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.

143 of 841 comments (clear)

  1. Just Like When He Led Microsoft by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Releasing bugs into the wild while complaining about viruses.

    Although this time around, I'm on his side.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by noundi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. I only wish his words were "Say hello to my little friends." instead. Anywho, cudos there Billy.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    2. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's funny... however he was not complaining about viruses. Malaria is cause by small protozoa (single-celled organisms). Viruses don't have cells.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    3. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by GarethSwan · · Score: 2

      Yup. I've always said that MicroStuffed never started as a software company, just a marketing company. Anyway, kudos to Gil Bates on that show. He He.

      --
      People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
    4. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A cell's too good for a virus. We should just kill 'em and be done with it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by lordmetroid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm, not a bad idea, trading HIV for the experience of sex. Not everyday a geek will get such a tempting opportunity.

    7. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when your computer is part of a botnet you can say "my computer got bit by a Microsquito and now it has a protozoa"?

      This new good guy image of Gates is puzzling to me. I read his dad, a lawyer, had to shame him into starting his philanthropic organization. Did the three hhosts of Christmas visit Ebeneezer Gates last year?

    8. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by chemisus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm, not a bad idea, trading HIV for the experience of sex. Not everyday a geek will get such a tempting opportunity.

      And it's not even guaranteed you'll get HIV!

    10. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by maddskillz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by iangoldby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he's trying to equalize everyone by lowering the wealthy

      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.

    12. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by mikkelm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Theoretically, it's not guaranteed that he'll actually get sex, either.

      Is it in yet?

    13. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    14. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by AcquaCow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, according to this Live Blog from someone who was at the event, and blogging during it, Gates did release some of the mosquitos...

      -- Dave

      --

      up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
      *makes note to limit user processes...
    15. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Shaitan+Apistos · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, while it is easy to hit the man on his tech, have to admire his marketing.

      I know, right? Those ads with Seinfeld rocked my socks off.

    17. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    19. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      I'm eagerly waiting for that conference...

      "Sorry Mr president, can I take your pants off ?, so as I was saying, HIV propagation, oh, and your underwear too... Yes, um, right, HIV propagation can take many forms from blood sharing... Would you please bend over a bit Mr president ? Yes, um, from blood sharing to sexual... ah, wait, I need to stimulate myself a bit, just a second... Let me show you some slides in the meantime..."

      I probably won't see in in the theatre but count me in for the DVD release, It sounds like a great investment.

      (wait, did I say that out loud ?)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    20. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Insightful
      | Frankly, I think he should have stabbed everyone with an HIV syringe.

      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
    21. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Kratisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot needs a mod +5, Awkward.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    22. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by wipeMyButt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

    24. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    25. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Golddess · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)-
    26. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    27. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are you smoking and why aren't you sharing?

      Aren't you paying attention? He's not sharing because he's a republican.

    28. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    29. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd love to see someone put their neck on the line and try the same stunt somewhere else. Say, in the US Capitol, and when he's arrested try to get Bill Gates to pay for his legal costs.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    30. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by pugugly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good lord guys.

      There are labs, where they provide these kinds of animals. In lieu of convincing evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption is the Bill Gates had a flunky call a lab, say "I'd like two dozen biting but non-infectious mosquitoes - they will be released into the open air as part of a PR stunt so it's important they be non-infectious."; and delivered said mosquitoes.

      This is *less* dangerous than if he were talking about Bubonic Plague and released lab mice - the mice would chew on wiring.

      Get a grip.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    31. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      My boss.

      =P

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    32. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? You have to be infected in order to appreciate the horror of malaria?

      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.

    33. Re:Just Like When He Led Microsoft by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  2. Been done by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bill does this all the time at the office for target practice for Ballmer.

    1. Re:Been done by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a lot harder than you think to hit a mosquito with a chair.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    2. Re:Been done by William+Robinson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bill does this all the time at the office for target practice for Ballmer.

      Aaaah....That explains about monkey dance too :)

  3. Consistent by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jeez, even his philanthropy has bugs!

  4. And next up... by yorgo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he ever gives a speech about rabies, I'm not going...

    1. Re:And next up... by Fx.Dr · · Score: 5, Funny

      But how awesome would it be if he gave a speech about unicorns? That would be sweet! And you know he has a few tucked away some where.

    2. Re:And next up... by cj1127 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meh, I'm still hurting from his speech on herpes...

    3. Re:And next up... by jnik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's got three kids. Although he might be a geek, I'd call that evidence he's no longer unicorn-attractant.

    4. Re:And next up... by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Richard Stallman making a point against software patents: Everybody has cancer - why not you?

