I have servers that have been up for several years...none of them are MS obviously (since you need to reboot to do anything in windows), but they're not redhat either.
some of you are really amazing. Did any of you look at Sun's financials before making such silly comments?
Sun has plenty of money already. They are not cash-starved, and in fact have been in a very strong position on their balance sheet for a while. It just might be that the reason M$ paid them is because the case was going poorly for them...how's that for an idea?
Sun is also still doing ok, considering the global recession. They're hanging in, still advancing and doing lots of R&D, and once things pick up again in a year or such they'll be ready.
How many of you chicken littles know anything about Solaris10, the new sparcs, chip2chip, or any of the other things that really have little to do with java? Java is NOT Sun's only product. When someone buys a sun server, they're not thinking about java. Sun originally got market share with a rep for cheap prices and awesome customer service. Their service is still great, but they weren't able to keep processor prices down in comparison with buying them from intel. However, they still have the most solid systems, as far as I'm concerned (they're very expensive now, but less so than the same quality elsewhere). And you can get a 4-way server from Sun cheaper than you can from even Dell...and Dell's rep is crap (would you *expect* a dell box to be running without a reboot after 5 years?). They are picking up some of the ideas that got them big in the beginning, and effectively implimenting them.
Just because Sun got 2B from M$, doesn't mean they're dead...yeeesh...it means they got 2B from M$.
"If I were being really cynical, I might conclude that MS had spent $2B of it's ample reserves to purchase an extension of single-sign-on into unix (linux and solaris) territory at a time when Sun needed cash." Sun doesn't "need" the cash. They have 2Bill in debts, and 6Bill in cash already. They are in a very, very good financial situation. Its part of the reason that they don't care as much about the price of the stock. Sure, 2Bill is a lot of money, but they're doing ok without it.
Something like this is obviously going to be a research facility, primarily. When you read through the announcement, you find:
Once the facility is built, the real work begins. Google will be exploring a number of exciting research projects that have the potential to advance search science to a new frontier. Among the questions Googlunars will seek to answer are: Exactly how far does the Worldwide web extend? Can it become an interplanetary utility? If so, will it replace Water Works on Monopoly(R)? What are the likely effects of link attenuation over extreme distances? Is there a limit to link strength, or is it infinitely extensible like bubble gum that gets stuck to the bottom of your shoe? What happens to PageRank in the proximity of a black hole? Is there distortion that might result in link relevancy reduction or popularity warping? Could this somehow be harnessed to generate more dates for engineers? Does spam go on forever?
in can go up in relative terms, which is obviously what was being said:P Relative to today's ratios, the average in the future being higher. Perfectly reasonable thing to say. You're simply judging tomorrow's results relative to the scale "rigidly attached to" today, as Einstein would say:P
the point is that the person in the UK didn't own the moon. As soon as we start populating the moon, you'll lose it. Whatever countr[y|ies] claim the moon as part of their territory, will then delve it out to themselves. They won't care a hill of beans that you paid some goof money for somthing he didn't own.
no freaking kidding. I've lived without cable, or even "air" (sat, ant) tv, for a couple years now. News comes in just fine on the net. Faster too, and I have far fewer commercials to worry about. I also have far more time for doing things a lot more enjoyable than sitting and staring at HBO or whatever.
1 - Did I say that the US hadn't done anything wrong? No, I said that they weren't alone in doing things wrong.
2 - Do you know another company that had the resources to pull off the task Halliburton is doing? In sheer magnitude of the job, the list of posibilities was TINY. I think its a bit more coincidental who used to sit on what board when than your arguement suggests. Not completely coincidental, no, but more than you (and many others) suggest. BTW - I don't really know anyone who likes Cheney. Bush at least has his supporters...why he doesn't ditch Cheney and pick up someone who could win in 2008 I'll never know.
3 - Iraq was under heavy sanctions in the 90's. France and Russia skirted those sanctions and sipped oil out..more France. And as I explained already in a recent post, Iraq did NOT need that nuclear plant france built them in the 70's. In the grand scheme of things, France has a far worse record with that area than us. Hell, the whole middle east is only a mess because of France, England, and Russia anyway. And the middle east mostly hates us because of propaganda from Russia/USSR during the cold war (and the Israel issue...which *should be* more Europe than us anyway, since it wasn't us that made Israel).
Never said the US was perfect, or that we didn't have dirt on us. Just tired of everyone suggesting we're the only dirty place around, and that *france* of all places is a pure little virgin. We might be Britney, but they're Madonna:P
and in some forms (asprin, alcohol) drugs are likewise legal.
