Because something is easy to do with a GUI does NOT mean that it makes maintenance or support easier.
Text files are easy to copy from machine to machine.
They take more time to learn, but on you learn them, your support time and expense DROPS. With Windows, it is un-install, re-boot, re-install, re-boot again?, did that fix it?
With Linux it is, compare the files and copy over the text file.
#1. State your scenario. (example: corporate website serving static and dynamic content from database).
#2. Determine what platforms you want to compare.
#3. Get teams for each platform.
#4. Give each team the same amount of money and time and let them solve the problem however they see fit. This will allow each platform to demonstrate its strengths.
#5. Have the other teams evaluate the problems in each solution.
"Actually no, if you insist on using terms from a court of law the correct term for what someone says is "testimomy". If their testimony is that someone else said they witnessed something that the witness himself did not witness - THAT is "hearsay"."
And what we have is someone (Bush) saying that someone has told him that they witnessed something. That is hearsay.
"IF on the other hand we invade that safe haven and turn it into a roiling mess of civil war and ethnic rivalries where they can still find some recruits but are also constantly getting shot at and and bombed whenever the congregate that is Good for us and bad for them."
So you're saying that we should continue bombing Afghanistan?
And you don't believe that such practice will make MORE people hate us?
Or do we now have bombs that can distinguish between "enemy of the US" and "innocent civilian"? I don't believe we do.
Which is why the Taliban and al Queda are having an easy time recruiting in Afghanistan.
"The second situation is the worst case scenario in Afghanistan at this point. Even a complete failure of the Afghan state is better for us in our war on terror than a hostile state that was succeeding and providing safe harbor for our enemies."
If by "better" you mean "breeding the next generation of people with a hatred of the US" then I'd have to agree with you. Now, look at what just 20 of those people did to the WTC.
"You completely undermine all your other points when you exhibit such ignorance of recent history. "
Is see a lot of military targets there, but I don't see them targetting Saddam.
"It also strains your credibility when you dismiss as mere speculation the idea that Saddam had an interest in seeing the U.S. forces leave Saudi Arabia."
Why? I'm sure Saddam would be happy to see the US leave Saudi Arabia.
I'm also sure that, prior to the current war, the German and French and Russian heads of state would be happy to see Bush impeached.
Being happy about seeing something happen does NOT mean that you're working with someone to make it happen.
And your claim is that Saddam was working with Osama to get the US out of Saudi Arabia.
"Sure, I suppose (there I go with the "suppositions") that Saddam COULD be one of those rare heads of state that really doesn't care if there are hostile troops on his border, blocking his ports, shooting down his aircraft, bombing his air-bases, AAA positions and intelligence offices. Perhaps he actually LIKED it despite his loud verbal opposition, violent rhetoric and threats."
Maybe. If you want to believe that, that's your option.
"Sure it is a supposition that Saddam wanted the Americans to leave - it is on the same level of supposition that you are engaging in when you say Iraqi's want us to leave now."
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
Right now we have ACTIVE ATTACKS against US forces in Iraq by Iraqis.
You have NOT shown ANY attack by Iraqi forces on ANY US forces NOT in Iraq.
"Speaking of suppositions, I don't see anything in this statement that precludes bin Laden's ability to form temporary alliances of convenience with those that don't share his fanatical religious views."
Just his history of never doing so. He has taken weapons and money but he has not fought for any cause other than his own.
"ou are SUPPOSING that such an alliance is simply impossible but there is no reason to suppose any such thing and plenty of reasons to suppose the alternative."
No, it is possible. But you have NOT presented ANY evidence that such has happened. All you have is supposition. Meanwhile, Osama's history has shown that he does NOT form such alliances.
"Bin Laden HAS had relationships with those he quite openly considered apostate (the house of Saud, Musharef, etc.) or even pagans (ourselves) it is a HUGE leap into speculation to think that his religious belief that once allowed such interaction now forbids it."
Don't blame me. It was from you. And I quote: "You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist."
"No, there are plenty of undemocratic and not particularly stable regimes which are perfectly willing to crack down on Al Queada."
Maybe. But I don't see that happening in Afghanistan. Not with the old Taliban regrouping and with with al Queda still recruiting there.
"Any regime other than a reconstituted Taliban would see Al Queada as a threat and repress them."
Really? I think you're wrong because Pakistan has helped the Taliban in the past and al Queda people have taken refuge in Pakistan. Not to mention that members of the House of Saud have been donating money to charities that have been fronts for al Queda.
"At the very worst Afghanistan will devolve into a splintered mess of ethnic rivalries and continuous civil war (which seems to be Afghanistan's natural state) if Al Quaeda attempts to take advantage of this chaos it will be an opportunity for a "fly paper" free-kill zone strategy on our part with plenty of local proxies willing to do the real dirty work for us."
I'm having a bit of trouble extracting the content from the jingoism there.
Are you saying that we'd bomb Afghanistan?
"Much better for us than the relative stability that provided a safe haven and state support for Al Queada before."
Now take a look at the Palestinians and Israelis to see how well a process such as that works.
"Fine, I chose my terms poorly - still I hope you get my point."
Your "point" is that all we have is circumstantial evidence and hearsay (that's the correct term for what someone says).
My point is that we had circumstantial evidence and hearsay that Saddam had "WMD's" that he could launch in 45 minutes and after Bush's hand-picked "expert", David Kay, spent $900 MILLION and over 1,000 inspectors, he finally gave up and said that he finally believed that there weren't any "WMD's".
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay is worthless.
"My point was that while it would not hold up in a court of law it is the kind of "indications" that are usually the most you ever get in the field of intelligence."
Wrong. We did better than that back in the Cuban Missile Crisis and that was how many years ago?
"There was certainly enough evidence of either sort that though we never had incontrovertible proof it was enough to convince the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration that such a relationship existed."
So you keep claiming. Yet Clinton lobbed missles at Osama, but none at Saddam.
"Umm... firing missiles at jets enforcing the no-fly zone?"
Firing on aircraft in Iraqi airspace is NOT doing anything about anything in Saudi Arabia.
Try again.
"You are aware of the mission of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia - they were there to enforce a no fly zone and the embargo."
Wow. And some of those pilots came from New York! That's IT!!! Saddam WAS involved in the WTC attack!
Again, shooting at planes in Iraqi airspace does NOTHING about anything or anyone in Saudi Arabia.
"Saadam was not in much of a position to do anything about them but it was certainly in his interests to do something."
Wow, that's the SECOND time you've tried to use supposition as evidence.
It didn't work last time and it isn't going to work this time.
"Which answers the question of why he would want to support Al Queada which WAS doing something about them."
That's the THIRD time you've tried to use supposition as evidence.
"No you start with numerous defectors from the Baathist regime categorically stating that such a relationship exists - and with the realization that such a relationship makes sense for the two parties concerned."
Again with the hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
"In this case India is showing that they have a competitive advantage in programming. They can produce code at the required level and do it for FAR less than the American programmer."
Yep. They work for less. That's the race to the bottom.
"The Indian salary will not remain static."
Well, we're pumping money into their economy so they'll see an increase, that is correct.
"As the number of jobs and the complexity of the problems increase (remember, workers are a market just like anything else) the salary will begin to rise."
Maybe. But doesn't that pre-suppose that there will eventually be more jobs than programmers and that the jobs will become more complex?
"As the rest of the economy begins to feel the benefits of this economic boon in India, more and more IT workers will begin to do other things."
I don't see this. If the IT sector is making money, why move out of it? Unless some other sector is making even MORE money?
"Eventually the global market will achieve Equilibrium and the competitive advantage will close."
That's the "bottom". The lowest price you can pay someone to do the work.
In order for that factor to INCREASE you have to have MORE JOBS than programmers. Which I do not see happening.
"We talk about how these theories are untested, well we've seen the results of this same phenemenon in auto manufacturing."
