Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Drops To Number 2
A number of readers made sure we know that Bill Gates is apparently no longer the world's richest person. His wealth, estimated currently at $59.2 billion, has been surpassed by that of Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim. Slim, the son of a Lebanese immigrant, runs businesses in a number of industries from Mexico City. Stock in his wireless company, American Movil, recently surged in price by 27%, boosting his net worth to $67.8 billion. Last April Slim passed Warren Buffet, who had long held down the number 2 spot. In this audio Bill Gates says he won't care when he is no longer number 1.
There seems to be a misunderstanding by some people - including Gates himself - that Bill Gates is hated because he is rich. This is not true. We envy him because he is rich.
We hate him because he produces crappy software and uses unethical techniques to promote it. Being surpassed in the richest person list does not change this.
I thought I had heard that Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish owner of Ikea, had surpassed Gates due to the slide in world markets of the American dollar versus the Swedish crown.
... but I'm too tired and it's obvious by now that some people agree. Though I'm sure there won't be a lack of posts on that topic for this particular news story.
... will we remember Kamprad or Slim? Highly unlikely. But Gates has touched entire generations with software we been forced to and have chosen to use for better or for worse.
Of course, Forbes never registered that because, I believe, the slide was temporary and the dollar rebounded somewhat and some reports put Kamprad in front of Gates and some didn't.
It's kind of funny when your ranking in the world's richest raises and falls with small market fluctuations. Regardless, I'll throw out the idea that it is extremely likely that Slim's net worth will be 'adjusted' by the stock market in the coming days when his stock is re-evaluated. I could be wrong but Kamprad saw his worth rise on something that is (usually) much more stable than the stock market--his country's currency.
Placing an unprecedented 27% increase in his stocks makes his position as the world's richest man all that much more volatile to me. Then again, I'm not an economist or finance specialist so I could be wrong. How the stock market index seems to consistently return 11% on investments baffles my simple computer scientist mind.
I would also like to point out a few things relating to this #1 position of world's richest man. It's obvious in (at least America) you often need money to make money. More money you have, the easier it seems to be to make money.
I've half a mind to go on a rant about the questionable business model that Gates employed to gain his position as world's richest and keep it
Reason Gates won't care that he's not #1 is probably because he's giving a lot of it away anyway in the end. That and he's made his mark on history
My work here is dung.
Does that mean Warren Buffet is now the 3rd richest man in the world?
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Telmex and Microsoft use the same monopolistic practices, Gates and Slim are not very different. They both apply the same practices in different markets. The interesting part is that we will get to see both of them competing in a few years, since POTS is disappearing and the fight will be on VoIP, that's a market both of them will be into.
I Hope we see them fighting each other for control, because if they reach an agreement, for example, m$ makes voip software, and Telmex provides the service, we are really screwed up.
Telmex got here [Argentina] only a few years ago, they acquired CTI (Biggest mobile telco), Techtel (at the time one of the 5 top players in the carrier and corporate market), Ertach (Biggest Wifi ISP), and lots of kilometers of fiber that interconnects the main cities in Argentina from other companies (metrored, etc.). They also are betting money into Telecom. So, in just a few years they become the third biggest player in Argentina (In this order: 1 - Telefonica, 2 - Telecom, 3 - Telmex), But they have a pretty tight relationship with Telecom Argentina (Read: They are buying stock, big time), And Telefonica has a policy of being friendly with the 5 biggest players, and screwing the rest, So they are now the second bigger in Argentina, and the first one keeps them safe.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I just watched the 'complimentary' download from Xbox Live Marketplace of Austin Powers. It looks like Bill is now on par with Robert Wagner as 'Number 2'. Coincidence? I think not.
In other news, Slim is now (apparently) Dr. Evil. Go figure.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
"Well, well. If it isn't number 2..."
Speak for yourself!
www.purevolume.com/martyd
You predict? Or you imply?
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Telmex and Microsoft use the same monopolistic practices, Gates and Slim are not very different.
