Which doesn't matter, really, since they're still moving to stop the problem. If I'm in Holland, I don't care if the Little Dutch Boy has his finger in the dike to save his life or mine, as long as the result is that mine is saved.
I don't know if you deal with a bank, or a credit union. I am a member of the credit union, which is not the same as being a customer at the bank. It's more like the insurance company I deal with (USAA), where I am a member and if the company does well at the end of the year, I get a refund. While I don't get a refund from the CU, credit unions do much more to help and protect their customers than banks.
I did the same when I banked with Walk-all-ova-ya (oops, Wachovia), and never had a problem.
As for the "agreement" part, no, it isn't an agreement, but they have been notified, they have a copy of the back, and that can, if needed, be submitted as evidence in any trial where anyone is accused of using my card falsely.
First: You seem to miss the part that I notified the Credit Union about it. Without going into details, they supported me.
Second: The one time I had to deal with fraud, it was useful in pinpointing that all the fraudulent purchases were online.
Third: As for terms, I go through a credit union, which is great on service and protection, and they have great terms for protecting members, so maybe credit cards help for many, but it doesn't make much of a difference in this case.
Fourth: You bring up 2 points about the signature. You say, the merchant is not required to obey your stupid writing on the back. Then, in the same paragraph (actually, the next sentence), you say, In fact, if they are doing their job they would require you to sign the card for real to make sure you have agreed to the terms of service. Do you always go back and forth on everything like that? Yes, it is supposed to be signed, and my note requires them to check for ID, which is signed. I checked, and it counts. So, in line with your 2nd sentence, yes, they are supposed to check -- which contradicts your 1st sentence.
Fifth: Yes, most theft happens without stealing my card. So I guess I should just give up and not do anything and not care if it is physically stolen, right?
Sixth: The lawyer friends are my clients, and are thrilled with the service I provide them because it has helped one start a business, another add scads of new customers, and others increase their profit margin and add enough new clients that some have had to hire more people. Some are family friends. As for cops, one, in particular, was talking to me and his cousin, and showed us his card and the note he put on it, as well as giving us a good background explanation, specifically for his cousin.
So you may think it is stupid, but you couldn't provide a reason that stands up to examination for that.
But that's okay -- I wasn't telling you that you had to do it. If you think it's stupid, don't do it. But don't give us a bunch of shallow and invalid reasons why it is stupid when the reasons are less supported than the suggestion.
No, the directions I wrote on the back don't, but the Credit Union watches that. For example, a few friends and I were together to set up a bachelor party type thing for a friend who was moving in with his girlfriend, so we decided to create a profile for him on an adult dating service that we could show him the next night, when we would be with him. We set it up, it was only $20 or about that, so I said I didn't mind charging that one month on my card -- as long as we deleted the account the next night. It didn't go through -- it turns out their security blocks XXX sites. That is comforting, at least to me.
The one time I had to deal with fraud, all the purchaes were online, along with recent purchases I had made through a data supplier to test their services. I got a call from the security people, they listed a number of online purchases, including the data I paid for, since it was outside of my buying profile. Everything was resolved in 24 hours, except for waiting for a new card to arrive.
So my note on the back didn't help w/ online purchases, but this group is watching for that anyway!
It's funny how many people throw a fuss and piss and moan when someone dares to say the emperor just might not have any clothes, or that things aren't as they appear.
Not that it matters to a name calling person like you, but most of my working life was dedicated to helping learning disabled and emotionally disturbed students in institutions. On my own time, and with my own money, I give regularly to organizations like World Vision, where I sponsor children in the 3rd world. I also donate my time to another project that is building schools in 3rd world nations and work with people where I worship to help many of them in other causes. I've started my own business in data mining because the profit is funnelled into writing and producing videos focused on self-help and spiritual growth topics, as well as creating dramatic productions that focus on people learning and growing in personal and spiritual ways.
And I have also learned to always ask the next question and always look past the surface. Sometimes you find something wonderful there, or someone who needs help (like little Johnny who has been warned never to be late, but walks in late -- if you ask before you chew him out, you might find out he's late because he got beat up at recess), or, in this case, someone who is not what everyone wants him to be.
But I'll just go back to my cynical ways where I'm too busy being cynical to donate money and time to any of the causes or activities I mentioned.