Different. It costs money and time to move cars.
"After all, remember all of those car building jobs we 'lost' two decades ago? Well, they're coming back in droves."
The ones I see "coming back" are in Mexico where the parts are assembled and shipped up to the US.
Making a car is not the same as assembling a car.
The US does not make many cars anymore.
"The Japanese auto makers are now turning to American labor to build those same cars, as the Japanese workers salary has now surpassed the American auto workers salary.. factor in the cost of shipping those cars across the ocean and American labor makes a ton of sense for that field."
It's cheaper to hire someone to assemble a car in Mexico (NAFTA) and ship it up to the US than to assemble the car in Japan and ship it to the US.
Now look at our old auto cities. Massive unemployment, still. The jobs are gone.
It's easy for a company to send the work to India.
But it is hard for the US worker to follow that job.
"I'm willing to bet that as far as possessions go, the average unemployed computer geek is significanlty better off than the Indian worker who "stole" his job."
How so? Unless you count living at home because you can't find a job as "better off".
"Fact #1: Your method of dissecting posts down to their individual component phrases and analyzing and responding to each one as if it stands independently of the rest and has no surrounding context is FUCKING ANNOYING and makes it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion which makes talking to you a waste of time."
I feel your pain. It must be very sad to live your life.
"Each of your "facts" is total bullshit backed up with nothing but selective criticism and emotion."
His wealth is a fact. His contributions are a fact. Are you arguing with the mathematical average?
"In an argument with someone who rips up my throwaway sentences as if they were my central theses and is blind to my posts as wholes, what can I do but call them a jerkoff in response?"
Your whole position is a "throwaway". That isn't my fault.
"Please see here for a good example of how to structure an argument and support it with "facts and logic" (the real kind, not your kind)."
Nice. So that means that you FINALLY see that Bill Gates is NOT the great person you claimed he was at the beginning?
Why do I have the feeling that you'll STILL argue that point? Despite all the evidence presented in both these threads.
Whether you call someone a "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" doesn't matter. The winner gets to choose the terms and who goes in what category. And we aren't the winners in Iraq.
"We have already won in Afghanistan. Our goal was to root out a particular enemy (Al Queada) having Afghanistan become stable, peaceful and contented is a secondary goal - nice if it happens and worth trying to achieve but in the end not of terribly high importance to us."
Wrong. If we don't turn Afghanistan into a stable, peaceful Democracy, al Queda will be back. They're still recruiting and fighting there.
"These bits of evidence (and others) are undisputed, they are reliable in and of themselves, but as evidence of a relationship they are only circumstantial."
You have trouble telling a "fact" from "evidence". Not all facts are evidence. Therefore, you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable". You can have a fact and that fact can be "circumstantial evidence". Or you can have evidence that is "highly reliable". But you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable".
"They were BOTH particularly focussed on ending the American presence in Saudi Arabia."
Really? Where is the evidence that Saddam did anything to end it?
If he didn't do anything about it, then he doesn't seem "particularly focussed" on it to me.
"It would be incredible if they didn't at least consider coordinating their efforts to bring that about."
Now you're confusing evidence with supposition.
"He did work with the ISI which despite it's religious factions was part of an "apostate" government (they had a woman president for Allah's sake!)"
And I've already been over Pakistan's support of the Taliban which shared Osama's view.
Your "evidence" sounds about as good as the "evidence" that Iraq could launch "WMD's" in 45 minutes or less.
You start with a supposition (Osama and Saddam were cooperating) and then you pick "evidence" that supports that (in your mind).
That's the same practice that turned the 45 minute claim into "WMD's will be found any day now" into "WMD's will be found eventually" into "he had WMD programs" into "he was developing WMD programs" into "he wanted WMD programs" into "WMD's weren't the reason we went to war. Saddam was a bad man."
But, then, I'll never be able to convince a conspiracy nut that no conspiracy existed.
If everyone at the school is using OpenOffice, then collaboration shouldn't be a problem. I find.pdf files are best for outside collaboration, anyway.
As for the kids, once they learn the concepts (mouse, keyboard skills, icons, etc), then they can pick up a different platform in a few hours.
Which is different from learning to type of one keyboard and then re-learning on a different keyboard. I can teach someone to use a computer in 16 hours. I can't teach someone to type that quickly.
I can teach someone a different word processor (basic functions) in 2 hours (5 people per class). Advanced functions in 8 hours (same 5 people).
The kids can learn more and more quickly than you believe.
Once we leave and civil war is over, the people you term "terrorists" will be the "freedom fighters" if their side wins. That's how it goes. They fought against the US invasion and killed US sympathizers.
Just as we bomb buildings which house "terrorists" and "terrorist allies". But we are the "good guys" when we do it.
"They are members of an ethnic minority and a fascist political party fighting to preserve their own supremacy over the ethnic majority - I think "freedom fighter" is too kind a term, they are NOT in fact fighting for "freedom.""
They are fighting against the foreign invader (us).
Just as our Revolutionary War heros are "Freedom Fighters" to us (even though they owned slaves and women had no rights) and Benedict Arnold is a "traitor".
Which is the PROBLEM when you go to "war" against labels. Which is why we won't succeed in Iraq (the same as we're losing in Afghanistan).
"I will allow that it is not shown that he had pursued a relationship with Al Quaeda specifically his relationship with terrorist groups in general is NOT controversial."
"terrorist groups in general"? Again with the labels. If you can't identify your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him.
Saudi Arabia has more VERIFIABLE ties to "terrorist groups in general" and al Queda IN SPECIFIC. But they aren't being invaded.
Even the US has a history of providing funding and weapons to terrorist groups in South America.
"in general" is NOT sufficient to invade a country.
"But we were all assured that "everyone lies about sex" and that Clinton was the soul of truthfulness about anything substantive... I'm shocked;)."
So, that sounds like you don't believe what Clinton said, yet what Clinton said was used as support in the previous post. It doesn't go both ways.
"I have know way of knowing the quality of intel that went into the Clinton administration claims about an Iraq/Al Queada relationship."
Sure you do. The same reports SHOULD have been available to Bush and Co. After all, the CIA wasn't disbanded when Clinton left office.
"What has come out into public domain looks like a lot of highly reliable evidence of a merely circumstantial nature and a lot of very concrete evidence but of unknown reliability - Stuff that wouldn't hold up in a court of law but is the stock in trade of intelligence agencies."
Nice try. But using antonyms doesn't fool anyone.
If it was highly reliable, it was not circumstantial.
If it was concrete, it was not of unknown reliability.
"Really? why?"
Because Hamas is focused on Palestinian/Israeli issues. NOT on Iraq's issues. In order to move the Muslims to support Iraq, he'd have to make it a RELIGIOUS point. Which is what al Queda is all about.
"But it is headed by a secularist, and you don't address the fact that Bin Laden was more than willing to deal with the U.S. during the war against the Soviets."
Osama was willing to take the money and weapons, but his actions were STILL about getting the invaders out of that area. He fought against the Soviets and, when they left, he fought against the US.
The US supported Osama, Osama did not support the US.
"He was also willing to fight for the Saudi's against Iraq even though he considers them to be apostate."
Again, Osama is RELIGIOUS and Saddam is SECULAR. Fighting against invaders and secular governments is Osama's deal.
"Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist - but he has shown over and over that he is willing to work in temporary alliances with those who he despises against common enemies."
He is not an idiot. But he does have very deeply held beliefs.
He would NOT fight BOTH the US and the Soviets AT THE SAME TIME.
But, once one enemy is defeated, he will turn on the other enemy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is NOT something Osama believes.
And that is why the US has so many problems dealing with him and people like him. In the US, profit is everything. It doesn't matter how different your "partner's" values are, as long as you can make cash on the deal.
Which is why the Taliban was hosted IN TEXAS during Bush's reign there.
