Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year"

Good Samaritans? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-18 02:55 · Score: 3, Funny

I know for a FACT that none of them are from Samaria!

This should prove... by DogDude · 2005-12-18 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

This should prove... once and for all, to the teeming masses of Slashdot kids, that people, by and large, DO NOT hate Microsoft and Bill Gates.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:This should prove... by Secrity · 2005-12-18 03:12 · Score: 2, Funny

They are in good company; Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and George W. Bush have also been Time's Man of the Year.
Re:This should prove... by loftwyr · 2005-12-18 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

How does that prove anything? Time Warner decides who is Person of the Year. They are easily bought and sold.
Re:This should prove... by ginotech · 2005-12-18 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

The point is that they pick people who have made a big difference in the world, which is how billy g slipped in there.
Re:This should prove... by 1u3hr · 2005-12-18 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The point is that they pick people who have made a big difference in the world
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.
Re:This should prove... by BewireNomali · 2005-12-18 04:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

guiliani was an interesting choice because he showed the modern day merits of an autocratic approach to governmental policy. Since, the country has shifted to follow that example. New Yorkers bristled under his increase in police force size, his abject and purposeful alienation of minorities, his notions of pervasive policing and his embrace of technology and subversive measures to undermine crime. It was these very policies that New Yorkers hated that helped the city rebound so quickly from 9/11. The guy ruled with an iron fist.

Interestingly enough, There's a guy in New York named Eliot Spitzer who uses similar tactics. He's the attorney general and he's the scourge of wall street.

But that's besides the point. What I think is interesting is that much of the banter is about whether or not Gates deserves this "honor" as opposed to whether or not the Time's Man of the Year is actually relevant in 2005. I've had friends who got into publishing and journalism after school... and they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Assuming more of the same in the industry, I'm not prone to taking much seriously when journalists stray from objectivity and decide to weigh in with opinion. Which is to say, I'm not much of a fan of journalism. I'd rather they turn the cameras on, shoot some footage, and let me decide for myself.

Forget that Bill might or might not be worthy of the award... more pertinent is that the award no longer has merit. Who the fuck cares what Time editors think?

--
un burrito me trampeó.
Re:This should prove... by Pharmboy · 2005-12-18 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:This should prove... by NCraig · 2005-12-18 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

They are in good company; Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and George W. Bush have also been Time's Man of the Year.
None of those "winners" were lauded as "Good Samaritans." From the article:
The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, and his wife, Melinda, were named Time magazine's "Persons of the Year" ... for being "Good Samaritans" ...
Or you could have read the summary. Either way, you would have noticed that Bill and Melinda Gates won SPECIFICALLY for doing good. Unlike Adolf Hitler.

But I would like to congratulate you for creating on of the most subtle Godwins ever =).
Re:This should prove... by thatguywhoiam · 2005-12-18 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've had friends who got into publishing and journalism after school... and they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Assuming more of the same in the industry, I'm not prone to taking much seriously when journalists stray from objectivity and decide to weigh in with opinion. Which is to say, I'm not much of a fan of journalism. I'd rather they turn the cameras on, shoot some footage, and let me decide for myself.
That is impossible.
Where are they pointing the camera? Framing what? Who is mic'd? And what other audio is present? For how long do you shoot?
The idea that you can somehow remove all subjectivity from the newsgathering process is a false one.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:This should prove... by thatguywhoiam · 2005-12-18 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
I would disagree with this for a simple reason: how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many. On the other hand, bin Laden is known worldwide and everyone is very clear on what he and his organization did.
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.
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, he was quite marginal before then. I'd call it total success for him, actually. Not to mention the fact that a big chunk of the US population has been wringing its hands over terror attacks ever since (as Gwynne Dyer puts it, "there are heavy smokers who worry about terrorism").

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:This should prove... by Pharmboy · 2005-12-18 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

?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!
Re:This should prove... by 1u3hr · 2005-12-18 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
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.
Re:This should prove... by mfratt · 2005-12-18 05:25 · Score: 2, Funny

How dare you put Bush in the category of Hitler and Stalin, you ant-American, Michael Mooreist pinhead slimeball. *tries desprately to avoid vulgar language* I am confident that in the future, Bush will be revered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country, right along side Jefferson, JFK, and Reagan. Go drink some more Kool-Aid.
Re:This should prove... by Minna+Kirai · 2005-12-18 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:This should prove... by Moggie68 · 2005-12-18 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

quote: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. endquote:

What do you mean no? The American people have lost more freedom in a couple of years than they have gained in a hundred years. The Secret Police (Homeland "Security") listens to the calls, watches who they meet, where they travel, what books they borrow from the library. American citizens who photograph public buildings are dragged into police stations for hours and hours of interrogation without attorneys present or any kind of defense whatsoever. Election results are being tampered with. By uttering the magic word "terrorism" FBI can attack whoever they want. Their target cannot defend him/herself in any way, not even go public about the attack since that is against the law too. Osama bin Laden did never even have wet dreams about such a success in destroying the American way of life and the freedom of all Americans. Republicans and the Bush regime have done his job better than he ever could.
Re:This should prove... by Austerity+Empowers · 2005-12-18 05:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sure, but life in NY before Giuliani was dangerous and unpleasant. So much so that people were leaving the city in droves. During his time and after, it was actually a nice place. You could go to 42nd street and not be mugged, propositioned, killed, vandalized or otherwise molested. While central park remains a place you shouldn't go at night, it is at least no longer a nightly source of news.

Sure, the guy acted like a dictator, but he did good things. Most people never thought NYC could be saved, it was too big and too 0wn3d. I'd say that gives him more justification for Man of the Year than getting insanely rich off selling lemon software.
Re:This should prove... by Minna+Kirai · 2005-12-18 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Without the Gates empire and the direction for the 'computer industry' that it has pushed and promoted, regular folks could be sitting at home comfortably watching TV.

The direction of the computer industry was chosen by the US government, when they commanded IBM to subcontract their Operating System provider to avoid anti-trust action. As it happens, Microsoft was the company which got that contract- but it could've been anyone. As long as the fundamental decision to have separate vendors for a PC's hardware and core OS had been made, Microsoft's greatest historical contribution was inevitable.