I talked with a few lawyer and cop friends about this and put on the back of my check card (I don't use credit cards), "ASK FOR PHOTO ID" in big, red letters. My understanding is since I've notified the Credit Union of this, in writing, if anyone uses a fake card in person, or steals it and doesn't show an ID, the merchant is at fault, since they did not check the signature and ask for the ID, as stated in place of the signature. I don't worry too much about it, though. They are excellent at detecting any sign of fraud activity, and have called me several times to verify transactions outside of my normal purchase habits. I'd much rather get false alarms like that then have them ignore it.
Actually, the statements I made were based on factual research.
Even trying to find a way to bash MS and Bill G. when doing nothing but giving money away to help people.
As for bashing -- sorry you see it that way. I'm pointing out that often there is more to an action than what has been said, and that, in this case, the person in question has demonstrated, in documented stories and events, that he is more than capable of using charitable donations as part of a marketing tool. This isn't urban myth. I pointed out a specific situation in my first post so people like you would realize that there was more to this than just bashing. I didn't count, though, on someone like you not understanding what you read.
Often the truth hurts. It seems, in this case, the truth hurt you and you'd rather write it off as something you can ignore than take the time to Google news stories and see that, at least in the one case I cite, the donation came in perfect timing with MS's marketing campaign in the same area.
First up Malaria is a "Tropical" disease, ie: found in the tropics, Australia has the strictest quarantine of any Nation, NZ and the Antartic are too cold.
I didn't say that wasn't show. I merely pointed out the areas of the Earth were malaria was a threat. So this is really not a relevant point.
Third, "evil" people sometimes do great deeds.As for "pushing & conjoling" have you ever noticed that is how most "leaders" operate?
Yes. I mentioned before, I run my own business. Leadership is something I have watched and studied since I was a teenager. There are those who claim to lead who do so by bullying, and they may get noticed by those who don't look too deeply. My experience is that there are many more who know how to lead by other forms of motivation. Also, as far as logical falacies, how other people lead has nothing to do with the argument.
Last, Bill & Co have an impressive record of helping people who are largely forgotten by the rest of the world. No he did not start MS in an attempt to wipe out Malaria, but because of MS success as a publicly traded company, Bill now has the oportunity to do so.
Again, as I've said before, that help is from the Foundation, not directly from him. While someone here (who must have done research -- should I explain that to you so, in the future, you can support your statements -- or, perhaps, stick to supportable statements?) has said Bill keeps donating to the Foundation, there is a significant difference between the Foundation donating and Bill donating. If you want to see a really impressive record of helping the "largely forgotten" then I suggest you look into the Carter Foundation.
The fact that you can only see a self serving conspiracy on the part of MS says alot more about you than it does about Bill.
Cute. My focus is on stupidity -- at least here. I hated it in students, I hate it in my employees, and I find it particularly loathesome in a forum like this where most members seem to think they have an above average intelligence. I could tolerate it in new students, until they learned to always ask the next question or dig to the next level. However, to see so many people here start to call someone a saint based on one article is an amazing display of stupidity. Maybe he is. Maybe he does good things, but there is more to this than just one story and that is what most people here see -- and all they see. I noticed that I, and a few others, who have dared to say there is more have actually been modded to troll.
I've watched Bill G for his whole career (as I've watched Jobs, Wozniak, and others -- yes, I'm old enough to remember what they were like at the start). An untrustworthy person who abuses people rarely suddenly turns into a saint. Oscar Schindler is a rare -- very rare -- case. If Gates were such a good person, it would not have been so hard for his family to convince him to start the Foundation and to get him to give money away.
Okay, that's just silly. Microsoft, like it or not, pretty much sells their software all around the world. So, you're saying he shouldn't give to any place MS software can be bought? That's just stupid.
There are times they make a big push in one area or another, such as when they started to push Windows in India.
Gates has also recently made statements about people that don't use computers and regions where they haven't reached.
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do.
That's the point. I have not looked up to see the background on this, but if MS were doing well in Africa, there would not be much need to focus there. However, even on your first point, you are off base. Here's a link to the Wikipedia you might find helpful (careful -- if you click on it, you might learn something!). Malaria zones include Mexico, most of South America, Africa, and large parts of Asia. Actually, if you dare to click on the link and learn something, you'll see that the malaria zones cover most of the world below around (and this is a guess based on a simple picture) the 40th parallel North -- except Australia, Tazmania, New Zealand, and Antartica (and a small part of Africa). China, where the focus is on FOSS (and their own brand of FOSS) is included in the malaria zone, along with Indonesia.
