Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year"
klubar writes "Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, were named Time Magazine "Persons of the Year". He was joined in this honor with Irish rocker Bono-all being named for being "Good Samaritans" who made a difference."
As much as we dislike him, he does give an awful lot of money to charity, so well done Billy.
Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...
Keep up the good work, Mr & Mrs Gates.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Mark 12:41-44
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."
As much as I understand the necessity of patting people on their back for doing anything at all with their insanely huge wealth - to stop them turning away sneering at the 'ingratitude' of the world, I can think of a lot of "Good Samaritans" who better deserved Person of the Year
Bill Gates amassed a fortune through ruthless and merciless and eventually illegal practices.
For every illegal practice Bill's company has been accused of, there are at least a few practices that have helped bring computers and the internet to the masses. Not sure I would personally consider Bill Gates to be a good person, but you have to be a ruthless dictator in order to run a multi-national. When in Rome. Show me one CEO who can exist in *that* world, without holding true to the values of the Sith.
That said, much of Bill's contribution to the dark side of the force has sparked great strides for the light. Our enemies unite us, and there is no clearer enemy to Open Source than Bill Gates. Maybe he just wants us all working for free? Nah.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The same amount I've raised using illegal business practices.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
No he is not a millionare. And yes you are trolling.
Are you implying that Bill Gates who keeps for himself every bit of "intelectual property" that he has created or has had others create on his behalf is a better man than a guy who has shared his work with all of humanity?
I didnt think you were.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
How much Linus Torvalds donates? Look here, how much is that worth?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Funny how they missed bin Laden in 2001, who turned the world upside down, in favour of Giuliani, who for all his virtues, was just a mayor. Obviously they choked on following through on their own stated criteria when it was too close to home.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden did on Sept 11th. I would agree with them, and would many (if not most) others.
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild. Most mayors would not have shown the leadership that Giuliani did. See New Orleans, use the mayor or governer as examples. Not bad people, but simply not up to the task and not having the leadership skills needed to cope. You and I would probably not done much better.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
"Giuliani was just a mayor" is the *whole point* of why he got Person of the Year. He wasn't supposed to be capable of displaying this kind of leadership, yet he did. He is "just a mayor" that did more to comfort Americans all over the US, and deal with the real issues, make the hard decisions, and kept a cool head he entire time. Perfect? No, but I can't think of anyone else that could have done better, nor anyone else more deserving in 2001.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
... is a bus thief. Say what you want about Bill Gates, or Bono, or whichever "great man" that Time wants to honor this year, but I really can't let my bosom swell over a millionaire or a billionaire throwing out a little bit of their plentiful time and/or money here or there. Hell, if somebody has that much power and money, we shouldn't be "thanking" them for doing the right thing, it should be *expected* of them.
My person of the year is Jabbar Gibson, the 18 year old kid who saved 70 people from the aftermath of Katrina by stealing a bus and driving to Houston. Maybe that's because my definition of a hero is somebody that rises above even when the chips are down.
Tax rates are marginal anyway, so it wouldn't save you any additional money if you did switch brackets. Assuming that there's a tax bracket at $90, with everything below it taxed at 15%, and everything above it taxed at 30% as above. Repeating the same two scenarios that you used:
(1) $100 income, no charitable contribution. $90 @ 15% + $10 @ 30% = $13.50 + $3.00 = $16.50 of taxes. After-tax income: $83.50
(2) $100 income, $20 charitable contribution. $80 @ 15% = $12.00 of taxes. After-tax income: $68
So not only does money not magically appear from crossing marginal tax rate boundries, but your tax refund on the donation isn't even as large ($6 in the parent's example, but only $4.50 here), so while the $20 contribution only took $14 out of the parent's pocket at the end of the day, here the same contribution would cost us $15.50
Wish I had mod points. It is easier for a millionaire to give money, since he has plenty to spare. Linux gives everyone his time and talents, which are more precious.
