Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Donates $258 Million to Fight Malaria
klubar writes to tell us that Bill Gates has donated approximately $258 million to fight malaria. From the article: "Malaria research accounts for about one-third of 1 percent of the total amount of money spent on medical research and development, even though it accounts for 3 percent of all the productive years of life lost to diseases, according to a report released Sunday." Gates was quoted saying "The report confirms what has been clear, and that is that the world isn't investing nearly enough in malaria R&D."
People receiving the vaccine agreed to only use Microsoft vaccines for the next ten years.
Whatever folks may say about "The Evil Empire," this a true gift of philanthropy. Let's give a hand to Bill Gates...
Yeah, cleaning that off of my XP box was a royal pain in the ass.
Thanks, Bill.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
but at the core, this guy is a saint. I cant fathom the millions if not billions gates + his wife have contributed to humanitarian causes.
He has become a "philanthropist." Moral: it is OK to commit a lifetime of evil, as long as you give away one or two percent of your fortune when you are old.
we will end no whine before its time
I know Microsoft (and accordingly Bill Gates) hasnt been the fairest of competitors, but lets give the guy credit -- he appears to have genuine goodwill. Business is business and Microsoft is far from the most evil. For those on a MSFT warpath, perhaps your anger would be better turned towards Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon or the NeoConservatives -- they create far more death, destruction, and misery in the world than Microsoft can or will ever do.
Is it really necessary to use the gates borg icon when he does something like this?
Im glad that bill is using some of his fortume to help fight this disease. Africa thanks you.
epic
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Just bottle up a bunch of quinine and send it over to africa along with our western values. The increased commercial revenue pays for the tonic. Problem solved.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
It's obvious that the open source solutions to Malaria are superior to anything MS could produce.
Bill is a generous guy, although yes it is easy to be generous when you're not putting yourself out. I have a lot of respect for him tackling the important issues rather than the popular ones. (There are a ton of people donating to the charities in the headlines, just to get in the headlines themselves, Red Cross right now at number 1) Bill is going for the forgotten charities which are just as, if not more, important due to the devastation malaria has on the human population. As always, Bill is not being cool, and that's a good thing!
Malaria causes more deaths in children under 5 years old than even AIDS. (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/) Bill is certainly doing the right thing and I'll feel a bit less dirty writing this post on a WinXP machine because of it.
...he got away from the strictly technology causes and moved on to things that really matter.
We can't even kill a parasite that mosquitoes are immune to. Call me crazy, but I think the reason why we're so pathetic at medicine is because it is so low tech. We try lots of compounds until we find one that has some effect on a pathogen and we bottle it. Or we expose dead pathogens to an immune system, let it create antibodies, collect the antibodies and bottle it. There's no design, there's no engineering. It's just unscientific quackery.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I still think it is wrong for Microsoft to get into the anti virus market.
From one who delivered so many bugs that plague mankind.
Can buy a lot of DDT.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
That'll buy a hell of a lot of DDT, which is the only thing you need to eradicate malaria.
Unfortunately, a bunch of overwrought environmentalists managed to get the use and manufacture of DDT severely restricted on the basis of some very bad science.
The malaria problem has already been solved. We just need to allow third world countries to use the same solution we used before some trashy 60's book that cried about DDT softening eggshells.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Why more research? We already know that DDT is extremely effective against malaria-bearing mosquitoes. We should just start whipping up huge batches of DDT to send to Africa.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
An estimated 350-500 million clinical malaria episodes occur annually. At least 2.7 million die per year from Malaria.
Malaria is responsible for one in four global child deaths. These deaths could be prevented by means which are simple, effective and available.
So lets all give a hand to Bill Gates for helping prevent at least some of these deaths.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
We may not care about malaria at all- but it does give a little insight into Gates...many people have a skewed opinion of him, and this may change that.
I mean, he wants to Research and Develop malaria!
Just clear off the entire African continent...they're just a bunch of damn pirates anyway.
Gates' $258 million will do more for Malaria development than mother nature was able to do in thousands of years...
No reason to lie.
Melinda Gates must be one hell of a women. Until he got married, his charitable contributions were non-existent. Since then, his/their contributions have become sigificant.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I think Gates will be remembered likewise for his good works in reducing the worst misery in poor countries. I think we owe a lot to Gate's wife, Melinda. He didn't do this stuff before he was married. OTOH, we wouldn't do it if he felt strongly for this also.
I still don't like the Microsoft monopoly, but not all Computer billionaires are so generous and he doesn't have to do this. Thanks Bill!
I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large. I personally have no problem with places like Microsoft or Wal-Mart (I used to be an employee of Wal-Mart) and I'm glad that acts like this are shown to skeptics. I'll give you that they aren't perfect, and that some companies are not good companies. However, by virtue of being large, does not make a company bad. However, I fear that many people will point to this as a donation made to gain public support, which I admit is within the realm of possibility, but is in the realm of my doubts. I'll give you that we haven't heard much from ole Bill Gates recently (a bit in the shadow of Mr. Jobs) but this is about as good as thing as I could hear from him, I suppose.
-Da3vid-
At least according to this article. The current vaccine has to be given each year. Some of the money is also earmarked towards treating malaria, which should help in the interim.
exactly.. once hippies started writing songs about spots on apples, it was all over.
All over for the millions of people who have died of malaria since, I mean.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
It's things like this that make me realize something - we here at /. may complain about the "evil empire" and the monopoly which Bill & Co hold on certain parts of the industry, but when you look at what can be done with the fruits of the monopoly, it makes you stop and think.
/.ers tend to be a little hasty on jumping the gun on the "favorite tech enemy of the week", without actually looking at what aforementioned enemy does.
I dunno. As a whole, we
Altough, it must be stated that part of the MS donation run is for PR... which we give them happily. Noble intentions or not, the end result is still good in this case.
it's sad to see the cynicism over such a big donation
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
Is it really necessary to use the gates borg icon when he does something like this?
I saw no problem with it. Are you racist against cyborgs? ;-)
Remind me of the time (5-10 years ago?) when people were complaining that Bill Gates (and other young newly rich guys) was not paying their due to the charity, like Carnegie and Rockefeller. Put aside your MS grumbling and US whining for a moment, and recognize that Bill Gates, at least, in his personal capacity, is carrying on a noble American tradition with gusto.
Of course using this logic, no one should ever sell anything, because it depresses the price for the folks who have yet to sell.
...this money he gives away is not coming out of his salary, or even the profits of his company. It comes directly out of the pockets of the shareholders of the company.
Oh, come on. I'm as critical as anyone when it comes to Bill's approach to business and the practices of his company, but no one has given more to charity in the history of the planet, or so I've read.
If you have good evidence that he's really spending other people's money for charity, let's see it. If your criticism is that by giving money, he's having a secondary effect on Microsoft stock prices, I don't buy it.
The closest thing to a legitimate criticism of his philanthropy I've seen is that he's funding Intelligent Design proponants, but it's not entirely clear that was intentional.
Yes, evil. What a legacy: a completely polluted Internet. The richest software company on Earth is completely unable to build a reliable, secure operating system. But it has been successful in destroying all manner of smaller companies, non-stop price gouging, and blocking customer choice. Lobbying for ever-worse laws that take away our rights and make the world more corporate-owned than ever. And bringing malware and spyware into your homes in ever-more inventive ways.
You guys really are pitiful- I hope your M$ stock options make it worthwhile for you.
we will end no whine before its time
He's just trying to buy his way into Heaven.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Bill Brasky is a son of a bitch!
He breast fed John Madden back to health after a bout with malaria.
Yeah, Alar is totally the same thing as DDT.
A mosquito was heard to complain
That a chemist had poisoned his brain
The cause of his sorrow
Was paradichloro
Diphenyltrichloroethane
Heh heh... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
but it does give a little insight into Gates...many people have a skewed opinion of him, and this may change that.
This just in, Gates dropped some spare change and couldn't be bothered to pick it up, so he donated it to a charity in a desperate attempt to get some good publicity. When it failed, Balmer threw a chair through a window.
not meaning to sound mean but... if this was some CEO taking his hooker around the world i could see your argument but this is saving lives.. for that you are being rude..... and if your are going to make a comment like that please show proof of the wrong doing.. without proof your comment carries no weight.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
After reading the article on steve jobs (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/31 /0355254&tid=3) and now this on bill gates, I move that we should have two icons for each: good steve and bad steve, borg bill and... saint bill?
Does this make my brain look big?
What makes him more qualified? They are HIS shares/options/dividends in HIS company. Every other shareholder has their say in proportion to their holdings. Don't like it? Build your own company.
I don't make predictions, and I never will.
Apparently the environmental movement agrees with you.
... since he got rich on money he stole from all of us, it always feels like I would be doing part of the donating here. And yes, if someone uses illegal methods to enrich himself its like stealing from me in my book.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Ugh no.
m iles_archive.html#107570569615970184 . In short, the myth of agricultural bans on DDT preventing the public health use of DDT is demonstrably false.
See: http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_keneth
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
There's more to this than just killing all the mosquitos in the world. Sure, that'd get rid of malaria, but it'd also screw up the whole ecosystem. Lots of things eat mosquitos, other things eat those things, and so on. It'd completely screw up the predator/prey balance in the area. Personally, I think Africa doesn't need to get any more screwed up.
