This article is just garbage. Apple calls for the end of DRM as opposed to proliferating their own proprietary DRM to other devices (which would make Apple's proprietary DRM the de-facto industry standard) and that makes Apple the next Microsoft?? What?? Where the hell is the logic in that assertion? Proposing a new paradigm that would be beneficial to consumers and would level the playing field makes Apple evil? It makes the "Microsoft-like". Good god.
It has become completely impossible to have a reasoned discussion about Apple or Microsoft. Even here on Slashdot where DRM is universally despised, I've read numerous highly rated posts that used the same logic as this author. So many people have a visceral hatred for Apple or Microsoft, they simple lose the ability to think clearly.
Instead of cheering "Yay, the largest provider of music downloads is calling for the end of playback restrictions", this guy is trying to smear the announcement by speculating on Jobs's motives and calling it propaganda. Well, fine. It its self-serving propaganda.
The important point is that its propaganda promoting a paradigm shift that will beneficial to me, the consumer. Whether it is beneficial or damaging to Apple or its competitors, I don't care. Whether Jobs is motivated by a desire to dodge the attacks of European consumer groups or is speaking from the heart is irrelevant to me.
I have to wonder how the author of the article would have responded had Jobs announced plans to license Fairplay to other vendors? I suspect he would have wrote a scorching condemnation of Apple and Jobs for making such a self-serving and market grabbing move. He would be railing against Jobs for accelerating the proliferation of DRM and scolding him for not calling for the end of DRM. His motives are far more suspect than Jobs's motives.
I think your observations and speculations are astute. When I read of the Apple, Inc. - Apple Corps. agreement yesterday, I figured that probably freed up Apple Inc. to get into the music business. But, until I read your post I didn't correlate it with this unprecedented essay from Jobs. I think you are correct. The timing of Jobs's little FU to the record companies is likely not merely coincidental with announcement of the Apple/Apple settlement.
Maybe the announcement of the Beatles on iTunes will important to even non-Beatles fans. Maybe Apple with offer the songs DRM-free and announce their willingness to sign bands to the new Apple Records label.
Large corporations treat customers like that all the time. Every day. Year round. And they still do billions of dollars in business.
I'm not saying it's right, wrong, smart or stupid. It's simply a fact. The terms of use are right on page one. It says that Apple can delete whatever they want without explanation. Looks like they followed through on that threat.
Well, there not enough information about the company listed on their website, but they appear to be a relatively small operation. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised they have a more forgiving and open user forum rules. As I stated in my original message, when I said "major" I meant very large corporations like HP, Intel, Dell, etc. User forums at those companies have rules similar to Apple's forum.
Since when has there ever been any transparency between any large corporation and it's customers? Jeez, that expectation is even more naive than that of the guy who posted the original message.
You fanboys are really stretching things out here.
Ding. Ding. You you win the douchebag award for the juvenile "fanboy" utterance.
The answer is simple. His message stated he was looking for an "official" response from Apple. However, he posted this message on a forum that, albeit hosted by Apple, is a user-to-user support forum. Apple employees very, very rarely respond to any messages on those forums and when they do, they never, ever, provide "official" responses to real or perceived bugs. That's why his message was deleted. It violated the terms of use.
I realize by defending Apple I risk being labeled a "fanboy" by many of the juvenile idiots that troll this board. So, for those tempted to falsely apply that petty and overused label to me, I would ask them to provide evidence that any major computer products vendor (hardware or software) distributes official status on product bugs through their user forums. Note that by "major" I mean companies like Adobe, Dell and Microsoft. I'm aware that small developers communicate to users via their forums, but none of the big guys do.
By the way, I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have a legitimate complaint. I'm sure there are hundreds of undisclosed bugs in Apple products. Apple is no different than any other vendor in this regard. It's just that his expectation that he would get an official response through the user forums is naive and his suspicions of some conspiracy to hide the bug is just plain silly.