    5. Re:And next up... by PMuse · · Score: 2, Informative

      More than a few. He drove them all into Lake Washington years ago.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    6. Re:And next up... by Eevee · · Score: 4, Funny

      With our luck, it would be the hideous offspring of a ZunePony, the ZuneCorn(tm)

    7. Re:And next up... by ciderVisor · · Score: 4, Funny

      But how awesome would it be if he gave a speech about unicorns? That would be sweet!

      Go into the Candy Mountain Cave, Bill !

      --
      Squirrel!
    8. Re:And next up... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Meh, I'm still hurting from his speech on herpes...

      I figure such a talk must suck...

    9. Re:And next up... by IsoRashi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    10. Re:And next up... by randomaxe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  5. Not a good Crown for Mosquitos by stokessd · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...politicians, and Hollywood stars" Those types will suck the juices out of those poor helpless mosquitoes.

    Dear god, won't somebody think of the mosquitoes?!

    Sheldon

    1. Re:Not a good Crown for Mosquitos by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No kidding! The majestic malaria mosquito once roamed the plains in swarms of billions! Today due to eradication efforts and environment encroachment, they roam the plains in swarms of hundreds of millions! Something must be done to stop the slaughter of the helpless malaria mosquito!

      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?

  6. Assault ! by redelm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This willful act could be considered assault by one of the attendees and BillG arrested. Even if not stung. Worse for him, this conceivably could come under US federal terrorism laws.

    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.

    1. Re:Assault ! by dow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, in the UK he would have been arrested and held under anti-terrorism laws too.

    2. Re:Assault ! by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This willful act could be considered assault by one of the attendees and BillG arrested. ... Some people are allergic to mosquito bites even if the mosquitoes are disease-free.

      I bet they were mosquitoes that don't bite at all, eg ones that just eat nectar. In any case only the females suck blood. (Pause for jokes...) If anyone had been bitten I'm sure we would have heard of it pretty quickly -- who wouldn't like to sue Bill Gates?

    3. Re:Assault ! by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most people are allergic. Why do you think they itch when you get bit?

      Because that's a normal immune reaction to an antigen entering the body? Now, if you start itching all over your body from a single mosquito bite and/or have trouble breathing because your airways are swelling shut ... then you have an actual allergic reaction.

    4. Re:Assault ! by redelm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if they don't bite, he threatened and deliberately generated fear. That is the essence of assault. People get convicted using toy guns.

    5. Re:Assault ! by fubar1971 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kind of like taking a chainsaw to a horror/slasher flick, even though you removed the chain.

    6. Re:Assault ! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Drug dealers and minorities do, WASP billionaires don't.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    7. Re:Assault ! by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? Poor people get convicted using toy guns. Gates could have doubled his cool creds in this demo by telling the audience that poor people also can't get away with loosing a swarm of mosquitos on a bunch of important people, but he sure can.

      It is ufortunate that it takes someone who is very well off to do this kind of thing. There is a 0.01% chance that anyone from the crowd could convince the local prosecutor's office to pursue criminal charges agaisnt Gates. 0% more like. He could bring in a legal team that would tie up an underfunded overworked team of state lawyers for 1000 years and waste more tax money than the war on drugs and he himself would never see the inside of a courtroom.

      And if you went after him in civil court the interest he'd earn in the time it took to make the case would cover any monetary award that would be judged against him. He is well insulated against legal stupidities.

      Rich people could redeem themselves if they did cool stuff like this on a regular basis, but now all they do is devise ways to burn us all for fuel. Back in the day Howard Hughes would crash a rocket plane into your house, wash his hands in your sink without asking, and apologize for it to nobody.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    8. Re:Assault ! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who grew up around poor white people, I find your statement offensive. "The system" treats all poor people badly, regardless of ancestry (see sig).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    9. Re:Assault ! by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only in the US of A.

      And all other countries with an English-derived system of common law.
      I'd bet that it might count in a lot of civil law countries too.

      The fun case would be whether you could sustain a battery claim via mosquito if they bit.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    10. Re:Assault ! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though I surely sympathize with poor white people, and am saddened by the state of all those struggling to get by, statistics show they suffer less than their counterparts in terms of law prosecution. Racism still exists (I need only listen to my father-in-law rant...), though I hope one day everyone sees race like Peter does.

      Characteristics of State Prison inmates

              * Women were 6.6% of the State prison inmates in 2001, up from 6% in 1995.
              * Sixty-four percent of prison inmates belonged to racial or ethnic minorities in 2001.
              * An estimated 57% of inmates were under age 35 in 2001.
              * About 4% of State prison inmates were not U.S. citizens at yearend 2001.
              * About 6% of State prison inmates were held in private facilities at yearend 2001.
              * Altogether, an estimated 57% of inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent.
              * Among the State prison inmates in 2000:

                          -- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
                          -- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
                          -- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)

      Put into contrast by:

      The U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2006 was as follows:[30][31]

              * Total population: 299 million
              * White alone: 74% or 221.3 million

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    11. Re:Assault ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you control for other factors, the most significant predictor of criminal behavior is NOT race. Statistically, it's coming from a single-mother headed home. Seriously.

