Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Unleashes Swarm of Mosquitoes
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates released a glass full of mosquitoes at an elite Technology, Entertainment, Design Conference to make a point about the deadly sting of malaria.
'Malaria is spread by mosquitoes,' Gates said while opening a jar on stage at a gathering known to attract technology kings, politicians, and Hollywood stars.
'I brought some. Here I'll let them roam around. There is no reason only poor people should be infected.'" Say what you will about the guy, that is showmanship. Well done.
Some people are allergic to mosquito bites even if the mosquitoes are disease-free. Harm is not necessary in most states to convice for assault (that's battery). Just the threat of harm.
What has Gates done PERSONALLY to make slashdotters so hateful of him? Honestly, the real reason Microsoft is able to get away with what it does is that monopolies are an inherent flaw in our current economic system. Microsoft is no different, or annoying and heartless, than the cell phone companies or how AT&T was.
Bill Gates smoothly made sure his company won the monopoly, but even without the man, a different software company would have won it.
Sure, it might be showmanship... But who's going to get the last laugh when the various "technology kings, politicians, and Hollywood stars" are infected by mosquito-transmitting borg nanites installed by Bill Gates himself?!
If you're a tech king or politician, would you want to be known as "the guy that sued the richest-man-turned-philantropist over a bug sting"?
Nobody in that could would ever talk to you again. Let alone invite you to dinner, because they could just happen to offer you something you might be allergic to and sue again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Heck, Saddam Hussein never PERSONALLY did anything bad to an American, yet he's still hated.
Read up on his crybaby routine for Altair Basic. Some of which was "stolen" by dumpster diving. See the Halloween documents. The illegal works he's done, approved or helped commit.
Just because he didn't to it *personally* to *me* doesn't mean that his actions haven't affected me.
And that is where the hate comes from.
Mind you, since when has Linus Torvalds done anything to Bill? Yet Bill HATES linux and accused Linus of IP theft deliberate, of being unamerican, killing the livlihoods etc.
Why is every MS story being tagged astroturfing? Do people even know what that word means, or are there really people who harbor such paranoia and belief in grand conspiracies (some kind of tech version of 9/11 Truthers)?
I bet someone's going to accuse me of astroturfing with this post and being a shill for Gates..
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
What about this indicates a faux grassroots movement? Words like 'astroturfing' quickly lose their meaning when abused like this...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Gates has always been largely hated here and in the IT community because of course he's the one who lumped us all with the worst of Microsoft's products as well as the best ones. It was his company that was hit by the major anti-trust suit and so on. Whilst the company he was responsible for is indeed guilty of being not particularly nice and whilst it's a fair comment to make that if he was in charge, then he is responsible too I think it's a little more complex than that.
Microsoft as a company aside, I'm not convinced Bill Gates is actually that bad a person.
I think maybe he got blinded sometimes by the position he was in and made bad decisions, other times there's been videos of him snapping at staff and so on but these strike me as particularly human traits, in the case of geeks who aren't the greatest at dealing with people, the latter doesn't strike me as being particularly unusual. After all, even Steve Jobs who is much more of a people person that Gates has ever been is equally guilty of such treatment of his staff. What's more, Jobs has also never been one for philanthropy either- in fact, on the contrary, he actually cut Apple's philanthropy programs when he returned to the company and never brought them back.
Some may argue the only reason he gives to charity is as a tax dodge, but if that's really true why does he do things like this? If it were a mere tax dodge, then there's no reason he'd need to waste his time.
This view I have of him nowadays was somewhat reinforced in a recent documentary on him that I watched the other day - "Bill Gates - How a Geek Changed the World" which was certainly interesting. Of course, we never know whether documentaries like these are made with an air of bias to them or not, similarly we don't know if everything Bill does really is just a show. But honestly, now he's no longer at Microsoft and still is willing to do things like this I think I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now unless he does something to prove otherwise.
