Bill Gates, Time Magazine "Person of the Year" 751
klubar writes "Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, were named Time Magazine "Persons of the Year". He was joined in this honor with Irish rocker Bono-all being named for being "Good Samaritans" who made a difference."
Good Samaritans? (Score:3, Funny)
Good samaritans or investors with good PR? (Score:5, Informative)
I find it peculiar that these acts of "charity" tend to be timed to fight Linux and Open Source more than to fight disease [zdnet.com.au]. It's been the same pattern whether in Australia, India or many of the African nations: Gates gives $100m to fight HIV, $421m to fight Linux [theregister.co.uk].
Another thing that makes it stink of PR is the focus on HIV/AIDS which, compared to other problems like heart problems, smoke from cooking fires, etc, is not a major health problem. However, it is a high profile item for US audiences.
Yet another problem is that the solutions offered by Chairman Bill and his foundation focus on expensive pharmaceutical treatments, often draining significant matching funding coming from the target region. Most health issues are solved more effectively and cheapy with preventative measures not corrective measures, especially expensive ones. Cheaper is better, but it just so happens he's also heavily invested in the same pharmas, so maybe, jsut maybe there is a bit of conflict of interest.
Read the interview Time had earlier with Chairman Gates. He seriously couldn't seem less interested in the health and social aspects of the charity. The definition I had previously heard for Good Samaritan involved an active interest in helping and helping in an altruistic manner, not with strings attached or with major conflicts of interest.
This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This should prove... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This should prove... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would like to congratulate you for creating on of the most subtle Godwins ever =).
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument against that being that a real life robin hood would steal from Bill Gates since he is the richest man on the planet. If Bill is a modern Robin hood, he skims off the top so much that he is the number one target of any other modern day Robin Hood. The super rich [com.com] stealing from the middle class to help feed the poor does not exaclty fit the robin hood stereotype. Just about anyon
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Informative)
The direction of the computer industry was chosen by the US government, when they commanded IBM to subcontract their Operating System provider to avoid anti-trust action. As it happens, Microsoft was the company which got that contract- but it could've been anyone. As long as the fundamental decision to have separate vendors for a PC's hardware and core OS had been made, Microsoft's greatest historical contribution was inevitable.
The more ambitious among them could be on a global network of VT-100 terminals connected
Heard of a little thing called Apple Computer, predating Bill Gates's efforts by a considerable margin?
for good or for ill (Score:5, Informative)
"...or for ill." Get it?
Now in this case, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are being recognized for their efforts to make the world a better place.
-S
Re:for good or for ill (Score:5, Insightful)
Not anymore. In 2001, the Man Of The Year was Rudolph Guiliani, when it is painfully obvious that Usama bin Laden had an inestimably bigger impactful on that year's events. (Indeed, 100% of Rudy's interesting actions were merely responses to Usama's initiatives).
Face it, Time uses at least 4 factors to pick Yearitude: Attractiveness, Deserving, Virtue, and Import.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how they missed bin Laden in 2001, who turned the world upside down, in favour of Giuliani, who for all his virtues, was just a mayor. Obviously they choked on following through on their own stated criteria when it was too close to home.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, There's a guy in New York named Eliot Spitzer who uses similar tactics. He's the attorney general and he's the scourge of wall street.
But that's besides the point. What I think is interesting is that much of the banter is about whether or not Gates deserves this "honor" as opposed to whether or not the Time's Man of the Year is actually relevant in 2005. I've had friends who got into publishing and journalism after school... and they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Assuming more of the same in the industry, I'm not prone to taking much seriously when journalists stray from objectivity and decide to weigh in with opinion. Which is to say, I'm not much of a fan of journalism. I'd rather they turn the cameras on, shoot some footage, and let me decide for myself.
Forget that Bill might or might not be worthy of the award... more pertinent is that the award no longer has merit. Who the fuck cares what Time editors think?
Re:This should prove... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is impossible.
Where are they pointing the camera? Framing what? Who is mic'd? And what other audio is present? For how long do you shoot?
The idea that you can somehow remove all subjectivity from the newsgathering process is a false one.