      Look it up--Google "single mother crime statistics"

    12. Re:Assault ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's still an allergic reaction. One is local (and normal) the other is systemic and severe. The first time you are ever bitten by a mosquito it wont itch. It takes time to develop an immune reaction to recognize it as foreign. Second time around- itch. Some insects have toxins in there bite that release histamine- those reactions are instantaneous and can also be systemic and don't require immunity.

    13. Re:Assault ! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait a minute. Are you implying that the drug trade isn't an equal opportunity employer?

    14. Re:Assault ! by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2

      The "indians" aren't any more native to North and South America than the Europeans are. They just caught the early boat over.

      Of course, according to homesteading rules, it was never their land in the first place.

    15. Re:Assault ! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Informative

      The statistics you quote simply do not support the argument you are making because they do not control for income.

      I do not know if it is the case that you honestly do not understand statistics, or that you are using sophistry to push an agenda. Either way, your error should be obvious to an educated person.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  7. Next week's trick by eagl · · Score: 5, Funny

    For his next trick, to highlight the need for stricter gun control laws, Bill Gates will fire a gun into a crowd while shouting "there is no reason why only poor people should suffer from gun crimes!"

    I think Al Gore plans on having a volcano erupt in downtown Manhattan to emphasize that ecological disasters are not just some fringe pacific "ring of fire" problem, but I hear he's having trouble getting a permit from the city.

    1. Re:Next week's trick by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bill Gates will fire a gun into a crowd while shouting "there is no reason why only poor people should suffer from gun crimes!"

      Cheney has him covered on that. Beat him to it, actually.

    2. Re:Next week's trick by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think Al Gore plans on having a volcano erupt in downtown Manhattan to emphasize that ecological disasters are not just some fringe pacific "ring of fire" problem, but I hear he's having trouble getting a permit from the city.

      A volcano isn't an ecological disaster, except in Soviet Russia. It's a geological disaster.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. That's nothing by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Funny

    You should have been at the function where he released 100 screaming Rhesus monkeys into the audience to highlight the problems of Ebola virus. It was great fun watching the attendees trying to avoid being bitten.

    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's more than one way to eat a rhesus

  9. Why do we have a problem with Gates? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His intentions may be good. I think I remember his vision was to create the computer that everyone can use and everyone can understand, and make it the only OS you'll ever have, so nobody would have to worry about not knowing the UI should he ever face a different computer because every computer would use the same (i.e. his) OS.

      Unfortunately, the whole thing has become the poster child for the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

      What part of

      REM The IBM Personal Computer Donkey
      REM Version 1.10 (C)Copyright IBM Corp 1981, 1982
      REM Licensed Material - Program Property of IBM

      don't you understand?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What has Gates done PERSONALLY to make slashdotters so hateful of him?

      OK, True story: Back in the early 1980s I was working for a small startup company in eastern Idaho... we did lots of vertical market stuff for home construction companies and lumber mills. All written in C, with Assembly language libraries and a smattering (*gasp*) of BASIC. So one day, I was working on debugging our B-Tree retrieval libraries using the new state-of-the art 80386 machine (all the other machines in our shop were '286) when suddenly Bill Gates bursts into the office. He does a couple of flips over the office partition walls and killed two of my co-workers with a karate chop to the neck....one was the HR person who, of course, has all our home addresses, so Bill grabs the sheet of paper with all of them and yells "I'll be back". Well, after the police interviews and crisis counselling and cleanup... I go home only to find my wife and four triplets all stabbed to death and my dog pregnant. On the kitchen table was a note from Bill Gates saying "I did this"

    4. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's the thing. Gates actually had a really good vision, he wants to see our lives go digital and all our digital devices interconnected and everything integrated to work as a single beautiful system.

      The problem is, his view of how this occurs is via Microsoft producing everything in that overall system, rather than use of open standards. This is not even necessarily because he thinks open standards are a bad thing, but simply because he was in charge of a company that has to answer to share holders who want nothing but profit and in that scenario, he perhaps had no choice but to go down the route of having Microsoft do it all.

    5. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I go home only to find my wife and four triplets ...

      You are a computer programmer!

      Always remembering to zero reference your kids.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    6. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      What has Gates done PERSONALLY to make slashdotters so hateful of him?