They both may be monopolies, but there IS quite a difference. The difference is that Telmex *IS* a competitive and efficient company. If it wasn't for Slim's investment in telecom infrastructure, we mexicans would still be calling the state-driven phone company to complain that our 24K modems disconnect too often. I do remember those times... Slim practically saved the country from stagnating in the information era.
Microsoft is an artificial monopoly, reeking with planned obsolescence and lack of innovation. In contrast, Telmex already gives us the videophone service.
:D Feels glad to be mexican.... *sigh* :)
Why? Are you sharing in his success?
Slim was one of the first traders in mexican stock market (before he was stock operator in usa) but really become mega-rich after getting TelMex from the goverment (at that time the monopolic, state owned telephony company) from former mexican presindent Carlos Salinas (due to corruption)
Talk about, how not to sell a state monopoly: just making it private, instead of dividing it to form a competitive market. To this day méxico suffers from that.
America-Movil its the celular telephony company from Grupo CarSO (Carlos Slim keiretsu that started with TelMex)
Today CarSO participates in the telephony of most countries in latinamerica, and soon also in spain
Both Gates and Slim are unfair market monopolist... because the ones in power dont care
I foretell.
Better now?
After listening to the link provided, I can't help but think that Gates is just like the rest of us normal humans - far too much noise coming into the inbox as compared to the signal.
At first I thought it read "Bill Gates drops A number two".
I though "man, is this a slow news day or what?!" and "Did he flush?"
I guess it's time to get some sleep. Or stop smoking crack. Either way.
blah blah blah
Because Gates' wealth isn't based on the stock market?
Either one of them could take every breathing person to MacDonalds. The only difference is one could super size it and still have money left over. Both would actually still be billionaires.
"We hate him because he produces crappy software and uses unethical techniques to promote it."
There are lots of guys out there running software companies that produce crappier software than MS and are less ethical. Since they aren't rich, however, nobody gives a shit.
But isn't part of the reason why Bill Gates isn't so rich anymore because he's giving his money away? He's given away more money than anyone I can think of.
How much has Carlos Slim given away to help fight AIDS? How much has he given away for education?
It's not how much money you have that's important, but what you do with it and the impact it has on others.
Quick, let's all buy an overpriced vista ... we can still push him to #1
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Isn't slim Lebanese?
You're exaggerating.While Mexico is certainly a developing country with large poverty problems, it's significantly better off both politically and economically compared to most other developing countries, especially elsewhere in Latin America Just look at nearby Haiti. What about Honduras & El-Salvador, both countries wrecked by nearly continuous warfare for decades? Compared to that, Mexico is a paradise (in fact, I believe that Mexico suffers from an illegal immigration problem with fence-jumpers from Guatemala, ironically...).
I spent a week in Mexico City in the early nineties and saw what the citizens lamented (and American tourists condemned) as "slums". They were bad, but not nearly as bad as other slums that I have seen elsewhere in the developing world (so-called "slums" in Mexico City have electricity and running water).
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
Sometimes, the dislike of Bill Gates is more than dislike, sometimes people say he is Satan, or a friend of Satan: Bill Gates: Disliked.
Here are some other reasons he is disliked: Don't accept abuse. MS apparently lied.
...donate? Come on, a few bucks each to help Bill through this difficult patch.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Windows ME
Windows 2000 pre-SP3
XP pre-SP1
Most of the first-party XBox 1 titles save for Halo, which wasn't really first-party
MS SQL Server
Internet Explorer 5
Internet Explorer 6
Internet Explorer 7
Frontpage
Microsoft Messenger
Windows Messenger
Live Messenger
Office 97 (barely within the last decade, but it was truly horrible)
Windows Mail
Outlook Express
Microsoft Mail
Netmeeting
MSN Explorer
Microsoft Sharepoint Server
Microsoft Works
Microsoft Money
Virtual PC
IE For Mac
Microsoft Anti-Virus
Office Assistant
Visual FoxPro
Microsoft Binder
Hotmail
And don't forget blunders like PlaysForSure, Zune, etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
According to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/FactShe et/, the Gates Foundation's current endowment is $33.4, and they made grant payments of $1.56 billion in 2006 (a U.S. charitable foundation must grant a minimum 5% of its net worth each year.) Think what you will about Microsoft, but few people have given as large a percentage of their wealth at as young an age as Gates did.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
has Slim put into philanthropy? To anyone who found this question relevant (I was almost expecting "none" - and thus making the Gates foundation a very easy explanation on the #1 move), Forbes says the following (plus a lot of other interesting stuff) of the man's new project:
"Lately Carlos Slim has taken up a particular interest in philanthropy, a pursuit he had neglected for most of the years he was building his businesses. He formed a foundation 23 years ago and funded it with a few million, and it has done little since then. A year ago Slim infused it with $1.8 billion; in the fall he pledged to donate up to $10 billion to the foundation in the next four years to fund health and education programs."