It is not uncommon for engineering and science professors to be wealthy. Who's showing their ignorance now?
Er, that would be you. It is, in fact, exceedingly uncommon for engineering and science professors to be wealthy. I've never seen any statistics, but I suspect less than 1% make anything beyond their salary which is typically way less than what they could make in industry.
That you know of exceptional cases where college professors have been able hit the motherlode should not be extrapolated into an assertion that such cases are common. If a substantial percentage of college professors were regularly striking it rich, you would see a heck of a lot more science and engineering students choosing academia over industry. You don't see that trend for a simple reason: the chances of becoming wealthy as science professor are extremely low.
"...the continuous transcoding of MP3 -> AAC kills the batteries..."
Huh?!? The iPod doesn't transcode MP3 to ACC. The iPod directly decompresses the MP3 file and performs a D/A conversion. The resulting signal is sent to the headphone amp.
In fact, an iPod doesn't have a codec (coder/decoder). It only has a decoder. iTunes has the ability to transcode MP3->ACC, but not in real time. Even though iTunes has this ability, transcoding between lossy compression formats is foolish because reduces the quality.
Anyway, you might consider the battery life of an iPod inadequate, but it's not due to transcoding.
According to this article, the music service and player will be incompatible with Microsoft's own PlayForSure format. So, Microsoft is planning to open a music store that sells music that is not only incompatible with the market-leading iPod, but also with every other mp3 player on the market today.
Does this strike anyone else as completely insane? With Napster, Yahoo, Creative, SanDisk, etc. already losing money competing with iTunes/iPod, does Microsoft really believe it can come into the market at this late with yet a third proprietary format and gain any traction at all? Is this move another sign of their arrogant belief they can do in every other market what the did in the PC space? Or, is it just desperation?
Does anyone here on Slashdot believe they can succeed with this strategy?
Anyway, the main reason for those California blackouts was poor public policy: Holding residential rates constant while forcing companies to buy power on the spot market, often selling power at a loss. Meanwhile prohibiting building new power plants to satisfy the environmental lobby.
How did this steaming pile of lies and deflection of true responsibility get moded to 5?
The "it's the environmentalists fault" explanation has been completely discredited. The state has more than enough capacity. Enron and other energy-related concerns were deliberately shutting down generating plants to create a phony energy shortage.
But, go ahead and continue to spread the lies. Given the moderation you received, many still want to believe that fault lies with it's those damned tree huggin' hippies rather than criminals like Lay.
I guess I should have made this clear in my original message, but as I have stated in some other replies, I have nothing against Mr. Buffet in particular. Based on what I have read he does appear a decent guy who lives modestly relative to other wealthy individuals. Good for him. I admire him for that.
However, the point I attempted to make was a more generalized one. That is, I feel too much attention is given to wealthy charitable donors. Many in our society (the majority?) think people like Buffet deserve massive accolades because their donations are so large. They are treated like a rock stars and saints at the same time. Yet giving away almost all of his nest egg is really no hardship to himself or his family while others donors of lesser means go unrecognized despite the fact that they've made an actual sacrifice.
As for Buffet himself, yeah, he seems like a good guy.
Thanks for the response. Nice to know someone agreed.:-)
I'm not a religious guy, but the Bible story you cited describes precisely the sentiment I was driving at. Judging from the responses to my remarks it's not a popular sentiment. To some, the idea is so foreign that they missed the point entirely.
Like you, I have nothing personal against Mr. Buffet. Based on his public persona, he seems like a decent guy. But, I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that when viewed in terms of relative income/wealth, his contributions are roughly equivalent to an average Joe tossing a fiver in basket on Sunday morning.
Well, the wealthy can afford to be more generous because they have more disposable income. The paycheck-to-paycheck guy can't give his money away because he wouldn't be able to pay his bills. That was my point. As such, a donation from a middle class guy living paycheck-to-paycheck represents a hardship whereas a wealthy donor sacrifices nothing even when making a very large donation.
