Slashdot Mirror
The Softening of a Software Man
theodp writes to tell us that New York Magazine has an interesting editorial stating that no one is afraid of Microsoft anymore. The article argues that Microsoft has noticeably been adrift in the wake of Gates' philanthropy, which some cynics suspect is a Rockefeller-like attempt to 'fumigate his fortune' as he makes a play for the history books. From the article: "Like the robber barons, Bill Gates has moved from trying to take over the world to trying to save it."
Um... Perhaps Bill Gates really ISN'T the antichrist...
Which leaves only Steve Ballmer.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
New York Magazine has an interesting editorial stating that no one is afraid of Microsoft anymore. The article argues that Microsoft has noticeably been adrift in the wake of Gates' philanthropy,
Well, it does take a lot of effort and energy to be competing with Bono.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
LINUX :)
His head is much smaller in person.
I'm by no means a MS fanboy, but.. c'mon already. The man and his family has shown more support for worthwhile causes than I'm sure some small countries have. He just can't catch a break around here, can he?
have you seen him? it's like if you applied Nietzsche's theory of the ubermensch to a bioengineered dashboard bobblehead.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"Embrace, extend and extinguish"
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Rockefeller, who was perhaps the richest man in all history, also used his fortune via nonprofit foundations, not only to enhance his character as publicly perceived (Gates has already done this), but also to mold and shape the American culture, especially the political culture.
In fact, arguably, plutocrat fortunes, as used to fund foundations, might be said to be the primary force used to direct and channel American leftism. Read more about this in Roelof's book _THe MASK OF PLURALISM. Basically, her main thesis is that plutocrats funded the large nonprofit foundations so that they could fund leftists who were not oriented towards economic oriented leftism, but instead towards identity politics. Thus, the white lower middle class was turned away from leftism in general. Well, there is more to it than that, but it was a major factor.
I doubt Gates could ever match the effect that Rockefeller, Scaife, etc had on American political culture. Too many other players in the game now...
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I guess now to stay afloat they're going to have to come up with some good ideas other than selling people antivirus software to patch up their crappy vulnerable OS. That was a good idea, if only for the irony.
What's left after you acquire arbitrarily large amounts of money and power?
I imagine the cynics would comprise mostly of the peanut gallery on this site.
Really, who else do you know other than maladjusted computer geeks really care that much about Bill Gates? What he does with his fortune is almost hardly noticed by the general public, until this year. And very few people would call Gates a robber baron at all.
The fixation with Bill Gates and Microsoft on slashdot is really unhealthy. You people need to get out more.
All men come to realize they reap what they sow. All mean come to realize they too will die, and whatever is said afterward, and how people remember you is all that will remain. Perhaps mortality finally caught up with him, perhaps not. We'll see.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
I believe he earned the money. I believe the market is actually free. Therefore I am not afraid of MS. I have never been afraid of MS. The market still gets to choose and up till now, it chooses MS, for many reasons fair and unfair. Natural monopolies may seem unfair, but you are still free to steer the market in a better direction. Only the zealots believe that MS is pure evil and that Gates would need to fumigate his fortune. I wonder what excuse the zealots will use to hate the new leader if it doesn't come from your team?
I don't think Bill Gates cares all that much about "fumigating his fortune". I think his wife changed him.
As pieterh said a while ago: "Watch my left hand... as my right hand takes your wallet."
"Like the robber barons, Bill Gates has moved from trying to take over the world to trying to save it."
Maybe both are things that can't be separated for himIf nature did have a way of weeding out idiots, you'd be in serious trouble!
IBM is not to be feared no more, Microsoft is not to be feared no more, who are we gonna hate and fear now? Google??
You just got troll'd!
The idiots and the un-educated.
We all benifit from un-educated people (ceap labor) and in many countries noone is educated.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
If he was serious about saving the world, he'd be investing in Pirates! http://venganza.org/
Almost nobody knows that John D. MacArthur, who funded the "genius" awards (posthumously), made his money with a life insurance company scam. His unauthorized 1969 biography, "The Stockholder", by William Hoffman, gives the details. MacArthur introduced mail-order life insurance sold through newspaper ads, and his company, Banker's Life, was notorious for refusing to pay claims.
If it worked for them, it should work for Gates. Gates isn't even alleged to have killed anyone.
But if the government engaged in charitable works of some kind, you'd consider that morally wrong, because the money in that case was stolen ('taxed').
Am I right?
Yes, exactly, and that was certainly not a new tactic. In fact, the system of checks and balances built into the American constitution was actually imported from England where they implemented it because it tended to divide up the people'e power, and set them against each other, paralyzing the power of the people, thus making it harder for us proles to tax the rich more.
A political scientist named Fresia has a book online that talks about this. It's called _TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION_.
Also, one Richard Bissell, an early CIA honcho who helped start the Ford Foundation with CIA and plutocrat money, said the tactic for destroying leftism was to not debate the leftists about their ideas, but instead to divert their energies to activities and interests that would be less harmful (to the rich and megacorporations, one presumes). The primary diversion created by the Ford Foundation and other nonprofits was Identity Politics/Pluralism/Multiculturalism.
Divide and Conquer, same as it ever was....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Gates has given massive amounts of money to various charities ever since Microsoft became successful. This isn't anything new. Maybe, just maybe, Gates is a genuine philanthropist? Of course, if you already hate the man, which so many here do, you could probably never come to accept that.
Get over it. He doesn't have any alterior motives here. There's no smoke and mirrors. He's just continuing to do what he has done for decades.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
O M G .
Like they said in the article - the intentions does not matter .
Why does yahoo do this
What bothers me how fast people forget just how he has gotten theese money. For all we know computing as we know it would be years ahead if it wasnt for Microsoft and Bill Gates. The way Microsoft has taken over the market is disturbing. By killing the competition, not by selling better products. If it hadnt been Bill it would have been [insert name of choice here] that would be throwing money at third world countries to avoid taxes.
A killer does not become better in any way by saving equal amounts of lives as he has killed. Most of the problems in the third world is because of us in the developed world. We have made extreme amounts of money by exploiting them. The tiny fractions of it we "give" back is a mere drop in the ocean and nothing to bang our chests about.
Bill Gates sucks whatever he does because of what he has done to set back computing years just for profit. Nothing can change that unless he gets a time machine.
HTTP/1.1 400
But I don't believe taxation is theft. The constitution gives the government the right to taxation and an enumeration of federal powers to spend those taxes on. I have no problem with that. As long as federal government stays within its boundaries and the state and local governments do the rest, I believe the government is acting within the law. There is one clear area where taxation IS theft would be social security. Say what you want about whether Social Security is a federal function, but letting SS funds go into the general fund to be spent up by current politicians instead of funding our retirements is clearly theft.
that just making more money was pointless, and there were better, and more fulfilling, things to do with his time. I hope so, with the fortune he has amassed he could truly accomplish some amazing things.
Naaahhhhh!!! What was I thinking?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I for one welcome our new philanthropic overlord. It beats the ball-busting company-eating standards-mutating satanic overlord of before. (Unless maybe it is both now)
Table-ized A.I.
Bill is doing a lot of good with his charitable work and that deserves recognition. But if he steps back guess who's going to be running the show. Steve Ballmer has shown himself to be more ruthless than Bill, more aggressive and much more willing to threaten competitors.
On the other hand Ballmer is also impetuous, and may lead Microsoft back to the law courts.
I'd mug Bill Gates. The take? $100,000 for every man, women and child there.
The Admin and the Engineer
Will future versions be able to read what he saved? And even if they could will it render the same?
Let us assume-- I've no way of knowing whether this was his intent or not, but let's just look at it hypothetically for a moment-- that Gates donated all this money for the goal of having people think positively of him.
Well, whether or not that was what he was trying to do, it worked. The parent and grandparent post demonstrate this nicely. Defenses of Gates on the basis of his philanthropy are immediate and "insightful". Rejections of the idea that money should be able to buy respect are "trolls".
I am posting this as AC. Why? Because apparently what Gates' billions to charity have bought is this: You are now a 'troll' on slashdot if you criticize Gates' motives. After all, those billions may have come from means which were destructive, unethical, illegal, or possibly outright theft; but, because he gave some of it back, it was all Good in the end. Bill Gates, the modern Robin Hood. Leeching from the computer users and industries of the world, and giving to the poor or AIDS patients or what not. How can we possibly question the motives of a noble hero such as this?
Truly, you can buy anything, if you are a smart shopper. $97 million to build a house, $10 or 20 billion (I've lost count of exactly how big the Gates Foundation is) to buy the hearts and minds of slashdot. At least we do not come cheap.
The $20M he gave to a University library buys him naming rights. $20M to Bill Gates is pocket change. How much "hurt" did he feel making that contribution? About as much as a regular guy would feel if he gave a quarter to charity. To Bill, $20M to see your name written over a prestigeous library entrance is cheap.
When he makes big donations in Inda or whatever it is a nice way of buying a good impression and some positive hype when they want to staff up Microsoft India. It is also a nice way of imposing some control. Don't piss off the guy with the dough or he might take his favors elsewhere.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Bill has amassed his fortune by copying the goods of others (e.g. GUI), by aggressive marketing, by the unnatural rights granted to corporations (IP laws), and by leveraging its initial monopoly which it obtained due to luck.
But now he is being generous. Should he be given credit for that? Maybe the donations should be made in the name of the public from which he has obtained his fortune while giving nothing in return.
Personally I welcome *any* linux testing by windows, just take a look at the mindcraft fiasco! It was an unfair test, got a lot of attention and showed linux devs a problem that would have otherwise taken a lot longer to surface. If Microsoft wants to spend it's money helping linux devs then I say go fo it.
However, have you looked at 99% of the "studies" done by (or for) Microsoft? Most (all?) of them *are* actually marketing ploys and *are* unfair. Then again, I see a lot of Linux fans doing their own tests which are generally as unfair as Microsofts.
" Gates is a good man, & has the best overall & most flexible operating system product "
If that's your opinion fair enough, but please remember to phrase it as an opinion since there is no factual bases for it.
"After all - no OS platform runs as many hardwares or has as many softwares for it, period... thus, it TRULY IS the most flexible, useful, & ubiquitous platform."
Source? And make it within the past 6 months (max) otherwise it's meaningless.
PS: Go learn some puctuation! Please, I hate punctuation/grammer nazies but some of your mistakes are really bad.
it does
it's called not getting laid
Yes, all those babies being born from HIV-infected mothers are real idiots. All those people getting tainted blood transfusions are morons. All those people making one mistake in their lives and dying because of it are complete assholes.
The huge nonprofit foundations funded leftists. Now there are ALL SORTS of leftists.
Some sorts of leftists write about stuff like this, "Hey, let's tax the upper class much more so we can pay for universal healthcare, early retirement, and low cost college!"
Other types of leftists write about stuff like this, "Hey, the whites are racists and they oppress the minorities by enslaving them. And men are oppressing women!"
And you have some in between those two types.
Now, you look at supposedly leftist oriented outlets like PBS, NPR and other places where you find leftists who are funded by foundations, and you tell me which type predominates.
Now, if for the last 5 decades, which sort of leftists have the foundations funded: A. the rural white male who hunts deers and writes about how he wants to tax the upper class much more so we can pay for universal healthcare, early retirement, and low cost college, or B. The gay or minority leftists who says the whites are racists and they oppress the minorities by enslaving them. And men are oppressing women.
Which type of leftist gets funded?
Type B! More or less....
ANd what happens to American leftism after type B gets funded 100 times more often than type A?
That is how the plutocrats EVOLVED American leftism so that it suited them, was elite-friendly. THe foundations basically DOMESTICATED American leftism by funding the RIGHT KIND of leftist. And they did it with plutocrat and megacorporation money, and CIA money and know how.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I hear that happens when you get older.
Repeat after me.
20. Years.
How long is history again?
If good can erase bad, then the bad can erase good and all efforts are in vain as we will never know if we have done enough good to cover our bad. If any one of us had the wealth would we be as generous? If we would, why don't we start now.
Soon a virus will evolve which spreads by bad spelling, and then he will be fucked.
I doubt Gates could ever match the effect that Rockefeller, Scaife, etc had on American political culture.
Why the hell would he possibily want to change American political culture? It's the same culture of "close your eyes and ears and let corporations do whatever they want" that allowed Gates to get away with the monopolistic and illegal actions that made him an ultra-zillionare in the first place!
Bill Gates specifically gives money to non-whites -- e.g. charities to sponsor non-white college students.
/ 101802g.htm
He also blows big chunks of money on diseases that mostly affect non-whites.
So he takes from white people with his monopolistic practices, and then gives the money to non-whites.
Many suspect this is just to "launder" his fortune -- by giving a teeny amount to sympathetic cases, he absolves himself of his guilt.
Other charitable people take a different approach:
Irving Moskowitz, a bingo magnate, uses his money to fund settlers in Israel: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/101802
Many Jews consider him to be a great guy -- he's doing a wonderful mitzvah.
If Bill were to give the money to white people, would we think the same? Why not? E.g. what if he gave scholarships to poor white kids, so that they'll stand a better chance competing at the university against non-whites? Would we think it was a mitzvah?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Frankly, anyone who has more money than a lot of small countries and DOESNT give it away is where'd I'd be annoyed. I mean honestly, it's great he's giving it away, but he's obligated to do so no matter how you look at it.
If I robbed a bank of $10,000,000, then gave $9,000,000 to charities, am I suddenly warm and fuzzy?
Bill Gates earned his billions through illegal, immoral, anticompetitive, ruthless business tactics that have arguably set back the state of "innovation" (to use Microsoft's favorite term) in multiple fields by years, if not decades. His actions have created chilling effects across virtually every field connected even tangentially with computing. The fact that he is now giving much, most, or even all of his arguably ill-gotten money to charitable causes does not erase the source of those funds.