Bombing UN, Red Cross and police stations, possibly "terrorist". On the other hand, those organizations are viewed as supporting the US. Which is why we needed to prep them for Democracy before we went in.
As for being "freedom fighters", they're fighting against the foreign invaders (us).
When we botch the transference (not "if" in my opinion), we'll see a violent civil war with each group trying to establish itself. Whichever group wins that will be labeled "patriots" and the other groups will be labeled "traitors" or "oppressors". Just like in the US's war for independence.
As for the next regime being more democratic, maybe. But I don't believe it will last that long. I believe that there will be a civil war and that the US will back one faction.
But Saddam did not have broad Muslim support in the First Gulf War. No matter how much he tried to associate himself with Islam, the other people didn't believe it. That's why we had a lot of mid-east nations on our side.
"Of all the state sponsors of terrorism there are good arguments to be made that Iraq was the most immediately threatening."
But Iraq was not threatening to anyone. Even its neighbors didn't view it as a threat.
"Unlike the others Iraq was in direct conflict with the U.S. - we were imposing the embargo, the no-fly zone, occasional cruise missile attacks by the Clinton administration."
I think you've got that turned around a bit. It reads like the US was in direct conflict with Iraq and Iraq didn't have much it could do about it.
"I think it is reasonable to assume that Saadams main interest in pursuing relationships with terrorists was to use them as a weapon against his immediate enemy - the U.S. rather than against Israel as is the case with Syria, or as a way to promote a religious doctrine throughout the middle east as is the case with Iran."
I think you need to show that Saddam was pusuing relationships with terrorists first.
"And I think it is still likely that Iraq's support for terrorism included at least a nascent relationship with Al Queada."
Even Bush won't push that claim anymore.
"It was the Clinton administration that first alleged direct ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda."
Clinton also lied about a blowjob.
"He had started to support Islamist groups like Hamas so Al Quaeda's religious nature was no barrier to him."
But it was a barrier.
"For Bin Laden's part he has always been more than willing to use "infidel" allies against his enemy of the moment - hell, he allied with US against the soviets and was pretty tight with Pakistan until very recently (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Armitiges first conversation with Musharef right after 9/11)."
Pakistan has at least a few religious fundamentalists in its government. Pakistan even had good relations with the Taliban. It seems that there are al Queda hides in Pakistan at times.
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance". They are fighting against our occupation of their country. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be attacking us.
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches." -and- "I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."
Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.
The lobbying, easy, it is done by the engineers at the companies making the phone.
The marketing, easy, it is done by the marketing department of the people who make the phone. Who cares what OS it runs (aside from lots of people here)? As long as it does run.
The cash, easy, that's a trick question. Linux is also free like beer. Well, there might be some work involved by the programmers at the various companies, but they've had most of the work already handed to them for free.:)
"If you had looked at the chart, you would have seen that the vast majority of the donations took place from 1998 onwards and the really big ones didn't start happening until 1999. Nice try at distorting the facts though, I would have expected no less from you."
So, he's only recently turned into the nice person you believe he is. But he had LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of money back in 1997. So I'll just average it over 10 years. That $7 Billion over 10 years which is.... $700 million per year.
So, 1.75% of his wealth was donated per year.
That sounds like table scraps when he's worth $40 Billion.
Your "Robin Hood" takes from EVERYONE (including children's schools) and KEEPS 98%+ of it for himself.
But that's just fine with you because you know that if he gave, oh, say 10% of his wealth, he might not have enough money.
It's really GOOD that he keeps 98%+ of that money and those kids' schools have to cough up money for those software licenses because Bill will INVEST that money and then dole out 1.75% of it back to them.
"Bill Gates has a choice. He could spend everything at once, and end up with very little."
Oooooh, that's what we call one of them "logical fallacies".
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
He has a LOT more options, but he CHOOSES to only give 1.75% of his money and you think this is a good thing.
"First of all, the range of problems Bill Gates is capable of "solving" is actually quite limited."
Keep believing that.
"Secondly, just because Bill Gates doesn't "solve" everything he can by spending everything he has right this instant, it doesn't mean he thinks "it's best not to solve any" problems.""
I don't know whether he believes it or not, but that was YOUR position on the subject.
"I have no idea what he thinks, but Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, all major political parties, Cato, Rand, PNAC, Heritage, you name it, all have substantial cash reserves on hand, just like the Bill Gates Foundation."
Political parties are NOT charitable organizations. Why are you including them?
"Why don't they spend everything they have this very instant to solve problems?!?!?"
Again with the logical fallacy. Spending enough to solve a problem is not the same as spending all of your money.
Your "Robin Hood" keeps 98%+ of what he takes.
"Oh but we are discussing you, Mr. Khasim!"
Oh but we are not. My name is not Bill Gates. Please just TRY to work with the FACTS.
"You should consider yourself highly involved in any kind of discussion in which you demonize a man who has donated more in 10 years than you could make in a dozen lifetimes."
I'm pointing out that he gained that cash ILLEGALLY and then is so MISERLY that he only donates 1.75% of it.
But you believe that because he has SO MUCH CASH that it must be GOOD. After all, it is SO MUCH CASH. Even if it is taken from children's schools and city budgets (for fire fighters and police and so forth).
"The key phrase here is not "straw man" but "flaming hypocrite.""
I'll put up my 35% against his 1.75%. I have LESS than he does but I give a LARGER percentage.
Do you even KNOW what "hypocrite" means?
"It's OK to criticize Bill Gates if you think he's not doing enough, but not without equally criticizing yourself... unless you think your donation of 35% of your after-taxes December income is going to buy you a shining halo and a first-class ticket to Heaven."
There isn't any Heaven. Sorry to shatter another of your illusions. No absolutes, no Heaven.
"On the other hand, you seem happy to ignore the thousands of local and worldwide jobs Microsoft and Gates have created (and they are notorious for treating their employees well) and the massive wealth they've produced for the millions of people who own their stock (including vast numbers of the middle class)."
Microsoft does not produce wealth for people who own their stock. Microsoft only R
Your chart goes back 10 years. Big diff 'tween $7 Billion in 4 years and $7 Billion in 10 years. The 10 year figure supports my position.
"Tracing current and past data to show possible future trends."
Is an exercise in futility. Who cares what POSSIBLE future trends are?
"I know that's what you're saying. And what I'm saying is WHO CARES."
Obviously not you. But it does show that Bill is not the generous person you claim he is.
"Now let me explain why it would be very stupid for any charity to blow their wad all at once and not keep a sizable treasure chest on hand."
Don't bother. I understand investments. Very well.
"It doles out money carefully, in reasonable sums, over time, while keeping the rest of its assets invested."
Again, this is a valid approach ONLY if you are interested in keeping problems around so you can "donate" to them.
"Or it could spend $25 billion today and have nothing in 2104."
Again, you have a problem with facts so you'll stick to extrapolations. I do not have a problem with facts and I understand extrapolations are nothing more than fantasies.
"Because although Bill Gates is the richest man alive he does not have enough money to solve all the world's problems."
If you can't solve them ALL, it's best not to solve ANY?
Sorry, I don't agree with your "logic" on that one.
"And you propose to "deal with" this problem how? Computers in libraries will ALWAYS be a problem because computers will ALWAYS break and get obsolete."
So, you believe that the "problem" was "there are not enough computers in libraries".
I, on the other hand believe that "putting computers in libraries" is the approach taken to solving the real problem.
Even if that WERE the problem, partially solving it still sounds like "a problem" to me.
Again, his foundation is making MORE MONEY than it donates, but isn't solving ANY problem COMPLETELY.
"$5 is an absolute. 5% is a percentage."
$5 is $5. 5% is a percentage. They are not absolutes.
"But dear khasim, I've already shown that Gates gives away more money - both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of his assets - than, for example, you do. Which is even more than most other people do."