Should malaria be erradicated? Hell yes. Should it be done by destroying the ecosystem, possibly causing catastrophe? Hell no. What if it somehow led to an overabundence of crop-destroying critters? Even less food for Africa? I don't know if that's a good risk to take.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
Over here near southern California, outside on the sea from Westminster at Orange County; I've gone boating all the way to Catalina Island and beyond. There are Bald Eagles nested throughout the island as part of an environmental rehabilitation attempt. Every once in a while, someone finds an Bald Eagle floating face-down in the water. After an invasive test, it has been found that DDT poisoning is the cause, from eating raw fish infected with DDT. Then, DDT has been found all around the shoreline on the open-ocean exposed part of the island. Doing more research, Officers found that DDT was banned because it caused all kinds of health disorders and that mosquitos were becoming more immune after every generation of exposure. In the infinite wisdom of government, they decided to store the DDT in barrels, cast the barrels in cement blocks, and toss them off the southern shore of Catalina Island in what they thought was an adequately deep area.
But with every passint minute... it crumbled apart... it rusted open... and It came from the DEEP! We now have DDT poisoning. Have a nice day.
And please remember, Bald Eagles can cry only for Republican and Democratic patriotism; especially when the propoganda can only show a healthy and crieing Bald Eagle.
without prejudice
$$$ ooOOoo $$$
You more or less hit one of the biggest issues regarding the supply problem, so I won't bother going into that.
that is a lot of money to give to R&D. I for one am glad someone is funding the research, since the president of the US hasn't got a f-ing clue and isn't funding R&D to fight diseases.
One of the questions to ask seriously (and I'm not saying I know how the answer would come out, because I don't) is this: what would've happened if Bill Gates hadn't acquired all that money which he is now giving away? Where would it be? In the pockets of millions of ordinary folks, of course. And what would they have done with it?
One possibility, of course, is that they would have frittered it away on DVDs and beer. But it's also possible they would have done a million individual worthy deeds of charity, such as buying some shoes to send a soldier on tsunami relief, who knows a little girl who needs them, or cooking a hot meal for a neighbor with cancer, or buying a textbook for an inner-city school that's short. Or maybe some extra money would've let a brilliant but poor student not drop out of medical school, so he would get the education he needs to invent the malaria vaccine that works for 20 years. You never know, actually.
And that's the rub. Is the good that Bill does with that money necessarily greater than the distributed good that would have been done by the millions of original possessors if they'd kept their money because he sold his products more cheaply? I don't know, of course. You can argue it both ways: (1) Bill has time to study the issues very carefully before investing, make a single "strategic vision" and implement a cohesive overall plan, so maybe "centralizing" the charity decisions makes them better. Or, (2) Bill's only one man, he can't possibly have access to all the information all those millions of people at the "grass roots" level have, so their distributed "Open Source Charity" movement would make better, more flexible and effective decisions.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation did NOT donate one red cent to any charity. They NEVER do. They only give "grants" which are always complicated deals involving stock options that can be borrowed against but never sold, and do not actually transfer cash to charities. The deals always involve Bill or Melinda getting a seat on the board of the charity, and the ability to direct how his "donation" is used. And the "donation" is always used for purchasing expensive pharmaceuticals from companies like Merck, Schering-Plough, etc. which coincidentally happen to have Bill Gates as a major stockholder.
Bill Gates does not give money to charities, he assimilates them. He uses the charities to get third world countries hooked on Big Pharma products that he profits from. Bill Gates is a druglord.
It really is none of our business at all, but I really think Bill is trying to establish the image of Robin Hood For Himself.
He is robbing the rich (basically everyone on the planet who is 'rich' enough to buy his software, not to mention large corporations through law suits), and giving the money off to the poor.
A modern day Robbing Hood if you will
"When you support Free software, you support malaria!"
-me
What the hell's your problem? Do you like dead babies? Do you???
No, save the precious infants!
or
Yes, let's kill some babies!
Don't confuse the two. Bill doesn't call all the shots anymore.
...probably because Microsoft Senior Vice President Paul Martiz contracted the disease after a trip to his home in South Africa, eventually resulting in his retirement from MS.
I guess that's why all the other corporations with market maximal market saturation have founders donating billions every year to stuff that doesn't affect them.
...more than $1bn to fight cancer
Bill's munificence promotes the efforts of pharmaceutical companies who profit from the same intellectual property rules that made Bill a billionare. They profit because as a society, we have decided that the best way to promote progress is to accord these folks monopoly ownership of ideas. Not only of ideas, but also the manufacture and distribution of anything related to those ideas.
Not everyone agrees.
These rules eliminate the efficiency of a free market. Monopolists do not have to compete. In addition, monopolists can, and almost always do, maximize their profits by creating artificial scarcity.
I'm not so cynical to believe it's intentional, but nonetheless an insidious side affect of Bill's generosity is that it promotes a kind of starry eyed worship of an imperfect system. Oh what a wonderful wizard, look at the wonderful things he does!
We can do better. Bill's ability to be so generous comes at the expense of our economy. He accumulated his great wealth at the expense of free markets. Microsoft, and the pharmaceutical companies Bill promotes (he's not bequeathing millions to generic manufacturers now, is he?), contrary to popular mythology, epitomize anti-capitalism.
We could cure malaria a lot faster if we eliminated the the protectionist intellectual property racket that stifles free market capitalism. In particular, idea owners should not be given manufacturing or distribution monopolies. They should be compelled to license their ideas in an equitable fashion to all comers.
So now were going to need a good mix of pesticides, and the ability to spray the areas where we have these mosquitos, without leaving pockets of Malaria. There would also need to be heavy changes to prevent standing water, covering watering-holes with screens, draining swamp areas near towns and villages, agressive treatement of malaria to prevent human carriers.
Storm
You can find the main article here.
I have never been a fan of Bill Gates, the technologist. I don't harbor the opinion that Bill has made a great contribution to technology. Indeed, I blame Mr Gates for the absurdly bad PC user interface that we all have to put up with--and I don't just mean the Windows interface--I also mean the Apple interface and the two (for-chrissake-make-up-your-mind) Linux interfaces.
By doing little more than slavishly follow innovations introduced by Apple and occasionally coming up with original bad ideas, Microsoft has put no competitive pressure on Apple at all to provide a truly usable PC interface. (When it needed to produce a brilliant interface, as per the iPod, Apple was up to the task). With Linux, it's worse. GUI innovation amongst the Linux desktop crowd has been so invisible that one wonders whether Open Source naturally evolves according to the principles of unintelligent design. It's all a mess.
I have more respect for Bill Gates as a businessman. Admittedly Microsoft's power grew out of a monopoly situation, but Bill Gates was intelligent and focused in establishing that monopoly and outmaneuvered a swathe of competitors. It's difficult to fault it, although it's also easy to conclude that it has not been good for the IT industry.
But never mind, there is an area of activity where, in my view, Bill Gates deserves genuine respect. A current article in the New Yorker provides a detailed account of Bill (and Malinda) Gates' philanthropic activities. Most impressively, Bill Gates is (unarguably) doing more for world health than the WHO itself. The simple fact is that the Bill and Malinda charity provides much more finance to specific world health initiatives than the WHO does--and it is managed (by Bill himself) as if it were a competitive business. It sets targets, invests and reviews progress. According to the New Yorker, at the moment Bill is doing what he can to combat Malaria--which is more deadly to world health than AIDS. The article is worth reading. Not just for what it reveals about Bill Gates but also what it reveals about the health problems the world faces.
Detractors of Bill Gates may well maintain that with his particular pile of dollars it is easy to be philanthropic. Indeed with one tenth of his dollar pile it would also be easy. And indeed there are a few individuals that have such piles, but I don't know of any (with the possible exception of George Soros) that actively engages in the kind of activity that Bill Gates does. Hats off, I think.
only in your fantasy world would $258,000,000 US be considered chump change.
Say a common poster here makes $50,000 and he donates a $.10 to charity. If Bill Gates donating $258 million to charity and that is the equivalent of my dime, than his annual salary would have to be $129 trillion. So, your comment is way off base. $258 million is quite a large donation.
The latest Gates Foundation money will target three main areas. The largest chunk -- $107.6 million -- will be devoted to the most advanced experimental malaria vaccine and will cover the completion of testing in Africa and the licensing process, should the vaccine prove viable.
Although spending money in causes such as these is a noble thing to say the least..
The above quote makes me wonder how this "donation" can be considered a part of Research and development. This whole artical seems like it is adgenda motivated (like anything from the news) and it goes on about figures of "how much is spent on research" when most of the money is used for vaccine? It does raise the question what the real modivations are behind all of this?
Testing and Licencing, sounds like a pretty done deal to me.
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
"Mother Teresa liked feeling important and only helped people because it made herself feel good and needed"
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything. So they cannot understand when others do something charitable. All they do is throw stones rather than replicate or surpass the charity they criticize.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Bill Gates believes in helping people, and he has given a large portion of his wealth to helping these countries get out of poverty and disease. This is fact. The "Return On Investment" on helping Africa is multiple decades, long after he's dead. And even believing that Africans can be productive enough to provide a ROI to Microsoft is itself above and beyond everyone else's "Africa is a basket case" attitude on Africa.