The more ambitious among them could be on a global network of VT-100 terminals connected

Heard of a little thing called Apple Computer, predating Bill Gates's efforts by a considerable margin?
Re:This should prove... by humina · 2005-12-18 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Arguably, Gates has a Robin-Hood scenario going: monopolizing the computer-owning upper classes to feed the poor"
The argument against that being that a real life robin hood would steal from Bill Gates since he is the richest man on the planet. If Bill is a modern Robin hood, he skims off the top so much that he is the number one target of any other modern day Robin Hood. The super rich stealing from the middle class to help feed the poor does not exaclty fit the robin hood stereotype. Just about anyone stealing from Bill Gates and giving to the poor would fit the stereotype.

--
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com

Well. by Winckle · 2005-12-18 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

Re:Well. by mumblestheclown · 2005-12-18 03:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has, then I encourage you to please enjoy a hearty slice of shut the hell up.
Or maybe Roman Abramovich is a model citizen, because, while he wastes his money on football teams, yachts, and whores, at least he hasn't made (gasp! horror!) a closed-source operating system? That's really what it's about, isn't it?
Re:Well. by mumblestheclown · 2005-12-18 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your initial point was that the size of his donation was not that large. Then, you proceed to make excuses why his is not bigger. So, his is bigger in both absolute and percentage terms. You also neglect to mention that a) the guy actually follows through where his money goes so that it is used wisely and b) that he has plans to basically give away EVERYTHING by the time he's gone.
I mean really. See beyond your jealousy and hatred of IE's "broken HTML" and other assorted technical-philosophical gripes for one minute.
Re:Well. by aszlej · 2005-12-18 03:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, obviously you are wrong, because Bill Gates donated almost 60% of his wealth up to this day, and he said, that before he die, he'll donate 90%. So STFU with your stupid anti-ms comments and go do some research on the subject before you post.

BTW: All you guys hate Bill so much, but do you know how much Wal-Mart gave to charity? Just see the movie 'Wal-Mart - The high cost of Low Prices' where they actually compare Bill and Melinda's donations and donations from Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, truth is quite shocking :).
Re:Well. by v1 · 2005-12-18 03:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Though I can't help but feel he's giving our money to charity...

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Well. by Entropy · 2005-12-18 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has, then I encourage you to please enjoy a hearty slice of shut the hell up.

God how I *do* hate to defend Bill Gates, but giving to charity is without a shred of a doubt where this man really shines:

the Seattle-based foundation has an endowment of approximately $28.8 billion.

(Thats from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/ )

28.8 billion. Buh-ill-eee-on. LARGE number. And even quite a healthy percentage of Gate's own personal fortune. He's worth about sixty billion right now.

So, if you do not give near half of the worth of your total assets, I second the idea of you "enjoying a slice of shut the hell up".

--
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-18 03:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...
- My main beef is: how much of that charity money is obtained due to the fact that his company is a gigantic monopoly? He made a fortune entirely on unethical and sometimes illegal competition and now he is donating a boatload of that money away.
Re:Well. by TheSync · 2005-12-18 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wal-Mart saves low-income shoppers $50 billion a year by having an efficient supply chain. I don't care Mal-Mart give to charity or not.

Infact, Bill Gates, who had a lot to do with the success of the modern PC revolution has helped hundreds of millions of people get jobs that made them trillions of dollars. And I don't care if he gives to charity either, but sure, it is nice.

Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.
Re:Well. by kevlar · 2005-12-18 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...

Thats because when you're the riches person in the world, the vast majority of your money exists as ownership of companies. If Gates were to try to sell off his 1 billion shares of MSFT, it would severely criple the company's finances because he likely wouldn't be able to find a buyer @market.

While I'm sure that his success is fundamentally driven by ego, you cannot say that he doesn't give an enormous amount back to society.
Re:Well. by level_headed_midwest · 2005-12-18 04:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, with people like Paige Laurie in the family, that does not surprise me...

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Re:Well. by putko · 2005-12-18 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bill's choices in charities don't make sense. He's basically taken money from the first world (with monopolistic practices) and is busily pouring it down the blackhole of 3rd world charities.

The money that he pours into Africa gets stolen by the corrupt heads of the countries. As long as African truckers can buy whores for a few dollars at truck stops, they'll be having "dry sex" and spreading AIDs.

He could copy Soros and get more bang for the buck if he invested in somewhat less hopeless causes. I'm not saying I agree with Soros's goals; I'm just saying that he will likely have a greater effect on the world by spending money in places like Ukraine, Russia and Hungary.

Unless Bill can come up with a cure for AIDS that costs a few dollars to deliver to someone in the bush, all his AIDS-in-Africa charities won't do much. I figure Bill must know this, and figures that if he gives enough money to non-whites, liberal white people will think he's a good person.

On the other hand, I found out today that Google pays for pizza in the CS labs at various university's throughout the country. I think that's really impressive. They certainly have their eye on the prize!

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
Re: Well. by HardCase · 2005-12-18 04:25 · Score: 5, Informative

The link doesn't actually say how much of that came from Bill himself. Nor how much of a tax break he got for whatever he did contribute.

Gates fund the foundation himself. Or, I should say, Bill and Melinda fund the foundation themselves.

Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction. Besides, you can't get back more than you owe in taxes - I don't think that even Bill Gates can ring up a $28 billion tax bill.

Incidentally, one of the positions that Gates has taken on our "progressive" income tax is that the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. So has his father (who's a long way from the poorhouse himself).

You know, you can find all this out through Google...

-h-
Re:Well. by mustafap · 2005-12-18 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...

I believe the figure is 2% of his net worth. Thats certainly much more, percentage wise, than I give. Fair play to him.

--
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Re:Well. by doodlebumm · 2005-12-18 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't really believe he has donated 60%. But even if he has,... even if he gives 100% today, it's really hard to buy your way into heaven, even if you have more money than God. When I think about all the companies he has put out of business through unfair monopolistic practices, thus throwing masses into unemployment, depression, and heartache, it makes me think that this award is "shameful". I don't believe that Gates has been transformed from being a Pre-Christmas-Scrooge-like, greedy shark, to the humanitarian that this accolade would have you believe.
To show real humanity, Gates would have to open and tell people what kind of a gutter rat he really was and how he is going to change (especially his predatory business practices).
Re:Well. by Surt · 2005-12-18 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

He guided the company during the monopolistic years. To me that's the definition. If it's necessary to clarify: Microsoft, under the guidance of Bill Gates, was found guilty of monopolistic practices.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Well. by Jeremi · 2005-12-18 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.

