Slashdot Mirror
Who is Your Hero, Gates or Jobs?
feranick writes "Wired and Ars Technica are both running articles comparing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, not for their business/technological achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates? And even more important: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?"
Tough call, really. I tend to view every move of Gates in terms of wondering if he's doing these things with the ulterior motive of helping his company, Microsoft. There was a considerable ($300m, IIRC) gift to a cause in India about the time of debate over state use of Open Source in preference to Microsoft (closed source, foreign owned.) There's also the matter of how you feel people and businesses have been exploited and compromised by this behemmouth (granted users of Microsoft products, myself included, share some responsibility for helping set the hook) which has enriched this person, thus putting him in such a position to be generous.
I don't look to Jobs with any more expectation than he does good things in business, which forces other businesses and concerns to react to the public in more favorable ways e.g. itunes selling for far less than RIAA was comfortable with, Pixar producing quality entertainment over the utter pap from Disney (well, we'll see how this goes, won't we?)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I work for a charitable organization. My income is provided by people who believe in what I do and give money to support that work. In the time I've been doing this, one thing has been made clear to me over and over again.
It is a huge mistake to make assumptions and judge others when you really don't know anything about what is going on in their life, especially in regards to their finances.
I do admire that the authors of these articles are in favor of investing ones resources in ways that are intended to make the world a better place. I spend a good amount of my time trying to encourage people in the same way. But to criticize someone, even with the caveats about anonymous giving, is not really helpful. What a person does with their money, be it Steve Jobs or the kid grilling burgers at your local Jack in the Box, is their business. And we are in know place to judge them as human beings for what they do with their money, especially since we don't know what is going on in their lives.
When I approach people to support what I do, I try very hard to not develop preconceptions based on what I know about them, because I am almost always wrong when I do. People I think will give a lot, don't (often for very good reasons, whether I know those reasons or not) and people I think wont give at all, surprise me with their generosity. But judging one as better than the other without the whole picture would be a grave error.
Finally, when Christ wanted to give an example to his disciples of great giving, he pointed out the poor widow giving two mites. It was not the amount that mattered, but the attitude and the self-sacrafice. And from this distance who can judge those factors about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From the fine article, near the end, drawing a conclusion:
I respectfully disagree with the author's conclusion, unless by indicating "much more deserving", he is setting the bar incredibly low. Gates' fortune is every bit as obscene as the author claims Jobs' fortune is, and probably much more suspect in how Gates acquired it.
I get sick of the implied (or inferred by the masses) rags-to-riches yarn of Gates, college dropout made good. It's not true, Gates is of wealthy background, was a spoiled brat from the start and never had anything to lose, i.e., he was always destined to be rich and that would never have been in doubt. Unfortunately, he chose to become a goon and run roughshod over the technology world, amassing wealth unethically, and eventually (by DOJ judgement) illegally.
While I expect good to come of money Gates gives away, it's certainly less because Gates is a good guy and more that money can buy good things.
As for the slashdot question posed: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?, probably yes. But probably more important is the motivation. I don't get any sense Bill's motivation is humanitarian, but do sense much of the work and generosity comes more from his wife Linda.
personally jobs, he's just so much cooler and mysterious.
then may I choose Superman?
geek page at KY speaks
My father is my hero! Gates wouldn't even lend me money to buy my first car.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
He's very strange, but you can't deny that he was the brains behind Apple's beginnings.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
As far as heroes go, I would have to say Linus would be much higher ranked than either Jobs or Gates.
By far, when it comes to character, the OTHER Steve from Apple beats those two all hollow. Yes, Jobs and Gates are more materially rich- but The Woz is rich in family and hacking ability, and as far as role models go, I'd much rather be the later.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No.
That's a tough choice. Perhaps I'd have more time to think about it if I weren't too busy at my job. Oh wait...
Well, I can only say read this. Apparently, he's giving $600m to preventing TB.
Here's a thought though: Does it matter how much people give, or is it the reason that they give?
Like the Constructicons and the Aerialbots, Gates and Jobs have merged to form GOBS, the most powerful technology robot executive ever! The Decepticons don't stand a chance. Or is the Autobots?
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
Before Bill married Melinda I don't think he really though much about the world around him. Not to say that she hasn't changed him and now he does. But I think it more her and he just gets behind what she brings up.
As for the question, I favor Jobs.
-S
It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
neither of these men have risked their lives for belief in something that violent people around them did not believe. perhaps that is just part of my own definition of hero, but neither of these men had half a chance of even serving a night in jail for being unpopular, or a night in the poor house for failing.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Steve Jobs.
Pro prio: He has done a remarkable job with Apple. From securing the first steps of Maslow, to the rocket Apple is destined to be for the next five years.
Pro secundo: He has won every victory, fighting honestly with QUALITY as the preferred weapon. Pixar never had a "B Team". People invest in Apple because of innovation and quality. People invest in Dell because they are slightly better than other PC distributors when it comes to logistics.
Pro tertio: Steve Jobs ultimate motive is to bring Microsoft to its knees. And he will do that. And he will be using innovation and quality - to prove his point.
From "Pirates of Silicon Valley":
Steve Jobs: We're better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
Oh yes. Guess what. It does matter. And it will bring down the Microsoft empire.
But to bring down Bill Gates - the most skillfull businessman alive - you will have to be outstanding. There are no shortcuts. No quick deals. You will have to be or become smarter, better, more profitable, eventually bigger and in the end richer than Bill Gates. Take away the reason for buying Microsoft products.
Myself, I think the turning point was when Steve Jobs demoed his NeXT, proud as a peacock, showing Illustrator, Framemaker and other major apps. A journalist later asked Bill Gates if Microsoft would develop software for the NeXT and Bill Gates stated Develop for it? I'll piss on it.
Those seven words, that single quote - my friends - is the essence of how our work, our businesses and tools will develop for the next 20 years.
We do live in interesting times. I enjoy every moment.
Who would you rather see dragged out into the street and shot, Gates or Jobs?
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
Call me cynical, call me what you may, but I think this value judgment
is totally off. In short, the elements being compared and how they
relate to your daily life are skewed.
If I were the receipient of one of Gates' grants, I'm sure he would be
my hero. At the same time I think it's great that he's putting his vast
fortune to so much good. That's all brilliant.
However, on a day-to-day basis, I get joy and productivity gains from
using Apple products and Apple OS. I get pain and suffering from using
Microsoft products and Microsoft OS. So daily, Jobs does more to make
my life better than Gates.
Now, there any many people who give generously of their time and money.
Each person has to give based on his or her ability and level. If you're
the richest person in the world, well, you better give more than anyone
else. I believe a large part of Gates' public face on his charitable
giving is to offset the negative view of him by so many. It's probably
related to some sort of pent up negative view from his childhood. Who knows.
In any case, you can have Gates and Jobs as your hero, it's not an either
or thing. This topic is so close to a troll that I considered not replying
but here it is anyway. Now let the mac versus pc debate continue into its
3rd decade now.
Woz
What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
Does anyone proofread any more? Seriously, "be a showmen" should be "being a showman" and there is no such word as "missionaire."
is when was the last time you saw something like this for jobs Gates gives $600m more to stop TB gates, while may run a tough business, he also donates an extremely large amount to good causes.
Where's the Torvalds vs. Stallman article?
"Torvalds is a chubby Gnome hating grinch. But Stallman is a dirty, unshaven hippy. Could they possibly live in the same house without driving each other mad?"
Setec Astronomy
Without a doubt.
Which is why, I'd rather have Microsoft be a monopoly and make billions and use a chunk of that to help the world, rather than a lot of other companies and executives (Darth McBride, Larry Ellison) who just have all that money and do no good with it. Well, no good for the world that is.
For humanitarian things, definitely Gates.
If I wanted opinions on being stylish and wearing turtlenecks, I'd ask Jobs.
So Bill Gates donates $20m to some charity, that's approx .6% of his total net worth (as in less than 1%) I donate $100 which at any given time is about 2.1% of my total net worth.
Who has sacrificed more for the good of humanity??
I'd say my hero is Bill Gates, because he showed the world, there is no reason to be afraid to be openly evil. I love him for paving the way for all of us villains to be. He shows us it is good to be evil :)
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
My work here is dung.
I've met them all, and Steve is more of a force for good, Paul is into sports (the SF stuff is fine) and helps out with the local Seattle International Film Festival by donating the use of his fantastic film theater Cinerama for a couple of weeks each year and bringing in some neat directors and actors like Adam Sandler, and Bill is spending ten times what the feds are on actual research and solutions for real problems impacting the world like malaria etc.
But that's my personal opinion.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They both helped give us GNU and Linux, which will eventually benefit everyone.
Linus is also a great manager and both he and Richard won the 1998 EFF Pioneer Award.
Free is the best charity of all.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
And they each have one cock. I suppose they could both be my bukkake hero.
More people= more people to pay microsoft licenses. The third world is the edge of the market for Microsoft, they've saturated the United States, the First world, and the Second world. The only way left to expand is to make sure more people survive.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Cowboy Neal.
And add the KDE and GNU teams to that.
Finding God in a Dog
I wouldn't call him my personal hero, but more so than the two options listed in the article.
I can see this as a POLL question, maybe. But what the heck are things like this doing on the Slashdot front page?
Reminds me of a quote from Chicken Run:
Ginger: We die free or we die trying.
Babs: Are those the only choices?
Torvalds.
If it's dead, you killed it.
As a creative sort of chap, I've always thought Jobs' heady mix of insanity, cunning and insight to be quite refreshing. Bill Gates is a nasty cold fish who seemingly knows nothing about humanity save that which he can buy.
Jobs makes things that are not just useful to me - they've helped bring out my artistic talents over the years - they've enabled me to create.
What has Bill Gates done for me and my world? Nothing, actually. He perpetuated some highly dysfunctional ways to interact with machines and generally works at dominating the distribution of information.
So he uses he obscene wealth (and it is obscene - and a bit of a fluke combined with Sam Walton-like business sense) for good. Well, that's great and I expect nothing less. Maybe he'll be considered another Andrew Carnegie someday, but I see very little to be interested by or admiring of about the man.
The things that Jobs and Co dream up bring pleasure and fun into my life.
I'm not sure if either of these guys runs their own charity or gives to an existing one but I don't think that the magnitude of the amount should be a real gauge. Whoevers money makes the most difference at ground level is what should be compared. If person A gives 1 million and only 200,000 gets to the ground becuase of overhead, well that to me is crap because most of the money is going to people who don't need it. In terms of the hero question; id see someone more heroic who would give 1000 dollars when they only have 2000 as opposed to someone giving 30 million who has 30 billion. So i'd have to say that neither of them are heros and that their donations are just for good PR.
1. Since when did giving away money become the sole measure of goodness?
2. The available data only suggests which person is best at making certain that other know about the money that they give away, not how much money has actually been given away.
3. The articles even point out that Jobs may have given away considerable amounts without telling anyone. Consequently, the articles are comparing a known value with an unknown value. Such a comparisson ought to result in a NULL value.
4. It does not appear that anyone attempted to contact either Jobs or Gates over the matter.
Steve Jobs is my hero, but not for the reasons you state. The two Steves (OK, both of them are my heros) were there at the right time and they knew exactly what to do. Thanks to their work we have the computer industry we have today.
Bill Gates was also (on numerous occassions) at the right place at the right time but he chose the dark path. Now, after a quarter of a century he's trying to atone for his sins by giving his money away. I hate the man with a passion because thanks to him and his company the computer industry has been held back from its true potential due to crap software running on an out of date architecture.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
If you take The Woz as Apple's number two, against Ballmer at Microsoft, Apple comes out on top and all is right with the world. Does Ballmer donate anything?
... he has a guilty conscience?
Probably not though. People aren't pure evil or pure good and are very inconsistent.
There's no reason why someone can't be a total selfish fuckwit and responsible for a huge amount of damage in one area (technology), while simultaneously being a generous humanitarian in another area (disease charity).
Its important that rich billionares make donations. The public or privateness isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. If I were in their shoes I make them public in hopes of inspiring other wealthy people to do the same.
:-)
Not having billions, I would love to make my donations anonymously to keep from being on the fund raising mailing list of thousands of organizations. I figure if you are a billionare, you are on the list anyway, and you can pay someone to through out all the damn return address labels!!
Think Deeply.
Why not look up to those who do good works every day without worrying about bottom lines or shareholder value. Do we really want our business leaders to also be our moral leaders?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
tickets to Heaven aren't for sale.
But keep trying anyway..
"Rich billionaires"!!
Moving right aloing, this isn't an "important question", it's a stupid one. No one can spend a billion dollars on anything in secrecy; most especially not the CEO of an American company.
Eric Schmidt.
It's more important to do what you do best. Jobs really is a showman, and he really is technologist. Gates? Gates was a damn good coder, and he is a damn proficient businessman. The humanitarian stuff only started in earnest when he realized he had to do some serious brown-nosing with the government in order to get a free pass from the DOJ for his abuse of his monopoly.
On that score - it's Jobs by a million miles. He knows what he's good at. He does it.
Besides, you really don't wanna see Gates putting on a show with technology anyways, but at least now you know where Steve "monkeyboy" Ballmer got his dance lessons.
Private or public donations? Not my money, none of my freaking business.
If it were my money, it'd be donated in private.
You don't have to believe in Jesus -- hell, you don't even have to believe in God to see that the long-haired hippy freak had a pretty good point. If you support a cause - donate. There doesn't have to be a God for you to feel pretty fucking good about what you've done to advance your views.
Charitable donations, especially public ones can often have other purposes. To whit, Gates has donated a great deal to help AIDS victims. All that money, however, is being used to help fund the costs of prescription meds and to protect the IP "rights" of the companies that hold them. With his power and weath he could force a debate about such "rights" and point out that a) AZT and other retrovirals were developed and tested exclusively with U.S. Taxpayer dollars and that as such the drug companies have no "rights". This, if successful, would lead to the drugs being available at cost not the 1000%+ markup currently used to "protect profits" and probably help many more victims.
But such a change would threaten microsoft's IP claims. It would not do so directly but it would call into question the basis of IP in the first place. So he doesn't do it. Instead his donations help to shore up the IP system and indirectly his own wealth.
There has also been a long history in Washington of charitable donations for influence. Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and Roy Blunt made a great deal of use in this area with those seeking favor donating to charities of thir choosing. The donors were not so much investing in a Jewish Day school as Blunt, DeLay and Abramoff's good will. This good will had a direct payoff for the donors later (as well as being tax deductable). Similarly for Blunt, DeLay and Abramoff their ability to score funds raised their status, got them invited on paid speaking tours and helped make them money.