Re:This should prove... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, the guy acted like a dictator, but he did good things. Most people never thought NYC could be saved, it was too big and too 0wn3d. I'd say that gives him more justification for Man of the Year than getting insanely rich off selling lemon software.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild. Most mayors would not have shown the leadership that Giuliani did. See New Orleans, use the mayor or governer as examples. Not bad people, but simply not up to the task and not having the leadership skills needed to cope. You and I would probably not done much better.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted to do less meaningful. Distructive, yes. Painful, yes. Did it make the US back down and do what he wanted? No.
"Giuliani was just a mayor" is the *whole point* of why he got Person of the Year. He wasn't supposed to be capable of displaying this kind of leadership, yet he did. He is "just a mayor" that did more to comfort Americans all over the US, and deal with the real issues, make the hard decisions, and kept a cool head he entire time. Perfect? No, but I can't think of anyone else that could have done better, nor anyone else more deserving in 2001.
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would disagree with this for a simple reason: how many people outside the United States have heard of Giuliani, or knew anything that he did on 9/11? Not many. On the other hand, bin Laden is known worldwide and everyone is very clear on what he and his organization did.
So Giuliani *did* make a difference, in making what Bin Laden attempted t
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but not true. His was the face people saw all over the world. You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him. I deal with Europeans on a daily basis, they know him, believe me.
He sure did. He got his Holy War in the middle east; there's no way bin Laden could have coaxed that into existence without 9/11
This assumes that Bin Laden wanted a holy war over in the middle east. I am pretty sure this is *not* what he wanted. What he wanted was for the US to get OUT of the middle east, not more involved. He didn't want the US to mow over Afghanistan and give it back to the people. He didn't want the Saudis to work with us (who are his sworn enemies).
I have no idea why people think Bin Laden wanted a war. He didn't. He wanted a blow so hard that we would be afraid of war. He wanted capitulation and the American people to rise up and tell the government to get us out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east, and in particular, to quit helping Israel. He has stated as much, many times, so this isn't exactly guesswork.
Now what he has is a war in his own backyard, with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq), women voting and participating, and going to school. Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms. Many people in Jordan are protesting against Al Qaeda. Siria is under pressure to pull out of Lebanon. I'm pretty damn sure this isn't what Bin Laden had as a goal.
It has been painful, ugly, deadly and far from over, but anyone who thinks Bin Laden is winning is simply kidding themselves, or willing to spin the facts to their own fantasy life view.
Like Saddam, he simply misunderestimated the US and our few but true allies.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. That's WHY Usama was more important: because he was a destroyer, and destruction is easier. Therefore with the same amount of effort, he could become more important than someone who tried to create or preserve.
The easiest way to earn an international headline is always to flip out and kill a bunch of people. No contest, no question.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden
That's rather insulting to Giuliani, but it might be true. Prehaps if he'd had a more intelligent fire-depeartment structure, there could've been 1000 fewer deaths. But it's a stretch to blame him for that incompetence.
You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him.
If you'd done that, you'd know Guiliani had under 0.3% of binLaden's article count. LNS.
with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq),
Neither of them has come close to qualifying as a "democracy" yet.
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran have become more theocratic and militant at the same time. The worsening conditions in Iran and North Korea are especially troublesome, as either of them had already presented a stronger threat than Iraq plus Afganistan combined.
Re:This should prove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden changed the entire world by provoking the US to go on the rampage. Which was exactly what he planned. Giuliani did a great job, as mayor of one single (big) city, but how many people in the world even know his name? Half the world knows bin Laden, and their daily lives are affected by his actions and the fear he provoked. This week, for instance: The Lebanese immigrants who were beaten up in Sydney; the NSA spying on Americans Bush is trying to defend. Every day there are more repercussions of that one act.
New Orleans (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, Katrina is in a whole other order of magnitude from 9/11. We're talking a few buildings knocked down vs. widespread destruction across an entire city and ensuing unlivability and anarchy.
Also, with 9/11, federal aid was instantaneous.
9/11 was a tragedy, but it has been so played-up to incite "patriotism" that many have lost perspective on what a true disaster is.
Odd (Score:2)
In addition, the foundation was set up by Melinda, NOT bill. And she did it for marketing. I would say that it has paid off.