I have discovered, by way of the responses to my remarks, that pointing out this fact incites a visceral and angry response in many people. Many argue that degree of hardship is irrelevant and that only the size of the individual donation matters. I disagree. Others missed my point entirely.
While I see your point, I think you failed to grasp mine. My point had nothing to do with Mr. Buffet in particular, who, based on his public persona, appears to be less affected by his enormous wealth than other wealthy people.
Exactly why he should recieve the amount of attention he gets -- money doesn't mean that much to him, and it SHOULDN'T to others.
While maybe money shouldn't mean anything to the guy living paycheck-to-paycheck, but it does because of the reality of his situation. A loss of income of any kind could leave him and his family without food and shelter. Mr. Buffet has no such consequences to fear. That was my point.
Donation is about motivation. You do it because it is the right thing to do.
Exactly. And by that standard, Mr. Buffet donation is no different than Joe Shmoe and they deserve equal praise.
If Warren donated $100, it would still be the same power bill, a tank and a half of gas, a week worth of groceries (given the same house / car / stomach).
To understand the point I attempted to make, you have consider what percentage of income/wealth that $100 would represent to each person and how it would affect their future purchasing power. Mathematically, would you agree that 100/50,000>>100/37,000,000? Further, would you agree that someone living paycheck-to-paycheck likely has to give up something when he gives away $100 while Mr. Buffet would not have to forgo any future purposes as a result of his donations due to enormous wealth? Does it make sense now?
No, by mediocre I mean not outstanding in their efforts or results.
Maybe his efforts and results are outstanding and contribute to society in ways that are not measured in $$. A teacher, a nurse or fireman perhaps. He may have tutored the next Einstein or saved a few lives. But, by your standard, he's mediocre cause he didn't make a bunch of money doing it.
If we're going to ask who deserves more praise as you did, I'd have to say unquestionably Buffet. The family man brought a couple new mouths into the world and just barely helped alleviate a little of its problems via donations. He is merely subsisting and throwing a bone to charity when possible.
Your stance: richer->bigger donations->deserves more praise. We established that you feel this way in your first response. I don't agree.
The bigger question, I guess, for me, is why you care which donation ranks where on the hosanna-meter.
Well, you obviously feel quite strongly about it or you wouldn't be here telling me how wrong I am.
Wow. I really didn't expect such emotional responses to my post.
I never said the guy didn't work for or deserve his money. From what I've read, he seems like a pretty down-to-earth and decent guy. When I said there was no hardship, I meant that giving his money away presents no hardship to him or to his family.
But, I see in your response exactly what I was talking about. It appears you judge a man by the degree of his material wealth. Mr. Buffet is a better man in your eyes because he achieved greater financial wealth than the average Joe. Okay, if that's how you judge people, fine. The rich are America's royalty. But, Mr. Buffet's wealth did not come from a vacuum -- it was made on the backs of millions of hard working people -- mediocre people (mediocre being defined as "not-rich"), in your way of thinking, I suppose.
I didn't address that question in my original post. I only expressed my opinion regarding why I think that the level adoration for Mr. Buffet is excessive and misplaced.
But, since you brought it up, the sum of charitable contributions from small contributers is actually larger than that of a few wealthy contributers. By that measure, it's the little guys who make the bigger difference.
If having a greater admiration for someone who makes a true sacrifice for good of others than some rich old guy giving away his fortune equates to a love for self-flagellation in you twisted little mind, then, well there's no point in taking this conversation further.
I think you missed my point or read your own viewpoint into what I had to say. I didn't say the benefit of charity was measured how much it hurts the giver. I spoke of the lopsided degree of adoration given to wealthy contributors over non-wealthy contributors. I believe that adoration is misplaced. The total sum of charitable contributions made by small donors exceeds that of individual large contributers. Yet, small contributers don't get their pictures on magazines or have adoring fans on Slashdot.