That particular piece of dogma assumes that everybody has perfect knowledge of all the economic factors, and an infallible ability to apply that knowledge correctly. It may make for a nice computer model, but it applies only sporadically to real life. As a counterexample, ask some ex-Enron employees how much better off they are due to their 'market transactions' with Enron regarding their retirement funds...

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Well. by ThaFooz · 2005-12-18 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wal-Mart saves low-income shoppers $50 billion a year by having an efficient supply chain.

Yes, but it also destroys the local retail outlets. That can really hurt a tight-knigt community (just think of how different the vibe is at your favorite local shop vs Wal Mart), and said storekeepers will have to adjust. And working at Wal-Mart is NOT an improvement. Sure Wal-Mart might throw jobs at those whow might otherwise have difficulty finding employment (particularly the mentally handicapped), but it doesn't change the fact that they pay starvation wages and make it exceedingly difficult to rise in the ranks.

Infact, Bill Gates, who had a lot to do with the success of the modern PC revolution has helped hundreds of millions of people get jobs that made them trillions of dollars.

I think you have it backwards. Windows was fueled by the success of the PC revolution, not vice versa. If we didn't have Windows, we'd be running some sucessor to OS/2 instead... which would probably be an improvement. MS didn't create the market, and their near-monopoly status has resulted in less competition which means less jobs then their could/should be.

Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.

Sure. But that doesn't mean one side isn't getting the better deal (usually due to a lack of choice). Like the check I write to my ISP every moth since they're the broadband operation in town. Or when the Lakers traded Shaq for Lamar Odom.
Re:Well. by Uberbah · 2005-12-18 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Neither Microsoft nor Wal-Mart create new jobs, they just shuffle existing ones around. And it doesn't matter if Wal-Mart saves poor shoppers $50 billion a year if they end up costing far more than that in the long run. How many jobs have been lost at local shops when a Supercenter moves into town? How many jobs have been offshored so suppliers can meet Wal-Marts demands? Try Googling for "Wal-Mart" and "Vlasic".
Re:Well. by elwinc · 2005-12-18 06:19 · Score: 3, Informative

OK, your point is we should compare disposable incomes. Essentially all Gates' income is disposable; he still endowed his foundation with half his disposable income. According to this Jan 2005 BBC story, the Gates foundation has a $27 billion endowment, and has already given over $7 billion. That makes $34 billion that he could have spent buying major corporations or island nations or something.
Who else do you know who has given half their disposable income? Let's compare Gates giving with some other billionaires who aren't so unpopular on slashdot. Larry Ellison: According to this thru Ellison Medical Foundation, Larry is giving $100 million over 5 years for research on aging. That's pocket change for a guy worth $17 billion. Warren Buffet, weighing in at $40 billion, gives away $12 million per year, according to BusinessWeek. Again, pocket change, though Buffet says he plans to eventually give 99% of his money to his foundation.
Here's an old story from 2001 about silicon valley philanthropy. According to it, only David Packard (foundation gives $500m/year) is in the same class as Gates.
At the bottom of this you'll find a Nov 2005 table listing 18 Americans worth over $10 billion. Have any of them given as large a percentage as Gates? I can't find any evidence if they have. My conclusion: compared to billionaires or to ordinary folks, Gates have given away an extrordinary proportion of his net worth.
By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with entities like the Gates, Ellison, and Packard foundations, it works like this. You can give away whatever amount of your wealth you want in any given year, and that amount will be deducted from the income on which you are taxed. One way to give it away is to establish a 501C(3) charity, such as these foundations, and endow it with a big chunk of cash. The foundation is required by law to give away at least 5% of its net worth per year. It also needs to be independent of its endower, so it can't be used as a vehicle to manipulate or control e.g. Microsoft. The Gates foundation got a $20 billion block of Microsoft stock from Gates in the late '90s and immediately sold the MS stock for more conservative investments. I assume it continues to invest its endowment and to give away the requisite 5%, which this year tops $1.1 billion. I believe Gates' father directs the foundation. From what I have seen, the foundation has a special interest in eradicating diseases in the developing world; hence their interest in tuberculosis and malaria. But heck, why listen to me when you cand surf the foundation and read about its priorities.

--
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Re:Well. by Bogtha · 2005-12-18 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is the percentage of your net worth the right way to measure generosity? Bill Gates can give that much money away without it affecting his lifestyle in the slightest. You think he notices the difference between having $60bn and having $90bn? Is it really so generous to give that much money away when you don't even notice it's gone? He could give twice that much money away and live like a king for the rest of his life.

Normal people couldn't give away half their net worth without losing their home. That alone should clue you in that percentage of net worth isn't the right way to measure generosity.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Well. by wass · 2005-12-18 07:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wal-Mart saves low-income shoppers $50 billion a year by having an efficient supply chain.
Take this quote by Steve Dobbins, the CEO of Carolina Mills, which provides textile supplies. "People ask, 'How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?' Sure, it's held inflation down, and it's great to have bargains," says Dobbins. "But you can't buy anything if you're not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs."
Here's the link . Why are less people employed? WMT drives many companies our of business by putting so low a profit margin that companies cannot afford to pay their workers satisfactorily. Hence, millions of American jobs are lost as the suppliers cut costs by moving off-shore. Or cut corners elsewhere by lowering wages and/or reducing health care.
So, hence the generally accepted claim that Americans are putting themselves out of work by shopping at WMT. So you say it's good we're saving $50 billion, but on the other hand we're losing millions of jobs, and important benefits like health-care. Which is worse? And when off-shore products are no longer as cheap to produce (eg when China decides to stop buying American debt), where will we be because most of our manufacturing jobs and plants have moved elsewhere?
Read that link for mor information about companies that got destroyed by WMT. Includes the story of the above company that prospered while he sold products to people producing for WMT, but then when companies moved overseas and underpriced him he couldn't compete even if he didn't pay any of the workers! Similar thing for Vlasic pickles. I saw another similar story on Rubbermaid on a PBS documentary on WMT. The list goes on and on.
But hey, you love WMT because they save money. As long as you can buy a gallon of pickles for $3 who cares if people lose jobs?

