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."
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.
>Is giving ~2% of your fortune to charity each year really that amazing?
He plans to eventually give it all away, leaving something for his childern.
Thats a bit more than ~2%.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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
Loading...
you can see that they pay out three times less in contributions than what they earn from investments
Thats the whole point of a foundation. you DO NOT give as much as your investments return. You have to account for things like inflation, which is not steady over time and which is actually at a low point right now.
You can say what you want about the Gates foundation but the fact of the matter is that is has done real work - and it is well-managed. It isn't just a billionaire throwing money at the latest fad, it is a self-sustaining foundation aimed at an important problem for our time. Bravo.
-everphilski-
You may want to take a look at their quarterly earning reports. Last quarter alone they had a 9% increase in revenue (that's a 900 million increase, 10 billion dollars total revenue, just for the *quarter*). And with what? They've barely had any new software releases, and have had security issues with their OS's. But they are still going strong. I'd keep my eye on them in '06. They are having new releases of essentially every big property -- Office, Windows, Visual Studio, SQL, Xbox -- and are predicting double digit growth.
Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation has given, with inflation accounted for, three times as much money to charity as Rockefeller, who gave the most to charity before Gates.
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
Thanks, I totally agree with your statement. Many of the new generation are not aware of what happened during those days. As an owner of a Laser 128 (which I loved to death) I followed with interest Apple's destruction of the many available Apple clones which were out there. Even after that, I purchased an Apple //gs, just to watch Steve Jobs destroy that platform too, as he pitted his own engineers against each other in a ridiculous internal power struggle which eventually killed the //gs. Many of my friends ask me why I won't buy anything from Apple anymore. Well, those are a few reasons why. They have a history of screwing over their customers.
Anyone who thinks Steve Jobs is a nice guy, or is looking out for your welfare is seriously misinformed.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Not sure where the GP got that statement but Carnegie thought it a shame to die with any money and while his views were quite contrasted to his actual actions sometimes he did belive in trying to help everyone out. I don't think he really cared about his image. Rockefeller is another example of this, his personal belief was that it was God's gift to let him make all his money and it was his duty to do good deeds with it, so he donated massive amounts to medical research and created many charities, however none of them at the time bore any obvious link to Rockefeller. He also required that the charities be self sufficent and have other doners, so if they needed $2M for something, he would require them to come up with $1M from other doners first. (Although I think he regularlly covered the difference if it was required)
While what Gates is doing is definatly notable, it just seems more of a PR move with the whole point as to establishing his legecy. Why not create a foundation and name it after something a bit less pretensious.
Rockefeller was the first, and his right hand man specifically SAID that their goal was to influence the American political culture. THat is a direct paraphrase of the man who was instrumental in Rockefeller's foundation ploy.
I'm not sure which Rockefeller you are talking about, if it is Sr. then I'm not so sure about that statement. Rockefeller's charities were mainly in the medical field simply because no one can really say that you are manipulating people or influancing things if you are just curing illenesses. Eventually the Rockefeller Foundation has grown to probably do just about everything, but its inital aims were spread amongst many charities, many of which focued on a specific problem (i.e. eliminating hookworm in the south)...While the rich of that time did get their money in ill gotten ways, a few of them (Rockefeller and Carnegie) had idelogical issues with having that much money, so they attempted to better the world...and for the things that they founded, I would say that it has been bettered in many ways...
Uh, you do realize that John D. Rockefeller Sr. was pretty far out of the loop on that one? His son was the closest involved but his son was sent totally conflicting messages from the on site people at the mine. Its not quite like the Homestead Strike with Frick.
I had hoped that the situation in Soweto had changed. The news report you link to is seven years old. However, it seems not. Just over a year ago there was a report about boys as young as seven committing gang rapes: The youngest member of this group is just six - barely capable of tying his own shoe laces, yet somehow old enough to have committed the most serious of sexual offences, however impossible that might sound.