The WTO is trying to force the US to allow a form of gambling that is illegal here. Tada - simple. Ever notice that you have to be 18 to buy those lottery tickets? And you have to buy them with cash, not credit? That's a substantial factor in many areas.
No, they're simply trying to force the US to change moral-based laws. Nothing more. What my actual opinion is of the moral-based law is a different matter - but the WTO should have no say in such things. The US is not hampering free trade. We just don't have such activities legal here.
I didn't have mod points to give you, so I placed a bet that you might have something smart to say in the future and just put you in my list.
All sorts of drugs are legal in all sorts of countries. That doesn't mean that the WTO can make the US legalize drugs imported from those countries.
Now...if the US allowed gambling across the board...that would be a different matter. But we don't. There are select areas (NV, indian reservations) that can do it. Other than that, gambling is an illegal activity. We're not keeping free trade from occuring in the gambling industry, we're keeping gambling from happening *at all*. There's a huge difference.
For all who are making the pot/kettle claim - don't be absurd. France and Russia wanted Iraq the way it was because they had shady ties. Anything the US did or didn't do in the 60's is irrelevant today, 40 years later. I wasn't alive, and none of the policy makers of today had power then. And Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils back then anyway. Its easy to fault people when you have 20/20 hindsight - its harder to predict the future.
"1."OpenOffice is free."License cost makes up only a small portion of the total cost of ownership.More significant costs include:... Data migration and testing (especially if customer uses Access database)
So they're saying that since you're already using their crappy product, switching off it might be expensive.
Document conversion and rewriting macros (OpenOffice does not support Office macros)
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Office Macros are part of their "anti-virus API," right?;) For shame...it doesn't support such a wonderful security flaw that has been the home of maliscious code for eons.
Additionally,OpenOffice does not have an e-mail client, so customers may incur a licensing cost associated with buying an e-mail application.
Yeah, outlook is "free" with MSOffice. That's why there are liscense costs with Exchange. Wait, you don't want exchange mail? Just regular smtp? Then use one of the billions of free email clients.
OOOOh....I see, so since I was just a simple 0311 that never got past e4, then that doesn't count. Gotcha. lol. Only officers count!
I'm really not sure why you don't understand that he HAS NOT GIVEN 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He's granted endowments. That's it. Look ONLY at the ACTUAL dollars ACTUALLY paid out in a year. Everything else will confuse your poor little mind, like it already has.
He didn't start the company from scratch. Read up on the history. He bought dos (he had lots of money to do it with), and the people who were going to sell a DOS system to IBM didn't show up to their appointment (they were fishing instead, I believe?). IBM was pissed, Gates was more or less standing there, and the rest is history. Once he owned the OS, the whole world was locked into his upgrade path forever (or, until now at least). IBM was not legally permitted to promote their own OS (OS/2) because of their losses in monopoly court. No one at the time realized the power of the OS, either - had the guys that missed their appt that morning with IBM actually been there, THEY would have been the ultra-rich ones. Its no more complicated than that.
There was no building from scratch. He started with his parent's millions, and someone else's OS. Nothing scratch about that. That's a minor point anyway.
The main point is that I've been simply quantifying his generosity...I use the same words to say that to drill it in...and have demonstrated that he's not anywhere near the most generous anything.
I donate, as I've already explained, a FAR higher percentage of both my net worth, and my disposable income, than he does every year. HE HAS NOT DONATED 1/3 HIS NET WORTH. Get that through your thick little skull. Read his own damn website for all the proof you'll need.
I've already speculated on this. The obvious answer is that the Republicans held power too often on Mars, and killed it. Somewhere in its history was an Al Gore telling everyone they'd be dead if they didn't stop driving cars by 1980. Only in the case of Mars, it happened!
Good thing we have so many people that are/truely/ interested in the earth that have held power for at least a little bit.
LOL...you're quite the funny one. Again, you don't retort, but instead babble. Simple challenges I give you. Back up what you're saying. Instead of responding, you call me weak, or say I'm whining. I'm not whining, I'm disagreeing that he's the "most generous" anything at all (man, dweeb, whatever). He's just a guy with a lot of money that is able to buy PR pretty easy in many different forms.
Surely you know that I could simply look up the answers to any of your questions on the net if I/wasn't/ a formerly enlisted Marine? Would me catering to your whims make you believe me? That is to say, if I gave the answers, would it matter? I doubt it;)
Your claims (these are quotes from you):
Here's a guy who started a company from scratch
he's now the most generous philanthropist too
By your statement...Mother Teresa is not generous
Did you ever consider that some people are generous, but that it's also nice to be remembered.