I am not asserting that every donation is a cynical ploy. In part I believe that Bill Gates wants to make the world a better place on one level. But not every public or private donation is "all about the children". Sometimes charity is about profit.
I think charity is a great idea, and it's great that Gates is being so open with his endorsement of charity. But I think Gates & Jobs (along with many others) have created far more value for the world by creating an entire new field in which millions of people have gained employment, and been able to feed & shelter their own families without the need for charity. Not to take anything away from volunteers or philanthropists, but from that perspective, they have probably been far more helpful to the world than somebody like Mother Theresa.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
So Bill Gates donates $20m to some charity, that's approx .6% of his total net worth (as in less than 1%) I donate $100 which at any given time is about 2.1% of my total net worth. Who has sacrificed more for the good of humanity??
Good point. For example, let's say someone like me takes a job for half the pay working on Alzheimers research instead of at Microsoft - the hours are similar, but you're doing good for the world. Now, techically, is the fact I'm working in scientific research of greater good?
On the other hand, Bill G has donated more than 60 percent of his stock holdings in MSFT to the Gates Foundation, which is spending it on funding research and actual solutions that are ten times what the federal government spends on foreign aid (which is about 0.1 percent of our federal spending, not the 10 percent many people mistakenly believe).
But, and this is important to remember, he gets a tax writeoff as a charitable donation for doing this, so effectively everyone else is paying for his donations (we pay the taxes, rich people in general pay less than 10 percent of income, while poor people pay 30-40 percent and middle class is something like 30-50 percent, when you add up fed/state/county/local taxes actually paid).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think to some extent Apple and Microsoft are reflections of Jobs and Gates.
Microsoft has done much in the computer world, but I don't think many would accuse them of being innovative, and I think that is a reflection of Gates - he sees practical opportunities to sell product, or take an idea and make it profitable. He just never seemed that creative.
Perhaps he is bored now. Love them or hate them, Microsoft is the dominant player in the computer industry by far. That's a boring place to be, after a while. Microsoft is unfocused today, much like Bill is. A mid-life crisis, you might say. And Gates is trying to use the insane amounts of money he has aquired for something other than aquiring more insane amounts of money or implementing more of other people's ideas. He wants to get meaning in his life, and helping others gives a sense of meaning that he probably doesn't get from computers any more.
Jobs, on the other hand, still loves computers, and loves Apple. After his near death experience with pancreatic cancer, I think he gets a charge out of leading the pack with new ideas and trying new things. Plus, Apple has a lot further up to go than Microsoft does.
Rich people usually don't get generous until they start Wondering About the Meaning of It All. Bill's wondering, and Jobs has already figured it out. In Jobs' case, it involves Apple rather than other people.
Pop psyc rant over.
... and RMS and others in the free software community.
Yes I understood the question. Producing free software allows the poor to own and use computers, to run their businesses on IT foundations rather than the pencil and paper. OSS is and will be giving a boost to businesses around the world, not to mention education too.
Take everyone in third-world countries using OSS software. Swap the software with proprietary versions and total the cost. Thats how much roughly OSS has helped people. Can Gates manage that?
What gates gives to the poor really comes from the sales of Windows and Office for the most part, whose monopoly has made computers inaccessible in poorer countries, unless you count the piracy, which is worse in some ways... youre making them criminal to allow their businesses (and education) to run. So isn't Gates' net help to the poor running in the negative?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I think the phrase 'hero' is used far too often. I doubt either of these men are really the hero of anyone here on Slashdot. This whole story is nothing but flamebait anyway, given the leanings of Slashdot against anything Microsoft. Hopefully people can address this question without a lot of flame wars, though.
My take is that humanitarian aid is more important than technological advances. There are obviously benefits to great technological advances, but the humanitarian aid that Gates has provided should hopefully lead to more technical advances in the future. One example is him giving large sums of money to the Milwaukee Public Schools, which they've used to break up the large schools into smaller schools, resulting in smaller class sizes and less violence. I believe he's given money to other school districts as well for a number of other tasks.
I also don't believe that a donor needs to stay anonymous with his donations. Many Slashdotters think that Gates is donating simply to make himself and MS look better after their negative business practices. That's BS. He's already rich enough that he doesn't have to care about public perception. In addition, the general public does NOT have a negative view of Microsoft, so why would Gates be donating in order to change the public's view of them.
This came up in a thread around Christmas about the actions of the Salvation Army. Someone was complaining that the SA was anti-gay/lesbian, and backed it up with the actions of one worker and one manager. The Slashdotter discounted all of the great work that the SA has done, simply because of the actions of a few. Just because you may not like how Gates got his money, and just because you don't like MS, it doesn't change that fact that his money is being put to good use and helping a lot of people.
That's really what it comes down to: he DOES NOT have to donate this money, yet he still is, and the result is that a lot of people are being helped.
An aside for the people that claim it's only for tax relief purposes: when you get sufficiently rich, taking a huge tax hit really doesn't affect you at all. Most Slashdotters agree with the Democratic Party's idea of scaling taxes up for the rich. The main argument for that is rich people won't be affected by having a larger amount of taxes taken by the government. To claim that Gates is doing this because of the tax hit would be claiming that those taxes actually affect him. You can't have it both ways. Choose one or the other.
PS: I also like Jobs.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
I think a mite can pass through the eye of a needle. Or maybe it lodges in your eye? Either way, it's awful hard to "cast" the first might, lest one be smitten or something.
Lije it is said, "Blessed are the Cheesemakers".
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's Wozniak - somebody who truely seems to care about the world, about the people on it, and helping children learn with technology...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Let's ask Gary Kildall what he thinks about Bill's altruism.
Paul has probably donated more money and has been enjoying his Villas, Yachts and Boeing 737. That's my hero.
So, one should look at the amount of money available, the amount given, and then take points away for publizing donation, as the tax man now expects us to not deduct the reasoble value of the benifits we recieve. Perhaps we should also deduct lavish expensives.
I give bussinesses points for donated 5% of profits, as this clearly is a good percentage of expendable income. I don't know if a middle class family can donate 5% of even net pay.
What I do know is that when a man has a 200 foot yatch and one of the largest houses in history, any money given to charity is clearly causing no pain, and is likely to be a benavolent tax dodge, so is not as valuable as the pauper who gives his last few pennies.
There is no argument that if steve jobs is not donating a significant of money he probably should be. However, if he is donating money, and just not talking about it, then kudos for him. As we see from the christian tradition, one should not like th hypocrite expect honors and recognition for just being a good person.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So, through unethical practices I get BILLIONS, and I get redemption by donating a few MILLIONS?
GREAT!!!
Gates, all the way to heaven!
I met him at Apple Boston in 1983 and he had a great attitude, even when I asked him about the Franklin.
Fight Spammers!
Anonymous or public, who cares? Sometimes motives don't matter as much as actions.
...is to gain public acclaim, but if I were a billionaire I'd probably be quite open about my giving, if only to silence those who would claim I was some sort of Ebenezer Scrooge with my money.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
... are both running articles comparing Adolf Hitler and Harry Truman, not for their political achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be an atom bomb dropping commander-in-chief like Truman or a patriotic missionaire like Hitler? And even more important: Is it important that apples remain public or oranges stay private?"
No, that wasn't loaded question of an article.
I think this is the more interesting question. Personally, I believe charity should be a private thing. If you make a public announcement every time you do a charitable act, you are doing it for the publicity as much as anything. The amount of wealth given by Bill Gates is a drop in the bucket compared to his total wealth. I am sure he gets a sizeable tax deduction as well. This all reminds me of the parable of the widows mite.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
I respect Bill Gates a lot. He is a very smart yet awkward guy. What he and his wife do with their charities should be commended. He still has his hair. But, I would really try to emulate Steve Jobs more. He is just as smart but he has charisma. His charisma helps him to communicate his ideas and get people to really believe in them. A genius is nothing if he can't get his ideas across. He was really the only one to save Apple from buyout oblivion. I believe the whole tech industry is better for it and consumers whether Apple or PC have better products because of it. Now, he is bald, but it doesn't seem to slow him down.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
if you are going to measure their humanitarian efforts do you look at total $ they donate, or percent of their income? it may be more of a sacrifice for me to give $2000/year to a charity, but obviously that's not going to help stop the spread of anything.
what about people that actually do humanitarian work and not just donate some money that is probably a tax write-off and obviously used as a PR campaign anyway. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
you have to wonder when people have to keep reminding you about all the charitable things they do.
i can't listen to NPR for an hour without being reminded of what a good humanitarian effort the Gates foundation makes, or constant reports from the microsoft owned online magazine slate.com.
then again the same goes for NPR mentioning the kind grants from the walmart foundation, and we all know that that money is all donated by employees, not the Walton family. you can look up the charitable contributions of the actual family members and it is astonishing low. Gates is obviously far ahead of them on the decency scale.
This spring I had the opportunity to hear Warren Buffett give a talk in Omaha. At the outset I wasn't too excited; I'm not really into business, but I learned some things that impressed me.
The most interesting thing that I learned is that while Buffett isn't a well philanthropist, when he dies, something like 1% of his wealth will go to his children as an inheritance, and the other 99% (currently about $39.6 billion) will go to a charatable foundation. He's told the administrator of that foundation that he wants him to try and "do something huge" with the money, not just spread it out to lots of smaller causes.
His justification for doing it this way instead of giving to charity right now is that the more money he has, the more money he can make, and the more money he puts into the foundation before he dies.
Now, it could be easily argued that he just likes making money, and doesn't want to give it away, but his impressively simple lifestyle argues that he certainly doesn't like spending money on himself.
I imagine that if I had billions of dollars, it would be much more fun to see that money go to work helping people while I was around to see it, but Buffett's plan makes sense from a practical standpoint.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
C none of the above.
Bono is the CEO of my favorite multi-national corporation.
Gates donates millions of dollars to charitable organizations, no doubt. I grew up in a school district with a Macintosh contract (Philadelphia), and I know that they often donated computers and gave the district one hell of a deal to buy computers.
Aside from philanthropy, what have they both done to benefit humanity? I would venture to say (very debatedly) that computers have been conducive to human progress in some ways. We also need to consider the ways in which they both conduct business. Both companies have contributed to social stratification (see iPod and Dell), but thern again what company hasn't exploited the "needs" of an individual.
I think 'humanitarian' is confused with 'philanthropist.' And, by the way, it's impossible to separate Bill and Steve from their contributions to IT no matter how we evaluate them. The last time I ever donated something, it wasn't money, it was myself.
Paul Allen
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I find it amusing how people here actually choose jobs over gates.... it is as thought they can't bring themselves to admit that gates has a positive attribute.
I hate to bring down the moon on everyone, but gates simply wins by a landslide in this category.
Yes, I know he is rich and that you don't like him for his business practices, and that we are all special flowers who do our little part to help humanity and should all be thanking each other for our little sacrifices....
But the giant foot of absolute impact strikes us in the face like a shovel full of cold reality..... Gates gives an enormous amount... in an absolute sense.
If Jobs didn't exist it would have little to no impact on the unfortunate of our world... if gates never existed it would have an enormous impact.
Gates (together with his wife who we can't exclude) are among the world's most effective philanthropists and will leave a lasting impact on this world.
. ..
How easy would it be to donate billions of dollars anonymously? It's easy for everyone to overlook the five bucks you give at the office, but $500 million is going to make headlines.
And headline-grabbing donations can be a good thing. If it reminds us to donate or challenges our priorities, then the publicity serves more than the person writing the check.
Wozniak.
Hmmm, let's see. Be rich in family and hacking ability, or be rich in family (as Gates is) and hacking ability (which Gates also was, though who knows how he compares to Woz), AND have the ability and desire to innoculate literally millions of children around the world against disease. Note that he doesn't do charity for show, as so many do, he actually gets things done.
I think I'd rather be Gates.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It seems to be a bad thing to offer only two choices, rather than also allowing for neither or both. I have and use products that both men were involved in, and I really won't get caught up in some petty rivalry. I do think it is wonderful when people do give their money for selfless reasons, because it is people like those that generally improve the world that we live in.
Pure techs value the technical aspects more.
Other people believe that selling is most important.
Still other people believe that growing the business is most important.
I'm a tech, I'd vote for Woz.
Hi, it clearly Steve Jobs. CU h9000
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
The question seems too simplistic. If you want to ask the question -- who has done more for humanity: Gates or Jobs? Then you can look at acts of charity or whatever. If you want to ask who is the "most capitalist", then look at net worth. If you want to know whose actions illustrate the values one wants to live up to, look at their respective actions. If you want to ask who is the most selfless humanitarian, the answer is probably neither, as the parent indicates:
> It was not the amount that mattered, but the attitude and the self-sacrifice
The poster's submission makes it sound like all four of those are the same type of thing (hero).
It's really easy for a billionaire to donate a million dollars to charity. It's a lot harder for someone making $20k a year to donate a dime to charity. But the latter qualifies more as a humanitarian because of the self sacrifice, at least from a Christian perspective. When the billionaire does it, it's often for tax purposes or for PR. If they do it anonymously, at least they're not trying to secure favorable impressions in the history books.
I read the Wired article, and it was basically an author baiting Jobs to try to one-up Gates and his highly-publicized public giving. The author at least admitted that Jobs might be giving money anonymously, which is probably more in Jobs' character -- I'm thinking about Jobs meeting with a young man through the Make a Wish foundation. As far as I know, the meeting didn't appear on Apple Hot News for publicity.
As for a more riveting personal/business story, Jobs wins hands down. Gates used ruthless tactics to build his empire and then showed nothing but contempt for the justice system. Now that he's rich, he can through a few crumbs (albeit, crumbs to him are billions to the rest of us) to build his PR.
Jobs' story is more compelling to me: Apple's founding, buying Pixar from Lucas and turning it into a billion dollar business, failing at NeXT, but selling it back to Apple, and then rebuilding Apple with the iPod to chagrin of the loud protests from critics:
Founding a successful company is some skill and a lot of luck. Doing it three times (Apple, Pixar, Apple again) is more skill than luck.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I dont care how many money Gates gives.
He stole it from ME first.
There are many people in the world (I know a few) who feel that touting your own charitable giving is wrong, self-aggrandizing and that it should be done as anonymously as possible. For this writer to make such damningly certain statements in this regard without further investigation (or without attempting to contact Jobs for a comment, it would seem) shows that he's probably not interested in getting to the truth of what he's writing about.
I read an interview once with Pink Floyd's lead guitarist/singer David Gilmour (amongst the wealthiest people in the UK) who hinted at how he feels guilty sometimes about how much money he has and gets up at night to write a check or donate anonymously. Some wealthy people do give that way. Just because some choose to make a big, public display of it doesn't mean nobody else is giving.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Vint Cerf
that's because you're selfish and never had experienced diseases from 3rd world countries.