And, although I'm not Catholic, I do think that someone who makes a personal sacrifice for another person is more deserving of adoration than some old guy unloading a bunch of cash he can't take with him. Does that make me a weenie? A commie? Does that make me Catholic? Boy, that's gonna make my friends down at Atheists-Are-Us really pissed.
Let me explain. Although, Mr. Buffet only pays himself $100,000/year, he is worth $37,000,000,000. Were he to liquidate and give all but 0.1% of his wealth to charity, he would still have $37,000,000 with which to buy groceries and pay his bills. I think we can agree that he would manage just fine in this regard.
Contrast this with the guy making $50,000/year. After taxes, he maybe nets $25,000 on which to support his family. That means he lives from paycheck to paycheck and any contribution to charity means sacrificing something in his own life.
Are you seriously claiming that you don't understand that a small charitable contribution made by someone making $50,000/year represents a greater hardship than just about any contribution made by someone whose net worth exceeds that of many nations? Surely, you are not that dense.
Thanks for helping making my point. In our society, a rich old man giving away money he doesn't need "rocks" and the average guy's contribution just makes him, well, a joke, by comparison.
While I think it's great that Mr. Buffet has decided to give the lion's share of his estate to charity, it troubles me that people (and the press) fall all over themselves to shower him with accolades and make him out to be more generous than the average citizen. Mr. Buffet could give away 99.9% of his entire net worth and still have $37,000,000 in the bank. There are no hardships or risks involved in his donations.
Contrast this with charitable contributions made by an average middle class worker. If a family man earning $50,000/year donates $100 to charity annually, he is making an actual sacrifice. That's a week's worth groceries. A tank and a half of gas. Half the monthly electric bill.
So, who is more generous? Mr. Buffet or Mr. Middle-class-working-stiff? Who is more deserving of hosannas?
Slashdot Mirror
This article is just garbage. Apple calls for the end of DRM as opposed to proliferating their own proprietary DRM to other devices (which would make Apple's proprietary DRM the de-facto industry standard) and that makes Apple the next Microsoft?? What?? Where the hell is the logic in that assertion? Proposing a new paradigm that would be beneficial to consumers and would level the playing field makes Apple evil? It makes the "Microsoft-like". Good god.
It has become completely impossible to have a reasoned discussion about Apple or Microsoft. Even here on Slashdot where DRM is universally despised, I've read numerous highly rated posts that used the same logic as this author. So many people have a visceral hatred for Apple or Microsoft, they simple lose the ability to think clearly.
Instead of cheering "Yay, the largest provider of music downloads is calling for the end of playback restrictions", this guy is trying to smear the announcement by speculating on Jobs's motives and calling it propaganda. Well, fine. It its self-serving propaganda.
The important point is that its propaganda promoting a paradigm shift that will beneficial to me, the consumer. Whether it is beneficial or damaging to Apple or its competitors, I don't care. Whether Jobs is motivated by a desire to dodge the attacks of European consumer groups or is speaking from the heart is irrelevant to me.
I have to wonder how the author of the article would have responded had Jobs announced plans to license Fairplay to other vendors? I suspect he would have wrote a scorching condemnation of Apple and Jobs for making such a self-serving and market grabbing move. He would be railing against Jobs for accelerating the proliferation of DRM and scolding him for not calling for the end of DRM. His motives are far more suspect than Jobs's motives.
I think your observations and speculations are astute. When I read of the Apple, Inc. - Apple Corps. agreement yesterday, I figured that probably freed up Apple Inc. to get into the music business. But, until I read your post I didn't correlate it with this unprecedented essay from Jobs. I think you are correct. The timing of Jobs's little FU to the record companies is likely not merely coincidental with announcement of the Apple/Apple settlement.
Maybe the announcement of the Beatles on iTunes will important to even non-Beatles fans. Maybe Apple with offer the songs DRM-free and announce their willingness to sign bands to the new Apple Records label.
Would be sweet.
