Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Zuckerberg To Give Away Half His Cash
Stoobalou writes "Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz are among the latest batch of 17 billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their fortunes, after signing up to a philanthropic campaign led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates 3.0 and celebrity investor Warren Buffett. By signing up to The Giving Pledge, the mega-rich make a vague promise — sorry, 'moral commitment' — to give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime."
For anyone else who was wondering about the "Bill Gates 3.0" part, the Bill we know and love/hate is William Henry Gates III. In case you were going to confuse him for the other Bill Gates'.
Agreed. This is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation approach to philanthropy. If you have a complaint about it, explain how you disagree with this approach.
Regarding nationalism, this explanation of their approach overtly expresses that one of their grant making priorities is "improving high school education in the United States." I cannot deny that this is America-centric, but I wholeheartedly support the idea that a wealthy person should contribute to the ongoing positive development of his own country.
Kudo's to him for his generosity, for keeping his word, and for showing others that mega-philanthropy brings it's own rewards.
"kudos" (a Greek transliteration) is a mass noun like "praise". Putting an apostrophe in it would be like prai'se.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
This is the original story... An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm. A young man was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You're not saving enough to make a difference." The young man picked up another starfish and sent it spinning back to the water. "Made a difference to that one," he said.
Why a one-time shot? Why pissed away in a year? That sounds more like a choice of the spender, be it a foundation or a person.
And perhaps never solve the problem. Spending the interest gained, say ~5.5% of $40 Billion (ie ~$2.2 Billion), indefinitely may stop the hemorrhaging of the disease indefinitely. But it might well take a good deal more, say $10 Billion per year, along with an actual plan to cure the disease. Governments have been for years doing the same sort of massive, yet inadequate, money and supply donations. It would seem the main problem is not having a plan in the first place.
The fact that a government or a foundation may be very unwilling to even consider many options because it could "kill" the government/foundation may make them rather unsuitable in to actually solving some problems. A person? He/she's going to die anyways--that's what the whole pledge is about really; so, why not "piss away" their billions and consider even outrageous plans?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h