Given the chance to "do it all over again", I do not believe Gates would play by the rules on a second run-through. His core character hasn't changed. From the beginning, he was a megalomaniacal character, who seemed to honestly believe that he-- and only he-- knew what was best for computing. It's rumored that in the '70s, at a meeting of computer software makers, he prophecized that in the future, there would be only one computer software company. He's now doing his best to ensure that his is that company. From all that I've read of him, despite all his very real importance, he has an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance; he sees himself as a sort of king or messiah of the digital world, and he's willing to do anything and everything in his power (legal, illegal, moral, or immoral) to maintain his position as dictator of all things software.
The man isn't some sort of loveable Robin Hood who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He's stunted the competition and innovation of the very technology industry he insists upon shepherding, and in the process he's broken laws-- both those of countries and those of basic morality. Giving away the money (much of which arguably isn't rightfully his in the first place) does not erase this.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Remember, it's your money he's giving away. By self-serving use and abuse of the US legal system, he stole hundreds of billions of dollars from people all over the world. He was convicted of this in a US court.
It's great that he's giving some of this money to charity. Personally, I'd rather have the few hundred dollars he's got from me back so that I could choose how to spend it myself. I'd also rather have the businesses he ruined back, and the generation of computer programmers he ruined back, so that the US could be another 15 years ahead techologically.
Excuse me if I don't light any candles for the man.
Loading...
It's funny that this came up - last week I made a cartoon for my blog...
Ballmer Exposed as Evil Robot
http://www.wellybog.com/index.php?entryid=107
Enjoy :)
Wellybog
http://www.wellybog.com
Bill Gates has given more to charity than anyone EVER.
I disagree. In the New Testament we read about a poor old widow who gave to the temple a couple of coins, which was what she needed to live. Relatively speaking, she gave much more than any millionaire could give.
On the other hand, if Bill Gates wants to become a good person, WHY DOESN'T HE GIVE US BACK WHAT HE FREAKING STOLE!?
I mean the monopolic practices, forcing us to pay licenses for Windows, etc etc etc.
It's as if a rich man exploited poor men but gave a lot of money to the church. You don't become a good person by stealing and giving a little to the poor. You become a good person by NOT STEALING in the first place.
28 Billion dollar in donation !!!!
.
O M G .
Like they said in the article - the intentions does not matter
How much are you willing to receive to preserve the Status Quo? How much would you be willing to spend?
Considering that Open Source can make a significant impact on the development of poor nations, that money Gates has given away has no comparison. It's like giving a man a fish, instead of teaching him to fish. Oh yeah, and making sure nobody fishes without using your fishing poles.
Sigh, people are getting SO gullible these days.
I have some suggestions:
Why don't we judge companies based on the company's behaviour, and judge individuals based on the individual's behaviour?
Why don't we stop imagining that somehow a multibillion dollar company is still largely a projection of one man's personality?
Why don't we acknowledge that contributing to charity does not absolve anyone of responsibility they may have for wrongs they committed in the past?
Why don't we acknowledge that a person's psyche is not one-dimensional.. that an individual can do good in some contexts and bad in other contexts?
Does that sound reasonable?
-Laxitive
The money he spends on philanthropy is miniscule compared to his fortune, miniscule compared to what WE pay as taxpayers on the planet. Yet he is held up as jesus.
Let's face it, as sooned as he started pumping money into PBS, the Linux reporting/articles slowed to a trickle or stopped. That says a lot about his strategy.
Truth remains, his monopoly took on the US government...and won. That's power. It would be interesting to know the reasons behind the judge soiling his case after winning, thus getting the penalty thrown out.
Let's not forget those rape victims, people with cheating spouses, medical professionals who get needle sticks while saving lives, children sold into sexual slavery.
Those people are idiots, too, right, Gravis Zero?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
led to a few CEOs watching in a kind of horror struck awe as they watched their businesses vanish under the heel of Microsoft's jack boots.
But look on the bright side... Uh... No wait...
On the bright side, he bankrupted everybody who was trying to make a living by commoditing the hardware.
I now own two eMachines with Athlon 64 CPUs, GIGs of RAM and 1/2 a TB of HD and they cost me about a grand. (One's running slackware...) But I still like my two Macs better.
Bill Gates may have employed strategies better suited to a school yard bully and other pathologicaly violent no-goodnicks, all to enrich himself, make the 'other fellah' poorer, (its not enough to win, you have to make the other guy become a looser,) but ultimately, very few people got killed.
Some software pirates got snuffed in China and so on, but, as criminal as Microsoft's diregard of security might be, people don't actually use it in mission-critical machines. Its okay for 'desktop' computing but you'd never 'bet the farm' on it, or your life, or even your car.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Anyway, veering back to topic, I think Gates is also focused on the money, but he was just luckier with his timing. Some company was going to emerge as dominent in the computer business after IBM dropped the ball, and it turned out to be Microsoft. Yes, Gates played his cards very well and made a whole lot of money in the deal, and he also cheated a little bit on the edges, but he's never been dedicated to crazy evil in the way of Dick Cheney and some of the other neocons.
To use a strained metaphor, Gates has a house of paper--it's just money. The neocons want to build a more substantial palace, and they see killing people as a natural part of the process of building an empire. That's real evil.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
"Personally I welcome *any* linux testing by windows, just take a look at the mindcraft fiasco! It was an unfair test, got a lot of attention and showed linux devs a problem that would have otherwise taken a lot longer to surface. If Microsoft wants to spend it's money helping linux devs then I say go fo it." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @01:55PM
:)
Then 'go for it' I shall, & from a governmental agency for it, ok? Here, take a read from an ABSOLUTELY current test, this year, where Windows OS & softwares were found to have less bugs in them than Unix/Linux/MacOS X (all Unix derivants/knockoffs) vs. all the types of Win32 OS (in fact, iirc, not just NT-based ones but also older no longer supported 9x models (could be wrong here though) but also the softwares that run on them):
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html
That said, since you Linux/Unix fiends ALWAYS resort to that OLD test?
That's a NEW test, run & reported on only days ago here @ slashdot in fact!
That test & its results (results from the year 2005) shows how many MORE vulnerabilities were found on Linux, MacOS X, & UNIX (all Unix type OS variants (even BSD knockoffs which MacOS X largely is in its core kernel) vs. Windows 32-bit OS + softwares) this year!
So, argue with those numbers, current 2005 year end ones!
That's since you demanded (the oldest trick in the book 'show me the latest tests' I see network engineers/admins always try to pull, lol) it... easy enough to dispell & disprove, as usual, for anyone who stays current that is.
*
"However, have you looked at 99% of the "studies" done by (or for) Microsoft? Most (all?) of them *are* actually marketing ploys and *are* unfair. Then again, I see a lot of Linux fans doing their own tests which are generally as unfair as Microsofts." - - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @01:55PM
LOL, read the above, & tell me different, ok? That's US-CERT Cyber Security that showed those results & Microsoft does NOT 'sponsor' those tests...
(NOT EVEN A NICE TRY, crybaby Linux penguin - this evidence shows your full of it period!)
LOL, your "mindcraft evidence" (even though MS OS' trashed Linux there as well) isn't current @ all...
Ah, yet again - more FUD attempts by the Linux penguins (ON your part as per usual).
LOL, this response from you, vs. those US-CERT findings I posted? I have to see... ought to be good for a laugh & 1/2!
APK
P.S.=> Above all, on this last note of yours I will quote:
"PS: Go learn some puctuation! Please, I hate punctuation/grammer nazies but some of your mistakes are really bad." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @01:55PM
If you can't read & understand someone's writing via the context in which it's used?? You've got the problem dyslexia man... or, is it a customer service rep replying here or some tech-support drone computer expert wanna-be noob rookie in your reply??
Well, I've got 2 points to make on it (in addition to your poor understanding of the english language since you can't understand someone's meaning via the context in which the terms in it are used, lol):
1.) Go learn to get CURRENT information & tests, ok? Especially since you asked that of myself & used 'mindcraft tests' the cry of the defeated Linux penguins as per usual...
&
2.) Care to prove to me that you have a PhD in English??
(Didn't think you had that degree... lol!)
Go back to your customer service or english teacher wanna-be role in life, ok?
AND, get some current facts, before you try to take me out with the "usual" (F.U.D. & b.s. from the penguins crew)... lol! apk
I don't hate Mr. Gates, just MS business practices and products. Right now I'm a little po'd because some things just don't work well in Linux right now (games and wireless) and I have to troubleshoot relatives who wont buy Mac Minis and even use Winblows at my school, but overall I see Winblows as a tax on people who are bad with computers (it'd be nice if it wasn't tied to hardware, though), just as I see the lottery as a tax on peopl who are bad at math. If MS wants to take from rich idiots and give (and not throw at) the needy, I am happy for them. I just wish it was easier to function entirely on Linux and OS X.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
Microsoft is a bloated pigcompany with nowhere to go.
It has gotten so bad I've old all my stock in MSFT and invested in companies that have a chance to grow.
Ok I'll bite.
In terms of evolution maybe the soceities where these things are allowed to happen should not be the ones to survive...
And let's not forget Africa -- A bunch of idiots there!!
You're land-fill without a heart or a mind.
If $1,200 is all you want for 'em, I wouldn't want 'em.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'm so inspired by Bill's philanthropic spirit, that in future I'm going to use pirated copies of Windows, and give the retail price straight to charity. I'm sure he'll be pleased that I'm saving him the trouble of doing it himself.
Seriously, I think anyone who discounts Microsoft or doesn't fear them at this point, or who says "their star seems to be fading" needs to look around again. For some time now, there have been some saying that Microsoft is becoming increasingly irrelevant, now that we have companies like Google.
.NET slowly but surely keeps gaining more and more momentum. And Apple, though they may currently have the dominant MP3 player, are still slowly getting nipped at their heels by competitors, and it is beginning to look like their dominance may begin to fade at any moment... And the Macintosh continues to face shrinking market share, to the point where there are now more Linux machines than Macintosh machines out there.
But to anyone thinks this way, I warn you: some people once thought Netscape and the World Wide Web might make Microsoft irrelevant. Others once thought Java might make Microsoft irrelevant. Some once thought Apple might dethrone Microsoft. Some once thought the Playstation would kill Microsoft. I am willing to concede that the verdict may not be in on the last two points yet, but the XBox 360 is sure making headway in that market, and the iPod, though still the most popular MP3 player, is clearly by NO means secure in its position at this point, as competing music stores AND players are continually nipping at Apple's heels.
But my point is simply this: In EVERY case but the last two, Microsoft successfully thwarted or killed those technologies, sometimes only after quite a while of making blunders. Though it may have taken a couple years, Internet Explorer ultimately killed Netscape. Java, though still widely used, appears to be stagnating, not growing, as
And to anyone who thinks Firefox is dethroning Internet Explorer, check again: last time I checked, Internet Explorer still has AT LEAST more than 60% market share, even according to some of the most Firefox-dominant survey samples out there, like the audience who visits W3Schools. And for all the talk about ActiveX and its security flaws, that doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in its use--there are STILL quite a lot of applications out there on the web that depend heavily on ActiveX, particularly at places like banks and corporate intranets. It's all very well to say Firefox is right not to support ActiveX because of its insecurities, but for anyone who is stuck with a bank or a corporate intranet that requires ActiveX, there is basically no real alternative to Internet Explorer.
I doubt ANYONE in their right mind could seriously say the Apple, Sun, or Netscape are going to dethrone Microsoft anytime soon. Do *NOT* discount Microsoft. They might be down on this one round, but they are by *NO* means out. Last time I checked, they are STILL the dominant desktop OS, with over 90% market share, and the prospects for a successful Vista launch seem to keep getting better all the time. From the looks of it, Win Vista, whether we like it or not, is very likely to wow many people, and help Microsoft reclaim whatever ground they have lost to Apple, Google, Linux, etc.
I also warn you: Microsoft is clearing planning to move all of their MSN properties into Windows Live. The next version of Hotmail will be called Windows Live Mail, in keeping with this. Their plan is to integrate Windows Live (formerly MSN) heavily with the Windows operating system, and to market it and position it as *THE* web portal, Web 2.0 widget center (upon which other web applications will be built), and THE gateway to the Internet. By integrating Windows Live into Windows and making it platform-dependent, Microsoft still has a trump card here that Google can only DREAM of having.
Do NOT discount Microsoft--they are STILL a force to be reckoned with, they are STILL in a VERY strong position, and they are STILL very dangerous... Do NOT be lulled into a sense of complacency.
besides, do i really want AIDS cured?
You bet you do! You don't know where Pat Robertson's cock has been.
Asshole.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Of course he can't get a break around here. Cure diseases --> more people alive --> cheap labor for MS (re: supply and demand).
;\
He should have started his charitable activities earlier in his career.
At the same time, Gates no longer cuts the profile he once did as a high-tech titan. While he's still respected, he's no longer scary--and the totemic company he built from scratch seems increasingly ordinary, even irrelevant
What the article doesn't go into is why Gates and Microsoft are no longer seen as scary. It's because their products are no longer the only choice. It used to be that for many things, you had to deal with Microsoft, because all the stuff you wanted to do required Windows to run. That meant that you had to agree to whatever terms Microsoft cared to offer, and they could be pretty onerous (and expensive). These days, with the easy availability of open source alternatives and the shift to web-based services, people are no longer compelled to accept lousy deals from Microsoft. If they don't like what Microsoft has to offer, they are free to go with something else. That means that (a) Microsoft has to treat its customers better if it wants to keep selling product, and (b) customers no longer have to live in fear of doing something that would anger the giant in Redmond.
So yes, Gates and Microsoft are no longer as scary as they used to be. But it's more because of the actions of Torvalds, Stallman, Jobs, and Berners-Lee than any change of heart by Gates.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
If I robbed a bank of $10,000,000, then gave $9,000,000 to charities, am I suddenly warm and fuzzy?
Well, if you were a successful cocaine distributor, and you spent some sum of your $$$s on doctors offices, schools, civic improvements, etc. in the 3rd-world country you're based in, what then? Is it OK then for the US to send in a covert ops team and wipe you out? Should the locals you are dumping your largesse on hate you for all the bad things your drug is doing where it gets distributed?
