Microsoft Starts Its Own Charity Organization: Microsoft Philanthropies (microsoft.com)

SmartAboutThings writes: Bill Gates is known as a big philanthropist, and now his own company will commit to even more charity work by launching a new organization, Microsoft Philanthropies. Microsoft's president and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith outlined the goals for the new organization, saying it will partner with nonprofit organizations to help expand technology projects to people who need it. He said, "Just as there is an extremely effective commercial ecosystem which brings the promise of technology to life in the marketplace, there must be a strong societal ecosystem that brings the promise of technology to life in the community space, especially where there is the greatest need." Mary Snapp, who joined Microsoft as its first female attorney in 1988, will lead Microsoft Philanthropies report directly to Smith.

Comments

So now /. is slashvertising for Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just... wow

Need some Zunes, Surface RTs and Windows phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you do. We'll send you 3 million of them!

Ugh? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a thinly-veiled attempt to get lock-in on even the poorest members of society that I want to throw up.

Just die, Microsoft. Just roll over and die already.

We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Pet charity projects throwing money haphazardly at random causes a few billionaires feel strongly about is an undemocratic disgrace. Had more of their largesse been taxed, we the people could've put it to better use dealing with our deficit, fixing our failing infrastructure, or even using it to help pay for ambitious new programs like universal basic income and single payer healthcare. Those ideas have the potential to totally end poverty. Pet charity projects like Gates' or Zuckerberg's hold no such potential.

Instead of praising this, we should be asking ourselves what kind of society we want to live in.

From the article: "Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money."

See also: public vs. private social expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Wow, what a bunch of leftist claptrap

Last I checked, democracy was not a leftist idea. Concentrating disproportionate power in the hands of a few billionaires is undemocratic.

Government is the absolute worst way to do charity

And yet the governments with the strongest safety nets are the best at reducing poverty. Seems to me government is pretty good at it, when properly funded.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.

That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.

taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living.

I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)

Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.

But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns.

Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."

The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress...

First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.

Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.

Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people.

That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."

Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.

The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Chris Johnson]

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean...

You're right, Obamacare suffers from working through a for-profit insurance system and for-profit healthcare system and it'd be a lot more efficient to go wholly singlepayer or better yet, nationalize the whole shebang.

As for deficits, it's meaningless to think of them unless you're thinking of them in the context of GDP. The track record for Eurozone countries trying to impose austerity has told us what happens: when you attack the structural implementation of civilization, you reduce the raw deficit through not spending, but GDP collapses even faster causing the deficit to be an even higher percentage of the country's balance sheet, which is counter-productive quite literally.

This is what happened to Greece. Doing some research might be good.

I realize it's difficult not to listen only to bankers these days (since money == power as well as money = power in our republic) but when the bankers are off base due to self-interest clashing with realism, you have to stop listening to them. Capital is SO HIGHLY LEVERAGED that it's impossible to justify supporting the bankers' world any longer. It's not only getting worse, it's getting exponentially worse and somebody's going to be the loser when everything breaks.

Bankers being the loser is actually the soft landing. What we're seeing is a scenario unfolding where everybody else collapses first and THEN the bankers lose everything. If your concept of how this stuff worked was valid, we wouldn't have seen the commercial paper market freeze up (ever). There are always enough practical people out there capable of asking questions like 'who is going to buy the products and services in which we invest?'

When they ask that question, increasingly the answer is 'absolutely nobody, therefore don't invest'.

The only answer is taking money from the rich and pumping it back into the economy to be used as a medium for consumer exchange. As a small businessman who has done the research I have hard data establishing that my consumer sales figures are markedly better when 'the poor' are, even briefly, less strapped for cash on the whole, and my sales tank when the rich are raking it in.

If you were running your own business and not just snarking on Slashdot you'd have figured this out too (or you'd have gone out of business). What's best to encourage the proliferation of INDEPENDENT small business and entrepreneurship, just the sort conservatives would like to believe possible, is an extensive redistribution system keeping the consumer base liquid. Then, you don't have to make government agencies to seed small business: the market does it.