It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
This is so incredibly stupid, and is such a stupid statement made out of stupidity, while trying to cast the stupidity on someone else that I'll save it until the end.
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything.
This is a general statement, but seems targeted at me, since I'm the one who dares to call Bill G. on more than just the surface facts. I spent most of my adult life working in special ed, in residential treatment programs, and where I could to reach out to those who were emotionally disturbed or learning disabled. I now run my own business, which is using profit from software to generate funds to make digital film and video productions focused on personal and spiritual growth topics. The people with whom I worship are mostly social workers, teachers, and members of "helping and service" professions and I assist with causes through this group. I also give monthly through World Vision by sponsoring children in 3rd world countries and donate my time to a group locally that is focused on raising money to build schools in such countries.
So, just as with your first statement, this statement is another example of commenting on something when you know nothing about it.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Actually, there's a psychological experience called projection, which you're close to here, but basically it applies to people who are not self aware of particular topics or issues they are dealing with.
Bill Gates believes in helping people
Thank you. I needed a good laugh. Now, if you want to learn the truth, see if you can find the transcript or audio recording of the talk/interview William Gates, Sr. gave to the National Press Club about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It took a lot of persuading, pushing, cajoling, and other force from Melinda, Bill Sr. (and I believe they also mentioned his Mother, but I don't remember -- don't even know if she's still alive) to get Bill Jr. to agree to set up any kind of charity. Also, for charities, while they do need continual donations, most are started with a seed donation, and a trust fund is created to create a continual flow of income. (I've forgotten the formual, but basically with $10 million as seed in a trust, you can generate a yearly income that would provide a more than comfortable living for any of us here until we die. I *think* you want a base of 20x what you want the generated yearly income to be, so $10 million would generate $500,000 income per year. I do remember that 6% is a good round figure for what you can expect in return.) So at this p
You're thinking about this in the reverse. He doesn't call all the shots at MS, but he can still tell the Gates Foundation where to donate. So if MS is focusing on a particular region, while he may not be calling the shots at MS, he CAN call the shots at the Foundation. I heard an interesting interview at the National Press Club with his Father, Bill Gates, Sr. once. It turns out it was VERY hard for Bill Sr. and Melinda to talk Bill Jr. into setting up a charitable fund -- he did not like the idea! And now there's all these posts on this topic saying what a saint he is -- when it was like pulling teeth to get him to set up the charity, and it is the charity that gives the money using his name. I don't recall, but I believe, like many charities, he contributed the seed fund and I'm not sure if he still donates anything to it.
He may not call the shots at MS, but he certainly has more than enough influence to make sure his Foundation gives money to sources that can make him look good or that can back up marketing efforts at MS.
See what I just posted.. This does look good, but why is it people are saying it is so philanthropic without checking into everything first? When Gates gave large sums to research in India, it was at the same time MS was spending 2x as much in advertising to try to drive India away from FOSS and toward Windows. Gates is shrwed, and has shown his first focus is always himself. While his Father is the administrator of the charity fund, Gates himself still puts his hand in and uses charity gifts as a way to force goodwill in areas where MS is pushing their software.
While your joking, there is an ugly bit of truth to that. The Gates Foundation has been known to make donations that conveniently relate to areas where Microsoft is pushing to make inroads to to keep FOSS out. For example, when MS was dealing with India, they made a big deal that the Gates Foundation was donating some supposedly huge amount to some type of medical research in India. In another article it was announced Microsoft was spending 2x as much in advertising in the same geographic area.
So if they're donating roughly $.25 billion to Malaria research, my first question is what geographical areas deal with malaria, and is MS spending $.5 billion in advertising in the same area?
There is a shot -- I think during the crowd-in-corridor shots before the saucer sep in "Encounter at Farpoint" with at least one male in a skirt uniform. The Series Bible they sent me when they invited me in to pitch mentioned this. (Even though I was invited in to pitch somewhere around the 3rd or 4th season, the Series Bible hadn't changed and still had a LOT of stuff from the original ideas that were dropped.) There was a reference to the fact that men and women would be wearing skirt uniforms and that clothing would not be so sexist (although that wasn't the word used).