No you have not. You keep claiming this, but you have NOT shown it.
"I think you are exactly right here. But I also think that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, which is to say that YOU could donate more too. 35% of your December income?"
Nice try. But I'm too wise to fall for that strawman. We're discussing Gates, not myself.
Again, PLEASE TRY to stick to the facts. It isn't that hard.
"I will grant you that yes, Bill Gates' company has engaged in illegal business practices, but I would say that the good he has done, especially with regards to his philanthropy, outweighs the bad by a pretty substantial amount, making him deserving of a knighthood, to get back on topic."
And that is your opinion. Which you are unable to support with any facts.
My opinion is that Robin Hood, who takes from the children (see MS's school license program here) and buys himself a nice house with the money, then gives back a portion of the money to one family is NOT doing something good.
Take a look at various governments and how much they pay MS (which is where Bill gets his money). Those governments have to TAX more to pay Bill. Either that or cut back on schools and police and fire departments.
So, Robin Hood takes from everyone, builds a nice castle, hires servants, etc, then gives back a LOWER PERCENTAGE than others.
Somehow, I don't see Robin Hood as being "good" when he keeps 99%+ of the money.
"Only 35%? The net worth of the Bill Gates Foundation is roughly 60% of Bill Gates'."
But ONE of the differences is that I no longer have control over the 35% I donated. Bill still controls ALL of the money that his foundation has.
"In the 4 years it's been in existence, it has donated a little over $7 billion."
That's downright AMAZING because their books don't show that number. They must have more than DOUBLED their contributions in the 2 years that aren't shown.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/a nn ualreports/annualreport02/finGrants.htm
It also seems that they're taking in MORE money then they're GIVING out.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/a nn ualreports/annualreport02/finActivities.htm
"If we trace this as a linear trend,...."
Can you TRY to restrict yourself to FACTS? No extrapolations, no guesses, no promises about what MAY happen, just the facts.
The facts SHOULD be enough for you to make your case.
"And yet you criticise him for not doing enough."
What I'm doing is pointing out that the amount of money he is giving is NOT THAT MUCH when it is calculated as a PERCENTAGE of his income.
When it is calculated as a PERCENTAGE of his income, then you can see how much MORE other people have given. Regular people. People who don't have billions of dollars at their disposal.
"Well, fair enough, he could always do more - but let's try to get some perspective here shall we? Maybe even a little credit where credit is due?"
Have you missed my posts? That is EXACTLY what I have been doing.
"You've got $25 billion and you want to get the most out of it - do you spend it all at once or do you spend it slowly over time, keeping the remainder held in investments? YOU would spend it all at once, because you're an idiot, but a wise investor would not."
This is NOT AN INVESTMENT. Unless you're investing in having charitable causes.
This is about FIXING PROBLEMS. You don't fix a problem by investing money that could be spent on fixing that problem.
Here's an easy example, his "challenge grants". That's where his foundation will give 2x the amount of money raised by local efforts.
So, your library needs computers. If you raise $5,000, Bill will give you $10,000.
Well, that's nice. But it doesn't really SOLVE THE PROBLEM does it? Why not determine how much money it would cost to put enough computers in those libraries and just DO IT?
Again, his foundation is taking in more money than it is spending so it isn't a cash flow issue.
If there aren't enough computers in those libraries today, and he doesn't give enough money to put enough computers in there, then what use is the investment you're talking about? Whatever the PROBLEM was that would have been SOLVED by putting sufficient computers in those libraries will still be a PROBLEM because it wasn't completely dealt with.
"The problem is that you are thinking in terms of percentages whereas I am thinking in terms of absolutes."
There are no absolutes in this world. Deal with it.
"Bill Gates hasn't donated enough of a percentage of his income. Well see, the thing is, percentages don't matter."
Yes they do. What is $5/week to someone with $50K is over $200 MILLION to Bill. So just looking at those big numbers is not enough.
"Burger King Worker makes $10k per year and donates 10% of it - that's $1k. Pro Athelete makes $1m and donates 1% of it - 1/10 what BKW does! - and that's still 10x more than what BKW donates."
Fascinating. You've managed to FINALLY re-state my INITIAL POSTING.
"PA is doing more good than BKW."
Well, that assumes that both contributions go to equivalent "good" causes and are used in the same fashion. But I'm willing to allow that.
"Note that I'm not saying PA is a BETTER PERSON than BKW - he may well be an ruthless lying asshole like Bill Gates."
I was mod'ed up because it was "insightful". Deal with it.
I was using those numbers as an example of how the PERCENTAGE works out.
Here they are again, slightly corrected.
Someone making $50,000 a year give $5 a week at church.
$5/week = $260 / year
Which is.52% of $50,000.
Now, if we're talking about $1 billion, then the $5 equivalent is....... $5.2 MILLION per year.
So don't let the SIZE of the numbers fool you (as they obviously have with you). Look at all the factors. What percentage of his wealth he donates and what form the donations come in. It's easy for him to transfer a lot of Microsoft stock to his foundation because Microsoft gives him a LOT of stock.
"Only to someone massively jealous and ashamed of his own inferiority is a charitable organization having donated over $7 billion of grants and with $25 billion in assets pandering "table scraps.""
What their ASSETS are, in this case, supports my position. They have $25 billion in assets AND they're supposed to be a CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, but they only donate $7 billion?
So, they donate $7 billion BUT KEEP $25 billion?
That seems to support my position.
"Actually by my count the BGF is by far the largest philanthropic organization ever."
So? Bill Gates also has the MOST MONEY IN THE WORLD.
If it were otherwise, that would be complete validation for my point.
"Obviously I would expect, and anyone should expect, Mr. Gates to put his money where his mouth is regarding his pledge to eventually donate the vast majority of his assets over time, but given his track record I don't see any reason to doubt him, since he's giving away more tens of millions every week, on average."
Read "The Road Ahead" sometime. It's "written" by Bill. Make sure you find a FIRST EDITION of it, also. Then read the LATER EDITIONS and notice how the story has changed.
Or, you could try reading up on the Netscape vs Microsoft trial and listening to what Bill said UNDER DEPOSITION about whether he actually "sent" an email or not.:)
"Why should he immediately give away everything he has just to please your sorry ass?"
Now my ass is sorry? Try not jumping on the strawman bandwagon.
I didn't say he should give away everything. I said that he didn't even notice the money he was giving away. The same as someone making $50,000 a year wouldn't notice $5 every Sunday in the church collection plate.
Please TRY to keep your facts straight.
"People like you will never be satisfied - Gates could jump in a river to save a drowning girl and not make it in time and you would bitterly accuse him of letting her drown, too concerned with his own life to swim faster."
Please, lay off the crack for 24 hours before you try to post something. You aren't making any sense and you've lost all track of any facts.
"What have you done for the world lately, Sir Khasim The Righteous?"
Donated 35% of my December income (after taxes) to the FosStars progam.
Slashdot Mirror
Because something is easy to do with a GUI does NOT mean that it makes maintenance or support easier.
Text files are easy to copy from machine to machine.
They take more time to learn, but on you learn them, your support time and expense DROPS. With Windows, it is un-install, re-boot, re-install, re-boot again?, did that fix it?
With Linux it is, compare the files and copy over the text file.
And it is easy to do that remotely.
#1. State your scenario. (example: corporate website serving static and dynamic content from database).
#2. Determine what platforms you want to compare.
#3. Get teams for each platform.
#4. Give each team the same amount of money and time and let them solve the problem however they see fit. This will allow each platform to demonstrate its strengths.
#5. Have the other teams evaluate the problems in each solution.
"Actually no, if you insist on using terms from a court of law the correct term for what someone says is "testimomy". If their testimony is that someone else said they witnessed something that the witness himself did not witness - THAT is "hearsay"."