What someone does in business, however shrewd, does not mean they don't genuinely feel for those who are suffering.
I think you should re-read the post you replied to...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Wow, and here I was thinking that some kind of optimization to the human immune system to more effectively kill the malaria parasite was necessary. But no, you're idea about using powerful chemicals to kill a necessary part of the ecosystems sounds like a much better idea. How about running and hiding from mosquitoes? Perhaps a new kind of skin hardening spray! Then mosquitoes wouldn't be able to bite us. Or maybe some kind of mosquitoe diverting turret! It could use ladar to locate the mosquitoe, triangulate it's position and then blast it with a jet of air. The mosquitoe wouldn't come near you and it would be safe to go off and get eaten by a frog.
Of course, if we went with my original idea, improving the human immune system, we'd not only be able to defend ourselves from malaria, we'd also be able to defend ourselves from other pathogens, like ringworm and giardia lamblia (causes gastroenteritis). Not to mention bacterial infections and viruses. It kinda does make you wonder if we'll ever see an improvement to human organs (the immune system arguably being a decentralized organ). Got trouble controlling your blood sugar levels? Here's a bottle of insulin and a syringe, get ready for a lifetime of inconvenience. If you're lucky, or rich, in 20 years time we might have a working implant that can release the insulin into your bloodstream for you! What's that? Fix you? Hahaha, we don't actually fix people. That would be like the fevered dream of a madman.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And what's more, the book presented the softened shells as a bad thing! Do you know how hard it is to crack enough spotted owl eggs for a decent omelette if they haven't been softened a bit first? They're almost as tough as bald eagle eggs!
While I won't get on the I heart Bill bandwagon when he contributes in self serving ways (eg: M$ loaded PCs to Libraries that tie your hands about what you can do with them). I will give him this one.
Way to go Bill!
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Let's see, you can deduct up to 50% of your taxable income in charitable contributions, and he already gave the entire MS dividend of $3 billion to his foundation. His taxable income in any given year is certain to be under $1 billion. So do some math. The vast majority of his charitable contributions are taxed.
He has given very close to half his fortune to charity, and he is quite passionate about global health issues.
We must acknowledge when he does something Good.
Looks like you forgot the fact that those numbers were in thousands. Therefore, that paltry 1.8 million turns out to be around 1.8 billion. Geez. Learn to read what you quote.
does anyone knows if this kind of donations are deductible from Bill's or MS's taxes?
Its nice to see this kind of donations... but it won't mean much to me if this is just some kind of pay tax or donate to buy some good public opinion, or even goverment contracts strategy... I remember they also donated for aids research, africa suffers most from aids and malaria!?!?
I hope this are just good sincere donations.. but again, Bill is the richest man in the world, so he knows how to move his money.
Third world countries already use DDT extensively. Case in point, India, where DDT is the chemical spray of choice for mosquito areas. Problem is, increasing malarial strains are now resistant to DDT. :).
Don't let inconvenient facts stop you from your rants though, this is slashdot
Look harder, chief.
audioLibre - freedom of music
I can assure you that the millions of people who are afflicted by malaria and other 'third world' endemic diseases every year are not interested in whether or not Microsoft's fixing of the 'quirkiness' of Windows XP is going to trickle down to them in order to save their lives or spare them from a life of suffering.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Hey, it's my money! Let ME give it!
Gates dropped some spare change and couldn't be bothered to pick it up
Oh come on, be reasonable. Bill's just found another way using with his key competencies. Malaria parasites are bugs after all, and I'm sure he'll be at least as successful at eradicating malaria as he has been at getting rid of Windows bugs.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Just like their browsers and media players - they're giving away free stuff. You're saved from malaria but down the track something worse will be sprung on you. I don't really know - just judging from past experience.
Just imagine when you take the benificial insects out of entire areas of habitat, and in Africa and on other continents, the areas in which marsh conditions create habititat for the anopholese mosquito are also habitats for secondary strains of insects that feed inumerable other animals. Your statement is at best idiotic and best moded flame bait. So here you are I am flaming you! Are there any more people as stupid and uneducated in your neck of the woods. I cannot believe the mod of your post. Thank God people like Bill Gates are smarter than that and are spending their money in the right place, rather than giving it away to assholes like DOW, BASF, CIL, and all the other international chemical terrorists, not to mention the fact that they pick the pocket of the farmer that feeds you, thus they rob you to boot!
Forgot to actually read the blog, eh.
"DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors."
This offhanded factoid is in fact, the main point of contention of the parent. namely that the wildlife toxicity was overstated and inferred from unrelated factors and that the use of DDT for wide coverage mosquito control is the main contributing factor in the spread of malaria worldwide.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Keep surfing -- there's a link in the comments section of that blog to an FAQ on DDT that's more convincing, better documented, and entirely in favor of the original poster's thesis.
Based on the available information, I'm going to have to assume that Rachel Carson's critics are closer to the truth.
Of course, nowadays, no responsible corporation would think of advocating the use of DDT... because the patents on it have expired.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
This is a very good thing he did. Do not let opinions of his company cloud your thinking. See it for what it is. A charitable gesture. Pray for the guy instead.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Because he thinks money can buy Philanthropy. We hear one man rich from the efforts of the little workmen; why not hear a story of thousands of honestly rich men gifting because it was always among their choices when funds were available and not a last-ditch tax break? Despite the Officers sitting in the Microsoft seat, let's not forget about the little pall-bearers holding the Microsoft casquette under-neath it all. Who works for Microsoft, and who is claiming the ability to gift?
Hhe spreads FDA jurisdiction onto other continents! How would you like to have a foreign jurisdiction and law imposed upon you, that claims that food is a drug because it can prevent disease, or "monitor" health products and unlawfully diverts funds to the scrutiny of products beyond the scope of its charter? Bill Gates isn't even donating, but granting; as a grantor, the trust is revocable. Does anyone remember when FDA tried to re-classify Vitamin C as a "drug" as defined by FDA? It's a power grab to divert constructs of remedy with ministers of cures and drugs. I have a moldy Orange full of Vitamin C and Penecillium; I have some sun-dried Goji berries containing 15 of the 21 or such known proteins that even animal flesh has 5 or 6; remedy. FDA says drug and cure, yet everyone else says remedy.
They advertise their generosity and philactories on every news stand, and overshadow the generosity of common people that do more with what less they can give and don't ward it over eachother. If Bill Gates wanted to actually help people, he'd go drop his donation off somewhere and then walk away; but instead he is getting fiduciary capacity to where the funds may be spent and on what treatments, bringing all the pharmaceutical monopolies beyond the tidemark and plaguing other countries with the beaurocratic nightmare that Americans and citizens of the United States could never keep at bay on thin anti-trust accord.
without prejudice
I'm currently in a country where Malaria prophylaxis is required... recently we switched from daily Malarone tablets to weekly Mefloquine HCL tablets. "Malaria Mondays" are also known as "movie night" because of the really bizarre dreams this shit induces.
One of my co-workers woke up in the middle of the night, standing in the middle of his B-Hut (basically a wooden tent, sleeps 8-10 with about 9'x7x per man), screaming his head off at nothing.
Last night, I dreamed I was accosted by a giant rooster wearing a shaggy fur coat, a wide brimmed velvet hat, gold chains, and big gold rings. He was giving me shit for eating eggs, and was really pissed off at me. He forced me to sit on this egg until it hatched. When the egg hatched, it was a miniature version of myself, dressed like the rooster, and carrying a pizza!
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero
Alright, I need some input here...
Girlfriend works in bar...
I'm okay with this part. I know my girlfirned is faithful... totally. Now, say one of her regulars comes in and she kisses him on the lips. IS this okay? I mean, I'm alright with a lil peck on the cheeck, but on those lips, I feel, is my grounds.. She knew I was there, but even if she did not, is this acceptable? Would you be accepting of it? I left there pretty pissed off about an hour ago. Not drunk at all, just pissed. Do I have a right to be? Or is this okay? Am I being too lienient with the pecks on the cheek? I doin't think so.. but, am I over reacting on this one? She will be home shortly, and I'm just wondering, how would you other slashdotters feel about this?
What the hell are you talking about? The letter-writer goes on for several paragraphs saying over and over "well, it's basically true," and then for some reason concludes that "it is demonstrably wrong." That's hardly an overpowering rebuttal.
Fuck it
So I guess they agree with you.
I do know DDT essentially eradicated Malaria in the Panama canal zone years ago. But I'm not a big fan of the environmental fallout. I'm glad I don't have to make tough decisions like choosing between those two things.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I can't help but wonder if anyone here on slashdot has a clue about the history of DDT and malaria.
The widespread use of DDT had all but wiped out malaria some three decades ago. Then someone named Rachel Carson wrote a fictional book called "Silent Spring" about how DDT was harming birds. The book was fictional, literally. But the irrational so-called "envoronmentalists" of the world took it as a call to action and successfully pressured the government to ban DDT. Now millions die needlessly in Africa as a result of their irrationality.
Why does the media not report this? They want to keep you in the dark. Do you want to stay there? If not, I urge you to read a book called Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture, by Jack Cashill. It will explain the DDT ruse and many others too.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
What was that? Nothing, you say?
