Gates Issues Call For "Creative Capitalism"

theodp writes "Bill Gates makes his case for Creative Capitalism in TIME, citing projects like a Text-Free UI for illiterate computing, the use of Multimouse technology to allow fifty kids to share one computer display, cell phone billing by the second, and Bono's RED campaign as examples of the type of corporate creativity that can make the world a better place for the billion or so people scraping by on less than a dollar a day. Michael Kinsley, a former Microsoft employee whose wife still advises the Gates Foundation, says it's hard to object to Gates' goals, but notes that creative capitalism does have its share of skeptics, and points out that there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft."

Comments

Text-free UI?

[mangu]

There's prior art on that. It was invented in ancient Egypt.

Let's face it, text was invented for a purpose. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but they may not be exactly *the* thousand words you need to convey your information.

Re:Text-free UI?

[TubeSteak]

Let's face it, text was invented for a purpose. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but they may not be exactly *the* thousand words you need to convey your information.

When you can't even count on the user/operator to have an 8th grade education, a dozen pictures is worth far more than 12,000 words.

Re:Text-free UI?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

640 words should be enough for anyone.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Esteanil]

Yeah, so let's get access to some of that text.

Project: Open Source System for automatic user-initiated translation of blogs/articles/etc. Add a "Read this in:" which is autotranslated to location (GeoIP, etc) and a "Translate this". Basic idea being ad-sharing as payment for translating blogs. Open Source project, because I mainly just want to see more content out there, and translated content is great. Wiki-based.

From the user's point of view: You enter a page, and see it in English. You're quite good at English in addition to Chinese, so you write a quick translation.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, affirmative action mandates mean unqualified people will be hired to meet quotas. Because somehow it's racist to hire people based on skills and experience, but not racist to hire people based on what race they are.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta agree with this one. Sorry, for all his ideas about creativity and innovations, the man just doesn't understand those words. Not surprising really since he stole ideas and call them innovations all his life. You really wanna help, Gates? Instead of providing a computer for illiterate people, why don't you start with the basic: invest in people to teach them how to read. In the long run, it will help them much more than knowing how to click on pictures as literacy helps them with non-computer stuff and let them read books so they can understand new concepts and broaden their minds.

And BTW, Gates, plug a second mouse to a Mac and you can control the cursor using two mice automatically without any further effort. That's what you mean by innovative, right? 'Cause I can't imagine kids having to track 50 cursors swarming at the same time on the screen, but since you are innovative, I guess you can innovate a way to make cursors look different.

Re:Text-free UI?

[tompaulco]

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but they may not be exactly *the* thousand words you need to convey your information.
If I didn't know better I would say this is this a subtle argument for RISC versus CISC.

Re:Text-free UI?

[FilterMapReduce]

Let's face it, text was invented for a purpose. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but they may not be exactly *the* thousand words you need to convey your information.

Indeed, this is related to text-based computing in a very direct way. Shell scripting (like all programming) is the practice of describing to the computer exactly what you want it to do—word for word, so to speak. Graphic UIs, for all their advantages, don't let the user give such specific instructions, forcing them to perform the individual steps themselves: click that file, move it here, click that file, move it there, executing the algorithm yourself instead of describing to the computer. Like the summary says, "illiterate computing" pretty much nails it on the head.

Not that I'm bashing GUIs or saying that anyone who uses one is non-metaphorically "illiterate". Good GUIs are obviously indispensable in modern software, and with good reason. But they can never fully replace the expressive abilities of the command line. To swing back on-topic, a fully graphical UI for people who really are fully illiterate is a noble idea, but considering the limitations of a normal GUI, it would suffer serious drawbacks, to say the least.

The literacy metaphor in comparing text-based and graphical interfaces is explored very nicely in "In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Ebonics has fewer than 640 words.
  It works great for keeping its native tongue speakers unemployed .

Re:Text-free UI?

[Cairnarvon]

And BTW, Gates, plug a second mouse to a Mac and you can control the cursor using two mice automatically without any further effort.

Windows has been able to do that since at least Windows 95 as well. That's not what he was talking about here.

There's some irony in complaining about how Gates has made a career out of stealing ideas, and then bringing up Apple as a counter-example. If anyone has been stretching the word ``innovation'' beyond all recognisability, it's Jobs.
(Not a Gates fan either, though, and as a rule, I'll take predictability over ``innovation'' in user interfaces any day.)

Re:Text-free UI?

[lysse]

320 pictures, surely...?

Re:Text-free UI?

[JohnBailey]

When you can't even count on the user/operator to have an 8th grade education, a dozen pictures is worth far more than 12,000 words.

Only if the pictures lead to more pictures. Which is kind of pointless if you are trying to write a letter.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is what he is getting at. What if you could make a to "script" with a GUI, instead of with text. What if you could create a GUI that alloys you to specify batch actions, instead of having to do them, then execute them once your push the green round button? Think of it like instead of making a sentence (or command) with words, you instead make a chain of icons.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Graff]

And BTW, Gates, plug a second mouse to a Mac and you can control the cursor using two mice automatically without any further effort. That's what you mean by innovative, right? 'Cause I can't imagine kids having to track 50 cursors swarming at the same time on the screen, but since you are innovative, I guess you can innovate a way to make cursors look different.

Actually, if you read the article, they do indeed mean more than one cursor on the screen at one time. They differentiate between them with color and possibly shape.

I can understand doing this for some uses, such as collaborative drawing or games but not as a general-use cursor. What happens when two people want to open up a menu at the same time? Both menus pop up and both activate stuff at the same time? What about if one person maximizes a window over the others? Do you split-screen, reducing the amount of screen real estate for each participant?

It seems very ugly and not worth the effort if you ask me. Again, if you have a specific program that has a very specific use for multiple mice then fine. Other than that it seems like a waste of time to me.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

640 words? That's 0.64 pictures!

Re:Text-free UI?

[FilterMapReduce]

Some applications have macro capture similar to what you describe. It's a good idea, but you'd be stuck programming in an ad hoc "language" consisting of a set of buttons designed for interactive use by a human. Text-based commands are more often designed with scripting in mind, operating on input all at once, hence those highly flexible (and sometimes frighteningly complex) pipelines you see sometimes.

A generally scriptable GUI implemented across an entire desktop environment would be an interesting problem to see solved. (I'll bet people have already worked on it for GNOME and KDE.) Otherwise, you're stuck with whatever macro capabilities are in any given application.

Re:Text-free UI?

[rubycodez]

computers can talk, even with people pointing at the sentence or word they want to hear.

a tutorial for reading a couple thousand words in local language would be a good thing to have in these laptops for poor countries.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Bat Country]

Shell scripting (like all programming) is the practice of describing to the computer exactly what you want it to doâ"word for word, so to speak. Graphic UIs, for all their advantages, don't let the user give such specific instructions, forcing them to perform the individual steps themselves... Good GUIs are obviously indispensable in modern software, and with good reason. But they can never fully replace the expressive abilities of the command line.

Honestly, the reason for that is that nobody has bothered making a good graphical scripting language integral to operating systems, not that it's impossible.

Why is that? Well, most likely because the average user never needs automation at any large scale. The more advanced users who require automation because they actually do regularly and repeatedly perform tasks on large amounts of material are willing to take the time to learn to use existing tools which, as you say, work just fine.

I'd honestly like to see those claims you made taken as a challenge by some clever interface designers. I'd suggest that a good place to start would be evolving regular expressions to match only the files that the user selects and showing sample outcomes on the fly by highlighting affected files.

The user would describe the effects, the outcome, and the scope of the script by simply selecting files and folders and deselecting bad matches and a genetic algorithm would try to evolve a matching regex. Finally, all operations performed by the resulting script would be logged and put into a semipermanent undo queue, so users could find out what happened to their files if they didn't use the automation carefully enough.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Bat Country]

I'd bet that 640 carefully chosen words could make a hell of a good point.

Re:Text-free UI?

[yttrstein]

Precisely. It bothers me deeply that Gates assumes that the best way to help an illiterate person is to sell them (or sell to someone to give to them) a computer that doesn't use words, instead of using that money instead to MAKE THEM LITERATE.

But, one is a negative revenue stream, and one is ultimately positive. Guess which one Bill's "charity" will always pick.

Re:Text-free UI?

[rbanffy]

Risking flamebait here, "make a system monkeys can use and monkeys will use it"

I think BillG has experience on that one.

Re:Text-free UI?

[kiddygrinder]

meh, the amount of effort involved is pretty low, imho it's worth doing just so people can find uses for it. Games are a good one, i'm sure there are a few more.

Re:Text-free UI?

[Opportunist]

Basically every kind of writing is actually a set of pictures, or rather, symbols. And A is just two diagonal lines interesecting at their topmost points and a third line drawn between them, cutting both diagonal ones approximately at half the height. It becomes an A because we gave it that value. We identified that symbol. "Textless UI" would be basically exactly the same. There are symbols that have a certain meaning. I fail to see the genuine part in that "invention".

That's what we have been doing since the stone age. Human drew symbols that meant something. An oval with four lines underneath, connected with another oval on a line at the left or right side is a horse. If it has additional lines at the "head", it's a moose. That's basically how human started to record information and take down notes.

Bluntly, I fail to see how this is anything new. But then again, MS makes software that can be considered to be, technology-wise, in the stone age, so maybe the info didn't spread to them yet.

Re:Text-free UI?

[raddan]

Ugh. Text-free UIs are a waste of time.

There's a glyph. You don't know what it means. You might not want to activate the control it is connected to-- what if it means "delete my document?" So how do you find out what it means? You can't look it up, because it's a picture. The best you can do is describe it, in words, to another person, who will give you an answer, in words. So you see, language is the lowest common denominator here. Transcription of language, therefore, should be the thing we strive for-- oh, wait, we have that: the written language. Why use a computer if you can't read? Because, come on, most of the Internet is useless unless you are literate. It's a machine for processing the semantic and logical relationships of text.

You can't tell me that this symbol is in any way intuitive. I remember the first time when I saw it, sometime in the 90's. I remember thinking "what the fuck does that mean?" Sure, have some fancy symbol, but then, maybe would it kill you to print POWER underneath it? I think language is FAR more expressive than an abstract picture. Once that picture has been internalized by everyone, it is language. Why make it harder for everybody when we already have symbols that describe what you want to say?

Re:Text-free UI?

[pipingguy]

Oddly enough, as a CAD user, I prefer using command line text input (or at least using the pull-down text menus) for that type of work because the commands typically don't change and it's usually faster. Pretty, graphical buttons can be changed by the software vendor in updates and people can usually move them around to their own preference.

As a CAD support-type person, deciphering what button someone clicked before the "boom" happened is almost always frustrating ("I clicked the 3 colour line thingie with the two dots and a circle, then it broke!").

Re:Text-free UI?

[neonsignal]

Interesting that we are so focused on images in our culture (film, advertising, etc), that when we discuss the concept of text-free, we assume it means a GUI. But as anyone who has played charades will know, a visual is often not worth even one word.

If we want to retain the strengths of language, the alternative to a textual interface is an audio one, though you'd have to say it is a number of years away yet (especially the speech recognition side).

I'm not saying that pictures don't have a place (an image of a face can communicate emotion more effectively than a word), but words have an economy that is unrivaled. We are language animals.

Re:Text-free UI?

[lennier]

"Why is that? Well, most likely because the average user never needs automation at any large scale. The more advanced users who require automation because they actually do regularly and repeatedly perform tasks on large amounts of material are willing to take the time to learn to use existing tools which, as you say, work just fine. "

Actually, I don't believe that's true. I think the average user does need automation.

The problem is that the way our current GUIs are designed, it is very very difficult for an end-user to automate anything without leaving the shell.

I have this problem working in IT. Most of what I do requires integrating data from multiple sources and programs. It is exceptionally difficult to do this with the tools we have as given. I can write scripts and applications, but scripts and apps are only part of the problem. They only solve *tasks*. There is still no easy way in our current OS designs of tying multiple simultaneous tasks together into a user-configurable workflow.

This is a design problem in the IT world which we will need to overcome to get to the next level of user-friendliness.

Want to see more user-friendly software? *Make it so you don't have to be a 'programmer' to write a GUI*.

By which I don't mean 'write another silly point-and-click shell', but write a programming language that is actually suited to the job of designing GUIs and doesn't force the user to deal with irrelevant crud like our current C++-inspired methodology does. The C family is probably the worst possible language class for trying to develop dynamically runtime-configurable, parallel, pipes of composable widgets that consume and emit event streams. We only use these primitive tools because of historical inertia. The concept of 'compilation', like manual 'file saving', can and should be automated away.

We need a language and operating system that lets us describe 'programs' as primarily data-driven relationships and abstracts out any concept of 'control flow', because it's not relevant to the task of structuring a user's data workspace. Look into homoiconic languages like Lisp and Scheme, dataflow engines like FrTime and Flapjax, and the Xanadu concept of 'applitudes'. Or into the good old spreadsheet. There's a reason Excel is used extensively as a computation fabric by end-users. Generalise the cell-recomputation model, link it to a thin, completely runtime-user-reconfigurable GUI layer, and you have the user interface of the future.

Currently, it is hard for end-users to write GUIs *because GUI design tools are fundamentally broken*. They are broken because they are unsafe: they require the coder to manually write far too much C++-style event-driven 'glue code' and 'design patterns', rather than just writing a terse description of 'what connects to what' and let the infrastructure figure it out and optimise the low-level code. We need to be using data-driven, declarative/functional languages, rather than brittle imperative ones. Because the GUI 'application design' space is not in fact imperative in nature. It's not about implementing 'applications' that solve 'tasks' - it should be about *storing and processing data*. 'Tasks' are things a user needs to organise for themselves in the same way they decide what folder to store files in.

Fix the languages, and the GUI design problem will fix itself. I imagine a world where 'application designers' will just publish the basic data-transformation fundamentals of software, and 'interfaces' are things like HTML themes or Firefox skins or RSS aggregators : rapidly-changing things which the end-user free-software ecosystem can safely reconfigure until they actually do what users want.

Re:Text-free UI?

[TheRaven64]

You might want to take a look at this project. I am not sure if they are translating entire phrases yet, or still just translating words, but since their word lists in most language-pairs are in need of work, you could always help out there...

Oh, and you don't need to use GeoIP for language selection (Google does, and it really irritates people visiting Japan and finding google.com redirecting them to the Japanese-language version). Browsers send their preferred languages in an HTTP header. As long as the user has their computer configured for their desired language it will select it correctly.

Re:Text-free UI?

[TheRaven64]

I suggest you look at Smalltalk. It did most of what you wanted in the '80s. My most recent project was a Smalltalk JIT compiler that is toll-free bridged with Objective-C, allowing you to use OpenStep libraries (which are easy to use in Objective-C, and even easier in Smalltalk) to write apps.

Re:Text-free UI?

[clone53421]

There's a glyph. You don't know what it means. [...] So how do you find out what it means?

Usually I mouse-over it and wait until the tooltip tells me what it does... (now that's irony!).

You can't tell me that this symbol is in any way intuitive.

Actually, it's a clever superimposition of the digits 0 and 1, which are, as we all know, the two possible states of a binary machine - commonly used to represent true/false and on/off. Since the button toggles between the on/off states, it's the 0/1 button. =)

(Yeah, only a geek would think that was cool. But then, I'm a geek.)

Re:Text-free UI?

[Bat Country]

I put forth, sir-or-madam, that you are clearly not the average user, as you know what Lisp is.

Text free UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach the buggers to read.

Re:Text free UI?

[Hassman]

NO! Did you see the move Idiocracy?

(I'm paraphrasing)

"Welcome to the hospital. How are you feeling today"

*man at counter throws up*

*woman behind counter presses the button that shows a stick figure throwing up*

"Thank you, come again."

Re:Text free UI?

[quantumphaze]

I disagree, a UI that doesn't rely on text will be greatly appreciated by people with dyslexia or other severe reading problems.

Not every illiterate person is lazy/stupid.

Creative Capitalism

[MrKaos]

That's a synonym for Open Source, Mr Gates.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Cathoderoytube]

Funny thing about 'creative capitalism'.. Bill Gates owns one of the larger image banks on the internet right now. Unfortunately the current laws which allow the creative individuals who make money off their artwork on those image banks are costing Mr. Gates a portion of money (what with them owning the rights to their own work). SO he's currently one of the voices trying to get the copyright laws changed so any non-registered creative works become orphaned if their creators don't watch over them like a hawk (the current laws copyright everything by default and you don't have to pay money for it). If the law is changed all the works on those image banks will lose their copyright and Mr. Gates will be able to turn a profit on them, while all the creative people learn a hard lesson in capitalism.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[wellingj]

That's not capitalism. That's using government to get what you want by force.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[MrKaos]

If the law is changed all the works on those image banks will lose their copyright and Mr. Gates will be able to turn a profit on them, while all the creative people learn a hard lesson in capitalism.

Thats no reason to question the sincerity of a man on a mission to relieve poverty while dressed in a $10,000 Armani suit.

I always wondered what a Billion dollar Bill looks like.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[KGIII]

But, well, it is creative. ;)

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Cathoderoytube]

I'm a bit of a cynic. I don't see a whole lot of difference.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a synonym for Open Source, Mr Gates.

No. No it is not.

From the article: "Ten years ago, Melinda and I [Bill Gates] started our foundation because we want to be part of a different movement... to help create a world where no one has to live on a dollar a day or die from a disease we know how to prevent"

I don't see an obvious connection here.

Even if one day Bill Gates' philanthropy helps open source in place of Microsoft's Windows OS, he has already made lots of money from Windows. He would probably just move his investments to something else in the unlikely event that it were to go down the tubes.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is using the government to get what you want by force.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[magus_melchior]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
Those who still can't, lobby.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I see nothing wrong with having to pay for works that the author wants payment for while not having to pay for works that the author does not seek payment for. Every email you type, every photo you take, and every little webcam video you make is copyrighted by default. Legally, you can't use any of it made by anybody else without their permission, yet the vast majority of copyrighted material is "out of print" (i.e. you couldn't buy a copy even if you wanted to).

Why should I have to track down some dead author's heirs only to find out they don't care, just so I can stick a sample of their song in my video?

dom

Re:Creative Capitalism

[burnin1965]

I don't see an obvious connection here.

Here, I'll help...

Microsoft's products are developed, marketed, and sold using the capitalism economic system (I realize that Free Market is supposed to be part of a Capitalist Economy and Microsoft has used illegal business tactics to destroy Free Market in their main business sector, but bear with me). Their main product, Windows, is currently going for around $150. At one dollar a day an individual would need to work about half a year to purchase the operating system to run a computer let alone the hardware.

Giving up half a year of income to buy software is a rather surmountable task when you also need to buy food, clothes, residence, transportation, etc. Just to put it into perspective, the average car in the United States costs about one half of the average annual income and most people have to borrow money on a 3 to 7 year loan to pay off a new car. Imagine borrowing money on a 3 to 7 year loan simply to buy Windows. Its ridiculous.

So in order to provide the benefits of the latest technology in computer operating systems to someone who makes a dollar a day there needs to be a creative solution. One possibility would be to cut into those massive 80%+ margins built into the Capitalist price of Windows to make it more affordable, that doesn't even require much in the way of being creative. But to really be creative how about changing the licensing and distribution of the product to further reduce the costs to deliver and purchase the product. Well, guess what, its already been done, its called Open Source.

The initial development costs for an operating system are expensive, but once it is developed the distribution costs are minimal. Now you can create a licensing scheme that creates a fake supply side in the supply demand equation there by inflating the cost of the product, but Open Source does not do this. An Open Source license is a creative way to not only reducing the cost of delivery, but it also creates an abundant supply and spreads the initial cost of development.

Now the cost of acquiring the operating system which is Open Source is at most the cost of the media and transporting or even cheaper if there is internet access.

Creative eh? ;)

Of course you will get a bunch of flak from people suffering from psychotic paranoia delusions about Open Source being Socialist, Communist, or even Cancer, but the fact is there are many hard core for profit capitalist corporations in the red blooded United States of America who are not only relying on Open Source software but they are part of the development community. All I can tell you is pay no heed, they are simply blinded.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a synonym for Open Source, Mr Gates.

No, that's Creative Socialism.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[harlows_monkeys]

Please explain how Open Source can distribute medicine to the sick, manufacture that medicine in the first place, make bed nets to help against malaria, vaccinate children, or do anything else that involves making and deploying hardware?

Re:Creative Capitalism

[harlows_monkeys]

SO he's currently one of the voices trying to get the copyright laws changed so any non-registered creative works become orphaned if their creators don't watch over them like a hawk (the current laws copyright everything by default and you don't have to pay money for it). If the law is changed all the works on those image banks will lose their copyright and Mr. Gates will be able to turn a profit on them, while all the creative people learn a hard lesson in capitalism

So how come Richard Stallman says we should support that ball?

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Ghubi]

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0010056&ct=1

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Elektroschock]

It is even worse than that, the company believes that stifling interoperability is critical for their business model and you can bully foreign governments just for fun. Just have a look what they did to combat the European Interoperability Framework and open standards policies.

Microsoft under Gates acted as an extremist company. The rest of the market was smarter i.e. undogmatic, not fighting ideological battles. Microsoft was never honest about open source. All other players have real open business strategies.

Open Source and extreme programming also reflects the reclaiming of the software business by software professionals. If you fuck with developers by underdocumenting your platform, by lobbying for software patents and other wet dreams of the lawyer community, by stifling interoperability and free market developments, those affected players will conspire to fight back. A domino effect Microsoft is so afraid of.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[harlows_monkeys]

That covers discovery. How about manufacturing and distributing?

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Opportunist]

So we're not in a capitalist system anymore?

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Cathoderoytube]

I'm sure the bill is good for the software business, but it's bad for the art business. This fellow represents that lot that wants all software to be free or something. That is to say he doesn't represent the multitude of artists who'd be screwed over by the bill.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[MrKaos]

CK-ERP (Open Source ERP / CRM / MRP) v.0.21.1 released

Re:Creative Capitalism

[wellingj]

Was that a rhetorical question?

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Opportunist]

Basically, yes. But rethorical questions make people think, especially when the answer seems obvious. And we got too few people thinking currently if you ask me.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[harlows_monkeys]

How would artists be screwed? First of all, a work only falls under the bill if the copyright owner can't be found through a good faith search. As long as the artist's work is signed and the artist lists themselves in the places one would customarily look for artists of the appropriate type, a good faith search will find them.

Second, if a good faith search fails to find the artist, and someone incorporates that artists work, and then the artist turns up, the artist can still sue for copyright infringement. All that changes there is that the damages will be reasonable compensation (basically, what would have been a reasonable license fee to allow the use of his work).

Artists, in fact, will be big beneficiaries under this bill. For example, if you are making a video, and you find an old piece of music that you'd like to use in your video, and can't find the copyright owner to ask permission, under this bill you can go ahead and use the music, knowing that if the copyright owner later shows up, the damages will be reasonable. You don't have to worry that you'll get hit with a giant statutory damages award, or worse, an injunction that stops you from distributing your art.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats no reason to question the sincerity of a man on a mission to relieve poverty while dressed in a $10,000 Armani suit.

When I see Bill Gates, 'expensive clothes' is not mu first thought.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[cozziewozzie]

That's using government to get what you want by force.

And this is exactly what capitalism is.

A government-granted monopoly over an object or an idea (or who knows what else) which is traded for other government-granted monopolies under a market guarded by the government.

That's the only type of capitalism that has ever existed, and will ever exist.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[wellingj]

The Wiki (and therefore more people than just you) think otherwise:

Capitalism in its narrowest sense is simply private ownership of capital. Capitalism, the economic system, is the system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market.

I would tend to agree with you if you want to say that we do not have and ideal capitalism anywhere in the world. But I won't agree with your opinion that a better form of capitalism will never exist. To think that this kind of slavery and oppression of the individual will persist or get worse is a pretty grim outlook, so pardon me for hoping.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[cozziewozzie]

My issue is not with the definition of capitalism, which I agree with.

It's whether such a system can ever work without governmental control. For a working capitalist market, you need to honour contracts and you need to honour other people's property, and history has shown that this never tends to happen, which is why we have contract law, property law, police, prisons, etc.