You don't treat your customers like that, ever.
Large corporations treat customers like that all the time. Every day. Year round. And they still do billions of dollars in business.
I'm not saying it's right, wrong, smart or stupid. It's simply a fact. The terms of use are right on page one. It says that Apple can delete whatever they want without explanation. Looks like they followed through on that threat.
Well, there not enough information about the company listed on their website, but they appear to be a relatively small operation. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised they have a more forgiving and open user forum rules. As I stated in my original message, when I said "major" I meant very large corporations like HP, Intel, Dell, etc. User forums at those companies have rules similar to Apple's forum.
So much for transparency.
Since when has there ever been any transparency between any large corporation and it's customers? Jeez, that expectation is even more naive than that of the guy who posted the original message.
You fanboys are really stretching things out here.
Ding. Ding. You you win the douchebag award for the juvenile "fanboy" utterance.
The answer is simple. His message stated he was looking for an "official" response from Apple. However, he posted this message on a forum that, albeit hosted by Apple, is a user-to-user support forum. Apple employees very, very rarely respond to any messages on those forums and when they do, they never, ever, provide "official" responses to real or perceived bugs. That's why his message was deleted. It violated the terms of use.
I realize by defending Apple I risk being labeled a "fanboy" by many of the juvenile idiots that troll this board. So, for those tempted to falsely apply that petty and overused label to me, I would ask them to provide evidence that any major computer products vendor (hardware or software) distributes official status on product bugs through their user forums. Note that by "major" I mean companies like Adobe, Dell and Microsoft. I'm aware that small developers communicate to users via their forums, but none of the big guys do.
By the way, I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have a legitimate complaint. I'm sure there are hundreds of undisclosed bugs in Apple products. Apple is no different than any other vendor in this regard. It's just that his expectation that he would get an official response through the user forums is naive and his suspicions of some conspiracy to hide the bug is just plain silly.
It is not uncommon for engineering and science professors to be wealthy. Who's showing their ignorance now?
Er, that would be you. It is, in fact, exceedingly uncommon for engineering and science professors to be wealthy. I've never seen any statistics, but I suspect less than 1% make anything beyond their salary which is typically way less than what they could make in industry.
That you know of exceptional cases where college professors have been able hit the motherlode should not be extrapolated into an assertion that such cases are common. If a substantial percentage of college professors were regularly striking it rich, you would see a heck of a lot more science and engineering students choosing academia over industry. You don't see that trend for a simple reason: the chances of becoming wealthy as science professor are extremely low.
"...the continuous transcoding of MP3 -> AAC kills the batteries..."
Huh?!? The iPod doesn't transcode MP3 to ACC. The iPod directly decompresses the MP3 file and performs a D/A conversion. The resulting signal is sent to the headphone amp.
In fact, an iPod doesn't have a codec (coder/decoder). It only has a decoder. iTunes has the ability to transcode MP3->ACC, but not in real time. Even though iTunes has this ability, transcoding between lossy compression formats is foolish because reduces the quality.
Anyway, you might consider the battery life of an iPod inadequate, but it's not due to transcoding.
According to this article, the music service and player will be incompatible with Microsoft's own PlayForSure format. So, Microsoft is planning to open a music store that sells music that is not only incompatible with the market-leading iPod, but also with every other mp3 player on the market today.
Does this strike anyone else as completely insane? With Napster, Yahoo, Creative, SanDisk, etc. already losing money competing with iTunes/iPod, does Microsoft really believe it can come into the market at this late with yet a third proprietary format and gain any traction at all? Is this move another sign of their arrogant belief they can do in every other market what the did in the PC space? Or, is it just desperation?
Does anyone here on Slashdot believe they can succeed with this strategy?
Anyway, the main reason for those California blackouts was poor public policy: Holding residential rates constant while forcing companies to buy power on the spot market, often selling power at a loss. Meanwhile prohibiting building new power plants to satisfy the environmental lobby.