The silence is deafening.
since when does bill gates give even a moment's thought to stopping the proliferation of virii? i bet he is the one who unleashed all the mosquitoes there in the first place.
go get it
Ok, so Bill Gates isn't evil. And his donations to charity are pretty cool. I guess I'm going to have mellow my opinion of him. But his software still sucks.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Those investments represent about $200M. The foundation is capitalized at $24B. Thus these represent about 0.8% of the investment of the foundation.
Also, this money is to go to vaccinations. If he were to invest in health scammery, I would imagine he would work towards chronic treatments for maximum return, not vaccinations, which you only buy once and at a price typically of less than a few years' treatments would cost.
Additionally, your link is ridiculous. It says Bill G is scamming, all health companies are scamming and the real solution is belief in Jah. Um, I'm a little to much of a believer in science to fall for this.
Finally, to respond to another poster, the use of the word "grant" here doesn't mean that the money given wasn't cash. Grant is simply the right word. I couldn't say the grants are cash (they likely are not), but even if they aren't I don't see any real evidence Bill G is going to clean up on this kind of thing. Even if this caused his investments in Pharma to triple, it would only increase the money there by 3%. I would think if Bill G were going to pull a scam, he could do a lot better than that.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The money microsoft and in the end gates made from selling dodgy
software/screwing people and companies over etc, some portion of
it is being spent on important social issues.
The chances are if MS hadn't charged as much for their software
as they did, the money saved by most people buying the software
would likely not have gone to such causes at all. Most likely it
would have gone to buying more aeron chairs and executive ass
scratchers...
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
With Love....
so what is better... do good and evil or do no evil but do less good? or do gates do google do do on yahoo.... wtf am i thinking, i need to go to sleep lol
As much as I'd like to respect Bill Gates, and to see him as something other than a shrewd and souless businessman, I still think this is spin. It hasn't gone unnoticed that no company has seen profit margins like Microsoft's since colonial times when monopolies were gleefully raping and destroying entire cultures and ecosystems for their shareholders' gain, without conscience. Many if not most of the world's modern day problems have their roots in the west's colonial transgressions. What will the future of computing bring?
I think Bill realises that he's done wrong by a signficant portion of the world, and more will come to light as the world's computer users become more savvy (as they are with each generation), and more stories of graft, exploitation, and injustice emerge. Microsoft is a business which routinely uses deceit and law breaking as part of its arsenal of tools to maximise profit. Even if they get caught occasionally (and usually they don't), fighting the occasional law suit with their fleet of lawyers, they still wring more money out of the hapless computer user than if they "did the right thing".
Some might admire Bill's approach, but I don't. Anyone who believes that all is fair in love, war, and business is definitely not someone I'd do business with. The market depends on contract, and ultimately (since we know justice can be bought), contract depends on honour - and the value of reputation. If a business, like Microsoft, finds it cheaper to pay spin doctors to cover up its wrong-doings, then it doesn't really have to worry about its reputation.
Bill realises that eventually, his chickens will come home to roost (so to speak), and the history books will piece together all the really crappy things Microsoft has done under his watchful eye. So, given that a few billion $$ here and there aren't going to have a noticable impact on his lifestyle, why chuck a spare $billion at the masses, targetted with advice from a team of "philathropy advisors" to maximise publicity value. Maybe giving a bit of it away makes him feel better about all the nasty things he did to get that money from the people who earned it in the first place. Who knows, maybe the history books will remember Bill Gates as a beneficent, visonary philanthropist. Maybe they'll see him as a calculating mob-boss who tried too late to exorcise his demons.
All I can say is, the money is great for the people it helps, and I won't knock that. And good for you, Bill... better late than never. I guess we all need to sleep at night. A question one might ask, though: is it really generosity if you have so much you couldn't realistically spend it all yourself anyway?
Either way, sadly Bill donating to charity (especially when it's in the form of MS software licenses, one of MS's favourite tricks, which have 90%+ profit margins, and are thus grossly over-valued as a contribution), doesn't really do anything to polish Microsoft's irreparably tarnished Death Star image.
Dave
Linux on the desktop since 1994.
I didn't get very weird dreams, but I did hallucinate a bit while awake! Basically, things around me seemed to be moving in weird ways. A better look showed they really weren't moving, but it was clearly a mild form of hallucination.
I was back in the US at that time, under the "keep taking it for two or three weeks" directive. Well, I didn't. I stopped taking it immediately.
What's really even stranger is a very small percentage of people who take Lariam go out to lunch and don't come back EVER. Now, that'd be fine if this pill saved you from heart attacks or something and there was no alternative. But there are alternatives, and for many people, the risk of getting Malaria may be low enough (as it was for me in rural Botswana) that it isn't worth the risk of taking Lariam.
At the time, Malarone wasn't available in the US. It is now. If I had to take medication for Malaria now, there is zero chance I'd take Lariam again.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Bill Gates's campaign contributions: http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_don
His "Linux attack money": http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/
Prices gouged on laptops when you buy them without Windows: http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalCo
Some other dirty deeds: http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit006.html
Corporate Malfeasance of Microsoft: http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/malfy.html#ms
You DID know charitable contributions count towards tax breaks in the US, didn't you? Out of all Gates' billions stolen from you and me and every poor person on the planet, he donates a penny (to him) to get himself some extra tax-dodging ammo, and everybody fawns all over him like he was a Saint. PS, I installed a rootkit with this post, which writes the word "gullible" in your Windows system registry. Go look.
I'm a mosquito you insensitive clod.
... without representation, and the ends do not justify the means.
And I was going to pitch him for a donation to combat cat juggling.
Thats funny, I was just reading up on DDT earlier today.
It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years.
Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
"Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic."
"Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
"Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate."
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Malaria vaccine possible within six years
11:18 31 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya
A malaria vaccine could be available within 6 years if new trials of the most promising candidate prove successful, say experts.
Malaria vaccine research received a $107.6 million injection of funds on Monday, part of a $258.3 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the study of malaria and its treatment.
The cash boost will accelerate the development of an effective vaccine, says Melinda Moree, director of the Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI). The anticipated date for a vaccine could be as early as 2011. At one point what the world considered to be fairly unattainable is actually coming along quite rapidly, she told reporters. It is absolutely possible to make a vaccine against malaria."
MVI will work with GlaxoSmithKline on the most promising vaccine candidate yet, called RTS,S, which, in trial in Mozambique, cut the rate of severe malaria in children aged 1 to 4 by 58%. This was the first time that a malaria vaccine candidate had shown protection against severe disease in children.
The new series of planned trials will examine whether the vaccine is safe and effective when given to infants alongside other childhood vaccines. Research will then proceed to a phase III trial to permit licensing. The trials, to be conducted in locations across Africa, will have about 17,000 subjects.
more at the url above.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
The World (a PRI program) mentioned this in part of a larger story on malaria in Africa (WMA file, fittingly enough). The ultimate point was that as much as Bill is being generous in his giving, he largely has wanted to see it go toward technological improvements rather than simple things that work now (eg sleeping mats spayed down with repellent).
It's a good listen overall, though.
Hey asshole, what's stopping you from installing Linux?
Go to hell.
It is nice and fancy that Bill Gates is giving money to fight malaria... but at the same time the U.N. is, and most of the countries in the world are, making the most effective Malaria prevention tool illegal, all because of bad science from reactionary enviornmentalist... and tens of millions are dying because of it:
. stm
p 3?&id=146
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3532273
This article addresses the Bill Gates absurdity directly:
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.ph
Western governments could spend a fraction of the money they are spending now, and eliminate Malaria by at least 90%! The U.N., U.S., Canada, E.U. are esentially ensuring the death of millions in order to score a few token political points with the enviornmental lobby!
This isn't simply a matter of Western governments "not giving enough" to fight Malaria. Fighting malaria is cheap and easy, and most government can handle the problem with just a little help. This is a case of Western governments using their money and power to force policies on other countries that kill millions.
Yes, but Rockefeller had a nice book written about what he did. No books were written, or will be written, about the millions of actions taken by his millions of customers. So how can you compare? You can certainly compare what Rockefeller did to what any one individual you know has done, or is likely to do. But how can you compare to what millions of people would do in small amounts, here and there?
You might as well say that the wisdom of General Eisenhower was far more important than the wisdom of the millions of men under his command in winning the Second World War, because we have many books discussing Eisenhower and the brilliant decisions he made, but all we really know about all those men is they executed his orders successfully. We have no clue about what wisdom or folly they might have deployed in doing so. So we have no way of knowing whether their collective wisdom exceeded Ike's individual wisdom. Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't know which was more critical to winning the war. Consequently we don't know whether it would be better to put even more decision-making authority in Ike's hands, or distribute some of it from Ike down to the grunts.
Of course, we do know that Ike's individual wisdom exceeded the wisdom of most or all individual front-line grunts. Which you may be unconsciously doing when you compare Rockefeller to "ordinary" people -- comparing him to one or a few ordinary people. But that's not fair. The correct comparison is to millions of ordinary people. And that comparison is very hard to make, and it's very hard to know what the result would be. That's my point.
So a man worth 50 billion donates 258 million, or .516% of his wealth. That is nothing. He is a media whore. Anyway his malaria research was announced like a year or two ago. Wanted to see wormwood (absinth) revived into a bitter green cure.