You have it backwards. Get it straight. The only way to grow business is to water the lawn, and you're advocating the exact opposite of what will work, probably in the belief that business can only be created by megabillionaires angel-funding completely prefab business entities from scratch. Learn 2 business please.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[DNS-and-BIND]

Private charities can look at the needs and allocate their resources accordingly. Government can't do that, it's going to be a political fight over pork barrel spending. Moreover, we the people should be able to goddamn well decide where we want to spend our own goddamned money without any goddamn government telling us it would be a better idea to give our money to them instead. In a culture of confiscation like you advocate, people like Gates and Zuckerberg would have never founded their companies in the first place and society would be mired in continuous poverty.

You know you've gone off the edge politically when you're arguing against charity. Seriously, what the fuck? You need to have a Heel Realization sooner rather than later.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Read the articles I linked to.

Private charities fund the pet issues of their rich benefactors.

They don't fund the vital needs of society.

Using the democratic process to decide how to spend the money produces better results.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Ravaldy]

The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles

The US healthcare system is the most expensive healthcare system in the world and yet it's not the best. Many countries including neighbors such as Canada have universal health care so why can't this happen in the US?

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yes, you're right...democracy is an idea that is anathema to leftists. Freedom of speech and voting allow non-leftists to gain power and do not result in positive outcomes. Much more important is freedom of justice, where hate speech is banned and elections always come out the correct way.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Ravaldy]

Although I agree with you there's a point where too much wealth is exactly that, TOO MUCH.

Before government were born, unfortunate people were helped by local communities and their families. Although this system was ideal at weeding out the abusers, it was also unable to provide the wide range of services required and I'm sure at time was unfair. Fast forward 100 years and you now have a population that is far more independent. The flip side is fraud and abuse of the system. As a member of society all I ask is that I be rewarded for my extra efforts. Tax me more if I'm getting more out of society but make sure it's going to the people who need it which in my country I believe is happening (as naïve as I may be).

Just my 2 cents.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

Nice smoke screen dude.

I fully understand the place of government debt and how it's related to the GDP. The risk associated with the debt has a direct relationship to the percentage of GDP it consumes. However, you miss the issue if you hide yourself behind this. The debt will need to be paid, somehow, and eventually the *value* of the goods and services we purchased with this money we borrowed will need to be repaid.

Also, don't try to point to Greece and claim that what happened there will happen here. It won't. What happened in Greece is they where stuck owing and had no means to forestall the debt collectors. There wasn't enough tax revenue to maintain current services, keep the banks in currency and make the interest payments. That won't happen to the USA. We just print money, pay our debts, blow up the money supply and EVERYBODY pays. It's called Quantitative Easing. How does everybody pay? Your dollars are worth less and less because there are more and more of them, and although your wages are always going higher, you can buy less and less. In a way, this is what happened to Greece, only they did it all at once. We will be like the frogs in the petri dish, with the heat slowly increasing, but the poor get poorer, the middle class ends up in poverty and the rich stay rich. BTW.. That's what has been happening over the last 7 years in the country, the only thing we've not yet seen is the inflation, but that's coming, or worse. All that's kept us afloat is that there are other countries imploding, making the US dollar seem like a safe place... We'd be Argentina if it wasn't for that.

The problem though, is that all the money we've spent on poverty to date, hasn't helped. In fact, In my view, we've spent a small fortune handing out fish and creating a class of people who want nothing more than to keep getting fish for free. Why are their "Don't feed the bears" signs all over Yellowstone? Because we don't want them to be come dependent on humans for easy food, healthy happy bears need to know how to forage. I remember when the EBT cards of welfare clients stopped working for a few hours a while back. It was nearly a riot in WalMar's everywhere. We've created a culture of dependency, which is not a good thing, and there is no amount of money that can fix this because it was spending money that caused it.

