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."
Whatever folks may say about "The Evil Empire," this a true gift of philanthropy. Let's give a hand to Bill Gates...
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.
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!"
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.
This isn't the only donation the foundation has made. According to wikipedia the foundation donates about $1 Billion a year. That's a hefty amount even for the rich Bill Gates.
I still think it is wrong for Microsoft to get into the anti virus market.
That would be a valid criticism if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn't already giving incredible amounts to charity. Their endowment is around 28 billion dollars and they give over 1 billion dollars to charity every year. I guess that's more than a mere pittance by my reckoning.
Evil? Come on now, when it really comes down to it, he's trying to save a few lives; that's a lot more important than being a jerk in the business world. He was mean, got away with it and made some money, at least he's trying to do some good with what he's got and that's a lot more than most people, rich or not can say.
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.
"A lifetime of evil" is a huge stretch for Mr. Gates. Regardless of your opinions of his business practices, he has done little harm to people who can't handle it, and is dedicated to helping the poor of other countries. Not only has he already given away enormous amounts of money through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but he shows no signs of stopping. Rather than just give away money to showy projects for the publicity, the Gates Foundation tries to increase the productivity and viability of the poor around the world through well-thought-out gifts. I for one am perfectly willing to deal with a Windows world, if it means that kids around the world will be able to survive malaria, or the poor in America have a better shot at a high-level technical education.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
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'?
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.
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!
Of course using this logic, no one should ever sell anything, because it depresses the price for the folks who have yet to sell.
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.
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?
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
Who gives a shit if he is? It's still a quarter of a billion more bucks to fight a disese that kills kids. Let the man have the most selfish reasons in the world. It doesn't bother me in the least.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
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.
"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!
...more than $1bn to fight cancer
Quinine is much less effective against malaria than it used to be. There are more effective treatments - particularly interesting is Artemisinin. In the early 70's the Chinese announced they'd found a powerful anti-malarial drug in a traditional chinese medicinal herb. They wouldn't tell anyone what the plant was, as the Chinese government is very protective of Chinese medicine.
Anyway eventually a photo of the plant leaked out, and Western scientists identified the plant as an Artemisia (Wormwood) species and found it growing on the banks of the Potomac river in Washington DC.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
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.
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.
Bill did not want to get into the charity work till he retired. His mother had been after him since early on.
At this point, he is very involved in all the major decisions and directs them on a daily basis. Melinda is there much of thetime, as is Bill Sr.
Melinda goes on several trips a year to find out about the work that the foundation is doing, and the whole family has spent time in clinics in Africa.
As for the funding, it is a foundation, not a regular charity. All the money in the foundation comes from Bill and Melinda, and they are still giving. Do you remember that one time microsoft dividend at the beginning of the year? They gave the entire dividend to the foundation.
They really aren't in it to look good. The only tend to go public on their gifts when they want to bring attention to an issue.
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
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.
You've just got a hole in your head if you think Gates is doing this to make money from "Big Pharma". Lets assume (contrary to fact, which you can verify by a quick trip to the SEC, which will tell you major shareholders of publicly traded companies) that Bill Gates owns 10% of the entirety of the pharmaceutical industry. Lot, stock, and barrel, a dime out of every dollar of profit goes to him. Lets further assume, contrary to fact, that Big Pharma just makes money. And lets assume, contrary to fact, that these grants are actually going 100% to purchase drugs , e.g., do R&D on environmentally friendly pesticides (See here). All of this means that Bill Gates gets back a dime on every dollar he spends. Wow, thats how you become worth $80 billion or whatever it is -- you farm out a couple hundred million a year and get back a couple ten million -- but don't worry, you can make up the difference on volume.
Incidentally, you can see the Foundation's holdings at the SEC. Its a fairly standard portfolio heavy on the blue chips, including a lot of medical stock -- but not enough to either make a drop in the bucket next to either these folks' market capitalizations or Bill Gates' personal wealth (the vast majority of which, by the way, is MSFT stock).
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
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.
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 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 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.
Please. He is donating money to Africa to fight a disease that affects the poor in a massively disproportionate numbers. If he wanted to make money for Microsoft, there are five other continents far more worthy of sucking up to. Hell, make that six. Antarctic researches might need an OS to run their laptops. Africa is massively impoverished, has a massively impoverished population, and rampant piracy. The level of government corruption is completely off of the chart in most Africa nations. When you can't run get a vaguely functioning non-corrupt bureaucracy going, it is laughable to think that you can get people in the bureaucracy to start paying their licensing fee for their OS.