And what we have is someone (Bush) saying that someone has told him that they witnessed something. That is hearsay.
"IF on the other hand we invade that safe haven and turn it into a roiling mess of civil war and ethnic rivalries where they can still find some recruits but are also constantly getting shot at and and bombed whenever the congregate that is Good for us and bad for them."
So you're saying that we should continue bombing Afghanistan?
And you don't believe that such practice will make MORE people hate us?
Or do we now have bombs that can distinguish between "enemy of the US" and "innocent civilian"? I don't believe we do.
Which is why the Taliban and al Queda are having an easy time recruiting in Afghanistan.
"The second situation is the worst case scenario in Afghanistan at this point. Even a complete failure of the Afghan state is better for us in our war on terror than a hostile state that was succeeding and providing safe harbor for our enemies."
If by "better" you mean "breeding the next generation of people with a hatred of the US" then I'd have to agree with you. Now, look at what just 20 of those people did to the WTC.
"You completely undermine all your other points when you exhibit such ignorance of recent history. "
Is see a lot of military targets there, but I don't see them targetting Saddam.
"It also strains your credibility when you dismiss as mere speculation the idea that Saddam had an interest in seeing the U.S. forces leave Saudi Arabia."
Why? I'm sure Saddam would be happy to see the US leave Saudi Arabia.
I'm also sure that, prior to the current war, the German and French and Russian heads of state would be happy to see Bush impeached.
Being happy about seeing something happen does NOT mean that you're working with someone to make it happen.
And your claim is that Saddam was working with Osama to get the US out of Saudi Arabia.
"Sure, I suppose (there I go with the "suppositions") that Saddam COULD be one of those rare heads of state that really doesn't care if there are hostile troops on his border, blocking his ports, shooting down his aircraft, bombing his air-bases, AAA positions and intelligence offices. Perhaps he actually LIKED it despite his loud verbal opposition, violent rhetoric and threats."
Maybe. If you want to believe that, that's your option.
"Sure it is a supposition that Saddam wanted the Americans to leave - it is on the same level of supposition that you are engaging in when you say Iraqi's want us to leave now."
BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
Right now we have ACTIVE ATTACKS against US forces in Iraq by Iraqis.
You have NOT shown ANY attack by Iraqi forces on ANY US forces NOT in Iraq.
"Speaking of suppositions, I don't see anything in this statement that precludes bin Laden's ability to form temporary alliances of convenience with those that don't share his fanatical religious views."
Just his history of never doing so. He has taken weapons and money but he has not fought for any cause other than his own.
"ou are SUPPOSING that such an alliance is simply impossible but there is no reason to suppose any such thing and plenty of reasons to suppose the alternative."
No, it is possible. But you have NOT presented ANY evidence that such has happened. All you have is supposition. Meanwhile, Osama's history has shown that he does NOT form such alliances.
"Bin Laden HAS had relationships with those he quite openly considered apostate (the house of Saud, Musharef, etc.) or even pagans (ourselves) it is a HUGE leap into speculation to think that his religious belief that once allowed such interaction now forbids it."
Don't blame me. It was from you. And I quote:
"You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist."
"No, there are plenty of undemocratic and not particularly stable regimes which are perfectly willing to crack down on Al Queada."
Maybe. But I don't see that happening in Afghanistan. Not with the old Taliban regrouping and with with al Queda still recruiting there.
"Any regime other than a reconstituted Taliban would see Al Queada as a threat and repress them."
Really? I think you're wrong because Pakistan has helped the Taliban in the past and al Queda people have taken refuge in Pakistan. Not to mention that members of the House of Saud have been donating money to charities that have been fronts for al Queda.
"At the very worst Afghanistan will devolve into a splintered mess of ethnic rivalries and continuous civil war (which seems to be Afghanistan's natural state) if Al Quaeda attempts to take advantage of this chaos it will be an opportunity for a "fly paper" free-kill zone strategy on our part with plenty of local proxies willing to do the real dirty work for us."
I'm having a bit of trouble extracting the content from the jingoism there.
Are you saying that we'd bomb Afghanistan?
"Much better for us than the relative stability that provided a safe haven and state support for Al Queada before."
Now take a look at the Palestinians and Israelis to see how well a process such as that works.
"Fine, I chose my terms poorly - still I hope you get my point."
Your "point" is that all we have is circumstantial evidence and hearsay (that's the correct term for what someone says).
My point is that we had circumstantial evidence and hearsay that Saddam had "WMD's" that he could launch in 45 minutes and after Bush's hand-picked "expert", David Kay, spent $900 MILLION and over 1,000 inspectors, he finally gave up and said that he finally believed that there weren't any "WMD's".
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay is worthless.
"My point was that while it would not hold up in a court of law it is the kind of "indications" that are usually the most you ever get in the field of intelligence."
Wrong. We did better than that back in the Cuban Missile Crisis and that was how many years ago?
"There was certainly enough evidence of either sort that though we never had incontrovertible proof it was enough to convince the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration that such a relationship existed."
So you keep claiming. Yet Clinton lobbed missles at Osama, but none at Saddam.
"Umm... firing missiles at jets enforcing the no-fly zone?"
Firing on aircraft in Iraqi airspace is NOT doing anything about anything in Saudi Arabia.
Try again.
"You are aware of the mission of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia - they were there to enforce a no fly zone and the embargo."
Wow. And some of those pilots came from New York! That's IT!!! Saddam WAS involved in the WTC attack!
Again, shooting at planes in Iraqi airspace does NOTHING about anything or anyone in Saudi Arabia.
"Saadam was not in much of a position to do anything about them but it was certainly in his interests to do something."
Wow, that's the SECOND time you've tried to use supposition as evidence.
It didn't work last time and it isn't going to work this time.
"Which answers the question of why he would want to support Al Queada which WAS doing something about them."
That's the THIRD time you've tried to use supposition as evidence.
"No you start with numerous defectors from the Baathist regime categorically stating that such a relationship exists - and with the realization that such a relationship makes sense for the two parties concerned."
Again with the hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
We had circumstantial evidence and
"In this case India is showing that they have a competitive advantage in programming. They can produce code at the required level and do it for FAR less than the American programmer."
Yep. They work for less. That's the race to the bottom.
"The Indian salary will not remain static."
Well, we're pumping money into their economy so they'll see an increase, that is correct.
"As the number of jobs and the complexity of the problems increase (remember, workers are a market just like anything else) the salary will begin to rise."
Maybe. But doesn't that pre-suppose that there will eventually be more jobs than programmers and that the jobs will become more complex?
"As the rest of the economy begins to feel the benefits of this economic boon in India, more and more IT workers will begin to do other things."
I don't see this. If the IT sector is making money, why move out of it? Unless some other sector is making even MORE money?
"Eventually the global market will achieve Equilibrium and the competitive advantage will close."
That's the "bottom". The lowest price you can pay someone to do the work.
In order for that factor to INCREASE you have to have MORE JOBS than programmers. Which I do not see happening.
"We talk about how these theories are untested, well we've seen the results of this same phenemenon in auto manufacturing."
Different. It costs money and time to move cars.
"After all, remember all of those car building jobs we 'lost' two decades ago? Well, they're coming back in droves."
The ones I see "coming back" are in Mexico where the parts are assembled and shipped up to the US.
Making a car is not the same as assembling a car.
The US does not make many cars anymore.
"The Japanese auto makers are now turning to American labor to build those same cars, as the Japanese workers salary has now surpassed the American auto workers salary.. factor in the cost of shipping those cars across the ocean and American labor makes a ton of sense for that field."
It's cheaper to hire someone to assemble a car in Mexico (NAFTA) and ship it up to the US than to assemble the car in Japan and ship it to the US.
Now look at our old auto cities. Massive unemployment, still. The jobs are gone.
It's easy for a company to send the work to India.
But it is hard for the US worker to follow that job.
