Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:15 UTC, submitted by BCM
Microsoft "For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are Time's Persons of the Year." Here is an article dedicated to Bill and Melinda Gates, while an interview with all three can be found here.
Order by: Score:
They deserve it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I hope everyone put their differences aside and aplaud these three people for their enormous contributions to a better world.

Reply Score: 4

RE: They deserve it
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:42 UTC in reply to "They deserve it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I hope everyone put their differences aside and aplaud these three people for their enormous contributions to a better world.

Agreed. No matter what you think of either of these people, they ARE trying to do things for the good of this world. That can't be said about everyone with money.

Reply Score: 5

RE: They deserve it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:55 UTC in reply to "They deserve it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, am I allowed to hold the opinion that Gates is using parts of his charity donations for things that help him business wise and not like that?

Am I allowed to hold the opinion that he is using the renome he got with his donations to lobby for policies I despise?

Am I allowed to hold the opinion that he earned the money in a despicable, unethical way and giving parts of his ridiculous wealth away doesn't change that?

Well, according to you I'm probably not allowed to hold that opinion, am I?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: They deserve it
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The point is: he is helping people who need it-- I don't give a damn WHY he does it, as lons AS he does it.

You Americans probably aren't familiar with Robbie Williams, but he put it like this-- when an interviewer asked him: "Why do you do the charity work you do? Is it because of your ego?" Williams replied: "Yes, maybe, I don't know. But if everyone would do charity to boost their egos, the world'd be much a better place."

Think about it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: They deserve it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The point is: he is helping people who need it-- I don't give a damn WHY he does it, as lons AS he does it."

I agree and he should be applauded for what he does.

However, that does not mean one should not be critical of him, does it?

Especially when on one hand he is giving money so that people can get medication against AIDS (which is great), while he uses his considerable clout to lobby for tighter IP rules world wide, which can be argued for being responsible for people not having access to the medication in the first place.

So, credit where credit is due, but the same goes for critizism.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: They deserve it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They deserve it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

thats very true, Thom. but you're missing the whole point. the Time awards are meant to be awards for intentions of goodwill. in other words: they are an award for people's motivations, not their actions.
picture this: an old lady gets mugged on the street. Mr pretendDoGooder goes and saves her because she owes Mr PretendDoGood money, and he knows that he won't be paid back otherwise. would you give Mr pretendDoGooder an award for good intention? i think not. or maybe YOU would.
for the record, i'm british.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: They deserve it
by Manik on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: They deserve it"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

No Sir, what you call the Times awards, in fact The man of the Year, then The Person of the Year is an "award" for the role they play, or have played, in the world. It isn't even reserved for a human being, and can be an association, a thing, etc. Do you think Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Staline (1939 and 1942), Deng Xiaoping (1978 and 1985), Ayatollah Khomeini (1979), the computer (1982), the Earth (1988) have received that "award" for their goodwill, their motivations ? Or Dubya, who got it two times, in 2000 and 2004 ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: They deserve it
by David on Mon 19th Dec 2005 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: They deserve it"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

This comes up every year, but it's important to remember that the "man of the year" isn't only for people who do good. Hitler won it for being bad. It's for people who make a big impact on the world, good or bad. I think we can all agree that Bill Gates deserves to be man of the year, when you think of it like that.

Edited 2005-12-19 15:31

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: They deserve it
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: They deserve it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And Gates got it for be pure evil with a phony-charity sugar-coating.

Time blew it, again. They could have picked Cindy Sheehan-- the woman who scares the c**p out of Bush, or Steve Jobs, a guy who really IS making the world a better place. Or Bono alone; another man with great talent.

Reply Score: 0

protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"You Americans probably aren't familiar with Robbie Williams"

Perhaps it is unintended, but that remark has a bit of a condescending tone to it. Probably as many "Americans" are familiar with him as people from where ever you are from are familiar with him and his work. As for Bill & Melinda, I always get the impression that their charity is done more to promote MS that it is because of a truly charitable nature. It seems to be done with great fanfare as a publicity tool rather than being done without regard for publicity.

I am not arguing that the money is not doing good, but rather that there is a difference between charity done because it is the right thing to do and charity done to further your own interests. In the latter case the recognition is not warranted.

