You miss a number of things. For example, much of Bill Gates wealth is NOT cash... it is tied up in things like shares of microsoft, which continue earning him money and PROVIDE for the Philanthropy he is doing. So yeah I can spend 95% of my 56 billion WORTH (53.2 billion) and live off the rest for the rest of my life or lets make it 99%... whatever. But that money is now only used to sustain ME, the deed is done.
Now if you take say 26 billion(the amount Gates has donated over the last 6-7 years and he has donated more and more each year) and leave a large amount unspent(Gates Foundation, Microsoft Shares, other stocks, investments, etc) oh wow... I can easily donate 5-10 billion to charity EVERY YEAR for 50 years and serve NEW problems/causes that arrise, not get wasted on 50 million dollar artwork and bridges to nowhere by the government and be done with it.
What you don't realize is many of the problems you want fixed, the government already HAD the money to fix them, but they spent it on other things to line political pockets and give themselves more power and influence.
Lastly by not spending it all at once, Bill Gates foundation can maintain accountability for the money. If I give an institution 1 million dollars this year, and I see that it is being well spent, I can give them 2 or 5 million next year. So when you see him donate what you think is a "small" amount to a charity, keep in mind that sometimes it is part of an annual donation.
Oh, and after all this, I am NOT a huge Bill Gates fan. Some of it was legitimately earned, some of it not in my opinion. But I AM encouraged by his charity work now with that money combined with Warren Buffet.
Oh, and about your example of "religious charity", what you need to understand is that religions that operate that way(specifically christian ones) are total BS. That is not a biblical view of charity at all, at the church I went to we regularly gave food vouchers to the local grocery store for people who came and asked. (The church is located in one of the poorest ghetto areas as well) Those people almost NEVER came to a church service, nor were they ever asked to. They were never asked their religious background, they were hungry and they were fed. And do you know the funny thing is? The store manager would sometimes not even charge us for the food vouchers so he could help many people he felt needed it. Our charity inspired even more charity. We sometimes even helped people with rent or power bills. It met the NEEDS of the community. Thats the way it is SUPPOSED to work, no strings.
Just because you experienced one thing, doesn't mean its always that way or that you give up on it.
The reason that Microsoft takes so much flack for it is because its executives then refuse to admit that Microsoft didn't invent the borrowed features -- despite the obviousness of it all.
This attitude is the REAL problem in these debates... As some other people have pointed, people base "invention" as the first to mass production and very often NOT the case. Just because Apple releases something first does not mean they invented it. And as others have pointed out, much of what they "invent" already exists as add-ons or even in OS's like Linux. Invention has less to do with production line and more to do with the "concept" and success demonstration of that concept. Apple releases a new OS revision pretty much every year, compared to 5+ years for MS.
The obviousness if you THINK about it is that Microsoft cannot implement changes all the time because of their huge user base and hardware diversity, directly opposite of Apple. I see this as a great strength of Apple, and applaud them for being able to do these regular updates to features in their OS. But just because they release it first, doesn't mean they invented it. It just means they released it first... and Microsoft is ALWAYS going to be behind due to that curve. What would be shocking is if something MS invented 5 years ago DIDN'T get copied or released by apple or a 3rd party vendor.
I was somewhat enlightened to this dilemma in a recent Business Communications class. The instructor flat out told us that English classes and Business Communication are two entirely different animals. Things that are approrpiate in "essays" or "stories" are not necessarily seen as appropriate in analytical reports, letters, memos, etc. This included grammar. One of the issues we discussed was comma placement as noted here. I am coming to accept that there really are to different types of writing and that they can both be used. But it sure does not help many people who are looking for the gold standard way of doing things.
I may be wrong here... both OS 10 and XP both came out in 2001. Apple and microsoft has VERY different methods of business/OS delivery. OS 10 has added a TON of features imo since the initial release of OS X. Microsoft only releases minor upgrades to its OS...mostly bug fixes and criticle issues. Primarily because any feature they want to charge you for. However I remember back in like 2002 hearing about some of the features of the next OS(now Vista)... Features that have since been added to OS X... but that does not mean Apple "invented" them and Microsoft "copied" them... It just means that Microsoft saves them for a whole new OS vs Apple adding them onto the current OS.