Granted, Jobs is a cooler person but that doesn't necessarily mean he is a better person impacting the world. Let's rememeber, the majority of the world can't afford Macs to express their artistic talent while sipping on a cup of joe while wearing a beret and turtleneck with a $50 soulpatch cut. The majority of the world can barely get clean water, receive vaccinations for malaria and other "common" ailments the first world nations would easily scrap-off with boxes of antibiotics.
As much as I hate the assbag known as Bill Gates, in the world view of things he comes out as the better person due to the impact his money is making. Would you prefer the alternative? that he did not donate a cent?
> The Woz is rich in family and hacking ability, and as far as role models go, I'd much rather be the later.
Napoleon Dynamite agrees!
> Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer
> hacking skills...
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Give me a break! Gates is an evil globalist pig demon..
Just one of many evil things it does...
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=286
It is not really charity if you make it public and deduct it from your income tax.
Frank Sinatra gave a lot of money to charity and refused to deduct it from his
income tax and didn't want anyone to know about it.
He once bought a home to a family who had lost their home in a mud slide but didn't want
anyone to know who gave it to them.
He said that it is not really charity if you get the money or part of the money back.
I'm sure Bill Gates gives the money with a good hearth but he really is giving charity
in the name of the taxpayers because this reduces his income tax and gives him a good
standing in places where he wants to do business. It is not pure charity by a long shot.
Look, I'd think Slashdotters would be able to see through Gate's crap. In a lot of this humanitarianism (Not the majority of it, I'll give you that) he's just pushing his product onto more desktops.
And in the rest, look where the money is coming from. US. YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE WHO HAS HAD TO PAY GOBS OF MONEY FOR AN OPERATING SYSTEM THAT, ARGUABLY, THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT.
So until his net assets reach $0, IMHO, he sins aren't yet paid in full.
Why stick up for big business?
If I murdered someone rich, and then donated the gains to charity, would that make me a 'hero'?
No.
The DoJ stated that Microsoft was a monopoly and that a lot of that money was gained illegally. Sure, not by murder (that we know of, Gary Kildare's suicide being a sad ending to what could have been competition), but still illegally.
Jobs has made his money (probably an order of magnitude less than Gates) by what appears to have been hard work and a dedication to quality. No monopolies, just good products. We don't know how much he donates to charity, he probably doesn't feel the need to publicise it, or maybe he wants the money for now so he can continue to do big things with it.
So it is good that Gates is donating on behalf of all the people who paid money to Microsoft due to a lack of choice in the market, due to their monopoly. It is essential redistribution of money from the rich to the poor (eventually) that will keep the capitalist cycle going.
There are studies how the rich in this country are more stingy with their donations to charity than the poor and middle class (I can't find the most recent article I read approx last December in google news). Bill Gates however was considered an exception to the rule.
/. post wants to make this an apple vs windows thing, but the truth is its really the most wealthy vs the uberwealthy issue. And the poor and middle class actually donate a higher percentage of their wealth to charity, and one can assume they can afford it the least. Think Katrina and the SE Asia tsunami.
I actually appreciate much of what Gates does with his philanthropy. His work on getting malaria drugs to Africa is something no one else was doing. We have the drug invented, millions of Africans are at risk, yet no government or drug company was willing eat the loss to get it done. Gates deserves a huge amount of accolades for this act of compassion alone.
However, he's the world richest man. Everyone expects this kind of work from him or whoever next becomes the world's richest person. One could easily make the argument there is such a spot light on him due to this status he *must* work in this way to keep his image and the image of his business in positive lights. The uberwealthy who aren't the world's richest for whatever reason do not share the criticism for being stingy in hording more money than they ever could possibly spend.
I guess this
Exactly. Never forget, it's all about YOU. You are precious and special, and your pleasure and fun are all that really matters.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Melinda is the charitable one. Bill has to act nice in order to get laid. You know what that is - right?
hacking ability (which Gates also was, though who knows how he compares to Woz)
Actually, no. Gates hasn't worked on any hacks personally since Altair Basic, and even then he was a part of a team. Microsoft in general buys way more technology than they ever innovate. Compare that to the elegance of using the off cycle of a 6802 microprocessor instead of a video card just to create a computer with fewer chips, and thus cheaper for consumers....one is of these things is not like the other.
be rich in family (as Gates is)
This too doesn't compare- last I heard the Woz's family exceeded just about any other rich man on the planet other than bin Laden. Gates's immediate family is now what, 4 people?
Note that he doesn't do charity for show, as so many do, he actually gets things done.
This I'm much more cynical about. I agree Bill doesn't do his charity for show- I believe he does it to increase the size of the market he can eventually sell copies of Windows to. Right now, Microsoft is operating is a supersaturated market- his only hope of increasing market share is to increase the population of the earth.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
41: Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42: But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43: Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
New International Version (NIV) - Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Linux Rocks - I'll cast rocks at Windows!
He's run the company that's responsible for making the PC as accessible and low-cost as it is today. So much so that Steve Jobs recently switched the Macintosh over to the PC architecture. So, I'd say Gates has done a lot.
If a man steals money and gives it away, does that make him more generous than the conservative legitimate business man? The Robin Hood image might be romantic as a fairy tale, but I don't think it is in reality. Does the computer industry consider Steve Jobs and Apple to be a bully who detracts from the productivity and success of the rest of the market? What about Bill Gates and Microsoft? Does the money that a monopoly makes balance the damage that a monopoly does to a market? I don't think so - but even if this were the case, then donations to charity would only balance the equasion and make the monopolist no more humanitarian than someone who had done no business at all. After all, to apply the Robin Hood image to Bill Gates is to call him someone who takes from some rich, more well off, and many poor, and gives to the poor. I would always side with Steve Jobs, because his work has always increased the wealth of everyone. Apple is not a monopoly, neither was NeXT, and yet people did wonderful things using the products of these companies. People also do great things using Windows, but the good only succeeds in factoring out the damaging monopolistic policies of Microsoft. So Jobs made himself rich by making others rich, and Gates made himself rich by destroying the works of others. Its been suggested in these comments that the best of all must be RMS and Torvalds. I have to agree - these people have taking nothing from anyone, and have increased the wealth of us all. While they might not make generous monetary donations to any particular charity, they have given small amounts to the millions or people who uses their products worldwide.
I own, and regularly use, Mac, Windows, and Linux systems, and frankly, I think the Mac is (by far) the best of the three in terms of what I prefer to be working with at any given moment. But as for who is my hero, it'd definitely be Linus and crew.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Gates is a bit of an oddball. I can't think of anything particularly brilliant he's ever done and yet he's the richest guy on the planet so he must be doing something right. Arguably making a deal was with IBM was the smartest thing he's ever done (and the stupidest thing IBM has ever done). But from a technology perspective, nothing exciting happened at the time. I mean DOS was a shitty system, even at the time it was introduced.
... well need I remind anyone of his 1995 visionairy masterpiece in which he managed to almost totally ignore the internet? To this very day the guy rarely says or does anything interesting. He's sitting on a huge pile of cash but other than giving it away to charity (which is good) he's not doing anything interesting with it. Somehow, I think Steve Jobs would never be able to just sit on a pile of cash like that. He'd be itching to spend it on something, anything.
Jobs on the other hand has always associated himself with cool stuff though none of it can really be attributed to him. He was just sort of there at the right moment, surrounded by brilliant people doing really great stuff.
If I'd have to pick one it would be Jobs. Mainly because I like people capable of thinking out of the box. There's too few of those in this world. And Jobs has certainly proved that he's capable of that. Gates on the other hand
Jilles
Score = (numberOfPoepleHelped * averageAmountOfHelp) - (numberOfPoepleFuckedOver * averageAmountFuckedOver)
:(
:\
i guess the result will be a huge negative number!
Does anyone know a usable calculation for Jobs? Because to me he is on a lower level than Gates... too low to think of a score formula that quick...
And: Yes, I certanly wish those two things were not the way they are...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Neither of these guys are heros to me.
They're just a couple of businessmen. You have to do something much more impressive that make a shit-load of money peddling software before you can be called a hero.
Duh.
-- Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings
you don't see him foisting windows on his customers do you?
It could be worse. People could be looking to their religious leaders.
-- SIGFPE
Richard Stallman
I know its supposed to be about humanatarianizmsmsms... but isnt contributing better, inovative products also being humanatarian? (how the hell do you spell that stupid word anyways? ;)
Gates needs to play catch up. Windows is garbage, Microsoft has a terrible image, so bad of an image that windows users go out of their way to make XP look and function like OSX.
Microsoft is in serious trouble now that OSX has hit the PC. The hardwares the same, the OS is different.... Itunes and IPOD are the hottest product out there and Windows is assosiated with bugs, security holes, crashes and spyware...
I think people are going to think twice before buying their next windows PC and may consider mac because of teh hardware similarities.... (they can run windows also btw)
It's going to get really interesting... And if you think i'm a mac lover... you should know that i've never owned one in my life. I'm a PC guy and I can see the war on the horizon.
It's too bad the most prominent professed US Christians aren't at all like Christ.
I submit that professing oneself as a Christian and actually being a Christian are not one and the same. Perhaps your observation of how "like Christ" a person's views and behaviors are is a good indicator of whether they truly are a Christian or whether they merely claim to be.
Steve's greatest humanitarian act was producing Mac OS X.
The article is a just a thinly veiled attack on Jobs' liberal political leaning.
"Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database."
If this article is about charitable giving, why does the political party recieving the money matter?
"To the best of my knowledge, in the last decade or more, Jobs has not spoken up on any social or political issue he believes in -- with the exception of admitting he's a big Bob Dylan fan."
Oooh, that awful hippy Bob Dylan.
"Jobs once offered to be an advisor to Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election, and he invited President Clinton over for dinner when Bubba visited Silicon Valley in 1996 -- hardly evidence of deep political convictions."
He tried to help Democrats! And everyone knows Clinton is evil, so drag him into it and then tag on a line about Jobs just schmoozing with big Democrats but not really caring about politics.
Is there any liberal a right-wing kook with a Blog won't attack anymore? And why the hell are the right-wingers always so bad at it?
OK, lets really _see_ what Gates does for humanity.
Suppose there are 200,000 computers in the UK health trusts (under estimate). Suppose half of them run MSOffice. Suppose they have deal with the 'pally pally' Bliar & Brown Government and get the licenses for £100.00 a throw (half-price).
That is £10,000,000 BEFORE anybody gets the money spent on health care (and is paid for by the British people via tax).
Now lets expand that to worldwide health - how many computers? 20 million? 30 million? Lets say 10 million, at an average of £150.00 a licence.
£1,500,000,000 paid for BY THE PEOPLE via taxes, health insurance etc. has to be found from the budgets of hospitals etc. before ANY health care is catered for.
Then he donates 3% of that back (to make himself feel good?) to charities run by Companies his parents have fingers in.
Yes, great bloke Gates is and MS really do care.
$100M is to these "celebrities" what $100 is to many "regular" people. Except that the guy who gives $100 to charities, you never read his name in the newspapers. But for someone like Gates, giving $100M to a charity is also good advertisement for Microsoft Corp. ("I am not so evil, see..."). On the other hand, charities could certainly use that money. Yes, I think we should thank them both but please, keep the donations private; they'll live.
Linus!!
Mebrelith Lord of Thingamajigs
Then of course, there's the fact that he's trouncing on people's freedom to choose their software, and the ability of the market to freely innovate just so that he can make those billions of dollars.
On the other end of things is a Canadian diplomat who got blown up because he was (voluntarily) in Afghanistan trying to help the people there recover from decades of civil war.
Now, that is someone I can look up to as a hero.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
How about neither?
That's like asking "What's your favorite food? Turd sandwiches or turd burgers?"
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Here's a nice little report on the world's top 100 billionaires put together by Forbes. Can you find Steve Jobs on it? It's a lot easier to find Bill Gates. He's #1, with over 44 billion. Although Steve recently improved his lot by a good $3billion in Disney stock, we're talking about last year here, so... he's #194 on the list with a paltry ( by comparison ) 3 billion. Even after the Disney/Pixar deal, Steve has far less than a quarter of Bill's net worth.
Yes, in case you're having a hard time getting my point, I'm saying the comparison is off-base ( unless you're doing it on some percentage basis ), because Gates could donate Jobs' entire net worth without exactly needing to cut back on his expenses.
Still, let's be serious. Both of these guys kick serious ass. That, you pretty much have to admit- it doesn't matter if you love 'em or hate 'em, their place in the world today isn't due to their daddy's handouts or pure, dumb luck : they're ambitious people who worked ( and inspired others to work ) to get them where they are today.
Who am I personally more impressed by ? Let's just say I wouldn't make the judgement based solely on charitable contributions... I'd look at political contributions, check for motivations behind charitable contributions, look at their business practices, how they treat employees ( especially low-level ones ), how they treat their friends and family, check what they do to make their local area better, etc. But that's just me.
Without enough jobs too many people find themselves locked behind gates.
Read here on Bill Gates' sources of money. Someone brought up a good point on Bill Gates: "So, basically, it's OK to make crappy software, ruthlessly drive competitors out of business and generally screw the public, as long as you're seen publicly giving money to charity and political causes?"
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
By NANCY GIBBS
These are not the people you expect to come to the rescue. Rock stars are designed to be shiny, shallow creatures, furloughed from reality for all time. Billionaires are even more removed, nestled atop fantastic wealth where they never again have to place their own calls or defrost dinner or fly commercial. So Bono spends several thousand dollars at a restaurant for a nice Pinot Noir, and Bill Gates, the great predator of the Internet age, has a trampoline room in his $100 million house. It makes you think that if these guys can decide to make it their mission to save the world, partner with people they would never otherwise meet, care about causes that are not sexy or dignified in the ways that celebrities normally require, then no one really has a good excuse anymore for just staying on the sidelines and watching.
Such is the nature of Bono's fame that just about everyone in the world wants to meet him--except for the richest man in the world, who thought it would be a waste of time. "World health is immensely complicated," says Gates, recalling that first encounter in 2002. "It doesn't really boil down to a 'Let's be nice' analysis. So I thought a meeting wouldn't be all that valuable."
It took about three minutes with Bono for Gates to change his mind. Bill and his wife Melinda, another computer nerd turned poverty warrior, love facts and data with a tenderness most people reserve for their children, and Bono was hurling metrics across the table as fast as they could keep up. "He was every bit the geek that we are," says Gates Foundation chief Patty Stonesifer, who helped broker that first summit. "He just happens to be a geek who is a fantastic musician."