As for Bono, now there is someone who. IMHO, truly does charity because it is the right thing to do. I would have preferred to see him recognized alone as the person of the year.

Let the flames begin.

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Member since:
---

I am not arguing that the money is not doing good, but rather that there is a difference between charity done because it is the right thing to do and charity done to further your own interests. In the latter case the recognition is not warranted.

I have the exact opposite opinion. Here is another great example of how one can advance one's own interest by helping others. Should more people adopt such a technique, helping others would be more commonplace than it is. I think that would be a good thing. There is usually no need for self-sacrifice when helping others. That also is a very good thing.

Reply Score: 0

protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

Your reply to my post should serve as an excellent example of what OSNews discussion groups are supposed to be all about. I express my opinion, you express a disagreeing opinion and all done without name calling, foul language and disparaging remarks. I can respect that.

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "I am not arguing that the money is not doing good, but rather that there is a difference between charity done because it is the right thing to do and charity done to further your own interests. In the latter case the recognition is not warranted."

Very well said, spot on.

Quote: "As for Bono, now there is someone who. IMHO, truly does charity because it is the right thing to do. I would have preferred to see him recognized alone as the person of the year."

Again, very well said. Bono is reknowned for being very outspoken. I'm glad U2 is very well known, because otherwise I suspect that many would not support U2, but would ensure that U2 slipped into obscurity, in order to stop Bono's activism.

Dave

PS I'm not a huge fan of U2 at all

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: They deserve it
by RGCook on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Your opinions are deserving and valid.

The good book tells us (I present this at some risk, but what the heck - it's Christmas time) that the ends does not justify the means.

Therefore, the breaking of man's law (arguably sins were committed) can not be justified just because a greater world good has been achieved. This is one of those areas that folks have to apply their own morality and world view to figure out for themselves. Certainly, the companies and individuals who have been destroyed by MS's practices would not agree with "the greater good" asserted by some herein. And we can all wonder if things would in fact be better than they are if we had more competition sans these convicted practices.

It is a challenge deciding the hearts of man, is it not?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: They deserve it
by elmimmo on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

Oh, you are of course free to have an opinion… even if it is a wrong one.

(sorry, I could not resist ^_^)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: They deserve it
by ohhmaagawd on Mon 19th Dec 2005 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE: They deserve it"
ohhmaagawd Member since:
2005-11-15

"Am I allowed to hold the opinion that he earned the money in a despicable, unethical way and giving parts of his ridiculous wealth away doesn't change that? "

Jesus Christ. The guy is running a software company. He's not a drug lord or a mafia boss.

What Gates has done is what pretty much any other CEO would/has done in the same situation... it's called capitalism.

Reply Score: 1

A paradox
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In my mind, Bill and Melinda's contributions create several paradoxes. The are good because they save lives but is this the best use for their google of dollars?

1. If Bill's money was gathered largely from the USA and other countries shouldn't the money be porportionally distributed back? About 15% goes to NW USA (i.e Bill's neighborhood).

1a. I wish Bill and Melinda would 'adopt' New Orleans. Create far sighted solutions. 1)call back the NO homeless to work in a 1930's CCC mode. 2) ensure the flooding problem does not happen. Perhaps move a dirt mountain to the ninth ward to raise the ground level (this was done after the Galveston hurricane). Then process silt from the Mississppii to rebuild the deltas

2. If the money goes to save impoverished and diseased children, would the money be better spent creating better cures and delivery methods for the poverty and disease?

3. NGO's (i.e. aid organizations) are wary about such donations because it upsets their regular relief efforts. NGO's have to build staff to service the not forever promised donation.

Therefore I see these efforts as a bit shortsighted. A leader would take the long view and envision steps to eliminate the problem.

Thanks

Reply Score: 1

RE: A paradox
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "A paradox"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

3. NGO's (i.e. aid organizations) are wary about such donations because it upsets their regular relief efforts. NGO's have to build staff to service the not forever promised donation.

Heh, yeah, if they're anything like social workers, I'm sure they'll find a way to complain about how difficult it is to be given millions of dollars.