--
make world, not war
Re:Well. by wwwillem · 2005-12-18 16:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

.... the other argument is that "who cares how much someone gives to charity".
Giving to charity, so much an anglosaxon measurement for how good you are, always comes after (!!) the fact that people have taken care of their own well being. As a simple example, mother Theresa didn't GIVE to charity, she WAS charity.
Having moved from Europe to Canada (which follows the American/British model), I'm still flabergasted about how people here think that 'giving to charity' can wipe out their evil, or lack of action. You first lay-off a person, no problem at all, and then when Xmas comes you give some spaghetti-kits to them via the food-bank and -- even better for feeling good -- some cheap toys to the Childrens Hospital. And then it's all OK again.
I don't care a dime what Bill Gates is doing for Africa. That's only spending money. I do care what he is doing as a person, even more as a business person and that hasn't smelled very well over the last two decenia...

--
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Re:Well. by wct · 2005-12-18 22:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, if you bothered to read the Gates foundation web page, you would see that most of the money has been allocated to a minority scholarship program, followed by a vaccination fund that targets the 75 poorest nations in the world - ie not just African countries. There are no AIDS grants mentioned, except for research into an AIDS vaccine. What AIDS-in-Africa charity are you talking about? And if you've been to an African country, you would see the immense good that NGO charities are doing efficiently with relatively small financial reserves. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your bigoted fantasy.

Kudos by timmyf2371 · 2005-12-18 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

All too often we will critiscise Bill Gates for the actions of his company and practises they employ; but whether we're right or wrong to do so, both him and his wife must be congratulated for their donations and the work they have done through their charity.

Keep up the good work, Mr & Mrs Gates.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic

Re:Kudos by IAAP · 2005-12-18 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

All too often we will critiscise Bill Gates for the actions of his company and practises they employ; but whether we're right or wrong to do so, both him and his wife must be congratulated for their donations and the work they have done through their charity.
I'm trying to find the quote. Someone once made a comment during the Guilded Age regarding Carnegie's, Rockefeller's, etc... charities. The critique was that they were doing it for PR or to clense their souls (which might have been true for Carnegie. He really believed that it was a sin to die rich.) The person argued something to the affect of "So what? If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have all of these public libraries (Carnegie), the first Black Universities (Rockefeller), and so on (the Mellons, Morgans, other Robber Barons)". At that time, the Government wasn't doing it and I'm not sure that the Government should.
BTW, Rockefeller set up his charities so that they had to fund themselves. If they couldn't, they didn't get his money - very efficient.
Re:Kudos by HardCase · 2005-12-18 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

$28,000,000,000 is more than a tiny fraction.
Re:Kudos by Orkie · 2005-12-18 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

According to the figures quoted in that article, around about 62% of his total wealth, but Wikipedia disagrees on how much money he actually has - the article says $46.5 billion but Wikipedia says $41 billion, so that figure probably isn't correct especially since the charity money probably isn't included in those figures.

Respect.. by aero2600-5 · 2005-12-18 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

As much as I dislike Bill Gates and his business practices, there is no doubt that he and his wife have done more for charitable organizations than anyone in history. Bill Gates and his wife deserve to be celebrated for their efforts.

Aero

--
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart

Re:Respect.. by WindBourne · 2005-12-18 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

he and his wife have done more for charitable organizations than anyone in history.
false. You need only to look at all the local libraries that were built and furnished with books or look at a number of our universities (CMU comes to mind). Gates foundation has spent a mere amount compared to the robber barons of the 1800s/early 1900s. Now down the road, he may well do more, but at this time, he has not even come close.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Respect.. by generic-man · 2005-12-18 03:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

In my opinion, Gates wants to be seen as the 21st century equivalent to a Carnegie. Carnegie and Rockefeller had a ton of money because taxes were so low back then (0-1% of income) that the money just piled up. I read the book Titan about Rockefeller in which the author claimed that Rockefeller would be worth $900 BILLION in modern dollars when you adjust his wealth for inflation. He gave nearly all his fortune to charity, starting hospitals, universities, and foundations left and right.

If you're going to compare Mr. Gates to the robber barons in terms of generosity, at least take into consideration the fact that Gates is considerably poorer than Rockefeller was at Rockefeller's peak.

--
For more information, click here.

FTA- by soundoff · 2005-12-18 03:00 · Score: 2, Funny

"For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice." I think I understand now. Those commie bastards in the open-source community are reverse-engineering justice and giving it away for free.

Sorry to get Biblical guys... by fussili · 2005-12-18 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by at_slashdot · 2005-12-18 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

You have to understand though that Time gives the title of "person of the year" not on the ground of merit but on the ground of impact on the World. Widows donating money they can't spare don't really have such a big impact.

--
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by mormop · 2005-12-18 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're talking charity in the christian sense Mark 6:1-5 is as relevant:

6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

i.e Donating to charity and not boasting about it is charity. Putting out press releases afterwards makes it self publicity.

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by Surt · 2005-12-18 04:53 · Score: 2

Indeed, it seems clear to me that Bill Gates is as worthy of this 'honor' as Hitler.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by Tim+Browse · 2005-12-18 05:34 · Score: 3, Funny

And we have a winner!
Ok, who had 1 hour 59 minutes?

Keep it in Perspective by mfh · 2005-12-18 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Keep it in Perspective by Anne+Honime · 2005-12-18 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Pleaaaaase, come on ! Before the IBM PC (note, 'IBM'), there were lots of personal computers just as able, CP/M was working OK, and there were many less known OS just as able or more useful than MS-DOS ; speaking of Internet, I remember pretty well it was much easier to connect with OS/2 warp than Win 3.1 (where you had to rely on third party connectors such as trumpet winsock), and until Win95 osr/2 the connection was still a pain in the butt, while most major OSes had already seamless Internet integration (including linux, BSD, aforementionned OS/2, etc.).
Bill is a capitalist genious when it comes to steal and sell other's ideas to masses, but that's been his only contribution to mankind so far.