And so another alliance was born: unlikely, unsentimental, hard nosed, clear eyed and dead set on driving poverty into history. The rocker's job is to be raucous, grab our attention. The engineers' job is to make things work. 2005 is the year they turned the corner, when Bono charmed and bullied and morally blackmailed the leaders of the world's richest countries into forgiving $40 billion in debt owed by the poorest; now those countries can spend the money on health and schools rather than interest payments--and have no more excuses for not doing so. The Gateses, having built the world's biggest charity, with a $29 billion endowment, spent the year giving more money away faster than anyone ever has, including nearly half a billion dollars for the Grand Challenges, in which they asked the very best brains in the world how they would solve a huge problem, like inventing a vaccine that needs no needles and no refrigeration, if they had the money to do it.
It would be easy to watch the alliance in action and imagine the division of labor: head and heart, business and culture; one side brings the money, the other side the buzz. But like many great teams, this one is more than the sum of its symbols. Apart from his music stardom, Bono is a busy capitalist (he's a named partner in a $2 billion private equity firm), moves in political circles like a very charming shark, aptly named his organization DATA (debt, AIDS, trade, Africa) to capture both the breadth of his ambitions and the depth of his research. Meanwhile, you could watch Bill and Melinda coolly calculate how many lives will be saved by each billion they spend and miss how impassioned they are about the suffering they have seen. "He's changing the world twice," says Bono of Bill. "And the second act for Bill Gates may be the one that history regards more."
For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME's Persons of the Year.
As it happens, they have arrived at the right time, as America stirs itself awake from the dreamy indifference with which the world's poor have forever been treated. In ordinary times, we give when it's easy: a gesture, a reflex, a salve to
He helped found the EFF, for bog's sake!
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...
No one else could get Bill to cough up so much dosh. Just look at how much Bill has donated to charity before and after marrying Mrs Gates.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I think that making the donations publicly has a positive impact on the society. A general sense of cynicism towards acts that would otherwise invite our appreciation is all that is expressed in criticism of giving publicly. I believe people condemn such acts because to donate challenges their worldview, that everyone is scrounging for as much as possible in order to keep themselves alive/ahead. Secretly, they grudge having gotten built into this mechanism by their own needs and desires. To suggest that someone has escaped this world creates a sense of jealousy in those who feel trapped by it. However, the fact remains that making large donations publicly does challenge the worldview of those who criticize it the most, and possibly it opens them up a bit to a general sense of humanity. For better or worse, visible donations do change us.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
I don't know about you guys, but the choice for me is obvious. CowboyNeal is a great contributor to the open source community with all his wisdom and might. He's my personal hero.
Sig: I stole this sig.
All I have to say is, Steve Jobs abandoned his responsibility when fathering a child and the mother of that such child. Anyone who says Steve Jobs is a humanitarian needs to think back at what he did to the mother of that child when she needed him most.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Fuck 'em. What about Steve Wozniak?
http://www.woz.org/
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
If you actually run the numbers of how many people he's saving as a proportion to the current size of the market, compared to how much money he's spending, the absurdity of that will become clear.
Or to put it another way, if Gates was really interested in making as much money as possible, he'd take the 30 or 50 billion dollars (or whatever he gave away to his charity) and create new products to sell to the existing 6 billion person market, rather than trying to make a mere extra 100 million people live longer to buy copies of his existing product.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'm going to assume that a fair amount of Gates' giving does some good. It saves some lives in the third world, it helps some people. Probably a lot of people, given the amount of money involved.
So, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't care whether it's anonymous or not. He wants the credit? Fine. Let him have it. I mean, imagine that you're some dude living in the third world, and some rich American is willing to spend a few bucks so that you don't die from some easily-preventable disease. He's doing it because he wants to be considered a good guy, rather than because he really cares about you, poor third world person that you are. Do you care? Or are you grateful that he did it, for whatever reason? You bet you're grateful. What's more, you probably consider him to be a pretty good guy.
It's like the actor who, immediately after Katrina, went down to New Orleans, rented a boat with his own money, and started pulling people out of houses. So he had a video crew with him. So? If I'm one of the people he saved, do I care that he wanted some publicity? Not at all. In fact, if I ever wound up talking to a reporter, I'd be sure to mention how this wonderful guy spent his own money to rescue me (thereby giving him some publicity).
I'm no Bill Gates fanboy. I despise his business ethics. But I appreciate his charity work.
Don't require the motives to be perfectly pure. Just be glad that he's doing something, for whatever reason.
He's not Evil(TM), but he's not much of a hero, either.
Changa hates change.
The head of Bill Gates Charity is Mr. Gates ie Billy's father.
Now, Bill Gates Sr. - he is definitely a hero.
Look at the work he's done in Responsible Wealth, a group I joined, which points out the effective tax rate for most millionaires is aroud 10 to 12 percent whereas billionaires tend to pay 8 to 10 percent, and corporations mostly (two-thirds) pay no tax at all or get federal "refunds" so that we pay them.
But we were talking Bill Gates, Microsoft Visionary. He's a different person.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I have done zero research to back this but as far as I recall, I never heard of ANY charitable donations from Gates until Microsoft got into trouble with the government. Then all of a sudden, at least publicly, he is this huge philanthropist. And the crazy thing is that everyone buys into it and ignores the tie in. The fact that he is so public about his giving backs up my argument. If he didn't care about the publicity, nobody would know he is doing it. Perhaps Jobs is giving the same or more proportional to his net worth, but since he isn't a sociopath like Gates, nobody is aware of it.
Bill Gates, being the head of the biggest monopoly the world has ever seen, can afford to be a humanitarian. Steve Jobs, demanding of innovation, cannot. When your company has close calls and almost folds a few times, and just found a monopoly (with the iPod), you can't be humanitarian assuming you will forever ride on this monopoly and "give away money", you have to invest it back in the company to find something to do after this monopoly dies down. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (The main place Gates' humanitarian funds go through) was founded in 2000. Microsoft's net income (according to microsoft.com) was $2.39B in 2000Q2, Apple's net income (from Apple.com) was $539M in the most recent quarter (their highest. Untill a year or so ago, it was always under $100M) In 1995, Microsoft had a net income of $499M (more random google searches). So a more equal comparison would be to compare the Current Apple's Humanitarian efforts to Microsoft's Humanitarian efforts in 95. Even that isn't as perfect a comparison though, since it was almost certain Microsoft would rise much higher due to the lack of competition. While Apple, with most incoming being from iPods, has much competition, and could lose that monopoly at any moment.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
My hero? Count Chocula.
Game... blouses.
...it would be Steve Jobs.
:o)
I've actually met both Gates and Jobs, although I doubt either would remember me in any detail, if at all.
However, I personally feel Gates is a weird little troll with a lot of luck early on that resulted in lots of money. I think if he weren't filthy rich, he'd have been arrested for stalking women from work or something equally creepy years ago.
Steve is a mutant, to be sure, but he has vision and intelligence and seems to be a nice guy most of the time.
That said, neither one is particularly "heroic" to me. They're geeks who got rich beyond avarice. Big deal.
I am my own gestalt.
Oh man, tough choice. Why not the cuddly Larry Ellison or the charismatic Scott McNealy to choose from in addition to the magnificent Steve Jobs and godlike Bill Gates? Wouldn't it be great if we could combine the "best" traits of each of those individuals. We could have an ubergeek-computergod and we could all bow down and say "I'm not worthy!"
Well, given the choices, all in all, I'd say I'd have to go with Steve Wozniak as my choice for hero, or possibly Larry Wall.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Bill's track record is that business success matters - people do not.
He can try to buy humanitarianism if he wants, but I'm not convinced that a couple of billion will buy him his way into heaven.
</flame>
There is hope however, he did marry and have kids. If THAT doesn't make somebody into a humanitarian, then nothing will.
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
When I was a young adult, I thought how I acted, such as my personal morality and being a law-abiding citizen, was what was important. I generalized that to others, forming my opinion of them based on that.
Later, I decided that attention to the letter of the law was less important than doing what I thought was right in the higher sense. My opinion of others followed.
Still later, I realized that giving to others of my money, my time, and personal kindness was the key to being a good person. Still, that's how I began to judge.
Now, I don't care about being a "good person" in anyone else's eyes, and I tend to be a lot less judgy than before.
Anonymously helping others, showing kindness when you can, taking care of your responsibilities, and being a good citizen are all faces on the same multisided die.
Giving a trunk full of cash to the needy is no more important than dealing fairly with your customers, your employer, or your employees. An overflowing generosity in public doesn't make up for churlish behavior in private, nor do kind words and clean hands cover stingyness.
It's all the same.
So tip the waitress the price of the meal, and tell her she's great. Hug a child. Vote well. Be virtuous, and you know exactly what I mean.
Life is sweeter if you play nice.
Ok, for those of you who don't know what I mean by virtue: you're not trying.
sigs, as if you care.
What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
By stating this question in this way, you have already tainted any conclusions to be drawn. It is only your opinion that Gates is an humanitarian missionaire. Who is to say that he is more so than Jobs? The fact that he started a foundation is only a public showing of giving. How do we know that Jobs doesn't give proportionately more of his wealth? We don't.
It doesn't really matter, because you have, as I have stated, tainted anybody's response by inserting your own subjective value system in the way you described Jobs and Gates.
A more balanced questioned would have been "Who, Gates or Jobs, as an individual (not their company) has had a bigger impact on the world and why?" Then you would have had something valid to discuss.
Hi All -
/the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves."
As a longtime "Macinista" who purchased a 512K Mac in 1985 and worked for Apple from 1986 to 1999, followed by 6+ years at Adobe Systems, you would imagine that I might see Bill as "The Borg". But I have to give Bill credit for the work the Gates Foundation is doing.
The way he is spending his fortune, along with his plan to leave "only a few million" to his children, is incredible.
The more I learn about the Gates Foundation and how he is both giving the money (which is "easy") and involved managing the process is nothing short of incredible.
The Gates Foundation through the work of Bill, Melinda, and Bill Sr., are also driving incredible changes for the better in how aid and research money are being spent. They are bringing a degree of strategic thinking, creativity, and accountability to how the money is being spent.
Bill Gates along with Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, have the potential to have a greater impact on society (and all for the good) through their philanthrophic activities than they did through their businesses. And that is saying a lot. Bill - through his actions - is nudging Warren Buffett to start being active in giving his money away.
Bill Gates and Pierre Omidyar seem to be taking as their role model Andrew Caregie (did you know that we have widespread public libraries in the US due to his efforts and that prior to his work most libraries were more like video rental stores?), who said some very interesting things about giving:
+ "Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
+ "One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity."
+ "I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution."
+ "I would as soon leave my son a curse as the almighty dollar."
+ "The man who dies rich dies disgraced"
+ "This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community
Yours,
Jordan
... my friends and family as well. Um ... don't understand the vituperative comment. When I used to attend MacWorld in NYC, I was amazed at the heaps of creatives that had similar stories to mine. I've been a computer nut since I was six (I'm 33 now) and had my share of goofy / fun / useful machines - a TRS-80 Color Computer for some text adventure games (learned to type), Atari 800 and Bank Street Writer, but I'll never forget my first exposure to a Mac.
When I went to uni joined the paper and was introduced to the MacSE/80 and my God what a world opened up for me. Writing, printing, typography - cut my teeth on QuarkXPress and the first version of Photoshop. Later I went to film school and eventually couldn't afford the processing, etc ... I was in heaven years later when I beta tested FinalCutPro. Made a decent amount of money with it before selling all my equipment and leaving for England.
These days, it's iChat that keeps me in touch with a mum a thousand miles away, the iTunes music store podcasts that keep me hooked into 93.9FM WNYC and the rest of NPRs programming on my iPod. I post my creative snapshots and personal photos for friends and famliy on my .Mac website (http://homepage.mac.com/nevermore). Hey, and that iPod. Wonderful refinement. Sold my Creative Nomad and never looked back! The world is a grim enough place. Let's hear it for someone who contributes to the fun, innovative, enlightening, enabling side of things.
Again, what the devil has Gates done for anyone, really? He makes a so-so operating system. So what. His business software can be somewhat useful although it helps just to turn off all the damn Office toolbars. Um ... so ... what else is there that's actually useful?
So, kudos to the Gates's charity work. Really.
But the business side of Bill Gates is loathesome.
I highly respect them both.
Jobs:
- Creates technology products people want, or don't know they want yet -- but want. Rarely, this is hit-or-miss.
- Outstanding technological visionary, all through his years, but especially at NeXT and the modern-day Apple. You may hate him, but you can't really argue against this point with validity.
Gates:
- Creates technology products he *thinks* people want. This is hit or miss, miss usually.
- Unarguably a vastly generous, in many ways selfless philanthropist.
Why are we constantly trying to make people in the spotlight responsible for solving everything that might be bad in our world? This is just like asking why basketball players don't do more for the greater good. If someone makes a bucket of money and they prefer to not spew their rhetoric or opinions on anyone that will listen then I applaud them. The are doing what they want to do and they're not hurting anyone. Just leave them alone.
The one's like Gates, who prefer to give money and talk about issues are fine with me. Everyone has their thing. If he wants to try and make the world a better place then great. Just don't persecute the one's who prefer to keep quiet.
None of this has anything to do with anything, however. No one has the right to tell someone what they should do with their money. As long as he's not out hurting people, leave the guy alone. Not that he cares one wit about what some Wired journalist thinks. He's not a hippie-wuss kinda guy. He's a tried and true capitalist, and to expect him to transform into Mother Theresa just because he has a few billion more bucks is stupid. He's in the trenches with his beloved Apple Computer, fighting what he sees as the good fight. Last I checked, Bush hadn't quite succeeded in getting the Constitution into the Oval Office's paper shredder. Jobs is free to be who he wants to be. All Americans are. If ppl don't like it, get your own $10 Billion and give it away. Otherwise, stfuktb.
Although you will find me more often than not at Boulengerie Jade here in Hampstead with a scone and a cup of strong coffee.
There's nothing at all wrong with charity. Good for Bill. But I really don't see much to admire about the man. Not a whole lot to admire about lots of business people save their skills, acumen and personal integrity. And the fun stuff they make ;-)
I am from India. Bill Gates came to India and donated so and so money for so and so purpose. Out honorable telecom/IT minister (yes we have telecom and IT minister , but no telecom) went ga ga over him. Our top english news channel ndtv also went ga ga over him , asking him stupid questions like why there are so few great ppl like u.There were more stupid questions asked but i don't remember it now.Prefering windows instead of linux by indian govt is shameful, wat a waste of my money. Only thing that was left was for our ministers,news channel to take off there pants and bend over. I really don't know if his donation helps someone.We in india have been getting some big donations since 25yrs ,Ministers and NGO's keep getting rich ,where as poor keep getting poorer. My real heroes are ppl like Mother Teresa,who dedicate there life to serve the real homeless , sick and poor without even bothering what will they get in return. Her main donation use to come from common ppl and not from the rich.