Re:This should prove... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the other argument is that, percentage wise he doesn't actually give that much...
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe Roman Abramovich is a model citizen, because, while he wastes his money on football teams, yachts, and whores, at least he hasn't made (gasp! horror!) a closed-source operating system? That's really what it's about, isn't it?
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really. See beyond your jealousy and hatred of IE's "broken HTML" and other assorted technical-philosophical gripes for one minute.
It's how much you keep (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the percentage of your net worth the right way to measure generosity? Bill Gates can give that much money away without it affecting his lifestyle in the slightest. You think he notices the difference between having $60bn and having $90bn? Is it really so generous to give that much money away when you don't even notice it's gone? He could give twice that much money away and live like a king for the rest of his life.
Normal people couldn't give away half their net worth without losing their home. That alone should clue you in that percentage of net worth isn't the right way to measure generosity.
Re: Well. (Score:5, Informative)
Gates fund the foundation himself. Or, I should say, Bill and Melinda fund the foundation themselves.
Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction. Besides, you can't get back more than you owe in taxes - I don't think that even Bill Gates can ring up a $28 billion tax bill.
Incidentally, one of the positions that Gates has taken on our "progressive" income tax is that the rich should pay more than the poor in taxes. So has his father (who's a long way from the poorhouse himself).
You know, you can find all this out through Google...
-h-
Re:Well. (Score:4, Informative)
Who else do you know who has given half their disposable income? Let's compare Gates giving with some other billionaires who aren't so unpopular on slashdot. Larry Ellison: According to this [sciencemag.org] thru Ellison Medical Foundation, Larry is giving $100 million over 5 years for research on aging. That's pocket change for a guy worth $17 billion. Warren Buffet, weighing in at $40 billion, gives away $12 million per year, according to BusinessWeek. [72.14.203.104] Again, pocket change, though Buffet says he plans to eventually give 99% of his money to his foundation.
Here's an old story [metroactive.com] from 2001 about silicon valley philanthropy. According to it, only David Packard (foundation gives $500m/year) is in the same class as Gates.
At the bottom of this you'll find a Nov 2005 table [usatoday.com] listing 18 Americans worth over $10 billion. Have any of them given as large a percentage as Gates? I can't find any evidence if they have. My conclusion: compared to billionaires or to ordinary folks, Gates have given away an extrordinary proportion of his net worth.
By the way, for those of you unfamiliar with entities like the Gates, Ellison, and Packard foundations, it works like this. You can give away whatever amount of your wealth you want in any given year, and that amount will be deducted from the income on which you are taxed. One way to give it away is to establish a 501C(3) charity, such as these foundations, and endow it with a big chunk of cash. The foundation is required by law to give away at least 5% of its net worth per year. It also needs to be independent of its endower, so it can't be used as a vehicle to manipulate or control e.g. Microsoft. The Gates foundation got a $20 billion block of Microsoft stock from Gates in the late '90s and immediately sold the MS stock for more conservative investments. I assume it continues to invest its endowment and to give away the requisite 5%, which this year tops $1.1 billion. I believe Gates' father directs the foundation. From what I have seen, the foundation has a special interest in eradicating diseases in the developing world; hence their interest in tuberculosis [gatesfoundation.org] and malaria. [gatesfoundation.org] But heck, why listen to me when you cand surf the foundation and read about its priorities. [gatesfoundation.org]
Re:Well. (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW: All you guys hate Bill so much, but do you know how much Wal-Mart gave to charity? Just see the movie 'Wal-Mart - The high cost of Low Prices' where they actually compare Bill and Melinda's donations and donations from Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, truth is quite s
Re:Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Infact, Bill Gates, who had a lot to do with the success of the modern PC revolution has helped hundreds of millions of people get jobs that made them trillions of dollars. And I don't care if he gives to charity either, but sure, it is nice.
Every market transaction makes both parties better off, or else they would not engage in the transaction.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
That particular piece of dogma assumes that everybody has perfect knowledge of all the economic factors, and an infallible ability to apply that knowledge correctly. It may make for a nice computer model, but it applies only sporadically to real life. As a counterexample, ask some ex-Enron employees how much better off they are due to their 'market transactions' with Enron regarding their retirement funds...
