$1.5 billion from Bill Gates

He's done it again. Another $750 million to the vaccine
initiative from good ol' Bill, and this is after an initial $750
million in 1997. This amount will make him into the most generous
private donor ever. He donated a separate $1 billion to minority
seeking a technological education a few years back.

So, after all said and done, does his seeming generosity make him a
better person in most people's eyes? He potentially saved
thousands of lives of children in developing nations, and this isn't a
wild estimate.

Ok, i admit that my last argument was pathetic.

That doesn't make his contribution any less valuable, RaPtoR. It's a
lot more than many others have done, even when they have been able to.

I was watching channel 4 news yesterday evening, and it was suggested that Gate's contribution would spur on countries to increase their own contributions, so its not just the money he gave, but what others will do by example/shaming. I think the figure needed for 90% of the worlds children to be immunised is 8 billion, which is an extremely small ammount for something so vital.

I don't hate Bill Gates anymore, I'm focusing all my hate on Steam.

[edit] unless you need to register your vaccinations online, in order to get updates for new life threatening illnesses. :razz:

Gill Bates? Capitalist dirtbag :razz: !

Perhaps he should be using some of his 'well-earnt' millions to increase the quality of Xboxes. I've had to send mine for back for repair already - after only two weeks of having the damn thing.

Honestly though, I think in donating his money he's doing a good thing - but you can't help but wonder what the motivation was.

• Was it to raise his public profile?
• More money than he knows what to do with?
• He's genuinely a nice guy and doesn't like others to suffer...

Either way, give the man a banana :wink:

tosses Bill banana shaped grenade

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RaPtoR</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Yeah, but that's still a pathetic sum for him.
</DIV></DIV>
You say that, but you don't know how much personal fortune he actually has. Jeez, he's donated billions of dollars, and all you can do is worry if he's doing it to make people like him more or whatever- who bloody cares, when it's saving millions of lives?!

I've heard that some time ago, a hacker was feeding on Bill's money. He kept extracting "minor" sums like 100.000$
from his bank account(s) for months. Nobody would have noticed if
the hacker wouldn't have attemptet to steal 500.000$. THAT caught
someone's attention and the hacker is currently serving his 30 years of
detention.

RaPtoR said:
Yeah, but that's still a pathetic sum for him.

You say that, but you don't know how much personal fortune he
actually has. Jeez, he's donated billions of dollars, and all you can
do is worry if he's doing it to make people like him more or whatever-
who bloody cares, when it's saving millions of lives?!

Only Bill Gates can be shouted at for donating a large some of money to help those less fortunate.

Think of how much good could come from a re-distribution of wealth from
people like bill gates to the lower rung of society? Also, what
if the $160 billion spent on the war (bush wants another $80 billion
for the 'war' [even though we won over a year ago]) and spent that
money on schools? Maybe if we took the surpluse of money from
wealthy schools and spread that around to minority- errr... I mean less
privlaged schools.

That of course wont happen and dosn't change the fact that what gates is doing is good.

It disgusts me that people can insult the guy when he gives as much as
he does - I'll bet he donates a far higher percentage of his earnings
than anybody who criticses him, yet they still say its a "nothing" sum
for him. Everybody's hatred of the guy seems to stem from jealousy, its
quite pathetic.

Its
quite pathetic.

Tis what I say about these "1337 g33ks" in my computing class who
ALWAYs slag off MS. Yet I don't think one of them has any other
operating system.

Ok, i admit that my last argument was pathetic.

I don't like donations, well they help, but helps from the "wrong
direction". African children is not starving to death becouse they get
to little charity-money. It's the influence of capitalism that's
striked them, and since Bill Gates is a BIG icon of capitalism, he's
still more minus than plus.

To not like him cuz he's got a lot of money IS a BAD reaon.

It's not some theoretical "influence of capitalism" that's placed the more desperate African nations in their current situation. There are many factors including:

• Lack of political stability
• Local hoarding of resources
• Poor industrial infrastructure development following WWII
• Overpopulation
• Pollution, especially of water supply
• Disease
• Genocide
• Rebel factions
• Debt
• Lingering consequences of slavery and racism
• Too much weaponry lying around, begging to be used

Capitalism is not about exploiting people, as you seem to think. It is about market-regulated pricing and private and corporate ownership, which are neutral concepts at worst.