In other words, this is philanthropy, pure and simple. The most Gates has to gain out of this is a better name in general for himself. Even then, if Gates really was looking to make a better name for himself in the US, malaria falls roughly on the bottom of the list. Try and remember that Gates is still human. If you had a few billion dollars sitting around, would you only give it away for nefarious and evil purposes, or would a warm tingly feeling in your gut be enough?
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.
Wow.
Just, wow man. This is the most ignorant, uninformed post I think I've ever read on Slashdot. Well done!
Here's a Debunking for you - you could have found it yourself with a quick Google.
A simple bit of research would show that something much more interesing happened - a low level contingent of the mosquito population is resistant to DDT and DDT sprayings kill off the rest. The resistant portion reproduce and you're back to a full population again, except this time they're all resistant, rendering the DDT useless.
PLUS you've killed most - if not all - of their natural predators as well.
So not only do you get resistant mosquitos there's now no natural mechanism in place to stop them reproducing in even greater numbers!
And some people want to return to this insanity? I guess conspiracy theories are better than real science.
So what? If companies are going to try and build marketshare by eradicating diseases then go for it! Which diseases has firefox cured lately? uh huh thought so.
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.
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.
It's an interesting point that you bring up and I'll try to answer it.
How many times do you purchase Word? Or purchase Windows? I believe that Microsoft's products still constitute a pseudo-fixed cost scenario for most businesses (assuming that most businesses are small businesses), whereas gasoline costs constitute variable cost for virtually everyone, including businesses. Moreover, most of Microsoft's earnings were generated from selling it to the masses (directly or preinstalled). Sure, work could have purchased a machine with Microsoft software on it, but there's no technical reason why everyone and their grandmothers *needed* a computer (once critical mass was achieved, this fact changed). Gasoline is an energy source. Computers are an information source. Energy sources for the masses are more basic than information sources.
Still, your question pertains to your particular scenario:
The price of gas is hugely important because it is a variable cost for businesses and individuals. More importantly, most people in the United States commute to work and to other activities. Call it a failure of public transportation or whatever, but it's true for most cities in the US. A 50% rise in gasoline costs directly applies to most individual costs during some time period (say a week). And that's really the kicker: it's a tax levied across the board. Out of every dollar made or earned is a portion going to pay for gasoline. There is no amortization because it is a cost proportional to transportation activity (i.e. a variable cost). The end result is a lower net income. Perhaps the individual who has to pay an extra few bucks every week won't sweat it too much directly, but the cost will show up in products, in food. That is inflation because the consumer's buying power has reduced. As the dollar devalues, it affects exchange rates and therefore trading. Through that handy link, the world's largest economy (the US, at least by 2004 estimates) infects the rest of the world economy. The consumer becomes more economically conservative, which means there's a significant (as in the opposite of insignificant) reduction in charity donations.
In short, energy sources for the masses tend to be variable costs, which you want to minimize or at least never want to grow. Information sources for the masses tend to be fixed costs, which you want to be low, but it doesn't matter as much as a variable cost.
They simply don't have the same effect, so I don't believe that you have generated a parallel situation. And I still maintain that we've (a given diverse group) had the chance to do something important with that extra 10 bucks a week and that today is a direct result of those many decisions.
DDT ?! Dioxins !!!!
Are you and the moderators insane ?
Maybe they should use DDT and Bill Gates can then donate his money to research into preventing cancer and birth defects that would result from this well known highly toxic substance ending up in the people it was suppose to protect.
This chemical has been banned everywhere where people have an ounce of sense. Using highly toxic substances to eliminate mosquito's is not a solution. The arguments in this article that there's no conclusive proof that DDT causes cancer is pretty much the same tripe used to validate smoking cigarettes. They will wait a generation or two before discovering the costs of spraying DDT inside houses. This is a gamble, with a short term payoff, and a very probable long term cost that may prove to be far more worse than malaria itself.
This is +5 stupidity, not +5 interesting.
I guess there's just not that many ways to spin this one against Bill. God forbid you'd actually commend him.
Last time I checked Bill had not deprived me or anyone else of anything, either physically or financially. Whenever I have bought something from Microsoft, I have handed over my money of my own free will and received something back.
The reason people are fawning over his gesture is that he could have quite easily spent all that money on frivillious crap for himself. There are plenty of other multi-millionares who do.
Irrespective of the tax perks that he gets, I (and plenty of others) would prefer that he spent his money in this way rather than on a space trip, a number of islands and a couple of yachts.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
You missed out the word "honourary" - he isn't a "proper" knight.
Anyway - most knighthoods are for services rendered to the governmant of the time...
Actually, he isn't BRITISH either, so he can't be a REAL Knight if you want to get specific about it.