It boils down to whether you believe that humans can be reduced to a perfect homo economicus (like Milton Friedman thinks), and then model all the transactions between people through the Subjective Theory of Value, which would likely be your vision of ideal capitalism.

I personally don't believe that humans will ever really act like that. True, taking history as a predictor of the future is not always the best thing to do, but I don't see this happening. Capitalism has always needed a state in the past, precisely because people don't act like they "should". They disregard property as soon as it's not punished (look at the "piracy" phenomenon), and they won't always honour contracts either.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[thedistrict]

Capitalism as opposed to what though? There doesn't seem to be an actual answer here. Communism? That may work in theory but in practice, the same attitudes that make capitalism destroy a communist society.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Cathoderoytube]

The definition of a reasonable search is somewhat loose. Because of this new bill a bunch of new businesses are popping up who's sole purpose is to keep track of peoples copyrights. That is copyrights people would now have to pay for. Since most artists can create thousands of works in a year registering all those copyrights is impossible. So let's say somebody like yourself decides since they can't draw or have no reasonable talent they need some art. They find an image they like and they do a 'reasonable' search to see if that particular image is registered anywhere they looked. So they go ahead and use it in a big ad campaign. The original artist finds out about it and hauls them into court. It now falls on the artist to prove that the asshole who stole their work knew they were breaking the copyright, as opposed to the old way where the they just had to demonstrate the work was theirs. none of this 'reasonable search' crap.
It's supposed to be illegal to remove watermarks from images, but it's easy enough to do, and all somebody has to do is claim the image never had a signature on it in the first place. The whole good faith issue is a nice little loophole. People can say 'Well I searched index abc and I couldn't fiiind them', when that could be an outright lie.

Artists won't be big beneficiaries. For example music will still remain copywritten. Companies like Disney are registering all their copyrights to make sure they don't get orphaned, same goes for the record companies. Personally I prefer the old knee breaking compensation. It prevents no talent little assfucks from stealing works from artists.

Re:Creative Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who write pithy sayings, misuse commas. ;)

Re:Creative Capitalism

[wellingj]

I never said I wanted to get rid of government. I rather like the part of government that handles the injustice of one individual infringing upon rights of another through an objective and impartial judge. There is of course a whole world of argument about what constitutes infringement which digresses from the main point.

I do under stand where you are coming from in regards to human nature. But, I propose the idea that we will never achieve a better form of capitalism if we don't hold our-selves, each individual accountable to themselves, to the ideal of what "should" be, not out of some kind of misguided love for all man, but for love of their own life. Bill Gates is still playing the "look at me, I'm good because I will sacrifice what I have dishonestly taken" game when he should have just played by ethical business rules and maybe he wouldn't feel the need to display himself for judgment.

People may call me a selfish bastard from time to time. All I demand, and all freely give, is honesty. Not that any of this furthers the discussion but I do mean to point out that I enjoyed your honesty and opinion.

cell phone by the second

[sylverboss]

It's about time that cell phone companies introduce per second billing, but this is not going to happen anytime soon as it is a major part of their business... and fat profits. SB

Re:cell phone by the second

[UserChrisCanter4]

Aerial Wireless was a smaller regional carrier that operated in the Southern US in the mid-to-late 90's. Their whole business plan was based around per second billing and their advertisements were based around various clever "real life" analogies to cell phone companies rounding to the minute. I believe they actually rounded to the 6 second mark, but I figure the effect was pretty much the same.

They were bought out by Voicestream in 2001 or 2002; Voicestream subsequently changed its name to T-Mobile. I don't think it was a case of financial problems that led to the buyout - Voicestream was just one of the rapidly-growing cell companies at the time that went around making big offers on small, local providers as part of their expansion plan.

So, yeah, it can and has been done.

Re:cell phone by the second

[xaxa]

It's about time that cell phone companies introduce per second billing, but this is not going to happen anytime soon as it is a major part of their business... and fat profits.

They bill per second in the UK (e.g. Orange, O2)

Re:cell phone by the second

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking forward to per month billing, actually. The cost of 1 second of airtime is even more inconceivable than the cost of a minute of airtime. That makes it easier to nickel and dime the customer to death.

Re:cell phone by the second

[blincoln]

Why does anyone think this would be to their benefit? If it were introduced, the phone companies would just increase the per-second charges to make up for the revenue they "lost" by more accurate accounting.

Re:cell phone by the second

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Italy there was contracts with billing by seconds since ever ! I know, US are a third world contry in telecomunications

Re:cell phone by the second

[fnj]

Why does anyone think this would be to their benefit? If it were introduced, the phone companies would just increase the per-second charges to make up for the revenue they "lost" by more accurate accounting.

Why? Because they are stupid.

Re:cell phone by the second

[Mishotaki]

it's been in Canada for years! My first cell phone was billed by the second with Fido http://www.fido.ca/web/Fido.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=MonthlyPlans/ .... There's only one problem with that: they only do it with suscription plans, meaning that you get billed by the minute if you're using prepaid like i am now...

Re:cell phone by the second

[jzuccaro]

Speaking of the third world. Digitel in Venezuela is billing by seconds since it was created, something that they advertised as they major advantage over the other two existing operators.

A few years later the other ones took the hint and now the 3 operators bill by seconds.

Also, you don't get charged a dime if someone calls you, just if you call.

Re:cell phone by the second

[glitch23]

It's about time that cell phone companies introduce per second billing, but this is not going to happen anytime soon as it is a major part of their business... and fat profits. SB

You say that like it is a good thing. Why can't cell carriers charge the same way land-line carriers charge, as in, not by time (unless the call is long distance)? In this day and age we shouldn't have to keep counting our minutes on our cell phone nor should we have to sign contracts but that is not going to happen anytime soon as it is a major part of their business...and fat profits.

Re:cell phone by the second

[Jesus_666]

How is billing by the second creative? Innovative, okay; Microsoft has already established that applying existing concepts to one's product constitutes an innovation... But creative? That's a pretty standard feature for landlines (at least in the more developed parts of the world) so I don't really think someone had to work his brain too hard to come up with applying it to mobile phones.

Re:cell phone by the second

[clone53421]

1. The extra cost wouldn't be hidden in rounding errors. Even if you pay the same amount, you're able to make better decisions about the value of your plan.

2. A person who makes a lot of short calls would benefit. If a phone call is slightly over 4 minutes and gets billed as 5 minutes, you're over-paying by almost 25%, and if they switch to per-second billing the phone companies won't need to raise the price all that much because the people who make long calls will end up paying more.

3. It's reasonable to assume phone companies make more money off people who make long calls, since they're billed on the basis of how much airtime is used (many short calls would cost more than very few long ones, but this is assuming the people are actually using their phones regularly). Raising the per-minute rate will be bad for those people and that would hurt the phone company's business.

Considering these factors, the phone companies might raise the cost of 60 seconds slightly, but it raising it much would hurt them more than it helped.

needs a logo

[gEvil (beta)]

I think the only way a Gates innovation like "Creative Capitalism" will really take off is if it has a nice logo to indicate when something is Creative Capitalism compliant. I suggest two lowercase C's in a circle.

creative

[rpillala]

What does this have to do with capitalism? Creativity isn't limited to any particular economic system.

Re:creative

[Metasquares]

Forget capitalism; I was going to ask what it had to do with creativity :)

Re:creative

[ceoyoyo]

For capitalists, not screwing your customer (quite as much) is such a radical proposition that they think it's creative, "thinking outside the box" stuff.

Re:creative

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what he is calling for is for more people to be more creative so he can spend more time capitalizing on their ideas.

Microsoft as a company (Ballmer as an individual) has convinced him that they are in a rut having run out of things to steal.

Re:creative

[Opportunist]

Whether or not you screw your customer over isn't so much dependent on your system, but dependent on your customer pool. If customers are plentiful (i.e. you're in retail or selling to "the masses"), you can rip off as you please. Sure, that guy will be pissed at you, but who cares, as long as you're cheap some poor idiot will buy with you.

If you're in wholesale or offering special goods/services only a handful of people (or rather, companies and/or nations) need, like when you're building power plants or fighter jets, ripping off your customer might be not such a good idea. Instead, bribe them.

Re:creative

[ceoyoyo]

The goal is still to screw your customer. There are just other factors that put limits on how MUCH screwing you're likely to get away with.

In the case of selling power plants or fighter jets you rip off your customer shamelessly, but you bribe their representatives not to tell on you.

Re:creative

[Opportunist]

Actually you bribe the representative to get the sale and be able to sell your military crap for more money than it should cost, which you have to charge because you have to pay the bribe...

Ok, ok, you win. Happy now?

Re:creative

[TheRaven64]

Not screwing your customer is just good business sense. In most industries, it costs approximately seven times more to gain a new customer than to retain an existing one (in banking it's significantly higher, in a few industries it's a bit lower). Every customer you screw who decides to go elsewhere costs you seven times as much as they were costing you to replace them, and that's before you start thinking about expanding (which every good capitalist company wants to do).

I know ONE way to uplift the poor...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Creative Socialism.

But, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative *is* a capitalist company!

Re:But, but...

[Yvan256]

The only creative ideas they ever had was to clone the AdLib soundcard and to kill Aureal with tons of legal fees.

They're the Microsoft of the PC soundcards history.

Gotta monetize it

[HalAtWork]

MS is obsessed with monetizing everything. Creative Capitalism is just their answer to Creative Commons, and Open Source. Public Domain they don't care much about because they can at least charge for access to the content or a conversion of the content depending on the platform.

"It is mainly corporations that have the skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. "

He means money, not skill, and if you are trying to help the poor, then you have to give them a way to survive despite not having money, not a way to keep depending on money and make that dependence even stronger. Who knows, maybe they are just interested on getting poor countries up to getting an economy going just so it's a new place to put up a toll booth or a new culture to start selling Windows to every hear, and if they develop these markets then they will start funneling money towards MS or at least not investing time/energy/mindshare in OSS.

The OLPC may not have succeeded with its goals but it at least had the right philosophy: Start making the third world independent and self sufficient, get people to discover and collaborate on their strengths, and to build themselves up without reliance on those who are already self sufficient. For developing countries it is very important to come up independent so others don't come in and take advantage of you whenever you have gained any amount of wealth. It's a lot harder to be taken advantage of, and you also have more bargaining power in the world forum, if you are independent.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

>Who knows, maybe they are just interested on getting poor countries up to getting an
>economy going just so it's a new place to put up a toll booth or a new culture to start
>selling Windows to every hear, and if they develop these markets then they will start
>funneling money towards MS or at least not investing time/energy/mindshare in OSS.

Did I miss something?
What's the problem with this? It sounds like both parties involved benefits greatly.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[barometz]

"Creative Communism", you're making it way too easy. Sheesh.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Amorymeltzer]

You have completely missed the point. I'm guessing you just read the title, not even the summary! This is not Bill Gates speaking on behalf of Microshaft, this is Bill Gates speaking on behalf of good conscience, one of the greatest foundations in existence, and a complete understanding of the corporate world.

We'd all love to give money to help the world, but we all also happen to want/need it as well. It's hard for businesses to give money away because their job, their entire purpose, is to make it for themselves.

Take the example of the RED campaign, as given up-top. They managed to sell something (absurd, imho) that people buy, thereby making more money (and, presumably, problems) for them and their stockholders, but meanwhile a portion of all the profits goes to AIDS work.

That is Creative Capitalism.

Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to create a project that is beneficial for all parties involved. He's suggesting we do more for ourselves by helping others.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Amiga Trombone]

Say what you will about bill gates and M$, but the man has donated a fuckton of his money to make the world a better place(Malaria cures, anyone?)

Has he done the world more good giving away his money than he did in the process of earning it? Think about that one for a while.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

speaking on behalf of good conscience

The man doesn't have one.

one of the greatest foundations in existence

You mean the one causing deaths... the one created purely to promote US Intellectual Property rights abroad?

and a complete understanding of the corporate world

The only things he understands is corporate greed, lock-in and abusing monopolies.

Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to create a project that is beneficial for all parties involved.

All involved? His actions help big pharma & other companies in the US and very little else.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Bastard of Subhumani]

A few typos in there, pal.

the man has donated a fuckton of our money, that he stole through illegal monopolistic practices, to salve his conscience and save his image

That's what you meant to write.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Game, set match. I win, you lose.

I just DESTROYED YOU BITCH!!!!!

Re:Gotta monetize it

[remmelt]

> It's hard for businesses to give money away because their job, their entire purpose, is to make it for themselves.

Says who? Step one of "creative capitalism" (a term that shares the same level of bs as web2.0) should be the realisation that not everything a company does needs to make money.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Xtravar]

Wait, isn't that what the federal government does?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[freeasinrealale]

You have completely missed the point. I'm guessing you just read the title, not even the summary! This is not Bill Gates speaking on behalf of Microshaft, this is Bill Gates speaking on behalf of good conscience, one of the greatest foundations in existence, and a complete understanding of the corporate world.

We'd all love to give money to help the world, but we all also happen to want/need it as well. It's hard for businesses to give money away because their job, their entire purpose, is to make it for themselves.

Take the example of the RED campaign, as given up-top. They managed to sell something (absurd, imho) that people buy, thereby making more money (and, presumably, problems) for them and their stockholders, but meanwhile a portion of all the profits goes to AIDS work.

That is Creative Capitalism.

Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to create a project that is beneficial for all parties involved. He's suggesting we do more for ourselves by helping others.

- Oh I get it now! Develop markets for completely useless products by setting up sweat shops in 3rd world countries so they can make just above starvation level wages. Aha! - then sell the useless products to over-sated developed populations. - And charge them mind-numbingly high prices - ala Apple Computer - yea - with a proviso that some of the err - PRICE!! - is really a donation to help the undernourished. Great PR!! The 3rd world will worship!! BIG RED, Capitalism, and - best of all - we GET rich. Ain't Capitalism great???

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Yvan256]

Yes, but since they're the government, they can actually decide what is legal and what isn't.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that nobody died from Bill Gates making money and that he is now saving or at least helping lives, I would say definately yes.

You anti MS fanatics really need to take a step back and see the big picture. Yes, Microsoft did some pretty shady *business* dealings to make money. but Linux, Apple, whichever MS adversary you are supporting is not important compared to life.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[HalAtWork]

That's all fine, but his same philosophy has become Microsoft's philosophy and this is how they deal with the market, their competitors, and it's how they view consumers. Right from Bill's first letter biting the heads off of hobbyists, MS has pretty much followed that route.

Anyway how are you using Bill's tax shelter as an argument? How about when MS has donated computers and software to schools, is the foundation as "nice" along the same lines as the charity expressed by MS itself?

I also find it pretty hilarious that you say "Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem." And "He's suggesting we do more for ourselves by helping others."? That's actually the OSS philosophy, MS's is "Funnel everything towards or through us." I'm sure Bill thanks you for coming to his defense, but along with RTFA, you might want to take a history lesson too next time.

The article that was posted is nothing new. He is still talking about using Windows Mobile cell phones instead of PCs (which he marketed against OLPC in the first place), he is still talking about other countries being dependent on our established economies and companies, and when he talks about "sharing" and "helping" he really means that he'll be facilitating their dependence on organizations that really just provide that stuff for them, instead of helping them become self sufficient.

If his foundation weren't around, there would be another better one in its place that wouldn't be tied to the same shrewd aspirations Bill had for MS.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[jedidiah]

So whatever evil or damage Gates might have caused before is
irrelevant now because he has decided to be "nice" and start
giving his ill gotten gains away?

This sort of PR blow job is exactly the point.

Bribe your way back into a good reputation.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[HanzoSpam]

The critical uncertainty is whether or not the other guy would've done the same with regards to charity. Think about -that- one for a while.

As if that would have made any difference.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[foobsr]

They managed to sell something (absurd, imho) that people buy ...

Hmm, I up to now thought that was the core idea, the more absurd, the more capitalistic (and, of course, the more creative). Old wine in new wine-skins :-(

CC.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[mikkelm]

So, any humanitarian endeavour that doesn't yield immediate and complete success is pointless? I like your attitude.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

It's not clear what the "it" is that Gates did in your post, but it's not at all certain that someone else would've done what he and MS did. I could imagine a world where a GNU OS was used in place of DOS/Windows by all the PC builders, and no one person got $50B in the process. Just for example.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is obsessed with monetizing everything. Creative Capitalism is just their answer to Creative Commons, and Open Source. Public Domain they don't care much about because they can at least charge for access to the content or a conversion of the content depending on the platform.

"It is mainly corporations that have the skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. "

He means money, not skill, and if you are trying to help the poor, then you have to give them a way to survive despite not having money, not a way to keep depending on money and make that dependence even stronger. Who knows, maybe they are just interested on getting poor countries up to getting an economy going just so it's a new place to put up a toll booth or a new culture to start selling Windows to every hear, and if they develop these markets then they will start funneling money towards MS or at least not investing time/energy/mindshare in OSS.

The OLPC may not have succeeded with its goals but it at least had the right philosophy: Start making the third world independent and self sufficient, get people to discover and collaborate on their strengths, and to build themselves up without reliance on those who are already self sufficient. For developing countries it is very important to come up independent so others don't come in and take advantage of you whenever you have gained any amount of wealth. It's a lot harder to be taken advantage of, and you also have more bargaining power in the world forum, if you are independent.

What do you mean OLPC has not succeeded with its goals? For a start up that is 3 years old, at most, it has done phenomenally well. It started shipping product in November 2007. It has shipped nearly 500,000 XOs in 10 months. It is rare for a start up hardware / software outfit to ship this quantity of product in such a short time and have the quantity of orders it has on the books.
As a result a number of indigenous organizations have sprung up around the world to assist in the deployment and support and software development.
I can only assume you have been reading the Microsoft and Intel generated FUD about the OLPC project.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[mikkelm]

Yes, it -is- certain. Capitalism ensures this. Computing is a market like any other.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

I guess you'd see nothing wrong with everyone in the world sending me $20, I'll keep 50% of it and be sure the rest is used for some very good causes. I personally would like to find a cure for cancer. You're not against finding a cure for cancer, are you...?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

You still haven't defined "it", but I gave a believable example of a way in which the OS market could have gone, with the end result being no one person gets filthy rich. On top of that, even without the use of free software, it's not certain that one company would necessarily dominate the market for so long. So no, I don't think it's at all certain. You seem to just be grasping at some theoretical capitalistic ideal to back you up.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[fnj]

Yeah. Way to carry water there.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[JNighthawk]

I have absolutely no problem with sending you $20, if you offer me something valuable in return. On a daily basis, I use Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Visual Studio. The fact that part of the money that was spent on those products goes towards *helping the world* is amazing.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

Yes, I figured someone would raise that point. The analogy of course gets a bit complicated if I try to make it closer to reality. But my point was that if we just throw out all the details because they aren't "important compared to life", as the earlier poster said, you can distill it down to my simplistic suggestion. The details do matter.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[dronf]

Are you kidding me? The gates foundation is pouring BILLIONS of dollars per year into absolutely necessary charities.

No matter how you look at it, gates will save and improve far more lives than RMS or whatever beard-and-ponytail that the slashdot crowd idolizes these days.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

There is a lot more to the world then software. A fact that many here on slashdot seem to miss.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Mishotaki]

meanwhile a portion of all the profits goes to AIDS work.

now, why don't you learn about what a part of something is? A part of the profits can be from a penny to all of them except a penny, meaning they just say that to get good publicity, making their company looking good and have more people choosing their product over another due to a better company image...

i got nothing against giving money to the needy... but i got a problem with people praising companies that much for the little they really do

Re:Gotta monetize it

[mikkelm]

The "it" defines itself. Backtrack a bit, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You didn't really give a believable example of how the OS market could end up, even if you'd like to believe that it could happen like that. Why? Well, capitalism has a way of making sure that some people -do- get filthy rich. The automotive industry has a handful of giants, and a handful of people are getting filthy rich off of this. Same goes for the computer hardware industry, same goes for the travel industry, same goes for the telco industry, same goes for the oil industry, same goes for the financial industry, and I could keep going, and going, and going.

Still, you seem to think that somehow, magically, the computer operating system industry could circumvent this ubiquitous trend without detailing why or how. In fact, all you supplied with your argument was a utopian vision, way out of line with how reality is in every single major industry.

I'm not really in a position where I need to grasp at anything to find examples supporting my argument. They're all around us. Examples supporting yours, however, are not.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft never said "send us money to cure cancer", they said "send us money for this product". The charity work was a nice bonus.

I would not send you $20 simply because I can't trust you. I would and do have a portion of my wages automaticaly donated to a real charity organization. Set up a real charity and we'll talk about it.

Bill Gates isn't a mobster. He's not giving away drug or blood money, although the zealots would have you believe that is the case. His money was largely legally earned. If it wasn't, how does he still have it? If you feel otherwise, why aren't you bashing your government instead for "letting" him get away with it?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!) It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries.

There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Elektroschock]

The idea is that you talk about solving problems (world poverty) as a substitute for activities but it appeals to an audience who regards you as the messiah. And it just works. This is how African politics works for the political class and Gates wants to participate in that innovative culture of political governance that is to be blamed for the rpoblems there. Talking good also helps you to overcome cognitive dissonance.

It is simple and possible e.g. to solve the Malaria problem. Dry the swamps and ensure that all small cottages protect their windows with mosquito nets. Additionally you can trap the mosquitos. All this does not require great efforts but I am sure Gates can't deliver.

Creative Capitalism is an attempt to repackage "capitialism" in a superficial American way and brand it with its magic effects against world problem X you talk about. But Americans don't even understand the basic conception of a free market. They turned the Austrian school into a religion with absolutely no clue what they were really talking about. Cold war madness. "Creative Capitalism" also attracts some corporate social responsibility lefties and brain dead US capitalism radicals. Misconceptions meet misconceptions. Blind and deaf. You feel like you want to slap them and reinvent basic social democratic principles that are shared among the whole spectrum in all those nations Gates did not attempt to understand.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you missed the part where the poorer countries are totally dependent on established countries and are basically caught towing the line.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Elektroschock]

As a capital owner I can do with my capital whatever I want. No one forces me to make more money. I can pursue any objective I like.

Now, there is a public benefit function and its called taxes. Your corporation pays taxes, the government solves common problems e.g. education, infrastructure, health, military defense.

The idea that all world problems need to be solved by corporations or cross-financed by businesses is bullshit.

If you don't trust governments you can form an alliance of people or e.g. a cooperative or ... etc. to pursue a certain objective, e.g. to build houses and flats. This is quite common in many of the worlds societies.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[drsmithy]

Has he done the world more good giving away his money than he did in the process of earning it? Think about that one for a while.

Unquestionably.

On the one hand, we have money being made by selling software to willing customers. On the other, we have money being spent saving people from dying.

I find it amazing anyone even feels the need to ask such a stupid question.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[mikkelm]

"Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!)"

Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic.

"It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries."

Two and more operating systems already share the OS pie. It may not be a big portion, but it's a growing portion. I don't see where you're going with this, though, because this one person would still be filthy rich even with just 50% of the market share, and free operating systems would still be competing toe to toe with other commercial offerings for the remaining 50%, making other people filthy rich as well.

"There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long."

Would that be the same reason explaining why Carlos Slim, the Walton family, Lakshmi Mittal and Michael Dell, to name but a few, are found high up on those lists as well? Some exceeding Bill Gates' position?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

Many people who are familiar with MS and its history feel they acquired their power, money, and market share through unethical, if not sometimes illegal, means. No one is calling him a mobster or a murderer; we get that, thanks. We also get that in most cases it wasn't even illegal, so we're not running down to the sheriff's office demanding Gates be carted off to jail. Really, my entire point had nothing to do with the specifics of MS or Gates; I was railing against this attitude that "he's saving lives, so who cares how he got his money". If I collect $20 from everyone, well, hey, nobody's getting hurt, what's your problem? It's a slippery slope, but you could change it to, "If everyone was obligated to send me $20 for a widget in order to use their computer."

It's also insulting to use the term "zealots". Maybe "informed industry folks" would be better, eh? I don't know much about the car industry, but I'd also be pissed if the Big 3 (note not Big 1!) quietly squashed every competitor that tried to introduce a revolutionary new car that got 100 MPG. I guess the people that stood up for the little guy would just be zealots? You should be proud that you're fighting for the 1,000 pound gorilla!