Re:Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but it also destroys the local retail outlets. That can really hurt a tight-knigt community (just think of how different the vibe is at your favorite local shop vs Wal Mart), and said storekeepers will have to adjust. And working at Wal-Mart is NOT an improvement. Sure Wal-Mart might throw jobs at those whow might otherwise have difficulty finding employment (particularly the mentally handicapped), but it do
Re:Well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Take this quote by Steve Dobbins, the CEO of Carolina Mills, which provides textile supplies. "People ask, 'How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?' Sure, it's held inflation down, and it's great to have bargains," says Dobbins. "But you can't buy anything if you're not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs."
Here's the link [fastcompany.com]. Why are
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
It just goes to show that people are stupid and that the mass media are sycophants.
I am sick and tired of hearing what a great genius and philanthropists Bill Gates is.
Let us not forget that Bill Gates went to India in 2002 and gave $100 million to fight AIDS, which received great press. What the main-stream media failed to report was that $421 million of Microsoft's money at the time went to fight Linux and Free Software [theregister.co.uk].
So make your own conclusions about his priorities.
Re: Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, $100,000,000 / $51,000,000,000,000 = 0.2% of his net worth.
Suppose you're far better off than most people, to the point of having $100,000 socked away in the bank, and you decide to be equally generous. Should you expect kudos for your $200 donation?
What about all the people working their way through college, who still find a way to dro $5 or $10 in their church's collection pla
Re:Sycophants and Shills (Score:3, Insightful)
That's bad reasoning, it's like saying that if this year I buy a house for $100 000 and only give $33 000 to charity, I'm an evil person for putting my interests before those of people in need.
No it isn't.
Bill Gates got where he is today through ruthlessness, double-crossing, lying, cheating and selling deadful products at over-inflated prices. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft's strong-arm tactics and draconian licensing policies, high prices coupled with publicity and bribing governments l
Re:Well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats because when you're the riches person in the world, the vast majority of your money exists as ownership of companies. If Gates were to try to sell off his 1 billion shares of MSFT, it would severely criple the company's finances because he likely wouldn't be able to find a buyer @market.
While I'm sure that his success is fundamentally driven by ego, you cannot say that he doesn't give an enormous amount back t
Re:Well. (Score:3, Interesting)
The money that he pours into Africa gets stolen by the corrupt heads of the countries. As long as African truckers can buy whores for a few dollars at truck stops, they'll be having "dry sex" [villagevoice.com] and spreading AIDs.
He could copy Soros and get more bang for the buck if he invested in somewhat less hopeless causes. I'm
Re:Well. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving to charity, so much an anglosaxon measurement for how good you are, always comes after (!!) the fact that people have taken care of their own well being. As a simple example, mother Theresa didn't GIVE to charity, she WAS charity.
Having moved from Europe to Canada (which follows the American/British model), I'm still flabergasted about how people here think that 'giving to charity' can wipe out their evil, or lack of actio
Re:Well. (Score:3, Informative)
Kudos (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep up the good work, Mr & Mrs Gates.
Re:Kudos (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm trying to find the quote. Someone once made a comment during the Guilded Age regarding Carnegie's, Rockefeller's, etc... charities. The critique was that they were doing it for PR or to clense their souls (which might have been true for Carnegie. H
Another Legacy (Score:2)
What I find interesting is that Bill is clearly someone who has helped change the world and touch many peoples lives already, and now seems to be looking towards an even greater legacy in Africa and 3rd world countries.
At only 50 years old, his next triumph may still be his greatest.
On an offtopic side note, my little test revealed Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is already up to date. Cool.
__
Broadband funny videos for adults [laughdaily.com]. Now updated 3 times daily.
Charity is not software (Score:2)
His charity may be good
but that doesn't make his software good
or innovative.
Only he can do that.
And time and again he has not managed to do that
until somebody else does it first
and then he tries to do something similar.
Re:Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
Respect.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Aero
Re:Respect.. (Score:3, Insightful)
false. You need only to look at all the local libraries that were built and furnished with books or look at a number of our universities (CMU comes to mind). Gates foundation has spent a mere amount compared to the robber barons of the 1800s/early 1900s. Now down the road, he may well do more, but at this time, he has not even come close.