Oh come on! NOONE hates Gates for being "a BIG icon of capitalism". Its
just because most people use his OS, and its simpler to blame one guy
for everything. Its a corporation, so think-tanks, board meetings,
customer feedback (not the kind he normally gets with letters cut out
of magazines or written in blood by irate nerds thrown through his
castle window) etc. shape the way its sold to us. So what if he gets
filthy rich? Where would we be without him? The internet would only
consist of absolute geeks, and it would be completely s**t. For people
that actually have a life, Microsoft is fine.

The fact that we really have hatred for a guy who designed the OS we
use is terrifyingly sad: We don't totally despise Rupert Murdoch. HE is
a capitalist icon as much as Gates, and in many ways moreso, feeding
'fair and balanced' news to Americans. His media feeds Republican
propaganda, and quite possibly the reason Bush got reelected, and all
that warmongering goodness that comes with it).

Bill Gates isn't the greatest humanitarian in the world and no doubt,
but do not knock a generous donation of this magnatude, no matter if it
came out of Satans ass itself.

[/generic angst]

I'll bet he donates a far higher percentage of his earnings
than anybody who criticses him, yet they still say its a "nothing" sum
for him.

Exactly, Reno. If you haven't given as much in donations relative to
your own money, you're actually MORE of a capitalist. Just a much
poorer one.

Now STEAM on the other hand.... :biggrin:

Poor industrial infrastructure development following WWII ? They didnt
have any anyway :razz: Let alone any to get destroyed in a war that barely
touched the continent! :wink:

The problems in Africa stem largely from never end war, the influence
of religion on reproduction issues and the legacy of colonialism. If
you want to slam capitalism, don't attack it as a whole - it shows a
great naivety to how the world HAS to work.

Make your attacks on celebrity culture, advertising and out of control consumerism :smile: #

Fair play to Mr Gates, I was a bit suss at first - and it is probably
also a good reason for a tax write off, but him and his wife do a ton
of stuff for really worthwhile charities. So tax write off or not, he
should be applauded. Perhaps it will encourage other financially well
endowed citizens of the world to give generously.

The real issue (not so much here) is why money is used as the solution
to national, and international problems. Paving over the cracks of
crumbling foundations only holds water for so long.

But yeah, good on Mr Gates!

There was actually a move to industrialize many countries following WWII by some of the Western nations. Problem is, giving an automobile plant to Sudan is worthless if they don't have the materials or technology to fix equipment when it breaks nor the educated labor force necessary to troubleshoot or create profitable innovations. Following a "generous" donation of capital period (which helped start the debt problem as well), the technology lagged behind until it became sheer deadweight. Without the debt situation, it's possible there would be positive effects towards other more visible problems such as infighting, education (higher education has been linked with a lower, sustainable birthrate) and disease. It wouldn't fix things outright but it'd sure help.

if you dont like Gates because he's rich, then his donation shouldn't alter your view. he's still richer than anyone here will ever be.

if you think that the charity he donated to is worthwhile, then be glad, because this is a HUGE amount for ANY individual to be donating.

so his OS has bugs, big deal. cars have been getting broken into since they first hit the streets. usually they get broken into through windows too, but you dont see people hating the fucpkig that invented stupid glass.

[edit] capital investment into a lot of countries doesn't exist because of problems with endemic diseases. money spent on stabalizing the general health of a population, is money well spent not only on health.[/edit]

It disgusts me that people can insult the guy when he gives as much as
he does - I'll bet he donates a far higher percentage of his earnings
than anybody who criticses him, yet they still say its a "nothing" sum
for him. Everybody's hatred of the guy seems to stem from jealousy, its
quite pathetic.

I'm with this comment, Bill Gates has donated alot worldwide. Just
because he doesn't make it all public, doesn't mean he isn't giving.