      1. Clippy
      2. Bob
      3. Bought out FoxPro and ruined it
      4. Disappearing menu items
      5. Changing new versions of apps so much that you have to relearn them
      6. Releasing OSes that they know are full of bugs
      7. UAC
      8. Lack of following standards; the belief theyt THEY set the standards (backslash, IE, CSS, the list goes on
      9. making a virus-friendly OS
      10. silverlight
      11. jscript
      12. Active-X (truly evil IMO)
      13. Doing the equivalent of your throwing a five dollar bill in a Salvation Army bucket and expecting us to think he's a philanthropist
      14. product registration (pain in the ass)
      15. Windows registry

      What has Gates done PERSONALLY to make slashdotters like him?

    7. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Erm... and he did all of these things PERSONALLY? I would bet that out of that list, a bit of digging will show that he had a personal hand in very few (if any) of them.

      The man is/was a figurehead, not a mad genius.

      The list of crap is definitely valid (except for 13 - billions of dollars is still billions of dollars, regardless of what it amounts to relative to his income or his company's), I simply question his personal involvement with these things.

    8. Re:Why do we have a problem with Gates? by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful

        Tech support, circa 198x: Teaching people how to use their operating systems and software.

        Tech support, circa 2009: Virus removal, fixing broken MS Office updates, etc.

        What were you talking about, again?

        SB

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  10. You all laugh now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?!

  11. If anyone gets the chance to go to see Gates by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Funny

    wear one of those head covering mosquito nets, or like what Beekeepers wear. that would be pretty funny :)

  12. I think he's safe by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. plagiarism by ad0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    this idea was invented by shampoo

  14. Only poor people? by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is no reason only poor people should be infected.

    Yes, there is — the richer people can afford both the knowledge of the danger, and the means of defense.

    Other things being equal, poor people will always have it worse, than the rich. Bill Gates' trick — and the accompanying rhetoric — certainly made news already and will continue to do so &mdash as he intended. But it is just a buzz-generating trick — not unlike the naked PETA protesters.

    His main message — that having vast numbers of people suffer and die from preventable and treatable diseases (like malaria) sucks — is quite correct and on-target. But if he wants my money (or other, non-monetary, assistance) to help with it, he better dispense with the near-Socialist proclamations...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Only poor people? by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 4, Informative

      He said "there's no reason only poor people should be infected", not "there's no reason only poor people are elected". Poor people did nothing to deserve being infected.

      Secondly, Bill Gate's little show had a lot more of a point than PETA getting naked. Whereas the latter is merely a publicity stunt, Gate's maneuver also serves to make potentially rich donors uncomfortable with the idea of the suffering of others by experiencing a small part of it. Nothing about PETA getting naked serves this sort of purpose.

      Lastly, I also dearly hope that Bill Gate's political leanings aren't whats preventing you from otherwise helping to stop the spread of malaria...

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Only poor people? by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being nice, spending money to help people aside from yourself IS socialism.

      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.

  15. Re:Lamer by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    You don't say that Bill has seen someone else's idea, thought "hey, that's neat" and copied it without referencing it, do you?

    How dare you suggest something like this?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. astroturfing tag by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  17. who tagged this astroturfing?!?! by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  18. The new Gates by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The new Gates by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A great many of us have a real sense of right and wrong. And even though we may not always do the right thing, we usually feel pretty bad when we do the wrong thing.

      This company led by Bill Gates has done so many intentionally wrong things without any sign or hint of conscience or apology, I cannot subscribe to your rather apologetic perspective. I have yet to see a company whose actions were not a reflection of its top leadership. With that, I would say it's a pretty safe bet that Bill Gates is not a nice guy and has no clue what fair play is.

    2. Re:The new Gates by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      It's the robber baron principle. As they get older, they need to assuage the guilt they feel for having skirted / broken the law in order to become one of the ultra-wealthy.

      See Rockefeller and Carnegie for context.

    3. Re:The new Gates by replicant108 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Gates Foundation only gives away 5% of its value every year. The rest is re-invested to maximise profit.

      By transferring his wealth to a foundation, Gates has managed to:

      a) minimise his tax liabilities
      b) maintain control of his wealth (and use it in support of his fight against free software and generic drugs)
      c) invest in restoring his reputation (which, for those with short memories, was damaged by his involvement in criminal behaviour )

      Furthermore, investigations have found that the Foundation's attitude to ethical investment to be lacking.

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    4. Re:The new Gates by herksc · · Score: 4, Interesting
      When you say "maximise profit", let's be clear that the "profit" is for the Foundation to then eventually give away later at 5% per year. Being a "non-profit" foundation, means that no-one can take that money (including Bill) and get personally rich from it. It's the job of the Bill Gates Investment division to make money that the Bill Gates Foundation eventually gives away. That's it. Sounds more useful than just giving away a finite sum to me.