Hamas does the same thing in Palestine... blow up Israelis, and do good things at home to make it harder for Mossad to infiltrate or discredit them...
I guess it all depends on where you're sitting.
If you were a rich lord or baron, Robin Hood was Public Enemy #1. If you were a poor peasant serf, you were happy that Robin Hood was there, and were not likely to help the Sheriff...
I see the Microsoft fanboys and astroturfers are out in full swing today.
My parent post is the truth. The truth is not flamebait, it simply is.
Disagree with it if you must, but don't moderate it down simply because I fail to treat Bill Gates with kid gloves. I've noticed that any post that criticizes Microsoft or Gates in unapologetically harsh language gets modded down as "(-1, Flamebait)" or "(-1, Troll)". This is a very dangerous (and more than slightly suspicious) pattern.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
So please delete your /. account now!
;D
We don't want reasonable people here, we want people who tell us that M$ it the sux0r, or that claim everyone who says somthing critical about Bill Gates is an unwashed opensource hippy zealot.
Thanks!
dont be bitter just because you have AIDS.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Don't be indignant just because you're an idiot. :)
You obviously don't understand corporate culture and how a poisoned athmosphere can perpertuate long after the original source has gone.
How can a company behave any differently than its employees? Its NOT a living thing. It is a creation of the legal system and its demise is strictly a feature of the economics of the times. They can merge, meld, divest, split and otherwise morph in ways that human beings can't. (A large corporation can sell off a transportation services division and sometinmes, that even mares sense. Try doing that with your legs.)
Some companies in Europe can date their origin back hundreds of years, longer than any of the individuals working for them. I believe that part of ELF-Aquitaine goes back longer than that.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Nature does have a way of weeding out idiots. That's why we have Darwin awards.
In evaluating what his contributions mean, we have to take into consideration (1) whether he actually owns what he is giving, (2) what his motivation is for giving, (3) whether he has previously behaved morally, (4) whether the contributions actually mean a personal sacrifice for him, and (5) whether the contributions are actually doing some good. The absolute amount, in the end, doesn't matter compared to those factors.
So, why are people criticizing him and not "giving him a break"? Simple: many people doubt that he actually has a moral claim to the money he is donating (since they believe it was acquired through illegal means and hurt the economy and progress many times over), that he is donating out of a desire to repair his tainted image, that he has a history of ruthless behavior that calls into question his motives, and that his contributions don't represent any kind of sacrifice for him. And whether his contributions are doing any good or were chosen for their PR value is also debatable.
It's perfectly fine for you to have a different view of the man, but you should understand and respect that other people interpret his actions as I outlined above. If you want to change the opinion other people have of him, then you need to address points (1-5) above. Merely pointing out that Gates has donated a lot of money in absolute terms isn't going to sway a lot of people.
Yes, all those babies being born from HIV-infected mothers are real idiots.
that's called collateral damage and darwinism.
All those people getting tainted blood transfusions are morons.
just another form of social darwinism.
All those people making one mistake in their lives and dying because of it are complete assholes.
i would say sleeping around is stupid as it is irresponsible. there is such a thing as "going to fast" in a relationship. it's like saying getting killed by walking into traffic is unfair because you didnt look. just one mistake, one very stupid and irresponsible mistake. social darwinism at work.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"It's one thing to see death coming at the hands of your own creation. Oedipus and his father. Baron Frankenstein and his monster. William Henry Gates and Windows '09."
-- David Brin, Kiln People
How does open source help if they can't buy a computer?
It's not teaching a man how to fish. It's giving him fish as opposed to teaching him to write code - which one is better, in your opinion?
If you check out the financials of the Gates Foundation you can see that they pay out three times less in contributions than what they earn from investments, nevermind the principle!
This is all just a form of tax evasion, with benefits. Not only do you get the tax advantages of being able to write off a portion of the charity, but if you happen to be so rich to afford your own "charitable foundation", there are other benefits as well!
For example, you can afford to pay your friends and family handsomely for their management of the foundation. In Bill's case, his Dad and a former Microsoft executive. Although I'm sure they just happen to be exactly the right kind of people to lead such an esteemed organization.
Also, you get the glamour and praise of fellow socialites and the plebs at large. This is especially helpful if you are battling an unfortunate image as a cold-hearted corporate capitalist. Now, people like the parent will kindly note your philanthropy at every turn. This is true even if your foundation does very little charitable work.
Oh, yes, you do!
Perhaps he wants to define "idiot". Having sex with prostitutes. Probably not good, even if you take away your judeochristian/islamic biases. Having unprotected sex with people you don't know...just a bad idea, even if AIDS/HIV wasn't in the picture. Holding on to silly cultural beliefs that have no rational basis, probably a bad thing, too.
It's the same thing about cars and bad drivers, though, too. Do seatbelts and airbags in the long run save more lives, or do they lull marginal drivers into a feeling of self-confidence so that they take bigger risks than they should and cause more problems when they step over their limits, thus resulting in more accidents per se that seem to involve more cars than they used to, increasing the odds of other people getting injuries, etc.?
If you work with powerful tools, the safeties on them are there to prevent stupid behaviors and accidents. But they can't prevent you from more or less intentionally causing yourself or others harm if you have a brain fart or something along the way.
You made a broad, sweeping, inaccurate remark, and I made one back. I have no idea if you're stupid, but I'd say there's about as good a chance of you being an idiot as there is of AIDs being "nature's way of weeding out the idiots", from the simple evidence of you saying something like that.
When the PC industry was getting started MicroSoft and Apple used to target IBM as the evil giant. Many people then thought that a lowly PC company would supplant the computer giant.
Ironically IBM still makes decent decisions now and then- its PC, early adopter of Linux and Java, IT services, etc. MicroSoft has replaced IBM as the stodgy giant- still doing some great stuff, but not hitting home runs any more. And Google is in danger of becoming another these too if its not careful.
Redhat?
The market is not free. Tax structures encourage exactly the type of spending (and selling) that Microsoft happens to engage in.
The way US taxes work is this: you can make all the money you want, but you have to get rid of it this quarter. If you use it to buy things of value, you pay more taxes. If you fritter it away on worthless services or give it to employees, you pay less taxes. So there are basically two strategies you can take in order to pay the least amount of taxes possible: give away every dime you make, or make sure you never make a profit.
Did you ever wonder why companies hire people when times are good and fire them when times are bad? It's not because they need more employees to help make widgets. The amount of widgets made has more to do with employee productivity and availability of natural resources than the number of warm bodies employed. And the amount of widgets sold and consumed has almost nothing to do with macroeconomics. When the company is making more profit, they need to hire more employees to write off their taxes.
Now, this applies as much for Microsoft as for its customers, businesses. If you run a business and want to hire your worthless nephew, you don't want to give him an actual job to do. You want to pay somebody else to make it look like he's doing a job. So there's Microsoft with their point-and-click busywork crapware. Now everybody's nephew can make 50 grand surfing the internet and writing spell-checked e-mails. And software is worthless. It's not even legal to re-sell. So you don't pay taxes on whatever you give to Microsoft. It's win-win-win. You get a tax write-off, your nephew gets what you would just give him anyways, Microsoft gets billions of dollars, and the government gets to increase taxes on those too stupid to cheat.
Cheap PCs, idiot-proof software, and the fruits of a successful oil war turned the 90s into the high employment, zero productivity fuck-up that we all remember. And it turned Bill Gates into the wealthiest person on the planet.
But this is nothing new. It's been US policy since Henry Ford rolled the first Model A off the assembly line. He figured out that he could give all his profits to his employees, and that they would just turn around and give some of it right back to him to purchase the cars that they made. That's worked pretty well, of course, until those employees stopped needing new Fords to drive. So for nearly a hundred years there was no incentive to use robots instead of humans to increase the quality of American cars. It took a competitor outside the reach of the ridiculous US tax policy to build a better automobile.
Somebody mentioned Donald Trump. He has taken the second strategy. The man spends more time in bankruptcy court than in the penthouse. He owns half of Manhattan, but I'll bet, on paper, he never turns a profit. So, in reality, he probably gives away as much as anyone, but instead of going to his personal charities and foundations, it goes to his customers and employees.
There are all sorts of other consequences to US tax policy, from the byzantine schemes that Enron engaged in, to companies not looking (or investing) past the next quarter, to recent generations having to change jobs (and careers) every few years, to artificially high employment rates, to volatile market shifts and recessions, to the rise of government services and the catastrophic collapse of those services due to generational demographics, to successful start-ups that turn to crap when the profits and investments and accountants and employees start rolling in.
So, in conclusion, if we had a truly free market, 90% of people would be out of work, products would last longer, society would openly (rather than secretly) engage in the type of "gift economy" that out dipshit president ridicules in countries in the Middle East, and there would be less lying and bullshit going on in the US in general. Really, besides full employment, piddly busywork and products that are designed to fail, lies and bullshit and idiots who believe them is all our obtrusive taxes have gotten us.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Oh yes, as a shrink-wrap software developer he sure has set back innovation. I mean what was I thinking expecting a standard API to program against. I should have to ship binaries for Hairy Dog Linux (because of its incompatible libc), HorseFly BSD (because they changed the loader), and ReligiOS with its own whacky API.
Yup, that common platform sure has hurt lots of end users. People: Not everyone is an IT person running a webserver. Yes, open source UNIX operating systems are great for that. But there is a whole lot of innovation required to make an operating system for the computer illiterate.
And given that Linux zealots keep preaching about Linux on the desktop; where is that innovation they are so capable of that Microsoft has been squashing out of them?
NOTE: The names of actual open-source operating systems has been changed to protect the non-innovative.
What are you implying? That santorum ingestion is a possible vector for HIV transmission?
English is easier said than done.
No, you're all wrong.
Yours,
The Antichrist
I definitely think there is some societal blame to be spread around for those things - however, the response I made was to a person criticizing individuals, not a society as a whole. I think, were the above problems so rampant as to actually cause a society to be on the brink of extinction, yes - at that point, the society itself (but not the individuals comprising it) is probably not worth saving.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
This is good for humanity. Having vast resources means nothing if you don't put them to good use. Can you think of the fantastic places the world could be today if Nazi Germany had for instance put their efforts into curing the common cold, instead of killing millions? I think it's fantastic that Bill Gates is trying to eradicate some diseases, and think more Billionaires should be taking on the role of world saviour. We all put our money into Microsoft, it's only right that he use that money to the benefit of all the people we didn't help directly, by making their lives [and our lives here] safer by wiping out viruses and other infections.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
2% may sound like a reasonable ammount to donate to charities but in practice I doubt many people actually donate that much of their non-megasized income. Lets say X makes an average sized $50k a year... 2% of that is what... $1000? (don't trust my math though...) and how many people really donate $1000 a year to charity? I don't mean they SAY they do on their taxes, or they donate an overvalued used computer or something else so that on paper it looks like $1000, but really donate it straight from their bank.
I'm not saying people aren't generous but usually that generosity is coaxed, like Bill paying for naming rights, people donating to PBS for the "free gift" that depends on how much you donate and the like.
I know that's neither here nor there but I just see that everyone is bandying about this 2% like it's pocket change they're used to throwing around and having seen the people that try to claim $1 buy-a-heart/star/shamrock charity donations on their taxes I know it's not as common as some people think.
The next time someone complains about Bill ONLY donating 2%, they should try adding up how much they donate (of course, now I'm going to have a string of posts after this from people saying "no, you're wrong, I personally donate 3% and so thus, EVERYONE must be donating 3%")
Wow, you spent way too much time over-reacting to an innocent (and friendly) post!
First things first: vulnrability/bug studies are meaningless no matter who comes out on top (and yes, there are plently of conflicting studies to choose from). Total numbers don't tell anyone a thing about severity, how long it took to react, whether or not the bug was in the kernel or some 3rd party software etc. There are way too many variables to take into account to make a meaningful study on vulnrabilities and the point has been made over and over again by people in the industry who know more about it that either you or I. By sources I meant to back up your original claims that were sweeping and for the most part, quite possibly BS (hence the request for sources).
"(NOT EVEN A NICE TRY, crybaby Linux penguin - this evidence shows your full of it period!)"
Um...since when did I claim to be an advocate of any OS? I use the best tool for the job rather than getting tied down to one side of a rubbish argument.
"That said, since you Linux/Unix fiends ALWAYS resort to that OLD test?"
WTF? It was a simple (and well known) example to show *why* I couldn't care less about who comes out "on top" in a Microsoft paid for test as they can be very useful in flaggin up problems. It wasn't (as you seem to have assumed) evidence for an unfair test. If I wanted to do that I would have used the whole "Get the Facts" cambaign fiasco (even Microsoft stopped pushing it after industry experts debunked half of it. Just search the main tech news sites/portals).
"If you can't read & understand someone's writing via the context in which it's used??"
It was friendly advice. I already pointed out that I don't like the grammer/spelling/punctuation nazies. I could understand most of what you said but sometimes had to re-read it. Why are you quite so reactive about the issue? Grammer, punctuation and spelling are good things.
"1.) Go learn to get CURRENT information & tests, ok? Especially since you asked that of myself & used 'mindcraft tests' the cry of the defeated Linux penguins as per usual..."
I'll take that on board for when I'm actually trying to cite tests to make a point about validity rather than using a widely known but outdated test to make the point that coming out on bottom can be a good thing as it highlights problems. How about you not make assumptions on what I mean purely because I mentioned the MindCraft tests? *Thats* the mark of a kneejerk reaction.
"2.) Care to prove to me that you have a PhD in English??"
When did I claim to have one? My grammer, spelling and punctuation arn't great, so when I notice someone else making mistakes they *must* be pretty bad.
You mean all societies should die?
GPL Deconstructed
You are either a fanboy or deluded.