How did this steaming pile of lies and deflection of true responsibility get moded to 5?
The "it's the environmentalists fault" explanation has been completely discredited. The state has more than enough capacity. Enron and other energy-related concerns were deliberately shutting down generating plants to create a phony energy shortage.
But, go ahead and continue to spread the lies. Given the moderation you received, many still want to believe that fault lies with it's those damned tree huggin' hippies rather than criminals like Lay.
I guess I should have made this clear in my original message, but as I have stated in some other replies, I have nothing against Mr. Buffet in particular. Based on what I have read he does appear a decent guy who lives modestly relative to other wealthy individuals. Good for him. I admire him for that.
However, the point I attempted to make was a more generalized one. That is, I feel too much attention is given to wealthy charitable donors. Many in our society (the majority?) think people like Buffet deserve massive accolades because their donations are so large. They are treated like a rock stars and saints at the same time. Yet giving away almost all of his nest egg is really no hardship to himself or his family while others donors of lesser means go unrecognized despite the fact that they've made an actual sacrifice.
As for Buffet himself, yeah, he seems like a good guy.
Thanks for the response. Nice to know someone agreed. :-)
I'm not a religious guy, but the Bible story you cited describes precisely the sentiment I was driving at. Judging from the responses to my remarks it's not a popular sentiment. To some, the idea is so foreign that they missed the point entirely.
Like you, I have nothing personal against Mr. Buffet. Based on his public persona, he seems like a decent guy. But, I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that when viewed in terms of relative income/wealth, his contributions are roughly equivalent to an average Joe tossing a fiver in basket on Sunday morning.
Well, the wealthy can afford to be more generous because they have more disposable income. The paycheck-to-paycheck guy can't give his money away because he wouldn't be able to pay his bills. That was my point. As such, a donation from a middle class guy living paycheck-to-paycheck represents a hardship whereas a wealthy donor sacrifices nothing even when making a very large donation.
I have discovered, by way of the responses to my remarks, that pointing out this fact incites a visceral and angry response in many people. Many argue that degree of hardship is irrelevant and that only the size of the individual donation matters. I disagree. Others missed my point entirely.
While I see your point, I think you failed to grasp mine. My point had nothing to do with Mr. Buffet in particular, who, based on his public persona, appears to be less affected by his enormous wealth than other wealthy people.
Exactly why he should recieve the amount of attention he gets -- money doesn't mean that much to him, and it SHOULDN'T to others.
While maybe money shouldn't mean anything to the guy living paycheck-to-paycheck, but it does because of the reality of his situation. A loss of income of any kind could leave him and his family without food and shelter. Mr. Buffet has no such consequences to fear. That was my point.
Edit: "purposes" should have been "purchases"
0.1% of $37 billion is $3,700,000, not $37,000,000.
No, I think I was right. $37,000,000,000 * 0.001 = $37,000,000.
Donation is about motivation. You do it because it is the right thing to do.
Exactly. And by that standard, Mr. Buffet donation is no different than Joe Shmoe and they deserve equal praise.
If Warren donated $100, it would still be the same power bill, a tank and a half of gas, a week worth of groceries (given the same house / car / stomach).
To understand the point I attempted to make, you have consider what percentage of income/wealth that $100 would represent to each person and how it would affect their future purchasing power. Mathematically, would you agree that 100/50,000>>100/37,000,000? Further, would you agree that someone living paycheck-to-paycheck likely has to give up something when he gives away $100 while Mr. Buffet would not have to forgo any future purposes as a result of his donations due to enormous wealth? Does it make sense now?
No, by mediocre I mean not outstanding in their efforts or results.
Maybe his efforts and results are outstanding and contribute to society in ways that are not measured in $$. A teacher, a nurse or fireman perhaps. He may have tutored the next Einstein or saved a few lives. But, by your standard, he's mediocre cause he didn't make a bunch of money doing it.