I think it's true when some commentators suggest that a few decades down the line, when Gates is old and dying that he indeed wont be remembered as that guy that ran that evil company and is hence evil himself, but will be seen more as a pretty decent bloke. I think as a person, Microsoft as a company has actually done more harm to his image than he perhaps deserves. I'm just not convinced anymore that Gates is one of those people who does necessarily deserve to go down in history as a bad guy. I may be proven wrong as time goes on, but only time will tell I suppose.
He's got three kids. Although he might be a geek, I'd call that evidence he's no longer unicorn-attractant.
Really? You have to be infected in order to appreciate the horror of malaria?! Wait'll the HIV folks get a hold of this idea.
Now that I know he actually likes bugs, life just became crystal clear.
Anywhoo wish I were there to provide a note of irony as the UNIX guy who calmly orders a Gin and Tonic and goes back to ignoring Bill Gates' bugs and viruses...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is a beautiful illustration if the Liberal mindset. Rather than trying to raise the poor by eliminating mosquitoes he's trying to equalize everyone by lowering the wealthy.
Or, an alternate way to look at it is that he's trying to remind the wealthy that just sitting still and letting poor rot instead of trying to help raise them up isn't a good thing. Encouraging empathy by upsetting their comfortable little world and letting them know a little bit of what the plebians feel of fear. Sometimes you've got be knocked on your ass once to appreciate the view. Dunno why this is a "Liberal" thing in your mind (and thus bad?), but there you go.
Maybe it's just his way of saying, "Memento mori, bitches."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The fact that he feels the need to point out that the rich are not immune is exactly what I am talking about. Everyone knows that. The rich do, too. He's just being condescending.
Put identity in the browser.
Definitely eliminating the mosquitoes is what he should be working for.
I am sure they server no ecological role at all.
Heck, why not use DDT? I think it's pretty good at controlling mosquitoes...
Either that, or maybe not everything has a simple solution.
The Gates Foundation is trying to distribute antimalarial drugs to all the poor people in Africa. Too bad there is already a cure for malaria orders of magnitude cheaper: DDT. In epidemiology, you eradicate a disease by preventing its spread, not treating every infected individual. Malaria was already eliminated in places like Sicily by using DDT.
DDT does not thin eggshells of birds. It is not carcinogenic either. I can't tell whether Bill Gates is trying to accomplish anything or just spend lots of money on others out of penance. If the Gates Foundation wants to improve the world, they would have more money for useful charity if they just applied DDT in Africa.
No he's not.
First, he didn't release the mosquitoes (although you wouldn't realise that from the summary). Second, they were mosquitoes bred in a laboratory, so were not carriers of malaria.
But that is all completely beside the point.
The point that he demonstrated, rather well it seems, is that we in the west find the idea of us being subjected to the risk of malaria extremely offensive. On the other hand, how many of us are raising a protest about people in developing nations being subject to exactly the same disease?
Hypocrites, all of us. Shame on us.
Nonsense.
We shape policy in those areas where we are "free to meddle".
Africa is not Bill's "white mans burden".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If we want people to listen to us when we say "Don't drain swamps and don't use DDT", which are the only cheap and effective ways to control malaria, we need to help find and fund other solutions that they can't afford.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
who tagged this astroturfing?!?!
Obviously someone whose dictionary was bricked!
You are an idiot. RTFA first and then comment.
Attendees are pissed? So wtf? Just a (fake) taste of reality is enough to get the attendees pissed eh?
I am from 3rd world, have been here in the US for a decade now. I'm appalled at the ignorance in this country about the way of life in the tropics (which doesn't necessarily equal 3rd world). Those diseases are real, regardless of your sense of hygiene and health. And can affect you anytime. People die of Dengue, Malaria and Meningitis because of mosquitoes. At the very least, mosquitoes are annoying as hell. When I was back there I used to dream of spreading a mosquito-killing virus and eradicating them.
What he did was perfectly fine, even if a bit sensationalist. He made a point.
I don't want to sound gay or anything, but unicorns KICK ASS!
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
But how awesome would it be if he gave a speech about unicorns?
Well, he does like to talk about the advantages that DRM provides to consumers. Same difference.
Us? We in the west?
No, [b]I[/b] would find it offensive if someone put [b]me[/b] at risk.
Everyone worries about themselves (and their family if they have one) first, and other, nameless folks afterward.