Donating money is good , but it will not bring or make you more holy or hero.But if you do donate and also spare time to do the dirty work like washing shit,bathing,feeding,comforting etc of a dying man or women then you became a hero.
This is my first post , so pardon my english ,also my anger towards my govt , who even after 50 years of independence cannot provide basic utilities like electricity and clean water etc(Yes we only get 12hr of electricity ,and ofcourse 3hr of dirty water supply, but who cares,our govt only want to became superpower ).
My vote would have to be for Mr. Jobs. As far as I am concerned, good business ethics beats philantropy. The effect of developing high-quality products and adhering to ethical business practices are self-evident and always beneficial. The long-term impact of many activities that are sponsored philantropy is difficult to assess, and can, in the worst case, do more harm than good.
Nobody should judge about this, it is a completely private thing.
BTW, It is interesting to watch all this people trying to raise fear and doubt around Apple in the last weeks, while the company is doing great.
Googlefight has Steve Jobs as winner.
Bill G = 35,200,000
Jobs = 142,000,000
"Show me your tables and I won't usually need your flow charts; they'll be obvious".
I know this can sound weird, but Jobs is my hero. Not because what he did for all the people, but because something he said.
I was on my deepest depression crisis ever and I was already planning my suicide. I was sure that day would be my last day when I came across his speech at Stanford University. And his words made me rethink everything I was going through at that moment, and gave me enough strength to give up the plan and keep going.
So yeah, Jobs is my personal hero. No matter how great amount of money Gates throw at projects, Jobs is the guy who said the right thing at the right moment.
[And I tried to send him my story, but I'm almost sure he would never see it]
I think not, now that he has a few extra coins in his wallet from selling Pixar why not donate something?
a much better topic would have been RMS or Linus
Seriously. She works with poors and disabled, she is specially educated as social worker (BA), she CARES to CHANGE things. She doesn't have very much for herself, be how much she gives from herself as human...
Money can be thrown in bilions, but if you don't have a human force, who works for example drugs, solutions, who does REAL job, then it's really waste-basket situation. Without them, money means nothing. Bill means nothing. And Jobs means nothing.
Human touch cannot be replaced by such "Heros".
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Or to put it another way, if Gates was really interested in making as much money as possible, he'd take the 30 or 50 billion dollars (or whatever he gave away to his charity) and create new products to sell to the existing 6 billion person market, rather than trying to make a mere extra 100 million people live longer to buy copies of his existing product.
The point is, he doesn't (thanks to the incredible toll human disease takes on the third world from a monetary standpoint) currently have a 6 billion person market. The extra cost of disease is a major drag on third world economies- leaving him only about 2 billion customers in the current market. Accessing the other 4 billion requires a rising standard of living in third world nations- which is why almost all of his charitable giving does not go to first world nations, but to raise the standard of living in the third world- thus slightly increasing the population of the planet, but greatly increasing the number of people on the planet who can afford a $159.99 copy of Windows Vista.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Definately, Torvalds.
Of the two I respect Gates for what he does with his money. No one is required to give it away, even a small portion of it. Yet he is dumping quite a bit of money and large amount of it as well. More refreshing is that compared to the likes of Buffet Gates is not doing it promote certain PC-centric causes, he is trying to use his money to make a difference. Gates is the face of Microsoft to many but he isn't Microsoft.
I don't think the same can be said about Jobs and Apple. To me Apple is Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs is Apple. It is so hard to see the two apart because with Jobs I don't think we would still have Apple Computers and the PC world would be less for it. We can have Microsoft without Gates as there are many people who can keep the behemoth moving. The problem with Apple is is that it doesn't work as a Behemoth. It really survived on the personality and drive of one person, no one else in the organization had the right stuff to make it work. It takes a special person to push the limits and know what will appeal. Sure Jobs has made some blunders but his successes are always so much greater that they outshine his failures. That is kind of how Turner is too, the difference is that Jobs has the right flair.
If Gates has one major problem is that he really is boring. But Microsoft didn't get where it was because of it being flashy. It got there through methodical plodding that is required to make good companies large ones. They didn't take big risks, they take calculated risks. It did make a lot of people wealthy and some fabously wealthy. It is very good to see that Gates, with probably a big amount of his wife's influence, do something truly effective with his money. He does have more than any one person or family could use and even after his donations he still does, the great thing about him is that he does not appear to have any ending in sight for his giving. He could be buying up the world's businesses and building a personal empire but he instead is building up the world he lives in and the best part is that most of those he helps will never know who he is. That last part is what truly makes him my favorite. It is one thing to help people who you know and will know you for that help, its a whole 'nuther thing to help those who will never know you or of you.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It's actually Melinda from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who runs the charity. She was bored and talked Bill into putting his money to good use. Without her, his tax records would look like Job's (notwithstanding the extra zeros).
I read that years ago when Ted Turner became the first person to donate a billion dollars to charity it turned out eventually that after all the accounting was done, he turned a profit on the donation. I suspect the same thing motivates Gates and possibly Jobs. If you're rich you may make less money by not giving it away.
so neither is my hero. Bill gives a hell of a lot of money to charity so I regard him a bit better.
I don't know about Steve Jobs, but Bill Gates has, in fact, donated quite a substantial sum of money to charity. The problem I continue to have (and this isn't against Bill Gates per se), is that so many super-rich people make bold statements about how much money they have given. At the end of the day, however, they are still super-rich. Bill Gates for example has enough money to last him several lifetimes.
Why do they need so much money? I respect the fact they worked bloody hard to get it, but you reach a point where having $1 Billion vs having $10 Billion really doesn't make that much off a difference! Now, imagine what that $9 Billion could do for humanity.
Most donations I see from celebrities and other wealthy individuals represent less than 1% of their net worth. This makes me sick.
Gates takes from those with wealth, by hook or crook, and often times illegally( anti-competitive ) while Jobs, IMO, comes off as more of a guy making his money by building better products by competing.
So, the choice is between:
1) Gates, a crock if you will, who happens to donate some of his ill gotten wealth to schools, libraries, etc( almost always tied to Microsoft software which is well known for its high TCO and reliability isssues ) along with some health/medical gifts to the very very poor.
2) Jobs, a guy who's made his wealth the old fashion way, "he earned it" with an eye for what's easy to use, techically superior, and designed such that the products are desired by the market. And though he's made much less at what he's done, what he's done has actually helped make business and personal life easier.
Wow, tough choice.... My guess is that here in the US, where a TV character like "J.R. Ewing" is cheered on as a hero, Gates will get the nod over Jobs. The rest of the world knows Gates for putting out crappy software and charging bundles for it while forcing upgrades year after year, and will probably pick Jobs for providing the better products.
This question really shouldn't even be brought up IMO. There just is no similaries between the two. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Go to fucking hell!
Some may pin me as an Apple fan boy, but this question is ridiculous.
I'd have to put my money on either Buddha or Ghandi.
1) jesus is also a force for good. Very intangible quality, imo.
...)
Answer: A. He's dead. B. Most people using his name cause more harm than good. C. Those people who follow his actual teachings are not normally going to get rich in the first place. D. If you don't get A thru C then you don't know Jesus.
2) While helping out money-hungry industry like independent film and [shitty] actors like Adam Sandler may seem commendable, saving lives by researching/curing diseases is far more important.
Answer: Actually, Paul Allen does finance research on a number of diseases, he just doesn't do as many press releases about it. Now, if you want to argue that forcing sports stadii on taxpayers for his own personal gratification makes him more evil than Bill G, you might have a point there, but I'm trying to judge the man on a relative scale, not an absolute scale (which measures the quantity of money spent, not the proportion of money spent).
Saving life > entertainment or "intellectual" stimulation.
So, if I were to save Hitler or not save GWB's father, would that be good and bad in your scale? I'm not so sure. As to intellectual stimulation, who's to say which has more impact - providing the push that gets someone who's probably shy to do something might create more good than rewarding individuals who were already going to do things. I can't judge that - is a teacher worth more in your view than a CEO? I think the teacher is, and in general most CEOs are not on the side of good, but the media portrays more images of the CEO in a good light.
Which is right? Can't tell you.
So Gates > Paul > Jobs.
Nope. I still say Jobs > Allen > Gates. But if you add Bill Gates Sr (his dad), I'd rerank it as Jobs > Gates Sr > Allen > Gates Jr.
Your mileage may vary (especially if you're driving a hybrid truck that gets 9 mpg instead of 7 mpg, you wonderful person you
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Are TFAs saying that how you get the money is irrelevant, as long as you donate a chunk of it to charity? I'm sorry; I can't go along with that. Bill Gates is despicable because of how he acquired his billions, no matter how much of it he gives away.
His "Gospel of Wealth", published in 1889, said that "all personal wealth beyond that required to satisy the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community." Very similar to Buffett's stance, and Carnegie was the world's richest man saying it.
Basically the guy almost single handedly built the public library system in the United States, among many other charitable ventures. His money went into the still-active Carnegie Corporation to promote "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding." That "trust fund" for the public is still paying dividends.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Well, that was the point of the article. Comparing Gates' and Jobs' contributions to charity. Your comment appeared to take the attitude of, "poor people with malaria be damned, Jobs gets my vote because he makes me happy." In response to an article comparing charitable contributions that literally are the difference between life and death for poor sick people, your comment extolling Jobs over Gates because his gee-whiz products enhanced your creative pursuits comes across as narcissistic in the extreme. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but be aware of the context of this discussion.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I'd rank him right behind Saddam Hussein as a humanitarian. And hope he rots in hell. If MIT gets condemned for doing the same thing on a broader scale, Bill Gates should be condemned in the same side of the scale.
Have we sunk so low that to be a hero is equated with donating to charity? A person invents, creates or is instrumental in bringing technology to the market that makes life more enjoyable, easier, more fun, etc., and you would only respect and admire him or her because he or she gives money away or creates jobs for others?
The more I think about it... screw those guys. Evo Morales is my hero. I'd like to see some U.S. politicians cut their pay in half and use it to fund teacher salaries.
Given that pair to choose between, I'd have to choose Jobs, because he's done less harm.
I suppose that it's actually unfair to characterize Gate's money as stolen...but it's the next thing to it. As such, any good that he may do by giving away part of it doesn't counterbalance the evil that he did to acquire it. (I also have tremendous doubts about the non-commercialness of his "charity", and suspect that his "gifts" are tied with strings of steel to the MS monopoly position.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
NEITHER
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Try that again using "bill gates" and "steve jobs". Bill gets 49,200,000 Steve gets 23,200,200.
And even more important: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?
That's up to the rich billionaires now, isn't it?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
none of them.
I've heard that Jobs can be an extremely demanding boss (not unusual I'd guess for people in his position), but as far as ethics goes, the only story I ever hear is the one about "ripping off Woz" (obviously not very nice). Are there other examples of unethical acts that set a pattern? Just curious.
THANK YOU!!!
I was just looking for a great place to post that exact quote, and, I'll admit, karma whore a little bit. It exactly sums up my feelings about every megabuck charity press conference: "thank you for waving it in our face, and I hope your arm doesn't get too sore from patting yourself on the back."
Charities and funds named for the living do a lot of good, I am sure, but the motives are less than commendable.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
This is not meant to be a flamebait, but if this article had not been posted to the Apple section, would as many people be putting down Bill Gates for his previous "indescretions"?
One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
I really don't know the answer to this question, but how much of Jobs' wealth is stock/stock options, and how much of it is liquid?
Either way, he's an order of magnitude poorer than Gates.
(Which is not to cast aspersions at Gates' charitable giving, I'm glad for it, just that he has more and has had it for longer, so it's easier to give)
Andy Hertzfeld and his merry comrades did more to invent the current gui standards than Gates or Jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld
http://www.folklore.org/index.py
gotta love mel brooks
Sorry, I really just should have put those two words out there from the beginning and not fallen into the Steve vs Bill slugfest. The author of TFA set up a nasty false dichotomy that (I think) is some sort of reaction against the recent press Jobs is getting via the iPod and Disney / Pixar.
It is never style over charity ... or some sort of strange either / or situation.
Ah, and I think Michael Dell has more to do with the commodification of the Windows PC than Gates. I might want to thank Dell for the success of Intel's processor and rock-bottom prices. Really though, I have the market to thank for low prices - certainly NOT Bill Gates. Or Steve Jobs for that matter!
My hero would be somebody like Donald Knuth. He is a true computer scientist and wrote TAOCP and TeX singlehandedly, amongst many other accomplishments.
As a future computer scientist, I would rather be in Knuth's shoes than in Gates's shoes or Jobs's shoes (even though I like Jobs a lot).
No charity will ever equal what good old productivity can produce. It funds more schools, feeds more families, and shelters more people than all the charities in the world could *ever* hope to do. This is why humanitarian charities are facing pressure to establish economic self-reliance in their clients as much as possible.
That's not to say that charity is wrong or wasteful. Just the opposite, wise and circumspect charity can open huge doors to productivity. See microcredit as a great example. (Of course microcredit has its problems as well, but it is a strong move in the right direction.)
People who work hard, and give what they can, are easily as noble as Bill Gates or Bono. I think there are millions of people who, given the same opportunities and resources, would be doing the same things.
Boom Shanka
A few years back I saw Bill talk about his philanthropy. Say what you want about the guy's business practices and whatnot, but he had an amazing depth of understanding of the problems the foundation was working on. If he's faking this whole giving thing to improve how people see him, he's spent so much time working on the problem as to be indistinguishable from someone who truely wants to make the world a better place.
As a company, I prefer Apple over Microsoft. As a person, I prefer Gates over Jobs. Jobs is an evil nazi who inspires fear to all who meet him. A friend and ex-Apple programmer describes his experience of being in close proximity to Jobs by saying "It was like being in the same room as Hitler". Gates is a nice guy, he's given billions of dollars away to charity. He also generally has better PR.
I kill harmless processes for sport
or maybe Paul Graham or Joel Splosky..
Because cancer is SO underpublicized and underfunded.
Gates was interviewed for a Newsweek feature over ten years ago (Dec 96?) in which he had already planned out that:
1) He would step out of the CEO role
2) He would step out of the Chairman role
3) That he would spend the rest of his life giving his money away
He has done 1 & 2 and well into 3. He was certainly wealthy back then, but has even more to give away now. Gates is a smart, determined man and it would be out of character for him to execute #3 without a lot of forethought into how best to achieve the desried results. The world is better off with his well planned and reasoned approach to philanthropic giving than the hap-hazzard and self-serving approaches of the Jobs and Ellison varieties.