But I wonder, when the US needed to raise up a Russian Submarine, they called on the aviator himself(Howard Hughes) to sail his new eccentrically designed mining ship into the sea in search of jewels or gold or whatever. Now perhaps America needs to spend some cash in Africa, so they get the current billjillionaire to donate for "malaria research." Funding the next coup perhaps. I wonder how the muslems... I mean malaria is doing in Africa these days.
Bill gates is a cover story, just like hughes was in his day. History will record the facts, and reveal them to our grandchildren.
yeah you do that mods
In further news, I donate $15 to charity. I think its great that he's donating money to charity, (and I know my $15 analagy probably isnt accurate, but my point remains), but is it really news when someone who makes as much as he does donates such a small portion of their income to chariy. I say 'good for him', but its no big deal... not like he couldnt spare the money.
Why do we need research? We know how to treat it and how to prevent it. What we need to spend money on is actually /doing just that/.
Okay, R&D is still useful, but when are we going to realise we're spending all our money on finding Yet Another Medical Discover that we're too cheap to actually /use/.
First up Malaria is a "Tropical" disease, ie: found in the tropics, Australia has the strictest quarantine of any Nation, NZ and the Antartic are too cold.
Second, Malaria is an "orphan" disease, ie: Drug companies do not see a future profit so they put little effort into research.
Third, "evil" people sometimes do great deeds. As for "pushing & conjoling" have you ever noticed that is how most "leaders" operate?
Fourth, this is exactly the kind of philanthropy that US capitialism has always touted but has rarely experienced.
Last, Bill & Co have an impressive record of helping people who are largely forgotten by the rest of the world. No he did not start MS in an attempt to wipe out Malaria, but because of MS success as a publicly traded company, Bill now has the oportunity to do so.
Projection: The fact that you can only see a self serving conspiracy on the part of MS says alot more about you than it does about Bill.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't think your argument is sound, but I am having difficulty explaing precisely why. Instead, let me give a parallel situation and ask a question:
Recently the price of gas rose from $2 to $3 a gallon. That's a very small amount of money. Even over the course of a year, for most people it's a small additional cost. Maybe $10 a week or so. So by your argument a 50% rise in gasoline energy costs should have zero or negligible effect on the economy. After all, if people were going to do something important with that extra $10 a week -- buy a house or new car, invest in a business, hire someone, place an order for 1,000 new workstations -- they would have already done it, or not done it, and the extra $10 won't make any real difference.
And yet, of course, such a price shock has most definitely had profound and lasting effects on the US economy, even on the world economy, for example in the 70s. And people today get highly lathered up about it, predicting dire effects and proposing drastic remedies (drilling in ANWR, forcing everyone to drive a hybrid, whatever).
How do you explain this?
You speak complete nonense. Of course the foundation gives money (as cheques), destined for specific puroposes.
In opensource, now thats more like it..
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/ Well, this definitely exhibits the kindness of the gentleman. 28.8 Billion dollars is a huge amount, and the causes that it is fighting are really going to be beneficial for mankind in future. In charity, there's no competition...if Bill Gates gave some amount, i m sure he'll be more happy if a competitor gives more thn him...after all, its for the same good cause
COMPLETE looney nonsense. Are you stoopid enough to believe that?
I believe the Borg icon relates to the embrace and extend villainy his company has perpetrated on the world. I would claim many trillions of dollars have been lost due to Microsoft's abusive monopoly, which is enabled by their closed formats and embrace and extend tactics. Instead of Microsoft hoarding the wealth, the world could be sharing, cooperating, and growing.
Google gets this. They are making information available to the world, which is enriching us all.
Bill Gates III started giving to charity because he was widely criticized for not doing so, not for any humanitarian reasons.
My issue with the icon is that the Borg are not hypocritical.
I'd rather the government taxed the rich so that this sort of obscene wealth could be spent in a way that is democratically accountable. If the people want it spent on malaria then it'll get spent on malaria. The poor shouldn't depend on the whims of the ultra-rich for this kind of thing.
I commend Bill for his generosity, really. The Gates Foundation is the largest charity organization in the world, and it does many worthwhile things. It follows in the grand tradition of billionaire benefactors, like Rockefeller and Carnegie.
But keep in mind that Gates is the wealthiest man on the face of the planet, worth tens of billions of dollars. There's only so many mansions, exotic cars, yachts, priceless works of art, private jets, islands, and so forth he could purchase before they become ridiculous, if he were even into those things. And still he'd have billions left over.
To put it another way, suppose you've got $100,000 in assets (home equity, retirement savings, property, etc.) minus debt. Suppose Bill Gates is worth US$46.5 billion in 2005, according to Forbes. If you were to give away the same proportion of your ($100,000) net worth as Bill Gates just did in Africa, you'd need to cut a check for...$554.84
If I write a $550 check to charity every year, does that get me sainthood?
Again, I don't mean to minimize Gates' generosity, or the tremendous good that his money is doing around the world. Just to put it in perspective.
You're forgetting one thing: history. Wherever and whenever decision-making power has been highly concentrated, the final results have been markedly poorer than when it is more distributed. The USSR is the most spectactular example, of course, a situation in which the decision of where to spend nearly every dollar (well, ruble) in the economy was made by a very few people at the top, allocating huge amounts of money at a time. The results speak for themselves.
The performance of companies that deliberately distribute decision-making authority down to lower levels is also illustrative. Generally when lower-level "front-line" people have as much decision making power as they can handle the company is more agile, more responsive, more successful. All successful companies know this, and take steps to prevent decision making from taking place on too high a level, because the view from the penthouse is often lacking some critical details. Any engineer or salesman who has worked for a large firm knows that the fewer layers of management up through which information must percolate, and down through which decisions must be filtered, the faster problems are solved correctly. This is not news. You just may not be used to thinking of these facts in this context.
Neither of these trends should be robust facts of history if your idea is true, that it's generally "impossible to tell" whether highly centralized or distributed decision-making is best. So do the lessons apply to charitable decision-making, too? Hard to say. But since it definitely applies to many other kinds of decision making, one would have to consider the possibility carefully before saying "Oh goody! Let's give another $250 million to Bill ultimately for charity, instead of spending it where we ourselves choose."
The only point of your brain exercise is to vaguely hint that Bill Gates doesn't deserve his money.
God knows what you mean by deserve. Where does morality creep into economics? I was talking strictly about economic efficiency, nothing else. The question of whether Bill "deserves" his earnings I find meaningless noise. You might as well ask if he "deserves" to be named "Bill." He just is, that's all. He's just rich, that all. Morality doesn't enter into it.
But then this happened:
Oops.As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
For some diseases, finding a cure is a blessing. But malaria is not primarily a medical problem, it's a problem of population growth and population movement. Finding a cure to malaria will not benefit humanity.
...
oh, the silence.
Bill and Melinda Gates are BY FAR the most generous people on earth. And the money THEY give, is not coming with a contract, like most money coming from the western countries, which demand the help is spend with their companies.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
if his intentions were pure he'd give the cash away without telling anyone. if you tell people about it, no matter how much you 'care', you're in it for more than just helping people.
that said i'm sure the people this cash helps won't care where it came from so maybe it doesn't matter.
this guy is a saint
I don't think that anybody can really determine the reason for Bill Gates contributing to humanitarian causes.
But, before you decide to claim him a saint, here are some things to consider:
1) Bill Gates is seen as Microsoft, and Microsoft as Bill Gates; the two are inseparable. If Bill, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does something admirable, Microsoft shares in the glory.
2) Bill Gates doesn't offer this money anonymously, and therefore he's certain to have a reaction such as "Oh, Bill can't be a bad man, Microsoft can't be evil!"
3) Microsoft is still mostly portrayed in a bad light, and the misdeeds of the Beast are still fresh in everybody's mind. Microsoft could do with some positive press. Past experiences, where Bill has given money, certainly show that Microsoft comes out in a good light whenever Bill or his Foundation do something good.
4) We have seen, and we're still seeing anti-competitive practises from Microsoft. For example: Microsoft has in the past audited poor schools, attempting and succeeding to suck thousands of dollars out of them.
5) If you force a poor man to give you money, and then offer some of that money to another poor man, does that make you? I'd say it was more like guilt money.
Things need to be put into perspective.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Indeed.
Occasionally when I come here, I get the impression that some people feel that societies would magically get better if everyone just used Open Office and submitted kernel patches.
Technology is great and all, but it's a bit lower in priority compared to food, shelter, and medicine. The basics count, and if Bill Gates wants to donate a quarter of a billion dollars to help cut down on the millions of annual deaths from malaria, there really isn't any good reason to criticize him. Malaria certainly isn't a glamorous cause, but it is no less important.
Read the article here I read this article in the print version of the magazine a couple weeks ago and I think it is relevant to this discussion. Most the things I want to say, this article says better. I will leave it to you to read and discuss.
At present, Windows XP, with all its quirkiness and vulnerabilities, wastes the time of some of the most educated and capable people in the world. The $258 million donated is completely and utterly trivial compared to the maintenance cost of Windows XP throughout the world. So you're saying sysadmins would fly to Africa and fight malaria for 10 hours a month if Windows fucked up less?
While *Microsoft* tends to only engage in self-serving philanthropy (giving things away to enhance their business interests in the long term), I have to give kudos to Gates for his foundation. Everything I've ever seen the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation give money to has been a very important cause with absolutely no potential to benefit them or MS materially in any way.