Also look closer, he has donated over 20 Billion dollars to charity throughout his life. Not 20 million.
The responses, per each:
He was born rich. He didn't start from scratch.
He's far less generous than the average American. He donates more money, but that is only because he *has* more. The idea of quantified generosity seems to be going over your head. Generosity is not based simply on the quantiy of what is given, it has to do with how much you gave compared to what you have. If I have 2 dollars and give you a dollar, I'm far more generous than the man who has 2million dollars and gives you 10. You get more from him, and I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't mean he's more *generous*.
Your claim about this part is highly odd. Mother Theresa gave her *life*. There is more to giving than just money.
He WILL BE REMEMBERED...without his name on any building. The point of that statement is to debunk your claim.
HE HAS NOT GIVEN 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He has granted that much in ENDOWMENTS. Read the website. Having worked in several npo's, I personally fully understand the difference. Grants are tangible. Endowments may or may not happen, and if they do it is in the distant future. He HAS NOT GIVEN THAT MUCH MONEY. And again, the $20mill figure was in reference to the cost of the building...you know, the one the/. article was about.
So...by not responding, are you conceeding? Can you respond to the challenges - those of showing where I've whined, and where I've made statements you disagree with?
And good lord dude...what the hell is "you may have just made a serious error" supposed to mean? Even if I didn't still have my dd214 in glovebox just in case (even though I'm long past the 8 total years mark, where I have to carry it with me), I fail to see how the hell any of it could be serious. How does the word "error" apply to this conversation at all?
Yes, you definately need, want, and deserve that pity. Do you have the ability to back up ANYTHING you say? Or do you just enjoy being a Bill fanboy so much that you are unwilling to even think at all anymore? Silly "you're just whining" responses certainly don't make *me* look weak.
BTW - pft has changed since I was in. Hell, they don't even do Mt MF anymore on the west coast during boot! I could do 110 situps in 2 minutes (I still do about 800 crunches every morning, but I don't time myself), which was well beyond the max. I can still do around 45 dead-hang pullups (I think they let people pop up nowadays?), which is above the max still if I recall right. My run time though...yeah well, I can run forever, just don't expect a max score out of me on a 3-mile short. I was just above 19 minutes, which isn't terrible score-wise, but I wasn't after "not bad" so thus the problem. I've never met a mountain I can't take though.
Everything else, any smuck could look up online. So...wouldn't prove anything. Oh well!;)
1. Again, I'm not whining. Can you quote a single line that even looks like it? I'm simply quantifying his generosity.
2. I'm not sacraficing for a woman. 3. I'm connecting the dots. Your first post:
Here's a guy who started a company from scratch, and worked his way up to being the richest man in the world.
And to top if off, he's now the most generous philanthropist too. His foundation [gatesfoundation.org], focused on fighting disease and promoting education will leave a bigger and longer lasting legacy than his business accomplishments.
Having some buildings names after him is a small token of apprecation in comparison to his generosity.
I've broken it down already. He didn't "start from scratch." He was born rich. He's not "the most generous" anything. He gives more money than I do, but is far less generous. As I've said many times - quantifying his generosity, not his donations. Additionally - his business legacy will FAR outlast his silly "foundation."
You responded by trying to say that I was stating Mother Theresa wasn't generous, which was quite silly.
Then you said "Did you ever consider that some people are generous, but that it's also nice to be remembered. Also look closer, he has donated over 20 Billion dollars to charity throughout his life. Not 20 million."
And to that I responded that he WILL be remembered, but not for his "generosity." I also responded that he HAS NOT DONATED 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He has granted 20 billion in ENDOWMENTS. That is a HUGE difference, and it is info that I got from the site that YOU posted. Try reading it.
So - the challenge to you: quote something from me that was whining. Show how I'm weak. I bet I could beat you at anything, really - heh. Oh, another challenge: show me what I'm "making statements like there [I'm assuming that should be they're] facts and they simply aren't." All the facts I've stated were from the gatesfoundation website! And I only stated 2 facts!
I've toured in semi-popular bands. I've been in the Marines. I'm going off to the Peace Corps in a couple years. Got a beautiful wife, a nice house, a good job...no complaints here. First line of my first post on this little thread mentioned I dispise constant Bill-bashing. But...to think he's the "most generous" person...a quote from you, is absurd. That is all I'm arguing.
Do you not understand what I mean when I say I'm only "quantifying his generosity?" Where am I losing you?
