Journal FortKnox's Journal: Submitted: Bill Gates gives the most to charity 38
According to a recent study, Bill Gates, and his wife Melinda, are the most charitable people in America. They have given or pledged $23 billion (~ half their net worth, equivalent to the GNP of Hungary)! Bill has always been known as a great philanthropist, but now proves to be happy in giving to others. Perhaps this warrants a change in Microsoft icon at slashdot (after all, he isn't CEO of MS anymore)...?
I'm guessing either its declined, or the little blurb on changing the MS icon will be removed...
Update: Rejected. God forbid /. acknowledges Bill Gates doing something good...
I'm guessing either its declined, or the little blurb on changing the MS icon will be removed...
Update: Rejected. God forbid
No Way No How (Score:2)
$23 billion. Yeah right! That's what Linus gives away EVERYDAY!
Whoa. Gotta stop at 4 cups of coffee...
Re:No Way No How (Score:1)
OR I present this idea.
He has signed a deal WITH the Devil and is attempting to salvage his soul by giving away lots and lots of money.
Damn him, why doesn't he have my address? I could use a check for 15k right now and that would not even register as a drop in the bucket!
Sorry, three days before I leave for vacation, the mind is going to weird places without me.
Just be flamebait anyway (Score:2)
The FBI arrests story yesterday was a good example: a bunch of Internet scammers were arrested and probably no one would have taken notice -- except that the submission mentioned John Ashcroft. 95% of the comments were random shrieking about the Patriot Act, detentions, military tribunals, we're living in Nazi Germany
Re:Just be flamebait anyway (Score:2)
P.S. Down with Ashcroft.;)
Re:Just be flamebait anyway (Score:1)
What'd be the point of /. without posts like that? Classic...
Charity (Score:2)
The difference is, in situation A, the donor still has $27 billion dollars. WTF can anybody possibly do with that much money? The mind boggles. However, the second person is much closer to the line. I'd probably call the second person more charitable,
Re:Charity (Score:1)
Yes, that $100 is more of a sacrifice for that person. And to make charitable giving into some sort of a competition is distasteful to begin with. Nevertheless, that $100 doesn't really do a whole lot by itself, but the amount of good that Gates donations can do just boggles the mind.
If you want to dislike Gates becase of his business practices or shoddy software or because he doesn't like purple lollipops then fine, but at least be willing to admit that he's not some greedy ass hoardi
Re:Charity (Score:2)
Personally, I have no reason to like or dislike Mr. Gates. However, I don't believe that he can be called more charitable just because he can afford to give more money than anybody else. The linked article seems to be a "feel-good" article - he could afford to give lots of money, and did so. I don't think that it should be newsworthy, except in a "see, he's not totally evil" sort of way. But since I never believed him to be totally evil, I don't really
Re:Charity (Score:2)
Until we find a way to feed the starving with good intentions, yes it does.
Re:Charity (Score:2)
The difference is, in situation A, the donor still has $27 billion dollars. WTF can anybody possibly do with that much money? The mind boggles. However, the second person is much closer to the line. I'd probably call the second person more charitable, because
Re:Charity (Score:2)
If I Had That Much Money... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I'm blowing this off as not a big deal - it definitely is a lot of money that will be quite useful to all the various charities, and seems to indicate the Gates care more for fellow human beings than most big corporate folks out there. But the more money you have,the higher percentage you can donate and still have plenty left over for everythi
Re:Submitted! (Score:1)
Re:Submitted! (Score:1)
Re:Submitted! (Score:2)
Shocking. (Score:2)
I am stunned, nay, shocked! ;)
Actually when I read the journal subject, I thought to myself, no way in hell would slashdot post something like that. News for Nerds, with an undeniable bias. Don't come looking for truth here, we gotta put our anti-establishment spin on everything.
reminds me of a bible story (Score:2)
It's like having hundreds of toys that you don't know what to do with, so you give half of them away. Its like, ok, there you go. Why not stop gobbling up the worlds fortunes and let pe
Re:reminds me of a bible story (Score:2)
Re:reminds me of a bible story (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:2)
Philanthropy can have a lot of different motives, only Bill and Melinda know what their motives are. Therefore, any discussion of their motives, which is the only thing in dispute c
Re:Yawn (Score:1)
Hell, most people have computers ONLY because MS created the Market and Marketing to convince them to get them. Internet boom, Microsoft.
People seem to forget that.
That being said, they ruined my hobby, and I finished it off by taking a perfectly good hobby and trying to make a career out of it, the bastards.
Back to tinkering with my code. Toodles
Re:Yawn (Score:2)
I got into Microcomputers back when Dos 3.3 was the OS of choice. At that time, there were several alternatives, DrDos was the best of them.
Microsoft Word came out, it was the first of the wysiwyg wp's. Microsoft put code in it that crashed everything but MSDOS, that's when they pulled ahead.
It is my *opinion* that had the playing field stayed level, we would have several alternatives to Windows for workstation OS's, each of them, including Windows, would be better
Re:Yawn (Score:2)
So I think what we have here is agreement - Microsoft's corporate strategy (and that buck lands on Bill G.'s desk) was predatory (evil); but, now that he is personally wealthy beyond imagination, he is spending - and often on great humanitarian projects.
old news... (Score:2)
*-I refuse to do any research to support this claim. It is for hyperbole ONLY, to get the point across that Bill's philanthropy is quite well known.
That bastard should give until he is poor! (Score:1)
Why does everyone assume that the rich owe money to everyone else? On what basis? I don't get it. It seems more and more that we live in a nation where the society (via the govern
Borg Icon (Score:1)
The icon is not a reference to people who don't give to charity. The icon is a reference to the behavior of purchasing other companies in order to add their products to one's own catalog.
No amount of giving money to charities, can make the icon become inappropriate. Prolonged abstention from purchasing other companies, though, might eventually cause the icon to become outdated -- or an in-joke that people start to forget the origin of.
And how does he use it? (Score:2)
Re:And how does he use it? (Score:2)
Re:And how does he use it? (Score:2)
Re:And how does he use it? (Score:2)
So what? What is exactly it you're upset about? Would it have been better if Linux had been set aside because of technical superiority of windows? If so, better for who? Would it have been better had Linux become the OS of choice instead? If so, better for who? Ooooor, does this way mean that hungry people are fed, or educated, or housed, or whatever else they need while the Indian government get what they want.
You do know that backscratching business deals are the norm right? You buy fighters from us, we'
Re:And how does he use it? (Score:2)
So yes, it is great that he is giving. It would be even better if he were giving without strings attached.
Re:And how does he use it? (Score:2)
Sure it is, and I too think he in part does it to reduce the negative image. But, it's better to give with a ulterior motive than not to give at all.