The more I think about it, the more I wonder. While I stick by my other response, I think many people buying MS stock are doing so (or did so) on advice from a broker or because it was "the thing" to do. While it is not true in every case, in many cases, you're talking about sheep following a trend. There are probably a good number of stock holders who aren't thinking long term. I'm sure many bailed when it stopped going up. Now there are those who will see only the dividend and focus just on that -- not on growth or anything else. So, while my feelings on dividends haven't changed, my thoughts about how nearsighted the vision and how shallow the understanding of most investers is remind me that many don't make decisions on investing by thinking it through thoroughly.
In fact, MS shareholders should be happier than ever since they just recently received a whopping dividend payment.
I don't know about that. I learned investing from my Father, who has literally made several million, just since his retirement. While dividends are nice, there are problems with them. They're taxed when they come out, whereas a rising stock price is only taxed when it is sold. So even if you use a DRIP so you never actually see the dividend, just the new shares it purchases, you still get a yearly tax. Dividends can be a big help if you are retired, or otherwise using dividend income as a primary source of support, but in terms of investing, they are not always as nice as a stock price that constantly goes up -- which is something MS Stock hasn't done much of for a while.
You're right -- it isn't a good idea for a long term investment, which is about the only kind I make. (I've found turnover can be fun, but after fees and taxes, long term investments generally do better once you see past the next year or two.)
If this company has done it's job right, this should reduce the overall cost of the board.
I don't know what kind of reputation PCCHIPS and SiS have now, but I have 2 500Mhz PCCHIPS motherboards and, I believe, SiS chips for integrated extras like sound. Working with them, under Windows or Linux, was such a horrid experience, it'll take years of hearing every geek I meet telling me their work is great before I ever try anything with either of those names on it again. I remember having problems trying 3rd party parallel cables with their boards and not getting anything to work. When I Googled for info, I found that I was just one of many people with that same problem. I spent 3-5 years developing a unique software system on computers using their boards. Once I got Linux running, I stopped upgrading all packages because those boards are so flakey.
You have a good point. I've always compared Shakespear to Hitchcock. Both knew how to create entertainment that rose to a high level, but appealed to people of all levels. Yes, Shakespeare did a lot with cruder themes (like the hilarious exchange about Hamlet lying with his head in Ophelia's lap), but he also created some fabulous poetry and absolutely amazing imagery. Hitchcock knew that as a director, he could do some advanced things, but he had to be sure the audience was entertained, as well. Both had a lot in common that way -- as opposed to, say, Orson Wells, who created a masterpiece in "Citizen Kane", but also made a film that draws on forever. As one film professor once said, he loves to teach CK, because there's so much in it, but that he doesn't like watching it because it is self indulgent in areas and just not entertaining.
So, yes, I picked an example that wasn't the best, but I think the point still stands.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.
If quality were the yardstick for whether or not most people watched something, Star Trek would not have been moved to the 10:00 timeslot (but, after season 3 it would have been dropped), and shows like "The Paper Chase" would never have been axed because everyone was watching shows that had degenerated into inane crap like "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley". If crap were always unpopular and people preferred something of quality instead, Shakespeare would still be outselling most bestsellers and Harlequin romances wouldn't exist.
Yes, you are right. And this is just one thing that is contributing to the mediocrity of popular music. But I'm actually glad to see this. The record companies keep claiming they are protecting royalties for artists, but I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that. Anybody who watches the music business knows artists are making money, but that the big guys are making more. Napster triggered a fear reaction, and now the RIAA is getting carried away with trying to overreact to everything and not just protect their revenue and old business models, but they've gotten so carried away they are overreaching.
That's good. While it might cause higher prices for a while, the more they do this, the more their greed shows, and the closer they get to going too far and finally, through their own actions, forcing the entire industry to collapse -- leaving room for the real artists (not the sex symbols like Spears and such) to actually make a living on the work they create.
Slashdot Mirror
You sir, have never worked retail
I used to be a day manager for Egghead and still have a part time job I keep because I enjoy it in a retail store.
That has all the SIDES covered. So how did you cover the angles?
Which doesn't matter, really, since they're still moving to stop the problem. If I'm in Holland, I don't care if the Little Dutch Boy has his finger in the dike to save his life or mine, as long as the result is that mine is saved.