Bill Gates can gain everyone's unabashed admiration if he simply stops acting like such an ass and mitigate the harm he's caused. He can:
That's a short list but it would go a long way towards undoing the damage he's done to the world. The balance, would be close to his net contribution to society. As most people think he's done nothing more than purchase, resell and destroy, the balance may be negative. Industry insiders and those who have been on the receiving end of his Copyright Crusade (TM) know better than I do.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So you picked a bunch of loser stocks to invest in and you're blaming Gates? LOLOLOL
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
why do you think im an idiot? dont just give a general answer either, for if you think i really am an idiot, you will spell it out for me. do fully explain your reasoning too.
Either you are an idiot or your shift key is broken. I suspect that it is the former.
They're not the same entity.
Microsoft is a company charged with illegal market practices, convicted and punished.
Bill Gates is a philantropist. In Microsoft, he works for shareholders.
It's not so simple: BG=MS.
Criticizing the man is useless; we must ensure no monopoly gets things its way or competition will be doomed.
Couldn't agree more. I think there's something deeper afoot in this forum. There seems to be an anti-capitalist, anti-anyone-who-makes-money-selling-software feel here. Anyone who isn't sitting around in their flip flops coding up free software is Satan. Even if I grant the accusations of Mr Gates unfair or unethical business dealings, it's highly doubtful that those dealings explain entirely Microsoft's success. It might actually be that his company provides a well integrated (certainly not perfect, not sure I've downloaded an open source component that meets that standard either) set of application and application development software....oooooh I said it. If I don't like MS software I suppose I can go out and download 10 half baked free Java software frameworks and try to wedge them together to accomplish something instead.
....waaah hey lets go play some hacky sack"
As many times is the case its hard to take someone that runs up the score and Mr Gates has run it up a bit, pummeling just about everyone else into the turf. Now we're starting to hear rumbles about Google. While once an admired startup challenger to the Microsofts of the world now people are beginning to wring their hands about Google's potential dominance in the software industry. Mark my words if Google begins to dominate they'll be the next target of the kind of conspiritorial belly aching I read in this forum all the time (btw, I hope I'm not disappointed and at least 10 people respond with posts using obsentity 5 or 6 times). Hey let me give you a slashdot Bill Gates template:
"Can't believe blanking Bill blanking Gates is actually still a blanking free man after all the blanking crimes he's committed against blanking humanity and actually has the blanking gall to blanking give away some of his blanking ill gained blanking fortune made from forcing blanking people to buy his blanking sub par blanking software etc... boo whoo whoo
The more things change the more they stay the same. There are winners and loosers and loosing aint fun.
As long as people and good causes benefit, what does it matter why he gives his money?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
But you do, don't you?
I have a few guesses. He's been a gay basher for many years. Talk about protesting too much.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
last time i checked, most of the world had outlawed rape and actually tried hard to enforce it. there are places that do not even attempt to stop it or even make it illegal. he speaks of the societies fitting the latter description.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
While Bill Gates' generosity is certainly welcome, as some wise bloke once said "Never measure your generosity by what you give, but rather by what you have left." I'd bet my left nut the average Joe donates on average, a higher percentage of their wealth to charity than Gates does; and without a press release to the world every couple of months. Please forgive me for being cynical about ruthless buisnessfolk.
You don't know what "social darwinism" is, do you?
My research into gay male prostitution indicates that $1,200 is, in fact, well above the standard market price for an ass.
Seriously. I've lived in the Pacific Northwest for most of my life. Prior to getting married, the regional in-joke regarding any local charitable project was "Bill Gates declined to participate, because he was afraid it would be confused with actually caring about his home and neighbors" (see any number of 'Almost Live' reruns for verification). But after he got married, this seemed to gradually change.
I, for one, am happy to see the Gates's speading their wealth around. Bill's motivation is more or less irrelevant to me - I'm just glad it's happening.
#DeleteChrome
If nature did have a way of weeding out idiots, you'd be in serious trouble!
I think the grandparent was right.
Although there are new TV ads about how a white girl and a black girl are talking about another black girl that was "partying" and "being dumb" and got high and now she has HIV, the actual data does not support that.
AIDS is a problem in underdeveloped nations that do not know how or have the means to do sex safely.
In the US, look at the CDC data:
At the end of 2004, the CDC estimates that 415,193 people were living with AIDS in the USA.1
Of these,
35% were white
43% were black
20% were Hispanic
1% were of other race/ethnicity.
Of the adults and adolescents2 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,
58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
21% were injection drug users (IDU)
11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.
Of the 93,566 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
64% were exposed through heterosexual contact
34% were exposed through injection drug use.
For those that do not know, blacks are less than 15% of the US population. I wish they stopped issuing these data only by race but also by socioeconomic status. Despite the etiology of the situation, blacks are on average at the bottom of the stack as far as education, income, good housing, and healthcare go. If the data were separated by socioeconomics, I would believe that the best predictor would be that unsuccessful people are those that get AIDS. I would bet that the largest predictor of AIDS is that these people are simply not healthy to begin with and as the grandparent posted, they should just die. The only reason we "care" is that there are very expensive drugs that never cure the disease, but they extend the life of the patient, which means that they can take the drugs longer.
ripping off the residents of modern countries and donating it to the poor countries.
That's a fine view in the abstract, until you or someone you care about is the victim of the kinds of practices described in the grandparent post. Every problem is somebody else's problem until it happens to you.
Apparently compassion isn't a virtue to some posters in this thread.
It's GRAMMAR!!!!! LOL
I guess I am as OT as can be. I suspect the GP is payed by M$. This is probably just a waste of your mental effort.
If MS is the falling star, why is it that /. talks about MS all the time? I think you know the answer, perhaps that star isn't falling after all.
1. Let's not forget those rape victims, people with cheating spouses, medical professionals who get needle sticks while saving lives, children sold into sexual slavery.
2. In terms of evolution maybe the soceities where these things are allowed to happen should not be the ones to survive...
Ummm, you do realise that that kind of stuff does happen in every society in existense today. And even if it isn't allowed in most societies it still happens in every one. I think the original point was that there are a lot of innocent people who can get affected by this disease so a cure should be found.
Eugenics is not the answer.
to all those people insulting him for supporting charities with donations larger than anyone else can on Earth today.
When you get to be as rich as he is, perhaps you see the world from a different perspective than you do sitting in front of your tv with a bag of popcorn and a beer.
I for one, welcome our new Generous Microsoft Overlords!
Mod this as a troll if you want...at least we are getting some of our money back.
Stop posting. You've proved repeatedly through your comments in this story that you're a complete fucking moron.
Mod +1 underrated.
some of them could very well be idots.
Not always but in some cases the rape victom is chosen because of the slutty atire turning the rape perp on. In even more cases, cheating spouses have abnormal relationships with thier spouses. It is generaly obvious or the suspicion is there that they are cheating. Consenting to sex after a situation like this without asuance is not very smart. Medical profesionals who get stuck by needles usualy bypass the safety devices attached to them. Sometimes this is neccesary but generaly not smart.
In about all, children sold into sexual slavery is about the only one that doesn't have a chance of still containng idiots. But then again, they aren't likley to get treatment for aids and will die soon. This is a reverse, a mercy killing in a sort. There might be circumstances were they were doing idiotic things that ended up in thier slavery but i doubt it was from being an idiot rather ignorant at the time.
"I guess I am as OT as can be. I suspect the GP is payed by M$. This is probably just a waste of your mental effort."
:-)
:-)
Yes but it's a fun distraction
"It's GRAMMAR!!!!! LOL"
Wow, no pun even intended! I always make that same mistake whenever I'm trying to spell grammar
Really! I read it on the web!
l inton_in_redm.html
http://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch/2006/01/c
And very few people would call Gates a robber baron at all.
The parallels between Gates and the robber barrons of 1880-1920 are pretty obvious. Perhaps it is your healthy non-geek detachment that prevents you from observing it. Gates has profoundly distorted an industry of great promise and gathered tremendous wealth to himself through careful construction of a monopoly. He did so through maniacal competitiveness, and cunning much like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford. Has he affected history? Certainly. Positively? Doubtful. His legacy is DRM and the anti-virus industry. Like the robber barrons, later in life he chooses to disgorge some of that wealth in a very public way in an effort to whitewash his image. He may leave his name on a couple of buildings, but posterity will see him reviled like his predecessors.
an ill wind that blows no good
The 'Truth' requires proof, not simply your dumbfuck opinion. Well actually its not even your opinion since you've simply copied the rants of a thousand other linux fanboys into your own post.
... then go ahead. At least it keeps a lot of dumbfucks like you too busy to post here.
But if you want to go on thinking that 'innovation' means that everyone should have to struggle for weeks to figure out how to compile one little bug ridden utility instead of simply downloading it and running it on Windows, or that every line of code someone writes is inherently the property of the world instead of the author
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Wow, the guy is helping out the world with some substantial donations that don't come with the strings that religious or government money does and all people around here can do is slag him. He's not Hitler folks, he's a business man that is giving back some of the money he made to do some good.
Problem is that the idiots get laid and we don't. It's the opposite of how it should be.
Oh the high and mighty Caspian! What pearls of wisdom you throw at our feet!
... For the record, I believe this may be the first time in nearly 10 years of slashdot that someone has posted the idea that to belong here posters must treat Microsoft / Bill Gates with kid gloves.
Oh to be a self-righteous dumbfuck like you!
I can but dream.
Has Microsoft / Bill Gates ever been treated with anything but pure hatred by 99% of the posted stories and ohh about 80% of the messages posted by the readers?
This dumbfuck Caspian is so high on himself he can't even tell the direction of the slant on this blog.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Aids is like spam. If people stopped clicking spam it wouldn't be there. Unfortunately for those of us who aren't stupid, we get hit with that too. The solution? A better spam filter? No, let all the idiots put themselves into debt with nigerian phishers.
amazing:)
:)) According the article Gates is exactly trying to do that. Lets hope he's sincere in his efforts :)
It could just be, that Ballmer is the Yin from Microsoft and Gates the Yang, with this difference that someone is slowly fading the light on Yang, giving it a black-grey result. The additional toxic environment makes sure that only plastics and shortlived marketing gadgets from Microsoft are the news worthy items inside the mainstream IT press.
So a way out of this? The Yin and Yang equilibrium should be restored, which means the grey of Gates should be restored into white, like Gates getting reborn as Gandalf the White
Robert
"Wow, you spent way too much time over-reacting to an innocent (and friendly) post!" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @03:23PM
And, you didn't? Seems your replies are the SAME LENGTH as my own... and about 'friendly'? B.S.!
(You're trying to tell me how to write. Ever consider I don't like your style of writing, but I deal with it, because I can gather its meaning & the words + style used easily enough via the context in which they are used)
I don't take 'friendly' being barking orders @ me, period!
Lastly - I produced a study conducted by the gov't. agency regarding security period, & VERY CURRENT, showing Windows beating Linux, yet again... so, where's yours?
After all, you stated this:
"First things first: vulnrability/bug studies are meaningless no matter who comes out on top (and yes, there are plently of conflicting studies to choose from)." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @03:23PM
So, where is these evidences of yours from a more credible and non-partial 3rd party then?
Where are yours & are they more current than my own, & from a source as noteworthy/accredited, etc./et all??
Nope... just "f.u.d." from you.
(I don't also see you disputing my claims that are fact, especially the fact Windows runs on more PERIPHERAL hardwares out there for the most widely used platform there is in x86 (growing all the time mind you, even on server levels, via concepts in distributed computing & clustering etc.) & has more softwares available for it than ALL of the UNIX derivants out there period...)
Still, let's point out some more "evasive maneuvers" from you below (drivel) & as well as you going WAY offtopic trying to tell me how to write:
"Total numbers don't tell anyone a thing about severity, how long it took to react, whether or not the bug was in the kernel or some 3rd party software etc. There are way too many variables to take into account to make a meaningful study on vulnrabilities and the point has been made over and over again by people in the industry who know more about it that either you or I." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @03:23PM
LOL!
Well, your bringing up the ANCIENT mindcraft tests (where windows thumped Linux (another UNIX derivant/knockoff) yet again mind you) even makes you LESS credible, & certainly less current than the security study from US-CERT I used.
Not even a NICE try.
"By sources I meant to back up your original claims that were sweeping and for the most part, quite possibly BS (hence the request for sources)." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @03:23PM
Yea, again - where's yours since you said there are others... your own medicine you don't seem to be able to swallow very well, but state you have contrary info. & studies which are as good.
Sure, show me those, ok?
I will be waiting, because mine are absolutely current (year end 2005 no less from an agency whose testing is NOT MS sponsored - the 'big bitch' penguins always use & have, which is next to meaningless, but I played it by YOUR RULES, & used a 3rd party non-ms affiliated organization!)
Heck, if anything about the sources I used?
Well, the U.S. gov't. is AGAINST MS, noted by the dept. of justice anti-trust cases against them!
(Which, if you read between the lines & understand how the WORLD REALLY WORKS? Our gov't. IS the 'best money can buy' & that's not unheard of...)
Fact is, I'd be willing to bet they are politicians in the pocket of MS' competition, being bribed (& bought to bring that up to weaken MS... to no avail no less, lol! MS still is #1 & the most widely used OS out there on the most used hardware platform for personal computing + networking combined... x86!).
"Um...since when did I claim to be an advocate of any OS? I use the best tool for the job rather than getting tied down to one side of a rubbish argument." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 0
Perhaps he wants to define "idiot". Having sex with prostitutes. Probably not good, even if you take away your judeochristian/islamic biases. Having unprotected sex with people you don't know...just a bad idea, even if AIDS/HIV wasn't in the picture. Holding on to silly cultural beliefs that have no rational basis, probably a bad thing, too.
And how about getting a blood transfusion or having the misfortune to be born to an infected mother? I suppose both of those indicate that the victim is an "idiot" too. It really is a shame that you don't get the ass kicking you so richly deserve, you fucking moron.
It is truly a good thing that Gates is generous with the money that he has made.
Having said that, don't ever forget where this money came from. Don't forget the lives and companies ruined and countless people extorted by the truly disgusting illegal antics of his company. The IT world would be a much better place if not for his contributions in retarding its growth.