Re:Respect.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to compare Mr. Gates to the robber barons in terms of generosity, at least take into consideration the fact that Gates is considerably poorer than Rockefeller was at Rockefeller's peak.
Re:More than Jesus? (Score:2)
Next time I post here, I'll be sure to add 'Religious zealots need not reply'.
Aero
FTA- (Score:2, Funny)
Man of the year...... (Score:2)
I agree that Time always tries to be a little off-centre in their selection of Man of the Year (PC Man of the Year, etc...) but this is getting ridiculous. Plus, he's already been Man of the Year, when he most deserved it for his dominance (for better or for worse) in the emerging IT marketplace.
Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."
As much as I understand the necessity of patting people on their back for doing anything at all with their insanely huge wealth - to stop them turning away sneering at the 'ingratitude' of the world, I can think of a lot of "Good Samaritans" who better deserved Person of the Year
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:3)
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, who had 1 hour 59 minutes?
Re:Sorry to get Biblical guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
6
And what does that passage actually mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it mean that rich people shouldn't donate? No
Does it mean we shouldn't encourage rich people to donate? No
Does it mean that we shouldn't be happy when rich people donate? No
What it means is that we shouldn't scoff at those who donate the little they have just because they're poor and can't give "much" dollar-for-dollar.
What it means is that we should applau
A good example of this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Total amount is really not a true measure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Total amount is really not a true measure (Score:2)
Bil Gates was the number one person in the news? (Score:2)
Isn't that what the Person of the Year was designed to be? Has it fallen so far that anyone with enough money can buy the post?
We already discussed this... (Score:2)
The thing is it was one of the few discussions on slashdot (it's about Billy of the M$) which was truely fair or at least gives me such a feeling
Sorry Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
1) EULAs that take away the users rights
2) Operating systems with little or no security
3) Business tactics that make the Borgias look like a kindergarden group.
5/10, try harder.
Ed Almos
Linus Charity donations (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't Linus Torvalds also a millionaire? Does anyone have any figures
about his charitable donations?
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe we should be evaluated not by how much we donate, but by what we have left after the donation. Then, I could be considered as a _big_ donator!
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that Bill Gates who keeps for himself every bit of "intelectual property" that he has created or has had others create on his behalf is a better man than a guy who has shared his work with all of humanity?
I didnt think you were.
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linus Charity donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos to Bill for all the charity work he has done, but the impact of creating a very good operating system that the people in the poorest of countries can use for free, on old "thrown away" hardware is tremendous. I'm not a Christian, but there is good sense in the phrase: Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Linus's gift will keep giving years after he is gone because it helps raise the education and living standards in the poorest nations. And he doesn't exactly get a tax credit for it. Of course, let us not forget everyone who contributes to FOSS, be it Samba, Apache, Bind or Squirrelmail, and of course our own Jesus look-alike, RMS
It's hard to measure the impact in dollars, but GNU/BSD/FOSS are great equalizers that embiggen the smallest men.
Melinda Gates (Score:5, Interesting)
Just the Carnegies and Rockefellers of the past (Score:2, Insightful)
Time Magazine, how stupid are you.
Bono bloody Bono (Score:3, Insightful)
Time also named former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as "Partners of the Year" for their humanitarian efforts after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and the unlikely friendship that developed from that work.
Unlikely friendship??? Someone hand me a hanky. Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there. And Bono??? Bono???
The guy may be well meaning and all, but by allowing politicians to exploit him, he essentially allows them to look good while they make the problems of Africa worse. Him and Bobby Geldof were complete tools at the last G8, allowing Blair to look like he wanted to help Africa, when all they did was continue the same IMF policies of handouts in exchange for selling off of resources to the west. And Bono does it over and over again [zmag.org].