I don't know if you deal with a bank, or a credit union. I am a member of the credit union, which is not the same as being a customer at the bank. It's more like the insurance company I deal with (USAA), where I am a member and if the company does well at the end of the year, I get a refund. While I don't get a refund from the CU, credit unions do much more to help and protect their customers than banks.
I did the same when I banked with Walk-all-ova-ya (oops, Wachovia), and never had a problem.
As for the "agreement" part, no, it isn't an agreement, but they have been notified, they have a copy of the back, and that can, if needed, be submitted as evidence in any trial where anyone is accused of using my card falsely.
Done it a number of times.
No problem.
First: You seem to miss the part that I notified the Credit Union about it. Without going into details, they supported me.
Second: The one time I had to deal with fraud, it was useful in pinpointing that all the fraudulent purchases were online.
Third: As for terms, I go through a credit union, which is great on service and protection, and they have great terms for protecting members, so maybe credit cards help for many, but it doesn't make much of a difference in this case.
Fourth: You bring up 2 points about the signature. You say, the merchant is not required to obey your stupid writing on the back. Then, in the same paragraph (actually, the next sentence), you say, In fact, if they are doing their job they would require you to sign the card for real to make sure you have agreed to the terms of service. Do you always go back and forth on everything like that? Yes, it is supposed to be signed, and my note requires them to check for ID, which is signed. I checked, and it counts. So, in line with your 2nd sentence, yes, they are supposed to check -- which contradicts your 1st sentence.
Fifth: Yes, most theft happens without stealing my card. So I guess I should just give up and not do anything and not care if it is physically stolen, right?
Sixth: The lawyer friends are my clients, and are thrilled with the service I provide them because it has helped one start a business, another add scads of new customers, and others increase their profit margin and add enough new clients that some have had to hire more people. Some are family friends. As for cops, one, in particular, was talking to me and his cousin, and showed us his card and the note he put on it, as well as giving us a good background explanation, specifically for his cousin.
So you may think it is stupid, but you couldn't provide a reason that stands up to examination for that.
But that's okay -- I wasn't telling you that you had to do it. If you think it's stupid, don't do it. But don't give us a bunch of shallow and invalid reasons why it is stupid when the reasons are less supported than the suggestion.
No, the directions I wrote on the back don't, but the Credit Union watches that. For example, a few friends and I were together to set up a bachelor party type thing for a friend who was moving in with his girlfriend, so we decided to create a profile for him on an adult dating service that we could show him the next night, when we would be with him. We set it up, it was only $20 or about that, so I said I didn't mind charging that one month on my card -- as long as we deleted the account the next night. It didn't go through -- it turns out their security blocks XXX sites. That is comforting, at least to me.
The one time I had to deal with fraud, all the purchaes were online, along with recent purchases I had made through a data supplier to test their services. I got a call from the security people, they listed a number of online purchases, including the data I paid for, since it was outside of my buying profile. Everything was resolved in 24 hours, except for waiting for a new card to arrive.
So my note on the back didn't help w/ online purchases, but this group is watching for that anyway!
It's funny how many people throw a fuss and piss and moan when someone dares to say the emperor just might not have any clothes, or that things aren't as they appear.
Not that it matters to a name calling person like you, but most of my working life was dedicated to helping learning disabled and emotionally disturbed students in institutions. On my own time, and with my own money, I give regularly to organizations like World Vision, where I sponsor children in the 3rd world. I also donate my time to another project that is building schools in 3rd world nations and work with people where I worship to help many of them in other causes. I've started my own business in data mining because the profit is funnelled into writing and producing videos focused on self-help and spiritual growth topics, as well as creating dramatic productions that focus on people learning and growing in personal and spiritual ways.
And I have also learned to always ask the next question and always look past the surface. Sometimes you find something wonderful there, or someone who needs help (like little Johnny who has been warned never to be late, but walks in late -- if you ask before you chew him out, you might find out he's late because he got beat up at recess), or, in this case, someone who is not what everyone wants him to be.
But I'll just go back to my cynical ways where I'm too busy being cynical to donate money and time to any of the causes or activities I mentioned.