And of course you can't follow through with either of those simple challenges...because they don't fit your narrow programming. You might not give me pity I neither need, want, nor deserve...but I give it to you for all three reasons.
I could find people that would pay for a whole vaction to the UK...one pay for the trip there, one for the trip back, and one to let me crash at their house. All I'd need is to find 3 people that would trust me to have their stuff delivered to my house in NY...heh
heh...harder? I've put in my fair number of 60+ hour weeks. Poor? Not in the sense that I could easily stroll back to LA or such and get $110k+ again...that's just not an option near where I am right now (geographically controlled by the location of my wife's school, which likewise is quite expensive). Whining? Hardly - I'm just not a Bill fanboy, wanting to suck him off.
What part of "he was born rich" confuses you? What part of "he was lucky" goes over your head? Do you not know the history of his company? The whole deal with IBM that occured? Luck. Not hard work (though there was plenty of that), just a matter of being at the right place at the right time.
I'm quantifying his generosity not his donations. Yes, he donates a larger volume. But that doesn't make him a highly generous person. Never did I question whether my $40 could feed as many people as his $40 million. Try reading. All I'm discussing is his generosity.
If YOU had an unexpected expense of $100,000,000, would it leave you unphased?
American dream aside, there's a limit to how often the "work harder" thing will work. In almost all cases of the really rich, it's more like "work harder AND be at the right place at the right time." Unfortunately, no matter how many are working harder, there's a limit to those "right places";) its completely niave to think our economic system works in any other way. And of the billionaire club...that's being at *exactly* the right place at *exactly* the right time. There's no questioning that. No one on that list did it purely by hard work, or even due to intelligence.
So lets go back to Mother Theresa...she gave her *life*. That's considerably more generous than someone with more disposable income than he could reasonably use that donates what is essentially pocket change for him.
and you were saying that over 20billion was one of many donations?!?!?! Exactly what, then, were you saying was one of many? What you mentioned was the "20 billion," which is in ENDOWMENTS...which have not gone out and are all very-long term.
Your posts are up the thread - just because I'm debunking your simple fanboyism doesn't mean you get to retroactively change your arguements.
no, there are over 20billion in *endowments* granted during his lifetime. You should look closer and notice that almost all those endowments have long-term payouts. Remember Ted Turner's $10bill promise to the UN that never happened? Saying you'll pay $7mill over the course of the next 10 years doesn't mean you've donated $7mill *this* year, it means you've donated $700k. This as an example.
I was also speaking on terms of yearly donations. I'd like to see what his donations were last year. Then, compare that number. Not some promised-in-the-future number...a number that he has actually donated in a year. Compare that number to his net worth. Take that percentage. Do you think that the practice of giving away goods and services is limited just to lawsuits he loses? Trace the money. Look at what actually goes out. If the average American donates $10 in a year, they beat him. Note that since I do about 20% of my disposable income, and my net worth is currently a negative number (try putting a wife through vet school without such), Bill isn't doing anything. Its all relative. I suffer actual consequences for donating - each $40 given somewhere is one less time we can eat out. Again - if he gives away $40Mill, it doesn't change his lifestyle *at all*. He can give away literally a million times as much as me without having to do anything differently, adjust his budget, etc.
Another thing - Mother Theresa donated her life to charity. She didn't live in billion dollar houses, with every imaginable luxury.
Bill is *going* to be remembered. No "charitible" thing he does will really impact that, unless he gives an actual substantial portion of his actual money. He'll definately be remembered though. Do you *really* think he wouldn't have been, without the facade?
Troll:P Constant Bill-bashing is silly in its own right, but wanting to suck him off is far worse.
First, he never started from scratch. He was born very rich, then got even luckier.
Second, he donates less of a percentage of his disposable income than I do by FAR. In fact, I'd suggest that the average American donates a considerably higher percentage of their disposable income than he does. $20Mill is nothing to him - it would be like me handing out $40 over the course of a year to things (homeless, the church, Girl Scouts, whatever). $20Mill is 1/2000 of his worth. The average American is lucky to have a net worth in the 5 figures...most live paycheck to paycheck with 4 figure accounts (which means they only need to donate $10 a year to blow Bill to bits, percentage-wise), and make mortgage payments until they die.
There's also the tax benefits to the "foundation," which he sits on for further benefits (why just donate money, when you can start a foundation? and name it after yourself? and sit on the board?).
When most Americans would be fiscally devastated by a $1,000 unexpected expense, Bill could have a $100,000,000 unexpected expense and not change his lifestyle AT ALL.