It is somehow good to see the world's richest doing this kind of stuff. Of course, it's not like they couldn't afford it, but still.
ISO certified == THX certified
Carlos Slim should use his money to build schools in Mexico and pay adults as well as children to attend.
You must not be familiar with Worthington's Law.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Signed In Love,
Captain Obvious
led here I did think,
believing a haiku here,
i was badly wrong
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=USDEUR=X&t=5y&l=o
They haven't realised it yet almost exclusively because China has the Renminbi clamped at a fraction of a dollar. China recent allowed that to begin to change somewhat and Americans will start to see how poor they have become.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=USDCNY%3DX&l
Deleted
It's simply a matter of the extent of damage done. Yes, there are people who are less ethical, but if their whole user base is measured in hundreds or maybe thousands, well, that's a rather tiny amount of damage done. The extent of their unethical behaviour may be limited to bribing a PHB or two to buy their software, but otherwise they're just not in a position to do much harm.
MS by contrast, even managed to pull the stunt of getting the US government to bend over and give it a sentence that says, in a nutshell, "ok, if you promise to watch over yourselves, sign here to never be sued for this stuff again." After being already found in violation of the law. That's a heist of historic proportions.
The extent of MS's damage doesn't even just include their software as such, or the bribes and political lobbying, it includes twisting the market into a screwed-up state where noone can compete with one of their products without having to compete with everything else. It effectively raised entry barriers to some ridiculous levels so noone can compete with it.
It didn't get there by just making a better product and letting the market decide if they want to buy it, but destroying any competitor, by any means available, most of them illegal. Most of the time, that seems to be MS's game. They're not even as much just into defending their monopoly, but into destroying as many other companies as possible, or pushing them into a subservience position where they effectively aggree to take the crumbs in return for helping MS get another slice of the pie.
Etc.
Basically, what you're saying there is roughly like "well, there are lesser criminals who are just as unethical at heart, so why do you hate Stalin and Pol Pot more?" Well, because between a guy who killed 1-2 people and a guy who killed 10-20 million, the latter is the bigger villain. Sure, they're all despicable villains, but some did more damage and richly deserve to be more hated.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Basically, why bother trying? Imagine you're rich. Not just rich, but super-duper rich. More money than you can sensibly spend in a lifetime. Would you care if there was someone richer by a few billion bucks? I wouldn't.
At some point, money ceases to matter. When you have more than you can spend, there's a dividing point for people. Either they stop caring, and I think Bill did. Why else would he start a charity fund? Or they get even greedier and want MOAAAAAAR, with "getting money" becoming a reason to exist all by itself. Which is kinda sad (I've seen it in a few friends in the dot.com time).
I doubt Bill falls in the latter category. I'm fairly sure he read it, shrugged and went on with his life. Being rich is not a matter of having more than the other rich guy. Just more than most others, so your money actually has some value. If everyone was rich, money would be useless.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bill Gates is one entrepreneur among many. His products came to a position of prominence in many markets, competing against the likes of NeXT, Apple and Sun whose offerings had weaknesses obvious to anyone who was trying to actually build a company using them. His company, Microsoft, isn't as nice as Ben & Jerry's but then it's a lot nicer than Sun and IBM. Although by offering commoditized, loosely-controlled solutions in an industry previously dominated by massive hardware/software lock-in, he is still small fry compared to the great 19th century monopolists like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, or even the great 18th century players (Clive of India, anyone?)