"I'm willing to bet that as far as possessions go, the average unemployed computer geek is significanlty better off than the Indian worker who "stole" his job."
How so? Unless you count living at home because you can't find a job as "better off".
In India, you'd be correct. They're pumping money into their country.
In the US, you'd be incorrect. Here it is the executive who makes more money because they can hire 5 Indians for the price of one US coder.
Which is great for India, but bad for the US. Unless new jobs open up that pay the same as those coding jobs did.
"Fact #1: Your method of dissecting posts down to their individual component phrases and analyzing and responding to each one as if it stands independently of the rest and has no surrounding context is FUCKING ANNOYING and makes it impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion which makes talking to you a waste of time."
:)
I feel your pain. It must be very sad to live your life.
"Each of your "facts" is total bullshit backed up with nothing but selective criticism and emotion."
His wealth is a fact.
His contributions are a fact.
Are you arguing with the mathematical average?
"In an argument with someone who rips up my throwaway sentences as if they were my central theses and is blind to my posts as wholes, what can I do but call them a jerkoff in response?"
Your whole position is a "throwaway". That isn't my fault.
"Please see here for a good example of how to structure an argument and support it with "facts and logic" (the real kind, not your kind)."
Nice. So that means that you FINALLY see that Bill Gates is NOT the great person you claimed he was at the beginning?
Why do I have the feeling that you'll STILL argue that point? Despite all the evidence presented in both these threads.
Oh well. Believe what you want.
Whether you call someone a "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" doesn't matter. The winner gets to choose the terms and who goes in what category. And we aren't the winners in Iraq.
"We have already won in Afghanistan. Our goal was to root out a particular enemy (Al Queada) having Afghanistan become stable, peaceful and contented is a secondary goal - nice if it happens and worth trying to achieve but in the end not of terribly high importance to us."
Wrong. If we don't turn Afghanistan into a stable, peaceful Democracy, al Queda will be back. They're still recruiting and fighting there.
"These bits of evidence (and others) are undisputed, they are reliable in and of themselves, but as evidence of a relationship they are only circumstantial."
You have trouble telling a "fact" from "evidence". Not all facts are evidence. Therefore, you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable". You can have a fact and that fact can be "circumstantial evidence". Or you can have evidence that is "highly reliable". But you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable".
"They were BOTH particularly focussed on ending the American presence in Saudi Arabia."
Really? Where is the evidence that Saddam did anything to end it?
If he didn't do anything about it, then he doesn't seem "particularly focussed" on it to me.
"It would be incredible if they didn't at least consider coordinating their efforts to bring that about."
Now you're confusing evidence with supposition.
"He did work with the ISI which despite it's religious factions was part of an "apostate" government (they had a woman president for Allah's sake!)"
And I've already been over Pakistan's support of the Taliban which shared Osama's view.
Your "evidence" sounds about as good as the "evidence" that Iraq could launch "WMD's" in 45 minutes or less.
You start with a supposition (Osama and Saddam were cooperating) and then you pick "evidence" that supports that (in your mind).
That's the same practice that turned the 45 minute claim into
"WMD's will be found any day now" into
"WMD's will be found eventually" into
"he had WMD programs" into
"he was developing WMD programs" into
"he wanted WMD programs" into
"WMD's weren't the reason we went to war. Saddam was a bad man."
But, then, I'll never be able to convince a conspiracy nut that no conspiracy existed.
If everyone at the school is using OpenOffice, then collaboration shouldn't be a problem. I find .pdf files are best for outside collaboration, anyway.
As for the kids, once they learn the concepts (mouse, keyboard skills, icons, etc), then they can pick up a different platform in a few hours.
Which is different from learning to type of one keyboard and then re-learning on a different keyboard. I can teach someone to use a computer in 16 hours. I can't teach someone to type that quickly.
I can teach someone a different word processor (basic functions) in 2 hours (5 people per class). Advanced functions in 8 hours (same 5 people).
The kids can learn more and more quickly than you believe.
Once we leave and civil war is over, the people you term "terrorists" will be the "freedom fighters" if their side wins. That's how it goes. They fought against the US invasion and killed US sympathizers.
;)."
Just as we bomb buildings which house "terrorists" and "terrorist allies". But we are the "good guys" when we do it.
"They are members of an ethnic minority and a fascist political party fighting to preserve their own supremacy over the ethnic majority - I think "freedom fighter" is too kind a term, they are NOT in fact fighting for "freedom.""
They are fighting against the foreign invader (us).
Just as our Revolutionary War heros are "Freedom Fighters" to us (even though they owned slaves and women had no rights) and Benedict Arnold is a "traitor".
Which is the PROBLEM when you go to "war" against labels. Which is why we won't succeed in Iraq (the same as we're losing in Afghanistan).
"I will allow that it is not shown that he had pursued a relationship with Al Quaeda specifically his relationship with terrorist groups in general is NOT controversial."
"terrorist groups in general"? Again with the labels. If you can't identify your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him.
Saudi Arabia has more VERIFIABLE ties to "terrorist groups in general" and al Queda IN SPECIFIC. But they aren't being invaded.
Even the US has a history of providing funding and weapons to terrorist groups in South America.
"in general" is NOT sufficient to invade a country.
"But we were all assured that "everyone lies about sex" and that Clinton was the soul of truthfulness about anything substantive... I'm shocked
So, that sounds like you don't believe what Clinton said, yet what Clinton said was used as support in the previous post. It doesn't go both ways.
"I have know way of knowing the quality of intel that went into the Clinton administration claims about an Iraq/Al Queada relationship."
Sure you do. The same reports SHOULD have been available to Bush and Co. After all, the CIA wasn't disbanded when Clinton left office.
"What has come out into public domain looks like a lot of highly reliable evidence of a merely circumstantial nature and a lot of very concrete evidence but of unknown reliability - Stuff that wouldn't hold up in a court of law but is the stock in trade of intelligence agencies."
Nice try. But using antonyms doesn't fool anyone.
If it was highly reliable, it was not circumstantial.
If it was concrete, it was not of unknown reliability.
"Really? why?"
Because Hamas is focused on Palestinian/Israeli issues. NOT on Iraq's issues. In order to move the Muslims to support Iraq, he'd have to make it a RELIGIOUS point. Which is what al Queda is all about.
"But it is headed by a secularist, and you don't address the fact that Bin Laden was more than willing to deal with the U.S. during the war against the Soviets."
Osama was willing to take the money and weapons, but his actions were STILL about getting the invaders out of that area. He fought against the Soviets and, when they left, he fought against the US.
The US supported Osama, Osama did not support the US.
"He was also willing to fight for the Saudi's against Iraq even though he considers them to be apostate."
Again, Osama is RELIGIOUS and Saddam is SECULAR. Fighting against invaders and secular governments is Osama's deal.
"Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist - but he has shown over and over that he is willing to work in temporary alliances with those who he despises against common enemies."
He is not an idiot. But he does have very deeply held beliefs.
He would NOT fight BOTH the US and the Soviets AT THE SAME TIME.
But, once one enemy is defeated, he will turn on the other enemy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is NOT something Osama believes.
And that is why the US has so many problems dealing with him and people like him. In the US, profit is everything. It doesn't matter how different your "partner's" values are, as long as you can make cash on the deal.
Which is why the Taliban was hosted IN TEXAS during Bush's reign there.
If it's just writing documents, then they can use OpenOffice and learn MSOffice later. It's not like they can't learn more things.
If they're learning hardware, the OS shouldn't matter.
If they're learning programming, a mix would be best. Learn the Microsoft tools, learn python, learn C++, whatever.
The only reason I can see to specifically run Windows is if you're running an MCSE program.
But for the INFRASTRUCTURE, go with Linux.