The foundation, the scholarships, and everything else is all just PR for him, to make people dislike him less. And it works, obviously.
Third point: if he was truely being generous, his name wouldn't be on any buildings.
Fourth point: the "legacy" of his foundation will last only as long as his money is in it. Its done nothing all that substantial. His business finess though has made a very substantial impact on the planet, and will be remembered for a very long time.
its from the 12th, actually. So...its been 4 days. Do you expect them to remember something from 4 days ago, when there's so many anti-M$ posts in between? That's quite unreasonable of you;)
Cripes, I hate M$ as much as anyone else who has used linux and unix exclusively since 1995, but geezus...they get slammed for bugs, get slammed for fixing bugs...we all know the bugs are there! We don't need to hear about it 100 times a day!
They just like filler nowadays, apparently. The more posts about spam and M$ they can do, the better. Ah, the good old days when there wasn't 1000 posts a day on/., and when they weren't all whining.
Slashdot Mirror
I have servers that have been up for several years...none of them are MS obviously (since you need to reboot to do anything in windows), but they're not redhat either.
dude...its just people being sarcastic. Its obvious, even.
Sun has plenty of money already. They are not cash-starved, and in fact have been in a very strong position on their balance sheet for a while. It just might be that the reason M$ paid them is because the case was going poorly for them...how's that for an idea?
Sun is also still doing ok, considering the global recession. They're hanging in, still advancing and doing lots of R&D, and once things pick up again in a year or such they'll be ready.
How many of you chicken littles know anything about Solaris10, the new sparcs, chip2chip, or any of the other things that really have little to do with java? Java is NOT Sun's only product. When someone buys a sun server, they're not thinking about java. Sun originally got market share with a rep for cheap prices and awesome customer service. Their service is still great, but they weren't able to keep processor prices down in comparison with buying them from intel. However, they still have the most solid systems, as far as I'm concerned (they're very expensive now, but less so than the same quality elsewhere). And you can get a 4-way server from Sun cheaper than you can from even Dell...and Dell's rep is crap (would you *expect* a dell box to be running without a reboot after 5 years?). They are picking up some of the ideas that got them big in the beginning, and effectively implimenting them.
Just because Sun got 2B from M$, doesn't mean they're dead...yeeesh...it means they got 2B from M$.
"If I were being really cynical, I might conclude that MS had spent $2B of it's ample reserves to purchase an extension of single-sign-on into unix (linux and solaris) territory at a time when Sun needed cash."
Sun doesn't "need" the cash. They have 2Bill in debts, and 6Bill in cash already. They are in a very, very good financial situation. Its part of the reason that they don't care as much about the price of the stock. Sure, 2Bill is a lot of money, but they're doing ok without it.
Once the facility is built, the real work begins. Google will be exploring a number of exciting research projects that have the potential to advance search science to a new frontier. Among the questions Googlunars will seek to answer are:
Exactly how far does the Worldwide web extend? Can it become an interplanetary utility? If so, will it replace Water Works on Monopoly(R)?
What are the likely effects of link attenuation over extreme distances? Is there a limit to link strength, or is it infinitely extensible like bubble gum that gets stuck to the bottom of your shoe?
What happens to PageRank in the proximity of a black hole? Is there distortion that might result in link relevancy reduction or popularity warping? Could this somehow be harnessed to generate more dates for engineers?
Does spam go on forever?
ps - yes, I know. Its called playing along.
in can go up in relative terms, which is obviously what was being said :P Relative to today's ratios, the average in the future being higher. Perfectly reasonable thing to say. You're simply judging tomorrow's results relative to the scale "rigidly attached to" today, as Einstein would say :P
I'm really hoping you were just being funny.
no freaking kidding. I've lived without cable, or even "air" (sat, ant) tv, for a couple years now. News comes in just fine on the net. Faster too, and I have far fewer commercials to worry about. I also have far more time for doing things a lot more enjoyable than sitting and staring at HBO or whatever.
1 - Did I say that the US hadn't done anything wrong? No, I said that they weren't alone in doing things wrong.
2 - Do you know another company that had the resources to pull off the task Halliburton is doing? In sheer magnitude of the job, the list of posibilities was TINY. I think its a bit more coincidental who used to sit on what board when than your arguement suggests. Not completely coincidental, no, but more than you (and many others) suggest. BTW - I don't really know anyone who likes Cheney. Bush at least has his supporters...why he doesn't ditch Cheney and pick up someone who could win in 2008 I'll never know.