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

"Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic."

Unrealistic != impossible, hence your use of the term certainty is wrong. And, as I said before, software is very much different from other industries. I'm pretty sure you understand that.

I think there's an undercurrent of misunderstanding here, so even though we no doubt still very much disagree on many things, there's no point going on.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this fantasy world you live in? If it could have turned out the way you suggest, with free operating systems dominating, then why hasn't it? Computers have had a long enough history now that somewhere along the line it should have happened.

In the days of the PDP-8, VAX, PDP-11, Apple II, Commodore VIC20/64, Amiga, MS-DOS/PC-DOS/DR-DOS PC, Apple Macintosh and Windows PC there were plenty of chances and opportunities. So why didn't it ever happen?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

If the free software movement had happened earlier, then yes, a mature option could very well have been available and widely adopted in the early PC years. What's so bizarre about that? You do realize I'm speculating on parallel universes/"what ifs" here? In our universe, once DOS/Windows became as entrenched as it did (some might use the "m" word here), then of course it was difficult to move to something else. I guess we should just criticize RMS and Linus for being born too late? In any case, it's not hard for me to imagine how things could have turned out very differently with just a few changes here and there. Maybe in 5-50 years it'll still happen.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Amorymeltzer]

Fair enough. Here you go:

AmEx - 1% of amount you spend
Gap - 50% of profit
Giorgio Armani - 40%
RAZR - 6.5%
Apple - 5% (according to the RED website)

Good enough for ya? I'm a firm believer that half a loaf is better than none. Previously these groups were doing nothing - now they're doing something. That's what Gates is suggesting - everyone gaining, whether large or small, is better than nothing.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates may understand the corporate world, what he doesn't understand is liberalism.

I hate when people brandish it as the solution to all ills, but the problem right now with Africa is that by giving money to our farmer to dump their stuff there and then giving Africa money to shore up the situation, all we've done in 50 years is creating an entire continent of people waiting for white 4WDs filled with do-gooders to show up. Contrast and compare with Asia that was left - sometimes against our own "good" advice - on their own.

Want to solve Africa's problems? Drop the farm subsidies. Stop giving money to invariably dodgy rulers who will use it to buy consent. Stop buying oil/diamonds/copper/whatever from companies or subsidiaries that do not follow modern accounting rules, esp regarding corruption.

This, of course, is difficult. Instead we've got Billy's 'let's solve malaria' outfit and Bono's '100 millions in marketing for 20 there means 120 millions for Africa' BS. Good marketing, sounds "good". Nice. Easy. More of the same.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[LordVader717]

Nobody knows how the world would be without Microsoft's monopoly. It would be ludicrous to think that Microsoft's *business* deals would be a completely irrelevant from all the "important" issues. How far can you go with shady business deals and how much harm can you do to the global economy before their limited amount of charity doesn't negate it? Should we accept every wrongdoing if somewhere along the line there was a charitable cause?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD.

The open source movement has been around since long before Linux even existed.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Reid]

True, I didn't mean to imply open source started with linux. I'm not old enough to remember the early days, but I was using GNU stuff back in the '80s.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Amiga Trombone]

Considering that nobody died from Bill Gates making money and that he is now saving or at least helping lives, I would say definately yes.

You anti MS fanatics really need to take a step back and see the big picture. Yes, Microsoft did some pretty shady *business* dealings to make money. but Linux, Apple, whichever MS adversary you are supporting is not important compared to life.

You misunderstand - I'm not an anti-MS fanatic. What I'm saying is that in the process of earning his money providing a cheap, standardized platform (yes, cheap. If that surprises you, you must be too young to remember the software industry pre-PC.) Gates created a vast benefit to the world. The amount of benefit Gates has created giving away his money is negligible. Therefore, he's done the world more good earning his money than he ever will giving it away.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, i agree, withholding source code did lots more harm than fucking curing disease did good.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

and he was doing good while he was making money, too.

making money is not being evil. it means you're providing a benefit to society and being compensated for it. despite what you feel about the business practices of microsoft or the quality of their products, their business has enabled a lot of businesses and people become more productive than they would have been without.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[TheRaven64]

BSD was around, but needed much more hardware than DOS. At a minimum it needed a machine with an MMU - something which didn't happen in PCs until the 386. By the time PCs could run any UNIX-variant at a reasonable speed, there was a load of legacy DOS software (much of it ported from CP/M) that wouldn't run on UNIX.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[clone53421]

It is simple and possible e.g. to solve the Malaria problem. Dry the swamps and ensure that all small cottages protect their windows with mosquito nets. Additionally you can trap the mosquitos. All this does not require great efforts

Yeah, get back with me when you're all done with that.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Elektroschock]

The point is that the solution is very basic and does not require magic or large investment. Mosquitos would pose no great danger if not large parts of the population were infected and generally sleep without cover.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[clone53421]

No, the point is that something so easy should be a weekend's worth for you, maybe two. So... you're already done, I take it?

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Anonymous Coward]

Project RED is not a good example to convince people skeptical of the motives of corporate compassion. Companies have spent $100 million in advertising on RED, and have raised $18 million. Sounds like an excuse to run more ads and get some writeoffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_Red

Re:Gotta monetize it

[Elektroschock]

I am protected. But most of my African friends have Malaria. Its normal. Two or three days per year they get a fever.

It is very basic and no rocket science to reduce the risk. The problem is that the governments are corrupt and not action-oriented and people are used to it. Sleep outdoors with no protection or with open windows. Swamps are not drained. Canalisation is not fully covered.

Re:Gotta monetize it

[clone53421]

Maybe I need to be clearer...

It is simple and possible e.g. to solve the Malaria problem. Dry the swamps and ensure that all small cottages protect their windows with mosquito nets. Additionally you can trap the mosquitos. All this does not require great efforts

Yes it does.

To: Bill Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Creative Capitalism

End all Microsoft operating systems except dos.

Thanks.

Cordially,
K. Trout

lets be honest now

[SirShmoopie]

People scraping by on less than a dollar a day aren't going to be interested in anything like this.

Ordinary priorities like eating, keeping a roof over their heads and trying not to get sick and die are likely to be far more important.

Also, with all due respect to his charitable efforts, for which, if for little else, I respect him, what does he, as one of the richest men in the world, think he's doing saying what people in abject poverty want?

I'd venture a guess that what they want is for a persons worth and entitlement to the basics of life to be unrelated to money.

If we can afford to pour billions into a shallow fight to control Oil, We can afford to make life's basics free for anyone who asks.

Re:lets be honest now

[abstract daddy]

Since we're on the subject of being honest, I wonder what would happen if, with the wave of a magic wand, all developing countries would be uplifted to the level of, say, China or India? How quickly would the planet be depleted of resources and ruined by pollution?

Re:lets be honest now

[Bombula]

If we can afford to pour billions into a shallow fight to control Oil, We can afford to make life's basics free for anyone who asks.

I certainly agree with your sentiments, but the truth is that we can't afford to. There are simply too many people and there isn't enough wealth in the world. Capitalism's main problem is that it doesn't distribute wealth equitably. But it IS great at generating wealth. This was a main point Gates made in the article. But it isn't enough. We aren't wealthy enough, and the growth of wealth in our global economy is not enough to keep pace - even in theory - with past or present population growth to carry everyone forward adequately (i.e. with a standard of living acceptable by modern western standards) even if all wealth was distributed evenly. The easiest proof of this comes from the well-known study that showed if everyone one Earth consumed the same resources as the average American, we would need 3 Earths to generate the basic inputs of materials and energy - clearly an impossibility.

My field of expertise happens to be international development, and one of the issues that has recently become impolitic to mention is population growth. We used to more openly recognize population growth as a major problem. Not so much now - you can conjecture why if you like. Regardless, population is and will continue to be the major obstacle standing in the way of broad-scale socioeconomic and environmental sustainability. There are just too many people.

As one quick example, I worked in the Middle East for a number of years in several countries that were really close to an ideal development scenario: the governments had tons of money thanks to oil and low initial populations. It was basically a blank slate with a blank check - fantastic! Build roads here, power plants there, schools here, hospitals there. And things have gone really very well. But rather than enjoy a GDP per capita of something like $20,000, those countries now have GDP/c of something under $5,000. Why? Because Islam forbids birth control just like Catholicism, and the populations are growing at 15-25% annually.

Re:lets be honest now

[houghi]

Ordinary priorities like eating, keeping a roof over their heads and trying not to get sick and die are likely to be far more important.

And what if they already have a roof and enough food? Or do you think that there are only two groups of people, starving people and people who have plenty and can easily pay for a new PC every year.

This is basicaly the stage of 'learning a man to fish' instead of giving him a fish.

Here a smaple of a multi seat solution which still requires multiple monitors and costs 50% of what they would pay normaly. Now imagine removing 50% of the monitors, so that students have to work together on one monitor.

Not only will this cause a drop in price, it will cause kids to work together and learn social skills at the same time and will learn what they need to learn better, because of the interaction with other kids.

So this could benefit kids in shools everywhere, including the rich kids.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

To his credit, he's taken far more of an interest in this group than most slashdot readers. I know this is slashdot and gates-bashing is in vogue, but can we at least let the man try to give back?

Re:lets be honest now

[mysticgoat]

...with all due respect to his charitable efforts, for which, if for little else, I respect him...

Uh. I'd have more respect for his charitable efforts if he was giving away more money than he was taking in. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation consistently donates about half of its previous year's revenues. So his pile of money is growing only half as fast as it would if he didn't give any away. It isn't shrinking at all. A quick look at the tax law shows the reason: by giving away this little bit every year, B&MGF avoids having to pay a lot more in USA taxes.

Mr. Bill used to dress like a geek, but he was never a geek: however you define geekdom, avarice would never be its dominant quality. Mr. Bill now prefers to wear the vestments of a philanthropist, but again it has all got to do with his outer appearance. His manifest behavior continues to be that of an avaricious pig.

Re:lets be honest now

[foobsr]

Since we're on the subject of being honest, I wonder what would happen if, with the wave of a magic wand, all developing countries would be uplifted to the level of, say, China or India? How quickly would the planet be depleted of resources and ruined by pollution?

Just fix your time base to the age of the universe and you all too soon realize that these things happen instantaneously .

CC.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Who are you to decide what other countries can or cant do? What have you done in you're life that has made a difference to the world?

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

what a brilliant plan.. give money to avoid paying taxes? I wonder why the rest of the world isn't in on this. Are you doing it too??

Re:lets be honest now

[abstract daddy]

Uh... when did I assert that I decide/should decide what other countries can or can't do, and how is my personal life in any way related to this?

Re:lets be honest now

[farmer11]

There are simply too many people and there isn't enough wealth in the world [to provide basic sustenance for those who need it]

Why?

The easiest proof of this comes from the well-known study that showed if everyone one Earth consumed the same resources as the average American, we would need 3 Earths to generate the basic inputs of materials and energy - clearly an impossibility

The problem there, as you mention, is the amount of resources Americans consume. The post you are replying to said, "make life's basics free for anyone who asks". An Xbox, Brittany Spears and a Big Mac are not life's basics.

Also, if it would take 3 Earths of resources to give everyone the lifestyle you talk about, then all we need to do is consume one third less resources and we have a solution.

Anyway, it's much more complicated than that. Even if the basic necessities were provided, that wouldn't prevent other problems like intolerance and violence. Does it matter that your are warm, clothed and fed when dudes with assault rifles are murdering your family?

Re:lets be honest now

[mysticgoat]

It is a smart business move for anybody with enough money to need an accountant, who is subject to USA taxes. Check out the 501 Corporation tax laws. Gates retains all the benefits that come from having a free choice of where to invest the funds, and the total amount of the actual charitable contributions that the corporation needs to make each year are minimal, and of course he's got full control over where to give away these funds. Meanwhile, contributions to the corporation, such as moneys received from liquidating his MS stock, are not subject to personal taxes since they are charitable gifts. He avoids the hefty capital gains taxes that he would otherwise have to pay.

B&MGF's financial statements are public and published on the web; google for them. Compare the amount of contribution to the total of all assets at the beginning of the prior year, and you will see that this is consistently around the 5% or so minimum needed to maintain tax exempt status. Then look at the earnings for the end of the current year, and you will see that these vary somewhat but tend to be more than double the amount that was contributed. The whole thing is driven by tax laws.

For Mr. Bill, this is indeed a brilliant plan. For citizens of the USA, not so much. If he had not made use of this tax shelter, his contribution to the costs of USA wars, No Child Left Behind initiatives, Homeland Security measures and so forth would have reduced the tax burden on everyone else.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism's main problem is that it doesn't distribute wealth equitably.

Maybe that's because everyone doesn't generate wealth equitably in the first place.

And speaking of problems, do you know what the problem with you [semi]-socialists is: your entire economic theory (or lack thereof) is about redistribution and never about production.

Re:lets be honest now

[burnin1965]

Capitalism's main problem is that it doesn't distribute wealth equitably

Bingo!!!

However I still question whether the problem is Capitalism itself or simply the people who have gamed the system and basically turned Capitalism back into Feudalism.

I agree with many of the concerns that Gates expresses in the article but I absolutely disagree with his assessment of the situation and the solution. Case in point, perhaps I don't know enough about this RED program started by Bono which is saving the world but from what I read of the article corporations are using marketing to sell products to by pulling heart strings and then giving a portion of the profit margin to a charity. Why don't they just give donations to charities outright like their customers have been doing for ages? What is the added value to the charities of creating a marketing ploy?

But back to Capitalism. The solution is not Creative Capitalism, the solution is to adopt real Capitalism and punish those who destroy the Free Market in which Capitalism works. Many of the countries that are suffering with poor standards of living actually have marketable resources which could be used to build an economy, however, through corruption the wealth of the nations are radically uneven in their distribution.

And sadly Gates fails to recognize the symptoms in the United States economy for what they are. The GINI coefficient for the United States has been continually trending in the direction of inequality similar to many countries where the average citizen is incapable of participating in a Capitalist Economy as anything other than a laborer to be exploited.

The solution to the worlds ills is not more goofy marketing and selling of crap products that nobody needs. The first step in the solution is to stop the outrageous corruption and exploitation that destroys economies, communities, and living standards. A secondly we need to seriously listen to experts in sociology and economics, not a monopolist who wants to put his corporate label on everyones contribution to the solution.

Re:lets be honest now

[harlows_monkeys]

Also, with all due respect to his charitable efforts, for which, if for little else, I respect him, what does he, as one of the richest men in the world, think he's doing saying what people in abject poverty want?

I'd venture a guess that what they want is for a persons worth and entitlement to the basics of life to be unrelated to money.

The difference is that all you can do is to venture to guess. He, being rich, can afford to actually go talk to the people in abject poverty and to the organizations (charitable, corporate, academic, and government) that work with them, and have them want to talk to him, and so actually find out what they need and want, so doesn't have to merely venture to guess.

Re:lets be honest now

[Your.Master]

And you know what your problem is?

You don't know what equitably means. It's not a synonym of equally.

Re:lets be honest now

[Macthorpe]

I tell you what he should do - he should give all the money away. That way, he wouldn't be able to give any money ever again.

No, wait, that's a fucking stupid idea, and you should really think hard about this stuff before you post.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is basicaly the stage of 'learning a man to fish' instead of giving him a fish.

I believe the original proverb deals with fire, not fish:

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for an evening.

Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Re:lets be honest now

[drsmithy]

The easiest proof of this comes from the well-known study that showed if everyone one Earth consumed the same resources as the average American, we would need 3 Earths to generate the basic inputs of materials and energy - clearly an impossibility.

OTOH, the average American could probably halve their effective resource usage without a significant negative - if any - impact to their lifestyle.

A smaller population wouldn't hurt, of course.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a XO or a Classmate for each of those children would be cheaper than buying a big screen with a big PC with Vista. And it would give them a better user experience.

A shared PC is orders of magnitude worse than a cheap one for learning.

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what equitably means. It's not a synonym of equally.

Um... you wish!

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equitable

Re:lets be honest now

[The_reformant]

Thats really interesting. Do you remember the name of the study? I would like to read it. Did it go as far as to extrapolate what standard of life we would get if we evenly distributed the combined wealth of just one Earth?

Re:lets be honest now

[sir fer]

There are simply too many people and there isn't enough wealth in the world.

What utter bullshit

There is plenty of land and food to feed everyone. There may not be enough "wealth" (whatever that is) to satisfy all the greedy motherfuckers out there, but there are ample resources to provide the basics for everybody

Go back to spreading FUD about global warming or climate change or whatever the fuck the FUD spreaders are calling it now

Re:lets be honest now

[gibbsjoh]

>Because Islam forbids birth control

Um, no it doesn't. http://www.unh.edu/msa/familyp.htm

In fact there are condom factories in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and more or less every other Middle East nation. Now, the attitudes of the people regarding birth control is another matter, but please get your facts straight.

Re:lets be honest now

[cozziewozzie]

The easiest proof of this comes from the well-known study that showed if everyone one Earth consumed the same resources as the average American, we would need 3 Earths to generate the basic inputs of materials and energy - clearly an impossibility.

Yes, but living like an average American is not exactly needed in order to provide "life's basics".

In fact, the food that is produced TODAY could feed the world two times over.

THAT is a tragedy.

Re:lets be honest now

[clone53421]

Uh. I'd have more respect for his charitable efforts if he was giving away more money than he was taking in. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation consistently donates about half of its previous year's revenues. So his pile of money is growing only half as fast as it would if he didn't give any away. It isn't shrinking at all. A quick look at the tax law shows the reason: by giving away this little bit every year, B&MGF avoids having to pay a lot more in USA taxes.

So the half that he's keeping is a "pile of money" and the half that he's giving away is a "little bit"...

Re:lets be honest now

[Bombula]

You are correct, it is only flatly forbidden under one or two of the mainstream schools of interpretation. I should have said, "Islam discourages and condemns birth control." But the level of discouragement and condemnation, even if contraception is not flatly outlawed either by state law or local sharia law, is tantamount to the condemnation or contraception recognized by most practicing Catholics. Pedantics aside, the development consequences are the same: families having 5+ children, limited female access to contraception, stigmatization associated with family planning, and so on.

Re:lets be honest now

[Bombula]

"Equitably" means fairly, not equally. You might stand a chance of arguing that individuals don't all generate an equal amount of economic wealth, but you're on thin ice when you start trying to assert what is a 'fair' amount of individual wealth production. A major flaw in your reasoning right off the bat is that wealth is not created at the point of production, but rather during trade in the marketplace. The "value-at-production" you refer to is what is known as the "labor theory of value" and was, ironically, developed and championed by Karl Marx. Later, theories of marginal utility replaced the labor theory of value by (successfully) arguing that the value of something is not determined at its point of production, but rather at the point of sale. If it's a bad day at the market, your product/service may be worthless - not because it is inherently without value, but because there is no demand for it.

So it seems in your ignorance you have resurrected a now-defunct socialist theory as your primary argument. That's quite ironic, given that you're calling other folks socialists as an insult.

Re:lets be honest now

[mysticgoat]

Do please read GP again, more carefully.

Mr. Bill is not giving away any portion of what has come to him through his Microsoft activities. He is giving away roughly half of the new income that is generated by investing this amount.

Re:lets be honest now

[clone53421]

GGP said Gates is giving away half of his revenue, which is a "little bit", and the other half adds to his "pile of money". So what if GGP wasn't referring to the half Gates keeps as a "pile of money". -- I'll call it that.

What's the difference where it's coming from? Product sales, investment... that's entirely irrelevant to my point: Gates' revenues are X dollars annually; he gives away 0.5X, which is a little, and keeps 0.5X, which is more than I make or anybody else I know. So is 0.5X a little or a lot?

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the original point was that "Mr. Bill" is no more a philanthropist than he was a geek. He's basically avaricious (and less encumbered by ethics, morals, or loyalty to partners than most persons). OP suggests that this is evident in the public record of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and it is certainly consistent with the public history of Bill Gates himself.

Re:lets be honest now

[clone53421]

I don't give a shit about whether or not people think Bill Gates is a philanthropist or geek. He's obviously not doing to to curry your favour.

The original statement to which I was responding was "I'd have more respect for his charitable efforts if he was giving away more money than he was taking in." Quite frankly, I wouldn't apply that criterion to anyone, regardless of how rich they were or weren't. I don't give away half my income and I don't expect anyone else to either.

Re:lets be honest now

[clone53421]

to^H^Hit

I should proofread my posts before I submit them, apparently!

Re:lets be honest now

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give away half my income and I don't expect anyone else to either.

Unless you are an outlaw, through taxes you are giving away a pretty big percentage of your annual income. If you lived where Gates lives, and had the revenue streams that he has, you would be giving away more than half your annual income. Unless you did something shrewd, like Gates, and set up a tax shelter, like the B&MGF.

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether this is sensible or not. It looks like the argument is whether somebody can claim the title of "philanthropist" if he sets up a charity as a tax shelter and keeps his level of charitable donations at the minimum needed to preserve the special tax status (while continuing to make money off the investments). Not that Gates himself seems to be claiming the title, but there is a very vocal group of idiots who idolize Gates who want to put those laurels on his head.

This isn't illegal, or Gates would be in jail by now. But I can see where some people would think it is sleazy, and not really philanthropic. I can see where some people would feel that calling Gates a philanthropist devalues that term.

Re:lets be honest now

[clone53421]

Unless you are an outlaw, through taxes you are giving away a pretty big percentage of your annual income.

Yeah, they withhold about 30% of my salary. Too much if you ask me. Furthermore, just because someone makes a lot doesn't justify taking an exorbitantly high percentage of it.

I can see where some people would feel that calling Gates a philanthropist devalues that term.

I'm a bit of a cynic... I don't quite believe anyone does things "for the benefit of mankind" without some hope of fame, fortune, or a better afterlife.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates makes his case for Creative Capitalism in TIME, citing projects like a Text-Free UI for illiterate computing, the use of Multimouse technology to allow fifty kids to share one computer display

Whutz daes thas battun di?
(Google translater: Illiterate moron -> English: What does this button do?)

Text-Free UI, and now...

[4D6963]

And now ladies and gentlemen... our newest innovation... the wheel-less man-powered transportation! The means of transportation of the future! Putting gasoline in the trunk? So passé!

Combine now pleasure to utility by inserting food in your mouth, and use this new innovation to transport yourself for miles on end! Never will you curse at the traffic for being so slow again! Never will you have to empty your wallet at the gas station! The future is at your feet, or rather, the future is IN your feet!!

Re:Text-Free UI, and now...

[clone53421]

He's one step ahead of you...

Bill Gates' new role in life

[Anonymous Coward]

is to furnish useful case studies of, "What would happen if some well-connected billionaire tried to solve some of the world's problems by..."?

As opposed to actually solving them. But at least we learn something that we can discuss in a coherent way.

oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Cater to illiterates, enlarge the userbase of unskilled and untrainable labor, establish an intellectually coddled slave class which is content to breed and toil without troubling themselves with stupid things like 'reading' and more importantly 'politics'.

Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[cryfreedomlove]

Every time there is a discussion about the Gates foundation, someone will predictably stand up and say that Gates is not a philanthropist because his actions as Microsoft CEO were not consistently philanthropic.

I don't look to commercial corporations to be philanthropists. A commercial corporation is a voluntary collective of investors who want to maximize their financial investment. That's OK with me. If that investment is maximized then some of the individual investors will see a personal calling to use that money for philanthropy. This is what you see happening to Gates today. That is genuine and real. Corporate philanthropy, on the other hand, is most often a flim flam exercise in repairing ill will so the corporation will restore its ability to generate lots of revenue.

So, give Gates a break. He's hugely rich. Now he's getting older and perhaps he has become more reflective about making a difference in the lives of people less fortunate than him. I'm not going to bust his balls for that.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[moteyalpha]

I am not sure that you can separate a person from their past that easily. This is not a simple person and the motives that drive Bill are likely to be well beyond characterization in simple terms. Much like everybody, they have their personal slant on life and I am sure that he curses open source. I think that if he really wanted to fix some problems, he could give his money to a proven winner like open source technology that benefits everybody. The goal of business is to make profit and that is not -always- the best thing for people in general.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[farmer11]

I don't think we can say what the effect of the Foundation will be for a long time. I am, however, skeptical. BillG was a robber baron for 3 decades, proving that power and money were his greatest ideals.