Why I think this is bogus (Score:2, Interesting)
Gates is convicted abuser of monopilist power. This means he obtained a large amount of his tremendous wealth through illegal means. The only reason he/his corporation hasn't been chastized for this is his enourmous contributions to the rebuplican party during the Bush vs. Gore elections. So not only is he guilty of abusing monopolistic power, but in my mind he
Bono - Pompous, Self-Righteous Twit (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11 worst [thebestpag...iverse.net]
This quote epitomizes U2's pious, holier-than-thou attitude:
"I don't know why, but we always had this belief that there was something sacred about our music, that it was almost holy."
-Bono, pompous asshole and lead singer of U2
Cocky, high-handed, imperial assholes.
Time Cover Photo (Score:5, Funny)
-Pinkoir
Yaaaay Melinda! (Score:3, Interesting)
Do samaritians always sue indies over nothing? (Score:5, Interesting)
This nearly ruined SST over the costs of the suit alone, but by forcing SST to fight an expensive suit, while the music they had greatly contributed to for more than 10 years exploded into the mainstream, it greatly contributed to the eventual demise of the label, robbing the artists of an important channel.
Later U2 claimed [l2g.to] to have not been greatly involved. "It wasn't us, just the label", paraphrased.
I'm sorry, but if you let your lawyer sue, I'll hold you responsible. And if you wanna preach to people about responsible behavior, I'll expect that you know what your agents do in your name.
I have one thing to say about Bono: hypocrite. I think this is a fitting "people of the year" panel: They all give to charity in the limelight, then turn around and fuck people over.
not correct... (Score:4, Informative)
The lawsuit is on page 4.
The plantiff is Island records, the defendants are SST and Negativland (Hosler, et al). Neither the band U2 nor the members are listed on the lawsuit.
Furthermore, the lawsuit is primarily about Negativland's use of the enormous letters "U2" on the cover of the EP. It does mention the lyrics and samples down lower. The songs were actually rereleased later (much later) with a non-infringing cover.
Additionally, if you continue to read the book or other info on the case, you realize the main problem isn't Island or U2. The main problem was that when the lawsuit rolled in SST immediately rolled over, stopped distribution of the EP, paid off Island and then BILLED BACK Negativland for the payoff (while simultaneously depriving them of income!).
If you continued to investigate, you'd find that Negativland was wrapped up on court for years over this. Not against Island, against SST. SST didn't rack up huge bills defending themselves against Island, they settled immediately. They did rack up huge bills fighting Negativland in a contractual dispute.
How about if you read page 32, where Chris Blackwell of Island Records says in a letter to Negativland "I have been getting a huge amount of hastle (sp) from the members of U2, not to press for payment."
Hosler could probably explain it better than I (he's perhaps even on here), but the main villain here is SST, not U2. Island probably comes in 2nd place.
Note that a later part of the book talks more about "audio collage" and sampling, etc. That's where the stuff on "No Copyright" is. And there are some good arguments here, in fact, so good that (IMHO) the recent Creative Commons stuff is a spiritual descendant of this work.
I like Negativland, I have all of their SST stuff and some of their Seeland stuff. But, I do know they are very subversive and not stupid. When the Tower records standup picture of the EP bin on page 3 of the book says "buy it before they get sued", I think it's probably that Negativland understood they would get C&D'd over this record and likely sued by Island too. What they didn't understand was that SST would roll over on them and leave them with the bill (illegally it turns out).
My person of the year... (Score:5, Insightful)
My person of the year is Jabbar Gibson [wikipedia.org], the 18 year old kid who saved 70 people from the aftermath of Katrina by stealing a bus and driving to Houston. Maybe that's because my definition of a hero is somebody that rises above even when the chips are down.
Lex Luthor (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see... rich guy, gives money to charities, does humanitarian things, does some evil on the side...
Keep it in Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
For every illegal practice Bill's company has been accused of, there are at least a few practices that have helped bring computers and the internet to the masses. Not sure I would personally consider Bill Gates to be a good person, but you have to be a ruthless dictator in order to run a multi-national. When in Rome. Show me one CEO who can exist in *that* world, without holding true to the values of the Sith.
That said, much of Bill's contribution to the dark side of the force has sparked great strides for the light. Our enemies unite us, and there is no clearer enemy to Open Source than Bill Gates. Maybe he just wants us all working for free? Nah.