Total amount is really not a true measure by kgroombr · 2005-12-18 03:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although they did give a large amount back, what percentage is this to what was taken in? There are a lot of people that don't make a lot of money and give a large percentage to charities. The total amount given is really not a measure of one's thoughtfulness, the percentage is really where it counts.

Re:Behind Every Successful Man by Dante+Shamest · 2005-12-18 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Stop bashing Linus Torvalds! =(

Linus Charity donations by Frankie70 · 2005-12-18 03:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not trolling, but asking out of genuine curiousity.

Isn't Linus Torvalds also a millionaire? Does anyone have any figures
about his charitable donations?

Re:Linus Charity donations by LinuxRulz · 2005-12-18 03:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

he probably donates, but you know, the biggest donator always gets all the credits. And Gates can donate far more than Torvalds.
I believe we should be evaluated not by how much we donate, but by what we have left after the donation. Then, I could be considered as a _big_ donator!
Re:Linus Charity donations by LibrePensador · 2005-12-18 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Linus Charity donations by penguinoid · 2005-12-18 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Linus Charity donations by Pharmboy · 2005-12-18 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

Melinda Gates by Laser+Lou · 2005-12-18 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

I really have to give Melinda Gates credit for influencing Bill to start that foundation because, from what I read, Bill didn't donate anything until after he married her.

--
No data, no cry

Re:Say what you like by TeknoHog · 2005-12-18 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I mean, how many billions of dollars have you given to charities and foundations?

The same amount I've raised using illegal business practices.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.

Re:Cynics' Interpretation by Frankie70 · 2005-12-18 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

good samaritan who made a difference n. Rich bastard in need of a tax break.

Standard Slashdot comment every time this topic comes up.
Hopefully, at sometime time, the morons will realize that
making charitable donations doesn't increase your money.

1) You have 100$. No charitable donations.
You pay say 30% tax on it - i.e. 30$.
You have 70$ left with you.

2) You have 100$. You give 20$ to charity.
Now you pay tax only on the remaining 80% i.e. 24$.
The money you have left = 100 -24 - 20 = 56$.

i.e You would have been left with more money if you
hadn't given charity & got the tax breaks.

The only diff to this scenario is when giving the
donation puts you in a lower tax bracket. However
I doubt it that's the case with Bill Gates - he should
far far above the highest tax bracket.

Re:The devil is always kind by ninja_assault_kitten · 2005-12-18 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who's more foolish; the fool, or the fool who follows him?

Re:Get me a bucket I'm gonna throw up. by City+Jim+3000 · 2005-12-18 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah right, he's spending $6000 million to get a profit on his $200 million investement in medical companies?

Conspiracy Theory FTW!

Bill Gates is surely giving a larger percentage to charity than I do. I think I gave $2 for the flood victims because a couple of swedes were there, otherwise I usually think "well build yuor homes somewhere else next time". Otherwise I havn't been giving a single penny to charity for about 10 years.

Bono bloody Bono by wwwrench · 2005-12-18 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, this shows how credible Time mag. is

Time also named former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as "Partners of the Year" for their humanitarian efforts after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and the unlikely friendship that developed from that work.

Unlikely friendship??? Someone hand me a hanky. Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there. And Bono??? Bono???
The guy may be well meaning and all, but by allowing politicians to exploit him, he essentially allows them to look good while they make the problems of Africa worse. Him and Bobby Geldof were complete tools at the last G8, allowing Blair to look like he wanted to help Africa, when all they did was continue the same IMF policies of handouts in exchange for selling off of resources to the west. And Bono does it over and over again.

--

Deconstruct the State

Why I think this is bogus by testadicazzo · 2005-12-18 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not a typical Gates basher, but I do have a problem with praising the guy for all his charitable work, and I'm going to try to explain why.

Gates is convicted abuser of monopilist power. This means he obtained a large amount of his tremendous wealth through illegal means. The only reason he/his corporation hasn't been chastized for this is his enourmous contributions to the rebuplican party during the Bush vs. Gore elections. So not only is he guilty of abusing monopolistic power, but in my mind he is also guilty of subverting democracy. Granted this type of subversion is pretty common in modern America, but I still find it reprehensible behavior.

Now, for whatever motivations he has, he is taking some small portion of his ill gotten gains and using it for charity. But he gained that wealth by putting lots of smaller and often better companies and products out of business. God only knows what the final cost of the Microsoft monopoly is on the world.

I hope that it's clear to almost everyone that such monopolies are always bad for the consumer (there may be an argument to be made for publicly controlled monopolies like rail systems and postal systems, but this is a complex debate, and I don't think it's germane here). The lack of competition means less incentive to do strong quality checking, less responsiveness to the consumer, and higher cost. Not to mention the god awful EULA's and customer service. And this hasn't even mentioned the nightmarish influence of Microsoft on the public domain and the patent service.

Now I don't want to focus on the typical fodder of microsoft bashing. My point is this wealth was accumulated using illegal business practices, and those illegal business practices were protected by using the wealth so gained to influence the political engine. Great. What a man! A real role-model.

Had he not accumulated such a vast amount of wealth through these illegal manoeverings, who knows how that wealth would have been spent otherwise? In essence, I see this as robbing money from the masses, and using it to purchase prestige and influence via charitable organizations. Granted his tactics aren't as bad as the Mafia's, but one can see a bit of an anology to the local mafia boss being a 'pillar of the community' because he does so much to maintain the local schools, libraries, and parks...

A good example of this... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-18 03:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Professor Finds Fulfillment In Emptying His Pockets (might need to be registered) about a DC area community college mathematics professor who has a goal of donating $1million to charity before he retires, and he's already up to $770,000. Many years he's donated more than half of his annual income to charity.

Bono - Pompous, Self-Righteous Twit by segedunum · 2005-12-18 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that tells you what we can all make of Time Magazine's exalted choice.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11 worst

This quote epitomizes U2's pious, holier-than-thou attitude:

"I don't know why, but we always had this belief that there was something sacred about our music, that it was almost holy."

-Bono, pompous asshole and lead singer of U2

Cocky, high-handed, imperial assholes.