However, the BIGGEST problem I have with your views is your thinking it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor, that it's somehow the only morally acceptable course of action. Taking taxes is a necessary evil, but make no mistake it's EVIL and as such should be avoided as much as possible. You see, taking from the individual (rich or not) is the basis of socialism/Communism, a system of government which has been shown to not work well or honor basic human rights. I don't think we are careful enough here these days. At one time in our history, the suggestion you make would have drawn scorn and cries that you where trying to create new despots and allow inordinate powers over the people by government. So, I don't believe it's a good idea to trample property rights with confiscatory tax policy necessary to support our current spending levels and debt. Eventually your "take from the rich" idea turns into a form of government which is antithetical to our founding principles so don't fool yourself by thinking it's doing something good for the poor... It's not.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Here's some data on just homelessness: http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

The total number of people experiencing poverty will obviously be higher than that.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

While that stereotype does apply to some on the left, I'm personally opposed to enforcing my ideas undemocratically. If the majority of us decide in an election that we prefer less safety net, I can live with that, as I have in the past when we've passed austerity measures. It's my duty to convince my fellow Americans that more safety net is a good idea, not to ram it down the nation's throat by force.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bloodhawk]

while I do question some of these charity organisations where they would do better if they actually targeted an existing charity with their money. you are completely and utterly DELUSIONAL if you think the government would be a more effective means of distributing their wealth, that would be the only means to absolutely guarantee it is wasted, even these charities they constantly create is a better way than that.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

However, the BIGGEST problem I have with your views is your thinking it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor, that it's somehow the only morally acceptable course of action. Taking taxes is a necessary evil, but make no mistake it's EVIL and as such should be avoided as much as possible. [...] So, I don't believe it's a good idea to trample property rights with confiscatory tax policy necessary to support our current spending levels and debt.

Suppose the following two moral principles:

1. Depriving the wealthiest x% of y% of their wealth while leaving them z% wealthier than everyone else is a morally wrong intrusion on property rights. (The thesis of conservatives such as yourself.)

2. Forcing someone to work under threat of death by homelessness, starvation, and/or inadequate access to healthcare when that is preventable through modest taxation is a morally wrong form of coercion. (My thesis. In fact there's a term for it: wage slavery.)

Personally, I see more moral virtue in an impoverished man's right to shelter and to not starve to death than to Larry Ellison's right to another Hawaiian island.

Once we take care of everyone's basic needs, Larry can have all the remaining islands his still insane wealth can afford him.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[ksheff]

Too much cronyism involved not to mention our government will find new and innovative ways to fuck it up while spending even more money than before.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Ravaldy]

The US is in a pickle when it comes to Healthcare because taking away the candy is much harder than giving it. For a system change to occur you need to reverse everything in place and that's not easy. Smart people have come up and proved with numbers that the current system could be made to cost much less. When you give control to individuals motivated by profit you generally cause the cost to go up or the service to go down.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

Then you are a socialist at heart and are in the wrong country. There MUST be limits to what the government can take by force of law from everybody. Personal property MUST be allowed or the unalienable rights our forefathers fought the British for are invalid.

I get your fairness argument, and it has emotional appeal, but if you allow it to rule the day, this country becomes something other than the place where your rights are protected, where you can work hard, make money and own more stuff. You are running headlong on the path to the communist argument where everybody is owed subsistence from the state and EVERYTHING is owned/controlled by the state.

The function of government is to provide a level playing field for business activity and prosecute those who lie, cheat, steal or otherwise harm others. It's job is to insure equal opportunity but It's not to make outcomes equal. So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits? Remember, it's really easy to just wave your hand and say you won't do that, but it is really hard to define exactly how far you are willing to go. How are you going to limit the power of government here?

Don't conflate the idea that "All men are created equal" with your false idea that being equal can only be measured in outcome, that the only fair outcome is where the difference between the rich and poor doesn't exist. That kind of thinking is what dumbs down our kids by giving ALL the players the same trophy, not just the winners, or where we accept and reward mediocre effort the same as those who work hard and succeed. When you do that, guess what you get...