      If you want to say that he "maintains control of his wealth", understand that means that he can control which cause gets the money, not go buy a Ferrari.

      Yes, the Foundation probably even gives money to lame causes, and has conflict of interest with the evil investments of the investment division. But ethically handling that amount of money is really difficult, even in philanthropy. Just look at the job elected governments are doing.

      And I seriously doubt Gates is worried about his tax liability. You only have to pay taxes on a single sum of earned money once.

      I'm not saying Bill is a good man, or that it's even excusable, just that I don't think his motivations were entirely selfish.

    5. Re:The new Gates by replicant108 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the rest is reinvested to "allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making".

      But they do this by "investing for profit".

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

      The point is that the focus on maximising ROI inevitably means that ethical considerations come second.

      The goal is to keep the foundation around forever so that it can continuously hand out money forever.

      Since Bill controls the Foundation, it is effectively he who is handing out the money.

      This clearly gives him a great deal of economic and political power.

      For example most people have access to investment funds like 401k and such, however, I'm pretty sure nobody really looks at the list of companies or bothers to keep track of the list of companies within each fund.

      Unlike most investment funds, the raison d'etre of the Foundation is supposedly humanitarianism.

      Given that ROI comes before humanitarianism in 95% of its investments, one cannot help but feel that there is some hypocrisy involved.

    6. Re:The new Gates by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a jackass you are. You're like one of those idiots who think paying a mortgage on a house is smart because of the "tax advantage". Hey - dipshit - you're still paying interest, just 25-35% less interest than you would without the tax benefit.

      Bill Gates has already given away a huge chunk of his money, and will have given away the vast majority of it by the time he dies. Your idiocy in claiming he's somehow "making money" off the tax benefits is laughable and only your fellow irrationally MS hating dweebs will be stupid enough to fall for it.

      Secondly, it's his wealth. He wants to see it go where it will do what he wants.

      Thirdly - whatever douchebag. He's never been convicted of any kind of felony, and neither has Microsoft.

  19. Collecting Mosquitos by mrops · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, I would hate to be the sucker who has to put all those mosquito in the jar.

    Bill: Steve, Can you come in here.
    Steve: Hey bill, hope you are happy with optimization I put in Windows 7 Kernel.
    Bill: Yah that is pretty good, I have another project for you.
    Steve: Sure Bill, anything for you.
    Bill: I want you to ......
    Steve: You want me to what?

    1. Re:Collecting Mosquitos by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Steve: Bill? Finish the sentence, Bill. Aw crap, he's locked up again. Gotta reboot.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Collecting Mosquitos by GuldKalle · · Score: 2, Funny

      ..And I am a PC.

      --
      What?
  20. Well done Bill by MjDelves · · Score: 4, Informative

    As someone who researches Malaria for a living I must wholeheartedly support the funding that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bringing to the field of Malaria research. Malaria might only be a "poor" person disease but it affects tens of millions of people a year. Even on a selfish note, with global warming creeping up on us in the next few decades, perhaps this pre-emptive strike by the West will save us all getting sick in the long run.

  21. I seem to remember another promise. by dannycim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, he freed us from spam three years ago, so he's probably our best hope against malaria.

  22. Re:Bill Gates did NOT release mosquitos. by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the linked article (yes, I read it) has a picture of Gates with the jar open, you should not be modded "informative."

  23. Memento Mori by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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").
    1. Re:Memento Mori by inviolet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Ah yes, that would be the Green-Liberal plan that we executed in the 1960s-1970s...

      1. Develop DDT.
      2. Use DDT to wipe out the North American malaria-carrying mosquito population.
      3. Drain the swamps to prevent mosquitos from returning.
      4. Enjoy life in a malaria-free country.
      5. Ban DDT.
      6. Crusade against anyone else seeking to drain their own swamps.
      7. Offer extremely expensive anti-malarial drugs for sale.
      8. Completely fail to understand why poor third-world countries have a malaria problem.
      9. ??
      10. Profit!

      Our society has a bad habit of declaring a thing to be evil after we don't need it any more.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Memento Mori by Technopaladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They Declared the ban on DDT after it laid waste to our BIRDS. Its OTHER enviromental effects are are also worth examining. Causes cancer and has some pretty strong effects on fauna besides insects. Your post would indicate we just decided to ban it for no worthwile reason. I personally like Fish eating birds.

    3. Re:Memento Mori by mdarksbane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure that the nearly 900,000 people who die a year from malaria are happy our birds are safe. I love birds of prey, too - they are some of the coolest creatures on the planet. But fuck you if you think they're more important than close to a million people a year. If you even reduce that number by half through reasonable DDT usage (I'm not saying farmers should be able to spray it wherever they want to stop whatever pests they want), in the years since DDT was banned you'd have stopped the equivalent of several holocausts.