He's a guy, with a company, that makes products, that people either buy or don't. He has major market share in a niche which, to be honest, was not very strongly contested, and he has a few OK products in other niches. Microsoft's smaller than Exxon, way smaller than GE, FAR smaller than Standard Oil, and VASTLY less controlling and anti-innovation than old-school IBM. On the other hand, it's not a particularly nice and fluffy company either. None of them are. Get over it. Now, quietly listen to yourself:
For 25 years the world has concerned itself with pittiances like who's president and which country has a despot in charge, while right under our noses the biggest monopoly in human history has effectively brought the globe under the dictatorship of Bill Gates - through the computers.
First, it's 'pittance' and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Second, the above is exactly why basement-dwellers whose whole world is home computers do not wind up in important decision-making roles. And I think we should all be very grateful.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
and you had better press "allow" really quick...
But, he could be destroyed. The 31st richest person has done it before, and he will do it again.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Same feeling here. If I get points in the next 24 hours, the first one I will use will to be to mod nomadic's post up.
Yeah, you should totally click "Post Anonymously" on that comment so you can do that. Oh, wait. Shit. Too late!
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Damn! Haha, you are totally right- I forgot about that caveat. Oh well, the odds of me getting points are low, so it'll probably turn out to be much ado about nothing!
ftfy
Of CURSE if you include catastrophic cascading failures ANY system is going to look shitty. Simply put, considering the rate of transactions occuring on the market at nay given time, I can safely say that if you invest yourm noey right now it WILL average out to 11% annual gain over any kind of a foreseeable future.
The Nikkei's downfall has nothing to do with the stock market and everything to do with the housing/construction market, which is an entirely different beast. It would be like blaming Ditech for the Krash.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I think you're resorting to some inverse megalomania.
Bill Gates has never shown any inclination to reach beyond the electronic realm with evil inclinations.
Quite to the contrary, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given so much money away that I'm willing to bet that if they hadn't, Bill would still be on the top of the list.
You can pooh-pooh Microsoft for giving away computers loaded with Microsoft software to indoctrinate the next generation into their cult, but you can not fault Bill Gates for his charitable donations, because he gives large cash donations and other useful things as well.
I really don't think Bill is evil. Ruthless with his business yea, but not evil. And yea, I envy the money the guy has, but in the same situation, I'm not sure i could have accumulated it the same way, but since he did, I'm glad he's giving it away.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
That makes Gates Twice as bad. Not only is he an imperialist, he also is weak, and I'm sure he's a Religious person, probably Christian or worse.
How is making donations a good thing? Promoting people to live from cheap donations other give them, with no dignity?
Why doesn't he spend THAT MUCH into opening software factories around the world, and paying competitive salaries? That would prove him to be a righteous man.
Charity is something totally wrong, done out of stupid christian guilt. Actually, it goes against the solution of the problems, because if everyone just invested their money where they should instead of accumulating it, and living _excessively_ expensive lives; we wouldn't have a need for Charity.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
"Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright
interest in the program `Gnomovision'
(which makes passes at compilers) written
by James Hacker.
signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice"
http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Carlos Slim Helú went from $30 billion to $67.8 billion in a year?
That's pretty impressive.
Unfortunately, Bill makes his money by selling software that he's made mandatory at extortionate prices, to kids who need to learn computers for their future, and to companies that need to use that software to be in business at all. Last I heard, he charged a MONTH's salary for his software in third-world countries, and then pretended to be ethical by donating money to AIDS charities. It's called giving with one hand, and taking with the other. Or in this case, taking with four hands, and giving back with a finger.
There's a fairly famous old quote, which goes something like, "Whenever I hear that someone got rich through hard work, I ask, 'Whose?'".
what? gate is no longer richest man in the world not because he lost buttloads of money, but rather another guy saw a 27% rise in his stock options! unless you're telling us that vista caused American Movil to see massive stock jump (however that works), vista has nothing to do with this.
Most wanted sperm...
I believe that coming in second in the list of most wanted sperm has to be a more painful blow for Bill. In China, where the piracy rate is so high, there is probably already cheap knock-offs of his semen. Bill Gates Formula 401, 1.25 cents on the open market. It's sad really.