Re:Keep it in Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Pleaaaaase, come on ! Before the IBM PC (note, 'IBM'), there were lots of personal computers just as able, CP/M was working OK, and there were many less known OS just as able or more useful than MS-DOS ; speaking of Internet, I remember pretty well it was much easier to connect with OS/2 warp than Win 3.1 (where you had to rely on third party con
The PR works. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ruthless and merciless practices? In competition with other companies? That's what he should be doing. He should be doing his best to (legally) make Microsoft Windows the standard and to make Mac OS and Linux unimportant niche products. As for illegal practices, which of those have made Gates rich? Being a monopoly? It b
Corp v corp conflict is necessary ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill's corporation competed against other corporations, it harmed some of them, but that is how the market is supposed to work. That is in part how we have a darwinian process that determines supply and demand. MS' illegal practices were not obviously illegal at the time they were put into practice, the line is fuzzy and they were definitely treading in questionable territory but it was not a given that the government would see that it would warrant prosecution and it was not a given that a judge would rule against them. Comparing MS to the Mafia just destroys any credibility you may have, it exposes your politics / blind hatred. Linux destroys corporations, the traditional Unix vendrors. Apple can be even more heavy handed than MS. They merely don't get the bad press because they are not on top. Markets are like hamburgers, their creation is not a pretty picture.
Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. (Score:3)
That being said, go see the movie "The Insider", about the guy who ratted out that cigarette manufacturers knew about the health risks of smoking and lied about it for decades. Think about companies supporting dictat
Re:cancel my subsc... oh wait, never mind. (Score:5, Funny)
Stood up to the Man
and gave him what for!
The Man of the Year
that all Slashdot hates,
The hero of Redmond
the man they call Gates!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Behind Every Successful Man (Score:2, Funny)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
A really interesting read, thanks for the link.
Re:Get me a bucket I'm gonna throw up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Conspiracy Theory FTW!
Bill Gates is surely giving a larger percentage to charity than I do. I think I gave $2 for the flood victims because a couple of swedes were there, otherwise I usually think "well build yuor homes somewhere else next time". Otherwise I havn't been giving a single penny to charity for about 10 years.
Re:I CONCUR MOD PARENT "IDIOT" (Score:2)
Re:Say what you like (Score:5, Insightful)
The same amount I've raised using illegal business practices.
Re:Cynics' Interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
good samaritan who made a difference n. Rich bastard in need of a tax break.
Standard Slashdot comment every time this topic comes up.
Hopefully, at sometime time, the morons will realize that
making charitable donations doesn't increase your money.
1) You have 100$. No charitable donations.
You pay say 30% tax on it - i.e. 30$.
You have 70$ left with you.
2) You have 100$. You give 20$ to charity.
Now you pay tax only on the remaining 80% i.e. 24$.
The money you have left = 100 -24 - 20 = 56$.
i.e You would have been left with more money if you
hadn't given charity & got the tax breaks.
The only diff to this scenario is when giving the
donation puts you in a lower tax bracket. However
I doubt it that's the case with Bill Gates - he should
far far above the highest tax bracket.
Re:Cynics' Interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax rates are marginal anyway, so it wouldn't save you any additional money if you did switch brackets. Assuming that there's a tax bracket at $90, with everything below it taxed at 15%, and everything above it taxed at 30% as above. Repeating the same two scenarios that you used:
(1) $100 income, no charitable contribution. $90 @ 15% + $10 @ 30% = $13.50 + $3.00 = $16.50 of taxes. After-tax income: $83.50
(2) $100 income, $20 charitable contribution. $80 @ 15% = $12.00 of taxes. After-tax income: $68
So not only does money not magically appear from crossing marginal tax rate boundries, but your tax refund on the donation isn't even as large ($6 in the parent's example, but only $4.50 here), so while the $20 contribution only took $14 out of the parent's pocket at the end of the day, here the same contribution would cost us $15.50
Re:The devil is always kind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1936 (Score:3, Informative)
Of course Time's history rather sucks - Joseph Stalin made it both in 1939 and 1942...
For a quick rundown take a look here [about.com].
For a nice graphical layout look through Time's version [time.com].
You will note, however, that Adolf Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938.
I personally like their 1982 pick