Time Cover Photo by Pinkoir · 2005-12-18 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm not sure I'd be smiling as much as Bill is if Bono were standing between me and my wife with such a smug look on his face.

-Pinkoir

I don't think so. by woolio · 2005-12-18 03:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

How much would Hitler need to have given to charity to bring honor to his name? (and imagine how we would have gotten the money, GASP!)

I don't believe one can make Billions through *honest* means, even in America...

It generally seems to require some form of deception, dishonest billing, and/or a monopolized market...

Or you believe that the Airlines operate an honest business? Cell-phone companies? Fast-food? Multi-level marketing? "Get Rich" schemes? QuickStar/Amway schemes? What about companies that exist to only hold patents???

How many Billions does MSFT have laying around in CASH right now??? Not revenue, not capital, but pure CASH... The number is truly staggering.

Hopefully the money MSFT donates does some good, but it is ill-gotten gains. Robin Hood is a nice child's story, but it is still not right to go around performing armed robbery in order to get some money to donate... MSFT's guns are not the projectile type, but the legal & financial type.

So please, don't delude yourself and other readers...

It's as if... by Zbaco · 2005-12-18 03:31 · Score: 2, Funny

...millions of Slashdotters cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...

Sycophants and Shills by turgid · 2005-12-18 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

It just goes to show that people are stupid and that the mass media are sycophants.

I am sick and tired of hearing what a great genius and philanthropists Bill Gates is.

Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press. What the main-stream media failed to report was that $421 million of Microsoft's money at the time went to fight Linux and Free Software.

So make your own conclusions about his priorities.

--
Stick Men

Re: Sycophants and Shills by Black+Parrot · 2005-12-18 04:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press.

Also, $100,000,000 / $51,000,000,000,000 = 0.2% of his net worth.

Suppose you're far better off than most people, to the point of having $100,000 socked away in the bank, and you decide to be equally generous. Should you expect kudos for your $200 donation?

What about all the people working their way through college, who still find a way to dro $5 or $10 in their church's collection plate every week?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Sycophants and Shills by ajdecon · 2005-12-18 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press. What the main-stream media failed to report was that $421 million of Microsoft's money at the time went to fight Linux and Free Software.

Because of course the man's personal spending habits and those of his company are a valid comparison, and he has total control over every action Microsoft takes.
Whatever else you may think of the man, you can't make a comparison like this to show his priorities. Many others are involved in decisions of where to spend Microsoft's money, and as rich as he is, I imagine $100 million means more to him than $400 million to Microsoft.

--
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
Re:Sycophants and Shills by turgid · 2005-12-18 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's bad reasoning, it's like saying that if this year I buy a house for $100 000 and only give $33 000 to charity, I'm an evil person for putting my interests before those of people in need.
No it isn't.
Bill Gates got where he is today through ruthlessness, double-crossing, lying, cheating and selling deadful products at over-inflated prices. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft's strong-arm tactics and draconian licensing policies, high prices coupled with publicity and bribing governments locks whole countries into expensive Microsoft proprietary software, ruining indiginous engineering and leeching billions of dollars out of countries that can ill afford it. M$ then "gives away free" computers and "software licenses" to schools and universities to make sure that the next generation is indoctrinated into the Church of Bill.
Maybe if M$ didn't leech so much money, and productivity (due to poor software), out of these "developing" countries, they'd be better developed and more able to cope with things like AIDS on their own without Bill's pocket change.
Microsoft has ruined the world econonmy in the last 15 years.

--
Stick Men

Yaaaay Melinda! by blueZhift · 2005-12-18 03:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's nothing like a good woman to get the best out of a man, heh, heh! It's good to see the Gateses getting some recognition, but I think it's especially cool that Melinda is getting some cover time too. I don't think it's any coincidence that Bill Gates' philantropy really took off after he married Melinda. Now if Melinda can also do something to make Windows better then I will be clearing out some space in my home for a special shrine!

--
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started

Do samaritians always sue indies over nothing? by Knuckles · 2005-12-18 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

In 1991, Bono's band U2 sued seminal independent label SST (home to, among others, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr, Hüsker Dü, Soundgarden, ...) over a satirical record by a band on the label, Negativland. They claimed that Negativland was infringing on U2's IP by using samples and other stuff (e.g., the letter U and the numeral 2).

This nearly ruined SST over the costs of the suit alone, but by forcing SST to fight an expensive suit, while the music they had greatly contributed to for more than 10 years exploded into the mainstream, it greatly contributed to the eventual demise of the label, robbing the artists of an important channel.

Later U2 claimed to have not been greatly involved. "It wasn't us, just the label", paraphrased.
I'm sorry, but if you let your lawyer sue, I'll hold you responsible. And if you wanna preach to people about responsible behavior, I'll expect that you know what your agents do in your name.

I have one thing to say about Bono: hypocrite. I think this is a fitting "people of the year" panel: They all give to charity in the limelight, then turn around and fuck people over.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns

ceases to amaze me by sl4shd0rk · 2005-12-18 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

How people in privileged places always seem to have other people in privileged places giving them props when a great deal of the majority suspects their all full of shit.

And then the media airs it.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by Millenniumman · 2005-12-18 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

As much as I dislike most Microsoft products, I have no problem with the company or Bill Gates.

Bill Gates amassed a fortune through ruthless and merciless and eventually illegal practices.

Ruthless and merciless practices? In competition with other companies? That's what he should be doing. He should be doing his best to (legally) make Microsoft Windows the standard and to make Mac OS and Linux unimportant niche products. As for illegal practices, which of those have made Gates rich? Being a monopoly? It became a monopoly through competition, not extortion. And if people truly felt that Microsoft was too powerful, then they would use other products. But, in general, they don't care. And comparing Bill Gates to the mafia? He's never used violent practices to gain power. No one has died because of him. People have given him his money by buying Microsoft products.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.

Re:1936 by krray · 2005-12-18 03:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Sorry Anonymous Coward. You are very incorrect in your statement. Adolf Hitler was NOT the Man of the Year in 1936. It was Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson for that year. Please see Time Magazine for verification.

Of course Time's history rather sucks - Joseph Stalin made it both in 1939 and 1942...