Absolutely right. MOD PARENT UP. The only disagreement I have is that it was far, far worse than you say.
We had six distributors of MS-DOS in the early 90's. All of them were entirely legitimate in other ways, but were selling pirated copies, apparently unknowingly. I called a distributor in Los Angeles, and the president of the company told me his copies were pirated, too. It wasn't possible for small companies to buy legal copies of DOS. Apparently, in what I imagine was collusion that is illegal under the anti-trust laws, Microsoft had arranged to try to discourage smaller companies from building and selling computers, as a way of appeasing its largest customers.
I was really, really upset by this. I called the Microsoft legal department. It isn't possible to call the Microsoft legal department any more; they closed that possibility. But back then I got a woman on the telephone who was obviously young and inexperienced. I got her name and gave her the names of the companies selling pirated copies.
That created a situation in which Microsoft had to act, or create a verified case in which the company encouraged piracy.
However, what really happened underneath the facade was that the same behavior continued. An honest company pays a lot of Microsoft Office, A dishonest company pays $90, according to spam emails that I just viewed. That apparently illegal behavior drove the other office product companies out of business. There has always been a choice: Legal Microsoft Office for hundreds of dollars, or illegal copies that most customers cannot recognize as illegal, for $50 to $90. Apparently Microsoft would rather encourage, or at least not stop, piracy as a way of preventing legitimate competition.
People who can count their money are not really rich. There are several people in Europe who cannot realistically count their wealth. The British Queen for example owns enormous tracts of land, the value of which can only be guessed.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
most probably he's paying shitloads of money for that crappy DSL he uses to post to slashdot, so in a sense you could say he 'donated' some money for that effort
The world's richest people you allowed to know about. There are people who control much more money than Bill Gates. Bill Gates is just a regular (non blood-line money) person who is rich; bankers are the richest but you will never see this published and the connections are muddied very well. The world's richest (powerful) get their money/power/control from being born into a family. Media (owned by the richest, fronted by rich regular people) are very far from being allowed to delve into this.
Both Slim and Gates have profited from business models with little or no competition.
In Slim's case, its easy to be filthy rich when you own the monopoly for telecommunications (both mobile and wired) in a country with 100 million people.
Slim owned an investment and trading bank that allowed him to have enough cash to buy Telmex back in 1994 at a bargain price from then president and "friend" Carlos Salinas. Telmex was a state owned monopoly with a strong and corrupt union, horrible service, no quality in infrastructure, you had to go through hell to get a phone line working.
Now it is a private monopoly with mediocre service, and very high prices. Basic Broadband is around USD 40.00/monthly. If you try to get this service from other of the few and small ISP's the connection is very unreliable as Telmex own the fiber infrastructure and licenses access to it. Don't even get me started on the prices his mobile company Telcel charges, its basically theft, but then again other mobile companies have little infrastructure with little coverage. Its sad that Mexico is left without any real options when it comes to telecom services.
Adding to this that Slim also owns a bank, copper and fiber cable manufacturing, cigarette manufacturing, real state, retail stores, etc.
He was a smart banker and trader, I'll give him that, but the rest of his fortune is due to the fact that his connections lead to him acquiring Telmex.
"Technology rules and shapes the human race. He seeks to control all technology." Isn't this from a comic book? It should be.
damaged by dogma
The problem with the Microsoft monopoly is that Microsoft IS the personal computer. The personal computer paradigm was brought about by Microsoft. For the last 15 odd years (light years in terms of computing technology), we have been conditioned into using interfaces designed by Microsoft. The average PC user doesn't want anything else. They don't want to learn how to use Linuxes and Apple and Sun (even though, fundamentally, their interfaces are a complete knockoff of Microsoft's) because Windows just feels native to them.