3 - Iraq was under heavy sanctions in the 90's. France and Russia skirted those sanctions and sipped oil out..more France. And as I explained already in a recent post, Iraq did NOT need that nuclear plant france built them in the 70's. In the grand scheme of things, France has a far worse record with that area than us. Hell, the whole middle east is only a mess because of France, England, and Russia anyway. And the middle east mostly hates us because of propaganda from Russia/USSR during the cold war (and the Israel issue...which *should be* more Europe than us anyway, since it wasn't us that made Israel).
Never said the US was perfect, or that we didn't have dirt on us. Just tired of everyone suggesting we're the only dirty place around, and that *france* of all places is a pure little virgin. We might be Britney, but they're Madonna :P
The WTO is trying to force the US to allow a form of gambling that is illegal here. Tada - simple. Ever notice that you have to be 18 to buy those lottery tickets? And you have to buy them with cash, not credit? That's a substantial factor in many areas.
No, they're simply trying to force the US to change moral-based laws. Nothing more. What my actual opinion is of the moral-based law is a different matter - but the WTO should have no say in such things. The US is not hampering free trade. We just don't have such activities legal here.
All sorts of drugs are legal in all sorts of countries. That doesn't mean that the WTO can make the US legalize drugs imported from those countries.
Now...if the US allowed gambling across the board...that would be a different matter. But we don't. There are select areas (NV, indian reservations) that can do it. Other than that, gambling is an illegal activity. We're not keeping free trade from occuring in the gambling industry, we're keeping gambling from happening *at all*. There's a huge difference.
For all who are making the pot/kettle claim - don't be absurd. France and Russia wanted Iraq the way it was because they had shady ties. Anything the US did or didn't do in the 60's is irrelevant today, 40 years later. I wasn't alive, and none of the policy makers of today had power then. And Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils back then anyway. Its easy to fault people when you have 20/20 hindsight - its harder to predict the future.
"1."OpenOffice is free."License cost makes up only a small portion of the total cost of ownership.More significant costs include: ... Data migration and testing (especially if customer uses Access database)
So they're saying that since you're already using their crappy product, switching off it might be expensive.
Document conversion and rewriting macros (OpenOffice does not support Office macros)
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Office Macros are part of their "anti-virus API," right? ;) For shame...it doesn't support such a wonderful security flaw that has been the home of maliscious code for eons.
Additionally,OpenOffice does not have an e-mail client, so customers may incur a licensing cost associated with buying an e-mail application.
Yeah, outlook is "free" with MSOffice. That's why there are liscense costs with Exchange. Wait, you don't want exchange mail? Just regular smtp? Then use one of the billions of free email clients.
I love this world.
I'm really not sure why you don't understand that he HAS NOT GIVEN 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He's granted endowments. That's it. Look ONLY at the ACTUAL dollars ACTUALLY paid out in a year. Everything else will confuse your poor little mind, like it already has.
He didn't start the company from scratch. Read up on the history. He bought dos (he had lots of money to do it with), and the people who were going to sell a DOS system to IBM didn't show up to their appointment (they were fishing instead, I believe?). IBM was pissed, Gates was more or less standing there, and the rest is history. Once he owned the OS, the whole world was locked into his upgrade path forever (or, until now at least). IBM was not legally permitted to promote their own OS (OS/2) because of their losses in monopoly court. No one at the time realized the power of the OS, either - had the guys that missed their appt that morning with IBM actually been there, THEY would have been the ultra-rich ones. Its no more complicated than that.
There was no building from scratch. He started with his parent's millions, and someone else's OS. Nothing scratch about that. That's a minor point anyway.
The main point is that I've been simply quantifying his generosity...I use the same words to say that to drill it in...and have demonstrated that he's not anywhere near the most generous anything.
I donate, as I've already explained, a FAR higher percentage of both my net worth, and my disposable income, than he does every year. HE HAS NOT DONATED 1/3 HIS NET WORTH. Get that through your thick little skull. Read his own damn website for all the proof you'll need.
lol...flamebait? Geeze...here I thought it was just funny!
Good thing we have so many people that are /truely/ interested in the earth that have held power for at least a little bit.
Damn Republicans.
Surely you know that I could simply look up the answers to any of your questions on the net if I /wasn't/ a formerly enlisted Marine? Would me catering to your whims make you believe me? That is to say, if I gave the answers, would it matter? I doubt it ;)
Your claims (these are quotes from you):
Here's a guy who started a company from scratch
he's now the most generous philanthropist too
By your statement...Mother Teresa is not generous
Did you ever consider that some people are generous, but that it's also nice to be remembered.