Does anyone think the Vista features couldn't have been added years ago to XP? I don't see why they couldn't be, but Microsoft would rather revamp the whole thing than add it to what already works. I give Apple a TON of credit for their feature expansions to the existing OS. But to say microsoft doesn't "innovate" just because its RELEASED first by apple might be wrong. Again, I don't have the time to go back and verify this, this is from memory. Apple could VERY easily take an idea i post on slashdot and add it to their OS within 6 months or less(A big part of this is specialized hardware) vs microsoft might take a year or more to add the same feature, or hold it for the next OS. In fact this happens alot, I would argue many of apples "innovations" were thought up by outsiders like us,(We know what we need more than Apple or microsoft does) they're just picked up and implemented faster by Apple.
What I don't get about people's obsession with electric cars/vehicles is this...
Where is all this power coming from? All you're doing is transferring the power source from a locally purchased commodity to a distantly purchased one. But half the time guess how we're getting that same power? From various power plants that still polute, etc. Not only that, but most already know that in many areas power is a limited commodity. If everyone goes to electric power for their cars, oh crap, now the power company is running low on power and starts charging premiums for it, etc. Price goes up, and we're still all screwed.
Oh and how are we going to get the additional power? Build convential power plants? Can't do that. Nuclear? Nope, we can't do that. Wind? Haha, not a chance. Solar? Nope that hurts the environment too. Dams hurt the fish, etc. If you've followed the trend of energy articles posted on here in past month, they all revolve around power sources being shot down by interest groups protecting something.
Nope... been registered awhile... just bored enough to post today...
Think about it... a MAC has to check a box and its "see perfect OS"... A windows user has to set a preference to prevent the same problem and its lawsuit time... I just find it ironic...
Since when do mac users have to DO anything? I thought it was just an automated experience... having to change a setting sort of undermines the whole thing don't you think? Welcome to the world of windows... Guess Mac really does have windows envy, I'm sure this was intentional just to give their users something to do... soon all mac users will have to learn to mark check boxes, but no worries, 1 step at at time! Whats next? Complex thought processes?
Slashdot Mirror
You miss a number of things. For example, much of Bill Gates wealth is NOT cash... it is tied up in things like shares of microsoft, which continue earning him money and PROVIDE for the Philanthropy he is doing. So yeah I can spend 95% of my 56 billion WORTH (53.2 billion) and live off the rest for the rest of my life or lets make it 99%... whatever. But that money is now only used to sustain ME, the deed is done.
Now if you take say 26 billion(the amount Gates has donated over the last 6-7 years and he has donated more and more each year) and leave a large amount unspent(Gates Foundation, Microsoft Shares, other stocks, investments, etc) oh wow... I can easily donate 5-10 billion to charity EVERY YEAR for 50 years and serve NEW problems/causes that arrise, not get wasted on 50 million dollar artwork and bridges to nowhere by the government and be done with it.
What you don't realize is many of the problems you want fixed, the government already HAD the money to fix them, but they spent it on other things to line political pockets and give themselves more power and influence.
Lastly by not spending it all at once, Bill Gates foundation can maintain accountability for the money. If I give an institution 1 million dollars this year, and I see that it is being well spent, I can give them 2 or 5 million next year. So when you see him donate what you think is a "small" amount to a charity, keep in mind that sometimes it is part of an annual donation.
Oh, and after all this, I am NOT a huge Bill Gates fan. Some of it was legitimately earned, some of it not in my opinion. But I AM encouraged by his charity work now with that money combined with Warren Buffet.
Oh, and about your example of "religious charity", what you need to understand is that religions that operate that way(specifically christian ones) are total BS. That is not a biblical view of charity at all, at the church I went to we regularly gave food vouchers to the local grocery store for people who came and asked. (The church is located in one of the poorest ghetto areas as well) Those people almost NEVER came to a church service, nor were they ever asked to. They were never asked their religious background, they were hungry and they were fed. And do you know the funny thing is? The store manager would sometimes not even charge us for the food vouchers so he could help many people he felt needed it. Our charity inspired even more charity. We sometimes even helped people with rent or power bills. It met the NEEDS of the community. Thats the way it is SUPPOSED to work, no strings.