Whilst he is truly a better man than someone who stole and gave back nothing, he is not a better man than someone who never stole at all. He deserves reluctant thanks, not applause.
I think they're being overly harsh on your comments. While you aren't providing any revolutionary analysis to this forum, I think you're pretty much correct. I wish people would understand that the ends don't justify the means. If I had mod points right now I'd off-set this.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Murder victims now.
people with cheating spouses,
Idiots for marrying them.
medical professionals who get needle sticks while saving lives,
Idiots for putting themself at such risk for the sake of idiots.
children sold into sexual slavery.
Carrying their parents' idiot genes.
I am trolling
I disagree — the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are in countries and areas where there just isn't the education to prevent such things. This is not the same as "idiocy". These people do not deserve to die (in larger terms, no-one deserves to die, but I digress), and in particular they are not "idiots".
I'm willing to admit that there's been people who have contracted HIV/AIDS from their own idiocy, but to call it "nature's way of weeding out idiots" is both insensitive and incorrect.
> best predictor would be that unsuccessful people are those that get AIDS.
I guess your definition of successfull has little to do with finding what pleases them, and has everything yo do with $$$
I would rather be happy than rich, but I would like to try being both.
Hey asshole, wipe off your chin, there's still some billg cum on there
what's more evil than a multimillionaire using his money to wash his image?
Nature does have a way to weed out the idiots-the idiots themselves, forever imortalized in the Darwin Awards.
...taxes, and how much various governments (federal/state/local) have taken from people to pay for their use of Microsoft stuff. Now add in the extra cost incured on most everything from MS products being broken or insecure, in terms of lost productivity and wasted productivity to the economy as a whole, where MS stuff still runs a lot of things and is factored in to costs we all endure on various goods and services, even if we don't want to spend our money on MS.
There is a huge cost involved, directly by a lot of people, indirectly by almost everyone who is a consumer and/or tax payer. I cannot fill out my taxes and tell the IRS I refuse to pay for any microsoft products that government is using. I can't demand so much off of various products I buy from companies if they use microsoft in their business, those costs and taxes are just passed on to me with no recourse other than to pay them.
Cryofan, dude, someone has to say it (and it doesn't look like anyone else will):
You're a friggin' wack job.
You make it sound like this was an enormous, planned conspiracy of the upper-class to divert the energy of the American left away from tax-and-spend plans to provide universal services.
yeah, man, and I hear there are entire skyscrapers on this street called "Madison Avenue" in New York City. And guess what, dude? The Madison Avenue cats are all working together (in a conspiracy, man!) to make us want to buy these things they make called "consumer goods".
There's whole skyscrapers of these madison avenue people trying to control our minds, man!
If so, I think they pretty
clearly failed-- I mean, consider the marginal tax rates now versus the turn of the last century, and the spectrum of services the government has provided over the same period. Taxation, and spending on public services, hasn't gone down over that period-- not even remotely.
Marginal tax rates hit 90% at one point. The foundation-think tank coalition got stronger as time went on. They have pretty much defeated us now. The height of the true Americans leftism was probably from 1920-1945. Then we started getting weaker,
Now remember, these are LONG TERM projects. THey took generations.
BTW, I am not the only one who puts forth these ideas. I quoted two books by PhD social scientists in this thread. You see, these sorts of ideas don't get talked about on teevee or talk radio or the corpwhorate media. You actually have to read a BOOK. And guess what? You aren't going to see any reviews of these books in your major media outlets.
Pardon me if I misunderstand your point, but I've read all of your posts in this thread and I think I get it fairly well. Frankly, I think you need to get your conspiracy barometer adjusted.
THere all sorts of conspiracies out there. People go to prison every day for conspiracy.
And let's talk about YOUR definition of conspiracy here. My definition of conspiracy is a LEGAL definition. Conspiracy is an agreeement to accomplish some illegal purpose, to attain some unlawful objective. What I speak of here is not unlawful. I speak of plans to mold culture. And these are not secrets, in every respect. Sometimes, they come right out and say what their plans are. I paraphrased two such quotations here in this thread. I note you offered no rebuttal of those paraphrases. Instead you offer only conclusory statements ("yer a wack job!").
But guess what? Their plans are not well publicized. And so you do not see them in your establishment sources, your corpwhorate media.
Therefore you should choose another word instead of conspiracy. But then....you don't really CHOOSE the words you use, do you? You get them handed down to you from
It worries me that there are people out there who are paranoid about nonprofit foundations when there's far more significant dangers to our civil liberties out there.
You deal in corpwhorate media superficialities. I do not. There is a world of difference....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I did not say that open-source software is "innovative". In practice, I find that it's mostly derivative. However, one [almost always] does not pay for open-source software. One does pay for Microsoft Office. With that payment comes the expectation of not only superior (to free solutions) documentation, but documentation that is constantly improving.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I disagree -- the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are in countries and areas where there just isn't the education to prevent such things.
How can you disagree by paraphrasing what I said? I said:
"AIDS is a problem in underdeveloped nations that do not know how or have the means to do sex safely."
no-one deserves to die
Everybody deserves to die, it is a part of life. Don't want to die, be a rock or something.
I'm willing to admit that there's been people who have contracted HIV/AIDS from their own idiocy, but to call it "nature's way of weeding out idiots" is both insensitive and incorrect.
Although I agreed with the "idiots" thesis, I did not use the word. I talked about being unhealthy, uneducated, and unable to have access to decent healthcare.
If you take away the myth that people are better than other animals or even "made in God's image", and just think of us as mammalian animals like we are then you will understand that we are just like other living creatures and subject to the same problems. I've seen diseases an drought take out trees and animals. Oh, thats insensitive and incorrect. I've seen a fluctuation in oxygen in a creek that caused a whole species of fish to die and float to the top. Oh, I'm insensitive and incorrect. These things and others are nature's way of weeding out weak individuals that simply do not fit in the current environment. Humans are clearly not immune to nature. To have a different believe is simply incorrect, but not insensitive.
More people die from the influenza virus in the United States than the AIDS virus. Influenza kills very young and old people. Oh, I'm insensitive and incorrect. I already displayed what the insensitive and incorrect CDC studies have shown as far as the target population that gets and dies from AIDS. They are uneducated and poor people that do risky sex and share needles.
I have no judgment of these people or their actions. Every action has consequences both good and bad. Being educated, wealthy, or healthy does not cause happiness. But being at the bottom of any social group usually does. And those people at the bottom are weaker ones in the current environment.
I do not understand when I go on these frank and factual based posts here about humans that I get moderated all over the spectrum from informative, troll, overrated, and insightful. People seem to prefer to ignore reality.
So go ahead and shoot some dope with the same needle with your friends, and have unprotected anal sex with them, and live it up. Don't come crying to me if you get AIDS.
Does anyone, really? And why? If you hate him is it because he is successful? Because he succeeded where so many others have failed, and has the billions to show for it?
Everyone I know who met him likes the man - they say he's down to earth, generous, etc.
And yet, so many paint him as evil (his contributions to charity prove he isn't).
I dislike Microsoft - because I dislike their recent turn to not just trying to compete with competitors, but because they are outright hostile to customers now (see their suits against people reselling used but retired licenses, or in some cases, unopened/unused licenses when Microsoft refused to honor their traditional 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee) but that in no way reflects upon Gates.
I think it's mainly closet commies who really hate Gates - because people seem to believe that if they are not successful and don't gain wealth (either due to bad timing, lack of talent, or simple unwillingness to work) then no one else should be able to - and they feel a sense of entitlement, as if everyone else should hand over a house, big-screen television, SUV, etc. for free.
Steve Ballmer? Everything I've heard, read, and seen about him proves he's a fucking nut (especially the "I'm going to f'ing kill Google" bit).
now Re:Yeesh.. by Yartrebo (690383) Alter Relationship on Sunday January 08, @02:22PM (#14422675)
{
Don't forget that Bill Gates has caused immense harm for the world too. The difference between the current situation and having an open operating system and open software being dominant (along with the correspondingly higher penetration of technology in the world and a better quality of technology) is over 1% of worldwide production. Economic rents do nothing but slow down progress and add friction to the system, and the effect is often far larger than the rent extracted.
}
I disagree. If you are old enough to remember the state of personal computing in the '80s, or even late '70s when personal computing became practical, there were NO standards for data exchange (I know arpanet was around but remember, we're talking PERSONAL computing, not military, academic, and Fortune 100). If you wanted to transfer data from one system to another you had to use sneaker-net and PRAY that the data could be read on the other system (I'd say >99% of the time it couldn't), and if that didn't work, you could exchange data via modem, if you were fortunate enough to know they existed, AND have multiple phone lines or analog-capable phone system, but you would have to strip any formatting from the document first, and if it was a spreadsheet, forget about it.
Sure there was CP/M but aside from a very few affordable computers small businesses could afford (most notably the Commodore 128) that wasn't an option, plus the software was expensive unless you had access to a dial-up BBS which had public domain software available for your processor, or belonged to a user group. Even if you had a CP/M computer, many disk formats were incompatible so even if the software and data were exchangable, the physical form factor was often not.
Microsoft introduced standardization, with VERY affordable solutions (until a few years ago OEM Office could be had for $99 bundled with hardware). It was not until OS/2, Smartsuite, and Corel Office were (for all intents and purposes) killed off that Windows and Office each quadrupled in price.
Microsoft has done a lot of good for users by providing some sort of standard, but when competitors were pushed out of the market, they have been abusing their effective monopoly status by raising prices without justification and by treating every customer as a criminal. That doesn't take away what Microsoft did for the industry to get us to the point where we have standards though.
Drop the whole "Microsoft is evil to the core" and "never did any good" bit because when you selectively pick the bad stuff and leave out the good, you're doing exactly the same thing that Microsoft is currently doing with their "Get the Facts" FUD.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
i do use capitals and apostrophes when truely warranted.
Is spelling also frivolous? The word is "truly".
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
It's a rule of grammar, not syntax.
Category 1:
60.8%: men from unprotected homosexual contact or shared-IV drug usage
7.2%: females engaging in shared-IV drug usage
= 68% idiots
Category 2:
11.9%: men from unprotected heterosexual contact
18.9%: females from unprotected heterosexual contact
= 30.7% people who should be using protection from the idiots in Category 1
And as for Africa (home to 2/3 of the world's AIDS population), there is even more evidence of blatant ignorance, even amongst government officials. The Internet also keeps its share of idiot-run websites denying the link between HIV and AIDS.
I'd say idiots are both the primary cause of AIDS transmission, and are also the disease's primary victims. That's pretty uncontroversial when you look at the evidence.
But I have much more sympathy for the idiots in Africa (who have no chance to get a decent education) than I do for idiots in the U.S. and the industrialized world who know better.
If bill gates really wanted to save the world, he could put 10 billion into the methuzalah mouse prize (featured on 60 minutes last week), thats the prize for researchers who discover and demonstrate science to first slow, then reverse aging in a mouse model. (then of course, humans next). The Mprize is currently sitting at 3 million (in dec 2005, some anonymous doner put in 1 mill, just think how much bill could donate).
Of course, the slashdot crowd is aware of the vast changes that are comming in the feilds of biotech and nanotech and future computing that will result in these feilds combining to enable all sorts of cool applications like real AI, ageless bodies, vastly increased brain power, brain interfaces to the net and other peoples brains etc.
Now, the thing is, if bill was to invest in the mprize (www.mprize.org) and also start a nanoprize with specific goals, then the current state where people like him invest 100 mill for causes in arica etc, will be defunct because if you invest 100 mill in africa today, you get the results using todays technology, but if you invest 100 mill in the mprize and nano prizes, you get really magnified technolgies (nanobots etc.) that make all our existing technologies look like the equivallent of rocks and sticks, because, with advanced nano, you could give somebody (in the 3rd world), some nano assemblers and they could fix their own bodies, grow new buildings etc. With advanced nano, you will not get rich people dominating you and running the world any more, in fact, most of the bad things about capitalism probbably will dissapear (your landlord, the bankers, the people who wage war for proffit etc) because advanced nano essentially provides the equivallent of a futuristic star teck based society where money does not work because its no longer a valid tool for distribution of resources as nano is essentially the equivallent of open source money. If Bill was to help boost this along, it would be ironic as him and his company represent people and forces that think and practice the worst aspects of capitalism. Remember, dont let
bills company be in charge of the future nano hardware and software design/development/implementation and be suspicious of people who don't like nanotech for the reason that they are the current top-dogs because they own lots of resources etc. that currentlly make money off of you (landlords, big industry, the military etc, (I know, the military is funding most nano here and now and in the future, but thats because there are no current civilian big funders with unlimited deep pockets like the military people, go figure).
Whereas I was directly arguing against the "idiots" part. I've no doubt that the factors you mention contribute far, far more than people being idiots, which was my point. I'm not talking about political incorrectness, I'm talking about factual incorrectness.
I didn't disagree with you, I disagreed with the foolish thesis put forward by the post I originally responded to. You seem to have taken my "I disgree" a little out of context — I disagree with you agreeing (as you said you did) with the post's explanation of AIDS. That's all.
I don't think that you disagree with me (although it seems clear that you think you do) so I'm not going to argue with you here (there's little in your post that I would want to try to refute anyway).
This is not about pity. It's more about passion. Pity sees suffering and wants to ease the pain; passion sees injustice and wants to settle the score. Pity implores the powerful to pay attention; passion warns them about what will happen if they don't. The risk of pity is that it kills with kindness; the promise of passion is that it builds on the hope that the poor are fully capable of helping themselves if given the chance. In 2005 the world's poor needed no more condolences; they needed people to get interested, get mad and then get to work.
Sorry, but Bill Gates has done revolutionary here. If anything Bill learned at Harvard that legacies do change the world.
"If I have 120 dollars and I donate 20, I get taxed on the remaining 100 dollars (let's pretend it's 35%) - so I wind up with 65 dollars.
If I have 120 dollars and I don't donate anything, and I get taxed on the 120 dollars (and let's pretend that the tax rate on 120 dollars is 40%) I wind up with 72 dollars."