In particular, Gates has backed research into treating the maladies that vex the third world. These are diseases that do incredible harm, but frankly aren't commercially worth the spending medical research dollars on because the people they afflict are so poor. This is why a few hundred million here and there from Gates is such a huge thing. He spends the money that no commercial interest could ever justify spending to try to alleviate the suffering of the worlds poorest residents.
Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing positive to say about how Bill made his money, but he does deserver credit for how he disposes of it through his charity.
I think some "R&D" dollars would be really beneficial as malaria is a pretty crappy disease. I hope that we can use the research and development money to develop a new, more powerful version of malaria.
or else!
Consider the source. According to the Skeptic's Dictionary (not exactly a front for environmentalists), corporate whore Steven J. Milloy of junkscience.com is not exactly a source of objective information.
Agenda an order of business for an official work plan.
Keep those potentional customers alive, and give them microsoft altering drugs that make them crave windows fortnightly.
Oct. 2005-Discovered a cure and developed a syrum for malaria.
Jan. 2006-Announced delay in release of said syrum, while the latest features and security enhancements are added. Announced a release date of Q4 2006.
Q4 2006-Malaria, Longhorn Addition(tm) delayed again while bugs are worked out of all the "features" they added. Expected release Q4 2007
Q4 2007-Malaria syrum further delayed, MS announces that they are dropping the capability to cure malaria, but are releasing it with a sweet new UI (User Injection interface). Expected release: Q4 2008
Q4 2008-Syrum still not released, pirated beta versions of the vaccine flood bit torrent, but look just like all the same old medicines.
or else!
While there is much to criticize about Bill Gates, in selecting a target for his philanthropy, he has done a quite brilliant thing in targeting the single area where an investment in research would yield the greatest return in reduction of human misery. Parasitic diseases in the 3rd world are the source of untold suffering, yet they are not a major target of research dollars because they do not afflict wealthy companies and do not offer a great profit potential for big pharma. So Gates has identified an unmet need, and has put his money precisely where it will do the most good.
It is, of course, always tempting to seek a selfish goal for philanthropy, particularly where the donor is such a shark in the business arena. Obviously, these are not anonymous donations, and Gates reaps benefits in terms of reputation and public relations. Still, there are many areas where he could have made donations that would have had greater visibility and appeal to his primary customer base. People can have multiple motivations for their actions, but it is difficult to doubt that at least part of the motivation behind Gates's philanthropy is the desire to do something really good for people in need.
That'll buy a hell of a lot of DDT, which is the only thing you need to eradicate malaria.
And kill half the population, squash two bugs in one go i guess
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
Does this mean any tax deduction on the given amount? If tax deduction arrives to 100% of the quantity, then this is not philantropy, just free publicity.
think of it as an investment in people
I think that fixing XP has nothing to do with it. However, if you buy a piece of commercial software, some small portion of it may go to treat malaria. Ok, so it's a good thing. And if you download a piece of comparable able free software, you can donate the $20-$500 you saved to Malaria if you so desire. Or less. And both you and Malaria are likely getting more money. I have no problem with any charitable works. I still think Microsoft is a fairly evil company, because of the tactics it uses. But if Bill Gates spends his money in the right way, that's not a bad thing. Google's motto is "Do no evil", but Microsoft's is still not "Do only evil" I mean, they did make Age of Empires.
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Bill can just "buy" his bad deeds away by making generous donations. Dirty drug money is still dirty drug money whether it's used for good or not.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
I doubt you read my comment carefully.
ahaha, wtf's wrong with me.. thought the title was "bill gates donates 258 mill to fight materia." i hope noone reads this.
Seriously...
Bill.. Come on buddy... Cant you just see it in my way and just help a poor man out... Seriously.. shit. Peel me off 3 FUCKING BILLS, BILL!
3 MILL It's all i need!
Fucking mosquitos.
If MS hadn't become the power player in PC software then it would
probably be DR who did. So instead of Bill Gates being rich it would
be Gary Kildall (if he didn't die in 1994 too in this alternate universe).
Someone would have pocketed the money for software since people needed
it. Even if PCs had failed taking DR with it then it would be Apple
could well be top dog or if Macs failed then perhaps the Amiga would be
on everyones desktop now , and so on and so forth.... At any rate,
*someone* would be rich from people buying software.
The way you can make it be:
The choice is yours.
I guess that besides windows we have a new M*soft sponsored virus now!
make: warning clock skew detected
What bill should really do is lobby for the US to stop pressuring africa not to buy or make generic medication. Human life is more important than the possibility of making money.
My new blog
Lets just get blood cell anemia, then we are all imune to malaria anyway!
Im just curious as to where he decides 358 million, I mean, doesnt that kinda sound like a number you just make up in your head? "Oh im gonna go donate 432 Million to ddt research today". Does the 8 mean anything? Like, I know in an rpg, if I have 358,000 coins, I normally give away 3,000, so it makes my bank look nice and organized by saying 355K. Is that the same reason he gave away 358? Or am I just weird :p
A lot of groups are having dramatic success with fighting mosquitoes by the use of their natural predators, dragonflies. Basically mosquitoes breed in any body of open water, so by inroducing dragonflies to the mix, there are no more mosquitoes. You need to keep adding them every year, but at least its envirnomentally safe (or so it seems so far). As an added bonus, they sure are pretty. :D
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Hmm. You've said:
(1) Multinational corporation Mobil knows better than ordinary mortals such as you, me, its customers and investors, the people of Indonesia, the potential victims of the violence, etc., what will be consequences of hiring Indonesian thugs. That means Mobil bears primary responsibility for stopping the violence, since none of the rest of us can foresee it. The fact that they did not means they bear primary guilt, or at least share it with the triggermen. They're certainly guiltier than the rest of us. Guilty enough for the OP to call them murderers, a pretty strong charge.
(2) But...you know perfectly well that the money would lead to murder and mayhem, and I don't think you're suggesting you are at Mobil's level of guilt. I also suspect you don't think your insight is especially tricky to come by, requiring much thinking and lots of data, 'cause you made your point in a very few number of words, and in a style that strongly suggests the point should be obvious to any dimwit (like me).
So how do you reconcile these two things? Are you and Mobil and your fellow-thinkers all equally knowledgeable and equally culpable, while the rest of us ignoramuses are innocent? Are you a murderer because you so clearly see that Mobil spent and (presumably) will continue to spend its revenues commiting murder -- and you do nothing more to stop it than post comments on a bulletin board? I mean, have you written to the Indonesian ambassador to warn him or anything? Do you still buy Mobil gas?
Or, does the rule about knowledge conferring responsibility apply only to the employees of Mobil and not to you? Because, say, when you join a multinational your IQ automatically goes up by 20 points. Or are all of us guilty, because we all could have figured it out? Or, um...do you just not like Mobil for some personal reason?
It's the Roman Empire or Genghis Khan argument. It doesn't matter how much power you have, just how you concentrate it. A million individuals doing their own thing will have a less potent effect than a thousand people working on the same thing towards the same goal. Same thing with concentrated sums of money like this.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
No mention in the article that this is indeed cash and not simply $258 Million worth [retail] of Microsoft products.
Unfortunately money and power are inseparable, because I'd like it much better if people could just get rich, but forget about the power.
They are not inseparable, they are identical. Money is power, the power to command the labor of others. A dollar bill is an IOU for one dollar's worth of labor, and when you hand someone a dollar bill you are promising them a dollar of your labor whenever they want it. (It's worse than that, actually: you also promise that they can give the IOU to anyone they please, and you'll honor your obligation to that other person, whoever he is.)
So, yes, if Bill Gates accumulates 50 billion dollars, he can command 50 billion dollars of labor. That is clearly power.
The nice thing about Bill's power, however, is that those IOUs were freely given, and there is no disenfranchised minority that has to work for him unwillingly. Furthermore, as soon as Bill starts using his power, calling in the IOUs, otherwise known as spending his money, his power decreases. So his power is self-limiting: the more he uses it, the faster he loses it.
On the other hand, political power is far less clean. The President has power over the 46% of the people who did not vote for him, who might loathe him. You've got to work for him (also known as paying your taxes) whether or not you want to, whether or not you want the "products" he's offering you (seeds of democracy and victory in the war on terror, or massive destabilization, the seeds of future terrorism and comprehensive ecocatastrophe, depending on your own favorite flavor of Kool-Aid).
Furthermore, in politics you don't get the choice of saving and not handing out your IOUs. If you don't like anyone's software, you can just not buy anything and save your IOUs for a more deserving product. But every four years, whether you want to or not, you are forced to choose from the candidates running. You can't say, screw this, I will reserve my IOUs (taxes) until I see a better "product" from anothe political leader. Many folks have complained about the famous lack of a "none of the above" option in elections.
After all, he's familiar with the horror of the symptoms. He sees Balmer all jerky with the sweats every day. And every time he sees an iPod he starts rocking and gets the shivers himself.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Did you actually... um... read the letter? He goes on for paragraphs talking about how such comments are simple-minded bunk, that the DDT ban did not constitute an instantaneous ban in developing countries (who are still not averse to targetted use today), how widespread outdoor use was actually making the spread of malaria WORSE, how other chemicals are better-used for the purposes of malaria-control and other things they wanted to use DDT for...