For a quick rundown take a look here.

For a nice graphical layout look through Time's version.

You will note, however, that Adolf Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938.

I personally like their 1982 pick ... it was so "1984". :)

My person of the year... by dominion · 2005-12-18 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

... 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.

Re:My person of the year... by metallic · 2005-12-18 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

You do realize that Jabbar Gibson is in jail right now on charges of possesion of drugs with the intent to distribute, right? He also has a very lengthy criminal record.

--
Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.

Re:Cynics' Interpretation by alfedenzo · 2005-12-18 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

You would have been left with more money if you
hadn't given charity & got the tax breaks.

The only diff to this scenario is when giving the
donation puts you in a lower tax bracket.

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

Sorry to correct you, brother... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-18 04:17 · Score: 2, Funny

> 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

As any faithful Christian knows, we store up our treasures in heaven, not on earth. The fact you put so much weight in one Magazine's earthly praise while quoting from the Word which instructs you to seek fortune elsewhere, strikes me as a tad bit hypocritical (if not downright jealous).

Furthermore, not only is it apparent you have no context of understanding about that passage you cite, I think what you really meant to quote was this:

Mark 10:20-25 (Camel and eye of the needle)

20 And he answered and said unto him, Rabbi, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Yahushua beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

...which strikes me as more accurate and applicable here (if your heart is not cold and driven by motive here). Simply put, it's quite possible that Bill Gates does not want to go away grieved like this man, and wants to give up his great possessions before he dies. I can only imagine what chore it must be to give up several billion dollars. I'm reminded of that funny movie with Richard Pryor and John Candy, Brewster's Millions. Being rich must be a burden, and it's not for me or you (as Christians) to condemn them as such, but to applaud them in their efforts to follow Christ's teachings and help us all while we walk this earth together.

Peace, brother...

for good or for ill by sdo1 · 2005-12-18 04:17 · Score: 4, Informative

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. By Time Magazine's own words the "Person of the Year" is chosen for good or for ill . Because they chose Hitler DOES NOT mean they found him to be a stand-up person of good will. They chose him because he had an unbelievable effect on the history of mankind, though in this case of the worst possible kind.

"...or for ill." Get it?

Now in this case, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are being recognized for their efforts to make the world a better place.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:for good or for ill by Minna+Kirai · 2005-12-18 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by TCQuad · 2005-12-18 04:28 · Score: 5, Funny

He arguably robbed from the rich and gave to the poor...
Stood up to the Man
and gave him what for!
The Man of the Year
that all Slashdot hates,
The hero of Redmond
the man they call Gates!

Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by shreevatsa · 2005-12-18 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I got this in my mail a few days ago. Surprised no one else has posted it yet:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Augusta Molnar < amolnar@<snip>.org> Date: Dec 8, 2005 6:26 AM Subject: [GKD] Microsoft Donations: Roses with Thorns? To: gkd@<snip>.edc.org Dear GKD Members, I am writing from Oaxaca, Mexico where I am visiting communities in the highlands. They have been beneficiaries of a very cool project financed in part by the Gates foundation to install a wireless connection and a set of computers for the schools. We are working on a network in the Latin America region for communities for which we use by preference FireFox as our browser. We suggested they try this browser as Explorer was causing problems, and discovered to our surprise that the Gates foundation "gift" comes with tags. The computer network does not allow any of the users of the donated computers to install any software not owned by Microsoft, even any open source software. The network within which the computers reside will not allow any individual computers to download software to install, ostensibly to prevent viruses and incompatible software from jeopardizing the Microsoft system. These are computers installed for educational purposes in a number of telecenters in the public libraries in Mexico for all the young students preparing for a global world. These computers are therefore their only affordable access to the Internet and to learning about computers and programs. A significant number of them will leave this town to work at least part of their life elsewhere in Mexico or in the U.S. Their work and career opportunities will depend upon their skills and preparedness. I am reminded of my youth, working in the vicinity of USAID programs which only purchased American-made cars shipped to remote corners of Asia for irrigation projects, etc., because the tied money only allowed US bids. (Ever try to blow up a pneumatic truck tire with a bicycle pump in a small town in Asia? ) Is this standard Gates foundation policies?????? Is this type of tag allowed?? Interested to hear from those of you who are more knowledgeable on this point. Augusta Molnar Director, Community and Markets Program Forest Trends 1050 Potomac Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: <snip> Fax: <snip> www.forest-trends.org ------------

(Sorry for all the "snip"s; but you never know what sort of people frequent Slashdot!)

Corp v corp conflict is necessary ... by AHumbleOpinion · 2005-12-18 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-12-18 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

New Orleans by djward · 2005-12-18 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Sorry, Katrina is in a whole other order of magnitude from 9/11. We're talking a few buildings knocked down vs. widespread destruction across an entire city and ensuing unlivability and anarchy.

Also, with 9/11, federal aid was instantaneous.

9/11 was a tragedy, but it has been so played-up to incite "patriotism" that many have lost perspective on what a true disaster is.

Lex Luthor by Theovon · 2005-12-18 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Didn't Lex Luthor get all sorts of humanitarian awards too?

Let's see... rich guy, gives money to charities, does humanitarian things, does some evil on the side...

Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by FuzzyDaddy · 2005-12-18 06:47 · Score: 2

I have to disagree with you. Yes, I think Microsoft's business practices are unfair. Yes, my life as sometimes software developer might be a lot less annoying if the company wasn't a monopoly. Yes, I own a Mac and try, on principle, to give Microsoft as little money as is legally possible.

That being said, go see the movie "The Insider", about the guy who ratted out that cigarette manufacturers knew about the health risks of smoking and lied about it for decades. Think about companies supporting dictators, intimidating people, poisoning people, ruining people... Microsoft is not my favorite company, but they do play by some rules. And the Gates' interest in changing the world through there fortune may be part arrogance and hubris, but they seem to genuinely want to make a difference.

So, my hat's off to the Gates', keep up the good work, and I'm still not buying anything from Microsoft! And to the non-nerd world, I say - even our bullies and tyrants are better than yours.

--
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.

And what does that passage actually mean? by n54 · 2005-12-18 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I do agree but I want to embellish it with what I think it's about (no guarantee that this is the "correct" view, think and decide for yourselves).