      We should look at the environmental effects of DDT and use it carefully - but you have to balance human and environmental factors here, and in the case of hundreds of thousands of yearly deaths, I'd say the balance shifts a little bit toward the human end.

    4. Re:Memento Mori by CompSci101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or after we've actually gone through the trouble of figuring out that the solution we came up with fixed the problem at hand and caused many others due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

      Asbestos for everyone!

      Seriously, though, if there are better solutions available today than terraforming and introducing pesticides that wipe out indigenous species (read: medicine and vaccines) and the only barrier to entry is the cost of said vaccines -- which are themselves artificially inflated to preserve drug company profits by trade agreements and intellectual property laws that effectively kill thousands of people around the world yearly -- don't you think the rich people that own the companies profiting while people who can't afford their products are dying should get an earful?

      C

      --
      The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
    5. Re:Memento Mori by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow, trying to evoke empathy - a basic human trait - is a 'liberal' thing to conservatives. It's funny, really. The grandparent is a 'beautiful' illustration of the conservative mindset.

    6. Re:Memento Mori by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yup. Same thing with freon. After the patent expired, it became an evil environmental hazard here. Good thing Dow had a convenient replacement refrigerant!

      Talk about a misinformed opinion. Let's deal with the actual facts, shall we? Please.

      1. The Freon® family of refrigerants were banned some 40-50 years after their patents expired.
      2. There were no replacement refrigerants available at the time the ban was enacted. DuPont and others had to scramble to meet the deadline.
      3. There are lots of chemicals (e.g., propane) that would make ideal refrigerants were it not for the little problem of them being either highly toxic or highly explosive. The problem was not in finding a substitute gas; the problem was in finding a lubricating oil for the compressors that would work with the replacement refrigerant.

      The insinuation that DuPont was somehow behind the ban is just plain trolling.

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    7. Re:Memento Mori by ddt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends on your point of view. Most bird habitats are threatened. Humans are overpopulated.

    8. Re:Memento Mori by mdarksbane · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you were a bird, I'd think you were being reasonable.

    9. Re:Memento Mori by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll allow that the situation is more complex than I indicated in a two paragraph forum post :)

      DDT does continue to be used worldwide as a local vector control agent. Its unrestricted use as an agricultural pesticide did most likely damage its ability to be used against malaria through the encouragement of resistant strains of the disease.

      But many third world countries have had to cut back on DDT use because of pressure from the US aid groups supplying their anti-malaria money. And hundreds of environmentalist groups lobbied hard against allowing it into the 2004 Stockholm Convention. I consider this preference for animal over human life to be strongly misguided, even as someone who is strongly for the protection of animal life when it is reasonable.

    10. Re:Memento Mori by Mordac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yay, Urban Myths live on.

      There is no Global DDT Ban. Due to overuse in America we ended up poising ourselves (basically when we were to spread it, the scientists/instructions said use 1 bag, the spreader used 10 bags, to be sure.)

      DDT is still legal to use in Africa, and in fact, is being used. Its one of the most cost efficient methods at controlling Malaria. Its just more highly monitored than it was before (due to people using way too much.)

      Go hit your wiki's, and find out more about the great DDT Myth, FUD brought to you by the anti-environmental movement, and embraced by the USA.

    11. Re:Memento Mori by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wtf are you doing here? I thought your ass was banned http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4407

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
    12. Re:Memento Mori by Reziac · · Score: 5, Informative

      I used to believe that. Turns out there wasn't any hard evidence; the DDT ban came about almost wholly due to Rachel Carson's bestselling book SILENT SPRING, which has since been discredited as having no scientific basis. (And yes, I've read the book.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Memento Mori by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I support the free-market system and capitalism to the degree that I'd probably get spit on in Berkley, but even I think the 'Rich' (generalizing broadly) occasionally need a kick in the butt to shake them out of social insularity they occasionally find themselves in. Look at the discussions about digital television, here on Slashdot... a lot of people ask, seriously, "Who doesn't have cable?"

      The rich deserve what they've earned, but sometimes when rules get set, the poor are simply overlooked. Not from malice, but just because the people running the game don't understand the situation.

      There's constantly streets being repaved and repaired in the city I live in. In the 'nice' side of town, a street will get resurfaced if develops any cracks, minor wear, etc. In the 'poor' side of town, a street will get resurfaced once it dissolves into a mess of potholes and asphalt fragments. Why the discrepancy? I think it's probably because everyone high-up in city government lives in the 'nice' part of town. Well-off people deserve to live where-ever they can afford, so that's fine; but a city service shouldn't vary depending on how expensive the houses in the neighborhood are.