Also look closer, he has donated over 20 Billion dollars to charity throughout his life. Not 20 million.
The responses, per each:
He was born rich. He didn't start from scratch.
He's far less generous than the average American. He donates more money, but that is only because he *has* more. The idea of quantified generosity seems to be going over your head. Generosity is not based simply on the quantiy of what is given, it has to do with how much you gave compared to what you have. If I have 2 dollars and give you a dollar, I'm far more generous than the man who has 2million dollars and gives you 10. You get more from him, and I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't mean he's more *generous*.
Your claim about this part is highly odd. Mother Theresa gave her *life*. There is more to giving than just money.
He WILL BE REMEMBERED...without his name on any building. The point of that statement is to debunk your claim.
HE HAS NOT GIVEN 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He has granted that much in ENDOWMENTS. Read the website. Having worked in several npo's, I personally fully understand the difference. Grants are tangible. Endowments may or may not happen, and if they do it is in the distant future. He HAS NOT GIVEN THAT MUCH MONEY. And again, the $20mill figure was in reference to the cost of the building...you know, the one the /. article was about.
So...by not responding, are you conceeding? Can you respond to the challenges - those of showing where I've whined, and where I've made statements you disagree with?
And good lord dude...what the hell is "you may have just made a serious error" supposed to mean? Even if I didn't still have my dd214 in glovebox just in case (even though I'm long past the 8 total years mark, where I have to carry it with me), I fail to see how the hell any of it could be serious. How does the word "error" apply to this conversation at all?
Yes, you definately need, want, and deserve that pity. Do you have the ability to back up ANYTHING you say? Or do you just enjoy being a Bill fanboy so much that you are unwilling to even think at all anymore? Silly "you're just whining" responses certainly don't make *me* look weak.
BTW - pft has changed since I was in. Hell, they don't even do Mt MF anymore on the west coast during boot! I could do 110 situps in 2 minutes (I still do about 800 crunches every morning, but I don't time myself), which was well beyond the max. I can still do around 45 dead-hang pullups (I think they let people pop up nowadays?), which is above the max still if I recall right. My run time though...yeah well, I can run forever, just don't expect a max score out of me on a 3-mile short. I was just above 19 minutes, which isn't terrible score-wise, but I wasn't after "not bad" so thus the problem. I've never met a mountain I can't take though.
Everything else, any smuck could look up online. So...wouldn't prove anything. Oh well! ;)
2. I'm not sacraficing for a woman.
3. I'm connecting the dots. Your first post:
Here's a guy who started a company from scratch, and worked his way up to being the richest man in the world.
And to top if off, he's now the most generous philanthropist too. His foundation [gatesfoundation.org], focused on fighting disease and promoting education will leave a bigger and longer lasting legacy than his business accomplishments.
Having some buildings names after him is a small token of apprecation in comparison to his generosity.
I've broken it down already. He didn't "start from scratch." He was born rich. He's not "the most generous" anything. He gives more money than I do, but is far less generous. As I've said many times - quantifying his generosity, not his donations. Additionally - his business legacy will FAR outlast his silly "foundation."
You responded by trying to say that I was stating Mother Theresa wasn't generous, which was quite silly.
Then you said "Did you ever consider that some people are generous, but that it's also nice to be remembered. Also look closer, he has donated over 20 Billion dollars to charity throughout his life. Not 20 million."
And to that I responded that he WILL be remembered, but not for his "generosity." I also responded that he HAS NOT DONATED 20 BILLION DOLLARS. He has granted 20 billion in ENDOWMENTS. That is a HUGE difference, and it is info that I got from the site that YOU posted. Try reading it.
So - the challenge to you: quote something from me that was whining. Show how I'm weak. I bet I could beat you at anything, really - heh. Oh, another challenge: show me what I'm "making statements like there [I'm assuming that should be they're] facts and they simply aren't." All the facts I've stated were from the gatesfoundation website! And I only stated 2 facts!
I've toured in semi-popular bands. I've been in the Marines. I'm going off to the Peace Corps in a couple years. Got a beautiful wife, a nice house, a good job...no complaints here. First line of my first post on this little thread mentioned I dispise constant Bill-bashing. But...to think he's the "most generous" person...a quote from you, is absurd. That is all I'm arguing.
Do you not understand what I mean when I say I'm only "quantifying his generosity?" Where am I losing you?