PCs seem to be a social norm in which you can observe facets relative to sociology's "culture", "counterculture", and "contraculture". You can't find a PC user who doesn't know how to use Windows. However, you can find many PC users who will have no idea how to use Mandrake or OSX. Use of Windows is fundamental. OSX is counterculture. It seems to me its goals are to be pretty and easy and "artistic" and cool; everything Windows is not. Linux, etc, seems to be contraculture. It seems to be on the cutting edge of technology and--as we've seen in the many ideas borrowed by Microsoft from open source developments such as Firefox and Beryl--has a hand in determining where PC interfacing is going.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
What is Telmex ??? I thought the Mexican telephone company was called Taco Bell.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
He ran a turbulent business with quite the iron fist, but of course he was out to make a profit. Bill Gates the man is extremely generous (as is Buffett). I see plenty of reason to be frustrated and angered at his many choices regarding microsoft, but NO reason to hate him. Why so vitriolic? Nobody's stopping you from installing Compiz Fusion and gloating about your flashy Ubuntu desktop :)
... have always considered him number 2.
*bows*
Liberty uber alles.
Instead of being proud of this new position by a Mexican, I have to be ashamed. I feel anger every time I pay my telmex bill, or every time I have to purchase something from countless sources of merchandise and services that Slim controls through Mexico, the US, and the rest of latin america. I always go out of my way to not give him a cent, but sometimes is nearly impossible. I don't get an option for phone service, since the other badly equipped telecomm providers in mexico city can't provide service where I live. The outrageous prices that his goods and services command are an insult to our growing economy. And please don't even let me get started with his supposed philanthropy attempts, since it has all been a plot to better position his dominance in the real state and services market in Mexico. I'm not aware of any assistance that he might be providing to young entrepreneurs, businesses or health efforts. It is truly a shame to be Mexican with his name on this list.
"Telmex is not that efficient."
While that might be true, consider the rest of the competition: as an ISP, you are just getting yourself into a heap of trouble if you dare to go with Alestra, Avantel of MVS. It's not only the reliability of their service, but also the administrative side which you will find to be light-years away. Telmex is expensive, but until you show me a better option, I'll stick with my Prodigy (DSL), thankyou.
"They're now trying to get into internet TV."
Please don't get me started on this.... Sky, Cablevision? I am eagerly awaiting that Mr. Slim enters this market. Currently there is only one option for anybody who wants cable, and that is go with Mr Azcarraga's media monopoly (and boy, they SUCK DONKEY BALLS). Poor, expensive, obsolete, content limited service. suck suck suck.
The ways Mr. Slim adquire Telmex are truly shady I must admit. Still, I find it better that he is running the industry than previous attempts at management the government did. Is this the absolute best option? Probably not, but it is currently working well, it is expanding, it provides sustainment to hundreds of mexican families and last I heard it was a nice place to work.
My other OS is the MCP!
Seems like we need to upgrade our moral compass.
Cheers...
They succeed in acquiring lots of resources, and that's good for them, but how successful are they in other fields? Have they acquired lots of knowledge about the world they live in, for example? We know that knowledge is power, and you would expect from an ambitious resourceful individual to strive for more power, therefore for more knowledge. A wealthy person is in a very good position to acquire much more knowledge than any poor person would ever be able to dream of. The rich can buy an unlimited quantity of books and journals and have much more free time in their hands than the poor. They would still have to sit down and read a lot, but they afford to do it, while the poor must work (usually for someone else) and therefore are unable to acquire a great slice of the known human knowledge. Of course, they can employ other people who do know stuff, but this isn't enough. If a rich person's airplane malfunctions over the Sahara desert and they are alone without any communications device available and no money on them, they wouldn't know how to find water and what they should do to get protected from heatstroke. They wouldn't have a chance to find where the north is. If they found themselves near some distinctive geographical features, they would still not know where they were, as they would have no knowledge of geography. If they walked within a jungle, they wouldn't know what is safe to eat and what is poisonous. They would also not know what to do if they got injured or encountered aggressive animals. Their power comes from interaction with the rest of the human society, but if they find themselves in a situation unable to communicate with anyone else, their money make no difference in their survival or not. However, a person who has invested their free time in acquiring a great deal of knowledge would have more chances to survive in uncommon environments. Knowledge makes you more adaptable to changes in your environment. Not only that, but knowledge can help a rich person to think of new businesses or help them to better spot a lucrative investment. However, I know that many well-off and rich people with lots of time in their hands do not understand why knowledge is power and think that they would always be able to hire a specialist to do work for them. They have succeed in becoming wealthy, but they have failed in other areas of life. Yet, many people equate success with money. Who would you consider more successful? A person who worths $50 billion and knows nothing and is going to die from cancer (because they don't know what antioxidants and what foods protect from cancer, ie they don't even know what and how to eat), or someone who worths "only" $25 billion but knows a great deal about everything? I would certainly vote for the latter.