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

If you want to raise the standard of living of the poor, you don't confiscate the wealth from others and give it to them. You enact policies that encourage economic growth so they can get jobs and aren't dependent on the government.

Generally speaking, providing a lifestyle floor for everyone does encourage economic growth.

Suppose, for instance, we had a universal basic income indexed to right at what a bare minimum living wage is. In that case, 100% of that money is spent, and circulates through the economy, producing demand in a whole host of economic sectors, creating jobs.

In addition, it would improve productivity by removing unwilling labor from the labor pool. Those working would do so because they want to, not because they're forced to under thread of death from homelessness or starvation.

That would remove a small number of people from the labor force, but make those who remain far more productive because they'd be more motivated.

Moreover, it would also let us remove wasteful economic distortions like means testing for the safety net (which the left hates) because UBI replaces the safety net and the minimum wage (which the right hates) as it would no longer be necessary either.

As far as those "unwilling to fish"....screw those lazy bastards.

Translation: "I'm perfectly okay with letting poor people die from exposure or starve to death."

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits?

The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits?

The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.

So you really have no limits then. You are a communist at heart.

A wise teacher once said "The poor you will always have with you." So you will never succeed in eliminating all the poor. If we attempt to make everybody comfortable at taxpayers expense it doesn't matter how much you take and borrow, you will need more than there is and will take it all.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Of course there is a limit. It would not take much of the nation's wealth to provide for everyone's basic needs and nothing beyond that. It's not like I'm talking about socialism for BMWs here. Get real.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

There's plenty of data out there showing that the more various governments around the world invest in their safety nets, the more poverty is reduced.

What's delusional is assuming private charity is going to fix poverty, or that capitalism will magically offer everyone great careers.

At the end of the day, the only system we've come up with that has shown itself to actually be effective at reducing poverty are government run safety net programs.

The less means-tested, the better.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

You think you have limits? I don't think you do.

There are countries in this world which do NOT have the resources to do what you want for their people, what makes you think the USA will always have enough or that we could hope to even do it now?

Go take a look at the falling labor participation rate in this country, consider the demographics we face and then tell me we have the resources to do what you want to do over the next 20 years. Take a look at the example of Greece and Argentina, even Venezuela proves that what you suggest is not workable in the long term. The government cannot tax enough to provide enough without killing their economies. If we go down *your* path, we are actually condemning more people to the ravages of poverty, citizens of THIS country as well as in the world. You would wreck our economy though confiscatory tax rates, smother economic development in your vain attempts to fight poverty.

No you have no limits, All it takes is one more sob story about how there are poor suffering because the don't have what you own that makes you feel guilty and you are off to vote in politicians who dupe you into supporting their next vote buying welfare give away to sooth your consonance. Even if it means that we ALL will eventually suffer and multitudes of people will die needlessly, only because you and people like you have no limits because you have no forethought and don't pay attention to what is really going on.

So tell me again how you have limits? Tell the pensioners in Greece how it's all going to work out, that the promises made by their bankrupt government will get kept, how the social security and Medicare entitlements are going to work as the labor participation rate continues to fall and you don't have to confiscate more and more of working people's paychecks or reduce benefits and put folks back into poverty? How in the face of this you intend to fund the growing welfare roles which support a lot of able bodied people who *could* work but don't have to? And still have limits to what you think the government should take? You have no limits.

Your idea of government amounts to wealth redistribution, which is the basic idea of communism. Face it. Your idea of government can take EVERYTHING away from you for no other reason than you are alive and live in the country. That form of government doesn't work out so well historically....