If that were the correct method then yes it would work like that, buuut....
Tax is a bit more exponetial....
Lets say I make a $28,000 a year... According to the 2006 schedule (being single and all) I get taxed at 15% which means I have to pay 4,200 in taxes and only get 23,800 of that.
Then I get a raise and make 32,000 and now I get taxed 25% which means I owe $8,000 and only get 24,000. Well damn... I'm only getting a yearly $200 dollar raise.
BUT! If I donate $2,000 of that and get back at the 15% bracket. I only owe $4,500 sooo... 30,000 - 4,500 = 25,500!!!
Thats $1,500 more money I get to keep.
The trick of deductions is that you have to get slightly below your bracket and you will see more money.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
At once I find it both comforting and a little sad that many of you believe the world is no blacker a place than that inhabited by Bill Gates. Some of you think he is the antichrist, responsible for many of the problems you see around you.
This is patently absurd.
While you strike out from your keyboards in your comfortable homes, your refrigerators and your central heating, spare some time to open your eyes, look around and see what the world's really like. Let me give you a place to start; Google "Rockefeller eugenics" then think about the "evils" that Bill Gates has committed.
Bill proposed to Melinda, and then they got married. Now they have kids. Everybody who has kids is completely changed by that event, but parenthood changes geeks more than most people. It tends to make people recognize a humanity outside themselves. Also, didn't Melinda run the Gates Foundation at first?
Gates doesn't have to see himself as evil and have a guilt complex. For one thing, he has done so much to deserve already comparisons to Carnegie and other great Historical Captains of Industry, that he probably feels pride rather than guilt. Him feeling guilt is what the hordes project onto him.
Please before praising Gate's for all his so called good work actually look into the foundation in a little more detail.
1 03.htm
You could start here
Bill Gates: Killing Africans For Profit & Mr. Bush's Bogus Aids Offer http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4
Praise should only be given where it is really deserved
AC
Are you really saying that wearing a swimsuit is stupid because it might, very slightly, increase the chance that you get raped?
Cheating spouses have abnormal relationships with thier spouses. It is generaly obvious or the suspicion is there that they are cheating.
I really have to disagree with that statement. Even if it was, suggesting that people must have "normal" relationships, be celibate, or be idiots is rather insane.
Medical profesionals who get stuck by needles usualy bypass the safety devices attached to them.
Again, I doubt that. Taking a needle out of someone thrashing around in pain, an uncooperative mentally ill or brain damaged person, or a struggling child is hard, I don't think it's fair to call the ones unlucky enough to get stuck "idiots".
Besides, given your spelling ability, you shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot.
I've had a swing of careers in my working life as well, from minimum wage (5.15 at the time) to well, a hell of a lot more than you make. My wife has had a similar swing with her landing at accountant... you know, the people that do all that fun taxstuff. I'm not talking about the silly H&R Block tax preparers, I'm talking about people who make millions more than you do (although, I'm sure anything above 1 million is about a million more than you) and corporations and the like.
One of her pet peeves (and mine by virtue of being married to her) are idiots that don't understand the tax system, that think "the rich" have magical hiding spots for money and that "the poor" (generally whoever is talking because everyone thinks they don't mkae enough money.
Interesting fact I bet you don't know: Actual "poor people" get OODLES of cash back that's unavailable to people in anything from the middle class (roughly $37,000 or more) a year and up.
Oh, and "rich people" are in a higher tax bracket. They pay more in taxes and these "tax cuts for the wealthy" that people like to talk about, without really knowing what they are and having no intention of finding out (seriously... if you heard "geez, there's a way to get more money on your taxes" wouldn't you TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS, instead of just saying "oh, it's for them there richy type folk!"), are basically things like tax credits for buying hybrid cars (because only the rich want cleaner air) and tax benefits for first time home owners (another low to mid class benefit that helps the so-called poor because they're more likely than "the rich" to qualify for ridiculously low interest loans from organizations interested in providing first homes.)
You're probably one of the idiots that gets the income tax refund at the end of the year and thinks you've just "beat" the government and don't realize that most of that refund comes from your earned income credit, which "the rich" pay for in the extra tax money.
You see, the couple thousand dollar refunds "the poor" get in March and April don't come from God, and they don't come from the few thousand in withholdings (usually not enough, and certainly not enough for people on most forms of assistance) that get taken in by most of you people, they come from "the rich." And your "pure charity" (ie, those taxes where you actually pay a smaller percentage of your income than those who make more than you... sorry, your 42% of poverty level income quote is pure BS) goes for things like the police, the firefighters, the EMS, subsidizing health care so people without insurance who want to go deadbeat on hospital bills don't bankrupt such services... your charity is just you paying for YOUR share.
And the funny thing is, it's those rich people paying more in taxes that are less likely to go deadbeat on their hospital bills, are more likely to have better security features and insurance on their cars and homes (thus, less need for the police when something happens)
Oh screw it... you're one of "those" and you'll never understand taxes but don't worry, MY tax money will go towards keeping state tuition so much cheaper than private school so that you can have one of your children become an accountant and THEY can try to explain it to you.
As Microsoft's power ebbs away over the years, and the Gates Foundation donates more and more money to good causes, even geeks will start to forget about the crimes against computing he was responsible for. But how will slashdot survive if it no longer has the power of the borg icon and biased MS-funded TCO analyses to stir the readership into their daily Two Minutes Hate? Presumably the owners are hoping that another super-villain will be forged from the ashes of Desktop Computing to save them, but even this might not work for an institution that has defined itself for so long as the internet refuge for cyber freedom fighters selflessly defending the world from the advances of the evil Microsoft Empire.
Gates siphoned off hundreds of billions of dollars that might have gone to better uses, and dramatically altered the technological landscape in ways that many would consider to be bad. It's certainly not obvious that he's not done a lot of evil--though neither is it clear that he has.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
The only logical conclusion to maximum efficiency via software and automation is the elimination of expensive workers.
Mod me down if you want.
Societies have always needed ways to keep the general population busy, lest idle hands have their way.
Since we are rapidly building a world where less and less people are needed to provide the basics (and even the frivolous) what do we do with all the extra, unneeded people?
Do we create mindless, meaningless tasks to keep people busy?
For the list, see here. Check the rightmost column for percentage given: http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan. pdf
Even the metric used here leaves a lot to be desired. A better one would be "How much did you give of what you have left after expenses for a basic, middle-class existence?" By that metric, I'm not sure whether Gates would even be in the upper 50% of Americans.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
In terms of evolution maybe the soceities where these things are allowed to happen should not be the ones to survive...
Evolution does not work at a societal level. Evolution works at an individual level. Wiping out a society has no value from the point of view of natural selection. There is no "allows women to be raped gene". That's culture. Even if apathy or sociopathy are genetic, those genes exist in every country and merely express themselves differently based upon the governmental system in place.
I think most people forget that computers are used to accomplish a job. So when Microsoft are hindering the development of software (through patents, monopoly, legal voodoo, etc.) they stop development of everything. If software was better we could produce better medicine. So Bill, if your company played was more "nice" you would have to spend that much money on charity, since less people would need it.
That line is just classic Gates, the computer time may have been worth $40,000 but Gates never paid for it. Gates and Allen did not even have authorization to be using the university machines in question, something Gates himself would probably liken to "theft".
Actually, the jist of the story is that Gates did his development on machines owned by the U.S. Government and that's what got him kicked out of Harvard for misuse of federal funds. I assume that efforts of Bill Sr. are what kept him out of jail, why Harvard allows him to say he "dropped out," and why Harvard doesn't talk about the real circumstances of his leaving. (Well, I'm sure the reason they don't talk about it now starts with $ and ends in $.)
Bill started Microsoft based upon theft, and theft has been it's primary business since then. Pardon me if I don't trust his motives in doing charity work.
I'm sure Capone did some nice charity work, too.
Support SETI@home
It's really hard to tell what was motivating Bill Gates at any one point in time. Most would say that he was motivated by greed, while others might say that he was actually trying to make a difference. One might also say that he knew he couldn't make a difference unless he had the power to do so. In this case, a shitload of money. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his previous actions, but how many of us *really* know this man? Given the resources he has, would any of us have turned out differently?
The problem here may fall in line with the old saying: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
As people get older, (and many young slashdotters won't understand this yet, but they will - eventually.) how they think, act, and see the world changes. Most of us are so bent on seeing Bill Gates as some kind of extreme demon that we fail to recognize that people are dynamic, and he's no exception. We don't stay the same, things influence us, change our minds, and cause us to act differently all the time. The change is typically gradual, but it does occur in everyone.
Think about how you were 10 years ago - the things you thought about, how you acted. Compare it to how you are now. I'm sure most people will find that they are not the same people.
I can't say if this is exactly what is happening to Gates, but it seems plausable enough to me.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
don't get cunty just because you suck dick
Not true.
The tax brackets are not a straight percentage of what you earn.
The guy who is making $28000 a year really pays 10% of the first $7,550 + 15% of the amount between $7,550 and $28,000 for a total of $3822.
The guy making $32000 pays 10% of the first $7,550 + 15% of the amount between $7,550 and $30,650 + 25% of the amount between $30,650 and $32,000 and for a total of $4557.
(Note: numbers have been rounded to the dollar)
Microsoft still has plenty of venom and clout. It's still a dangerous company to deal with and one that is exerting a damaging influence on our economy and the advancement of our technology in general.
MS still takes every opportunity to attack open source software and open standards in general. Look, for instance, at the incredible attack that MS has launched, via it's pet columnists, at Mr. Quinn in Massecheusetts, who had the temerity to recommend that MA insist that the governement switch to software that used open document format, so that MS couldn't force the state to upgrade by changing file formats. Mr. Quinn has probably saved the MA taxpayers, like myself, untold amounts of money, and in return he's been attacked over and over in the press.
MS is patenting everything it can think of, obvious or not, in an attempt to preempt competition. Even if the patents are eventually overturned, they can be used to threaten software and hardware developers, retarding the advancement of technology in all the areas MS is getting patents in.
I think it's more likely that MS will become increasingly dangerous the more that Bill Gates retreats from management of the company. Ballmer has already shown that he is willing to do almost anything to increase the bottom line, legal or not.
MS still needs to be split up. It is still a monopoly and still defies the courts in the U.S. and Europe by continuing it's monopolistic practices.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
His comment about eliminating the idiots has merit. Most transmissions of HIV come through irresponsible activity: casual unprotected sex and drug use. These behaviors are known to the general (developed nation) public as risky. People who participate in risky behavior knowingly, and get infected, get no sympathy from me. What do you call somebody who puts ther life in danger, and thereafter the lives of others, in the pursuit of pleasure? An idiot.
Those who do catch HIV through no fault of their own - babies, blood tansfusion, rape, etc. - will get my symathy. But these cases are rare.
The infection vectors for HIV are very few. These vectors can be controlled with behavior. Yes, sex and drug use are controllable behaviors. We are not led about by our whims unless we allow ourselves to be. Then it becomes a habit. Then our habits seem unbreakable, and we blame it on nature.
I'm actually disappointed that the infection rates of HIV/AIDS are low. If it were high enough, it would get rid of the populations that harbor the disease.
No country where half the population is under the age of 15 years has any hope for the future. These people spend their lives doing three things: eating, breeding, defecating. That's it. That is their only contribution to this world.
If third-world population growth could be stopped, these countries would have a chance of pulling themselves out of their literal cesspool of human waste. Any other solution is only a temporary "feel good" empty gesture.
"Those people are idiots, too, right, Gravis Zero?"
It's a good point that lots of "innocent" people get AIDS as well, but that's not the point. The parent is a bigot and an idiot. It's not acceptable to write off AIDS victims because AIDS spreads more easily through homosexual sex or intravenous drug use. There is nothing immoral or idiotic about being gay and the people doing intravenous drugs need help not scorn.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
This list is bunk! They missed the most IMPORTANT IPOD SITE: www.povpod.com - pr0n made specifically for your iPod video! Fun for the whole family!
Horns are really just a broken halo.
"Like the robber barons, Bill Gates has moved from trying to take over the world to trying to save it."
Poacher turned gamekeeper.
Actually one generally does pay for open source software, just not always in the same way.
... then you post the information for all to benefit.
Anyone can sell open source software. Many have business models involving selling and servicing repackaged open source software.
If you aren't paying that way, then you pay by contributing back to the efforts of the developers so that improvements may be made, rather than just leeching off their hard work. If you can code, then you code. If you find bugs, you report them. If you have found innovative ways of using the software or can answer questions posted by other users
You encourage others to do the same because one day you may need the help, such as when you're such a dumbfuck that you don't know how to format a simple word document.
But I suppose the high and mighty Caspian, master of English, is way above all that.
Dumbfuck leech.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Gates' "Foundation" is a stock laundering scheme to allow him to control other corporations through the investments of the Foundation and to make him look good to offset his convicted monopolist status.
If you look at the Federal philanthropy rules, the Foundation is required to spend at least 3% of its assets. It barely does. A couple years ago, when the Gates's were donating another $3 billion, it was around 1.18% IIRC and the article I read said they'd have to pump up the issuance to meet Fed regulations.
If you look at those "huge" sums given to charity listed on their Web site, almost everything over one million dollars is usually handed out OVER MULTIPLE YEARS - sometimes over ten years or more - meaning the impact on the Foundation's income is negligible.
Do the math - they have nearly $30 billion in assets, and they hand out maybe a billion a year. Do you think with those assets, they can't get at least ten percent return on their investments?
That's THREE BILLION more bucks under Gates control PER YEAR. And he hands out less than half.
Obviously the people who DO get money from the Foundation are benefiting, and presumably that's a good thing for them - but it's not done because Gates is a fucking philanthropist.
It's a stock-laundering and PR scheme - nothing more. Anybody who believes differently is a moron.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Who says evolution has to be genetic? Societal evolution can work under the same principles as as genetic evolution. Societies with stronger survival traits will grow more quickly and crowd out societies with weaker ones.
XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
"Charity is in fact a very popular PR move."
I mentioned that the other day, but got modded down:
Blame Bill Gates for originating the culture of Microsoft: Yes, blame Bill Gates.
It amazes me how weak-minded people are concerning public relations: Moderators: I stand by what I said.
The problem with ill-gotten gains is that it's a negative-sum game -- for whatever Microsoft gained, everyone else lost incomparably more.
Gates and Microsoft are responsible for poisoning software development, creating a culture of a complete disregard of quality, turning intellectual pursuit into mindless race for features, destruction of countless good projects, technologies and ideas, turning software development industry into a mix of a Microsoft fan club and a slaughterhouse, and nearly complete destruction of all research that is in any way related to computer science. This will take decades to reverse -- likely our grandkids will still suffer from consequences of this.
If Microsoft declared Windows to be free, and refunded all its customers, this damage would be still done -- and it's not like Gates has that much money on hand. So there is absolutely nothing Gates can do to go into the history as something other than a bloodthirsty monopolist, and a man who caused a massive noosphere pollution -- what is worse than John D. Rockefeller who is also the first but at least not the second.
No one but some panderers to the rich consider Rockefeller to be anything but an evil man who caused massive amount of misery, and the same will apply to Gates. How much of their shitty money will be paid for whatever causes, is irrelevant because the damage done is beyond anyone's capabilities to repair it, even if some of that money went into such repair.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"ROFL guys, you made me laugh. :D" - by hazah (807503) on Sunday January 08, @03:50PM
Hell, lol, I suspect Slashdot is MOSTLY Linux/Unix freaks, @ least the mods & such here!
Why??
Well, hell, I just told the truth in my initial posting, & then even backed it with facts (upon request) in debate throughout this post thread!
Then, I got "modded down" as 100% overrated in my initial posting?
LOL!
Alrighty then... thanks for proving my point!
(After all, having to mod me down when I only used provable facts backed by current data from sources that are NOT pro-MS & certainly not funded by them... well, that only proves my point I state right-off-the-bat here in THIS particular reply)...
And, like you?
Heh, it just makes me laugh, because nothing hurts like the truth & when I get a "mod-down" here regarding putting down facts that have shown Microsoft's OS doing better than Unix/Linux?
Guys - That's better than a "modded-up" post to me, because you only prove my point - Linux penguins are SO deluded in the superiority of there OS & API + programs produced with it (for years I kept hearing "how secure Linux & Unix are vs. Windows" & yet I can show clear evidence to the contrary, easily).
Linux has come a LONG ways, but it's not as secure as Windows is (especially Windows Server 2003 SP #1 fully hotfix patched) & most certainly doesn't have as much software for it, nor does it run as much peripheral hardwares for various purposes...
Why & how?
Well, the drivers aren't there for it most times, & it proves that monetary incentive drives fantastic amounts of commercially produced softwares... especially drivers!
APK
P.S.=> Funny part is? I like Linux with KDE & do like MacOS X very much... but, MacOS X doesn't have as much software to run on it as Windows NT-based OS do, & Linux is still not there on THAT account either... & the link from the agency in the U.S. gov't. that is responsible for tracking OS + software security related flaws here:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html
Which showed in 2005, the past year, that Windows & its software actually had less bugs than Linux/Unix/MacOS X (all Unix knockoffs & derivants) apparently isn't good enough to be used as facts here @ slashdot... even if the agency is not "pro-MS", as the U.S. gov't. is not (hence the lawsuits they had against MS for monopolistic practices allegedly), & the tests are NOT sponsored by MS (like the old mindcraft ones the person arguing here with me about used, even though Linux got TRASHED there as well, & the test was unfair? Maybe to penguins it is, but then, they tend to be zealots & windbags, especially when faced with facts)...
Mod me down all you like boys, but the facts are just that - facts! You only prove my point for me... thanks! apk
if this hadn't happened, I imagine we'd be buying $1200 operating systems for our $8,000 computers today.
Or people would have realized that a $1200 OS isn't a good idea, would have been more enthusiastic in helping with a free operating system, and so GNU, Linux, BSD, Minix, and others would be even further along today. (Think of how many of Linus' classmates would have helped if the alternative was paying $1200!) Then instead of a minority paying $0 for their OS, and everybody else paying $250 for Windows, we'd have everybody paying $0.
Of course, that's not what happened, either. In the market, people offering $1200 operating systems didn't last. The price came down to what people could afford. And no, Microsoft didn't invent economics, either. If Microsoft hadn't released a cheaper-than-$1200 OS, somebody else would have (and in fact, more than one did).
Microsoft didn't do anything that wouldn't have happened anyway. The only thing special about Microsoft is that they managed to take advantage of IBM being really stupid, so they got filthy rich doing it. You can't seriously claim that Microsoft single-handedly brought down the price of PC hardware, and that it wouldn't have happened without them.
Just because they played the market (and IBM) really well and got rich, doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened without them.
"Hey asshole, wipe off your chin, there's still some billg cum on there" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @05:13PM
Aha, hey everyone:
Please note the severe lack of intelligence illustrated above by the anonymous penguin there I quoted... the VERY typical "insulted penguin" zealot who can't face facts!
Facts like these:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html
Windows has LESS BUGS in it and the apps that run on it, than Linux or Unix (and knockoffs/variants/derivants), period.
Oh, & by the way?
I don't think you can pull your usual Penguin diatribes of:
"The test was not fair"
OR
"it was sponsored by Microsoft" (especially when, like the old mindcraft tests, Linux OR UNIX (and their variants) gets their ass handed to them in legit tests & findings by agencies like US-CERT that specialize in that area).
Now, can you? What's the matter?? Nothing better to say than your raging vomit I quoted above, boy???
(See, it's not too hard to be 'crude' like yourself, but @ least I back up my words with verifiable facts... playing by YOUR rules, & not using a citing from an MS sponsored test no less!)
Ah... lol!
So much for "Unix & Linux being more secure than Windows" eh, the 'typical mantra' of the losing team now proven F.U.D. & ineffectual lies apparently as of 2005!
Because that's now manifesting itself as untrue, pure bullshit, especially when faced with facts from US-CERT.gov & the URL I posted above!
Linux zealots now have less pots to piss in nowadays to put down Windows with, apparently... Well, too bad!
Quit bitching, & spreading "F.U.D." & learn what the HELL you're talking about for once... & back yourself up with verifiable facts from a credible source, ok?
And, mostly?
Thanks for the laugh & further proving my point here for me with that crap you spouted above which I quoted - no wonder you wouldn't post your name on it - you're a coward with NO balls!
Modding down my initial post as "100% overrated" only proves you Slashdot Pro-Linux/Unix fools can't face up to the facts, verifiable ones from a credible source, & you act like children in the doing of it.
Please - grow up boys, improve your OS + wares, instead of acting like hurt children. Men improve their lot, instead of acting childish.
Everytime I see you fools telling noobz your b.s. & I point out facts like that URL to them?
They're left speechless & start to question your linux zealot b.s., & are left with a "deer in the headlights" look on their face. Not their fault though, it's linux zealots like the one I quoted above for misinforming those folks!
(They're noobz, & I can excuse that... but, not the ones filling their heads with crap, which url's like the one above easily disprove!)
APK
P.S.=> Above all to the poster I quoted? Please, do yourself a favor - grow up boy!
Learn to face facts, OR @ least learn to code to improve your OS, because it's showing its flaws badly... replies like that one only show the truth & facts get to you, & you do NOT possess the intelligence to debate it effectively with verifiable fact... thanks for proving THAT for me!
To the moderators here - fools like that make slashdot appear VERY poorly... can or did I act like that here at times? Sure, right in this post, but ONLY when attacked first, & for what?
For putting up verifiable concrete facts from a credible source as I did? Please, give me a break! apk
No, you're all wrong.
;-)
Yours,
The Antichrist
Yeah, we're going to take *your* word on that
Also wearing slut cloathing that shows almost everything could have this effect too. Of course Getting attention and showing off is the primary purpose of this type of cloathing.
It isn't really like that at all. The majority of people that cheat have other problems at home. Wives that belittle thier husban, arguments over minor things, men who intimidate thier spouses into doing things they didnt' wan't to, You can tell when a spouse is cheating or shoping around to cheat.
I recently saw this happen to a friend, He cheated because he suspected her of cheating and then she claims she cheated because he cheated. Now they are together claiming they aren't going to cheat again. But one of them has already cheated because when they admited it to eachother it apears one person had sex more time then the other and he wants it ot be even.
But those aren't the only options or situations. I was hospitalized after a car accident. I was awake, aware and had a back injury. I watched the nurse attempt to place an iv in me several times before she removed the safeguards and placed it in the old fasioned way. She said durring this interaction that they had to try five times first acording to company policy. Not once did she ask if i had AIDS or any other disease. I would definatly put this into the idiot catagory if she stuck herself and got aids.
Ahh, but you see, thats what qualifies me in this area. It is like gay's calling people fags. A normal person does it and it bad, they do it and it's an inside joke.
Not much of a relativist, are you?
Go look up a definition of social darwinism... You can't even use the term properly, must less reason as a compassionate human being.
As far as Gates' generosity being a "new" thing...no, its not. A decade ago, he said he intended to give away 95% of his wealth by the time he retired. This is nothing new. And he sure as heck isn't doing this to impress any of the people here on Slashdot.
-----
uh, he's effectively retired, right?
bill gates has made a pretty penny lying through his pearly whites... it is amazing that anyone would believe this as TRUTH.
i hope he does, but i know where i'm placing my bets... the money and/or the control of said money will stay with his group.
kudos for giving anything to charity for whatever reason.
marginal gifts to charity put a smile on my face - even if jeffrey dahmer is contributing to the local "feed the neighborhood children" campaign...
i could do without the other drama, though.
Perhaps the definition of being an idiot includes .1 microns in size
holding to the idea that a virus
will not pass through a latex condom that is only
tested for water leakage (10-12 microns).
Its better than nothing but far from 'safe'.
Not always but in some cases the rape victom is chosen because of the slutty atire turning the rape perp on.
No. Most rape is committed by acquaintances or friends of the victim. Fathers, uncles, friends, boyfriends. People who can have emotional or physical power and can get away with it. It really has nothing to do with the attire, focusing on the clothing of the victim is both shifting blame from the rapist to them and ignoring the actual problem.
Parent comment is dead on. The fact that Bill Gates is giving away money and doing all these wonderful things does not negate his unethical business practices that got him rich in the 1st place.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
But only slightly. You might as well say that going to the bar is stupid, too.
The majority of people that cheat have other problems at home.
The majority of people that don't cheat have problems at home. You might as well say that anyone who has a fight with their spouse and has sex with them later without requiring an STD test is stupid, too.
She removed the safeguards and placed it in the old fasioned way.
That was stupid, and maybe the majority of people that get stuck are being stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that many of them aren't.
The main problem I have with your perspective is that you label behavior that has any AIDS risk, even a small one, as stupid. At the level you're talking about, anyone who rides in a car, eats grilled food or insults someone is stupid, because they can all get you killed. Your safety standards for HIV are ridiculously high, and the only reason I can think of for that is that you want people with AIDS to have done something to deserve it.
Also, no offense, but using the term "slut cloathing", among others, suggests that you have some issues.
No, it isn't realy shifting the focus anywere.
First I said not all but some. This gives more then enough room for the famialy member and such you mentioned. And after all, we are talking about the rapes because someone was an idiot, not inocent. I am not in anyway trying to make it ok for someone to get raped. I'm just saying there are a few that encourage the sexual frustration in an indevidual that might commit one of these acts.
There is a movie about the situation i am talking about exactly. It is based on a real life story were some girl wore scant cloathing into a bar and some coledge kids gang raped her on a pinball machine. She found problems when trying to get her case heard because "she asked for it". The movie then turns around and some lawer took the case and went after the kids. The moral was just because she was asking for it didn't make it right. At the end of the movie then show statistics that make it apear this happens more then it is reported because the victom is told "they deserved it".
She was an idiot for going into that bar dressed the way she was and acting as slutty as she did. Maybe if she had friends there watching over her it would have been a different story. But there is no law against being an idiot were there is a law against forcing sex with a person not consenting. So in a nutshell, _some_ rape victoms are idiots because they do or did things that encouraged thier rape. I'm not sure how fequently this happenes or if it would even be reported this way anymore. Strippers have to take special care when leaving the building because of this.
The Microsoft(Evil) Empire... Nothing Lasts forever
Furthermore, the focus on AIDS/HIV is purely for the benefit of US audiences where it is a high profile issue. Heart disease, car accidents, violent crime, even smoke from cooking fires all individually cause more deaths than AIDS/HIV. Plus most of Gates' "donations" don't deal with preventative measures, but instead rely on corrective measures and squeeze matching funds from local governments and charities to buy expensive pharmaceuticals produced by the large pharmas that Gates is heavily invested in.
I don't call any of that charity. I call it conflict of interest. Besides, what about his heavy investments six and seven years ago in the "Military-Industrial Complex". Investments like that, especially some of the larger ones, don't give a good return unless protracted and/or large scale war can be instigated. Even if Gates' "donations" were real and true charity, bad karma like that doesn't just go away over night.
Time apparently is for sale in more ways than one. And the New York Magazine is playing the fool for going along with it.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Taking risks in the pursuit of pleasure is like a scale.
For instance, when you walk down the street to the porn shop to get your butt plugs, that could be considered risky behaviour. If my homies step out of the alley and punch your pathetic head in, you'll get no sympathy from me.
But that's because you're a clueless, degenerate fuckwit who deserves to get his pimply face smashed. Not because (like you) I lack any empathy for my fellow human beings.
-
lol
*an infinite number of monkeys wrote this sig
That said, there are also a few people absolutely wed to the idea that the charity is for real, and like most people who don't operate in a world driven by logic, they are unaffected by data. This is nothing new.