Troll? Really, people? Come on now. Your bias is showing. My comments are completely reasonable and legitimate. Not to mention, factual.
I'm not perpetuating a "stupid American" stereotype so much as you're just completely fucking ignorant and can't be bothered to pick up a newspaper.
First of all, to clarify -- the examples I gave are legitimate and documented. Here is an article from a week ago regarding the engine attempt:
Undocumented Immigrants Found In Truck Engine Compartment
From the article: Officers said they discovered three undocumented immigrants from Mexico -- two women and a man -- hiding under the hood as the truck attempted to cross into the Otay Mesa port of entry. . . . . A woman found in the engine sustained burns to her right arm, abdominal area and left leg during the trip, officials said. She was transported to medical facility for medical care.
So, please explain to me how Mexico is just fine and dandy and not suffering at the hands of corrupt politicians and aristocrats like this Slim guy who is worth 7% of the entire economy, yet these people are jamming themselves between an engine and the engine hood and suffering severe burns just to get here?
And I have to ask, do you live in paradise?
Because some of us (Mexicans) are trying to do things better, some of us are trying to educate the people around us the less educated you may say.
So I don't know why you wake up this morning having the idea and the right to criticize my country. You must feel superior to all the human kind, don't you?
Hence my guess despite your critics is that you must be only a common American moron, that feel that America a.k.a USA is the only honorable and perfect place to live in, LOL what a fiasco, so please go outside and check your local weather and come back when you have something smart to say about the original topic and stop mixing one thing with the other that have nothing to do with!
'nuff said (You may also say)
Regards.
Google has more capability to be evil than anyone else.... :)
Be honest to yourself microsoft is easier to use specially with multimedia...
Get your ass workin on those linux codes to be easier to use for grandma...
Strive to be happy...
Look at Europe, do you think it has a history of extreme poverty. Many people embarked a much longer trip by boat to get to the US for exactly the same reasons.
More than a few could not afford their tickets. How many horror stories do you think there were of people dying in their hiding places, inside the boat.
Lots of american citizens go througth a lot of effort to move from city to city for a job offer.
Many of these mexican people are leaving their small rural town for the big city, and they decide to go the whole nine yards.
Don't get me wrong I love the US, I just think it is sad how many people think ideas like yours are "common knowledge".
Expect vista price increase!
8dee http://www.wahlau.net
Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I suspect that you take advantage of modern medicine just like everyone else who can afford it. So I bet your 'gene pool' argument doesn't apply to yourself. And if you're not willing to live that argument, then, my friend, you haven't earned the right to argue it.
But just for the sake of argument, let me assume for a moment that you live like a 'Christian Scientist,' one of those people who eschew medicine for religious or philosophical reasons. Even so, I still say your 'strengthen the gene pool' argument is wrong. Because the thing that makes a gene pool strong is diversity. And medical science preserves diversity in the gene pool. When you allow large groups of people to die off, you're eliminating variety from the gene pool, and that's a dangerous thing. Let me give you an example: sickle cell anemia. It's well known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia that if you inherit both genes for sickle cell, you'll have a shortened, 'weaker' life. So why isn't it eliminated from the gene pool? Because the sickle cell gene carries malaria resistance. The diversity of sickle cell is useful for fighting malaria. And it just so happens that Africa is our biggest pool of genetic diversity https://www.genographic.com/. So if you really wanted to strengthen the gene pool, you would be working to maintain diversity, not arguing to eliminate it.