By the charitable activities Gates is following in the footsteps of many other successful individuals who built their fortunes with hardball tactics... the Rockefeller fortune, Andrew Carnegie, etc. None of these guys were saints... they used monopoly power to drive competitors out of business, lock customers in etc... all the things that Microsoft has become known for for with Bill Gates as the poster child.
That is not to say that Microsoft are the only ones... there are others... maybe Jobs is not as egregious about it. Quark and Adobe exploit market share and practice forms of customer lock-in wherever they can. We don't hear much about any charitable give-back from them and maybe that is as it should be.
In this business it seems society, government, the legal system etc. forgot everything previously learned about how power behaves and how that turns out. It is very hard to start "regulating"... I should say reintroducing equality into the transaction...once it has gotten out of hand. Money is a drug, the junkie is an 800 lb. gorilla and you're trying to take away the needle.
Now Gates wisely is doing as Carnegie and Rockefeller did in giving some money back. In my opinion it would be better to do your good works anonymously. From what I have heard, Jobs and Ballmer should trade tips on anger management. Maybe go drive some nails building houses for a charity.
Technical preferences aside, where this much money has been made and the ethics are so ambiguous, it takes a lot of charity and personal transformation in these power players before you can really say if any are "good."
showoffs, think of all the poor billionaires!
- Universities that already have large endowments;
- Medical research that already has lots of money thrown at it (i.e., cancer).
It'll be interesting to see down the road what he does eventually decide upon.1) pls. define "force of good" then. Obviously I must be misinterpreting. Jobs is good at convincing people that turtlenecks are fashionable. That man has charisma which could be put to better use.
.001% of his wealth ($10mil) and Allen donates .05% of his wealth ($500,000) [numbers completely arbitrary, only assuming Gates is richer than Allen]. To me $10mil > $500,000....no matter how you look at it. *I* will benefit more from $10 mil than $500,000. Now replace *I* with NGO or charities, etc. When you pit Allen v. Bill on how much they donated percentage-wise, obviously Allen had to make a relatively greater sacrifice. But the question is: who is making the greater difference on the regular people? For an average-sized organization? Medical lab? To the receiving end, $10mil will be greater than $500,000.
;). As for films/ intellectual stimulation...maybe I live in a hole but when was the last time [independent] films changed public perception of things or start a movement towards a common cause? I wish it could but the majority of people dismiss it as niche novelty entertainment.
2) If Paul Allen's charitable contributions to medical research is of effect, greater significance, then I'd assume *you* would've stated them instead of his sports and film contributions (which imo, has far less significance) in the parent post. So it seemed to me that *you value* Allen's contribution to film and sports to be greater than Gate's monetary contribution to medical research.
And let's judge on a relative scale....on the receiving end's point of view. Let's assume I make $10,000 a year salary in the US. Gates donates
It is unfortunate and sad that at the end of the day we measure a man's worth by his wealth, but that is the sad pragmatic reality. I still think Andrew Carnegie is a big ass, but look at CMU - that university is making great contributions to the academic world in the long run.
Gates > Allen > Jobs.
And Hitler? C'mon, you know better than invoke Hitler in online arguments
The original argument is about Jobs v. Gates. I don't even know why Allen is pulled out, much less trying to involve Gates Sr. There are tons of ppl who are far better candidates for the title of "hero." Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. comes to mind.
After all, he already declared his undying love to us developers, developers, developers!
That is all.
Shigeru Miyamoto kicks both their asses.
;)
You don't see Gates or Jobs on a tshirt, now do you?
btw, it's my bday (25 years of gaming, baby!) incase anyone wants to do some well-wishing.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
bill gates is already the world's biggest philanthropist, and his work to try and blunt murderous disease that mutates and becomes epidemic where we don't look every day overseas is perhaps the greatest humanitarian act of this age. his tutelage under warren buffett should also get buffett into the book of saints, even if his straightforward and objective investments don't make a word of print.
steve jobs continues to wear the mantle of humanizing technology and making the power availiable in easy to use form.
I should think neither is much fun to be around for the average joe. both are driven people who feel the weight of limited time on them. but from a distance, they both outclass scott mcnelly of sun, captain pissy of oracle, and the rest of the industry icons.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Ok, then can I choose Al Gore?
He invented the Internet, you know.
"not for their business/technological achievements but for their humanitarian involvement"
They can start by making me a cup of tea.
Let's see...where else to take this topic...
Okay, there was the Old Testament. This was the Law. No man (but Christ) can come to God under the Law. We are too sinful to maintain it. Certainly, there is much to be learned from studying the Old Testament, atrocities and all.
Then came Jesus, given to the world to bear the cost of our sins so that we may inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus alone was the only human who could meet the requirements of the Law and come into Heaven thusly. He alone was perfect and without sin. His New Testament is that nobody comes to God but through Him. He alone bore the burden of our sins.
I am frustrated by people spouting all the "look at all the bad things that happened in the Old Testament" nonsense. Yes, look at it. There were a lot of atrocities. What's the point of the Old Testament even existing? To show what happens when we try to live according to the Law, our sinfulness, our disconnect from God. The New Testament is what Christians follow and must believe if they are in fact Christians. If one believes the Old Testament, devoid of the New Testament, I would posit that one is roughly following Judaism, not Christianity. Christ's teachings are that the Law is important, but it was the Old way...but the way we cannot follow. He brings the New way to God. He says, "follow me" and His teachings are peace, love, forgiveness, helping those less fortunate than ourselves, etc. Jesus did not spend much time among the religious leaders of His time...He spent it with the poor, the sick, the needy, the weak. His message is most definitely one of tolerance, peace, and forgiveness. And the message of the New Testament is *very much* tied up in showing the fulfillment of prophecy in the Old Testament while rendering the Law moot. Major churches teach Christianity this way...but sinful people (Christians and all) have been getting it wrong since the beginning (which is why things like the Reformation, etc. happened. Martin Luther in his day was called a heretic by the Catholic church...but he was a driving force behind early Protestantism.
Now, does that mean my interpretation or anyone else's is proven any more valid? Of course not. I believe my way, others believe differently. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is the lead up to the story of the Good Samaritan. The key bit that I think many people overlook is when Christ answers the question "What must one do to inherit eternal life?" with "What is written in the Law? How readest thou?" (KJV)
There is a great deal of interpretation involved in the Bible, for certain. But the *majority* of Christians I know understand it the way I've laid it out here. I don't think they're very "progressive" personally. I just think they're too busy trying to be good Christians themselves to go around hating fags, etc.
No doubt, Pat Robertson would call me a heathen and say we are not very Christian. I humbly disagree.
Actually, yes. Bill worked on vast amounts of software himself as a developer for the first decade of Microsoft and as a individual starting with Altair Basic (he wrote almost all of it) and ending with the OS for the Radio Shack Model 100 (the first popular laptop in history and still spoken of with awe by reporters) which he wrote himself. Microsoft develops vastly more software than it buys. Oh, and the rest of your post was just as clueless and was nothing more than presenting the world the way you wish it were rather than caring about any actual demonstrable facts.
Bill Gates' father lead a big push in Washington (DC and State) to try to stop the republicans from lowering the inheritance tax for wealthy people. Bill senior's point - which I'm sure is shared by Bill Jr. - is that it is wrong for the super wealthy to hand such a large portion of their wealth down to their families. The republicans - who like to refer to the inheritance tax as the "death tax" argue that the tax hurts small business owners, forcing them to sell the business b/c of taxes. This is a canard. The laws can be written to protect against those scenarios. For the super wealthy like Gates and Jobs, there's certainly no issue of their families going broke b/c of taxes.
BTW, this has probably been posted elsewhere but Bill junior in on the record as saying that he plans to give away almost all of his wealth rather than hand it down to his kids. That way the money gets to be wisely spent by their foundation rather than by the US Govt.
If you earn $1Billion in a given year, and decide to give away $500 million of it, the $500 million is subtracted from your taxable income. That means you are taxed only on the money you kept. A simplified example:
Donating the money
($1B [gross] - $500M [donation]) - 40% [taxes] = $300M [net]
Keeping the money
$1B[gross] - 40% [taxes] = $600M [net]
If you want to donate more than that, you can't have have the income be exempt from taxes. The IRS won't allow charitable deductions above 50% of a given year's income (See b1A). You have to carry that over to a future year.
There is simply no scenario in which donating money helps you avoid more than the equivalent amount in taxes. So, not they are not dodging taxes in the sense that they are trying to "turn a profit". Doing so with charitable contributions is a myth.
Boom Shanka
I believe a large part of Gates' public face on his charitable
giving is to offset the negative view of him by so many.
Outside of the technology world, I know not one single person who hates Bill Gates. Honestly, I think most people know him as "that obscenely wealthy guy" or as "that guy who bought our school all those computers" or as "that guy who's giving billions of dollars away" and NOT as "the convicted monopolist."
His public - and by public, I mean the 99% of the world that isn't aware of MS's machinations on any real level and wouldn't give a shit even if they were - image is hardly tarnished.
I think he gives all this money away because he just doesn't need it, would have a near impossible time spending it, and because there's a chance to do some good with it. I have a hard time imagining him being kept awake at night having bad dreams about people burning him in effigy at a LUG somewhere.
Anyway - yes, his business ethics are for shit, and yes, technologists the world over find him to be the anti-christ or close enough to it (though Darl might give him a run for his money these days), but honestly, we'd be deluding ourselves if we imagined we were anything even close to being relevant in swaying public opinion. Want proof? Look at MSFT's profits. If people actually thought as many of us do, you'd think there'd be at least *some* kind of impact, right?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Oh, and just to point out the level of cluelessness, the Apple ][ you cite as your example used a 6502 not a 6802. The 6502 was a totally different chip than the 68xx family from a different vendor with a different architecture. You'd think you'd know at least that.
is my hero. Oh and Lenin.
Samy, of course!
I think you need to reference dictionary.com and look at the definition of the word "hero" as neither one of these two guys even comes close.
Heros are like Audi Murphy or Frodo Baggins. Perhaps you should apply the phrase "self-serving business men" instead.
I pity the fool who selects heros such as these (with thanks to Mr. T, who is something of a hero in his own right, see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001558/bio )
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Because $640K should be enough for everyone.
My other first post is car post.
Both of them are heavyweight code hoarders..
Now Stallman, on the other hand, there's an IT guy who's been doing it for the common good since he started..
None of them. They are businessmen/engineers that got lucky and never did any research that drove the fields forward.
Don Knuth is a real hero. As is Dijkstrah
Easy come, easy go. Torvalds has the skills, and he hasn't asked for shit.
Its your respect, you decide who gets it.
When you've acquired your wealth through unscrupulous means and questionable ethical practices, the guiltier your conscious, the more of a humanitarian you become. I've always said, the more evil = the greater humanitarian. Just look at Andrew Carnegie.
To make people think about things right along the lines of this article/thread...?
Really, I think people here are too black and white though. Yes, if Bill G makes a large/fast move I'd watch for waves... however I must also agree that sometimes a spade is just a spade and I doubt that Bill lives and breathes Microsoft 100% of his life.
Unless you are extremely lucky, you won't end up being rich by being a saint. However, there's no rules that means once you are rich that you can't be magnimonious with what you've earned. Just as I'm sure Bill G does many nice things for himself with his money, unlike many he also donates an extraordinary amount to generous causes. This has been happening for some time, and personally it's results that matter... and in this case the result is good for the overall population.
Personally I think comparing one person to another is just stupid. Dislike Bill for some the evil things he or his influence at MS has caused, like him for the good things he does. He's not applying to become a saint but neither should you make a devil out of him.
just sayin'...
Basically, the one that I admire is not jobs (a showman), or gates (doing this to turn his reputation), but Paul Allen. Paul is investing in risky start-ups. Some make it big, others do not. He was the largest investor into internet over cable in 1994. He basically, created that market and all the jobs associated with it. Now he is investing into space. His invstment won the X-prize and I am guessing that he will make several other key investments that will create far more jobs and do more good than simply throwing a few dollars would ever do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But you can also use that money to create a positive influence now that will grow over time. It's one thing to drop $40billion in a few decades, but how about if I dropped $1billion into the research for AIDS, cancer, etc that one day lead to a cure? Maybe by the team you've passed away the cute has been found... after all there are many things that depend as much on time as money, but at a given moment money might be what starts the ball rolling.
Both are good ideas, and truely with that much money there's no reason you couldn't do some of both...
Mr. Torvalds, (and of course, by extension, other FLOSS authors, programmers, etc.), contributions far outway anything Gates or Jobs has done.
Now that is a funny statement. You mean two of the most influental figures in allowing the pc to get to where it is today is outwayed by the guys maintaining ogg vorbis? Puleeze. Talk about not even coming close to "getting" it. As much as you may hate windoze, it helped drive the pc into the mainstream. Jobs/Apple helped push gui's into the mainstream (ok, kinda against his will at first, but it was still his company and he still eventually had to give the green light). Linus simply "cloned" (I know, not technically) an existing interface standard. He owes everything to the Unix pioneers before him. How about the BSD guys that allowed much of their kernel to be truely Free (since everyone knows that GPL'ed software isn't truely free right?).
Plus, what's even more disturbing is that you know almost nothing about Linus the man himself. He may torture kittens in his spare time. Of course that'd be ok because he gave us the Linux kernel, right? Nice of you to pick a single attribute and simply use that to identify people as "deserving of praise".
The amount that Bill and Melinda Gates have donated way outweigh the maximum tax break he can get. He could donate quite a bit less during the year and get the same tax break.
We're just talking about two evil guys with huge egos, tons of power, lots of minions, trying to rule the planet. Gates vs. Jobs? Yeah, same thing.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
...is still a robber barron if he gives away 10% of the booty to the poor.
I choose Woz.
Naturally, I'm also a sucker for shallow, extroverted female celebrities who are very sexy and are willing to show off their physical assets.
My heroes are Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. However, Apple *does* have some extremely nice hardware IMHO.
I can easily get into doing GNU/Linux on the latest and hottest that Apple has to offer. This leaves Gates/MS as a poor fourth choice, to be used when there is no other choice.
C|N>K
Let's compare the REAL brains of the outfits, OK?
Neither! Ferris Bueler is my hero! SAVE FERRIS!
To have a fair comparison, you would need to ask Torvalds what he would do with all the money if he had $XX Billion dollars.
A lot of good, intelligent things have been said already, so I'll just add a sentiment.