Now he wants to give some money back. It seems like everyone assumes that giving away large sums of money means you're a great philanthropist. I disagree. Lots of his pay outs seem to be band aid solutions that sound good but are not really concerned with affecting the deep and painful social change necessary to make lasting improvements in impoverished parts of the world. He seems to be giving people fish so they will be dependent on gifts rather than teaching them to fish.

His gifts seem like investments in the same apathetic economic machinery that does little or nothing to help these impoverished places. Investing in drug research? Why, so these companies can make a profit selling the drugs to these needy and poor people? Thanks Bill!

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[QuietLagoon]

Every time there is a discussion about the Gates foundation, someone will predictably stand up and say that Gates is not a philanthropist because his actions as Microsoft CEO were not consistently philanthropic.
.

His actions as Microsoft CEO were not just "not consistently philanthropic", they were shown to be illegal.

A commercial corporation is a voluntary collective of investors who want to maximize their financial investment. That's OK with me.

It's OK with me so long as it is done legally.

So, give Gates a break. He's hugely rich.

Hugely rich with illegally begotten money.

"Success has a tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil deeds of men." -- Demosthenes

"Prefer loss to the wealth of dishonest gain; the former vexes you for a time; the latter will bring you lasting remorse." -- Chilo

"He is not great, who is not greatly good." -- William Shakespeare

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Znork]

I don't look to commercial corporations to be philanthropists.

It's not the purpose of corporations to be philanthropists. In fact, a corporation that can actually afford to be philanthropist is unlikely to be engaged in free market capitalism.

The theory of free market capitalism has it that competition with the incentive of possible profit will enhance the efficiency of production so that everyone benefits from lower costs for more value. Most corporations are not interested in that; increasing efficiency is hard. It's often easier to affect the other side of the equation; decrease competition. Buy the competition, lobby for more protection, raise switching costs, tie products, use loss-leaders, etc. Gates is the posterboy for such corporate monopolism; anticompetetive behaviour that keeps the price of things out of the hands of exactly the people he claims to want to help.

So, give Gates a break.

I see no indication that Gates has changed. He's still not interested in competitive free markets; he's got his fingers deep in the patent pot, something that's actively preventing cheap medicines in many countries.

Sure, he's found a new mission in whitewashing now, but his actions suggest it's the same old Gates. Control and profit's the name of the game, wether you're pushing software or image.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[mysticgoat]

See post reply to a similar post.

[I begin to find Mr. Bill apologists as tiring as the astroturfers of a younger day, and I begin to wonder if they are being subsidized in a similar way.]

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[ceoyoyo]

So basically, the ends justify the means?

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[QuietLagoon]

Every time there is a discussion about the Gates foundation, someone will predictably stand up and say that Gates is not a philanthropist because his actions as Microsoft CEO were not consistently philanthropic.
.

His actions as Microsoft CEO were not just "not consistently philanthropic", they were shown to be illegal.

A commercial corporation is a voluntary collective of investors who want to maximize their financial investment. That's OK with me.

It's OK with me also, so long as it is done legally.

So, give Gates a break. He's hugely rich.

Hugely rich with illegally begotten money. Precisely because he is hugely rich, is the reason he should be subject to more scrutiny as to his motives.

"Success has a tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil deeds of men." -- Demosthenes

"Prefer loss to the wealth of dishonest gain; the former vexes you for a time; the latter will bring you lasting remorse." -- Chilo

"He is not great, who is not greatly good." -- William Shakespeare

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[jedidiah]

Nah. No subsidies are required. Just like anything else Gates
has done, this is a poor copy of something done by someone else.
This pattern has been seen before. It's a VERY OLD rehash of
what others have done: men of similar avarice and poor reputation
who suddenly find themselves in want of better social standing.

Just like anything else Gates has done, others have done it better
and with more style.

Gates has achieved his main goal of this philanthropy: fooling enough
dupes into buying into his attempt to buy a better reputation.

Then there are the various tax & estate planning motivations.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what a dick for making an operating system that was more user-friendly and stable than the other crap that was available at the time. That bastard even went and made the computer more accessible and unified software development on a single platform for a couple of decades. Seriously, what an ass for being a shrewd businessman and making all that money.

There's a reason Windows is more popular than Linux, and it's not just because of the marketing. Linux sucks and is nowhere near the level of user-friendliness that Windows offers. Quit bashing the guy who has the resources to solve a lot of problems, and genuinely seems like he wants to.

Why would anyone give money to open source technology? There are plenty of problems more important than expensive software, and I applaud Mr. Gates for at least trying to solve those problems.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not the purpose of corporations to be philanthropists. In fact, a corporation that can actually afford to be philanthropist is unlikely to be engaged in free market capitalism."

The problem is that free market capitalism, isn't. The free market will not exist without a government to enforce it. The idea that free markets are uniform (mostly) everywhere, is nonsense, if there is non-uniformity (i.e. perturbation from a realistic model) then there is no free market in that area of the market (society), as it is conceived period. There is gross asymmetry everywhere and markets simply cannot be competitive even if they wanted to be because of gross asymmetries.

Mankind has an ugly tendency to try to apply a principle universally in every instance of a thing, the realyworld economy is not a 'market economy' it is actually a physics and ecological economy. Our social economy, is what we call free market capitalism, but it also exists in the domain of physics and ecology. Modern economics is wholly divorced from physics, biology, and ecology. I can't wait until econophysics starts putting out some great work personally.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[DNS-and-BIND]

The robber barons of the 1800s were the same way - stealing, lying, having people beaten and murdered, and today names like Carnegie and Rockefeller are looked upon as saintly, because of the charities that they founded with their ill-gotten gains. Just imagine how much more advanced the computer would be today without the corrosive effects of Microsoft. You CAN buy your way to respectability!

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there is a discussion about the Gates foundation, someone will predictably stand up and say that Gates is not a philanthropist because his actions as Microsoft CEO were not consistently philanthropic.

I say Gates is not a philantropist because his Foundation uses the 95% of its money that does not go to charitable causes making investments that totally negate any good the charitable donations might have done. What good is investing in medicine for a village when you invest orders of magnitude more $$ in the company running the factory on the edge of it that's giving cancer to everyone in that village?

Is it philantropic to donate a computer lab to a school when your donation comes with the stipulation that all the computers have to run Windows and Office? I say no, it's self-serving villainy.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[fnj]

So, give Gates a break.

Yes, he needs a break so much. Poor guy.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[maxume]

How is giving away $40 billion out of, let's say, $80 billion "Estate planning".

If, in 20 years, the foundation has not begun spending down Gates's contributions, I will eat crow, but as far as I know, they plan on the $40+ billion he donated being gone within 50 years of their deaths (The money Buffett has committed needs to be spent at a more rapid pace).

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Elektroschock]

"A commercial corporation is a voluntary collective of investors who want to maximize their financial investment."

No, they can do whatever they want with their money and define the objectives the management needs to follow. You cannot make any normative statements about maximisation. They could e.g. also use their money in a complete irrational way. The problem arises when the investor is no capitalist himself e.g. not the owner of the money but arbitrage, e.g. a pensions fund. Intermediation creates the normative bubble of maximisation. But for the capitalist, the real owner, consumption and investment cannot be separated. He can choose a bundle of quantities he likes. If he does not want to invest in software but in furniture because his family was always in furniture its his free decision.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Stephen Ma]

Linux sucks and is nowhere near the level of user-friendliness that Windows offers.

The sales of the Linux version of the incredibly popular Eee prove you wrong. Linux is more than friendly enough for the masses now -- perhaps you might want to take a look at it before bashing it.

It's your problem if you prefer to be on a leash; if Microsoft ever stops activating XP and Vista, you are thoroughly screwed. Maybe you have some kinky sexual issues. The rest of us want freedom.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's impressive to what extent some folks like the one above does not get it. "Open source software"? This dude is trying to fight malaria and things like that. Who cares about software per-se? Sure, many of these large-scale efforts need/use software as tools, but that's just as a mean to an end.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[khallow]

I am not sure that you can separate a person from their past that easily.

I'm unclear why we're trying to seperate the person from their past. Rich people getting rich first then doing charity is a strong tradition going back millenia. Gates is notable in that his charity will probably be particularly effective, especially giving money to treat Third world diseases and parasites. I see no reason that Gates should jump on the latest fad. If he thinks he has a viable alternative to open source, then I see no reason he shouldn't try it.

Further, I don't see the point of your remarks on business. Of course, the goal of business is to make money not to do the best thing for people in general. I don't see why that scope should change. Do you think it'd be a good idea for Microsoft to act based on what they rationalize as the "best thing"? My take is no organization or person has sufficient vision or lack of bias to decide what is "best". As a result, I don't think it is a worthy goal to strive for. Your idea of what is "best" is going to conflict with mine. Instead, I feel any society where people can be happy, strive for ambitious, personal goals, and be free from opression is a good enough society.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Xuranova]

"I see no indication that Gates has changed. He's still not interested in competitive free markets; he's got his fingers deep in the patent pot, something that's actively preventing cheap medicines in many countries."

The issue with this is you don't associate patents with free markets. Someone who does(I'm one of them) believes that there are still competitive markets with patents and that once removed, you don't really have competitive markets because the issue becomes not who can come up with the next great idea first, but who can rip it off the fastest and cheapest.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[clone53421]

The sales of the Linux version of the incredibly popular Eee prove you wrong. Linux is more than friendly enough for the masses now -- perhaps you might want to take a look at it before bashing it.

Perhaps it is now, but GP's claim was "There's a reason Windows is more popular than Linux". If and when Linux becomes more popular than Windows, it will only be possible because it became more user-friendly... when Windows was becoming popular Linux was not user-friendly.

In other words, back when Windows was first establishing its foothold in the desktop market, "Linux sucks and is nowhere near the level of user-friendliness that Windows offers" was pretty accurate. Now, yeah, I'll agree with you that it's unfair of the GP to bash Linux because of problems that have already been solved. It's equally unfair of you, though, to bash his argument because of that one statement.

Re:Corporations as philanthropists is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

... he could give his money to a proven winner like open source technology that benefits everybody.

Whose open source under which license has been a winner for whom?

Nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've read, Gates doesn't seem to be proposing anything new, he's just putting a cute name on existing ideas.

Part of what he proposes is just corporate philanthropy and should be analyzed as such. What gives corporate managers the right to give away the shareholder's money? But on the other hand, if you disburse the profits to shareholders and let them give to charity the money is hit with double taxation.

The rest, like doing work that builds a stock of reputation capital, is in agreement with profit maximization and just about every company already does this. If they aren't doing it in ways that Gates thinks is profitable, either companies are leaving money on the table or maybe it's not that great of an idea.

Both of these issues are covered extensively in the blog, but it would be interesting to have a discussion here too.

Re:Nothing new here

[Hognoxious]

Gates doesn't seem to be proposing anything new, he's just putting a cute name on existing ideas.

Wow, the intarweb tubes are slow today. A post from 1985 just came through!

Not Surprising

[dangitman]

A long-time practitioner of "creative bookkeeping" and "creative business practices" advocates "creative capitalism." What a shocker.

I'm sure mob bosses would rather people call murder "creative surgery" too.

Re:Not Surprising

[Luke_22]

A long-time practitioner of "creative bookkeeping" and "creative business practices" advocates "creative capitalism." What a shocker.

I'm sure mob bosses would rather people call murder "creative surgery" too.

In Italy we've already started:
previously illegal accounting practices are now "creative accounting".
Thanks to berlusconi, obviously.

Low hanging fruit

[debuglife]

Text-Free UI represents a kind of low hanging fruit in the "developing countries computing" (or whatever fancy name they call it by). If you had no expertise in the UI area, and then, if I were to ask you now, how would you design an UI for the illiterate, what would be your answer ? Text-Free-UI would be your first guess. And of course, until the Microsoft Research India people, you'll probably acknowledge that it wont be sufficiently good. Bill Gates should stop acting as if he is a visionary. He is not. He is a create new business models / optimize existing business models person. He should not try to masquerade as Steve Jobs, or for that matter, Nicholas Negroponte. Go toot Microsoft research's horn elsewhere.

Re:Low hanging fruit

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Research, btw, is the successor of IBM Research. It does awesome work, and hires awesome people. Indicates how Microsoft is the new IBM

The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[CrazyJim1]

When you invest in solar, you can very likely get your money back and then some(if you invest in profitable solar companies). The key is solar is great to be corporate because corporations have a way to pushing things to their saturation point. Solar has no saturation point as long as there are stars in the universe. But for right now, we should at least be looking to capitalize on Earth's potential.

Once we have abundant energy on Earth through Solar, we can use it in electric or hydrogen vehicles. With electric vehicles, we can transport the energy from one plant or another with only using human labor or electric trains. Once you have "free energy" powering vehicles, the cost of transportation gets less. When the cost of transportation gets less, the cost of food and water gets less. Also "free energy" by the coast can turn salt water into drinking water then vehicles can transport them inland.

Right there, you just made an impact on many poor peoples' lives without actually donating any money. I think any geek who wants to use technology to solve the world's problems should look inward into conserving money so they can buy stock in profitable solar. I think you should do your research into different companies. I've found mine: nanosolar.com. The only problem is that they haven't gone public yet. So I save money. I'm pretty much broke, but at least I got the spirit of it all.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Random Destruction]

And what if you drop this basket which is so conveniently holding all your eggs?

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[TubeSteak]

Once we have abundant energy on Earth through Solar, we can use it in electric or hydrogen vehicles. With electric vehicles, we can transport the energy from one plant or another with only using human labor or electric trains. Once you have "free energy" powering vehicles, the cost of transportation gets less. When the cost of transportation gets less, the cost of food and water gets less. Also "free energy" by the coast can turn salt water into drinking water then vehicles can transport them inland.

The countries that don't have (and can't afford to maintain) 24/7 electricity aren't going to splash out for expensive solar arrays. And they're certainly not going to afford to build an infrastructure capable of sustaining electric or hydrogen cars.

Solar is only affordable by the countries that don't really need it right now.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[houghi]

Also "free energy" by the coast can turn salt water into drinking water then vehicles can transport them inland.

Why not use the way water is already transported to the homes of people?
But obviously people buy water instead of drinking it out of the tab and that is deliverd by a truck. Often it is as good or better then bottled water.

Except everybody says "Not where I live" and buy into the bullshit that has brought to them by marketing.

Some interesting read here and there are many more sites that will explain what you are exactly are paying for.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Manwe's Herald]

Like everything there is a saturation point in solar energy: exposed area. Anyway, cheap energy will never be a cure for poverty and malnutrition. People get richer will simply consume more and people not dying will increase population. After some time, everything will stabilize and in proportion the number of rich and poor will stay the same.

The only viable option is to consume less and increase efficiency to become less dependent on energy (any source). Transporting goods in all cases is the worst thing to do.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Anonymous Coward]

Except of course that the countries who can afford solar can't afford to keep using oil and coal... even if they're only slowly realizing it, and acting on this realization even more slowly. Unsurprisingly the public response to $4/gallon gas in the US is "hey, lets drill some more oil." Why? Because for some reason the media response to $4/gallon gas is "lets have an unending debate on drilling for oil in Alaska." Then of course there's the continuous refusal of the oil companies to build a recharging infrastructure for electric cars.

Seriously, it isn't that difficult - you can make a case that "alternative fuels" would require disproportionate investment to build new pumps and storage facilities and distribution networks... but putting in a standardized high-power outlet with a meter on it? You can't tell me exxon, who posted the largest profit of any corporation ever last quarter, can't afford that. Sure, there wouldn't be much use of it, but one of the major reasons for forgoing electric cars at this point is the non-existent charging infrastructure... a bit of a catch 22, and it *has* to be the oil companies who take the initiative.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Zironic]

I buy bottled water, not because it's better (swedish tap water is actually better then most bottled waters) but because I like the bubbles and dislike the various machines to do that at home.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[maxume]

There is no need to make sure that capital is available to profitable solar. Capital will find it and feast on it. I mean, regulated utilities manage to build mega-power stations for 8% annual profit.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[gerardrj]

I'm curious...

What happens to the Earth's climate when we're taking all this solar energy that would normally warm the planet or feed the plants and instead route it to doing mechanical work or lighting our homes.
We're talking about fundamentally altering the ecosystem by removing a good percentage of solar energy from it.
Same for wind farms... has anyone studied how these farms affect down-wind weather patterns with the megawatts of energy we remove from the airs stream?

Current global warming stupidity aside, these "renewable energy" initiatives could have some scary repercussions for the environment.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Anonymous Coward]

The basket in this analogy being the Sun, I guess you're asking what do we do if the Sun stops providing light? Well, we freeze very quickly. That's not new.

Re:The big opportunity for capitalism: solar

[Anonymous Coward]

the basket is solar technology.

WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

I've had to correct memos written by people with "degrees", not just that mythical 8th grade education. Know what? I've met 8th graders from that evil third world where they supposedly can't get by on a dollar a day. Strangely, they also can write coherent sentences... they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education".

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[c6gunner]

they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education".

The problems you're talking about are a result of NOT shopping for education in the first place. Proper spelling and grammar should be learned before the 8th grade - and most children up to that point attend public schools. You just made a pretty strong argument for bringing in the voucher system.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[theheadlessrabbit]

when i was in university, our 1st year English course dedicated 2 weeks to the 3 there's.

on the other hand, my middle school ESL students know the difference between 'they're', 'their', and 'there'.

i spent 2 weeks in university on this stuff, while 14 year old Korean kids who can't speak English know their theirs.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[avilliers]

Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education".

Sure you can. I'm not sure what government intervention you think prevents this.

The only thing that would prevent you is HR (or other internal) policies, or having signed a contract. Either one is voluntary.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that most college grads don't know the difference between "they're" and "there" is overstating it by a lot. Sure, there are some, and I'm constantly annoyed by those kinds of mistakes, but they're often typos, not lack of understanding. Some people don't get much out of education, it's true, but that's not the fault of the education. Students get out what they put in.

Also, who implied that the third world was in any way evil? Yours is the first reference I've seen to that effect.

While I'm glad to hear that some third-world children are receiving quality educations, I'm afraid that an awful lot of them get no education at all. It's unlikely that those children know what apostrophes are.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[blahplusplus]

" they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education"."

The difference between "they're and their", when people MAKE the mistake. Is often a unconscious memory error. I know because I make these all the time and it has to do with the way each person's neurology stores information in memory. I will also type the wrong word for words that sound phonetically near, or exactly the same. It has nothing to do with being 'ill educated', I think everyone needs some basic courses in neurology as to why these mistakes keep creeping up in people's writing: Hint, it's not (always) because they are simply stupid, it has to do with the way information in memory is stored and organized in the brain.

The so called "fruedian slip" is more like the "storage" slip, networks of associated content are activated, boob job becomes blow job, they both begin with be, and end with job, so the mind while looking up boob, misfires and gives the man "blow". There was an excellent segment on this at orwell coming to america conference (I believe it is in, video 2)

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

See items by: George lakoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

Hist postings at the (now closed) rockridge institute

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

Unless its a "right to work" state, you can't fire people for poor spelling or poor grammar, unless they're language teachers. (Or is that "grammer" I can't tell anymore.) Seriously though, if you fire someone for "can't spell" or "stupid enough to have overpaid for their low grade education," you're bound to get dragged through lawsuits about "well how does that affect his or her duties?" "Did it affect their (there? lol) performance on the job?" Etc etc etc. And while it turns out to be a frivolous lawsuit, its like the hot coffee at Mac Donald's thing. You end up settling or losing so much productive time, that you might as well close the company. Even if you win, you lose if you engage them. You either settle, or lose more money proving you're in the right. Period.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[foobsr]

The so called "fruedian slip" is more like the "storage" slip, ...

Probably too early for you to comment (either time- or knowledgebase-wise) ?? ;-)

CC.

P.S.: frueh (German) = early

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Breakfast Pants]

"i spent 2 weeks in university on this stuff, while 14 year old Korean kids who can't speak English know their theirs."

Is "theirs" the correct word to refer to all three of them?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you fire someone without telling them why.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[bigpicture]

Maybe a new language should be invented, that is logical and has no redundancy. Do you want to build a better horse buggy or do you want to build a car or an aeroplane?

What is the point to having a language, that has 20 different meanings for one word, and 20 words with one meaning. Words that sound the same but have different meanings. Words that sound the same but are spelled differently. Fix that before you make comments about spelling and grammar. Because if you fixed that, then maybe the spelling and grammar issues would fix themselves, and a picture would not need a thousand words. (notice I used "would not" instead of "wouldn't". Just a space and an "o" instead of an ' difference, no big problem.)

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hassman]

Good to know that education is defined by how well you can write a bureaucratic memo, not how well you think critically, problem solve, general knowledge or how to work as a team. No, no, we want drones that all think the same and use proper grammar.

You have great ideas, but we're giving you a poor review. You see your last memo concerning our new TPS reports misused the word "they're". Sorry...

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[bsDaemon]

No, you fire a couple of other people, too -- then say you "right sized" the company, thus covering your tracks.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[gbjbaanb]

the difference between "they're" and "their" is nothing like parapraxis errors (the so-called Freudian slip). The difference is when you think of one thing but write (or say) another.

Getting they're and their wrong is because you just don't know the differnce between them and when to use which. Similar to getting "who" and "whom", or "its" and "it's".

Your analogy (of boob job/blow job) is a good one but they show how parapraxis confuses two different things in the mind. The 'theirs' error is not due to the same error (or as the pun goes: A Freudian slip is like saying one thing, but meaning your mother).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Good to know that education is defined by how well you can write a bureaucratic memo, not how well you think critically, problem solve, general knowledge or how to work as a team. No, no, we want drones that all think the same and use proper grammar.

Because using proper grammar naturally leads to "thinking the same", right?

Darwin used proper grammar. So did Jefferson. So did Martin Luther King, Jr -- and many other people who thought very differently, and actually had a big impact on the world.

Can you guess why?

It's about communication. It doesn't matter if you have all the ideas in the world if you can't communicate them. And it's kind of essential to "working as a team", also -- how can you work with a team if you can't understand them?

It certainly isn't making it easy for your teammates if they are wincing every time they have to read an email from you -- or if your code is awesome, but your comments are unreadable.

And you know what else? It's not that fucking hard. Even if it is stupid, and unnecessary, it's a simple barometer. It means you know how to pay attention in school, and learn things, even if it's not something you want to learn. It means you actually care what people think of you.

Misusing "they're" may have nothing directly to do with coding, but it is somewhat like showing up for an interview without a shirt. Depending on the job, it might not disqualify you, but you'd better be wearing some damned nice pants. (Apologies to "Persuit of Happyness".)

And it's far easier just to throw on something resembling a suit.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Pantero Blanco]

Unless its a "right to work" state, you can't fire people for poor spelling or poor grammar, unless they're language teachers.

You've got that backwards. Unless it's a "work at will" state, you would have trouble firing them for those things. If it's a "right to work" state, you will have trouble firing them.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[plantman-the-womb-st]

I don't know, I'm neither Korean nor young and I speak English.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

The beauty of language is something most people don't get. When you strip meaning, you get "newspeak." Look it up. Removing nuance from language has one beautiful benefit for those who rule. Depending on how they shape language depends on how the unquestioning cattle below are able to think. Most of them do not think in images but in words. Forcing them to only have the words you want available, creates exactly the society that is shaping up today.

Removing the meaning and word for theft does not remove theft, it merely makes those who cannot fathom it, remain unaware of its existence.

Plus, with 20 different meanings to each word, you can find out what kind of mind you are conversing with. You are either dealing with an unimaginative serf... or you are dealing with something more. You can't find this out if the mind isn't allowed to play with words. Oh wait... comrade Lenin, is that you?!

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[mixmatch]

Is "theirs" the correct word to refer to all three of them?

Probably not, since "theirs" is meant to show plural possession. However, "they'res" would equate to saying "they ares" and "theres" could generally be interpreted as a grammatically incorrect writing of the contraction for "there is" or "there has".

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[SpiderClan]

How in the world can you typo there to their to they're?

"theyr'e" could be a typo.
"teh" could be a typo (or a bad joke).