May I suggest you examine the principles of this country's founding and find out how the forefathers approached this? I think you will find that they where about self reliance and got pretty sensitive about taxes... Clearly THEY had limits... I have limits... You? Not so much I'm afraid.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bloodhawk]

citations please? look at the US government, supposedly one of the richest countries in the world, you have a poverty rate ABOVE 10% yet spend over half a trillion dollars a year on military. As long as that situation is in place governments have proven time and time again that the layers of bureaucracy, pork barreling and corruption make them the most inefficient engine to distribute wealth. Burning a billion dollars in a bon fire will also make people warm for a night, but it ISN'T an efficient means to solve poverty.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Look into budget/tax proposals people have come up with for universal basic income. It replaces Social Security plus a series of smaller safety net programs.

Basically between the savings we get from removing the inefficient means testing along with some modest tax increases on the wealthy, it is feasible without even bothering to alter our Medicare/Medicaid spending nor altering our insane military industrial complex.

However if we reformed those things too, we could certainly afford UBI with less tax increases.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Man, what an emotional rant filled with fear. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and calm down. Breathe. It'll be okay!

Look, the facts are this: our country is wealthier than it's ever been in history. It may be hard to notice though, because the richest 1% have harvested the majority of that wealth. If we divided up the nation's wealth equally among all citizens (which you don't seem to realize I'm not advocating for BTW), more people would get a bigger slice than if we had done that in any time in history.

We do have the means to ensure a bare minimum lifestyle floor for every citizen whether you believe we do or not. The apocalyptic scenarios you expect to come to pass will not occur. Poverty in this country is not going to get worse, unless we keep voting for austerity policies you support. We can end poverty if we continue to innovate technologically, economically, and culturally as we have in the past.

The two biggest drivers for the decline in labor participation are increasing automation squeezing people out of jobs (unemployment driven by technological obsolescence) and people voluntarily leaving the workforce because they don't need to work anymore (early retirement among those who can afford it). I feel bad for people who want to work but can't find a job, and that's exactly why we need to share the new wealth we've created with exactly those people who are experience technological obsolescence as a result of our more productive than ever economy.

Proposals like universal basic income are exactly what our obsolete underclass needs to stay out of poverty and devote their time to learning 21st century skills so they can compete in the new economy. Western Europe has just begun to realize this. Finland is currently exploring implementing UBI as a way to tackle unemployment.

If you set aside your fear and take the time to read more about this stuff, you will see that America's best days are still ahead.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

I'm not buying it.

Pay a bit more attention to the arguments I'm using here. The ones based on private property ownership, freedom, and such. I know you don't think I'm right, but at least try and understand why I think what I do so you can address my concerns with meaningful, thoughtful discussion that might actually communicate why your position isn't logically what I say.

We have 18 Trillion in debt last time I looked. It worked out to about $58K per citizen (working or not) on the PRINCIPLE alone. Plus in the last 8 years the overall debt number has nearly doubled and shows no real sign of slowing down. We have an ageing population and are facing an explosion of retirees who are living longer and longer collecting Social Security and using Medicare, but have fewer and fewer people actually working and paying into the system. Projections say that very soon we will not collect enough in social security taxes to pay benefits so the money will have to be obtained someplace. Where do you suppose that is?

As your side is so fond of social spending, you are also often forced to admit that the only *real* way to pay for all this is to tax more, now or in the future. It's usually the future with you guys because increasing taxes doesn't play well politically for your side (or for any side). The problem with the technique is the same as the allure of low car payments and credit card debt. Eventually the payments must be made, with interest, and that $20,0000 in credit card debt cost you many times that to pay off when you keep making the minimum monthly payments.

So this discussion, which is about what limits you have, how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered by your side (heck, all sides in the political world). How far will you go to meet your goals? I don't see you saying there are really any limits, that your stated goal should be our only priority and any cost is worth it to you. Yet you don't admit that this idea really implies another form of government, one that doesn't honor personal property rights but discards it in favor of a "it's only fair" subjective test. If you don't see the risks in that, I'm not sure you are thinking hard enough.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[wyHunter]

How much of what we the people want gets done by lawmakers who only do what they want? Is it any different? Not that I see.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered

I already answered that question: the bare minimum necessary to provide a lifestyle floor that ensures everyone's basic needs are met; food and shelter at least, but personally I'd throw in healthcare as well. Nothing beyond that.