I talked with a few lawyer and cop friends about this and put on the back of my check card (I don't use credit cards), "ASK FOR PHOTO ID" in big, red letters. My understanding is since I've notified the Credit Union of this, in writing, if anyone uses a fake card in person, or steals it and doesn't show an ID, the merchant is at fault, since they did not check the signature and ask for the ID, as stated in place of the signature. I don't worry too much about it, though. They are excellent at detecting any sign of fraud activity, and have called me several times to verify transactions outside of my normal purchase habits. I'd much rather get false alarms like that then have them ignore it.
Please mod down, this is an urban myth...
Actually, the statements I made were based on factual research.
Even trying to find a way to bash MS and Bill G. when doing nothing but giving money away to help people.
As for bashing -- sorry you see it that way. I'm pointing out that often there is more to an action than what has been said, and that, in this case, the person in question has demonstrated, in documented stories and events, that he is more than capable of using charitable donations as part of a marketing tool. This isn't urban myth. I pointed out a specific situation in my first post so people like you would realize that there was more to this than just bashing. I didn't count, though, on someone like you not understanding what you read.
Often the truth hurts. It seems, in this case, the truth hurt you and you'd rather write it off as something you can ignore than take the time to Google news stories and see that, at least in the one case I cite, the donation came in perfect timing with MS's marketing campaign in the same area.
First up Malaria is a "Tropical" disease, ie: found in the tropics, Australia has the strictest quarantine of any Nation, NZ and the Antartic are too cold.
I didn't say that wasn't show. I merely pointed out the areas of the Earth were malaria was a threat. So this is really not a relevant point.
Third, "evil" people sometimes do great deeds.As for "pushing & conjoling" have you ever noticed that is how most "leaders" operate?
Yes. I mentioned before, I run my own business. Leadership is something I have watched and studied since I was a teenager. There are those who claim to lead who do so by bullying, and they may get noticed by those who don't look too deeply. My experience is that there are many more who know how to lead by other forms of motivation. Also, as far as logical falacies, how other people lead has nothing to do with the argument.
Last, Bill & Co have an impressive record of helping people who are largely forgotten by the rest of the world. No he did not start MS in an attempt to wipe out Malaria, but because of MS success as a publicly traded company, Bill now has the oportunity to do so.
Again, as I've said before, that help is from the Foundation, not directly from him. While someone here (who must have done research -- should I explain that to you so, in the future, you can support your statements -- or, perhaps, stick to supportable statements?) has said Bill keeps donating to the Foundation, there is a significant difference between the Foundation donating and Bill donating. If you want to see a really impressive record of helping the "largely forgotten" then I suggest you look into the Carter Foundation.
The fact that you can only see a self serving conspiracy on the part of MS says alot more about you than it does about Bill.
Cute. My focus is on stupidity -- at least here. I hated it in students, I hate it in my employees, and I find it particularly loathesome in a forum like this where most members seem to think they have an above average intelligence. I could tolerate it in new students, until they learned to always ask the next question or dig to the next level. However, to see so many people here start to call someone a saint based on one article is an amazing display of stupidity. Maybe he is. Maybe he does good things, but there is more to this than just one story and that is what most people here see -- and all they see. I noticed that I, and a few others, who have dared to say there is more have actually been modded to troll.
I've watched Bill G for his whole career (as I've watched Jobs, Wozniak, and others -- yes, I'm old enough to remember what they were like at the start). An untrustworthy person who abuses people rarely suddenly turns into a saint. Oscar Schindler is a rare -- very rare -- case. If Gates were such a good person, it would not have been so hard for his family to convince him to start the Foundation and to get him to give money away.
Okay, that's just silly. Microsoft, like it or not, pretty much sells their software all around the world. So, you're saying he shouldn't give to any place MS software can be bought? That's just stupid.
There are times they make a big push in one area or another, such as when they started to push Windows in India.
Gates has also recently made statements about people that don't use computers and regions where they haven't reached.
Next time, look beneath the surface.
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do.
That's the point. I have not looked up to see the background on this, but if MS were doing well in Africa, there would not be much need to focus there. However, even on your first point, you are off base. Here's a link to the Wikipedia you might find helpful (careful -- if you click on it, you might learn something!). Malaria zones include Mexico, most of South America, Africa, and large parts of Asia. Actually, if you dare to click on the link and learn something, you'll see that the malaria zones cover most of the world below around (and this is a guess based on a simple picture) the 40th parallel North -- except Australia, Tazmania, New Zealand, and Antartica (and a small part of Africa). China, where the focus is on FOSS (and their own brand of FOSS) is included in the malaria zone, along with Indonesia.