Also not new is that people project their own values, motives and morals onto the actions of others. So unless they have the unusual ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes for a while, honest, generous people expect that everyone else is also honest and generous for the most part.
Also not new, is the practice of politicians in general to build up an image. The charity masquerade could be part of that. Creating some distance could be another part. He has been distancing himself from reporters often locking them out of his events. Magazines and newspapers run worshippful articles about the privilege of meeting Gates in person, creating an artificial air around an exceedingly wealthly but otherwise unnoteworthy arrogant, impatient and condecending nerd. The contest in India fits into that model.
Also not new is that Gates via MS took a healthy, wealthy, competitive market that was good for everybody and crushed it. With it went all the advertising accounts, leaving mostly just Microsoft's. At that point no one is willing to write anything that might anger or displease the omnibenevolent Chairman Gates. In the 80's and early 90's we saw productivity increase as computers, even MS ones, saved work and time. Now Gates' defective products and the minions of Bill in each little IT shop around the globe have been wreaking havoc which more than cancels out those gains in productivity. I'd expect that the losses in just MS-viruses alone for just one year cause more economic damage than Osama bin Laden has since 2000, but no one's allowed to look at that either, it might displease our esteemed, omnibenevolent Chairman Bill. That leaves people too busy to dig into the fact themselves and since the press won't say it, it goes unsaid.
Oops. look at the clock... gotta go... time to genuflect towards Redmond...
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
No, i think your understood me wrong. All i was doing is countering the iplification that any of the forementioned examples aren't totaly inocent and getting aids could be as much thier fault as not. Not all the people who get aids are at fault. There are some that from no action of thier own could get it. I'm referncing a small amount of people in these catagories.
No i don't have issues, i'm just calling a spade a spade. Slut is just a term for a girl who gets around. They usualy dress like they are trying to hook another victom (turn someoen on sexualy). Some woman dress in slut cloathing to tease others and think it is somethign else if they get some guy to look at thier almost naked body. Sex sells and they want to see if they would be purchased in the market place. It is more of a mental issue with them.
It is like girls getting the tatoo on the swell of thier back that serves as a target for when you doing her from behind. I actualy seen it called a trampstamp in a tatoo/bodie piercing parlor once. So some women actualy go in and ask for a trampstamp or giztarget to be painted on thier backside to serve as a marker for all to tell. I guess it makes them feel sexy.
So to top him, Gates has to not only give out $ 7 billion, and give out $ 7 billion in real cash not software licenses, but also that $7 billion mustn't be set up to generate more wealth for him or to disadvantage his competitors.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Sorry but you really have no idea about how the world works.
Women who wear revealing clothing are not sluts, they just enjoy looking and feeling attractive to the opposite sex, who doesnt!
Fact: women enjoy and want sex just as much as men, often more! Its a myth that men are more sexually driven. Society just seems to deem its more acceptable for men to want lots of girls. There is nothing wrong for a women to wants lots of sex, she is only following her natural desire to mate just as any man is. People all work on the basis that they want three things in life, money, sex and health. Each one effects the others and they depend on each other. People want sex to ensure that they pass on their genetic material.
You seem to be lacking in self confidence and feel intimidated by women. My advice: go here: http://www.bristollair.com/ and read their section on "Inner Game". Basically how to increase your self confidence with the opposite sex.
You might, if you contracted it from a blood transfusion, a lover/spouse who isn't as true as you believed, or any of a number of other ways that are completely out of your control.
Maybe you're joking, and not like that fellow in Jerry Falwell's association who called AIDS "God's punishment" 20+ years ago, but it's a sore subject to a lot of people.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
[AIDS is] natures way of weeding out the idiots
This seems to imply that most of the people that get AIDS are idiots. Then:
Not all the people who get aids are at fault. There are some that from no action of thier own could get it. I'm referncing a small amount of people in these catagories.
So now we seem to be agreeing. Stupid people are more likely to get AIDS than other people, but they certainly aren't the only ones that end up with it.
No i don't have issues, i'm just calling a spade a spade.
No, you're making a value judgement. You could have described their clothing as sexy, erotic, revealing, scanty, alluring, hot, enticing, showy, or used a phrase like "clothes made catch a guy's eye" or "clothes for clubbing", all of which are neutral terms that accuratly describe what you're talking about. You chose to use the word "slut", which has very negative connotations for most people and is rather inaccurate, because most non-sluts wear sexy clothes on occation.
The first reason I can think of to use a rude and slightly inaccurate term rather than a neutral and more accurate one is to disparage someone. I guess it could be a linguistic or cultural thing, but if you want to be friendly with the women I know, you don't call their partying outfits "slut clothes".
No matter how much gates gives to charities, it doesn't change the fact that msft is an abusive monolopy.
Need I remind anybody here about msft long history of scams?
- fake video evidence in the DoJ trial.
- fake grass-roots campaign including letters from dead people.
- msft the real force behind the scox-scam.
- outright theft from stacker.
- The ODF fiasco in MA?
- Msft customers sued because of msft misdeeds in timeline case?
I could go on, the DR-DOS scam, the OS/2 scam, the QEMM scam, and so on.
Msft is little more than a purely crimminal organization. If you happen to a msft competitior you whould have to be an absolute fool not to be afraid of bill gates and crimminally abusive tactics - regardless of how much gates contributes to charity.
That wasn't flamebait -- It was sarcasm! Check the GP idiots.
"Source? And make it within the past 6 months (max) otherwise it's meaningless." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @01:55PM
He provided that and was correct that you on the converse never did. I see his references to us-cert.gov and the links from that agency which specialize in application and operating system security showing that Linux and Unix lost to Windows in terms of security and bugs found in the current year 2005. You are the one that failed to backup your words.
"PS: Go learn some puctuation! Please, I hate punctuation/grammer nazies but some of your mistakes are really bad." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, @01:55PM
That isn't friendly at all. He was right. You tried to bark orders at him as if you are the lord of slashdot and you are not.
Whoever you are Anonymous Poster imho it is You that beat yourself and made yourself appear badly here. You are indeed the pot calling the kettle black.
We are on the same page. And my position is just that some of the people listed in the catagories thought to be inocent victoms might well have contributed to thier getting aids by doing stupid stuff.
Of course we are making a value judgment. Your values might find it totaly perfect to base jump from a skyscraper were the laws values says it is too dangerous and ilegal. It is not uncommon to have different values and express different opinions based on these values but,.. My reference to slut cloathing shouldn't substitute the sexy, erotic, revealing, scanty, alluring, hot, enticing, showy, or used a phrase like "clothes made catch a guy's eye" or "clothes for clubbing" descriopive words rather it should be added to them. Slut coathing would be a combination of the before mentioned atire witht he sole purpose of saying fuckme now.
There is nothing realy wrong with sluts or slut cloathing. The term "slut" having very negative connotations is just a "value" you have picked up somewhere. It is reraly no worse then calling an AIDS infested person an idiot because they acted like a slut and had unprotected sex then caught the disease.
BTW, I know alot of women that like to be called sluts. I didn't really think it was all that bad until i used the term here.
Actually, the number of traffic fatalities and injuries per capita have fallen in most countries since the 80's. Stats from Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2004/pag e1.htm) show that the ABSOLUTE number of both fatalities and injuries have fallen since 1985, even though the population has been growing.
Seatbelts have been shown to be the most effective automobile safety device. Not only do they help when you crash, but, as my driver training instructor told us when we were about to practice emergency maneuvers, some of the things you might have to do to avoid a collision will make you glad you have something holding you in your seat, in front of the steering wheel.
The moral was just because she was asking for it didn't make it right.
Dressing scantily doesn't mean that you're asking for anything. The fact that she had trouble trying the case because she "asked for it" simply demonstrates how ingrained sexism is in society.
So in a nutshell, _some_ rape victoms are idiots because they do or did things that encouraged thier rape. I'm not sure how fequently this happenes or if it would even be reported this way anymore
So we should just keep women locked up indoors and isolated from society? Otherwise you're saying that women need to keep up their guard 24/7, and if she slips for a moment it's her fault because she's an idiot.
I can go do a party and get piss drunk, no problem. If a women was to go to a party and drink and then get raped by another party goer, you'd be calling her an idiot. Supporting a double standard, telling women what they can and cannot do, and blaming them instead of the rapist does not deal with the problem. It's horribly sexist and ignorant. Instead of dictating to women, try and civilize men.
We all benifit from un-educated people (ceap labor) and in many countries noone is educated.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious, but it's dreadfully funny either way.
the world will never know.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
AIDS has very little evolutionary effect. HIV is believed to be transmitted to a baby only during birth, not before, and even then, when you consider what infant mortality for our big headed species is like without medical care, is only one of many risks. AIDS iteself can take twenty plus years to develop... you could get HIV while conceiving a child and then not die from AIDS until after you raised it. AIDS might even help out societies in a law of jungle way by eliminating the high end of the age spectrum.
Fortunately we don't live in a law of the jungle society. We believe very much that medical personnel are worth having around.
I was hospitalized after a car accident. I was awake, aware and had a back injury. I watched the nurse attempt to place an iv in me several times before she removed the safeguards and placed it in the old fasioned way.
Guess she should have given up and leave the idiot lying on the bed to either die or get better on his own, huh?
How about if you were in that same car accident and needed emergency treatment and whoever, paramedic or nurse, was unlucky enough to have to cut your clothes off got stuck with the drug needle you were hiding in your boot? Or the surgeon who operated on you and got cut by the intern he was teaching? Idiots all... they risked their lives to save you.
one World, one Web, one Program -- Microsoft ad, 1997
Truly, even through I hate MS with a passion, I applaud Gates for spending so much of his personal wealth on such causes. At the end of the day, he does not have to do this, but yet he does. No matter how "Evil" MS is, those who benefit from his philanthropy are better off with Gates than with out.
Free speech is getting expensive...
We are talkiong about people being idiots and causing harm to them selves. Waering scant cloathing and acting like a stripper isn't ilegal but it isn't a good idea to do in certain places. A white guy walking thru Harlem or South LA with a tee-shirt saying "stupid nigger" or "wetback go home" on it is perfectly legal. It makes him a idiot. The asualt on him that is soon to follow is not legal so in essence he is in the same situation as the girl getting raped. In both situations, the cloathing could have been ok in different areas under different circumstances. Could the ilegal acts have been prevented by those person not being an idiot, probably so.
Yes, No, Yes. No where did anyone sugest women need locked up and keep away from society. But they do need to be on guard all the time. The nature of how we (society) exploit them makes this nessecary. A good majority of rapes can be avoided by not letting a would be perp have the opertunity to commit the asault. Doing things like wearing revealing cloathing into a strange bar full of drunken kids and then acting erotic is not somethign I would consider a bright idea if getting laid isn't the intention. Other idiotic things might consist of going out alone into dark or dimly liten areas with no one else around while you know a serial rapist is in the area. Seldom do we hear about a rape victom that was aproached in the middle of time square durring the busyest time of day with thousands of witness watching a person be forced to the groud and violated when yelling for help.
When someone puts themself in danger, it is at least partly thier fault. They may not know better so then they are an idiot. It doesn't make it thier fault for being attacted and violated, it makes it thier fault for being were an attack and bodily violation can occure. A rape cannot occure unless the perp was enabled. But enabling a rapist isn't ilegal, just idiotic.
If she went alone and didn't have anyone watching over her safety then yes, drinking a mind altering substance to the point of intoxication would seem idiotic. If they know the people there then it would seem different. Date rape is a big problem were a girl takes steps in securing her saftey and is violated by one of the people she trusted. That in no way would be idiotic on her part.
The problem is that rape is ilegal. It still happenes. So the way to not let it happen to you, is to not place yourself into situations that would encourage it.
This isn't really a double standard either. Lets change your party analogy a little. How about it is a party consisting of homosexuals and your waisted, high, and maybe more into other drugs. Now lets say you don't know anyone there but some guy you met on the street a few hours ago. An orgy breaks out, sometime durring the night you enter the orgy (perhaps against you will), That makes you an idoit letting those circumstances happen if you didnt want to be in that orgy of guys. Alas, it isn't always that black and white but yes, women and sometimes men need to watch what they are doing. The idea of
The nature of how we (society) exploit them makes this nessecary.
So you're saying that society is inherently sexist, and instead making trying to fix things you're trying to tell women what to do? Unbelievable.
If that is the way you must interpret it then yes that is what i'm saying.
Ultimatly, it is the responcibility of the indevidual to maintain thier security. If that means taking extra precautions because of someone elses behavior then yes. The problem lies in the difference in thinking. Apearently I think a women shoudn't give a person an opertunity to violate her if that isn't her intention were you think she should ignore the obvious and blame the person who violated her after the fact. The biggest difference is that a law is being broke while a hanus act is going on and you are placing blame afterwards thinking you can work on society at large and change the behavior. If a woman was to act reasonable and not be an idiot because "she can", the law isn't broke and we still can work on society at large to corect the issue. Do the math and tell me wich is better.
Now society explits women on many different fronts. Movies turn them into sex objects, strip clubs turn them into sex slaves or close to it and you should get the idea. There is nothign that can change society other then limiting what women can do or were they do it. Performing sex acts for profit does nothign but encourage this. Trying to turn a person on for profit does the same. Nothing is wrong with doing either if it is done in an enviroment that can provide for the safety of the woman. If the enviroment cannot and somethign happens then it is pretty idiotic on the part of the woman for allowing it to happen. Of course when they pass a law making it ilegal to do anythign idiotic, most the citizens will be jailed.
The only thing unbelievable about this line of thinking is the reaction when someone is raped because they didn't take care that they would be safe. I'm not going to say the rapist is in the right but i will say the woman in these circumstances was at fault because they acted like an idiot. It is like crossing the street without looking. There is no law saying you have to look before crossing the street. There might be a law saying that traffic has to yield to pedestrians. When someone crosses the street without looking both ways and gets hit,it is the cars fault for not yielding the right of way but the person shares fault for being an idiot and not looking. would forcing someone to look both ways before crossing the street be telling them what to do? Is it really that bad to be told to do that?