Anyone who says otherwise is a vain liar who wishes to appear selfless.
> Why don't other societies do that, too?
Uh...poverty?
> Why is it our job to do it for them?
Uh...kindness?
Erm...you missed the point entirely. He was just going for the shock value to get his point across: He would like rich people to donate money to help fight malaria (and other) outbreaks in third world countries.
And they were probably just harmless, non-disease carrying mosquitos that I get bit by a hundred times througout the summer. I mean seariously, do you think he would actually risk someone getting a life-threatening illness?
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
The posers out there that want tax payer money to go to their cause are the absolute stingiest when it comes to their own money. Their motto is "Someone should give money, but it's not going to be me." That's cowardice, phoniness, and should be shamed. The idea of the government giving out charity money is awful for the personal growth and personal connection that donors get when giving their own money, under their own will, not under the threat of government force.
For Bill and Melinda to commit to giving all of their wealth away to charity before dying is beyond noble.
Bill's mosquito release brings a very real situation to a mostly sheltered culture. Those I know that have gone on mission trips to poverty stricken countries all profess that the were forever changed by the experience. Gates unleashed a small jar of change on that crowd, and I do hope it takes root and holds.
No, that is NOT socialism. Socialism refers to the collective or state ownership of the means of production & distribution of goods, and generally condemns private ownership of property & privately-owned industry. What you are referring to is known as Charity, or Philanthropy, as you rightly identified at the start of your post.
That being said - Gates' comment had absolutely no element of "socialism" to it - if he had said "The government should take your companies & your money and use those resources to give everybody malaria medication," *that* would be endorsing socialism.
An honest discussion of class inequities is not tantamount to socialism. In the same way, noting that black women are more likely to get a deadlier form of breast cancer is not a racist statement. Branding something one of your least-liked -isms because it makes you uncomfortable does not make the label stick.
The whole point Bill was trying to make -- and which is being clouded by the usual Slashdot air of cynicism and hatred towards anything Bill Gates does or says -- is this: Malaria is, statistically speaking, a disease of the poor. A disease which is treatable and preventable at a fairly low cost, and a disease which the "rich and powerful" could do a lot to reduce or eliminate - and should do a lot to reduce or eliminate, because it's "the right thing" to do.
Private organizations asking individual citizens for charitable donations has nothing to do with socialism.
Brilliant. So as long as we all destroy the ecological balance of the planet equally, it's fine. Who cares if we sicken and kill off all the animals at the top of the food chain, leading to a massive overpopulation of grazers and further destruction of nature, as long as it reduced the incidence of half a dozen diseases. While we're at it, let's solve the food/energy crisis by burning all the forests for fuel and planting wheat and corn everywhere. I'm sure there will be no long term consequences to the homogenization of life on the planet.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Quite possibly the most mind-numbingly stupid comment ever posted on slashdot
I don't know; I thought his comment about getting "cocky" CEO's to "release" the cure for AIDs was equally stupid. US companies spent $10 billion on AIDS research in 2007. If any one had a cure, he could make billions of dollars. The idea that someone is sitting on that gold mine is just laughable.
What was once true, is no longer so
Slashdot needs a mod +5, Awkward.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
So, by using a stage trick (because you know all those mosquitoes really were carrying the malaria virus) to try and shock a group of people out of apathy Gates somehow becomes a "Liberal" who wants to equalize society at the lowest common denominator? What are you smoking and why aren't you sharing? First of you equate a "Liberal mindset" with some sort of Huxley like uber-socialism. Then you say he's trying to lower the wealthy (no one said the audience was wealthy, they're just not 3rd world poor) instead of helping the poor (he's spent billions doing just that). I think your analysis of his symbolism says more about the way you think than it says anything about Gates' action.
Why the urge to control everybody else? Mind your own fucking business. How Africa solves their malaria problem is none of our fucking business.