If you know which word you should be using, there's no way your fingers could slip into typing the wrong word.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

Nice Office Space remark.

Given that these people spend upwards of 30 to 40k on "college education" and that I have to pay taxes so that kids can be warehoused in "public schools" so they can come out without even basic writing skills, yeah, I take offense to it. That's wasted money. They could do an equally good job as autodidacts. In fact, some of history's greatest minds were largely self taught on their subjects of fame. Some very famous ones failed their schooling on those subjects. They even had very strong words about schooling. A famous bushy haired Jew even had some words about "schooling being what stood in the way of his actual education"... I think quite a few geeks worship him pretty highly, Slashdot associates his picture with "science"... Oh yeah. Albert Einstein, the patent clerk and physics "genius".

That being said, if you say "I'm a college graduate" but don't even have a basic grasp of the English language, and it is the ONLY language you can barely read and write adequately (and yes, it is a VERY easy language compared to many out there, its a cut and dry contracting language with VERY little nuance compared to some) you had better have some brilliant ideas to show for your lack of ability to express it, or meet with me in person to explain them. I speak (fluently) at least two languages, and several others on and off as need applies. English is my second. If I can do it, and I'm not some great genius (I'm not under that impression anyways) then what's anyone else's excuse?

I've met foreign kids with better command and grasp over the English / American English language and dialect and even SLANG than locals here. That's pretty damn sad. They learn more and better by watching American movies, than kids here paying 50k for a "college education". And you say the language is tough?? Perhaps the education is worthless. The question is, people here watch those same stupid movies, yet learn nothing except the pretty explosions and random fucking scenes. How is this possible that members of one culture could get so much, and locals get nothing?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[StarkRG]

You just made a pretty strong argument for bringing in the voucher system.

And see, here I was thinking that it made a pretty strong argument for putting MORE money into the public schools, not less.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Literaphile]

Anecdotal evidence does not make a rule.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Your.Master]

What are you talking about? People who know the difference still make the same mistake all the time -- even people who would be instantly irritated by reading the same mistake.

There are times when people mix up their (their/they're/there)s out of ignorance, and times when it's a mind-slip because the words sound exactly the same when spoken, and the mind seems to organize words by "sound". They're not all uneducated idiots.

So their. ;)

About the only version of whom that has been used by anybody more than outdated hyper-prescriptivists in the last 20 years is "to whom it might concern" and other formal phrases. Note that I speak only for the places I've lived, so any island or enclave you may come from where whom is still in use and you're still an uneducated idiot for not using it, is outside the scope of places I care about :).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Your.Master]

I've always found this "thinking in images" vs. "thinking in words" idea fascinating. Does anybody actually think completely in either words or images? It would explain those tropes on TV where a person's "thoughts" are narrated.

I can use my imagination and call up an image of something, or have a conversation in my head, but if I don't do either I still have thoughts; they just aren't words or images. They're concepts. They're thoughts.

Not that I don't agree that language shouldn't be cut down to a functional minimum. Sapir-Whorf may even have a point, but I find that's more in that it becomes easier to correctly communicate (and thus share and grow in a population) some ideas than others depending on the ability of your spoken/written language to express the concept.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hassman]

Language and grammar isn't tough. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I was saying is that shouldn't be the determining factor in judging how educated someone is. That is all.

Einstein was a terrible speller...as am I. I think I read somewhere once, that most of his publications were written by others for him...not sure if that is true or not. Does that mean he wasn't educated, formally or otherwise? If spell check didn't exist I'd be shit outta luck. Does that mean I m not educated? Almost 10 years of industry experience, raises, and promotions say otherwise.

That's all I'm saying. In general I very much agree with you. A good portion of "college educated" people are dumb and aren't worth the paper their diploma is written on. On the other hand, I know people who fail miserably at common sense and other things you and I would consider simplistic, yet they are awesome CPAs, managers, and engineers.

Long story short picking one (relatively trivial) aspect and judging them on that is bogus. Would you rather have a doctor that can speak and write properly, or knows his shit when it comes to medicine?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[jlarocco]

And see, here I was thinking that it made a pretty strong argument for putting MORE money into the public schools, not less.

Clue: under a properly implemented school voucher system the total money spent on education remains the same or increases.

Also, if the government is screwing up this badly already, what makes you think adding *MORE* government is going to help anything? Has that ever worked?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[bigpicture]

And how many people has artistic fed? And how many lives has "beautiful nuance" saved?

You the see the essence of "artistic" is "egotistic" because art is supposed to be up the the interpretation of each individual. (individualistic / egotistic as many "artists?" are.)

When a language is that way it is totally DIVISIVE, which is exactly the societal condition that you are complaining about.

In case you forgot language is about communication, which should lead to common understanding, which should lead to AGREEMENT. As someone who facilitates common understandings and AGREEMENTS, I deal with this inadequacy of language every day, especially when these understandings have to be recorded in writing, and understood the same way, by different parties 5 years from now.

Contrary to what you imply, it is the social and cultural mores that drive the form of language and not the other way round. So you only think that you understand Shakespeare, or the Bible for that matter, if you don't understand the social and cultural context.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Captain Splendid]

what makes you think adding *MORE* government is going to help anything?

Typical strawman. GP said nothing about adding more government, he wants to add more 'school'. Thanks for playing, though.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually, agreement does not imply communication, nor does disagreement imply miscommunication. I may not agree with Friar Bob fucking the sheep, but when he tells me he enjoys it and I tell him I can't stand sheepfuckers, that doesn't mean we are not communicating, even if I won't let him on my property and he knows that. If he shows up, even though I'm sure he's a real "pillar" of the community, he's liable to get chased off by a rottweiler. Language is about communication as much as it is about an individual getting his ideas down for his own benefit or that of others (benefiting others is still self fulfillment because the individual that does it gains self fulfillment by doing what makes him perceive himself as a "good guy".)

Don't bring the bible or other control propaganda into this. I've read enough of this material in more than one language, you're really barking up the wrong tree on that one.

What I don't get, is why is "saving lives" so important... not every culture places the lives of the stupid or incompetent on such high merit as the socialists that have encroached the world and preach the value of every life, even those that are trying actively to kill themselves, either through wilful ignorance or other means. Language feeds nobody, otherwise the simplest language is the best. Lets start barking people. Wolves eat quite well... barks and howls only. Stop talking. Or perhaps dump that and start bugling, deer obviously live well, they breed like crazy and eat a lot... deer communication only! Stop talking... all that complexity doesn't feed you... get to work simplifying to moans and bugling.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[LordVader717]

Removing the meaning and word for theft does not remove theft, it merely makes those who cannot fathom it, remain unaware of its existence.

That's just silly. You're stuck in the world of 1984. Language is formed by usage. As long as there is need for a word, no attempt to erase it will be successful.

Plus, with 20 different meanings to each word, you can find out what kind of mind you are conversing with. You are either dealing with an unimaginative serf... or you are dealing with something more. You can't find this out if the mind isn't allowed to play with words.

Now that's one of the biggest failures of language and communication. Most people have enough experience to know that a persons ability with rhetoric play has absolutely nothing to do with their intellect. Yet still, for some reason, it has huge potential to dazzle and captivate any audience.
It seems to me that the ones who truly believe they can interpret people's speech to derive their mind are the "unimaginative serfs".

Some of the most intelligent people I know converse in perfectly normal "simpleton" speak, but when they suspect to gain the favor of a collocutor, they just might pull a few rhetoric tricks from their hat. It's not exactly difficult.
This seems to be, at least in my experience, the only time when an interpretation of character might be quite accurate and helpful: Somebody who clearly shows attempts to impress with language, but has little knowledge to behind their mask.

BTW, I find your use of gerunds at the beginning of your sentences ... repetitive.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[oldhack]

Sounds bit unbalanced to me... Either go get a degree and get it out of your system, or just forget about it and learn to ignore it.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[oldhack]

Also, if the government is screwing up this badly already, what makes you think adding *MORE* government is going to help anything? Has that ever worked?

This line is getting older than "in Soviet Russia" and a whole lot less funny than "fristy piss" (or whatever it is these days).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[shadow349]

Typical strawman. GP said nothing about adding more government, he wants to add more 'school'. Thanks for playing, though.

Approximately 15 years after I graduated from high school, the inflation-adjusted per-student cost at my old district is roughly twice what it used to be. It appears that most of the money is going to making the programs more diverse with the consequence of letting the fundamentals go by the wayside and funneling more money to a small percentage of children that are unwilling or unable to learn.

The net result is that the "middle of the curve" kids are less prepared, the "upper curve" students do OK, but are spinning their wheels more, and the "no child left behind" kids are right where they started, but just with a lot more money thrown at them.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

No. "Right-To-Work" is doublespeak for "anti-union".

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DriedClexler]

You've got to be kidding. There's only so much money you can throw at something before you have to stop and say "wait: maybe money isn't the problem".

Just from a quick google search it looks like some of the worst school districts (like that of Washington DC) spend over $10,000 per child, WELL above what tuition might cost at even some very good private schools.

When would you concede that money isn't the problem? When the spending per child exceeds $20,000? When it exceeds $50,000? When it exceeds the cost of giving each student five private tutors?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Opportunist]

I'm neither Korean nor young

Just out of curiosity, does that mean you use email or that you don't?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[jlarocco]

Right now in the US, adding more school *is* adding more government.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[gbjbaanb]

yeah, well, I fink it wuz you dunno wot you is talking about right.

I never said people who confuse those words were uneducated idiots, just uneducated. Apart from the odd mistake which is acceptable and unavoidable, someone who knew the difference would use the correct term. Unfortunately, these errors seems to be made all the time. So they're ;)

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think adding *MORE* government is going to help anything? Has that ever worked?

Yes. You seem to be parroting talk radio. There are lots of places the right is calling for more government. Abortion, war on drugs, war on terror, war on immigration, etc, etc. When the right stops asking for more government intervention in the areas they care about, then they might be able to creditably claim the government is always the problem, but until then STFU and stop dittoing stupidity.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[epee1221]

Does it say how they manage to spend that much money?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[jlarocco]

Yes. You seem to be parroting talk radio. There are lots of places the right is calling for more government. Abortion, war on drugs, war on terror, war on immigration, etc, etc. When the right stops asking for more government intervention in the areas they care about, then they might be able to creditably claim the government is always the problem, but until then STFU and stop dittoing stupidity.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm as much against the government messing with all those things as I am against the government messing with education. IMO the government should do as little as possible above protecting the citizen's rights, and when they do more than that it should benefit everybody equally.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we have a stupid drug policy doesn't mean we should have a stupid education policy, too.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

fact, some of history's greatest minds were largely self taught on their subjects of fame.
The results of a small selection are not a great argument for self-study.

A famous bushy haired Jew even had some words about "schooling being what stood in the way of his actual education"
Mark Twain was Jewish?

and even SLANG than locals here
As far as slang goes, the locals' interpretation is correct, by definition.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[bigpicture]

You call this communication? I guess you must either be a politician or one of these ivory tower university types. Just spin everything so that it has no real meaning, and call it communication.

Real communication actually does imply agreement, but as you spin it, agreement does not necessarily imply real communication. Can you see the difference here? It's not the same thing. Or is the artistic component of the language you use interfering with this communication also?

2+2=4, this is a precise communication about which there is agreement by most people. Why because it means pretty much the same thing to most of them. But there can be people who can read the same sentence and have no agreement about what it means. That is why mathematics and not language is the main communication method of scientists and engineers.

Your logic is a bit hard to follow here, you seem to place a lot of importance on language, and then question the value of life? Drugs or what? Simple logic, a 5 year old could understand, "no life no language", artistic or otherwise. So by you circular logic language is also not that important. Adolf your hero, used very articulate and artistic language, to communicate hatred and violence, it appealed to emotions, but not to logic and reason. Is this the erroneous use of language that you are always correcting?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Ihmhi]

Students in my city (Newark, NJ) have something like $10,000 spent on them each annually, and yet most of our buildings are in the worst state.

The basic ideas behind vouchers as I see it is that it would promote competition. When people can pack up and go to another school (that will happily take their money), you had better clean up your act and get your spending under control or you'll be shut down in no time.

It's nice how we have such a competition-free primary and secondary education system in a country with so much capitalism and competition elsewhere.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[rtb61]

You post brings to mind the whole principal of creative capitalism, the line of B$ and PR that you feed poor people in order to convince them that rich people bleeding them dry is actually good for them. Just like your line of B$ that somehow rebuilding 'public' schools after flood and hurricane damage somehow equates with private school tuition fees which in reality are subsidised by government (you really think the rich and greedy would pay the full cost of educating their own children even when they can so readily afford it, nah)

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[debocracy]

The right wing typically makes these kinds of assertions. The right wing has been crippling public education for decades. Now, after all their hard work, they get to claim the credit! A broken education system!

They also get to claim that government does not work, after they destroyed all the regulatory mechanisms.

Congrats, morons. I hope you enjoy the collapse of the U$ infrastructure and the resulting horrors therefrom. I hope that you are prepared to live up to your legacy. Your grandchildren will loathe the world you made and left for them to fix.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hal_Porter]

How is not forcing people to join a union "anti Union"?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

It's a misnomer and you know it, regardless of anyone's feelings about labor relations. It was certainly misleading enough to confuse GGP.

Shouldn't it be the employer's decision to run an all-union shop? I don't think government should get involved ;). Big bad government.

Just to make sure I'm not confused, when you say this:

How is not forcing people to join a union "anti Union"?

What you really mean is that government should get involved and forbid an independent business owner from making union membership a condition of employment. Right? ;)

I will be totally amused if you oppose the EEOC at the same time you are defending so-called "right-to-work" laws.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hal_Porter]

It's a misnomer and you know it, regardless of anyone's feelings about labor relations. It was certainly misleading enough to confuse GGP.

Shouldn't it be the employer's decision to run an all-union shop? I don't think government should get involved ;). Big bad government.

Just to make sure I'm not confused, when you say this:

How is not forcing people to join a union "anti Union"?

What you really mean is that government should get involved and forbid an independent business owner from making union membership a condition of employment. Right? ;)

I will be totally amused if you oppose the EEOC at the same time you are defending so-called "right-to-work" laws.

Actually from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#The_Taft-Hartley_Act

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

This is ok. A closed shop is a monopoly of the union concerned, and busting monopolies is a legitimate thing for the government to do. The act allows people to join a union of their choice or none at all, which allows competition.

If people had no choice of what union to join, why should it care about their interests?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

This is ok. A closed shop is a monopoly of the union concerned, and busting monopolies is a legitimate thing for the government to do. The act allows people to join a union of their choice or none at all, which allows competition. If people had no choice of what union to join, why should it care about their interests?

That's pure sophistry.

It is paradoxical for small-government conservatives to support right-to-work laws. You can take it however you like, but to an alien observing this philosophy, it would seem strange that you support government non-interference for everything but the right of the employer to choose union work. Conservative arguments against equal-opportunity and anti-discrimination programs are weakened by this special case.

If I am right in my assumptions about your philosophy (apologies if I'm not), then you would be better served defending the "rights" of the business owner.

You're probably not going to talk me out of my opposition to "right-to-work" laws. I just wanted you to know that there is a logical opposing viewpoint on the subject.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hal_Porter]

I'm not sure I am a 'small government conservative' in the sense you think.

I think it's small government is a good abstract principle, but big government is not going to go away. I'll decide each law on its merits, not whether it shrinks the government or not.

And right to work laws don't grow the government as far as I can tell. If anyone gets fired for refusing to join a union, they can sue the company. No government involvement apart from some legal aid. In the long run companies will get the message and stop firing people for that reason so it doesn't cost the government anything.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[sir fer]

If I had points I would mod you thru the roof.

I tells ya, it's fucking painful reading some comments on /. where you will see something like "I went their and there grammar was awful!". Those two words MEAN 2 DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS. Dicks like the GP just don't get it and it does make people wince. It's like listening to people for whom English is a second language

Like I said I couldn't agree more and am memorising the above post to use in arguments with dumbasses that just don't get it

Well I was going to until I saw how you spelled "pursuit" ;o), but seriously, well played sir, the rest of that post was some damned fine pants

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

If anyone gets fired for refusing to join a union, they can sue the company.

So the trial lawyers are behind these laws? (tee-hee) :)

I appreciate your point of view generally, but I have come to the conclusion that this "right-to-work" is not given in good faith, and that the legislation is aimed solely at neutering unions. On what other issue do Chambers of Commerce side with the right of an individual to sue a business? It's a bit conspicuous.

But we may have a more general disagreement on labor relations. I'm of the opinion that labor markets are broken without representation for labor, and I admire what unions like the United Farm Workers have done for their members and the cause of human rights generally. YMMV.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hal_Porter]

My Mum got screwed over by the unions. There was a dispute about National Insurance contributions during her maternity leave. The end result was that the union backed down on this issue in order to get its way on others which left her with almost no pension. There were loads of other dodgy things going on too - like equal opportunities policies being used to hire more Bangladeshis until they were 100% of the workforce at the college. At which point there was no more talk of equal opportunities.

Plus the unions virtually destroyed the Labour Party by block voting (i.e. the leader of the union cast one vote representing all of his members without needing them to vote!) for unelectable left wingers. And the unions pretty much killed off the car industry in the UK as far as I can see - in the end it was easier to shut the companies down than to get them to agree for people to work in a way that was profitable. Plus the way the Teamsters in the US behave is so close to the mafia it's essentially indistinguishable. Incidentally from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters#Battles_with_the_Farm_Workers

The Teamsters had represented some farm workers in California employed by Bud Antle, a Salinas-area lettuce grower, in the 1960s. They had steered clear, however, of any open competition with the United Farm Workers during the UFW's long grape boycott in the 1960s. That changed, however, in 1973, when the grape growers, after having been under contract with the UFW for three years, signed secret agreements with the Teamsters.

That led to warfare in the fields, as thousands of UFW members struck these employers, while other farmworkers crossed the picket lines. The strike and attendant violence led to the deaths of three UFW members, the passage of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in California in 1975, and lengthy anti-trust litigation that ultimately led the Teamsters to abandon their claim to represent most of these agricultural workers

I.e. it was government legislation that stopped the unions fighting over turf!

So the idea that unions can force every single person at some company to join them in return for working there basically horrifies me.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[TheRaven64]

Sounds like it means more money would be spent on computers and shiny buildings - things that parents see - than competent teacher.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[TheRaven64]

There is a corollary to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that posits that the error-correcting capability of a language is correlated with the capacity for creativity / inspiration for people thinking in this language. English does very well on this metric, since it's possible to speak almost complete nonsense (grammatically speaking) in English and still be understood. It's also one of the main reasons English is so popular - it's almost impossible to speak well, but it's very easy to speak badly-but-understandably. It's a lot like C++ in that respect.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

I can use the same logic to argue for banning corporations. Over here corporations are dropping pensions without any arbitration at all. Can't blame unions anymore.

And your characterization of the Teamsters vs UFW incident isn't accurate. In fact, it is at odds with the wikipedia text you quoted.

If you are interested in the subject, there is a diversity of sources out there. Kind of sounds like you got the Reagan version. It's actually a pretty moving story. There exists another legit point of view.

It's not so simple.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[TheRaven64]

In summary:

1. If you use incorrect grammar and I have to think to understand what you are saying, then I am thinking about what you are saying, not about what you are thinking.
2. If you write something with incorrect spelling / punctuation / grammar and it takes me more time to read it as a result, you are effectively saying 'my time writing this is more important than your time reading this' which is rude and likely to prejudice me against anything you say.

Or, to give a programmer analogy:

It's much easier to debug your code if the compiler doesn't emit warnings every other line.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Hal_Porter]

I'm not suggesting that unions be banned, just that people should have a choice whether they join one and which one they join protected by legislation.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[daemonburrito]

Fair enough.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

"The right wing" part of your remark already tells me you're one of those suckers still polarized by the rhetoric. I'll let you in on a secret. The only time in my whole life when I voted, was for a democrat. I've spent all that time washing my hands of the blood that man indirectly put upon them. I've forgiven myself for that... but lets be clear, just because you bought the polarizing bullshit, both sides "left" and "right" of modern politics are about more government control and intervention. Both are beholden to the Fabian Socialists (or whatever that organization goes by) which sold you the wonderful idea of "populism"... hint.. not all people are equal. Some are more talented or skilled than others.

All people equal before the law, or all people equal. There is a BIG difference. To have everyone equal as the socialist propaganda entails, you have to punish some for their skills or talents, in order to bring them in line with the rest. Yes, I know, its hard to grasp this. I was suckered in by that propaganda once too. See that's the beauty of my life, I've experienced where you come from, because I walked that path. I regretted it, until I realized that "you can't understand them, if you haven't walked a mile in their shoes."

I've even done the "broke" (you call it "poor") man thing. I agree it was horrible. You know the funny part? I still had lots of time in my day. Even with active slashdotting. Why? Because I spent almost NO time in front of the Tee Vee... that everpresent brainwashing mechanism. As was once said... "I've already got machines to wash my laundry and my dishes, why would I want one to wash my brain too?"

Take some time away from the political "left right" bullshit, and notice that your heroes, and their foes are ALL crooks. That's why I didn't vote for Ron Paul... he's a politician... he's part of the system. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... oh hell, it doesn't happen anymore. Nobody you can vote for can truly change things. Nobody in the "public arena" actually serves the public. Sure, they might be allowed to tell the truth, but in the end, they end up perverting it. You may want to keep buying their rhetoric and "5 year plans", but as a former witness to 5 year plans, I can tell you they always needed "more time, more money, more labor". Amazing how Americans could've sold their birthright, but not unsurprising. Having been swimming in prosperity, the "majority" voters forgot how bad it can get. About to get a memory jog sooner or later. I feel sorry only for the cats and dogs who will be left homeless in the big city. They don't deserve it.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[debocracy]

You clearly don't know anything about who I am, who my heroes are, or who has destroyed public education in America.

My heroes are Mother Jones, Malcolm X, and every single woman and man who has suffered and died because they stood up to corporations and their patsy governments.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[lilomar]

I have a present for you.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

The brain is like a muscle. You have to exercise it or it won't work efficiently. Like your motor skills, it will be off-target if you don't train it... it takes a lot of practice for a child to learn to pick up a toy, then to stop a rolling ball, and finally to catch a ball that's been thrown. Brains are the same, and some people just haven't learned to use theirs. (What's that one saying... people typically only use 10% of their brain's potential, or something like that? Granted, that statistic is probably totally wrong, but it's still a sure bet that your brain is capable of much more than you realise.)

If you asked your librarian for a book, and s/he gave you the wrong book because the title sounded similar, you wouldn't excuse the laziness that it showed. You'd expect the librarian to learn how to look up a book properly and give you the right one. Similarly, if you expect to find something that's sitting somewhere in the piles on your desk, you need to figure out a way to keep it organized. You should expect the same from your brain.

I'm not saying that conditions like dyslexia, ADD, or ADHD don't exist; they do. I believe they're caused because people don't train their brains to function properly, and calling them "handicaps" is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if somebody tells you that you can't do this because you're broken, you're fairly unlikely to try very hard (which is the very thing that would help you: practice!).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

Also, if the government-run public school system is screwing up this badly already, what makes you think adding *MORE* government funding is going to help anything? Has that ever worked?

I guess you'll have to find something else wrong with it now.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

Good point. It would be better written as the(y'?re|ir).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

Yikes, that's what I get for trying to write a regexp. Never mind... maybe the((y')?re|ir).

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

I assume in the new language there wouldn't be so many redundant commas.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

This argument won't get very far... you don't seem to realise that GP would like a completely unambiguous language in which it's only possible to express ideas one way, i.e. according to the party line. Ever read 1984?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[StarkRG]

The basic idea behind vouchers is flawed. The idea behind the public education system is that there's a baseline that everyone gets. If you want something other than the baseline you'll have to pay for it yourself, you will, however, still be required to pay your taxes, part of which funds the public schools.

I agree that public schools need work, but taking money away from them is clearly NOT the answer.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's like listening to people for whom English is a second language

I work with a somewhat-accented Indian guy, and I can tell you, he is much easier to listen to than some of these comments.