;)
Kudos to Bill for all the charity work he has done, but the impact of creating a very good operating system that the people in the poorest of countries can use for free, on old "thrown away" hardware is tremendous. I'm not a Christian, but there is good sense in the phrase: Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Linus's gift will keep giving years after he is gone because it helps raise the education and living standards in the poorest nations. And he doesn't exactly get a tax credit for it. Of course, let us not forget everyone who contributes to FOSS, be it Samba, Apache, Bind or Squirrelmail, and of course our own Jesus look-alike, RMS
It's hard to measure the impact in dollars, but GNU/BSD/FOSS are great equalizers that embiggen the smallest men.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Bill Gates amassed a fortune through ruthless and merciless and eventually illegal practices. That he has chosen to give some back, and I tip my hat to him for that, anc for all the good he is now doing I liken to the mafia giving ill-gotten gains to charities and somehow being anointed for that.
Bill's corporation competed against other corporations, it harmed some of them, but that is how the market is supposed to work. That is in part how we have a darwinian process that determines supply and demand. MS' illegal practices were not obviously illegal at the time they were put into practice, the line is fuzzy and they were definitely treading in questionable territory but it was not a given that the government would see that it would warrant prosecution and it was not a given that a judge would rule against them. Comparing MS to the Mafia just destroys any credibility you may have, it exposes your politics / blind hatred. Linux destroys corporations, the traditional Unix vendrors. Apple can be even more heavy handed than MS. They merely don't get the bad press because they are not on top. Markets are like hamburgers, their creation is not a pretty picture.
Now I know you were trying to be funny, but Time's "Person of the Year" is nominated not for being a good person, but for being an impactful person.
Not anymore. In 2001, the Man Of The Year was Rudolph Guiliani, when it is painfully obvious that Usama bin Laden had an inestimably bigger impactful on that year's events. (Indeed, 100% of Rudy's interesting actions were merely responses to Usama's initiatives).
Face it, Time uses at least 4 factors to pick Yearitude: Attractiveness, Deserving, Virtue, and Import.
?how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many.
Sorry, but not true. His was the face people saw all over the world. You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him. I deal with Europeans on a daily basis, they know him, believe me.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11
This assumes that Bin Laden wanted a holy war over in the middle east. I am pretty sure this is *not* what he wanted. What he wanted was for the US to get OUT of the middle east, not more involved. He didn't want the US to mow over Afghanistan and give it back to the people. He didn't want the Saudis to work with us (who are his sworn enemies).
I have no idea why people think Bin Laden wanted a war. He didn't. He wanted a blow so hard that we would be afraid of war. He wanted capitulation and the American people to rise up and tell the government to get us out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east, and in particular, to quit helping Israel. He has stated as much, many times, so this isn't exactly guesswork.
Now what he has is a war in his own backyard, with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq), women voting and participating, and going to school. Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms. Many people in Jordan are protesting against Al Qaeda. Siria is under pressure to pull out of Lebanon. I'm pretty damn sure this isn't what Bin Laden had as a goal.
It has been painful, ugly, deadly and far from over, but anyone who thinks Bin Laden is winning is simply kidding themselves, or willing to spin the facts to their own fantasy life view.
Like Saddam, he simply misunderestimated the US and our few but true allies.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Bin Laden changed the entire world by provoking the US to go on the rampage. Which was exactly what he planned. Giuliani did a great job, as mayor of one single (big) city, but how many people in the world even know his name? Half the world knows bin Laden, and their daily lives are affected by his actions and the fear he provoked. This week, for instance: The Lebanese immigrants who were beaten up in Sydney; the NSA spying on Americans Bush is trying to defend. Every day there are more repercussions of that one act.
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild.
True. That's WHY Usama was more important: because he was a destroyer, and destruction is easier. Therefore with the same amount of effort, he could become more important than someone who tried to create or preserve.
The easiest way to earn an international headline is always to flip out and kill a bunch of people. No contest, no question.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden
That's rather insulting to Giuliani, but it might be true. Prehaps if he'd had a more intelligent fire-depeartment structure, there could've been 1000 fewer deaths. But it's a stretch to blame him for that incompetence.
You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him.
If you'd done that, you'd know Guiliani had under 0.3% of binLaden's article count. LNS.
with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq),
Neither of them has come close to qualifying as a "democracy" yet.
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran have become more theocratic and militant at the same time. The worsening conditions in Iran and North Korea are especially troublesome, as either of them had already presented a stronger threat than Iraq plus Afganistan combined.