.
Second, the business practice hit. Again, this is not Microsoft donating anything to anyone, it's the Gates Foundation. While Bill's money is largely M$ stuff, the shot is just cheap and unwarranted.
Three, the dig at the Open Source community. I'm sure if the community had as much money as Gates, we'd be matching his donation before the day is up, just to show it. But we don't. You can't compare the rich man's $1000 donation to the poor man's $100 donation. No matter how you compare it, in one way or the other it won't be fair.
Finally, the article as a whole - what the f*ck has this to do with "news for nerds" ??? And if it's "stuff that matters", how come we don't read about any similar donations made by other people or foundations?
Both the article author and the editor who let this through should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure at least 20 more worthy articles were left out today.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why are you proud as a citizen of a country when one citizen does something good? Why does it make you feel superior?
Come back when YOU do something good instead of just throwing flamebait around. I honestly dont care which country gave most, but if we look at money divided in number of citizens of each contry, "old" europe is still in the lead. But i think its good we all chipped in to help the victims of the Tsunami. So stop using it as a dickwaving contest.
If it wasn't for the big patent-wielding pharmaceutical companies charging whatever they like for life-saving drugs, then there wouldn't be any money to research the next life-saving druge.
If only it was as easy to steal chemical formulas as it is to steal software a lot more people would be dead due to bad drugs on the market.
Had Bill Gates not caused so much havoc in the IT industry, there would propably be a lot more money to share from other people. The ends don't justify the means.
As the mega-rich go, Bill is easily the most charitable. Compare the Walton family (collectively worth more than Bill) and you'll find some real tight-fisted bastards (who've probably crushed 100 times the number of small businesses as Microsoft).
It's good that MS gives a lot of money to Washington, because they've screwed the state out of millions, maybe even billions, more. Please read this article for more details.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not Microsoft.
That's true, but on the other hand we're talking $750 million USD over the next ten years working out to $75 million USD per year. Something tells me that's less than he makes in interest/dividends per year. It's a nice gesture. But, when one scales this seemingly large amount against the funds available, it's more like me donating $100.00 as someone else already said. Nice, but not a big deal really. On a vaguely related note, when I was in the Navy I gave around 10% of my income to various causes through the CFC. Can I get a front page story on slashdot now? Hmmmm?
First off, you have a warped view on this perspective. One man donating 100 dollars does not even remotely compare to one man donating 750 million dollars. Yes it is a big deal since kids are dying in 3rd world countries where their parents cant even afford to pay for them to see a doctor, let alone get vacinations. That 750 million can help a lot of kids, where as your puny 100 dollars wouldnt be able to vacinate one kid.
One person did something really great and donated a large sum of money,that doesnt involve selling his product down the people he donating to, and everyone finds something wrong with it.
1) You can only give so much to a single cause. Its not necessarily possible to even handle huge donations even if you spread them around to a bunch of groups because there just aren't enough people to use the funds.
2) Gates has donated billions in the past and will donate many billions in the future. This is just one single donation. Whats the big fuss? Its like arguing that dropping a dollar in a Salvation Army kettle makes you cheap despite the fact that you donate to lots of other charities throughout the year.
Umm, it is trivial to "steal" the formulas to patented drugs. The drug companies are required to submit these in the patent app, as well as to the FDA during the approval process. None of this is secret or classified data. Anyone with the proper production equipment could bootleg a patented drug. Of course, this would be just as illegal as bootlegging software.
The problem with expensive pharmaceuticals is very complex. These companies must recoup their HUGE R&D investments in both successful and unsuccessful drugs. The real problem is price-fixing in the countries with socialized medicine. The drug companies have to gouge the free-market countries (primarily the US) to make up for the shortfall in profits from the Canadian and European markets. The drug companies go along with it because they are still making more than the marginal costs of production, and something is better than nothing. If they refused to do business with countries that have price controls, these countries would simply allow local companies to bootleg the drugs (remember that the formulae are publicly available) to sell locally. Honestly, I don't know why this isn't a WTO issue. The US consumer is having to subsidize those in Canada and the EU. The alternative is less R&D and fewer new drugs in the pipeline.
Of course, in a free-market economy with a patent system, the drug companies are essentially free to charge anything they wish while the drugs are under patent. They will (and should) choose a price that maximizes profits, and this will be a higer price than what would be possible under free competition. The difference is referred to as "monopoly rents". As a society, this is the incentive we provide to investors so that they will spend money to research new drugs. Without the patents, there would be essentially no private for-profit investment in pharmaceutical research. So there really is no easy solution to this problem. Maybe the length of the patent can be reduced, but this will make the drugs even more expensive during the duration of the patent.
One possible solution to the problem is to reduce the regulatory burden that the FDA places on these companies. This would place more of the burden of drug safety on the doctors and consumers. If the costs of getting a new drug to market are lower, then a shorter patent period would be acceptible since there will be less fixed cost that must be recouped. The obvious downside to this is that it is possible that drugs with serious side-effects will be more likely to make it to market. This is a trade-off, and we as a soceity must decide just how much "safety" we are willing to pay for. But simply villifying the drug companies solves nothing. I'm sure that they do some bad things in the pursuit of profits, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. We would have these problems even if these companies were perfectly ethical.
How much did Larry give? At least Bill gave and he has given in the past. Hell he is even a democrat.
There are lots of things to bust his balls over, but this is not one of them.
Stand up and applaud the gift, encourage others to give too, then go back to attacking him for his business practices.
So he doesn't have to give anything away. It isn't a matter of him being smart or dumb; it's a matter of him being compassionate. Much as I dislike MS's business practices, I have to laud Gates for his philanthropic effortts.
I hate to feed the troll, but I just have to.
:)
Um, ok. So let's assume for the sake of argument that Bill G decided to do just that - give the world an OS for free.
That OS might just be XP. Are you *SURE* you want that?
Imagine a world where users had a free operating system that actually worked with all of the hardware that the MAINSTREAM users go buy at CompUSA, and did so without needing a freakin' CS degree to configure. Imagine a world where users could actually play the other 99% of the popular games on the market.
I could go on...but the net result would be that those precious few "Joe Sixpack" users that might consider switching over to your little pet project would take one look at Linux and run, not walk, to the nearest distribution point.
"So, lemme get this straight...I can't play my games on it, I can't use Word and Outlook on it, and I can't use my hardware without serious headache, if at all. What's your compelling argument again?"
Of course, most of the world uses the same argument when they look at Linux in a world where its free and Windows costs $149.
where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
>So if he is worth $50B at death, the government gets ~$25B.
And that would leave ~25B for his family.
> for example, that he ends up giving 80% of his net worth to charity. That's $40B given the assumption above, leaving $5B for the government and $5B for his family.
So he does it one way his family gets ~25B, he does it the other way they get ~5B. How does this justify his foundation?
> especially since he is dictating where his money goes, not the government.
Thats called being smart, its called estate planning and you don't need to give the money away to charity to do this. If you had that much money, it would be irresponsible to just leave it to the government.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Bill is the wealthiest man in the world. But what many people forget is that Bill comes from money, OLD MONEY. His family are the kind of people who sit on boards of directors and have dinner with US Senators kind of money. The kind who drop out of Harvard and not some state school. And they are also the kind of people who don't just phone it in to Jerry Lewis every year or give to the office United Way campaign to get that warm-and-fuzzy feeling, but who create friggin' foundations. Bill provided some serious seed money to create the foundation's endowment, which was then invested and grown and is gradually being given away to worthy causes. Its not like Bill's personal signature is at the bottom of each check the Gates Foundation hands out (at least, I wouldn't think that he is that hands on).
Yes, Microsoft is the evil empire blah blah blah ...
And the Gates Foundation does good things in the world. Only a drooling idiot would argue that providing funding to fight AIDS or vaccinate children against common (and some not so common) diseases is somehow bad. Go take your dumb ass and your tinfoil hat and crawl back inside your parent's basement. If only more of the truly wealthy people in this country felt a similar responsibility to give something back to their communities, the nation, and the world instead of just buying another Ferrari or vacation home...maybe the world would be just a slightly better place...maybe.
There are several points that need to be made here:
1. The money Bill Gates is giving away are ill-gotten gains derived from monopolistic practices. if we had a government with balls, they would have confiscated most of Microsoft (and Bill Gates) money. Why should he have the right to decide how to spend stolen money? Maybe society as a whole has different priorities.
2. Bill Gates recently called people who oppose his view of "intellectual property" communists! Well if it makes me a communist to believe that drugs should not be developed for corporate profit then so be it. [N.B. Please: before you start flaming me about how all "innovation" happens because of greed and how without copyright and patent monopilies life would be nasty, brutish and short, pick up a book on the history of science or the history of art or the history of music or the hostoty of philosophy or the history of any human artistic and/or intellectual endeavor].
If Bill Gates would support the restraint of insanely restrictive copyright and patent laws, we could eradicate many diseases around the world without him having to give a $750 million donation. In terms of benefit to the world, it would be far preferable if he used his money and clout to fight ridiculous IP laws, than give this money away on vaccinations. Far more lives could and would be saved. But precisely because he uses his money and clout to oppose such modifications, he is partially responsible for many people dying, and his $750 million gift cannot compensate for that.
3. The article is pure flame bait. But since it was posted as "news" it is our right and duty to respond to its huge BS factor.
Who cares what percentage. At the end of the day, 1% of Bill's wealth is enough to treat a million people, whereas 100% is enough to treat 5. Get off your soap box, and realize this is about the victims, and helping them out (which requires $, not %).
I am John Hurt.