Well I was going to until I saw how you spelled "pursuit"

Well, damn, you caught me. But given that it was in the same breath as "happyness", I should be alright.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

you really think the poor leeches would pay any of the cost of educating their own children when the rich people who actually pay most of the taxes can subsidize it, nah

That's ok, though, because in your reality the rich are supposed to pay for the education of their children and the poor ones as well, obviously.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

It means he's John McCain.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[jahudabudy]

people typically only use 10% of their brain's potential, or something like that

You're probably thinking of the often quoted out of context fact that people typically only use about 10% of their brain at any given time. People love to trot this out to mean that there is an entire 90% of our brain we aren't using. Bullshit. The brain is highly specialized. There aren't untapped portions of the brain just sitting there - we simply don't usually engage in enough different activities at once to engage the various centers simultaneously.

Having said that, I agree that most people (me included, I hope) have not realized their full potential.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[jdigriz]

Actually, yes it has. Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression: Solution, add more government, FDR. Defeat the Depression *and* the Nazis and the Empire of Japan thanks to adding *more* government. Any other questions?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

Yeah, and that's why I allowed that the figure is probably completely wrong and pointed out that the fundamental idea ("human potential is largely untapped") is yet undeniable.

Really, we don't even know enough about the brain to claim "10% of the brain is being used", so the number is completely meaningless anyway. FWIW that's also why I modified the statement slightly by saying 10% of the brain's "potential" (instead of 10% of the neurons firing at any given moment)... I have little doubt that most people never achieve 10% of their potential, regardless of how many neurons are supposedly firing.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

You mean since corporations are creations of government, and governments have never been held in check by any charter or constitution? Patsy government. Sort of how christians, jews and muslims blame Satan for all evil, but forget that he's still only Yahweh's servant. Yep... always the creation to blame for the far reaching plans of the creator. Always blame only the visible tentacles, not the actual octopus.

No wonder that Malcolm X (whom I actually enjoyed researching) et al, have gotten themselves thoroughly "removed" from the playing board. Know why? They attacked the branches of evil. As have all who ever sought to be "involved". Fight away against those evil corporations. Good luck too. I'm sure you'll have great success cutting off heads off the hydra. Try bringing something to burn the stumps first. Otherwise you'll be practicing the same exercise in futility that I used to, trying to actually wake people up. Never possible. People wake themselves up. The ones who try the "mass awakening" shit end up dead... tortured, or otherwise "unpleasantly disposed of". I am not a fan of being "disposed of". Good luck to you in your endeavor of idolizing those who couldn't be bothered to learn tactics before taking on a beast's babies. Perhaps they should've directly taken on the beast itself.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[DaedalusHKX]

Yes, I read 1984... and ironically, in 1984, I was living in the embodiment of that book's ideal, or rather in the future of the united states of America. Nothing new to me. Seen it, don't like it, am ready for it, I already know the hardest part will be an economic collapse and the collectivization and unveiling of the military police state. Other than that, it will be smooth sailing as before. The suckers will demand more free goodies, and the rulers will throw them breads at their circuses. Nothing new. Been going on for thousands of years. Will never change for the masses. I've started considering that I need a spot at the real table. Obviously the people aren't worth the trouble, and prove it every time they open their mouths or vote. Who would you and I dare to be, in order to deny them their right to their much beloved tyranny (and free goodies entailed.)

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[bigpicture]

No just new sentences. Or: No, just new sentences.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[sethstorm]

It is when the union is antagonized inside/outside the workplace(to scare people out), stuffing the deck with vetted "No Union" voters(in case they don't have a solid 51%), security forces that are tasked with agitating union supporters(Vance International being one of them), running betting pools that gauge the vote(to determine who goes/stays afterwards), and making sure the company dies before the union gets a contract.

That's just as bad as Card Check.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[clone53421]

Actually, you needed the comma that time.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Ihmhi]

Right, because "keep throwing more money at them" as an answer has worked marvelously.

Protip: the schools that lose money deserve it for sucking so much.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[StarkRG]

Are you even aware of the people that use schools? They're called children, they have no say, they are the ones that are suffering because of this. Yes, some school administrations may be the problem, but they get paid whether the students get a decent education or not. Teachers get paid WAY to little already. Class sizes are way too big. These are things that are easily solved with a little more money. How would you solve them without money?

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[ghostbar38]

Hold on, for more money is needed more bureaucracy, bigger bureaucrat structure, yes, I believe that adds more government. Anyway, public education is not the solution without a doubt, face it.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Ihmhi]

Do it like it's done now. Base a school's funding on a per-student basis. Every student that jumps ship is a student where you lose funding.

If a parent was, say, willing to go to another public school 20 miles away, that should say something about the quality of their local school.

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[StarkRG]

Obviously you have to fund on a per-student basis, but perhaps there needs to be a base level as well.

So, if a school isn't doing well you want to take money away from it and that'll make it better? Can you explain how this works? This seems rather bass ackwards...

Re:WTF is this "education" worship going on?

[Ihmhi]

The point is that the bad schools close. They'd hopefully be rebooted with new administrations and get a fresh start.

Protip: IMO most schools don't fail because of shitty facilities or anything. There's people all over who learn in a little brick shack and get better educations than some American kids. It's the administration and teaching environment that fails them.

When people can go elsewhere, they will always try to go to the best place for their kids. Right now, you can't do that without moving thanks to district rules. (If I lived two blocks over, I would have went to a shitty school instead of a New Jersey Blue Ribbon School.)

Competition is what's needed here. When's the last time you heard about one school pinching a teacher from another? Not a coach, not a principal - a teacher? You haven't, because administrations just get lazy and try to keep things barely up to standards.

"lifting up" is the wrong answer

[Kohath]

People need to stand up on their own.

Simple efforts to remove some obstacles are great -- providing clean drinking water and a few other background-style resources. But people make their own choices. Just giving people stuff doesn't change who those people are. They need to accomplish things on their own for that.

Re:"lifting up" is the wrong answer

[rhakka]

providing clean drinking water?

what are you, some kind of communist?

they should obviously be cleaning their own drinking water, if having clean drinking water is really so important.

and education? fah! they should pool together to teach their kids everything they need to know in their community.

If they don't, well, they made their choice. let them starve and die for it.

so says the wisdom of the free market!

says the truly wise, people stand up on their own when you show them how, and they believe they can, because they see how it works. when everything around you is shit, not many have the inner strength and conviction (or insanity) to believe they can be different "just because".

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the lack of empirical verification you were so enamored with your religion that you wasted ten minutes writing three paragraphs of gibberish no one will read through.

Text free UI

[Anonymous Coward]

Illiterate people computing ?
Keep the stupid / lazy people stupid Right ?

Now image what a 3rd world tribe who cant read or write might do with a Computer.

They Might hurt themselves or worse with the Monitor when its 27 thousand volts of screen Voltage comes in contact with their bubble bath of Mud . If they fart during the process, it can cause a methane explosion it might harm others too.

Re:Text free UI

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds funny, but what you described is pretty much what happens. I remember a story about IBM contributing a large quantity of laptops to African relief back in the late 90s. The villagers used the Thinkpads to pound tent pegs.

At some point you have to give up and realize you can't fool Dr. Darwin.

I blame the man for by extreme tan

[Notegg Nornoggin]

It certainly ain't our fault we was borned black!

Multimouse for Linux?

[houghi]

If there is such a great demand for multimouse, it should not be too hard to have this for Linux with things we have now. This should be pretty easy to do, compared with all the trouble Microsoft is talking about.
What do we already have under Linux.
Multi user login. Check. It is already possible to connect several people on the same machine with each their own monitor, mouse AND keyboard. http://www.linuxtoys.org/multiseat/multiseat.html and many other sites.
It is already possible to have multiple workplaces.
So all we need to do are two things.
1) Let each workspace be its own X session
2) Show all workspaces on one workspace

Even though I am unable to do this, I can see that this should be possible without too much trouble. For somebody with the apropriate skills, this sounds like a nice project for the weekend as Linux already has the building stones, or am I thinking too simple?

Re:Multimouse for Linux?

[mikael]

There might be some complications - some desktops implement mouse cursors in hardware - so you can only have one cursor at a time (ever noticed how a system can crash but the mouse cursor still moves around, but not clicking anything).

Though having multiple mouse cursors might not be a bad thing. There are many times where having two or more mouse cursors might be useful - sorting out image and source code directories for example. Have one mouse cursor for the window where data is being moved from, and another cursor for the window where data is being moved to.

I found this article recently:

The X-Windows Disaster

If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.

- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation

Re:Multimouse for Linux?

[TheRaven64]

You are thinking of Multi-Pointer X. I can't remember if it was included in the last x.org release, or if it's scheduled for inclusion in the next one. With MPX, you can have an arbitrary number of input devices and input loci, and you can combine this with something like Xnest or (ideally) Xephyr to have multiple active sessions at the same time. Use a non-overlapping window manager in the main X server and something a bit more friendly in the Xephyr instances.

Re:Multimouse for Linux?

[TheRaven64]

I found this article recently:

It was written, however, about two decades ago. In the last eight years, X has changed so much as to be almost unrecognisable. Modern X is still backwards-compatible with the X described in that article, but almost everything is done via the more modern extensions now and the proliferation of different X servers is largely a non-issue since almost everyone uses X.org.

Well

[darjen]

I suppose that's better than calling for "creative government".

Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Moraelin]

Speaking of ancient Egypt and writing, it's kinda funny... they actually invented a phonetic writing (hieratic) _before_ hieroglyphics, but preferred hieroglyphics anyway.

It's kinda funny how many things about Egypt are contrary to what we take for granted, and what stuff like Civilizations teach us. We tend to think that inventing an alphabet was oh-so-vital and a major improvement over hieroglyphics, but Egypt invented them the other way around. And for a long time it was, along with Mesopotamia (where cuneiform was also hieroglyphic), at the forefront of science and technology.

(Another anomaly about them was that they knew about coins all right, but preferred barter anyway. They first minted coins to pay some Greek mercenaries, and then continued to do so for external trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians. But internally they used barter until the Romans conquered them and forced them to. They were an economic powerhouse anyway.)

So, well, maybe there is something to the idea that a picture is worth more. The Egyptians sure thought so :P

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[c6gunner]

Speaking of ancient Egypt and writing, it's kinda funny... they actually invented a phonetic writing (hieratic) _before_ hieroglyphics

Cite?

As far as I know, they developed pretty much simultaneously, and were used at the same time, but for different purposes. Hieroglyphics were used to decorate pyramids and temples, while Hieratic was used for receipts, notes, messages, etc. Moreover, Hieratic was not a real alphabet either, it made use of logographic characters.

We tend to think that inventing an alphabet was oh-so-vital and a major improvement over hieroglyphics, but Egypt invented them the other way around. And for a long time it was, along with Mesopotamia (where cuneiform was also hieroglyphic), at the forefront of science and technology.

Yes, well, most "technical documents" from the time were written in Hieratic, so that tends to suggest that a simple alphabet is at least an aid in clear and professional communication, if not necessarily a requirement for it.

Another anomaly about them was that they knew about coins all right, but preferred barter anyway. They first minted coins to pay some Greek mercenaries, and then continued to do so for external trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians. But internally they used barter until the Romans conquered them and forced them to. They were an economic powerhouse anyway.

Imagine that! A stubborn people, ruled in tyranny by an emperor who is also a religious figure, continue to do things the old fashioned way instead of changing with the times. You NEVER see that happen! :)

I think it's rather akin to North Korea continuing to pretend that Communism is a viable option ...

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

they actually invented a phonetic writing (hieratic) _before_ hieroglyphics, but preferred hieroglyphics anyway.

Their priestly caste, who were the only literate ones, preferred hieroglyphs.

And for a long time it was, along with Mesopotamia (where cuneiform was also hieroglyphic), at the forefront of science and technology.

So hieroglyphs are quite adequate for _ancient_ science and technology.

They were an economic powerhouse anyway.

That was due to the perfect conditions in the fertile crescent, not the use of barter. And the fact that they exchanged coin with foreigners illustrates the basic problem with barter: it's rather inconvenient to carry your livestock in your wallet.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Angst Badger]

Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was largely phonetic, contrary to what is surprisingly common belief here. Some signs were logographic or ideographic, but the majority of signs were phonetic. Hieratic came after hieroglyphic, and was largely just a cursive form of hieroglyphics, used to write quickly in informal contexts. In any case, Egyptian used a far smaller set of signs than modern Japanese, which is also a mixture of phonetic, logographic, and ideographic signs. Alphabetic writing probably originated in the Levant as a simplification of Egyptian monoconsonantal signs, culminating in the Phoenician alphabet, which formed the basis of virtually all modern scripts of non-Chinese origin.

Currency was simply unnecessary through most of Egyptian history. Ancient Egypt was a command economy and the overwhelming majority of its trade was internal. Under those circumstances, at least in a pre-industrial state, currency is a needless complication.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of ancient Egypt and writing, it's kinda funny... they actually invented a phonetic writing (hieratic) _before_ hieroglyphics, but preferred hieroglyphics anyway.

They were copying what they saw in the screens on the spaceships of the alien gods they worshipped.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[FlyingBishop]

Actually, I'd say that it was more a question of keeping the lower classes in check, not any stubbornness on their part. Hieroglyphs' main disadvantage is how difficult they are to learn. For any elite society, this is in fact a boon, because the peasants do not have time to learn hieroglyphics and work. An alphabet you can easily learn in your time off from the fields. As soon as that happens, you become intelligent and annoyed with your rulers.

Therefore, alphabets cause peasant revolts. Which is why Egypt was a powerhouse.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

Ancient egyptians developed both and used both. The difference is that that used hieratic for everyday uses and hieroglyphs for ornaments. Classier, you see. Nobody can understand them unless they've had an intensive education. Same way anything in Japanese can be written in Hiragana, but the use of Kanji denotes an "educated" writer - and reader. Which writing system is more useful, the one that requires a few years training, or a whole life?

The "anomaly" about coins is superficial. Coins until recently had a value solely determined by their metal content. As such using coins was no different to barter.

Developing computer UIs that can be used by illiterates is completely useless. The problem is not that these people can't use a computer, it's that they're illiterate.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[rbanffy]

That's confusing - I always thought hieroglyphs were phonetic and that helped crack (not in the literal sense, obviously) the Rosetta stone.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Moraelin]

Imagine that! A stubborn people, ruled in tyranny by an emperor who is also a religious figure, continue to do things the old fashioned way instead of changing with the times. You NEVER see that happen! :)

Way I see it,

1. The "tyranny" argument is kinda fuzzy when applied to ancient times.

Even for the Greek states, the larger mass of the citizens were usually (though not always) better off under a tyranny than under the democracy of rich slave-owners. Plus, it was democratic voting which led to excesses like executing otherwise capable officers who lost _one_ battle, or to antagonizing Sparta (an ally at the time) all the way to a disastrous war from which Athens never recovered.

Or people see movies like 300 or read ancient greek texts and get ideas like Greece = teh uber-defenders of democracy, vs Persia = teh uber-oppressive tyranny. Well, here's a funny thought. Greece was based on chattel slavery, and at the apex of it in Athens even the word for "craftsman" was a synonim/euphemism for slave. Sparta's rite of passage to adult involved going out and terrorizing the Hellots to keep them in line. By contrast in Persia despots like Darius or Xerxes were vehemently against slavery, and only used paid workers. Probably also because Zoroastrism forbade slavery. So some 90% of the population were actually more free in "despotic" Persia than in "democratic" Greece.

In Egypt, technically the Pharaoh was a supreme despot, but in practice they seem to have treated their citizens pretty well. Their standard of living actually went down a lot under the Romans, although that doesn't necessarily say much, as Rome was gradually switching towards an Empire at the time.

Mind you, I'm not saying "democracy is bad", but mostly "democracy back then differed in several significant aspects from what we call democracy today." By the standards of _that_ time, the difference between democracy and tyrany were sometimes more subtle and sometimes in the other direction than you'd imagine.

2. In a way, a theocracy is actually a very vulnerable system, and a God-Emperor actually has a lot less room for doing evil stuff than a plain old one. The slightest sign of things going downhill or breaking the sacred ideas of balance and justice (Ma'at) can be taken as a sign of losing that divine power, or, as the case may be, mandate. Both Egypt and China (another empire by divine mandate) lost more than one dynasty that way.

And again, their ideas of Ma'at actually set limits on what central power can do too. E.g., apparently you couldn't tax your peasants as much as you wanted, you had to go by the sacred calculations depending on the inundation level. (I.e., on how much a peasant could actually produce in that year.) E.g., you couldn't just put the squeeze on your workers, you had to go by the sacred rules saying how much they can work per day and what rations they should receive. Etc. Those were sacred rules handed over by the gods themselves on sacred scrolls (e.g., most of them from Thoth), and even a Pharaoh could only deviate so far before people started wondering if he really is one of those Gods as he claims. It didn't always work (e.g., we have mentions of over-taxing in, say, the chaos of the first intermediate period), but mostly it seemed to do decently well for that time and age.

In a way, it was more like a semi-constitutional monarcy (even if in a weird religious way) than what some people imagine as God-Emperor.

3. _Why_ they didn't change the economy is a good topic by itself. (Short story: yeah, mostly religion and being stubborn.) The more interesting fact, though, is that it worked well nevertheless. It included more crafts and trading than a lot of other economies based on coins.

If you think about it, when your food is your "currency" the effect is somewhat like that of inflation in modern times. There's a strong incentive to invest and spend that "money" instead of keeping them hidden somewhere. It also produ

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Stephen Ma]

Hieratic came after hieroglyphic

Your assertion is apparently false, at least according to Wikipedia:

It is an error to view hieratic as a derivative of hieroglyphic writing. The earliest texts from Egypt are produced with ink and brush, with no indication their signs are descendants of hieroglyphs. True monumental hieroglyphs carved in stone did not appear until the 1st Dynasty, well after hieratic had been established as a scribal practice.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[Anne Thwacks]

Currency was simply unnecessary through most of Egyptian history. Ancient Egypt was a command economy and the overwhelming majority of its trade was internal. Under those circumstances, at least in a pre-industrial state, currency is a needless complication.

While there may not have been coins, I dont know, and probably were no bank notes (IFAIK invented in 16th century), there are Egyptian payroll records, and procurement records. It is reasonable to assume that at least some people participated in a paid economy.

P. My guess is that the success of Ancient Egypt was exactly down to paying people to work. There were slaves too, but payment was for skilled work (eg carpenters, plasterers and stone masons) was probably the big economy.

Re:Speaking of ancient Egypt

[cozziewozzie]

Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was largely phonetic, contrary to what is surprisingly common belief here. Some signs were logographic or ideographic, but the majority of signs were phonetic.

In fact, there is an increasing awareness that ALL written systems are, in fact, phonetic, including the Far East ones.

Here is a good article with references, which covers hieroglyphs too.

Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

"Creative Capitalism" sounds vaguely like Bush's 2000 political slogan "Compassionate Conservatism." Uh-huh.

Just more lipstick for the pig. And in this case, it's a Capitalist Pig to boot.

Reading training software?

[tepples]

Teach the buggers to read.

Imagine software used by students with their teachers to help the students learn to read. What kind of user interface should the student side of this software have?

Re:Reading training software?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what Gates means, i'm a commerce student after all :) creative capitalism is paying for something so bad you should get paid to use it and then not being able to sell the updated version (vista) because it is even worse.

Re:Reading training software?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Paper?

Re:Reading training software?

[clone53421]

Imagine software used by students with their teachers to help the students learn to read. What kind of user interface should the student side of this software have?

If it's teaching English by total immersion, then it should be entirely in English.

Just take any popular game that's played by people all around the world, for example... I guarantee you that there will be a lot of non-english speakers who recognise words like "experience", "skill", etc. Once they recognise the word it's just a matter of learning what it means, and they probably have a pretty good idea of that already from playing the game.

Re:Reading training software?

[tepples]

If it's teaching English by total immersion, then it should be entirely in English.

True. But I deal with users who can speak perfectly understandable English but can't read enough even to "Press Start".

Re:Reading training software?

[clone53421]

Assuming the intention is to teach them to read, I have a feeling I know what their first word might be...!

Creative Commies (cc)

[tepples]

...Creative Socialism.

More like Creative Communism.

Gates' legacy

[QuietLagoon]

Bill Gates is just trying to improve how the history books will view his life. Fortunately, his legacy of illegal activity, the stifling of innovation, and the draining of profits from the PC industry will outlive the recent attempts of his publicity staff to have him be seen as a humanitarian.

Re:Gates' legacy

[RightSaidFred99]

You all keep ranting the same shit, but your "facts" are actually just bitter whiny opinions. He stifled no innovation, he did no illegal activity, and nobody but you pathetic nerds and his whining competitors hates him anymore. The simple fact is you lost. Most people don't hate Bill Gates. In 100 years when QuietLagoon and WhinyPenguin3 are dead his legacy will live on because he will have made a huge impact on the world. Your legacy will be a bunch of pathetic crybabying on SlashDot about a "convicted monopolist" being a "gangster" who committed logs of "illegal activity" and now is trying to "save his conscience". PS: In that last sentence I just summarized every crybaby post in this thread.

Seriously, he enver used physical force or fraud to get his money, so he's fine by me. Monopoly laws are a relic of the steel and oil industries, which are physically limited resources. They make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property. To the victor go the spoils, and the only people who hate Gates are the dirty, greasy SlashDweeb Linux droids and his competitors who have lost to him.

Re:Gates' legacy

[nyet]

[Monopolies] make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property.

Hey, dumbass - "Intellectual Property" *is* a government granted monopoly. It creates artificial scarcity where there is none.

Re:Gates' legacy

[QuietLagoon]

your "facts" are actually just bitter whiny opinions

.
Read the court transcripts.

The simple fact is you lost.

I did lose, as did hundreds of millions of other PC users who have had to put up with an unreliable operating system from a company that was more concerned about protecting its monopoly than engaging in the advancement of the PC industry via real innovation.

Monopoly laws are a relic of the steel and oil industries

That's your opinion. However, the monopoly laws are still on the books and have to be obeyed. If you break them, you suffer the consequences. It is good to see, however, that you implicitly acknowledge that Gates engaged in illegal activity to gain his wealth.

Re:Gates' legacy

[RightSaidFred99]

People break all sorts of laws every day. The fact is if the law is loose enough, it can get anyone. He specifically never broke any laws, of course. This is a provable fact. If you can find evidence of William Gates having been convicted of any kind of felony, I'd love to see it. Microsoft only ever got slapped on the wrist for conduct that is not immoral but which is entirely up to a wide swathe of interpretation. Ask one man if a crime was committed, he'll say no - ask his neighbour, he'll say yes. It's a wishy-washy set of regulations.

The only fact here is that you and the open source zealot nutjobs are dinosaurs. Here on SlashDot you have some degree of GroupThink so you think the rest of the world shares your opinions. They don't. Most of the world thinks Gates is just dandy. So rail at success and capitalism all you want, but don't pretend you hold a majority (or correct, for that matter) opinion.

Re:Gates' legacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates is not capitalist. He supports copyright and patent monopolies, antithetical to capitalism.

Re:Gates' legacy

[nyet]

[quote]
[Monopolies] make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property.
[/quote]

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are statutory monopolies.

Multimouse, single monitor?

[tepples]

It is already possible to connect several people on the same machine with each their own monitor, mouse AND keyboard.

That's a good start. But seeing as how adding a monitor is still much more expensive than adding a keyboard and mouse, shouldn't it be possible to share monitors too?

Re:Multimouse, single monitor?

[higuita]

xnest will do that, all it would take was a kind of xdm/kdm/gdm that when another user logged in, it would start another xnest and divide the screen...
the new multipoint support could help on the keyboard and mouse...

for plain multiuser, check the howto

Application outside developing world: PC gaming

[tepples]

And BTW, Gates, plug a second mouse to a Mac and you can control the cursor using two mice automatically without any further effort.

The last time I tried this with a Mac, I got both mice fighting over one pointer. The idea here is to extend an operating system to support multiple pointers and multiple input foci.

In fact, this has implications outside the developing world. For instance, in computer gaming, most video games require one PC per player because the operating system can't reliably read more than one independent keyboard or pointing device. This research is about Microsoft trying to make Windows catch up with what video game consoles could do nearly a decade ago, and it would boost both "Games for Windows" and Media Center PCs running Windows Vista Home Premium.