      I've also noted here how a nearby town has municipal broadband, which was losing money, so they levied an additional tax on everybody's power bill. I'm against wealth redistribution... especially that, which redistributes money from the poor to the well-off! And that decision wasn't passed by greedy rich people; it was made by clueless but well-meaning rich people.

    14. Re:Memento Mori by dr.g · · Score: 2

      FTW? Where's my meta-mod points??

      It isn't "-1, flamebait" to dissect opinions someone has put forth in a post. Gates' action does indeed represent a logical argument ("Agree with me because...") and does indeed demonstrate a rare double fallacy, as it consists entirely of an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) combined with argumentum ad baculum (threatening the audience).

      I've seen other posts in this thread, sound of argument and duly informative (but apparently of inadequate Ecological Correctness) modded down, ignored or modded flamebait when the content merely presented an alternative opinion. *tsk-tsk*

      Guess we'll see.

      Yes, First World ecological concerns about "wetlands" and raptor eggs are inappropriately transferred, by eco-NGOs and lobbying groups, to malaria-relief efforts in Africa. It is not "flamebait" to point out the millions of preventable deaths as a result thereof.

      As for the claims that DDT was banned in part because it "causes cancer", we should do a little risk analysis comparing the number of deaths (not to lab animals) due to DDT-caused cancer (0) against deaths among the "poor people" Gates is so empathetic towards from malaria (many millions).

      That DDT-resistant strains of mosquitoes may arise as a result of using DDT is not an argument against its use, and devalues the millions of lives that would be spared in the interim. Also, "This might not work in the future!" is decidedly not an argument we present when considering the futility of using vaccines against microorganisms, using laws against anti-social behavior or using charity against poverty. The proper response to this argument is "So what?".

      Calling the current UN policy towards malaria treatment in Africa 'genocidal', 'murderous' or 'arrogant' may be flamebait...ish. Pointing out that said policies are misguided, self-indulgent and the result of shallow analysis warped by the necessity to be ecologically correct is not.

      --
      "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
    15. Re:Memento Mori by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DDT's original purpose was malaria control. Only later was it used for a general pesticide. For a while, the WTO suggested the use of DDT in this manner. DDT is extremely effective, and when used moderately and not as a general pesticide, the environmental effects are highly reduced. Clearly DDT as a pesticide is clearly worse that the pests, but DDT as a malaria prevention is not clearly worse that malaria.

      Well, you're wrong about DDT's original purpose. It was not determined to be a contact insecticide until the 1930s, but was created in the 1800s.

      However, your general point is still valid; it is overuse of DDT that has made it ineffective against malaria. The people screaming "DDT! SPRAY DDT! MORE DDT! KILL ALL THE BUGS!", instead of using it in carefully targeted applications, were the ones who ruined the efficacy of DDT against malaria - not scary greens and evil liberals.

      You'll note from reading this thread that loud and uninformed people are still willing to throw poison about without proper understanding of the consequences... I'd only trust someone like yourself, who is willing to consider nuances, with DDT.

  24. Gates Foundation's approach to malaria is wrong by freefrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Gates Foundation's approach to malaria is wrong by jurgen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article you linked to, "DDT, facts vs. fears", is a publication by the "American Council on Science and Health", which appears to be a typical corporate apologist front group. It has nothing whatsoever to do with UNL (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) despite being hosted at a poorly configured MacOS X server there.

      If you want to know the real facts about DDT, the Wikipedia entry for it is excellent and rather more complete than the above article. The reality, as always, is more complex than iconoclasts on either side of any debate would have it. DDT is at best a part of any strategy against malaria... by itself it could only provide temporary relief (since mosquitoes become resistant to it) at high cost in human and environmental health.

      Also DDT is NOT banned around the world. It was banned in the US, and with time many other countries either also banned it or simply discontinued its use, each for their own reasons. DDT is also cheap enough and easy enough to produce that all but the poorest of poor countries can make all they need themselves if they chose to use it.

    2. Re:Gates Foundation's approach to malaria is wrong by Curunauth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Worth noting: that UNL link is a cached version of an page *from another site* from a course outline for Chemistry teachers, so NOT a UNL page.
      http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869EInfoFiles/pubCHEM869E-Info080.html
      The linked-to site ( http://www.altgreen.com.au/ ) is down, but the google cache reveals this:
      "This site is primarily an information exchange and contains reviews of environmental issues. It presents the alternative green view and does not endorse . . ."