Oh come on! NOONE hates Gates for being "a BIG icon of capitalism". Its
just because most people use his OS,

Well i do. And i didn't say everybody did, i said it was a good reason.

The internet would only
consist of absolute geeks, and it would be completely s**t. For people
that actually have a life, Microsoft is fine.

Microsoft has nothing, or very little, to do with the creation of internet.

The fact that we really have hatred for a guy who designed the OS we
use is terrifyingly sad:

Bill gates nor microsoft invented the window and icon based GUI. He
just copied it. I think i said somthing like this about it: "The
sterring wheel is one of the most important important parts of a car.
Even though, noone's patented it".

• Lack of political stability
• Local hoarding of resources
• Poor industrial infrastructure development following WWII
• Overpopulation
• Pollution, especially of water supply
• Disease
• Genocide
• Rebel factions
• Debt
• Lingering consequences of slavery and racism
• Too much weaponry lying around, begging to be used

I'm not talking about direct reasons im talking about indirect
ones. Capitalism is not a direct reason and that makes it difficult for
ppl to see why it would be so bad. But it creates for example pollution
and overpopulation as you've mentioned above. Capitalism is about
earning money, no matter the consequenses. Example: dumping my
hazardus waste in the water instead of paying lots of money tranporting
it somewhere else and taking care of it.

And you forgot about one reason: US sucking oil out of the world, using
the tools of war and corruption. Now thats capitalism at it's peak.

Microsoft has nothing, or very little, to do with the creation of internet.

true, but they did have a major imapct by making IE free with their OS and therefore almost eliminating companys that sell browsers
such as netscape.

All they "did" was make it more readily available to the average consumer (by convincing them they had to pay for everything, for starters). Since, Windows/Microsoft already had a foot hold at that time. And I believe you guys are talking about The Web, not the Internet. Remember, Internet has been around since the 70s or so, the Webs been around since '95.

i always thought that capitalism was when i put my life savings into building a windmill. and even though i don't own a farm or have any crops, i let other people bring their wheat to grind, and i will charge them some money for this, or even take some of the flour. then i could sell the flour to Freddy, my cousin, because he used his life savings to build a huge oven that could bake 50 loaves of bread at the same time. etc......

putting money up front to create something that can be used to generate wealth = capitalism. there are too many examples of this being a good thing to go any farther than Freddys bakery.

Microsoft has nothing, or very little, to do with the creation of internet.

true, but they did have a major imapct by making IE free with their OS and therefore almost eliminating companys that sell browsers
such as netscape.

Mircrosoft = Smart. They knew where the money was to be earned :smile:

Overpopulation is the fault of religious teachings and high infant mortality rates in underdeveloped countries, not capitalism.

If anything capitalism has slowed down population growth massively, particularly in western europe.

RaPtoR, your a capitalist. Real leftys don't have computers, and comfy
homes, they go out and live in a cabin in the mountains, writing
manifestos and occasionally bombing places. :wink:

You protest too much, and generally, anyone that far to the left but
NOT some kind of activist is overcompensating/rebelling against a
conservative upbringing.

*puts a protest sign in RaPtoRs hands and points him in the direction of the government.

Microsoft has nothing, or very little, to do with the creation of internet.

true, but they did have a major imapct by making IE free with their OS and therefore almost eliminating companys that sell browsers
such as netscape.

Mircrosoft = Smart. They knew where the money was to be earned :smile:

They always have. And how to crush the competition, not sure about FF though.

checks chart

Jan 2004:

IE6: 71.3%

IE5: 12.8%

Opera 7: 2.1%

FF/Mozilla: 8.2%

Netscape(4+7): 2%

December 2004:

IE6: 65.4%

IE5: 4.5%

Opera 7: 2.1%

FF/Mozilla: 22.8%

Netscape(4+7): 1.4%

Opera grew a bit [by about.2%] but then went back down.

IE6 went up to 72.6% in may but then declined.

Mozilla said that their goal was to get 10% of the browser users by the end of 2004, I think they did well :smile:

Gwil: Well i could draw up a whole bunch of accosiations that starts
with overpopulation and ends with capitalism, but i won't cuz this
political discusion is making me tired. So i admin your right on
that one. :wink:

Mephs: I saved money for 10 years and built my computer myself,
component after component :razz: and i live on a little hut in a desert and
powering my computer with a small bicycle.