Re:Application outside developing world: PC gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I tried this with a Mac, I got both mice fighting over one pointer. The idea here is to extend an operating system to support multiple pointers and multiple input foci.

Yes, one mouse owns the control over the pointer once the mouse is moved and the other takes over once the first mouse stops moving. This idea is workable for 50 kids in a classroom, after all, the idea is to use one computer for collaboration, not to let the kids fights over the control of the computer. The scenario which 50 kids access one computer at the same time is a bad one. Kids being kids, what prevents them from being naughty and invading areas belonging to others? Can you restrict a kid from functionality other than his own? Multiple pointers are not a bad idea for a small group and for some specific applications (like games), but for what a computer is used in a classroom, for education purposes, it's a distraction.

In fact, this has implications outside the developing world. For instance, in computer gaming, most video games require one PC per player because the operating system can't reliably read more than one independent keyboard or pointing device. This research is about Microsoft trying to make Windows catch up with what video game consoles could do nearly a decade ago, and it would boost both "Games for Windows" and Media Center PCs running Windows Vista Home Premium.

Then let's not pretend that it is designed to empower schoolchildren in a large classroom. Just imagine 50 pointers swarming on the screen and 50 keyboards trying to type in a text area at the same time. The link actually mentioned 200 kids. Again, multiple pointers may have their use, but there is such a thing as diminishing returns. 2 pointers may make a computer twice as useful, but 50 pointers don't make a computer 50 times as useful. Probably the opposite, even.

Re:Application outside developing world: PC gaming

[LordVader717]

From the pictures it seemed to be the case that the monitor would be a splitscreen desktop, so that two kids could each have one independant session. It's about saving the cost of the monitor.

The reason it works good on console though is that a TV screen is/was typically bigger than a PC Monitor. It's bad enough having 3 people watching a movie on a PC. If they want to get close up to see an office document there's going to be some serious headbanging.

Re:Application outside developing world: PC gaming

[tepples]

The reason it works good on console though is that a TV screen is/was typically bigger than a PC Monitor.

Except for bargain-basement TVs, it's a "was". Virtually everything above a CRT SDTV has VGA and HDMI inputs, such as my Vizio 720p-class 32" LCD TV. But a lot of CRT SDTVs are out there because until a couple years ago, they were the dominant TV. Until those get replaced over the next few years, or until SDTV output becomes a standard feature on PCs, there will still be practical problems with sharing a monitor.

There was a *lot* of energy devoted to...

[toby]

...making Bill Gates and his cronies A LOT LESS POOR, however.

As usual, 'creative capitalism' is only going to deepen inequalities (that's what Bill epitomises, after all - the obscene, not to mention illegal, enrichment of one man at the expense of society in general).

Re:There was a *lot* of energy devoted to...

[c6gunner]

"As usual, 'creative capitalism' is only going to deepen inequalities (that's what Bill epitomises, after all - the obscene, not to mention illegal, enrichment of one man at the expense of society in general).

Take it easy Mr. Castro ... you know how your blood pressure gets when you start on these rants ....

Re:There was a *lot* of energy devoted to...

[Man On Pink Corner]

As usual, 'creative capitalism' is only going to deepen inequalities

In the course of making it possible for a billion ordinary people to own and use multi-gigaflop computers, Microsoft made about 10,000 millionaires in the Seattle area alone.

I'm sure we're all eager to hear how that figure compares to your life's work.

Re:There was a *lot* of energy devoted to...

[maxume]

What is the lower limit of obscene?

What is truly phenomenal is that in the 25 years it took Gates to lock up $50 billion, the U.S. economy produced about $250 trillion worth of stuff (Gates secured 0.02% of it! A truly amazing figure when you consider that more than 100 million people were involved), and also consumed the majority of it.

50 kids sharing one display?

[thetoadwarrior]

I don't care how large the display is 50 pointers on one display sounds like a poorly thought out solution for someone with no money.

why not teach the illiterate instead?

[someone1234]

Because they would start thinking instead of working for Gates and his friends?
Yeah, creative capitalism at its best.
Or the beginning of Idiocracy?

Re:why not teach the illiterate instead?

[foobsr]

Because they would start thinking instead of working for Gates and his friends? Yeah, creative capitalism at its best. Or the beginning of Idiocracy?

Though there does not seem to be much evidence (left) that literacy triggers thinking, I go for the option 'idiocracy'.

Besides, it seems to be evidence of sorts that no one else realized your point.

CC.

Re:why not teach the illiterate instead?

[blincoln]

Though there does not seem to be much evidence (left) that literacy triggers thinking,

I doubt that literacy "triggers thinking", but it certainly improves the ability of someone to understand concepts.

For example, a few weeks ago I was reading an "explanation" someone wrote about why food in a dented can wasn't safe to eat. Part of their statement was that it "changes the malectural [sic] structure". What are the chances that that person even knows what a molecule is, let alone that it's what's allegedly being changed by exposure to air? They're probably just remembering a vague factoid by rote and have no idea what it actually means.

Re:why not teach the illiterate instead?

[foobsr]

but it certainly improves the ability of someone to understand concepts

*suspecting that you rather give a counterexample* ;-)

It might be a good idea to augment 'concepts'; abstract, technical, scientific perhaps? Definitely n_o_t concepts which are based on perception to a high degree and can only be learnt via experience (by experiencing); martial arts come to mind.

CC.

wouldn't it be better to

[Anonymous Coward]

Ensure that everyone the world over can READ? I would think Literacy would be a far (far) more important skill that computer literacy, especially in parts of the world without as many computers. In first world countries there's just no excuse for illiteacy (other than severe, crippling learning disabilities). A computer even the illiterate can use is a fine goal, but ensuring universal literacy in at least one language for the entire world is better.

How many people could Bill feed?

[MrKaos]

If they just ate him.

Illiterate computing is the LAST thing we need!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at McDonald's... their registers just about have buttons with pictures of the damn food on them, and those idiots still fuck my order up all the time.

You don't stoop to accommodate the lowest common denominator, goddammit, TEACH PEOPLE TO READ so they can use a normal computer! This is right up there with the US having so much shit in English -and- Spanish. You want to live and work in this country? Fine-- learn our language or starve. Here's another example: Teaching schoolkids how to use WINDOWS instead of teaching them how to use A COMPUTER. Teaching specifics rules out over teaching concepts that can be applied elsewhere.

God, I'm chokin' on my own rage!

Re:Illiterate computing is the LAST thing we need!

[Anonymous Coward]

Teaching specifics rules out over teaching concepts that can be applied elsewhere.

I sort of trailed off there without really clearly indicating that I think the above is ridiculously stupid. It's hard to effectively communicate tones of disgust in writing, sometimes.

Re:Illiterate computing is the LAST thing we need!

[roster238]

You have a really good point and a great example that most everyone can relate to, replace the rage (and profanity) with intellectual disgust and it's hard not to agree.

Re:Illiterate computing is the LAST thing we need!

[luther2.1k]

Just as your ancestors all learnt to speak Cherokee, Lakota and so on. I'd say that English has as much right as Spanish to be signposted in the U.S.A. The world would be a dull place with English as the only language.

Bill Gate's "Stalinist capitalism"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gate's most important personal contribution to "creative capitalism" was in fact, distorting the most fundamental supposed value of it: free market competition. Microsoft created market monopoly by any means they could, even ignoring and violating laws, around the world. Bill Gate's capitalism in reality was the most "Stalinist capitalism" that ever existed - that's what created for him an unprecedented personal wealth.

Re:needs a logo MSFT- o ?

[holywarrior21c]

But having nothing changed from current 'capitalism'. 'creative capitalism' is just a brand new product name. my conclusion in slashdottian:
1.Bill Gates seeks to engineer whole new economic system.
2.Copy
3.???
4.???
5.Rename
6.Profit!
Are we CC ready?

Re:Hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see you writing this post from a dark basement where you often cross dress and dance the "mangina" in front of a mirror all the while screaming "Bill Gates has no credibility and it puts the lotion on the skin!".

In defense of Gates and energy expended

[SuperKendall]

While it's true that Gates did not do nearly so much in the way of charity while at Microsoft, in his defense I see nothing wrong with spending all your energy growing a company and then later taking the time to use some of the profits earned for charitable pursuit.

The issue I have is the way he earned his money, I have nothing against the fact he was focused on it for the time he was at Microsoft

Sugar?

[Vexorian]

Isn't Sugar pretty close to that Text-free UI stuff?

( . ) ( . ) -- Eyes or Boobs?

[Whiteox]

I agree that if Gates was going to do something for illiterates, then reading is much more important than operating icons. However I should point out that neurological impress techniques do work. This has been done before, when symbols with their respective text tags have been used to teach reading.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stand alone and a carefully built support mechanism should accompany any kind of impress technique.
For example, we know that the 'back' icon is an arrow pointing left. But that only makes sense if you read left to right.
We in turn learn what an icon represents, rather that looking at an icon to derive it's meaning.
Our graphic representations of 'man' and 'woman' as displayed in rest rooms, is cultural and may not mean anything to some people. There are lots of these kinds of examples.
So although impress does work, it has to have a support base (literate human teachers) that computers, at this stage, cannot provide.
Possibly when AI works a bit better, there may be hope.
Now trying to operate a computer with no literacy can only mean that it is 'control' (click this to make this work or to stop it), or watch a video or listen to audio, and you don't need a computer to do that.
So Bill Gates seems to have these 'pipe dreams' and I don't think he's bothered to think it through or even ask someone knowledgeable for an opinion.
As for multi-mouse.... ahem. Sounds like a cheap game that gets boring very fast.
And quite a few mobile plans have charge by the second....
So what's so innovative in all of this?
Bill doesn't have proper vision, like let's say a sci-fi writer would have. The whole thing is just ramblings by someone who has lost touch with the real world. Now I know that sounds Anti-Bill, but I'm seriously contending that he's lost it.
If, for example, Arthur C. Clarke had billions, I'm sure he would have been a philanthropist and would have provided something more meaty for the illiterates.
Sean Connery has provided literacy to many in his philanthropic work. It wasn't as hard as many people think. It just took some dedication, money and organization.
Maybe Bill should not innovate. I don't think he's able enough. What he has done in the past, was to employ creative people to do creative things, or to buy innovative companies.
I think he wrote 'Multiplan' spreadsheet, but this was after Visicalc wasn't it?
What else did he do that was innovative?

FOSS!

[kipman725]

well at least one of those is done by free software "Multimouse technology" see multi pointer X that has been available as a patch for ages and now is in the main branch. Also learning to read is not as hard as people make out I had learnt before I entered school. Free software is inherently better than any of bill's proprietary bullshit and he should accept that now he has no share holders to keep happy. At one point he was the richest person on the planet, but that didn't give him wide admiration he was reviled as a monopolist who used unfair practises. Acquisition of wealth as the driving force for progress is an indirect and inefficient method.

Re:FOSS!

[Shados]

Learning to read is easy when you're young and its your priority, or one of em, on top of having the ressources to do so (books...). When your priority is not starving to death, and you're 20+ years old, and that a book can be worth several days of food,learning to read is one of the hardest thing you'll ever have to do.

I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates has time, and time again donated to KILL 3rd world children using mercury filled shots, and sending "skim" milk to mothers that would normally breast feed. He is a sick and evil man.

Bill Gate's father, is the head of "Planned Parenthood", which helps kill children in 3rd world countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyNo7r5wrm0

Bill Gates should be held accountable for his crimes.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

The Proles are not the answer, cease attempting to educate them. Simply take action.

What is the correct action?

Fusion

[Dr_Barnowl]

He should back all the left-of-field fusion research projects instead.

If any of them produces a viable over-unity reactor, it would be the greatest contribution to world prosperity and hence peace and security. Ever.

Yes, they may be long shots. But you could pay their funding out of the Gates Foundation petty cash and not miss it.

Philanthropy post-Microsoft

[teaDrunk]

"there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft"
I dislike MS (& Bill's) tactics in business too, but, this has been happening across ages -
a man makes loads of money over a lifetime by whatever means (sometimes fleecing people/entire races/natural resources/environment), and then sets out on a philanthropical course.
There is no point in belittleing that part. Might as well do something good now.

Bill Gates, pfff...

[chthon]

The impression that I have is that Gates is someone who likes to take the front stage, and does not mind to talk about bullshit, provided it sounds convincing enough. Does any of his books or has sayings really amount to anything ?

This is basicaly the stage of 'learning a man to fish' instead of giving him a fish.

This sentence shows that Gates is good a reinventing the wheel and saying it as if it really was him who did it.

I have been reading about and practicing creativity courses since twenty years, and it opened my eyes to see that there are many creative possibilities to help 2nd, 3rd and 4th world people. However, creating something creatively is one step, creating it affordable, simple and usable by a whole lot of people is another one. This has been reported on by Slashdot, but there are more such initiatives, sometimes by local universities in the third world. I think that the banks which give help to the poor in India by providing low-rate loans and so on, are also a form of creative capitalism.

It is also always the same with Gates : he likes to sell technological solutions for things which might be better solved first by sociological means (e.g. illiterate people here in Belgium can follow free courses to learn to read and do simple calculations, it is a government (backed) initiative).

The thing that I find most dis-ingenious about Gates statement is this. Since he talks about capitalism, is he himself prepared to invest in projects which have only small long-term gains, or is he just searching for money sink holes which give him big tax breaks ?

Gates is good at setting up smoke screens and making it appear that he has single-handedly invented fire, the wheel and sliced bread, but I do not trust him at all, he should shut up already and exit stage left.

Re:Bill Gates, pfff...

[Elektroschock]

The absurdity is that if you have X billions your personal gain for getting more money decreases. gossen's law so to speak.

You have more money you ever want to spent. So maybe it makes sense to get less return but more fun and satisfaction.

Microsoft Meth

[Anonymous Coward]

clown head gates won't stop babbling until he's firmly established in American goverment, mark my words!

Fuck you and Microsoft, Gates, the convicted monopoly that it is.

Microsoft = Corruption

Multimouse Technology

[st33med]

Fifty kids on one screen??? You are asking for a potential riot with "mouse wars" and such.

Obligatory Internet Pundit...

[Anonymous Coward]

"A dollar a day?? Lazy buggers should get a job instead of panhandling."

That was just speaking for perhaps 4 million people in North America. Maybe somebody should field an awareness program here at home?

Oh that's right, you can't teach being poor. It's the very case study for the School of Hard Knocks.

Gates and his ego

[Baldrson]

The best way to invoke creative capitalism is to remove the subsidy of property rights inherent in any civilization that taxes economic activity rather than property rights.

You just assess assets at their in place liquidation value and then tax net assets at the short-term treasury rate. (Ideally, you get rid of public choice rent seeking by distributing the revenue to the citizens in a dividend, rather than making them politic for a slice of government pork.)

Gates won't promote this because this would fix the bug in civilization that made him the world's richest man, and he can't admit even to himself that his wealth wasn't fairly earned.

Orphan Works

[Xenographic]

Umm, no, the FSF, EFF & co. are trying for the Orphan Works Act!

And besides, if you DO find someone using your work, you get paid for it. If you never know that someone is using your work, why do you even care?

The whole point of the Orphan Works Act is that you CAN'T usually figure out who to pay, so you can't use their work at all! It's not something Gates dreamed up. That said, the BS about capitalism after he's worked to form that monopoly of his is ridiculous. But don't hate the orphans because of him!

Re:Orphan Works

[Cathoderoytube]

The EFF doesn't speak for, or represent artists. The FSF has zero to do with art. Since I'm an artist, both those organizations can kiss my ass when it comes to this particular issue.
The old saying 'it's not illegal if you don't get caught' is idiotic. If I'm siphoning the gas out of your car and you never catch me I guess it's okay because you never knew.
This bill only favors big companies that have the resources to monitor all their copyrights. Plus the people who're most likely to rip off artists are... Big companies, who can afford to employ artists in the first place, but choose to rip them off because of the mentality that artists don't actually need to get paid for what they do.

Here's some reading material.
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

P.S. Go fuck yourself

Re:Orphan Works

[Xenographic]

> P.S. Go fuck yourself

God bless you.

It depends

[Anonymous Coward]

On how thinly they slice him.

Re:It depends

[jagdish]

640 slices ought to be enough.

Re:It depends

[clone53421]

Don't you mean 640 bites?

Not Frivolous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that that the lady who sued McDonalds in that frivolous suit had 3rd degree burns, and that it was found that that McDonalds was serving coffee much hotter than customary?

Re:Not Frivolous.

[jambox]

Oh, come on. How hot could it have been? Was it actually boiling? Is there an ISO standard on how hot coffee should be at point of sale? It's very unfortunate that she got so badly hurt and I wouldn't deny her sympathy, nor do I have any love of McDonalds (far from it). However, something about Americans that annoys everyone else is that they seem to expect to be given money every time something bad happens. This "blame culture" is what you're espousing.

Re:Not Frivolous.

[TheRaven64]

It's probably related to ISO 3103.

Re:Not Frivolous.

[clone53421]

Next time you take the pot off the warmer and pour yourself a cup of coffee, and while you're waiting for it to cool off enough to drink, why don't you stick a thermometer in there and check the temperature? (Do be mindful of where the thermometer has been previously, though...!) Then you can compare it to the temperature of the McDonalds coffee...

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm: (all temperatures are given in degrees F)

A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds[...]

(To avoid confusion, I'll point out that Kathleen Gilliam isn't the 81-year-old who suffered 3rd degree burns from McDonalds' coffee.)

Also consider that excessively hot water from your home's hot water heater can be dangerous. Notice in particular that in the "tips to keep in mind" they recommend setting the thermostat to 120 degrees (several other places in the article indicate that the "safe" range is between 120 degrees and 125 degrees). Furthermore, the highest temperature listed on the chart (140 degrees) still isn't anywhere near as hot as the 185-degree coffee.

Gate's legacy

[QuietLagoon]

Bill Gates is just trying to improve how the history books will view his life. Fortunately, his legacy of illegal activity, the stifling of innovation in th ePC industry, and the draining of profits from the PC industry will outlive the recent attempts of his publicity staff to have him be seen as a humanitarian.

Re:Gate's legacy

[bogjobber]

Do you honestly think that? Here's an example for you. Which do you think is more well-known, Leland Stanford or Stanford University? Andrew Carnegie or Carnegie Mellon University or Carnegie Hall? John Rockefeller or the University of Chicago and all the different projects of the Rockefeller Foundation?

People will remember both the good things and the bad things Bill Gates has done, but how can you possibly think that the bad things overshadow his philanthropy. And I'm talking about what he has done *to date*, not the potentially phenomenal things that could come in the future with the tremendous resources he's managing.

The man didn't rape and pillage. He didn't exploit labor. He didn't steal, he didn't start wars. He established a monopoly and manipulated that monopoly to his advantage. Let's not blow things out of proportion.

Re:Gate's legacy

[jagdish]

History is written by the victor, or in this case the guy with all the money.

Enough.

[Pantero Blanco]

The aid to Ethiopia was worse than unsuccessful and pointless. It prolonged a civil war and made the problem that it purported to fix even worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/703958.stm

A nation of about 40 to 50 million people was said to be in a state of famine in the 1980s. Several nations gave aid, castigated themselves for not reacting quickly enough, and now that nation's population is approaching 100 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2440093.stm

Now, that same country is said to be facing famine again. So, we're supposed to give aid, and we're supposed to be prepared to do it all over in another 20 years, when the population of Ethiopia will be approaching 200 million?

If we're going to give aid, it should be on the condition that Ethiopia implements a policy similar to China's and decreases its population to something sustainable.

Re:Enough.

[mikkelm]

I'm well aware that montary aid often lands in the wrong hands. What I'm replying to is that HanzoSpam seems to write off the entire concept of sending aid to Africa because of this.

Re:Enough.

[TheRaven64]

Most charity is counter-productive because it does not provide a means of making the recipients independent. There are a lot of exceptions. The 'give a goat' idea, where you give a pair of animals to a village, on the condition that, once it's having children they will give a pair of them away (ideally with the same condition) works well, because a small initial outside investment allows people in an area to start helping each other.

Microloans (the inventor of which received a Nobel a few years ago) are another good idea - you lend someone enough to improve their standard of living with no interest. If they fail to repay it, then it's not a huge problem because you were treating it as a charitable donation anyway, but if they do then you can offer the same loan to someone else, and so on. Again, you are not providing them with long-term support. In many cases, you're just giving them enough to push over the threshold from making enough to stay alive to making enough to make a profit. Once they've done this, they can start investing in other improvements. In some of the best success stories for this scheme I've read, the recipients of the early loans were making enough after a few years that they were able to issue micro-loans to other people.

At the opposite extreme are things like Fair Trade. I saw the president of this organisation on television a few months ago, saying how wonderful it was that you could buy Fair Trade roses for Valentine's Day. There are a few problems with this, however. Roses need a lot of water to grow, and are quite expensive to grow somewhere like Kenya. They would not have been grown a few years ago, because they were not cost-effective. Now, the price is artificially inflated, and they make more economic sense to grow than food for local consumption. This drives up the price of food locally, which means that people who were able to buy food from the local farms now starve so that middle-class British neohippies can feel good about the roses they buy.

Re:Enough.

[mikkelm]

Again, I'm well aware that some charity is worse than no charity at all. I'm commenting on charity as a concept, not the specific implementations that you detail in your post.

640 words?

[drolive]

640 words should be enough for anyone.

This is why I think there is a world market for maybe five dictionaries.

Re:640 words?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

There is no reason for any individual to have a dictionary in his home.

Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[damburger]

His idea is that you can make money and help people at the same time. For capitalism to be creative, monetary value has to represent an improvement in human life.

Like all surrogates though, whenever you try to use money to represent anything other than money itself it loses its ability to represent that thing immediately. The idea of carbon trading shows this, because its become quite apartment that carbon credits have stopped representing actual amounts of carbon emissions.

Poverty, suffering and hunger are inherent components of capitalism. Enjoy your dinner people.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[servognome]

Poverty, suffering and hunger are inherent components of capitalism. Enjoy your dinner people.

They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have. "Poverty" in western capitalist societies is far from starvation and suffering.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[damburger]

That is because we are a labour aristocracy. The poverty that results from our wealth is outsourced to the 'developing world'. The idea that this is somehow inevitable is a pure lie. There is enough food in the world for everyone, it just isn't getting to those who need it.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[servognome]

That is because we are a labour aristocracy. The poverty that results from our wealth is outsourced to the 'developing world'. The idea that this is somehow inevitable is a pure lie.

Generally, the more the "developing world" trades with the west, the better their conditions from all the invested capital. Of course depending on the politics of the area the mileage may vary.

There is enough food in the world for everyone, it just isn't getting to those who need it.

This isn't because of captialism, it's because of political instability. Food is rotting on the harbor in Haiti because it hasn't cleared customs or gets stolen by warlords in Africa so they can maintain control. You can send the food but unless you want war you can't necessarily get it to those who need it.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[damburger]

That is because we are a labour aristocracy. The poverty that results from our wealth is outsourced to the 'developing world'. The idea that this is somehow inevitable is a pure lie.

Generally, the more the "developing world" trades with the west, the better their conditions from all the invested capital. Of course depending on the politics of the area the mileage may vary.

Not true. Botswana, for example, follows all the trade rules laid down by the west and is still mired in poverty. Meanwhile, Cuba is a pariah nation and manages notably better standards of living than many of its regional neighbours who are on board with the Washington conesnsu.

There is enough food in the world for everyone, it just isn't getting to those who need it.

This isn't because of captialism, it's because of political instability. Food is rotting on the harbor in Haiti because it hasn't cleared customs or gets stolen by warlords in Africa so they can maintain control. You can send the food but unless you want war you can't necessarily get it to those who need it.

These are problems, but most of the time people simply cannot afford enough food for their families. Markets have no mechanism to ensure the price of food stays within the income of the hungry.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[servognome]

Not true. Botswana, for example, follows all the trade rules laid down by the west and is still mired in poverty

"Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966, though growth slowed to 4.7% annually in 2006-07. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of nearly $15,000 in 2007." - CIA Factbook

Meanwhile, Cuba is a pariah nation and manages notably better standards of living than many of its regional neighbours who are on board with the Washington conesnsu.