I once heard Bill Gates interviewed (this was years ago, when he'd just started giving money) and the interviewer asked him why he'd given the money -- what benefit did the gift have for Microsoft? Bill Gates told him. Bill wasn't surprised or insulted by the question, and had already talked about how he gave money and machines and software only to benefit Microsoft.
I know that now he's giving real money to real causes and aims to give lots away, and the effect is commendable. But he's doing it because he smells brimstone. Whether that brimstone is connected to his place in history, or from the DOJ, or due to some religious tickle, I don't know, but it's way too late to keep him from being a bastard.
If there were indulgences on sale, he'd be buying them buy the bushel.
You are assuming a single donation, an individual donor, and no change in the value of the donated assets over time. Turner's was donted corporately over time, so it is possible that he was able to shield some money from taxes which then appreciated. There are a lot of convoluted ways to donate money.
In the context of this discussion, signing a check and having someone else deal with it (even if it's your wife), is mostly just talking. Signing the check took a few seconds. Plus a few speaking engagements each year.
The domain of Apple and Microsoft is in computing, and I judge them by what they do most of the time, rather than by an occasonal publicity stunt. The discussion so far is underrating the importance of computing in our lives. It's really important stuff. Not quite moral on the level of curing diseases, but it really affects the lives of *everyone*, and quite a lot.
And unfortunately Microsoft has a poor history here, established over several decades. Any good idea, whether itunes, google search, java, portable computing, the internet, whatever - comes from elsewhere, and Microsoft has one of two responses:
Note that we do not ever see the more honorable response of
The pen-based GO operating system in the mid 90s is an example of the second point. It's covered in the book Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside (Paperback) by Jennifer Edstrom, Marlin Eller
From an earlier slashdot posting,
"I was there, I was a witness to what happened back in the 90s when this all happened, and Microsoft really did to Go what Kaplan says they did. I worked for Slate, a pen-based apps startup in the same building in Foster City that Go was in. I used the Go OS, which was powerful, well-designed, feature-rich and ran acceptably on a 386-based touchscreen tablet - a real advance at that time. Microsoft's Pen Windows, which I also used on a personal machine, was inferior in comparison. Go was way ahead technologically. Microsoft suckered Go into telling secrets under NDA, and once they had the details, MS's marketing guys played the vaporware game on Go in the public arena. A key clue was that after Go fell, MS pen computing vanished for almost a decade."
It's as if Microsoft's real mission is to take revenge on anyone who is creative. They just can't stand it when someone else innovates, but they never seem to do it themselves.
I imagine Microsoft must have a lot of creative people among its employees. It must be horrible to be a creative person working a company like that.
...Woz. Or possibly John Gilmore.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Gee. There's a box that's really hard to think outside of. In this category, my software hero would have to be DVDJon.
Not a hero, but a philosopher and true to his principles. I can admire that, even when I strongly disagree with some of his views, especially concerning boycotting and warfare, his ideas of "good" and "right" overlap with mine way more often than those of any other "tech"-celebrity.
I take this as an insult to mr gates. I give you no right to sell your product how you see fit and for what price you see fit! you must be american! Now don't everyone flame me for that cause i am an american. I live here was born here and think we have all become greedy! We go an look at a dvd player if it isn't cheap enough we go somewhere else that is cheaper. So you complain that bill gates has money which he earned through presenting his product the best(which i don't see i hate blue screens of death). I think we all need to sit back and let the man be. Okay he may have used microsoft to put companies with competing products out of business. I don't see you ripping on lets say home depot for putting small little hardware stores out of business or walmart for opening super walmarts and putting ma and pa grocery stores out of business. I think you are only happy with something when it suits you! "Stop worrying about Microsoft and Bill Gates and worry about yourself!" - Myfantasyromanc Jan -06
I am giving away 2000 premium accounts on my new dating website myfantasyromance.com check it out!
I don't know how it works in the USA, but in Canada, giving money to Charity results in tax credit. Could a motive for Gates be to pay less taxes?
My hero is CowboyNeal.
While it is true that a donation of appreciated property allows you to pass built-in gains to someone else, you no longer have any control over the income from selling the appreciated property. If I donate $10,000 in stock, that I bought for $1,000, to a nonprofit, I get a $10,000 deduction and the $9,000 of built-in gain is not taxable to the charity if it sells the stock. However, I lose $10,000 of value. The most I can hope to save in taxes is $4,000 offset income tax + $1,350 in avoided capital gains tax. You'll notice that it still doesn't offset the $10,000 of value I gave up.
This IRS publication gives a decent example of how contributions of appreciated property work.
Again, using charitable donations to reduce your taxes will *not* give you a higher net income, because you will never get a tax benefit greater than the market value of the donation. BUT, if you are a giving person, it's really nice not to have to pay taxes on the money you give away.
Boom Shanka
From the Forbes 2005 net worth list:
$3 billion dollars net worth
$46.5 billion dollars net worth
There is no denying that Bill Gates has donated alot of money. But that isn't too surprising considering he makes a ridiculous amount of money. His money makes ridiculous amounts of money just sitting around. Bill Gates is also seeking good will from the public because his image needs the good will.
While his donations DO help people, it is doubtful that the intentions originated from charitable origins.
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, has a fairly good public image. His goodwill currency is good and he has no need to be charitable. In fact, it could very well be that he donates anonymously so that there isn't publicity drawn to him.
Articles like the one Wired and ArsTechnica leads one to believe that those who donate more are better people. The natural conclusion from such an observation is that richer people are better people because they can donate more. History has shown this to not be the case.
There are quite a few stories, sayings, and proverbs which illustrates the the above. My favorite is one involving donations at a temple during the New Years. Many people are donating money at the local temple. Whenever someone makes a particularly generous donation, there is a gong sounded. A fairly wealthy man comes in and donates chest after chest of gold. He is thanked, but there is no gong sounded. Shortly after, as he is leaving, a poor begger woman approaches and tries to donate a handful of copper coins. When she drops her few coins into the charity box, a monk sounds a gong, signifying a great contribution.
The wealthy man notices this and angrily questions why his many chests of gold did not sound the gong but her's did?
The monk answered that she had very little and yet gave as much as she could. While her few copper coins were not worth much to wealthier people, it was a great sum of money for her. Whereas the amount given by the wealthy man represented a much lesser sum. It was money the man can easily afford to part with whereas the coppers were not for the begger woman.
I do not deny the good the money will do. But I have to say that to judge someone by how much they donate is a poor means of judging.
The wealthy tend to donate because it is something which gives them the attention of others or because the charitable donation garners them profitable returns elsewhere.
Charity really should be for the benefit of those receiving the charity, not for the adulation of the giver. To know that you have done good for an organization, a group, or a cause should be enough. For someone like Bill Gates, such charitable givings are like bandages to his and his company's public image.
In stark contrast, Steve Jobs is a fairly private man. Mainly keeps to himself and doesn't make a scene unless it's at one of his company's presentations or unveilings. He's either at work or he's not. If he donates to charity, he certainly isn't making any noise about having done so.
Given the chance, I'm sure Steve Jobs' company would behave much like a Microsoft Monopoly. But it isn't. And neither is Steve's worth.
Given the choice, I would choose neither Bill nor Steve as my hero. They are both geniuses and visionaries in their own way. But they are not heroes.
You want to pick a hero? Pick Steve Wozniak. Now there is a hero. Pick the local volunteer at the homeless shelter. There's a hero. Pick the dutiful daughter or son who attends to their elderly parents and/or grandparents. Now there's a hero.
There are everyday hero's all around us. But most of us ignore them like we do the beggar woman who gives, because we are so distracted by the chests of gold. I wouldn't choose Bill or Steve.
Winged Power Photography
That the money will be of no use to him any more when he's dead...
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
I vote for Steve ... Appleton, that is!
But if to admire, then Stallman and Torvalds.
1) pls. define "force of good" then. Obviously I must be misinterpreting. Jobs is good at convincing people that turtlenecks are fashionable. That man has charisma which could be put to better use.
... oh, wait, Bush ... never mind.
;). As for films/ intellectual stimulation...maybe I live in a hole but when was the last time [independent] films changed public perception of things or start a movement towards a common cause? I wish it could but the majority of people dismiss it as niche novelty entertainment.
Well, as I was saying, having met all three, complaining about Jobs lack of charisma usage is particularly ironic, considering both Allen and Gates aren't exactly champions at that either.
2) If Paul Allen's charitable contributions to medical research is of effect, greater significance, then I'd assume *you* would've stated them instead of his sports and film contributions (which imo, has far less significance) in the parent post. So it seemed to me that *you value* Allen's contribution to film and sports to be greater than Gate's monetary contribution to medical research.
I said relative level to their wealth. And on a personal (not societal) level, I think Gates would win in where he's focussed his wealth - but again, all the other taxpayers in America get to pay for the fact his charitable donation to his foundation exempted it from being taxed - if that money had been collected as taxes, maybe we would have used it for good and fully funded those areas
It is unfortunate and sad that at the end of the day we measure a man's worth by his wealth, but that is the sad pragmatic reality. I still think Andrew Carnegie is a big ass, but look at CMU - that university is making great contributions to the academic world in the long run.
You may choose to do so. Since I posted it, I choose not to. I've known a number of millionaires and billionaires in my time, and most of them are fairly messed up as people. If you want to say popular choice rules - fine, but we were talking moral absolutes of goodness, so that means you've already conceded defeat on this issue.
And Hitler? C'mon, you know better than invoke Hitler in online arguments
Oh, I don't know. Let's see: The Corporation, March of the Penguins (suddenly global warming was meaningful), The Matrix (globalist control by faceless greed that masks evil), the list goes on, especially in the last two years. And there's always 9-11.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
With regard to Bill Gates: it's easy to be a great humanitarian when you are doing it with other people's money. I'd like to see what kind of humanitarian he is when he starts charging what his software is really worth.
With regard to Steve Jobs: I'd have more respect for him if he was still friends with Steve Wozniak.
And possibly Peter Parker too.
Quick! Get me the jug of moonshine. Hurry! The stench of this bold statement makes the odor of human waste seem like a breath mint. What's next? Ellison is a humanitarian as well?
Humanitarians take their money, absorb the taxes on it and don't write it off. They don't run Public Relations campaigns to get on Time Magazine and they actually just do it. They don't rape the industry of countless advancements, because they can legally get away without until told otherwise, and think your Karma (Law of Cause & Effect) will be purged by working with your "wife" who directs you into spreading "good will" to the Third World. The man lies, cheats and rapes the public over and over, then whines he's being stolen from without cause most certainly has earned the title of crusader in its most unsavory sense.
Obviously, my bias for Steve is clear. Having worked in two of his companies I can tell you for sure that Steve ruined my perception of the entire IT Industry--his companies gave a false sense of confidence that they were indicative of the IT Industry, in general. In fact, they were the exception to the rule. Once one gets passed that headache then life is its usual peaks and valleys.
Steve Jobs I admire for not taking second best, he may be a tyrant to get things done but he knows (or at least knew, I'm not too fond of OSX's shortcommings either) how to get his crew to code the extra hour and make something absoutely great into insanely great (at least he did).
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
... unless the world ends before he dies ...
[duck]
-- All your bass are below two Hz
Please note that Bill and his wife are noted philatropists. I have seen a similar effect on a smaller scale before, when an individual has been persuaded { not coerced nor scammed, etc } into actively supporting good works through the dedicated interests and actions of their partner.
I'm not making a judgement against Bill or in his wife's favor, but the circumstances do seem to point towards her having a signifigant impact on their well noted philantropy.
"What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
Perceptions can be wrong. And the media can supply plenty of incorrect perceptions.
I thank both men for giving us the computers we all have become so use to. And both men have had a huge influence on the computer market too, imho.
But to answer the question; Gates is a very shrewd business man who is known for creating a market for himself. My experience is these types of people generally are not of the humanitarian type until they are forced to be.(nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with Gates having a good PR team and wife to making him look humanitarian). Jobs OTOH is a people driven person, even though he may drive them too hard. Because he understands the value of streaching folks to get their best. So he is more likely to be a real humanitarian under non-work conditions.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
Angelina Jolie does a pretty good job with charity stuff too, huh ?
.. what a hero !! Didnt even get her name, sorry.
My hero though - that would have to be the chick I met last night, my god, I cant believe she did THAT
Gates' foundation was created right after he made an ass of himself in the court room while Micro$oft was being tried for unfair business practices.
It doesn't take a Harvard drop-out to figure out it was damage control for his and Micro$oft's image.
I mean, how easy was that?
I'm a die-hard PC man myself, but one of my best friends is completely sold out on Apple. We do agree on one thing though... neither of us like microsoft... I've taken to saying, "Bill Gates will steal your soul, but Steve Jobs will eat it." as my defence for sticking with windows.
just saying....
have you no shame?
bad business practices do not belong in the same category as endemic poverty and diesese.
The rest are just making money - not great super heros.
As usual most /.ers can't get over whatever hate they have for Gates to talk about the article.
It raises a good point, why is it Jobs gets this heavenly halo while we have no evidence that he gives two flips about anything else but money. And of course Dr. Evil on the other hand is giving away LOTS AND LOTS of money but he's Dr. Evil so either a)it's for no good b)he's up to no good.
"Freedom and Justice for All" is a registered trademark of The United States Govt Inc. Not available in all areas.
WOZ
Check this out sinec you guys are so angry it seems - Check this out
Slashdot reaction: "God bless Bill Gates! He is truly a philanthropist for our time!"
Microsoft donates eight computers to Botswana
Slashdot reaction: "I'm going to petition the Pope to canonize Bill Gates as a Saint!!"
Microsoft donates ten computers to citizens of Philadelphia
Slashdot reaction: "I take it back! He's not just a Saint, he's an ANGEL SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN!!! All I want to know is where's the line so I can get in it to kneal and KISS BILLY'S HOLY ASS!!!!!"
MIT undertakes to put a Linux computer in the hands of every disadvantaged child in the entire world.
Slashdot reaction: "WHA-A-AT!!! THAT'S AN OUTRAGE! THAT'S AN ABOMINATION! HOW DARE THEY! flameflameflameflame....."
Jobs was and is a dick. It was Wozniak who had the brains.
Bill is a programmer (I own Visicalc and Multiplan for the 80 col Apple ][ e ), and even though he too has me riled most of the time, I have some modicum of respect.
As far as their humanitarian work, I think Bill wins easily for the simple reason is that he has and donates more money.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Wow...I now have the boldest dream. I can drop out of college now and become the richest man in the world. Inspiration at it's best....
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
Dictionary.com lists the definition of humanitarian as "One who is devoted to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms; a philanthropist."