It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
This is so incredibly stupid, and is such a stupid statement made out of stupidity, while trying to cast the stupidity on someone else that I'll save it until the end.
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything.
This is a general statement, but seems targeted at me, since I'm the one who dares to call Bill G. on more than just the surface facts. I spent most of my adult life working in special ed, in residential treatment programs, and where I could to reach out to those who were emotionally disturbed or learning disabled. I now run my own business, which is using profit from software to generate funds to make digital film and video productions focused on personal and spiritual growth topics. The people with whom I worship are mostly social workers, teachers, and members of "helping and service" professions and I assist with causes through this group. I also give monthly through World Vision by sponsoring children in 3rd world countries and donate my time to a group locally that is focused on raising money to build schools in such countries.
So, just as with your first statement, this statement is another example of commenting on something when you know nothing about it.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Actually, there's a psychological experience called projection, which you're close to here, but basically it applies to people who are not self aware of particular topics or issues they are dealing with.
Bill Gates believes in helping people
Thank you. I needed a good laugh. Now, if you want to learn the truth, see if you can find the transcript or audio recording of the talk/interview William Gates, Sr. gave to the National Press Club about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It took a lot of persuading, pushing, cajoling, and other force from Melinda, Bill Sr. (and I believe they also mentioned his Mother, but I don't remember -- don't even know if she's still alive) to get Bill Jr. to agree to set up any kind of charity. Also, for charities, while they do need continual donations, most are started with a seed donation, and a trust fund is created to create a continual flow of income. (I've forgotten the formual, but basically with $10 million as seed in a trust, you can generate a yearly income that would provide a more than comfortable living for any of us here until we die. I *think* you want a base of 20x what you want the generated yearly income to be, so $10 million would generate $500,000 income per year. I do remember that 6% is a good round figure for what you can expect in return.) So at this p
You're thinking about this in the reverse. He doesn't call all the shots at MS, but he can still tell the Gates Foundation where to donate. So if MS is focusing on a particular region, while he may not be calling the shots at MS, he CAN call the shots at the Foundation. I heard an interesting interview at the National Press Club with his Father, Bill Gates, Sr. once. It turns out it was VERY hard for Bill Sr. and Melinda to talk Bill Jr. into setting up a charitable fund -- he did not like the idea! And now there's all these posts on this topic saying what a saint he is -- when it was like pulling teeth to get him to set up the charity, and it is the charity that gives the money using his name. I don't recall, but I believe, like many charities, he contributed the seed fund and I'm not sure if he still donates anything to it.
He may not call the shots at MS, but he certainly has more than enough influence to make sure his Foundation gives money to sources that can make him look good or that can back up marketing efforts at MS.
There's also the motivation factor. Often Gates makes sure big gifts from the foundation go to places where Microsoft is pushing their software.
Why are people so quick to speak without researching the situation first?
I'm glad he's making the gift, but don't make a judgement until you know all the facts.
See what I just posted.. This does look good, but why is it people are saying it is so philanthropic without checking into everything first? When Gates gave large sums to research in India, it was at the same time MS was spending 2x as much in advertising to try to drive India away from FOSS and toward Windows. Gates is shrwed, and has shown his first focus is always himself. While his Father is the administrator of the charity fund, Gates himself still puts his hand in and uses charity gifts as a way to force goodwill in areas where MS is pushing their software.
While your joking, there is an ugly bit of truth to that. The Gates Foundation has been known to make donations that conveniently relate to areas where Microsoft is pushing to make inroads to to keep FOSS out. For example, when MS was dealing with India, they made a big deal that the Gates Foundation was donating some supposedly huge amount to some type of medical research in India. In another article it was announced Microsoft was spending 2x as much in advertising in the same geographic area.
So if they're donating roughly $.25 billion to Malaria research, my first question is what geographical areas deal with malaria, and is MS spending $.5 billion in advertising in the same area?
There is a shot -- I think during the crowd-in-corridor shots before the saucer sep in "Encounter at Farpoint" with at least one male in a skirt uniform. The Series Bible they sent me when they invited me in to pitch mentioned this. (Even though I was invited in to pitch somewhere around the 3rd or 4th season, the Series Bible hadn't changed and still had a LOT of stuff from the original ideas that were dropped.) There was a reference to the fact that men and women would be wearing skirt uniforms and that clothing would not be so sexist (although that wasn't the word used).
The more I think about it, the more I wonder. While I stick by my other response, I think many people buying MS stock are doing so (or did so) on advice from a broker or because it was "the thing" to do. While it is not true in every case, in many cases, you're talking about sheep following a trend. There are probably a good number of stock holders who aren't thinking long term. I'm sure many bailed when it stopped going up. Now there are those who will see only the dividend and focus just on that -- not on growth or anything else. So, while my feelings on dividends haven't changed, my thoughts about how nearsighted the vision and how shallow the understanding of most investers is remind me that many don't make decisions on investing by thinking it through thoroughly.
In fact, MS shareholders should be happier than ever since they just recently received a whopping dividend payment.
I don't know about that. I learned investing from my Father, who has literally made several million, just since his retirement. While dividends are nice, there are problems with them. They're taxed when they come out, whereas a rising stock price is only taxed when it is sold. So even if you use a DRIP so you never actually see the dividend, just the new shares it purchases, you still get a yearly tax. Dividends can be a big help if you are retired, or otherwise using dividend income as a primary source of support, but in terms of investing, they are not always as nice as a stock price that constantly goes up -- which is something MS Stock hasn't done much of for a while.
You're right -- it isn't a good idea for a long term investment, which is about the only kind I make. (I've found turnover can be fun, but after fees and taxes, long term investments generally do better once you see past the next year or two.)
If this company has done it's job right, this should reduce the overall cost of the board.
I don't know what kind of reputation PCCHIPS and SiS have now, but I have 2 500Mhz PCCHIPS motherboards and, I believe, SiS chips for integrated extras like sound. Working with them, under Windows or Linux, was such a horrid experience, it'll take years of hearing every geek I meet telling me their work is great before I ever try anything with either of those names on it again. I remember having problems trying 3rd party parallel cables with their boards and not getting anything to work. When I Googled for info, I found that I was just one of many people with that same problem. I spent 3-5 years developing a unique software system on computers using their boards. Once I got Linux running, I stopped upgrading all packages because those boards are so flakey.
Twice bitten, everafterwards shy.
You have a good point. I've always compared Shakespear to Hitchcock. Both knew how to create entertainment that rose to a high level, but appealed to people of all levels. Yes, Shakespeare did a lot with cruder themes (like the hilarious exchange about Hamlet lying with his head in Ophelia's lap), but he also created some fabulous poetry and absolutely amazing imagery. Hitchcock knew that as a director, he could do some advanced things, but he had to be sure the audience was entertained, as well. Both had a lot in common that way -- as opposed to, say, Orson Wells, who created a masterpiece in "Citizen Kane", but also made a film that draws on forever. As one film professor once said, he loves to teach CK, because there's so much in it, but that he doesn't like watching it because it is self indulgent in areas and just not entertaining.
So, yes, I picked an example that wasn't the best, but I think the point still stands.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.
If quality were the yardstick for whether or not most people watched something, Star Trek would not have been moved to the 10:00 timeslot (but, after season 3 it would have been dropped), and shows like "The Paper Chase" would never have been axed because everyone was watching shows that had degenerated into inane crap like "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley". If crap were always unpopular and people preferred something of quality instead, Shakespeare would still be outselling most bestsellers and Harlequin romances wouldn't exist.
Yes, you are right. And this is just one thing that is contributing to the mediocrity of popular music. But I'm actually glad to see this. The record companies keep claiming they are protecting royalties for artists, but I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that. Anybody who watches the music business knows artists are making money, but that the big guys are making more. Napster triggered a fear reaction, and now the RIAA is getting carried away with trying to overreact to everything and not just protect their revenue and old business models, but they've gotten so carried away they are overreaching.
That's good. While it might cause higher prices for a while, the more they do this, the more their greed shows, and the closer they get to going too far and finally, through their own actions, forcing the entire industry to collapse -- leaving room for the real artists (not the sex symbols like Spears and such) to actually make a living on the work they create.
It kind of warped me back to that era, or at least ficiton from then until the 60's when the public started watching rocket launches, as well.
For a minute there, I really thought I was reading something from the old Tom Swift books I used to read.
I literally expected to read the name Swift Enterprises as connected with racing rockets.