The US isn't the only western nation. One of the major industries in Cuba is tourism, primarily from Canada and Europe.

These are problems, but most of the time people simply cannot afford enough food for their families. Markets have no mechanism to ensure the price of food stays within the income of the hungry.

Yet western societies manage to feed their people with enough excess to export to other countries. One of the keys is development of other industries has contributed to improvements in food productivity. In fact until recently food produced by the west is too cheap which negatively impacts developing agricultural nations. Again they aren't starving because there isn't food, it's more about political stability.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[damburger]

"Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966, though growth slowed to 4.7% annually in 2006-07. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of nearly $15,000 in 2007." - CIA Factbook

You are so absurdly wrong. The country has a Gini coefficient of 63 (fucking huge) so ordinary people are not seeing any of that growth. Its all going into the pockets of Diamond magnates. It also has the second highest HIV infection rate in the world despite the aggressive promotion of ARV drugs.

The US isn't the only western nation. One of the major industries in Cuba is tourism, primarily from Canada and Europe.

Lots of countries have tourists, not many have such good healthcare for their money.

Yet western societies manage to feed their people with enough excess to export to other countries. One of the keys is development of other industries has contributed to improvements in food productivity. In fact until recently food produced by the west is too cheap which negatively impacts developing agricultural nations. Again they aren't starving because there isn't food, it's more about political stability.

Western societies are not closed systems. The UK, for instance, has little manufacturing but a great many manufactured goods. You can't just take the economic growth of a country then ignore the consequences of that growth that exist out of the country.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[servognome]

You are so absurdly wrong. The country has a Gini coefficient of 63 (fucking huge) so ordinary people are not seeing any of that growth. Its all going into the pockets of Diamond magnates. It also has the second highest HIV infection rate in the world despite the aggressive promotion of ARV drugs.

Which are cultural and geographical distribution issues. Rural vs urban living as well as cultural hurdles surrounding sex contributing to HIV are contributing to a general depression in wealth distribution. You're trying to get an economic system to fix problems it's not designed to. Economics can't force people to move to where the jobs are - though it does give them incentive and many of those living in rural Botswana live off of income from relatives working in the cities. It certainly can't force people to change their sexual behavior.
No economic system is perfect, so it begs the question - if you're not happy with the capitalistic mixed economy of the west, what would be a better one?

Western societies are not closed systems. The UK, for instance, has little manufacturing but a great many manufactured goods. You can't just take the economic growth of a country then ignore the consequences of that growth that exist out of the country.

You also can't just ignore progress and complain rather than change - at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves. If food is cheap find something else other than farming, the world can't be handed to you. The economies that are thriving are those that can change.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[damburger]

Which are cultural and geographical distribution issues. Rural vs urban living as well as cultural hurdles surrounding sex contributing to HIV are contributing to a general depression in wealth distribution. You're trying to get an economic system to fix problems it's not designed to. Economics can't force people to move to where the jobs are - though it does give them incentive and many of those living in rural Botswana live off of income from relatives working in the cities. It certainly can't force people to change their sexual behavior. No economic system is perfect, so it begs the question - if you're not happy with the capitalistic mixed economy of the west, what would be a better one?

You know saying 'Well you think of something!' is conceding to a criticism?

You also can't just ignore progress and complain rather than change - at some point people need to take responsibility for themselves. If food is cheap find something else other than farming, the world can't be handed to you. The economies that are thriving are those that can change.

Most of the people starving are under 5 years of age. Perhaps they should've 'taken responsibility' and invested more of their earnings when they were in the womb?

Here is the part where you switch to a vaguely racist/eugenic argument about how much African people 'breed'.

Re:Capitalism can't do what he wants it to.

[servognome]

You know saying 'Well you think of something!' is conceding to a criticism?

No it's pointing out that any system you come up with will run into the issues of humanity which was my original point.
"They are inherent components of human civilzation, doesn't matter what form of economy you have."
Trying to fix certain issues strictly with economics won't work, however, economics can create an environment where problems can be minimized.

Most of the people starving are under 5 years of age. Perhaps they should've 'taken responsibility' and invested more of their earnings when they were in the womb?

Or their caretakers should have - even if food was free it wouldn't distribute itself (unless you want 5 year olds driving trucks)

Here is the part where you switch to a vaguely racist/eugenic argument about how much African people 'breed'.

I didn't comment whether I thought their sexual culture was "right" or "wrong." But it would be ignorant to say it wasn't a contributing factor to the spread of HIV; just as there are subcultures in the west that participate in higher risk sexual activity.

Unlimited access is the future

[mosb1000]

Cell phone carriers are moving more and more toward unlimited plans. That's because it more accurately represents their costs, and customers don't like to be bothered tracking individual minutes. In a couple years time, plans that aren't unlimited will be rare. You heard it here first (if you didn't hear it somewhere else first, that is).

Ignorance...or mistake?

[Roger W Moore]

I've had to correct memos written by people with "degrees", not just that mythical 8th grade education.

We all make mistakes. Were these errors really due to ignorance or just a mistake? For example, I know the difference between "its" and "it's" but I've made mistakes in the past on things like emails and slashdot posts just due to lack of care.

Re:Ignorance...or mistake?

[DaedalusHKX]

Hey, this isn't rapid typing errors. This is "consistent doesn't know his native tongue" mistakes.

Re:Ignorance...or mistake?

[clone53421]

If I'm hiring someone to write computer programs, monitor critical processes, talk to customers or the press, or really to do anything else much important, such apparent "lack of care" negatively influences my expectation of their diligence in performing the job.

Don't get me wrong; you don't have to be 100% perfect 100% of the time. When the impression counts, though, you had better put 100% into it.

Easy for him to say this now, but...

[andrewm_za]

Why has Windows always cost much more to buy in Africa than in the USA? Those with less than $1/day probably have more important things to worry about, but there are certainly many poor people who could benefit from a subsidised OS in countries with weak currencies, at little or no cost from MS.

Re:Easy for him to say this now, but...

[Shados]

Often, but not "always". In some poor countries, they sell a basic version of Windows with Office and some stuff for a few bucks.

And he did?

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Kinsley, a former Microsoft employee whose wife still advises the Gates Foundation, says it's hard to object to Gates' goals, but notes that creative capitalism does have its share of skeptics, and points out that there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft.

So Kinsley feels free to whine and pule... but how many poor people did HE help out while he was working at Microsoft? And how many poor people are other multi-(m/b)illionaires helping?

Hundreds of thousands of people are alive today because liberals Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and many others cared. How many people are alive because Michael Kinsley feels like whining "OMG Bill Gates spent time doing other things, how evil!!!!"

If Gates had not been focused on making Microsoft the best software company in the world, how does Kinsley think Bill Gates could have financed the humanitarian works he is accomplishing on today?

Gates is the biggest philanthopist in human history... but it appears that isn't good enough for smacktards like Kinsley. I think people need to care more about the positives of the reality, and less about the silly, senseless, and likely jealous whinging of people who do nothing with their lives.

With all due respect, how many real-world problems

[George_Ou]

With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? This isn't attack against Open Source, but your statements are ridiculous. Whether or not you like Microsoft's business model is irrelevant because Gates didn't steal that money; he earned it legally. Bill Gates presented some great ideas and he's doing something good with all his money.

Creative Capitalism = Customer Pimping

[IHC Navistar]

Creative Capitalism? Like what? Figuring out how much money you can bilk a customer out of? His idea of 'Cell Phone Billing By The Second' seems to follow that route.....

Also, I'm starting to think that QUARANTINE is the quickest and most effective solution for deadly epidemics that are spreading faster that we can control them. Call it insensitive or Politically Incorrect, but you really can't deny it's effectiveness over waiting decades for a medicine that might not really work effectively.

BTW..... Gates' idea of "Multi-mouse Technology" is a class clown's dream.

Creative Capitalism Blog

[jhanderson]

Anyone that is really interested in this subject should check out the Creative Capitalism blog that was started in response to Bill Gates' speech at Harvard. It is a collaborative effort that has very insightful commentary from about every angle imaginable. http://www.creativecapitalismblog.com/creative_capitalism/

Text-free UI to teach reading

[trawg]

Rather than give illiterate people more reason to not learn how to read, why not make a Text-free UI to teach them how to read first?

Dumbing everything down just seems like the wrong way to go about anything.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[MrKaos]

With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed?

Open Source is a framework for service delivery that allows a coder to develop software in conjunction with others and have a legal framework to fall back on if those works are abused. When applied to a Charitable Organisation (C.O) they can do more with their I.T budget because the outlay for software does not exist, the programmers make a direct and ongoing contribution with respect to their works. That software contribution is not a zero value contribution because it has a real monetary value to the C.O against the impact to their cash flow - cash flow that can be applied to feeding kids.

When compared to the proprietary model a company derives profit from the C.O's use of the software, the C.O has to then apply for a tax relief to refund the the monies spent on software - with associated accountancy fees. Sure they get the monies back but now the taxpayer shoulders the burden of maintaining profitability of Microsoft - taxpayer money that could be have be contributed to aid organisations.

In addition if you were to apply use of Linux vs Windows on hardware assets the effect on cash flow is greater due to the affect on the cycle of hardware investment. You can keep a box running linux for much longer before you need to upgrade the hardware and any programming work is still a tax deduction by the C.O.

Whether or not you like Microsoft's business model is irrelevant because Gates didn't steal that money; he earned it legally.

Yes, Gates did, as for his employer that line is very blurred after numerous encounters with justice department around the world.

Bill Gates presented some great ideas and he's doing something good with all his money.

Like the X files "I want to believe" but I have been bitten so many times by the whole Microsoft paradigm and no matter what you want to believe, Mr Gates engineered that behavior and it's difficult to see a Leopard changing its spots now. I'm way beyond "fool me twice, shame on me" so Mr Gates has zero credibility in any area where he is expecting to convince people of something that's going to happen that's in his control. Now he is using the exact same strategy he used to dress up Operating System announcements and applying it to his arguments on world poverty - something out of his control that he knows he can never fix - the man is a genius of image.

So simply I choose to spend my energy where the return to me and the community is guaranteed. A C.O can choose to continue to contribute to the Microsoft hegemony or they can invest in a manner that frees their cash flow so they can focus on their core mission. Open Source makes a significant contribution directly if an organisation chooses to realise those contributions.

Gates is helping humanity

[IronSilk]

"points out that there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft." Come on, the guy gave away most of his billions to help humanity. Give him some credit. Carping about the way he did it, or that he didn't do it soon enough, or whatever is petty.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[George_Ou]

What does that have to do with the specific question I asked? How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people? Anti-trust is very much subjective and you can hardly call it a crime. To do so, you have to have a pretty warped sense of reality. At best, you can call it rule breaking.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[MrKaos]

What does that have to do with the specific question I asked?

Your question is structured for a specific response, when, with respect, it required the subjective answer I provided.

How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people?

The Open Source model is in it's infancy, not in it's retirement. Open Source is not a company with a board of directors, a Profit and Loss statement and a balance sheet, nor is it an individual will billions of dollars at it's disposal. Making such a comparison is pointless because Open Source does not take the revenue in the first place, it channels effort *as* revenue. Your question would be better asked as "How does Open Source enable poor people to access educational resources to be able to feed themselves and how can implementing Open Source software enable Charitable Organisations to better accomplish their mission?" much of which has been answered here and elsewhere. My statements are only ridiculous to you because you are used to how the proprietary software model works. Open Source doesn't earn income.

I could just as easily ask "How much damage has Microsoft's monopolistic practices caused the community? or how much environmental damage has Microsoft caused with needless upgrade cycles? or how many people have Microsoft prevented from getting an education because they stifled access to cheap educational resources?", which are subjective questions with specific answers in the same guise as your original question, and neither of us are in a position to answer those with specifics.

Anti-trust is very much subjective and you can hardly call it a crime. To do so, you have to have a pretty warped sense of reality.

Well I didn't and specifically the DOJ would dis-agree with you as Microsoft has been convicted and sentenced. Had you read the link I provided you would be reading about allegations of Microsoft's questionable accounting practices and, with respect, my comments were provided on the basis you were being sincere, not troll like.

Capital

[ciphersort]

Mutual credit systems are far more creative than any solution Bill Gates has come up with or tripped over.

Conscience?

[Anonymous Coward]

...to salve his conscience and save his image

I think that one of those reasons is superfluous and inaccurate.

and he accumulated capital

[kubitus]

that is creative capitalims - isn't it? At the age of 14 having 2 Mio US $ ( 1968 from his grandfather ), a father who is top lawyer in Washington and the whole US and a mother who is on firenship terms with IBM directors. What is creative about it? Stealing others ideas? Letting do Paul A. the ideas and work? Hiring Bullies like Steven B.?

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[George_Ou]

Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people. I only ask this because you seem to be highly critical of Bill Gates and his company doing good for the world so I'm simply turning this question around on you.

You know, I'm sick of the term "convicted monopolist". It really goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. It's sort of like saying that someone is a criminal and convicted parallel parker or convicted speeder. A crime and a conviction results in someone getting sentenced and put in jail. You do not call someone who got a fine a "criminal". The breaking of anti-trust rules (which are extremely nebulous especially when it comes to the EC) results in a fine just like parking in a red zone results in a fine.

The US case was done and over with and Microsoft got fined. In the case of the EC, that's simply another way of imposing a tariff on Microsoft since the EC can declare Microsoft guilty of something if they simply have a majority of the small-to-medium server market as defined by the EC.

Partially

[Moraelin]

Partially. They included phonetic signs, for stuff like suffixes and the like. Most of them were whole words or, rather, morphemes.

Sorta like Chinese or Japanese.

Creative Capitalism

[jandersen]

This sounds like an euphemism for "How To Look Good While Still Being A Greedy Bastard".

The sad truth is that capitalism, at least in the form we have seen hitherto, is dependent on there being social differences, ie in capitalism there must be some that are poor and some that are rich - otherwise the dream of getting wealthy loses its value as incentive. You have to know that you can become desperately poor, so you work hard to avoid it, and you have to know that there is at least a theoretical possibility that you can become very rich, once you have avoided the immediate danger of poverty. Isn't this what we have always been told?

All this talk about how capitalism in some form or other is going to save the world will never be anything but a sham, so let's stop pretending.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[TheRaven64]

Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people

And you are asking a skewed question by asking in terms of money. That said, Ohloh values the GCC alone at $75,160,591 (cost to reproduce it), and Stallman donated that to everyone, including poor people. The rest of the GNU project is worth a lot more. How much do you think the software on the OLPC machine is worth, in total, including all of the components donated by existing Free Software projects, is worth? All of this was donated to any poor country that wants it (even if they don't by the XO machine, they can download the source and the designs for the hardware and build their own).

Oh, they were paid. Very much so

[Moraelin]

Oh, they were paid all right. Typically in food. (Some of which they could then barter for something else.)

Just because an economy is barter-based as opposed to coin-based, it doesn't mean unpaid slavery. It just means they don't use coins there. Not much more.

Re:Oh, they were paid. Very much so

[clone53421]

Yes, but what if they decided to take a day off? Did they just have to save some of yesterday's food ration, or did they get whipped until they worked?

Re:Oh, they were paid. Very much so

[Moraelin]

Actually, I have no idea about vacations. I'd assume you had a bloody huge vacation between harvest and planting, if you wanted one. Well, at least the peasants had.

I know they had the concept of a sick day off, for the paid workers, if a priest gave you a scroll saying you were sick. I don't know if you could also take a vacation whenever you wanted to. Maybe a real historian could enlighten us both there.

(I read a lot of ancient to medieval history, but it's still a half-time half-arsed hobby, and I've been wrong before, btw. Don't take me too seriously.)

If you're talking about the guys at the pyramids, most of that actually seemed to have been not as much a full time job, as... welfare. Seriously, whoever wanted to pull huge stones for some pay, could join, or conversely leave whenever they didn't find it funny any more. Some people did that full time, but we also have records of some peasants joining in during the flood (which normally would have been that huge vacation I've mentioned) for some extra pay, or just to make ends meet if the flood had been poor. Then when planting time came, they buggered off to work their own fields again.

Creative capitalism?

[cagliost]

Creative capitalism? Capitalism is already creative. Growth is caused by creativity.

Re:Creative capitalism?

[cagliost]

And the best way to help other countries develop is to trade freely with them. Ordinary capitalism, in other words.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[MrKaos]

Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people.

No, you've changed your question from With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed? to the above. Perhaps you now realise that Open Source is not a company like Microsoft i.e Richard Stallman is not on the board of Open Source inc with Open Source shareholders. To answer this question, I don't know how much money people who write Open Source software donate. You aren't satisfied that Open Source contributors already donate their time to write software that anyone can use and continue to try to maneuver me into an answer where you have a basis to critcise the significant contributions the Open Source community has made to ALL communities.

But to follow your forced reasoning, Open Source Software has donated 7.5 Billion dollars of labor for Debian Linux alone, and that does not include the labor donated for the rest of the Open Source offerings. I don't know how to qualify this into how many kids have been fed, because this is the value of the software *available* to charities to use. I am using a foam clue stick here but by all means move on to telling me that I'm avoiding your specific generalisations about subjective specifics.

I only ask this because you seem to be highly critical of Bill Gates and his company doing good for the world so I'm simply turning this question around on you.

Well I donate to three charities, one of the same ones Mr Gates donates to (Amnesty), I wish I could do more. And which company are you refering to? Microsoft doing good? Well I guess "do no evil" was taken. Yes, I'm critical of Bill Gates because he and Microsoft have earned distrust and cynicism of thier motives. Maybe after five or ten years in the BAMGF that will have changed.

You know, I'm sick of the term "convicted monopolist"

Well I've never seen anyone use the term "convicted monopolist" to refer to M$ but I rather like it. I thought the term "corporate criminal" was more appropriate because they commit corporate crime - notice the present tense. But convicted monopolist commits corporate crime has a certain ring to it.

The breaking of anti-trust rules (which are extremely nebulous especially when it comes to the EC) results in a fine just like parking in a red zone results in a fine.

So you're saying since they are still parked there we should fine them again. Could be a good idea you have there.

The US case was done and over with and Microsoft got fined. In the case of the EC, that's simply another way of imposing a tariff on Microsoft since the EC can declare Microsoft guilty of something if they simply have a majority of the small-to-medium server market as defined by the EC.

Well I guess windows just won't run on a mainframe. When someone said that a better word than "fan boy" should be used to describe M$ fan bouys, I started using the word "shill" because I actually wanted to use the word "shrill", but now I realise that Shrill Shill can work too. I'm not saying you are a shrill Microsoft shill, *yet*, but - with respect - criticising a countries legal system for enforcing the laws of the land could be construe as such behavior. I don't care, so blathering on about how hard done by Microsoft is will only earn you ridicule.

GAA1331

[GAA1331]

It is a form of mentoring and is a great idea; kudos to Mr. Gates. I do the same thing or idea on all my websites but by using angling as the tool in helping out others. "Positive Mentoring through Fishing." Mr. Gates is using todays technology and too is of a grand idea.

"Creative capitalism"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The world would be a better place today if Bill Gates had refrained from a lot of his own "creative capitalism" in the 1990s.

Re:Yes!

[clone53421]

I consider myself reasonably well-off, but if poverty ever gets that good I'd definitely consider it.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[George_Ou]

I asked you how many real dollars has gone to feed people; not some speculative price tag on people's donated time for source code. You can use the word shill all you like but you haven't answered a single question. As for the EC, I'm simply speaking the truth when I say they're making up the rules as they go along to extract maximum money http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=778.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[MrKaos]

George George George George, I think a the questions you are asking are overloading your 16 bit memory model, lets look at your thread.

I asked you how many real dollars has gone to feed people; not some speculative price tag on people's donated time for source code.

which took it to a question about "real dollars" from private contributions

Again, you are dodging the question of how much money someone like Richard Stallman or anyone else in the Open Source movement have donated to poor people.

where you challenged my sincerity and changed the original premise of the question from

What does that have to do with the specific question I asked? How many people has Open Source fed with food, how much medicine has Open Source supplied, how much money has Open Source projects or leaders given to poor people?

which introduced medicine and expected me to know about people's personal lives, from the original question which was

With all due respect, how many real-world problems has Open Source solved? How many kids have been fed? How many billions, millions, or even thousands of dollars has Open Source contributed?

So since I can't help you understand, the answers are don't know, don't know and don't know. If you can't accept that Open Source contributions to the community has it's own intrinsic value to everyone I can't help you. Open Source is Creative Capitalism, it's the purest expression of an idea that empowers those who choose that freedom far more than them remaining dependent on donations.

But thank you George, your attempt to slur the Open Source model by making me re-assess how the Open Source Community can do so much better in that space, so go ahead, change the question again and accuse me of not answering it, your dogmatic argument is forcing me to challenge my own ideals and evolve them.

Unfortunately your less than sincere approach has also allowed me to asses Mr Gates motivations. You have made me realise that Mr Gates wants the third world dependent on his model - not one that actually frees them - so he can squeeze every bit of cash out of them that he can while apparently cleaning up his image - sheer genius. One can only hope that Melinda is a positive influence but remember, a leopard never changes it's spots, and there is a reason why people don't trust Gates and Co. People who forget that history are doomed to repeat it.

You can use the word shill all you like

Why thank you George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy.

As for the EC,

I told you, I don't care, George the Shrill Microsoft Shill boy. Perhaps it's payback for the US using ECHELON to pilfer contracts from Airbus to Boeing, or perhaps it's because Microsoft and Mr Gates have sewn so much distrust in their motivations and people are so sick of windows zealotry and the ignorance of those who push the Microsoft adgenda that those politician in a new democracy see Microsoft as an evil poison that must be stopped at all costs.

I don't care because I prefer to use my energy to go forward, but this is all for you George, if you think Open Source can do better with Charitable Organisations why don't you donate *your* time to making it happen instead of attacking the ideals of those who crave freedom for all of us.

How much is your freedom worth George?

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[George_Ou]

Once you go down the road of name calling, there's no point in continuing this conversation with you.

I'll leave this with anyone else that might be reading. Open Source may have intrinsic values; but it's only useful to someone if they have food to eat and they were able to stay alive against things like Malaria. Someone like Bill Gates is doing something about it and it's silly to criticize him for it especially when they're not doing one millionth as much as Mr. Gates. Sure, it's hard for some people to get beyond the Bill Gates bashing but history is going to remember him in a very positive light and not those who bash him.

Re:With all due respect, how many real-world probl

[MrKaos]

Once you go down the road of name calling, there's no point in continuing this conversation with you.

That's ok George, I was getting a little tired of your inflexible dogma, how unfortunate for you to be trapped inside it.

Oh and it's not a road George, theres only One Microsoft way.

I'll leave this with anyone else that might be reading. Open Source may have intrinsic values; but it's only useful to someone if they have food to eat and they were able to stay alive against things like Malaria.

That's great George, what Open Source delivers is a means to break the poverty cycle through access to cheap education and delivery of cost effective infrastructure, which has more value than a handout. It's the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them how to catch a fish, but you seem unwilling to get it. That is what sincere Creative Capitalism is all about, enabling those communities to function without external aide.

Someone like Bill Gates is doing something about it and it's silly to criticize him for it especially when they're not doing one millionth as much as Mr. Gates.

I didn't tarnish the image of your hero George, he did it himself. You say I'm critcising Bill Gates but I'm saying he has earned distrust based on the way he ran Microsoft from inception. That's not criticism, that's just the way things are, Bill Gates ran Microsoft. Microsoft, convicted monopolist, commits corporate crime - that's reality. A Leopard cannot change it's spots and while Microsoft participates in human rights abuses in China then anything the BAMGF does for poor people is kinda hypocritical isn't it.

As far as criticising *my* contributions to charity, it really illustrates your argument has no substance. Just because I don't have the same financial capacity as Mr Gates doesn't mean what I do has no value. How mean spirited of you. Your attempt to slur people's Open Source contributions illustrates that the insecurity of Microsoft zealotry has reached new depths.

Sure, it's hard for some people to get beyond the Bill Gates bashing but history is going to remember him in a very positive light and not those who bash him.

I'm sure Billy Willy Gates will have the best history money can buy George, no matter what people say about him, but the question remains...

How much is your freedom worth George?