Just because you experienced one thing, doesn't mean its always that way or that you give up on it.
The reason that Microsoft takes so much flack for it is because its executives then refuse to admit that Microsoft didn't invent the borrowed features -- despite the obviousness of it all. This attitude is the REAL problem in these debates... As some other people have pointed, people base "invention" as the first to mass production and very often NOT the case. Just because Apple releases something first does not mean they invented it. And as others have pointed out, much of what they "invent" already exists as add-ons or even in OS's like Linux. Invention has less to do with production line and more to do with the "concept" and success demonstration of that concept. Apple releases a new OS revision pretty much every year, compared to 5+ years for MS. The obviousness if you THINK about it is that Microsoft cannot implement changes all the time because of their huge user base and hardware diversity, directly opposite of Apple. I see this as a great strength of Apple, and applaud them for being able to do these regular updates to features in their OS. But just because they release it first, doesn't mean they invented it. It just means they released it first... and Microsoft is ALWAYS going to be behind due to that curve. What would be shocking is if something MS invented 5 years ago DIDN'T get copied or released by apple or a 3rd party vendor.
I was somewhat enlightened to this dilemma in a recent Business Communications class. The instructor flat out told us that English classes and Business Communication are two entirely different animals. Things that are approrpiate in "essays" or "stories" are not necessarily seen as appropriate in analytical reports, letters, memos, etc. This included grammar. One of the issues we discussed was comma placement as noted here. I am coming to accept that there really are to different types of writing and that they can both be used. But it sure does not help many people who are looking for the gold standard way of doing things.
I may be wrong here... both OS 10 and XP both came out in 2001. Apple and microsoft has VERY different methods of business/OS delivery. OS 10 has added a TON of features imo since the initial release of OS X. Microsoft only releases minor upgrades to its OS...mostly bug fixes and criticle issues. Primarily because any feature they want to charge you for. However I remember back in like 2002 hearing about some of the features of the next OS(now Vista)... Features that have since been added to OS X... but that does not mean Apple "invented" them and Microsoft "copied" them... It just means that Microsoft saves them for a whole new OS vs Apple adding them onto the current OS. Does anyone think the Vista features couldn't have been added years ago to XP? I don't see why they couldn't be, but Microsoft would rather revamp the whole thing than add it to what already works. I give Apple a TON of credit for their feature expansions to the existing OS. But to say microsoft doesn't "innovate" just because its RELEASED first by apple might be wrong. Again, I don't have the time to go back and verify this, this is from memory. Apple could VERY easily take an idea i post on slashdot and add it to their OS within 6 months or less(A big part of this is specialized hardware) vs microsoft might take a year or more to add the same feature, or hold it for the next OS. In fact this happens alot, I would argue many of apples "innovations" were thought up by outsiders like us,(We know what we need more than Apple or microsoft does) they're just picked up and implemented faster by Apple.
What I don't get about people's obsession with electric cars/vehicles is this... Where is all this power coming from? All you're doing is transferring the power source from a locally purchased commodity to a distantly purchased one. But half the time guess how we're getting that same power? From various power plants that still polute, etc. Not only that, but most already know that in many areas power is a limited commodity. If everyone goes to electric power for their cars, oh crap, now the power company is running low on power and starts charging premiums for it, etc. Price goes up, and we're still all screwed. Oh and how are we going to get the additional power? Build convential power plants? Can't do that. Nuclear? Nope, we can't do that. Wind? Haha, not a chance. Solar? Nope that hurts the environment too. Dams hurt the fish, etc. If you've followed the trend of energy articles posted on here in past month, they all revolve around power sources being shot down by interest groups protecting something.
Nope... been registered awhile... just bored enough to post today... Think about it... a MAC has to check a box and its "see perfect OS"... A windows user has to set a preference to prevent the same problem and its lawsuit time... I just find it ironic...
Since when do mac users have to DO anything? I thought it was just an automated experience... having to change a setting sort of undermines the whole thing don't you think? Welcome to the world of windows... Guess Mac really does have windows envy, I'm sure this was intentional just to give their users something to do... soon all mac users will have to learn to mark check boxes, but no worries, 1 step at at time! Whats next? Complex thought processes?