I'm not sure why you don't think that's a specific enough answer. If you want to know what that costs specifically, go look up tax proposals that replace Social Security (and other cash transfer programs like SNAP) with UBI along with tax proposals that extend Medicare to all and drop Medicaid.

Many people have run the numbers and come up with balanced budgets that include these new provisions. Most agree taxes would need to go up to support such programs as well as to address the existing deficits, but it's been done before. We've had higher taxes before (especially on the wealthy) and things were just fine.

This isn't about equalizing outcomes, it's about raising the height of the floor so that nobody can fall into abject poverty ever again. There will still be enormous inequality of outcomes, as there should be, to reward those who work harder with greater wealth.

There will still be rich people, mansions, and suchlike. All that will be different is they will be slightly less rich. The net worth of the average one percenter may decline slightly, but it'll still be more than enough money to live a life of luxury and leisure and to never have to work again.

40 sports cars in the collection for the average aristocrat instead of 50. Or maybe one less vacation home. It's a small price to pay to end homelessness and hunger nationwide.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

Actual studies contradict that tired narrative.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

One last time... Stop with the economic fairness arguments. To me, all they mean is you are a socialist and want a communistic country which has no limits on wealth transfer because as long as you can find ONE person who is living below your subjective standard and one who is above it is your policy to take from the richer and give to the poorer. You talk in generality, your ideas are subjective as are your limits. We need OBJECTIVE well defined limits, or there are none.

This idea of yours is the FOUNDATION of socialism which needs a communistic government to work and every time I give you a chance to answer my objection, you follow with a re-iteration of the same ideas and don't answer my objection. Re-read our founding documents, what you suggest is incompatible with them, yet embodies the very ideas behind the Communist manifesto, and you won't see it.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[Kethinov]

A right to the basic needs of food, shelter, and healthcare is not subjective or vague. That's about as specific as you can get. It means at a minimum all people have a right to just enough food to not starve to death. A right to at least dorm room-sized shelter. A right to see doctors for preventative care or go to the hospital without having to worry about medical bankruptcy.

Those things are narrowly tailored and well-defined. It's not reasonable to call those things vague or to imply that it's some crazy slippery slope to endless transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, especially when people have worked out budget proposals that deliver on those proposed rights that require only modest increases in taxation.

Re:We should not get excited about private charity

[bobbied]

Seriously, you are a socialist then and in the wrong country.

You know that Communist Russia had as one of it's founding principles EXACTLY what you say. You see, if I have a right to basic needs, the government is now required to provide my rights, and in your view, this is accomplished by taking property from one group of citizens and giving to another.

But you won't answer that charge, nor will you see that your "basic needs" is really open ended and subjective and limitless. Healthcare is not a right, nor is food or shelter. Where I'm all for *helping* those less fortunate, especially those who are unable to help themselves, I stop WAY short of making what you call "basic needs" a right. They are not rights, they are not guarantees that we can expect from government, especially our form of government. If you won't admit that, then call yourself what you are, a socialist and let's move on.

Hey, if it works for the Clintons....

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it will work for Microsoft...

Re:Need some Zunes, Surface RTs and Windows phones

[bobbied]

Sure you do. We'll send you 3 million of them!

Oh... And don't forget the free upgrade to Windows 10.. Now sign this donation form so we can get the tax write-off.

He's a BFP

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Bill Gates is known as a big philanthropist

Well, then, he's really a BFP then, isn't he?

Re:Yay

[MickyTheIdiot]

A good and low cost way to encourage coding is to buy Raspberry Pi boards for kids. It's worked great in the UK.

However, since that tech is not owned by Microsoft I bet that's not on the table. Yeah, Gates has been good with philanthropy, but I fair criticism of some of that work has been that ultimately its self promoting. Open Source tech is free (as in beer) for all, but it doesn't fit the Gates/Microsoft world view.