"Liberal" has become a label for "something I dislike." It's been so distorted by the faux news talking heads that no longer a meaningful label. So let's talk behavior in the real world. If you *don't* lower the wealthy, nothing gets done for the non-wealthy. Historically, I'd have to say this is pretty accurate. Those dang socialist liberal types are the reason your food doesn't poison you, your drugs are tested, and public libraries exist. Not to mention little things like rural electrification. Think any of that would ever be done by the private sector, really? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But back to real world phenomenon.... Every ecology, including economic ones, develops parasites, but you can only tolerate a certain parasite load. As recent events have demonstrated, we've gone wa-a-a-a-y beyond that. Our current parasites, (i.e. financial professionals produce nothing but the illusion of money) have become life threatening to the economy. If they had the same risks as the rest of us (the equivalent of releasing misquitos), would the current economic unpleasantness have ever happened?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Hypothetical: Imagine "the cure" turns out to be some natural compound that the pharma companies can't patent and monopolize. In such a scenario, it would likely be far more profitable to continue selling expensive "treatment".
Not saying it's true, just that finding a cure doesn't automatically guarantee maximum profits. (On the flip side, you can't dismiss such a possibility with "They just wouldn't do that"... tobacco companies sat on their knowledge of the deadly and addictive properties of smoking for years, in the name of profit)
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Shame that the gag is completed by the subject you missed, Re:Collecting Mosquitos
Definitely eliminating the mosquitoes is what he should be working for. I am sure they server no ecological role at all.
I can't tell if you're being serious with that comment or not.
At any rate, just to play Devil's Advocate here and name at least one situation where they could play a significant ecological role, off the top of my head I'm sure it'd effect the bat population. Which in turn could effect the populations of other bugs, causing them to grow. Sure, initially the bat population would just shrink to fit their reduced food sources, and the other bug populations would remain unchanged, but a shrunken population means less diversion between the bats which makes them more susceptible to, say, an illness wiping them all out, which then the other bugs populations would grow.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Brilliant. So as long as we all destroy the ecological balance of the planet equally, it's fine. Who cares if we sicken and kill off all the animals at the top of the food chain, leading to a massive overpopulation of grazers and further destruction of nature, as long as it reduced the incidence of half a dozen diseases.
Yeah, what's half a dozen diseases causing millions of human deaths every year when we need to worry about destroying some mythical "ecological balance"? Let's ban DDT worldwide.
People in the West can afford this kind of arrogance because they aren't the ones threatened by those half a dozen diseases. If your mother, wife or daughter were to die of malaria, I'm sure you and your smugness would both be fine knowing that your ecological concerns were being catered to. Meanwhile, enjoy the return of the American bedbug.
No. If anyone had a drug that slowed down the progression of HIV and had to be taken every day for years and years and years, they could make a billions of dollars.
A cure is just one dose. Hardly worth researching.
That is probably why we have the former, and not the latter.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Jebus, the pro-MS trolls are out in force again. A concise and detailed answer to GP's question is not a troll. Somebody please fix this.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
>Uh...poverty?
Wasn't America once a poor country, too? Yet we overcame and solved our mosquito problem. I don't see why other nations can't develop themselves and solve their mosquito problems. It's not like they even have to invent the solution.
>Uh...kindness?
When we have money to spare we can indulge your sense of kindness.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
You know, no matter how faceless the corporation, every scientist, researcher, and project manager is a real human being. Is there anybody you know in real life who would sit on a cure for AIDs?
I don't think even getting infected reveals the horror of malaria. The true horror of malaria is getting the disease and not having access to the health care necessary to save your life.
I had a friend who spent 2 years traveling through Africa. He got Malaria twice but had health coverage and was able to get the care he needed to survive. According to him, the experience "sucked" (both actually having the disease and it cutting time and money that he was planning on spending on his trip), but he survived with very few lasting consequences.
Getting the disease gives you some notion of what it's like, but only in the same way that not eating for a day or two would give you an insight into living in poverty and famine.
My job basically amounts to finding and killing people (military).
Big tobacco sat on their findings for quite a while.
The 'real people' who made zyklon B during world war 2 probably knew what it was being used for, but...
Conservatives probably are comfortable hiding statistics about sex, disease, and pregnancy that undermines their positions- data that could otherwise save lives...
Yes, I do believe a company would sit on a cure.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.