But for some silly reason, England and the Queen thought his efforts were worth the title, even if it honorary and he doesn't get to be called Sir Bill G.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
He donates more money than rich countries like the US for this type of research and care to the world.
I don't care what you think of MS or Windows, this is about someone with money actually doing good with it, I wish I could say the same for other people in our industry with a large amount of company made wealth. So even if you hate Windows and Dell forced you to buy it at some point, it should make you feel better than it may have been your $80 bucks that went to help people in the world and not just buy another CEO(CSA) a new car.
this is philanthropy, pure and simple
If it was, then Gates would have donated the money anonymously, and he wouldn't be going out of his way to publicize it. I'm not saying that this is only about publicity, but you can't deny that it's an important consideration.
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.
You say "publicity" like it's a *bad* thing. No one suffering from malaria cares at all why Bill made the donation, or whether Bill is rewarded in some way. Altruism as a motivation doesn't matter - at all. Anything that causes more donations is a *good* thing. Period.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And then people criticise him for never donating to charity...
It also publicizes the cause he donated to, which can benefit from being attached to the world's largest billionaire.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Did you bother to read the BBC link presented? I know you didn't, so here is the word from the BBC science editor when he researched the issue:
DDT is widely regarded as a threat to human health - a potent poison and a carcinogen. But the scientific evidence presents a rather different picture.
Professor Len Ritter, from Guelph University, is executive director of the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres, which compiled a major report on DDT and related substances for the United Nations.
"I hate to say conclusively yes or no because these matters are always subject to interpretation; but I would say on the totality of the weight of the evidence, I could not conclude that DDT poses a significant risk of cancer," he told Earth Files.
Professor Ritter's report came to a similar conclusion regarding the other suggested harmful effects of DDT - as a disrupter of the human immune system, of hormone levels, as a cause of birth defects.
On whether DDT is acutely poisonous to humans, the eminent British scientist Kenneth Mellanby writes in his book The DDT Story: "I myself, when lecturing about DDT during the years immediately after World War II, frequently consumed a substantial pinch of DDT, to the consternation of the audience, but with no apparent harm to myself, either then or during the next 40 years."
In the west, though, DDT continues to be seen as a pariah chemical.
So apparently the BBC Science editor, and UN experts on toxicology are also idiots. And those Africans are stupid too, for wanting to prevent 1 of 4 children dying by using a chemical that according to the worst projections might give 1 in 100 people cancer (those numbers are disputed by nearly all scientist, but even assuming the enviornmental worst case sceniaros DDT isn't that bad).
If it was, then Gates would have donated the money anonymously
Why? Is there any disadvantage to doing it openly? Assuming it was pure philanthropy, what would possibly be his motivation to make it anonymous? It just doesn't matter. So there's no way to know if that was a consideration.
Now, I'll go on to assume publicity was a consideration because in general people like to be recognized for their good deeds. And this is a good deed. And what is wrong with being recognized for that? If people can be recognized for their bad deeds (who wants those to be anonymous) then it should be the same with good deeds. It's only fair.
Why are we so cynical now that even a good act is labeled self-serving if the person could get even a pat on the back for it? Oh Bill! You selfish bastard! You did something nice publicly! People might actually talk well of you!
It's weird how bitter we all seem. People just love to hate.
Cheers.
PS - I'm a Linux and Mac user, so no motive here other than to give credit where credit is due. Oh wait! I'm trying to look generous and forgiving! That must be my ulterior motive! I'm such a self-serving bastard!
If 1 in 4 children were dying from Malaria in the U.S. or Europe or wherever the hell you live your very comfortable life, people would be screaming for the government to spray DDT by the ton. There would be ZERO debate from anyone across the political spectrum on the use of DDT! Do you think the first world would hesitate for even a second to use DDT if it could save millions of lives in North America or Europe?
Cancer is a disease that wealthy people in the first world worry about, because just about every other natural danger has been elminated. But don't forcefully project your western bias on the rest of the world.
Polar bears and birds didn't die out back in the 1960's when Canada and the U.S. were dumping massive amounts of DDT on crops and in the water supply right next to the bears... so don't pretend the threat of small-scale use of DDT in Africa having some minute effect half a world away in North America is enough of a threat to let millions of Africans die. And don't pretend that you in America or Europe have some greater love over the animals and nature of Africa than native African's do.
If we want to eliminate the use of DDT in our own countries, that is fine! But it is clear that Africans, when given a choice (which all too often they aren't), choose to accept whatever "risk" DDT presents than to watch millions of people die slow and painful deaths.
People's attitude towards this just wreaks of arrogance!