Loth: MOZILLA POWER!!!! :biggrin:

I think one of the leading resons for problems in Africa is their
history. Most 1st world countrys have had hunders of years to get
where they are today, All but one african country has been under the
rule of a Western nation at one point or another. Many have only
just gotten their independance, they have not had time to set up an
infastructure to support themselfs. Many were also left in a
power vacum, which leads to civil war.

Others countrys were dare I say f*cked hard by their parent countrys, a
good example would be the hutu and tutsi (sp?) the english basicaly
invented a diffrence between these two groups of people and then made
one seem more important than the other.

/but what do I know

I think one of the leading resons for problems in Africa is their
history. Most 1st world countrys have had hunders of years to get
where they are today, All but one african country has been under the
rule of a Western nation at one point or another. Many have only
just gotten their independance, they have not had time to set up an
infastructure to support themselfs. Many were also left in a
power vacum, which leads to civil war.

Others countrys were dare I say f*cked hard by their parent countrys, a
good example would be the hutu and tutsi (sp?) the english basicaly
invented a diffrence between these two groups of people and then made
one seem more important than the other.

/but what do I know

Exactly - colonial legacies are the chief problem for these countries
in Africa - but! most got their independence in the 60's/70's (UN
acting as it "should") glory days

And please dont blame entirely Britain, it has a lot to do with the
cold war and the USSR/USA. Meddling superpowers trying to impose
"civilised" morals will never work. Check check Iraq Check check Iran.

You can go back to the worlds most recent + cold war problems (out of
our hands TBH) and see that US/UK/USSR interference and narcissim to
work their own ends is to blame for a lot of the problems erupting,
well, erupted from the 60's onward.

Dividing natural contours and tribal lines is not a good idea. Too bad the damage has been done on that front.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RaPtoR</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>powering my computer with a small bicycle.

</DIV></DIV>
i think you just came with a solution for nerds to stay in shape

RaPtoR said:
powering my computer with a small bicycle.

i think you just came with a solution for nerds to stay in shape

Good thing I got a new inner tube yesturday, my mongoose pro has been sitting in the hall way since summer :sad:

And please dont blame entirely Britain, it has a lot to do with the
cold war and the USSR/USA. Meddling superpowers trying to impose
"civilised" morals will never work. Check check Iraq Check check Iran.

That was just one example, the UK in my opinion wasn't as bad as other countrys(like the US for example).

I agree with you on all points. It seems the areas of the world
with the most problems seem to be the ones what were created with no
thought of historic native conflicts. "Group A hates group B?
lets divide up all their land and give group B a huge part of group A's
land! brilliant"

If you're thinking about Bush's war in Iraq, then i must say that the
people of Iraq would have been better-off with Saddam. He killed less
people than this war did anyway.

And I think this "hatred" is caused by all the annoying faults Windows
and other microsoft products have, and is oriented, wrongly, at the F?hrer of the company. That's the way ALL humans tend to think, but others refrain themselves better than others.

That's a very short-sighted and factually-unsupported statement, Andrei!

Maybe. But I was talking about subcontious reactions . Here's a common
example: your want to d/l something. You wait 2 hrs, and when the bar
reaches 90%, the computer crashes. You reboot, hoping that you'll be
able to
resume. You can't. You're p*ssed, really p*ssed. Most people tend to
attack the monitor when logically the problem is in the main block (I
heard a guy threw his mouse at the monitor when the machine crashed
while he was playing CS online! Then there was another guy who, having
problems with his comp, bashed the monitor with the keyboard. I could
go on, but i've said too many stupid stuff already). :smile:

Yes, because a game crashing is completely the same as a war.

That's not the subject of my post. :/

lol I was referring to what you said about Bush and Iraq, not people disliking Microsoft

Just an update... I read another article in the newspaper about
the $750 million donation. It's been estimated by the WHO that
his existing vaccine donations have already saved the lives of 670,000
children around the world. The recent donation will soon increase
the number to millions.

