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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
neither of these men have risked their lives for belief in something that violent people around them did not believe.
Maybe they should be guest speakers at this years LinuxWorld Expo then?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I met him at Apple Boston in 1983 and he had a great attitude, even when I asked him about the Franklin.
Fight Spammers!
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.
Does Ballmer donate anything?
funny internet videos for our entertainment
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.
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!
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
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.
Fuck 'em. What about Steve Wozniak?
http://www.woz.org/
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
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.
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! --
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!"
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.
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]
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
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.
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).
Fundamentalists read the Bible, look at the actual black-and-white text and do what it says: hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies and try and save everyone else's soul. Progressives simply pretend that those parts of the Bible don't exist and pay attention only to Jesus (who never explicitly said that the Old Testament was wrong, in error or should be ignored).
You are so ridiculously incorrect that it's not even amusing. I know, this is Slashdot, and we've become used to this sort of thing. The Bible doesn't say a single thing about "hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies". Not once. Sorry, bub. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated that it was more important to love than it was to enforce the law. An example of this is when the pharisees looked to condemn him for healing a man on the sabbath (in the OT, it is unlawful to perform any work on the sabbath). At no point was the message to "hate" anyone for anything. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, we are told to love each other (friends and enemies both).
I'm sorry, but reasonable Christians have to simply accept that there are some real atrocities in their religion's history and that there was valid grounding in their holy scriptures for them.Must the muslims accept what happen to the World Trade Center? I don't see either as needing acceptance. If I bomb fundamentalist Christians in the name of Durandal64, is it your problem? You clearly seem to not like them and I took it to mean that you thought the world would be a better place without them. Please accept my actions as they were done in your name.
Those people had unquestioning faith. Saying that they weren't Christians belies a staggering ignorance of history.
Was Ptolemy not a scientist? Did he not get the whole solar system completely wrong? Does that invalidate all of science? No, but you learn from it that sometimes scientists are wrong. The same goes for Christians. Big whoop.
But what's bad is pretending that their take on Christianity is the only valid one. They start from the assumption that Christianity must be tolerant and loving and interpret the Bible from that framework, completely disregarding history and the text on the page.
You really don't get the Bible or the religion. Sure, you can pull out one liners and short stories, but when you take them out of the context of the entire thing, they're useless. It's not surprising that you don't get it. I don't, either. Jesus three times told his disciples (who followed him around constantly and heard everything he said) that they didn't get it.
I'll give credence to this "true Christianity" claim when major churches start putting their money where their mouths are and declare the racist, sexist, morally abhorrent parts of the Bible invalid.
Won't ever happen. It's part of the story of God's relationship with man. It's a part that you don't seem to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong or morally abhorrent. It's neither of those things.
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.
- 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.After all, he already declared his undying love to us developers, developers, developers!
That is all.
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.
Because $640K should be enough for everyone.
My other first post is car post.
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.
Sophistry. Being a flawed human being and being a good person are not mutually exclusive. As for you thinking you deserve the wrath of a God who apparently impulsively flooded the entire planet and killed everything ... that is unfortunate. You're probably a decent person in real life.
Wait, so the atrocities in the Old Testament are humanity's fault? God ordered most of them! Hell, he committed a few himself!
That's very poetic, but it makes no sense. God comes down to Earth to lift a curse that he himself put on us? Why not just snap his fingers and make it all better? Isn't he omnipotent? Why all the theatrics? Could it be because Jesus was ripped off of earlier Messiah stories?
Yes, when we try to live by the laws of the Old Testament, everything gets fucked up. But God himself gave those laws to us, and they are clear as day. He himself ordered many massive slaughters in the Old Testament. He even created a slave class out of the Sons of Ham. Humanity isn't perfect, but we're nothing near the monster the Judeo-Christian God is.
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.
...is still a robber barron if he gives away 10% of the booty to the poor.
Let's compare the REAL brains of the outfits, OK?
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
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
"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
The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament -- It's Christians, not Jews, putting monuments to the Ten Commandments in state courthouses, etc.
The Creationist (or "Intelligent Design") drivel that is destroying our school system is from the Old Testament. It's Christians, not Jews, who want this and not the Theory of Evolution taught in schools.
Sure, Christians don't stone people to death for planting the wrong crops side-by-side -- but who does?
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?
I notice a lot of quotes from the old testament. People who follow the old testament are known as Jews, not Christians. k'thanx
Let me rephrase that to more correctly reflect reality:
People who follow select parts of the old testament (ie. God Hates Fags) while ignoring others (ie. God Hates Blended Fabrics) are known as hypocrites. People who promote the legal enforcement of posting of the ten commandments on public buildings, while saying "Jesus Saves" are also hypocrites. People who say that paying taxes to support the poor on welfare is immoral, while ignoring Jesus's directives on charity, and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, are also hypocrites.
Many of these hypocrites self-identify as "Evangelical Christians".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.