Bombing UN, Red Cross and police stations, possibly "terrorist". On the other hand, those organizations are viewed as supporting the US. Which is why we needed to prep them for Democracy before we went in.
As for being "freedom fighters", they're fighting against the foreign invaders (us).
When we botch the transference (not "if" in my opinion), we'll see a violent civil war with each group trying to establish itself. Whichever group wins that will be labeled "patriots" and the other groups will be labeled "traitors" or "oppressors". Just like in the US's war for independence.
As for the next regime being more democratic, maybe. But I don't believe it will last that long. I believe that there will be a civil war and that the US will back one faction.
But Saddam did not have broad Muslim support in the First Gulf War. No matter how much he tried to associate himself with Islam, the other people didn't believe it. That's why we had a lot of mid-east nations on our side.
"Of all the state sponsors of terrorism there are good arguments to be made that Iraq was the most immediately threatening."
But Iraq was not threatening to anyone. Even its neighbors didn't view it as a threat.
"Unlike the others Iraq was in direct conflict with the U.S. - we were imposing the embargo, the no-fly zone, occasional cruise missile attacks by the Clinton administration."
I think you've got that turned around a bit. It reads like the US was in direct conflict with Iraq and Iraq didn't have much it could do about it.
"I think it is reasonable to assume that Saadams main interest in pursuing relationships with terrorists was to use them as a weapon against his immediate enemy - the U.S. rather than against Israel as is the case with Syria, or as a way to promote a religious doctrine throughout the middle east as is the case with Iran."
I think you need to show that Saddam was pusuing relationships with terrorists first.
"And I think it is still likely that Iraq's support for terrorism included at least a nascent relationship with Al Queada."
Even Bush won't push that claim anymore.
"It was the Clinton administration that first alleged direct ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda."
Clinton also lied about a blowjob.
"He had started to support Islamist groups like Hamas so Al Quaeda's religious nature was no barrier to him."
But it was a barrier.
"For Bin Laden's part he has always been more than willing to use "infidel" allies against his enemy of the moment - hell, he allied with US against the soviets and was pretty tight with Pakistan until very recently (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Armitiges first conversation with Musharef right after 9/11)."
Pakistan has at least a few religious fundamentalists in its government. Pakistan even had good relations with the Taliban. It seems that there are al Queda hides in Pakistan at times.
If I (as an individual) was caught dumping poison into YOUR drinking water, I'd be in jail for attempted murder.
If a corporation dumps toxic waste into a public water system, they can be fined.
In theory, the officers could be locked up, but that doesn't happen much in practice.
Corporations are treated as people, but they don't run the same risks that people do.
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance". They are fighting against our occupation of their country. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be attacking us.
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches."
-and-
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."
Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.
The lobbying, easy, it is done by the engineers at the companies making the phone.
:)
The marketing, easy, it is done by the marketing department of the people who make the phone. Who cares what OS it runs (aside from lots of people here)? As long as it does run.
The cash, easy, that's a trick question. Linux is also free like beer. Well, there might be some work involved by the programmers at the various companies, but they've had most of the work already handed to them for free.
"If you had looked at the chart, you would have seen that the vast majority of the donations took place from 1998 onwards and the really big ones didn't start happening until 1999. Nice try at distorting the facts though, I would have expected no less from you."
So, he's only recently turned into the nice person you believe he is. But he had LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of money back in 1997. So I'll just average it over 10 years. That $7 Billion over 10 years which is.... $700 million per year.
So, 1.75% of his wealth was donated per year.
That sounds like table scraps when he's worth $40 Billion.
Your "Robin Hood" takes from EVERYONE (including children's schools) and KEEPS 98%+ of it for himself.
But that's just fine with you because you know that if he gave, oh, say 10% of his wealth, he might not have enough money.
It's really GOOD that he keeps 98%+ of that money and those kids' schools have to cough up money for those software licenses because Bill will INVEST that money and then dole out 1.75% of it back to them.
"Bill Gates has a choice. He could spend everything at once, and end up with very little."
Oooooh, that's what we call one of them "logical fallacies".
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
He has a LOT more options, but he CHOOSES to only give 1.75% of his money and you think this is a good thing.
"First of all, the range of problems Bill Gates is capable of "solving" is actually quite limited."
Keep believing that.
"Secondly, just because Bill Gates doesn't "solve" everything he can by spending everything he has right this instant, it doesn't mean he thinks "it's best not to solve any" problems.""
I don't know whether he believes it or not, but that was YOUR position on the subject.
"I have no idea what he thinks, but Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, all major political parties, Cato, Rand, PNAC, Heritage, you name it, all have substantial cash reserves on hand, just like the Bill Gates Foundation."
Political parties are NOT charitable organizations. Why are you including them?
"Why don't they spend everything they have this very instant to solve problems?!?!?"
Again with the logical fallacy. Spending enough to solve a problem is not the same as spending all of your money.
Your "Robin Hood" keeps 98%+ of what he takes.
"Oh but we are discussing you, Mr. Khasim!"
Oh but we are not. My name is not Bill Gates. Please just TRY to work with the FACTS.
"You should consider yourself highly involved in any kind of discussion in which you demonize a man who has donated more in 10 years than you could make in a dozen lifetimes."
I'm pointing out that he gained that cash ILLEGALLY and then is so MISERLY that he only donates 1.75% of it.
But you believe that because he has SO MUCH CASH that it must be GOOD. After all, it is SO MUCH CASH. Even if it is taken from children's schools and city budgets (for fire fighters and police and so forth).
"The key phrase here is not "straw man" but "flaming hypocrite.""
I'll put up my 35% against his 1.75%. I have LESS than he does but I give a LARGER percentage.
Do you even KNOW what "hypocrite" means?
"It's OK to criticize Bill Gates if you think he's not doing enough, but not without equally criticizing yourself... unless you think your donation of 35% of your after-taxes December income is going to buy you a shining halo and a first-class ticket to Heaven."
There isn't any Heaven. Sorry to shatter another of your illusions. No absolutes, no Heaven.
"On the other hand, you seem happy to ignore the thousands of local and worldwide jobs Microsoft and Gates have created (and they are notorious for treating their employees well) and the massive wealth they've produced for the millions of people who own their stock (including vast numbers of the middle class)."
Microsoft does not produce wealth for people who own their stock. Microsoft only R
That's even worse than I thought. Do you have any specs that I can read up on?
In the US, we probably won't see any more "heros". We're to set on worshipping money (see the rest of this thread).
Anyone is "good" as long as s/he has enough money.
Other cultures and nations might spawn their own "heros", but most of the US population will never hear of them, nor ever care.
Your chart goes back 10 years. Big diff 'tween $7 Billion in 4 years and $7 Billion in 10 years. The 10 year figure supports my position.
"Tracing current and past data to show possible future trends."
Is an exercise in futility. Who cares what POSSIBLE future trends are?
"I know that's what you're saying. And what I'm saying is WHO CARES."
Obviously not you. But it does show that Bill is not the generous person you claim he is.
"Now let me explain why it would be very stupid for any charity to blow their wad all at once and not keep a sizable treasure chest on hand."
Don't bother. I understand investments. Very well.
"It doles out money carefully, in reasonable sums, over time, while keeping the rest of its assets invested."
Again, this is a valid approach ONLY if you are interested in keeping problems around so you can "donate" to them.
"Or it could spend $25 billion today and have nothing in 2104."
Again, you have a problem with facts so you'll stick to extrapolations. I do not have a problem with facts and I understand extrapolations are nothing more than fantasies.
"Because although Bill Gates is the richest man alive he does not have enough money to solve all the world's problems."
If you can't solve them ALL, it's best not to solve ANY?
Sorry, I don't agree with your "logic" on that one.
"And you propose to "deal with" this problem how? Computers in libraries will ALWAYS be a problem because computers will ALWAYS break and get obsolete."
So, you believe that the "problem" was "there are not enough computers in libraries".
