Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
That's a synonym for Open Source, Mr Gates.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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
Minutetraders | Voice Exchange Marketplace - Buy/Sell
What does this have to do with capitalism? Creativity isn't limited to any particular economic system.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
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.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
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.
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.
God spoke to me.
.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
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...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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?
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.
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.
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?
Maybe not
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
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Right now in the US, adding more school *is* adding more government.
Maybe not
"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.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying since they are still parked there we should fine them again. Could be a good idea you have there.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.