Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the charity-gets-you-far dept.

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."

56 of 751 comments (clear)

  1. Good Samaritans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  2. This should prove... by DogDude · · 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.
    1. Re:This should prove... by ginotech · · 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.

    2. Re:This should prove... by 1u3hr · · 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.

    3. Re:This should prove... by BewireNomali · · 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.
    4. Re:This should prove... by Pharmboy · · 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!
    5. Re:This should prove... by NCraig · · 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 =).
    6. Re:This should prove... by thatguywhoiam · · 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.
    7. Re:This should prove... by Pharmboy · · 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!
    8. Re:This should prove... by 1u3hr · · 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.

    9. Re:This should prove... by Minna+Kirai · · 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.

    10. Re:This should prove... by Austerity+Empowers · · 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.

    11. Re:This should prove... by Minna+Kirai · · 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?

  3. Well. by Winckle · · 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...

    1. Re:Well. by mumblestheclown · · 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?

    2. Re:Well. by mumblestheclown · · 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.

    3. Re:Well. by aszlej · · 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 :).

    4. Re:Well. by v1 · · 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.
    5. Re:Well. by TheSync · · 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.

    6. Re: Well. by HardCase · · 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-

    7. Re:Well. by Jeremi · · 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.
    8. Re:Well. by elwinc · · 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!
    9. Re:Well. by Bogtha · · 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
  4. Kudos by timmyf2371 · · 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
    1. Re:Kudos by HardCase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $28,000,000,000 is more than a tiny fraction.

  5. Respect.. by aero2600-5 · · 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
    1. Re:Respect.. by WindBourne · · 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.
    2. Re:Respect.. by generic-man · · 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.
  6. Sorry to get Biblical guys... by fussili · · 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

    1. Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by at_slashdot · · 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
    2. Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 3, Funny
      And we have a winner!

      Ok, who had 1 hour 59 minutes?

  7. Keep it in Perspective by mfh · · 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.
  8. Total amount is really not a true measure by kgroombr · · 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.

  9. Linus Charity donations by Frankie70 · · 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?

    1. Re:Linus Charity donations by LinuxRulz · · 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!

    2. Re:Linus Charity donations by LibrePensador · · 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
    3. Re:Linus Charity donations by penguinoid · · 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
    4. Re:Linus Charity donations by Pharmboy · · 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!
  10. Melinda Gates by Laser+Lou · · 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
  11. Re:Say what you like by TeknoHog · · 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.
  12. Re:Cynics' Interpretation by Frankie70 · · 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.

  13. Bono bloody Bono by wwwrench · · 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
  14. A good example of this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. Time Cover Photo by Pinkoir · · 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

  16. Sycophants and Shills by turgid · · 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
  17. Do samaritians always sue indies over nothing? by Knuckles · · 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
  18. Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by Millenniumman · · 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.
  19. My person of the year... by dominion · · 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.

  20. Re:Cynics' Interpretation by alfedenzo · · 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
  21. for good or for ill by sdo1 · · 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?
    1. Re:for good or for ill by Minna+Kirai · · 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.

  22. Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. by TCQuad · · 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!

  23. Corp v corp conflict is necessary ... by AHumbleOpinion · · 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.

  24. New Orleans by djward · · 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.

  25. not correct... by YesIAmAScript · · 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
  26. Good samaritans or investors with good PR? by SgtChaireBourne · · 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.