I, on the other hand believe that "putting computers in libraries" is the approach taken to solving the real problem.
Even if that WERE the problem, partially solving it still sounds like "a problem" to me.
Again, his foundation is making MORE MONEY than it donates, but isn't solving ANY problem COMPLETELY.
"$5 is an absolute. 5% is a percentage."
$5 is $5. 5% is a percentage. They are not absolutes.
"But dear khasim, I've already shown that Gates gives away more money - both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of his assets - than, for example, you do. Which is even more than most other people do."
No you have not. You keep claiming this, but you have NOT shown it.
"I think you are exactly right here. But I also think that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, which is to say that YOU could donate more too. 35% of your December income?"
Nice try. But I'm too wise to fall for that strawman. We're discussing Gates, not myself.
Again, PLEASE TRY to stick to the facts. It isn't that hard.
"I will grant you that yes, Bill Gates' company has engaged in illegal business practices, but I would say that the good he has done, especially with regards to his philanthropy, outweighs the bad by a pretty substantial amount, making him deserving of a knighthood, to get back on topic."
And that is your opinion. Which you are unable to support with any facts.
My opinion is that Robin Hood, who takes from the children (see MS's school license program here) and buys himself a nice house with the money, then gives back a portion of the money to one family is NOT doing something good.
Take a look at various governments and how much they pay MS (which is where Bill gets his money). Those governments have to TAX more to pay Bill. Either that or cut back on schools and police and fire departments.
So, Robin Hood takes from everyone, builds a nice castle, hires servants, etc, then gives back a LOWER PERCENTAGE than others.
Somehow, I don't see Robin Hood as being "good" when he keeps 99%+ of the money.
"Only 35%? The net worth of the Bill Gates Foundation is roughly 60% of Bill Gates'."
But ONE of the differences is that I no longer have control over the 35% I donated. Bill still controls ALL of the money that his foundation has.
"In the 4 years it's been in existence, it has donated a little over $7 billion."
That's downright AMAZING because their books don't show that number. They must have more than DOUBLED their contributions in the 2 years that aren't shown.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/a nn ualreports/annualreport02/finGrants.htm
It also seems that they're taking in MORE money then they're GIVING out.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/a nn ualreports/annualreport02/finActivities.htm
"If we trace this as a linear trend,...."
Can you TRY to restrict yourself to FACTS? No extrapolations, no guesses, no promises about what MAY happen, just the facts.
The facts SHOULD be enough for you to make your case.
"And yet you criticise him for not doing enough."
What I'm doing is pointing out that the amount of money he is giving is NOT THAT MUCH when it is calculated as a PERCENTAGE of his income.
When it is calculated as a PERCENTAGE of his income, then you can see how much MORE other people have given. Regular people. People who don't have billions of dollars at their disposal.
"Well, fair enough, he could always do more - but let's try to get some perspective here shall we? Maybe even a little credit where credit is due?"
Have you missed my posts? That is EXACTLY what I have been doing.
"You've got $25 billion and you want to get the most out of it - do you spend it all at once or do you spend it slowly over time, keeping the remainder held in investments? YOU would spend it all at once, because you're an idiot, but a wise investor would not."
This is NOT AN INVESTMENT. Unless you're investing in having charitable causes.
This is about FIXING PROBLEMS. You don't fix a problem by investing money that could be spent on fixing that problem.
Here's an easy example, his "challenge grants". That's where his foundation will give 2x the amount of money raised by local efforts.
So, your library needs computers. If you raise $5,000, Bill will give you $10,000.
Well, that's nice. But it doesn't really SOLVE THE PROBLEM does it? Why not determine how much money it would cost to put enough computers in those libraries and just DO IT?
Again, his foundation is taking in more money than it is spending so it isn't a cash flow issue.
If there aren't enough computers in those libraries today, and he doesn't give enough money to put enough computers in there, then what use is the investment you're talking about? Whatever the PROBLEM was that would have been SOLVED by putting sufficient computers in those libraries will still be a PROBLEM because it wasn't completely dealt with.
"The problem is that you are thinking in terms of percentages whereas I am thinking in terms of absolutes."
There are no absolutes in this world. Deal with it.
"Bill Gates hasn't donated enough of a percentage of his income. Well see, the thing is, percentages don't matter."
Yes they do. What is $5/week to someone with $50K is over $200 MILLION to Bill. So just looking at those big numbers is not enough.
"Burger King Worker makes $10k per year and donates 10% of it - that's $1k. Pro Athelete makes $1m and donates 1% of it - 1/10 what BKW does! - and that's still 10x more than what BKW donates."
Fascinating. You've managed to FINALLY re-state my INITIAL POSTING.
"PA is doing more good than BKW."
Well, that assumes that both contributions go to equivalent "good" causes and are used in the same fashion. But I'm willing to allow that.
"Note that I'm not saying PA is a BETTER PERSON than BKW - he may well be an ruthless lying asshole like Bill Gates."
WHOA!
I was mod'ed up because it was "insightful". Deal with it.
.52% of $50,000.
....... $5.2 MILLION per year.
I was using those numbers as an example of how the PERCENTAGE works out.
Here they are again, slightly corrected.
Someone making $50,000 a year give $5 a week at church.
$5/week = $260 / year
Which is
Now, if we're talking about $1 billion, then the $5 equivalent is
So don't let the SIZE of the numbers fool you (as they obviously have with you). Look at all the factors. What percentage of his wealth he donates and what form the donations come in. It's easy for him to transfer a lot of Microsoft stock to his foundation because Microsoft gives him a LOT of stock.
you'll resort to character attacks. :)
:)
"Only to someone massively jealous and ashamed of his own inferiority is a charitable organization having donated over $7 billion of grants and with $25 billion in assets pandering "table scraps.""
What their ASSETS are, in this case, supports my position. They have $25 billion in assets AND they're supposed to be a CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, but they only donate $7 billion?
So, they donate $7 billion BUT KEEP $25 billion?
That seems to support my position.
"Actually by my count the BGF is by far the largest philanthropic organization ever."
So? Bill Gates also has the MOST MONEY IN THE WORLD.
If it were otherwise, that would be complete validation for my point.
"Obviously I would expect, and anyone should expect, Mr. Gates to put his money where his mouth is regarding his pledge to eventually donate the vast majority of his assets over time, but given his track record I don't see any reason to doubt him, since he's giving away more tens of millions every week, on average."
Read "The Road Ahead" sometime. It's "written" by Bill. Make sure you find a FIRST EDITION of it, also. Then read the LATER EDITIONS and notice how the story has changed.
Or, you could try reading up on the Netscape vs Microsoft trial and listening to what Bill said UNDER DEPOSITION about whether he actually "sent" an email or not.
"Why should he immediately give away everything he has just to please your sorry ass?"
Now my ass is sorry? Try not jumping on the strawman bandwagon.
I didn't say he should give away everything. I said that he didn't even notice the money he was giving away. The same as someone making $50,000 a year wouldn't notice $5 every Sunday in the church collection plate.
Please TRY to keep your facts straight.
"People like you will never be satisfied - Gates could jump in a river to save a drowning girl and not make it in time and you would bitterly accuse him of letting her drown, too concerned with his own life to swim faster."
Please, lay off the crack for 24 hours before you try to post something. You aren't making any sense and you've lost all track of any facts.
"What have you done for the world lately, Sir Khasim The Righteous?"
Donated 35% of my December income (after taxes) to the FosStars progam.
Yep, you are completely correct.
Which makes my initial figures even more vile. Someone with $200,000+ is going to be less likely to notice $5 than someone with $50,000.
If you spread around a LOT of money, lots of people will not look too closely at HOW you managed to acquire that money.
The same in the past as it is today.
I'm saying that TODAY we SHOULD start looking at it.
We SHOULD have looked at it back then. But we didn't.