If we're going to ask who deserves more praise as you did, I'd have to say unquestionably Buffet. The family man brought a couple new mouths into the world and just barely helped alleviate a little of its problems via donations. He is merely subsisting and throwing a bone to charity when possible.
Your stance: richer->bigger donations->deserves more praise. We established that you feel this way in your first response. I don't agree.
The bigger question, I guess, for me, is why you care which donation ranks where on the hosanna-meter.
Well, you obviously feel quite strongly about it or you wouldn't be here telling me how wrong I am.
Wow. I really didn't expect such emotional responses to my post.
I never said the guy didn't work for or deserve his money. From what I've read, he seems like a pretty down-to-earth and decent guy. When I said there was no hardship, I meant that giving his money away presents no hardship to him or to his family.
But, I see in your response exactly what I was talking about. It appears you judge a man by the degree of his material wealth. Mr. Buffet is a better man in your eyes because he achieved greater financial wealth than the average Joe. Okay, if that's how you judge people, fine. The rich are America's royalty. But, Mr. Buffet's wealth did not come from a vacuum -- it was made on the backs of millions of hard working people -- mediocre people (mediocre being defined as "not-rich"), in your way of thinking, I suppose.
I didn't address that question in my original post. I only expressed my opinion regarding why I think that the level adoration for Mr. Buffet is excessive and misplaced.
But, since you brought it up, the sum of charitable contributions from small contributers is actually larger than that of a few wealthy contributers. By that measure, it's the little guys who make the bigger difference.
If having a greater admiration for someone who makes a true sacrifice for good of others than some rich old guy giving away his fortune equates to a love for self-flagellation in you twisted little mind, then, well there's no point in taking this conversation further.
I think you missed my point or read your own viewpoint into what I had to say. I didn't say the benefit of charity was measured how much it hurts the giver. I spoke of the lopsided degree of adoration given to wealthy contributors over non-wealthy contributors. I believe that adoration is misplaced. The total sum of charitable contributions made by small donors exceeds that of individual large contributers. Yet, small contributers don't get their pictures on magazines or have adoring fans on Slashdot.
And, although I'm not Catholic, I do think that someone who makes a personal sacrifice for another person is more deserving of adoration than some old guy unloading a bunch of cash he can't take with him. Does that make me a weenie? A commie? Does that make me Catholic? Boy, that's gonna make my friends down at Atheists-Are-Us really pissed.
Hmmm.
Let me explain. Although, Mr. Buffet only pays himself $100,000/year, he is worth $37,000,000,000. Were he to liquidate and give all but 0.1% of his wealth to charity, he would still have $37,000,000 with which to buy groceries and pay his bills. I think we can agree that he would manage just fine in this regard.
Contrast this with the guy making $50,000/year. After taxes, he maybe nets $25,000 on which to support his family. That means he lives from paycheck to paycheck and any contribution to charity means sacrificing something in his own life.
Are you seriously claiming that you don't understand that a small charitable contribution made by someone making $50,000/year represents a greater hardship than just about any contribution made by someone whose net worth exceeds that of many nations? Surely, you are not that dense.
Thanks for helping making my point. In our society, a rich old man giving away money he doesn't need "rocks" and the average guy's contribution just makes him, well, a joke, by comparison.
Good on you pilerhead, you suck.
While I think it's great that Mr. Buffet has decided to give the lion's share of his estate to charity, it troubles me that people (and the press) fall all over themselves to shower him with accolades and make him out to be more generous than the average citizen. Mr. Buffet could give away 99.9% of his entire net worth and still have $37,000,000 in the bank. There are no hardships or risks involved in his donations.
Contrast this with charitable contributions made by an average middle class worker. If a family man earning $50,000/year donates $100 to charity annually, he is making an actual sacrifice. That's a week's worth groceries. A tank and a half of gas. Half the monthly electric bill.
So, who is more generous? Mr. Buffet or Mr. Middle-class-working-stiff? Who is more deserving of hosannas?