Bill is a rich and unpopular man, but he's still making a positive difference in the world.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Andrei</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>If you're thinking about Bush's war in Iraq, then i must say that the people of Iraq would have been better-off with Saddam. He killed less people than this war did anyway.
</DIV></DIV>

That's a incredibly disgusting argument, but unfortunately not uncommon at all in today's left. I'd like to see you find a single Iraqi who didn't profit in some way from Saddam say: "Yes, I wish Saddam was in power -- that I was afraid to speak freely in the open, and the professional rapists were still being paid, etc. -- I want all that back. I wish I didn't have the chance to freely elect a representative government in two days. The Euro and American leftist are correct, Saddam should be in power."

[Edit: Also, the Baath regime killed hundreds of thousands - and counting (still uncovering mass graves also). If you want you can site some guesstimate of the Iraqi civilian death toll, but the reality is no where near hundreds of thousands.]

On capitalism. If it weren't for capitalism, you would not be communicating right now on the internet. You would not have the medicines and technologies which have saved millions, or many other things most of us take for granted. Capitalism = Growth, Freedoms, progress. Socialism = Stagnation, despotism. Again and again history demonstrates this, yet modern leftist continue to cling to their utopian ideals despite (sometimes in spite of) reality.
(Don't take this as a flame, I'm simply expressing my contrary opinion.)

Andrei said:
If you're thinking about Bush's war in Iraq,
then i must say that the people of Iraq would have been better-off with
Saddam. He killed less people than this war did anyway.

That's a incredibly disgusting argument, but unfortunately not
uncommon at all in today's left. I'd like to see you find a single
Iraqi who didn't profit in some way from Saddam say: "Yes, I wish
Saddam was in power -- that I was afraid to speak freely in the open,
and the professional rapists were still being paid, etc. -- I want all
that back. I wish I didn't have the chance to freely elect a
representative government in two days. The Euro and American leftist
are correct, Saddam should be in power."

[Edit: Also, the Baath regime killed hundreds of thousands -
and counting (still uncovering mass graves also). If you want you can
site some guesstimate of the Iraqi civilian death toll, but the reality is no where near hundreds of thousands.]

On capitalism. If it weren't for capitalism, you would not be
communicating right now on the internet. You would not have the
medicines and technologies which have saved millions, or many other
things most of us take for granted. Capitalism = Growth, Freedoms,
progress. Socialism = Stagnation, despotism. Again and again history
demonstrates this, yet modern leftist continue to cling to their
utopian ideals despite (sometimes in spite of) reality.

(Don't take this as a flame, I'm simply expressing my contrary opinion.)

Not to generlize or anything.

To him, comparitivly $1 billion is just our ?3 a month that common plebs might give. He is still a selfish arse.

But it's still a large relative amount. What would 3 pounds buy
you? Not much. Perhaps a big juicy burger. But $1
billion can still buy anyone anything fancy. You don't think
he'll enjoy having a new fast car? Or a new, top of the line,
sound system? Or a vacation to anywhere in the world?

You can say that the amount isn't much realtive to his total wealth,
but it's still money that he can spend and get tons of enjoyment out of
it. It's not like everything will cost him thousands of times
more than everyone else.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting DrGlass
Not to generlize or anything.
</DIV></DIV>
I guess you're refering to when I refer to the left. Yes, obviously that in itself is a generalization, but that doesn't mean it's not true. A generalization is not false simply by virtue of being a generalization. They can be unfair, and you apparently think this is such a case, but it can also equally be accurate. If I'm being unfair tell me how.

You can't buy a Stealth Bomber with that much, so there :razz:

lol, very interesting post. If, persay, that you were Gates, would you
be so kind and give all the money away? Do you think he didn't work
hard for everything he had? of course he worked hard! And I personally
beilive he earned every bit of that money. And if he is so selfish why
would he give money? For the publicity? I doubt it. And even if it was
for the wrong reasons that he donated the money, he STILL donated the
money. There was something else I was going to say, but I still
have parents... So I gotta go!