Sorry

[MagickalMyst]

It's too late for atonement.

Re:Ugh? Really?

[subanark]

Microsoft's Azure allows you to easily create VMs that run Windows or Linux (there are quite a few Linux distros you can choose from if you don't want to install your own). The price savings you get for running Linux over Windows is roughly the same that other cloud companies offer.

Doesn't sound like lock-in to me.

Nice, but ...

[nospam007]

I'll wait for the next version with less bugs.

The name isn't catchy enough

[cyber-vandal]

I suggest MisAnthropies.

significant medical efforts in Africa

[peter303]

Even if the Clintons skim the top with expensive speeches. Mixed feelings here.

Re:Need some Zunes, Surface RTs and Windows phones

[PopeRatzo]

I'll take a Zune HD 64gig. It's the best portable mp3 player ever sold.

Just like Gate's charity

[WindBourne]

This is NOT about Charity, but about finding new ways to improve public image of the company and increase Microsoft Sales. Gate's Charity has always tied MS sales to his money. Total BS.

Windows 10...

[iampiti]

should not count as a donation since we all know Ms wants lots of people in their ecosystem at whatever price.

Re:LOL Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, about a charity and we should all thank them. NOT. The One Laptop Per Child( OLPC ) was/is about charity too but in came Microsoft to save the day and shut down their sales with exclusive(can ONLY run Microsoft Windows ) contracts with each government the OLPC had MOU's with. And they also came up with Windows on OLPC which was worthless, had one Microsfot employee on the project yada yada yada. Microsoft sucks and a Microsoft charity is not a charity, it's a front for spreading their product and preventing the spread of others at all costs and expense. Now what's not to love about them?

"we are so wonderful, we give out WNX for FREE!"

[swschrad]

just one example... tried to change ink cartridges in the wife's Win10 laptop last night. the utility was built into the driver.

got auto-hijacked into Win10 two months ago.

the driver now has no features.

just. one. example. 98SE was miles ahead of Win 10. and they didn't spy on you all day and night, either, "for FREE!"

Microsoft has a heart...and "corporate personhood"

[LongArcher]

All US corporations enjoy the privilege of corporate personhood; as such, they can claim a number of individual rights, although the US Supreme Court has not (yet) recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis (at this time). In theory if not fact, a corporation's authorized representatives can engage in felonious conduct for which the corporation itself may be later held solely responsible, since these individuals may often exercise their right against self-incrimination (as well as retain the best legal counsel the corporation's money can buy).

In practice, to my knowledge, no convicted US corporation has ever been incarcerated, although such a corporation may be allowed to plead guilty, pay a fine and accept some kind of regulatory oversight (of which the corporation should have been subject to but evaded all along) or, alternatively, the corporation can pay a fine and admit no wrongdoing. Occasionally, corporate legal counsel can successfully petition the court that an adverse judgement regarding the corporation's latest transgression be sealed to avoid public scrutiny. Regardless, the same authorized representatives of a convicted corporation that may have acted illegally on behalf of that corporation may escape retribution or even scrutiny with their reputations unscathed, while remaining upstanding members of the national and global community. A recent and notable exception to this trend may be Don Blankenship.

In the end, as a result of public life or notoriety or both, the general public tends to remember the last thing one does, as an individual or as a corporation...so it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to start a charity...well played ladies and gentlemen!

Re:Here is an idea...

[art123]

Microsoft revenue has grown every single year since 1995 except for one 4% dip in 2009. They have also paid a dividend for the last 13 years including their highest dividend earlier this year.

Re:Here is an idea...

[packrat0x]

How about funding their pension obligations to Microsoft employees?

Re:Ugh? Really?

[wyHunter]

Nobody says the work'll be done in the USA or Europe. It won't. This is an attempt to grow the next offshoring destinations, now that India is getting expensive.