Does it mean that rich people shouldn't donate? No
Does it mean we shouldn't encourage rich people to donate? No
Does it mean that we shouldn't be happy when rich people donate? No

What it means is that we shouldn't scoff at those who donate the little they have just because they're poor and can't give "much" dollar-for-dollar.

What it means is that we should applaud those people who have little but still give as much as they can, some of them even give everything they have.

I'm sure there are some rich persons who have given away everything too but even then it is how much they give the next day when they're poor which will really be comparable to the "widow".

What it means is that we shouldn't be full of pride for what we do, that we gave so-and-so much, because how many people notice those "widows" giving everything they've got? They never make any fuss over it themselves.

So it is a teaching about sacrifice and humility.

But we should also applaud something which is more widespread among the rich in the US than anywhere else (it's slowly catching on in Europe -- at least in Norway -- and hopefully around the world (I'm hearing about good efforts from Jackie Chan)): philantrophy.

I'd like to congratulate Bill, Melinda & Bono because they are trying. No, they will never reach the level of the poor widow in the temple (few of any of us do, at least I don't) but they are far far less hypocrites than many rich people (and average people) who do even less than them percentage-wise.

As for Time and their opinions I couldn't care less, the common journalists are among the biggest (if not the biggest) hypocrites in any way you can find anywhere, and the whole idea of nominating a person(s) of the year is to increase profit (which is not bad in itself unless it becomes the sole aim of the journalism and I dare say that it is in this case).

Last but not least let's not forget all the things lots of people do/give that doesn't involve money at all be it various volunteer work, open source or even donating spare CPU cycles: it all counts.

--
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]

The PR works. by Futurepower(R) · 2005-12-18 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow. I think it is a PR attempt mostly, and judging by the fact my parent comment was modded down, the PR works. Slashdotters are completely taken in by a small amount of charity, and now Bill Gates is a great guy. Very weak minded, in my opinion.

not correct... by YesIAmAScript · 2005-12-18 09:37 · Score: 3, Informative

You should get a copy of Negativland's book "The Letter U and the Numeral 2". If you have one already, reread it.

The lawsuit is on page 4.

The plantiff is Island records, the defendants are SST and Negativland (Hosler, et al). Neither the band U2 nor the members are listed on the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the lawsuit is primarily about Negativland's use of the enormous letters "U2" on the cover of the EP. It does mention the lyrics and samples down lower. The songs were actually rereleased later (much later) with a non-infringing cover.

Additionally, if you continue to read the book or other info on the case, you realize the main problem isn't Island or U2. The main problem was that when the lawsuit rolled in SST immediately rolled over, stopped distribution of the EP, paid off Island and then BILLED BACK Negativland for the payoff (while simultaneously depriving them of income!).

If you continued to investigate, you'd find that Negativland was wrapped up on court for years over this. Not against Island, against SST. SST didn't rack up huge bills defending themselves against Island, they settled immediately. They did rack up huge bills fighting Negativland in a contractual dispute.

How about if you read page 32, where Chris Blackwell of Island Records says in a letter to Negativland "I have been getting a huge amount of hastle (sp) from the members of U2, not to press for payment."

Hosler could probably explain it better than I (he's perhaps even on here), but the main villain here is SST, not U2. Island probably comes in 2nd place.

Note that a later part of the book talks more about "audio collage" and sampling, etc. That's where the stuff on "No Copyright" is. And there are some good arguments here, in fact, so good that (IMHO) the recent Creative Commons stuff is a spiritual descendant of this work.

I like Negativland, I have all of their SST stuff and some of their Seeland stuff. But, I do know they are very subversive and not stupid. When the Tower records standup picture of the EP bin on page 3 of the book says "buy it before they get sued", I think it's probably that Negativland understood they would get C&D'd over this record and likely sued by Island too. What they didn't understand was that SST would roll over on them and leave them with the bill (illegally it turns out).

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

It's how much you keep by MarkByers · 2005-12-18 10:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not how much you give away that shows how generous you are, neither the actual amount nor as a percentage. It's how much you decide to keep. Bill Gates has decided to keep enough money to remain the richest man in the world.

--
I'll probably be modded down for this...

Re:Fallacy by mfh · 2005-12-18 13:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

And actually, I think Microsoft has pretty much done everything it could get away with...

How much do you attribute that truth to Bill Gates, and how much do you attribute that to the corporate collective? What I think is that Gates is sometimes sold on really bad ideas that hurt the company, from people who want to get ahead in the company (risk takers, wheeling & dealing). Bill might be a genius, but he buys into sometimes wrong ideologies, because he is possibly an idealist at heart (with the intellect to think he actually can make a difference, because he can see it maybe the way I'm describing it). Some of the most dangerous people have the best intentions, and I like to think Bill gets caught up in corporate politics, not that he's a bad person. Corporatism is not free market, but one man does not truly have absolute power. There are always outside forces, for good and evil.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

Good samaritans or investors with good PR? by SgtChaireBourne · 2005-12-18 21:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Funny. But lets look at the actions, which do speak louder than words, and then again at the definition of Good Samaratin

I find it peculiar that these acts of "charity" tend to be timed to fight Linux and Open Source more than to fight disease. It's been the same pattern whether in Australia, India or many of the African nations: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux.

Another thing that makes it stink of PR is the focus on HIV/AIDS which, compared to other problems like heart problems, smoke from cooking fires, etc, is not a major health problem. However, it is a high profile item for US audiences.

Yet another problem is that the solutions offered by Chairman Bill and his foundation focus on expensive pharmaceutical treatments, often draining significant matching funding coming from the target region. Most health issues are solved more effectively and cheapy with preventative measures not corrective measures, especially expensive ones. Cheaper is better, but it just so happens he's also heavily invested in the same pharmas, so maybe, jsut maybe there is a bit of conflict of interest.

Read the interview Time had earlier with Chairman Gates. He seriously couldn't seem less interested in the health and social aspects of the charity. The definition I had previously heard for Good Samaritan involved an active interest in helping and helping in an altruistic manner, not with strings attached or with major conflicts of interest.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Slashdot Mirror

Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year"

104 of 751 comments (clear)