I have to congratulate Bill for this. I made a decision recently that I was going to stop hating Bill Gates; let's face it, he does nothing more than make software we don't like. Sure, you could say he's monopolistic, but somewhere along the line, people have forgot that he's just a business trying to maximize profits. A donation like this to fight malaria will no doubt have huge positive effects for Africa, and if it buys him some good will, I see no problem with it. I still hate Windows, and Microsoft in general, but I could hardly think of a better thing to be done with the profits.
Recycled from an above thread, already talking on the matter:
m iles_archive.html#107570569615970184
...and to post the end of the article directly:
http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_keneth
The main points:
- People saying "OMG EPA BANZ DDT AT FAULT!" are being simplistic and unscientific
- DDT is not banned from public health use is most places where malaria is endemic
- DDT is kept from most outdoor use because widespread and indescriminate use actually makes the spread of malaria worse... by increasing the mosquito population's resistance to DDT
- other insecticides are much better alternatives to DDT outdoors
Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor.
Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong.
I don't know what kind of philanthropy gives out less than it takes in and never more than ~5% of its net worth, but it's not a typical one and certainly not one to hold up as the embodiment of charitable acts.
Its quite simple really. Historical trends of the stock market show returns of about 10%. Current inflation rate is about 3%, but that jumps up to 10% or more. By donating 5% of his net worth he is pretty much assured that by next year his profits in the stock market, minus inflation will allow him to do the same again. In perpetuity. This is economics 101.
-everphilski-
He throws a few bucks (to him) at some charities, and everyone here is fawning over what a saint he is, with not a word about the anti-social, anti-competitive and downright illegal things his company did to get that money. I've got to go puke now.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
There have been numerous articles posted to slashdot on how Bill has attempted to "donate" PCs to schools and other places. While making straight cash donations is fine, the Gates foundation has done some things that make anti-trust advocates cringe. Donating PCs seems like a good thing, but it's anti-competitive. A monopoly giving away it's product (in this case the OS and office/student software made by microsoft) is illegal and should not be allowed. Bill is not above trying this sleazy tactic and he knows what he's doing, even if Melissa does not acknowledge it.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Learn some tax laws. I would expect such ignorance only if you never donated any money to charity.
You can't gain any money by giving money to charity. All tax breaks do is lessen the amount you pay to the government!!
If you earned $1 billion and then give $100 million to charity, the government sees it as though you earned $900 million. So you pay tax as though you earned $900 million. That's all!
You gain the satisfaction that the government isn't wasting your money and that it is going to something you believe in.
And no there is no way to gain more money by traversing tax brackets (go plug the numbers in a tax program if you dont understand tax laws). And even if there was (which is impossible but many fools believe it), Bill Gates is firmly in the top tax bracket (over $150 thousand dollars income) no matter how many billions he gives away.
If those children were in rich countries, we would have headlines, wed take action. We wouldnt rest until every child was protected.
He's forgotten two things. The US DID have mosquito born illness and the cure was mosquito irradiation by draining swamps near people. Elimination of the vector is really the only means of eliminating the disseases associated with it.
It will be interesting to see if this $250,000,000 gift will produce a miracle cure. Who knows, it might be cheaper to make a drug than it is to drain swamps. Given the global drug distribution record, I'm inclined to think the money would have been better spent the way the US spent it 100 years ago.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You'd think that there'd be enough room in the marketplace for at more than one blood-sucking parasite*, but noooo - Microsoft has squash the competition. Thank heavens for Open Sores!
oh well, he's a bastard no doubt. But if satan himself offered me a cure for cancer, i'd be onboard ;)
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
He's nothing but shrewd.
But if that's what it takes to make the money flow to good causes, so be it.
He want's to ensure that during the next ethnic cleansing there will be plenty of healthy children to hack to pieces.
The best thing the entire world can do for Africa is quit helping them. Quit providing financial aid that ends up in some corrupt officials golden parachute bank account. Quit sending food, clothing and medicine which usually ends up going to the highest bidder usually in some other country whose people have the means to purchase it. Above all, quit selling them guns, bombs, or other instruments of war and genocide.
two hundred and how-many million dollars? only? what is that, spare change? Should I be impressed? My problem is not how much money he dishes out, but who he gives it to; i.e. who gets to do the research? For all I know, he could be having an affair with Britney Spears. And given it to her because she sweet-talked him into it. And then Britney could be the person in charge of Operation Eradicate-Malaria. Whoopdidoo. Didn't she say something about wanting to be an embassador? I'd like to know who he's given it to and it'll be spent before I pat him on the head.
Your opinion does not stand in the light of recent research.
Search the recent science journals. They made the stark contrast with chimpanzees, which do not participate in selfless giving. Chimps are indifferent to the needs of other chimps if helping requires any effort on their part. They are not outwardly cruel, just indifferent. Whereas humans will often help other humans in small but meaningful ways when there is no personal benefit. The current research leads to the belief that it is wired into our genes instead of being learned or cultural behavior. It is a genetic advantage in that the population as a whole benefits from this mutual support.
Why does this make Allen a selfich bastard? Is there a competition or so? Why can't we just be happy about BG donating money to a good cause WITHOUT figuring out who is where on a ridiculous selfish bastard scale? What's your ranking?
You source nothing to back up your assertion that DDT is environmentally safe, and then claim that the hundreds of millions of dollars would be better spent buying and spraying DDT instead of conducting research
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
Over 400 doctors agree: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
As for referencing a newly discovered gene and holding it up as some sort of solution, you are ignoring the many more years of R&D that will be required to make use of that information. In the mean time DDT spraying saves lives today and could come close to erradication if used properly.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Does he think that's going to get him out of our contract?!?! HAH! -- Satan
Linux with kernel panic...
MadPenguin.org
The cancer known as Internet Explorer.
I would just like to add that malaria causes mosquitoes to be more attracted to you than usual. Also, that malaria will kill the mosquito, so this malaria-resistance gene should be a survival advantage to them. I think that I would agree with the GP, though. Spraying DDT may be a reccurring cost, but so is treating (or not treating!) malaria.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Having suffered from this disease back when I was growing up in Africa, I really take this opportunity to thank Bill Gates for this generous gift. As of today, I am not going to bash microsoft as I used to before. I don't care about all the criticism on how they do business, as long as the ends (giving the money for malaria research --yeah i know it is a simplistic view) justify the means!!!
...$129 million to secure Windows...
Preventing children from dying is great. On the other hand, it could be very short-sighted. If the death rate suddenly drops without an equivalent decrease in the birth rate, the result could be an even greater disaster.
What a cheap-ass!
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
No one, robber baron or not, has given so much wealth to solving major problems of the human condition. He is as a great example to other billionaires out there. I predict he'll get the peace prize some years down the line.
Malcolm Gladwell ("The Tipping Point") wrote an excellent article about this: http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm
And making offspring sterile in many cases. Only PCB is worse from medical point of view. Offing the mosquitos/flies right out will have other implications on the bilogical balance in nature. All insects living off of flies would not have much food and then they would be innihilated and that would cause other higher order animals to die off as well. At the end people like you and I will die as a direct result of a massive fly offing. That your post was regarded as interesting is quite indicative of how ignorant slashdot mods have become and this entire thread: how hard Microsoft is trying to look good. I am not against donations but I argue that annonymity should be the norm to make sure that actions are not merely covert self promotion acts.
your internet tax dollars at work!
Seriously, in the balance, does this make up for the damage he's done? The economic drain of a poor quality product and price gouging by a monopoly? Would that money have gone to as good or better causes if it had remained in the coffers of other corporations or individuals? Can you buy your way from evil to good?
Just some random thoughts.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
OK, now that the obvious joke is out of the way, you do have to hand it to the guy for doing this. As an orphan disease, malaria research doesn't get nearly enough funding. Doing something like this puts him on the side of the angels (for this particular skirmish).
That is all.
There was a big article in the New Yorker about Gates' foundation's attack on malaria.
I kept wondering, though, what happens when the population spikes in many desperately poor and often politically dysfunctional (of not openly anarchic) nations when a leading cause of death is eliminated?
Are we trading one problem -- malaria -- for another problem, like overpopulation, that will only make the civil strife and poverty problems plaguing these countries worse, not better?
It just strikes me that this has the potential to do as much damage long term as it does good in the short term. Which isn't to say we shouldn't solve the problem of malaria, but it struck me when reading the NY article that the entire problem of overpopulation, poverty, civil strife, etc in poor countires would just magically disappear when malaria was cured by western technology, much as Africa was "saved" by the green revolution in agriculture.
Los Angeles Unified School District gathered $500,000 to donate to the Hurricane Katrina Victims.
Also in the news. People were seen performing random acts of Kindness, and senseless caring for others; All without the aid of a Public Relations Corporation. Film of this amazing set of events at 11:00pm tonight.
Unfortunately the donation consists of $257 million in old copies of Windows95 and $1 million in money.
Shares in Schweppes skyrocketed today after half a billion bottles of tonic water flew off the shelves.
In fact, using the wikipedia numbers regarding his net worth ($51.5 billion), he donated just over .5% of his net worth.
I made about $5,000 last year (I'm a full-time student). His donation is equivalent, in "wow, how generous" terms, to me donating $25. The average American makes about $45,000. The equivalent would be about $225.*
Will the donation save countless lives? Definitely.
Was the donation generous? Hardly.
Lay down some real money, Bill. Maybe then you'll have my respect.
*Obviously, yearly income != net worth, but its the best analogy I could make.
Hand given. Now how in the world is this "news for nerds"? If it didn't have BG in the headlines would it have made it as a post? Noooo...
The number of negative posts aimed at Gates and Microsoft is disheartening. So MS built it's empire by trying to put every competator out of business, and in turn put out products that most see as sub-standard.
I sometimes wonder if people understand much about the business world. I'm sure there's a good number of you who drive Ford or GM vehicles even though the quality is sub-standard and the companies are horribly run. I'm sure 95% of the people here eat fast food occasionally, even though we know the companies are not putting our health at the top of their priority list.
The anti-Bill act gets old. I, for one, have been very impressed with the time and money he has given in his lifetime. It's time to set personal feelings aside and praise him for his humanitarian efforts! If you refuse to give him praise, then kindly skip over threads about him donating to a worthwhile cause.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
... have you considered where that money would be if he didn't control it, how it would have benefited the tech economy and boosted salaries and morale in the industry, and that more than $258 million probably would have gone to this charity if it weren't for him? I argue that Bill Gates has taken much more from the world than he could ever give back.
This comment sponsored by the belief that you can't steal and bully for years and then turn around and donate a small percentage of your ill-gotten gains and somehow expect that you've made a positive difference in the world.
I know people that give everything and take nothing. Truly amazing people. Those people are the real heroes, and I wish I could give them Billy's income, because they are much more deserving, and would do much more good with it.
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
The OP asserted that DDT is safe and effective by using an ad hominem attack against environmentalists - not a rational argument. That was my point. As for your link, it's interesting and worth reading. I'd be curious to see a the results of an interdisciplinary cost-benefit analysis with physicians and biologists. The physicians you site may be right that it is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce malaria deaths in the developing world - but they aren't considering long term consequences of DDT use (either to the ecosystem, or to human health). OTOH: it may turn out that DDT (or something similar that's less toxic) is worth the environmental damage. I'm not qualified to judge, but IMO I doubt widespread use of DDT is worth the risk. --M
> Obviously, yearly income != net worth, but its the best analogy I could make.
Obviously you tried your best to hide your childish predisposed hatred of the man. You failed miserably too. Gates has already donated ~10 Billion from his net worth. Did you read that correctly? I'll repeat it since you're rather slow. 10 billion from his net worth (of which ~250 million for malaria is a part).
Hmm, 10B/50B = 1/5 = 20%. Wow! First, I doubt gate h8'rs like you even donate $25 to anything (like you claim). Second, he's donated over 20% of his NON disposable income (net worth, NOT to be confused with anuual income). Did you hear that? NON disposable. I'll go slower for you this time. That means, gates should be worth $60 Billion, but spent 10B already on charitable causes.
Geez dude. Get a clue. No. Get a life. Bill Gates is a far greater humanitarian than you or any of his childish detractors will ever be. You adolescent linux zealots have a twisted envious fascination with the man, since he's the geek living out the dream lifestyle you NEVER will. You fruits sound like a bunch of women at a tea party gosipping about some girl down the street who's prettier and smarter than you. Bunch of jealous bitches. All of ya...
Is this a preview of the new antivirus features in windows?
--WooooHoooo--
It's all well and good to care about people but at some point you have to start taking responsibility for the environmental consequences of the additional population pressures you create.
I don't see Gates doing that. He's not doing anything to really increase the carrying capacity.
Seastead this.
Refer to my BBC article... the BBC is far more respectable than rantings of some random personal blog you have posted as your "definitive proof". And according to the BBC:
1. FACT: Experts such as Len Ritter from the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres say that "I would say on the totality of the weight of the evidence, I could not conclude that DDT poses a significant risk of cancer".
2. FACT: Attempts at using alternatives have caused the 10 fold increase in Malaria cases... From the article:
"Eight years ago South Africa switched from DDT to a different type of insecticide called pyrethroids, regarded as more environmentally benign. But within four years, mosquitoes became resistant, and the annual number of malaria cases rose tenfold. This paralleled the experience of Madagascar, which suffered an epidemic of malaria in the late 1980s, brought on by the curtailment of DDT spraying programmes - only curbed again by its re-introduction."
3. FACT: Western governments and political groups are openly admiting they are discouraging the use of DDT. From the article:
"DDT is one of 12 substances deemed to be environmentally damaging that will be banned shortly under a new treaty. The global treaty is called Pops, short for Persistent Organic Pollutants, and comes into force in 12 months' time... Environmental groups like Greenpeace lobby for the Pops exemption to end in just a few years' time."
"However, the British government's Department for International Development funds 13 malaria-only projects in eight African countries; none of them uses DDT."
"The Swedish aid agency Sida has a procurement policy expressly prohibiting the use of its funds for buying DDT."
"The US aid agency USAid was unable to supply such data, but told the BBC: "For most countries with USAid support for malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa, indoor residual spraying has not been judged to be the most effective use of US government funds."
"Perhaps the most damaging allegation is that United Nations organisations are ignoring the opportunities offered by spraying. A few months ago the UN agency Roll Back Malaria produced a draft document called Scaling Up For Sustainable Impact which set out a suggested strategy for the next four years. One group of leading experts sent back a lengthy critique. 'We consider that the dismissive paragraph about indoor residual spraying is seriously flawed.'"
Let's face it, everyone of us able to read slashdot have our basic needs taken care of (except maybe sex, u geeks!), and Bills "evil empire" then takes some amount of our money, or steals it, as few of you guys would put it (as a charge for crappy software and yadayadayada). And then he transfers loads of money to the really poor, who don't have their basic needs taken care of and who's average lifespan is 30 years or so.
Um, a lot of the rhetoric back and forth on this point is speculation and unverifiable. But there's one fact that stands out:
Mosquitos are now resistant to DDT.
So, uh, obviously we used plenty of it, environmentalists or not, to kill off all the non-immune mosquitos. So we did as much with DDT as we could. Whether Rachel Carson's book had any effect on our usage pattern is still debatable, but the fact regarding DDT is that it wouldn't have mattered anyways. It had a very short useful lifespan, which we used up.
So all the environmentalist haters can keep on hating -- if DDT was useful maybe ol' Rachel would have screwed it up. But it wasn't that useful as we now know, so I don't think we can actually pin any lives on her.
Cheers.
Fighting Malaria with DDT in South Africa
Mosquitos are now resistant to DDT.
The link points out that one reason DDT no longer kills as many mosquitoes may be that they've learned to detect and avoid it. In that case, its use in populated areas would still be beneficial, if it has the effect of chasing the mosquito-breeding colonies out of the village.
So the development of resistance may not necessarily be a showstopper for a given agent. I'm not qualified to say if that's the case here, but the reality is, only the pro-DDT junkscience.com guy is actually bringing citations to the table. The environmentalists are backing and filling as if they were driving the bulldozer.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
In an absolute sense, yes. But are you more charitable per dollar of income? It would be strange if that were true. Here is a PDF prepared by the Treasury Department on charitable giving in the United States. Some interesting numbers in the tables come from income tax records and allow us to calculate roughly the average amount of money given to charity by Americans in 1995 or so, both absolutely and as a fraction of their adjusted gross income (AGI):What we find is that the absolute dollar amounts of charitable giving rise with income, as you say. But the amount of giving per dollar of income falls, at least until you get to the few very rich people there are.
Hence, for example, four people with incomes of 20,000 give more to charity than two people with incomes of 40,000, who in turn give more to charity than one person with an income of 80,000. Odd fact of human behaviour.
$258.3 million? Why not 250 or 260 million? I really don't get it...
Poor nations are more likely to use Open Source software.
There was news about India becoming a big tech nation, and Open Source was also mentioned quite a lot. Microsoft saw this, and even admitted that India was of "strategic importance". The Foundation donated millions to fighting AIDS in India, right at the time Microsoft was attempting to get the Government away from Open Source and into Microsoft solutions.
Microsoft - Not Bill or the Foundation - is giving away software and training to Africa. This is occurring at the same time as Bill and the Foundation's donation to fight Malaria.
Microsoft has been focusing on the poor countries, such as India and Africa, and has been pushing its software there far more than anywhere else.
If the poor countries establish themselves on non-Microsoft solutions, that basically cuts out Microsoft for the future, which could be bad news if those nations get on their feet and start making good money - which is what is predicted.
Microsoft has only focused on the nations where Open Source is starting to take hold. First it was India, and now Africa.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
There are areas of special importance for Microsoft, and for the Foundation. These areas are usually the ones that make the news.
There are always links between them:
Take India for example. Microsoft said that India was of "strategic importance". At the same time, Bill and the Foundation donated millions towards fighting AIDS in India. This was also at a time where Open Source was the talk of the town in India.
Microsoft was making a SPECIFIC push in India, and that's where its 'donation' went.
Now Microsoft is making a push in Africa, and amazingly enough, that's where its latest donation is going to benefit.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Is that not the same amount that the European union is suing Billy Boy for? Nothing says " Your crusade is pointless " than him throwing that money into a bottomless pit such as charity.
World's #1 killer. Most folks don't realize.