And of course you can't follow through with either of those simple challenges...because they don't fit your narrow programming. You might not give me pity I neither need, want, nor deserve...but I give it to you for all three reasons.
hey, it could happen. I'm a trustworthy guy.
What part of "he was born rich" confuses you? What part of "he was lucky" goes over your head? Do you not know the history of his company? The whole deal with IBM that occured? Luck. Not hard work (though there was plenty of that), just a matter of being at the right place at the right time.
I'm quantifying his generosity not his donations. Yes, he donates a larger volume. But that doesn't make him a highly generous person. Never did I question whether my $40 could feed as many people as his $40 million. Try reading. All I'm discussing is his generosity.
If YOU had an unexpected expense of $100,000,000, would it leave you unphased?
American dream aside, there's a limit to how often the "work harder" thing will work. In almost all cases of the really rich, it's more like "work harder AND be at the right place at the right time." Unfortunately, no matter how many are working harder, there's a limit to those "right places" ;) its completely niave to think our economic system works in any other way. And of the billionaire club...that's being at *exactly* the right place at *exactly* the right time. There's no questioning that. No one on that list did it purely by hard work, or even due to intelligence.
So lets go back to Mother Theresa...she gave her *life*. That's considerably more generous than someone with more disposable income than he could reasonably use that donates what is essentially pocket change for him.
and you were saying that over 20billion was one of many donations?!?!?! Exactly what, then, were you saying was one of many? What you mentioned was the "20 billion," which is in ENDOWMENTS...which have not gone out and are all very-long term.
Your posts are up the thread - just because I'm debunking your simple fanboyism doesn't mean you get to retroactively change your arguements.
oh, btw - the $20Mill figure was in reference to what he paid for that building. Way to read the articles!
I was also speaking on terms of yearly donations. I'd like to see what his donations were last year. Then, compare that number. Not some promised-in-the-future number...a number that he has actually donated in a year. Compare that number to his net worth. Take that percentage. Do you think that the practice of giving away goods and services is limited just to lawsuits he loses? Trace the money. Look at what actually goes out. If the average American donates $10 in a year, they beat him. Note that since I do about 20% of my disposable income, and my net worth is currently a negative number (try putting a wife through vet school without such), Bill isn't doing anything. Its all relative. I suffer actual consequences for donating - each $40 given somewhere is one less time we can eat out. Again - if he gives away $40Mill, it doesn't change his lifestyle *at all*. He can give away literally a million times as much as me without having to do anything differently, adjust his budget, etc.
Another thing - Mother Theresa donated her life to charity. She didn't live in billion dollar houses, with every imaginable luxury.
Bill is *going* to be remembered. No "charitible" thing he does will really impact that, unless he gives an actual substantial portion of his actual money. He'll definately be remembered though. Do you *really* think he wouldn't have been, without the facade?
First, he never started from scratch. He was born very rich, then got even luckier.
Second, he donates less of a percentage of his disposable income than I do by FAR. In fact, I'd suggest that the average American donates a considerably higher percentage of their disposable income than he does. $20Mill is nothing to him - it would be like me handing out $40 over the course of a year to things (homeless, the church, Girl Scouts, whatever). $20Mill is 1/2000 of his worth. The average American is lucky to have a net worth in the 5 figures...most live paycheck to paycheck with 4 figure accounts (which means they only need to donate $10 a year to blow Bill to bits, percentage-wise), and make mortgage payments until they die.
There's also the tax benefits to the "foundation," which he sits on for further benefits (why just donate money, when you can start a foundation? and name it after yourself? and sit on the board?).
When most Americans would be fiscally devastated by a $1,000 unexpected expense, Bill could have a $100,000,000 unexpected expense and not change his lifestyle AT ALL.
The foundation, the scholarships, and everything else is all just PR for him, to make people dislike him less. And it works, obviously.
Third point: if he was truely being generous, his name wouldn't be on any buildings.
Fourth point: the "legacy" of his foundation will last only as long as his money is in it. Its done nothing all that substantial. His business finess though has made a very substantial impact on the planet, and will be remembered for a very long time.
I read the post and thought exactly the same thing. I mean...yeah. What makes that "attempt" so "laudable," if that was what was being attempted?
this one? No. The last one? Yes.
Cripes, I hate M$ as much as anyone else who has used linux and unix exclusively since 1995, but geezus...they get slammed for bugs, get slammed for fixing bugs...we all know the bugs are there! We don't need to hear about it 100 times a day!
They just like filler nowadays, apparently. The more posts about spam and M$ they can do, the better. Ah, the good old days when there wasn't 1000 posts a day on /., and when they weren't all whining.