I have one other argument; it concerns what kinds of traits are you trying to strengthen. Your approach, letting nasty diseases kill people, only selects for immune system strength, and maybe overall physical health. But we as a race are more and more dependent on intellectual strengths. Stephen Hawking is physically a failure, but intellectually he's a genius among geniuses. Your argument would let him die because of his physical weakness without considering his towering intellectual strengths. That's just plain dumb.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
That is all what is to it.
Lets forget standards for a minute, just remember the subject.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There you go. Thanks for playing sonny.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And where is all the competition that other privatized industries have to endure?
Slim got his hands in Telmex because he was good buddy with the right politicians. If you want an accurate picture of Slim think Russian oligarch, he had the good sense of not ruffling the feathers of the politicians.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Forget about the good ones.
In the UK BT (British Telecom) was also privatized, but a few years later competition was opened and now there are several offerings if you want to get a telephone line. The telecoms regulator keeps the former monopoly in place (because they still have a big hand in the market, specially in what is called the last mile of the infrastructure, which they still own).
In Mexico we know why there is no competition, it would not surprise me if Mr Slim's family and some famous politicians are related in some way (maybe some marriages or good "friendships" or are compadres....)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... interventionist and imperialistic.
You can put many things under our name, but we don't go killing thousands of people wily-nilly to defend the privileges of a few rich Texan oil producers and never had an official apartheid system for the best part of 100 years (and other 200 of slavery, which we abolished several decades earlier than in the US).
We may be drowned in lots of things, but at least they do not affect negatively other countries (do not even try the immigrant bullshit, if you don't want our immigrants build your wall and watch your economy collapse. As simple as that).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I haven't seen any posts mentioning that Microsoft made more than just BG rich.o py for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen#Philanthr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Wallace was another Microsoft philanthropist.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
in my book!
Sam - Murder by death.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Your asumptions are basically wrong. First: I'm a die hard Atheist.
The mistake in your reasoning is best seen on this sentence: '...Your argument would let him die because...'. Nop. That's precisely the point: I'm not saying we should let him die, or let him live, because we shoudln't 'let' him a damn thing. That's the point. We shouldn't prevent him from living, and we shoudln't prevent him from dying. He is on his own, besides the normal cares the society takes for everyone. The point is: We should have vaccines. If you are not good enough to get a job and pay for them, or go to the Public hospital and fill in a form so you can get them; you are on your own. Also, let's develop medicine that treats actual diseases, not diseases that you got because you are not good enough.
This is a complex issue, the thin line between not promoting a weak society and fascism is very weak. Please try to be open minded.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
You claim a person "is on his own, besides the normal cares the society takes for everyone." What is the "normal care"? What makes that level of care "good," and the level of care that tries to eradicate polio and tuberculosis "bad"? I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but your argument is completely different now than is was before. Your new argument also raises lots of questions; here are a few.
You say "That's precisely the point: I'm not saying we should let him die, or let him live, because we shoudln't 'let' him a damn thing. That's the point. We shouldn't prevent him from living, and we shoudln't prevent him from dying." OK, fair enough. But suppose there is this whole group of thousands of people who live on decent land, but they keep on suffering from diseases like malaria and river blindness. Suppose I have resources that could eradicate these diseases, and allow these people to become farmers and businessmen and raise healthy educated children. Should I pretend I don't have those resources and that power? Is it a bad thing to enable these people to become healthy and prosperous? Why or why not, or in which cases is it bad to help people in this way? Did you raise yourself from nothing, or did you get help from your whole society? If your society wants to help people on another continent, why not?
Then you say "The point is: We should have vaccines." But you also say that it's OK to get vaccines if you are "good enough ... [to] go to the Public hospital and fill in a form so you can get them ..." Explain about this 'good enough.' If you live in sub-Saharan Africa, the nearest 'Public hospital' may be 4000Km away. It seems the definition of 'good enough' involves how near you live to a 'Public hospital.' And so maybe it follows that if a charity puts the equivalent of a 'Public hospital' nearer to poor people, then that suddenly makes the poor people 'good enough' to merit vaccines. I can't figure out what you mean by 'good enough,' but is it a bad thing if a charity makes more people 'good enough' to deserve medicine?
--- Often in error; never in doubt!