Bill Gates, a man who has built a monoploy through intimidation and raketerring, can hardly be called a humanitarian. So what if he gives 0.1% of it back to charity? A "humanitarian" would not resort to these tactics in order to build their business.
Lest you think I have a bias for Steve Jobs, think again. Steven Jobs is well known for terrorizing his employees, his arrogance (although not entirely unfounded), as well as some other undesirable personality traits.
My personal feeling is that neither of them deserve to be mentioned with the word "humantiarian" in the same sentence. To the two of you, your big fat bank accounts cannot purchase your redemption. Salvation is not for sale. Deep down both of you know this to be true. Learn to be better people - that will truly earn you the description you seem to seek.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtm l
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/no_mention.html
http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
http://www.endgame.org/microsoft.html
I spent 9 months on Isoniazid (IZT) for having a positive reaction to a Tuberculine test. A miserable experience and requires a very healthy diet to overcome the effects on the liver of the drug. Tuberculosis is on the rise in southeast asian nations and many of those people are coming into the US and other western nations and bringing it with them, using forged or outright wrong health certificates.
You can't just develop new drugs to fight some of these diseases, you have to clean up where these people live and get those infected quarrantined until they are safe to move among other people. A cough in the air you breath on a crowded bus or jet is all it takes to spread.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I would have to say neither. My selections would be:
Ada Byron and Grace Hopper
This space unintentionally left blank.
Want to talk about someone changing the world? How about Tim Berners-Lee?
Proverbs 21:19
If Bill Gates really wanted to help AIDS victims in poor countries, he could save his billions of dollars and instead encourage the relaxation of so-called "intellectual property" laws and allow these countries to create generic versions of the drugs. But he and his company (along with all the other Corporate Capitalist fundamentalists and led by the U.S. government) fight tooth and nail to stop that from happening. God forbid IP monopolies should be undermined. Better people should die.
Bill Gates is not just a greedy monopilist - he uses his power in ways that cause untold numbers of deaths and suffering. Throwing his stolen billions at the problem is not compensation for his evil practices. Disliking Bill Gates has nothing to do with disliking Microsoft software. It has everything to do with an immoral man trying to buy good publicity to cover up for his sins.
1. If Microsoft announced cancellation of all its products in three years, recommended all Windows-bound developers to migrate their products to any established open source OS, and assisted with such migration, it would be a decent thing, that would minimize the damage caused by Microsoft.
2. Failing that, Gates can kill Ballmer, then himself. Then Microsoft wouldn't have psychotic assholes leading it, and will become a "dead" company (like AT&T or IBM -- a lot of money, no ideology or desire to crush industries) within 2-3 years.
Anything other than that would be like pissing into the ocean of evil.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
i think its important for the public to see the benefits of being wealthy - the ability to help others and the fact that someone is out there doing it.
I personally think Bill Gates is your like your Dad, while Steve Jobs is your Stoner Uncle!
Jobs made his money on the American Dream: Creativity, risk, and ba11s. Gates made his money from being at the right place (w/IBM) at the right time.
Looks like the latter makes more cash, the former, more fame, maybe more well-being.
To an individual, both are good things. To the general population, that's TBD--the history books will decide.
I've yet to see a creative, gusty person that takes high risks and be at the right place, right time.
When someone says they are proud to drve an SUV I imagine them in a klein bottle shaped SUV driving it up their own ass. YMMV but if your are driving an SUV it will be low.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Come on, lets have more options in this poll!
Meh
Neither is my hero, and neither deserves to be. RMS for what he has done for the Free Software movement. Furtheremore, RMS is a real human, with feelings and consideration for other humans - his achievements have been for the betterment of his fellow man. I can't say the same for either Jobs or Gates - both of which, are highly overrated individuals imho.
Dave
Slashdot can go and get fucked.
Not really sure. Does it make Al Capone a better man if he had given to charity (he didn't for all I know)? Does it make the Hamas better that they give to schools, nurseries and other infrastructure (they do)? Does it make Osama Bin Laden a good guy that he gives to charity (he does)?
So does it make Bill Gates a good man that he gives to charity even though his company is a convicted criminal?
I don't think it does. Not for Osama and not for Bill. You can't "clean" money you've stolen by giving a part to charity.
Jobs, well whatever you think of him, but at least he doesn't rightfully belong in prison. Let's be honest here, the only reason Gates himself isn't a convict is because of the corporate shield.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In a business relationship, Bill gates would be the first i would crucify. In personal relationship, i would warm up to bill gates and even congratulate him for what he's trying to do. As a businessman, bill gates IS Atilla The Hun.
Similarly, in a business relationship, i would sit and do business with Steve Jobs ANY day. On a personal note, i would throw him out of my party ANY day 'cause he's such a scrooge.
The point is: does it matter? Does it matter that our hate and love should be defined by a few personal incidents and anectodes or the way Ashton Tate and Sybase were screwed?
Can anyone answer that?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
while Jobs was better in the beginning, hes no less evil then Gates at this point.
Throwing around some extra cash ( mainly for tax purposes anyway ) doesnt not erase any evil.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Some people are criticising Jobs for not doing as much charity work as Gates, ok fair cop. Let's look at how they made their fortune ;-
Jobs - by hiring the most talent people to produce very good innovative hardware and software (at both Apple and NeXT [and also animation at pixar]), he has been rewarded with stock and good wages from both current jobs.
Gates - started by developing for the Altair - poor choice - managed to get Apple to license basic from them - tried to buy a version of DOS, failed so built a crappy bug-ridden alternative, and repeated this process with any number of products - built on the shoddy core of DOS. Not worried about the product just box shifting.
You may think of this as Apple Centric, but I think Gates is just trying to even his Karma out.
"Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?" Should we not first ask the same question concerning the donations from poor billionaires ?
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Stallman.
Bill Gates is doing more harm than good by doing charity work for these 3rd world nations. Let me explain why. The countries he donates to are countries that are poor and rely on handouts from the west These countries are already drastically overpopulated and are destroying the environment in which they live. They irresponsibly have children that they cannot afford and then ask for handouts from the west to feed them and their offspring. By giving them handouts we are exacerbating the problem in several ways. Not only are we making these Nation States dependant on foreign aid instead of forcing them to fix their infrastructure and become self reliant. We are also increasing their impoverished populations with all the free food and healthcare. If we truly want to help these poor nations we will send them some birth control and stop making them welfare recipients Poor or rich everyone should be held accountable for their actions and having children you cannot afford should not be rewarded with handouts. Bill Gates should use his brain before throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into programs that undermine the kind of civilization that made him a billionaire. His money would be better spent by putting it into nature conservation and clean energy. If he still wants to put money into the medical field, why not donate to eugenics, something that will truly push the human race forward instead of putting it deeper into a quagmire. But to answer the question, Steve Jobs is doing more for humanity by his innovations and successful business initiatives, than Bill is by Carelessly throwing money at counterproductive charities.
I work in a scientific institution who developed the Sterile Insect Technology to eradicfate pests. Succesful in Lybia erradicating the screwworm fly, freeing Sansibar of the TseTse fly and wiping out sleeping desease as well as having debeloped the technology used worlwide but also in California and Florida to control the fruitfly, we began our march to erradicate the Anopheles Mosquito to battle Malaria. And we applied to the Gates Foundation for support. The Gates foundation spends 280 Mio US$ for Malaria research in 2005. 250 Mio go to a pharmaceutical company purchased by BG secretly (he got a fine by the US finance monitoring stock exchange because he bought more than 10% without informing the public) 30 Mio are shared between the CDC Atlanta and the University of Birmingham. Our institute saw nil. Maybe because our technology would not bring business as a vaccine would do being produced by a pharmaceutical company??
Yes, that speech by Steve is worth a few billons given to charity.
Jobs is a fabulous innovator and Gates is a fabulous marketer. Neither is a hero. Job is a bull-headed perfectionist, must be hell to work for. Gates is a two faced slimy liar that makes excellent lawyers and marketers, but having no integrity does not a hero make. A real hero is someone who tries on of the hardest jobs in the country, fails pretty miserably, and goes on giving of himself after being removed from that job. Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president we've had since the U.S. was founded, and he's a hero because he's trying to bring peace and shelter to the world. A real hero is the Iraqi lad or U.S. Marine who dives on a grenade so that several others might survive. Robbing from the poor, lining your own pockets, and giving a small portion to good causes does not make you a hero - it means you are greedy but do feel a little remorse. I applaud Mr. Gates for using his foundation to tackle some issues that other rich folks can't be bothered to tackle because there is no profit in it (Malaria and public education), I am also concerned about strings attached.
When legal teams, trust funds and financial institutions are involved, you can't exactly refer to the 1040EZ form. Check out Perfectly Legal.
Politicus
I'm not saying that rich people don't use all kinds of tricks in the tax code to reduce their tax burden disproportionately. What I *am* saying is that they don't (can't) do this with charitable contributions. (Although I didn't order and read the book you linked, the description didn't say anything about it.) If I am wrong, I would love to see why and how. Can someone show me a specific example of turning a profit through charitable contributions? If I'm right, maybe we shouldn't so easily impute dishonest intentions to rich people who donate to charity.
Boom Shanka
now THOSE are some useful things for humanity
I think you were trying to be sarcastic, right?
Far from it, I was deeply moved by Steve's speech, *and* your experience, and I thank you for sharing it.
And even if a single life if saved... but that may sound like a cliche' by now.
By the way, now that I have a little more time to write without hopefully running the risk of sounding sarcastic...
We should consider that Bill Gates is by-and-large a retired gentleman, by now. By contrast, Steve Jobs is running Apple hands-on, was running Pixar until now, and may be busy with Disney soon. While he may or may not donate to charity anonimously, certainly he has no time to play the big-time philanthropist at Davos and what not, as Gates does. And if Steve does find the time to give a speech that helps people getting on with their lives, that's even more remarkable.
Bill worked on vast amounts of software himself as a developer for the first decade of Microsoft and as a individual starting with Altair Basic (he wrote almost all of it) and ending with the OS for the Radio Shack Model 100 (the first popular laptop in history and still spoken of with awe by reporters) which he wrote himself.
The OS for the Model 100 WAS Altair Basic- recompiled and with a video editor. BasicA, GWBasic, MS Basic, Altair basic, it's all the same program basically. The first OS Microsoft actually produced was PC-DOS; and that was really CPM. I know the history as well as you do- you can't fool me with slightly different items.
Microsoft develops vastly more software than it buys.
Yeah, right- name something.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Oh, and just to point out the level of cluelessness, the Apple ][ you cite as your example used a 6502 not a 6802. The 6502 was a totally different chip than the 68xx family from a different vendor with a different architecture. You'd think you'd know at least that.
On this one, you're right- somehow I got that digit flipped wrong, and I DID know at least that- shows how long it's been since I messed with any of the Apple ][ line...
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's great that somebody devotes their life to helping humanitarian causes. That is sarcasm. It's great that somebody devotes their life to helping humanitarian causes. That isn't sarcasm.
It still doesn't change the fact that Gates donated $49 Billion to the same cause that your doctor friend is supporting.
Quit blinding yourself to what someone does just because you don't necessarily like them for whatever reason (or, in this case, for possibly liking somebody more).
On a side note, I wouldn't call him my hero, but Gates is a good guy.
Now, as for the other ludicrous canard that Microsoft buys all its software, lets do a list of MS products that were written in house. It won't be thorough but here are a few off the top of my head:
- Windows OS family
- Windows NT OS family
- Windows CE family
- Windows Mobile
- XBOX
- XBOX 360
- MS-DOS (versions 2 and above including little things like subdirectories)
- Word (MS-DOS, Windows, Mac)
- Excel (Windows, Mac)
- SQL Server (and, no it doesn't have any Sybase code anymore)
- Exchange
- Outlook
- Visual Studio
- .NET
- Visual Basic
- QuickBASIC
- QuickPascal
- C#
- ASP
- ASP.NET
- IIS
Of course, there are hundreds more to counter the dozen or so counter-examples you could come up with but I suspect you're less interested in history than in making up stories.Everything in this list contains code that was written by contractors- that is, purchased from some other company. A few things in this list (Windows OS, NT family, MS-DOS, WORD, Sybase SQL Server) contain "look and feel" GUIs directly stolen from other products.
You seem to think that recombining technologies already in existance means you've created something new. It doesn't. The closest one I see in this list to an actual "Invented by Microsoft" is Windows CE- but even that is really just a cut-down of the code bases from CP/M (where FAT came from to begin with), Windows OS, and Model 100 OS, recompiled for some really odd little microprocessors.
NOBODY in software engineering works alone, we've all shared the work all along, since the earliest days when MIT students started a drawerfull of source code. To some extent, therefore, copyrights and patents on "software" have always been rather bogus- and the whole idea of respecting a bogus law is in and of itself bogus.
But by working on this insistance that Bill G is a software engineer, you downgrade his real genius- a genius I really admire- the art of the deal. NONE of what Microsoft has done has been illegal- strongarm yes, illegal no- and it was simply brilliant the way he took CP/M-86 and marketed it as PC-DOS before the original developer was finished debugging and willing to release. Likewise was the adaptation of Bourne Shell (long before the GPL, versions of Unix were open source) subdirectories for MS-DOS 2 and above. Likewise the adaptation of VB version 1, written entirely by a contractor, to become by Version 3 the primary programming language for Windows (I had a similar toolkit I was selling way back in 1982 for TI Extended Basic- though mine was more tuned to programming video games and graphics displays). These were brilliant business deals- doing them propelled Microsoft to monopoly status and made the desktop PC a common household item. But original work, hacks the level of the Woz? Or for that matter even understanding the general hacker mentality? Nope, can't say that these deals fit the mold.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So you're condemning Microsoft for having code written by contractors rather than employees and for not reinventing all technology from scratch. Um. That's pretty silly.
So you're condemning Microsoft for having code written by contractors rather than employees and for not reinventing all technology from scratch. Um. That's pretty silly.
No, I'm not- I'm just saying that the hacker ethic is more respectable, because it gives credit where credit is due. The fact you think Microsoft wrote the first version of VB or should have all the credit for Windows is what is pretty silly here.
I'm not "condemning" anybody- I'm just stating facts. You've obviously forgotten the first rule of text based communications: the emotion is stripped out. Any emotional content you read into a message is from the reader, not the writer; reading between the lines comes from YOU.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Foiled again! Those Slashdot readers never would never have figured it out if it weren't for you darn snooping kids!
Linus Torvalds!
He actually has been investing in High Tech for some time. But nothing in an area that MS can influence (he rightly fears gates, jobs and their ability to skew the business). One are is Level 3 in Boulder. I have heard of a few others, but he likes to keep quiet on those (supposedly, he is invested in several Linux companies).