      Also linked from the UNL course is an NIH page describing DDT toxicity.
      http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/8_RoC/RAC/DDT.html
      or you can read a more recent study:
      http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=0704C8A4-F52A-BE78-5C81C16C5C1F14C9
      Summary: in some groups (rodents separated by strain and gender), no evidence of carcinogenicity for some/all of DDT, TDE, and p.p.-DDE [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications] . . . but all showed definite carcinogenicity in at least some groups. As such, it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".

    3. Re:Gates Foundation's approach to malaria is wrong by Curunauth · · Score: 2, Informative

      oops. I was fooled by a date listed in the search I did on the National Toxicology Program's site - that is not a more recent study.

      Instead, a 2005 publication (PDF): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov:8080/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s064ddt.pdf&qt=DDE&col=030roc&n=1&la=en Same conclusion.

    4. Re:Gates Foundation's approach to malaria is wrong by Curunauth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe his main intent was to counter the *inflation* of the source by making it appear to be endorsed by UNL, as he said.

      Also, he did provide an alternative and disagreeing source of information - the Wikipedia article.

      You could also read a 2005 NIH report (PDF): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov:8080/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s064ddt.pdf&qt=DDE&col=030roc&n=1&la=en

      Summary: 1978 study shows no evidence of carcinogenicity in technical-grade DDT, TDE, and DDE in diet of mice and rats [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications]; 1991 study shows oral administration of breakdown products DDE and TDE show definite carcinogenicity in hamsters, some groups (by gender and species) of mice and rats (something that was also shown in part in the 1978 study).

      As such, despite insufficient evidence in humans (primarily due to heavy confounding of epidemiological data by other pesticides) it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".

  25. Re:Bill Gates did NOT release mosquitos. by toQDuj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Meh, it's TED. We'll be able to see for ourselves what really happened, when they put the talk online at http://www.ted.com/

    B.

    TED's cool.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  26. Re:And we found it SO offensive that... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because:
    1. We have a climate less friendly to the disease carrying mosquitoes in the first place
    2. We discourage the use of DDT because of the side-effects (on birds for instance), despite the fact that we could not have eliminated malaria without extensive use of DDT
    3. We discourage the draining of swamps, once again despite the fact that it was the only way we kept the mosquitoes from returning

    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
  27. I know why... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who tagged this astroturfing?!?!

    Obviously someone whose dictionary was bricked!

  28. Probably harmless by joeyblades · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only one species of mosquitoes actually transmit malaria to humans; the Anopheles. Interesting stunt to scare the uninformed, but most likely more harmless than, say, releasing Windows 7 to the unsuspecting masses.

  29. Re:And we found it SO offensive that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Why don't other societies do that, too?

    Uh...poverty?

    > Why is it our job to do it for them?

    Uh...kindness?

  30. Gates is a "real deal" philanthropist by proclivity76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:You won't find me saying it. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  32. Re:What a... by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Amazing how you can criticise someone for trying to help cure a disease affecting millions, Yet consider yourself morally superior by promoting a blanket judgement against all pregnant women, regardless of their individual situations or circumstances.
    For example what about someone who was raped? or someone who is in a medically life-threatening situation made potentially fatal by being pregnant? They're just examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many many even better justifications for abortion in real life, something your hopelessly narrow-minded philosophy always fails to deal with.

  33. Quick! Head to the bar. by schlick · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll have a Gin and Tonic, extra Tonic Please

    --
    "It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
  34. You can use DDT on Malaria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    DDT is banned for agricultural use.

    DDT use, for purpose of disease control is allowed by the treaty.

  35. Re:You won't find me saying it. by sdnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  36. Re:Bill Gates did NOT release mosquitos. by swillden · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you're saying the Fox article is outright LYING about having verified the incident with the Foundation's media office?

    Fox may be slanted, but they don't make facts up out of whole cloth.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  37. DDT can't work anymore by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not in the way it worked for the US.

    There are too many mosquitoes who are either resistant or have latent genes which confer resistance. Any widespread eradication program will create a resistant population in no time flat.

    The opportunity has past.

  38. MODS ON CRACK by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:MODS ON CRACK by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hehehe.

      I have far worse problems than bad moderations.

      I just have a fairly good track record of fixing bad mods via my mods on cracks comments. Plus, it's an exercise in burning karma. Not that that's ever worked...

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  39. Re:On poverty. by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wasn't America once a poor country, too? Yet we overcame and solved our mosquito problem.

    Yes, before you were born, America was a poor country. You've inherited a rich one. Now go spend your our forefather's money like you made it yourself while other people work 80 hour weeks for less the minimum wage and contract malaria, because by golly, you've earned it! It's their fault for being born into poverty!

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  40. Re:On poverty. by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conservatives think that everything bad that happens to someone, everything, is their own fault and they should be able to fix it themselves.

    You can't convince them otherwise, trust me.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs