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 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)
I am friends with the daughter of the head of the Gates Foundation... Bill has told her (my friend) that his goal is to give as much as possible of his money to charity. He actually really cares about the world and his foundation and its work is proof of his commitment.
Many may disagree with Microsoft's practices but Bill Gates is extremely committed to the world.
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.
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.
This story looks like both a troll and flamebait, and it gets me to wondering about the submitter. What a shocker. He's a known troll.
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.
"Mommy I'm starving... and thirsty. Also the malaria is really starting to kick in bad, where is all the kindness when we need it.?"
"Well honey, we don't have any medicine, food or safe drinking water. But good news, you can now browse the internet without any risk of your personal information being stolen thanks to a great man named linus and his band of merry men!"
"But mommy, we don't have a computer, or electricity."
"Don't worry sweety. I'm sure as soon as we can safely browse the world wide web, all your troubles will go away."
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.
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.
By stating this, you automatically assume that each and every one of those users WILL donate that $100 to whatever charity cause. I guess the numbers that donate will be "a bit" lower.
While I'm not Bill Gates' biggest fan, I still applaude his example. It's easy to say that, because he is so rich, it's easy for him to donate a lot of money. But you still have to do it.
Most people I know would never donate that (or any) amount of money, no matter how rich they were. And to be honest, nor would I.
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
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.
I'll take your wager.
Read up on the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. You will see that Bill has given $27 Billion of his $50 Billion fortune for the charity to manage. IIRC they are having a really tough time giving it away because it earns more interest than it can donate in a co-ordinated fashion.
What ever you think of the guys software and business practices, it is hard to argue that he is an evil man in the face of his generosity.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
some guy has donated a HUGE amount of money to charity, and all he get's is
"it's only loose change to him, I'm not impressed" oh come on, how many of you have honestly donated %1.5 of your assets?
and
"the linux community is providing free software for the people in deprived countries, I know which I prefer" yeah, and I'm sure they'll be greatful for the free sopftware when they have terminal illnesses.
some people really need to grow up. Whatever your feelings on Bill Gates as head of the evil empire, I do not see how you can possibly castigate him for his acts of charity.
This entire article just blew up my bullshit detector.
First, the Borg icon - this is the Gates Foundation, not Microsoft. As much as I despise Gates, his Foundation is doing a lot of good things.
Second, the business practice hit. Again, this is not Microsoft donating anything to anyone, it's the Gates Foundation. While Bill's money is largely M$ 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
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.
I think the part that he is referring to is the line that aid "Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity". That line is most certainly flamebait.
Bill Gates has been very successful, and he wants to spread it around to good causes. Nothing wrong with that. It's almost expected from someone in his position. It's really silly to somehow pit his generosity against the linux/open-source/free-software community. The two have nothing to do with each other.
One could easily argue that the value to society of open-source and free-software exceed $750M by several times, perhaps more. Saying that Bill Gates is more generous than the open-source/free-software community is misguided and pointless. The two situations are incomparable.
I think it is great that Bill Gates is doing this. But is this article flamebait? Most certainly, if only for the line mentioned above.
— darco
Jesus christ, the guy gives 3/4 of a billion dollars to help children around the world get vaccinations, and all you can do is make accusations?
You, sir, are a true hater.
— darco