Reply Score: 1

Actually...
by zombie process on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:00 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

I hold that opinion as well, FWIW.

Reply Score: 1

Gates helping or not?
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:14 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

I myself have no fully formed opinion on the matter, as I am simply not familiar enough with the issues. I just want to mention that there are those (people other than me) who disagree with Time.

Some people believe that Gates' contributions do more harm than good, since the money donated is used to buy drugs from the big pharmaceutical companies, while international IP law, to the benefit of said pharmaceuticals, forbids the development and distribution of cheaper generics (same drug but without the brand name).
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=241&row=1

Is Palast a fruitcake? His article's title certainly screams of trollism, right down to the all-caps ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Gates helping or not?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:21 UTC in reply to "Gates helping or not?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Regardless of pharmaceuticals and international IP, if you subtract Gates' contributions, some people would die, unless of course they can find help elsewhere. Little is better than nothing.

IMO, more money should be donated to research for cure against deadly disease, whereas currently I believe more money is spent on various work arounds.

Gates did infact contribute many a times to such research.

All in all, while bad things can be said about Microsoft business practices, Gates' humanitarian efforts deserve an applaud.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Gates helping or not?
by WorknMan on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:53 UTC in reply to "Gates helping or not?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Some people believe that Gates' contributions do more harm than good, since the money donated is used to buy drugs from the big pharmaceutical companies, while international IP law, to the benefit of said pharmaceuticals, forbids the development and distribution of cheaper generics (same drug but without the brand name).

Well, look at it this way:
If you were a big pharmaceutical company investing a lot of money (probably millions) in a drug, would you be so inclined to do so if you knew everybody and their grandma could sell a cheap, generic version of your drug once it hits the market? Goodwill aside, this ain't open source here ... even if you've got people willing to volunteer their time to the effort, it's going to cost a lot more to create a cure for AIDS than it will building a free alternative to Internet Explorer. That money has to come from somewhere.

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm...
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It`s a thing to be admired giving charity,but in his huges amounts of wealth (read hitchhikers about virtual money) it allways seems too little too late.
Heres one man with enough to make massive changes to a country but the trickle does not fix problems just prolongs them.

Reply Score: 0

give him credit
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Bill and Melinda gates deserve credit for giving their own money to charity. They dont need to do that.
The UK government does NOT deserve credit for offering to match the foundations contributions using OTHER PEOPLES money. That is not charity.

Reply Score: 1

RE: give him credit
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 19:06 UTC in reply to "give him credit"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>Bill and Melinda gates
>deserve credit for giving their
>own money to charity.
>They dont need to do that.

Sure they do. Do you have any idea of the tax write-offs they get for these donations. A enormously profitable people such as the Gate's *MUST* give large amounts of money away somewhere. It's good, but make no mistake, it's more than just good will.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: give him credit
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: give him credit"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Sure they do. Do you have any idea of the tax write-offs they get for these donations. A enormously profitable people such as the Gate's *MUST* give large amounts of money away somewhere. It's good, but make no mistake, it's more than just good will."

So they donate billions of dollars to save a few 100 thousand to a million dollars in taxes? I hope you don't vote... because stupid people are dangerous at the ballot box.

Reply Score: 0

>For being shrewd about doing good
by smitty_one_each on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:51 UTC
smitty_one_each
Member since:
2005-07-07

Thom,
You're setting yourself up on a precarious perch to make such a call, think you not?
Best to take the actions at face value and avoid characterizing the motives of others, no?
R,
Chris

Reply Score: 2

Not buying it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Bill Gates! Kind of like a thug who robs and beats up on others turning around and giving a small pittance to those in need. Rather than "Man of the Year" it should be "Man of the Years in Jail".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not buying it
by Celerate on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:06 UTC in reply to "Not buying it"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Your forgetting the part where people forgive the mugging because of the donation and then applaud the mugger, unaware that in the mean time he's picking out his next target.

To those telling us to applaud: don't tell us how to feel, we can make up our own minds and would rather keep the brown stuff off our nozes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not buying it
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Not buying it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Someone does something good.

You, instead of noticing it, attempt to derail everyone's opinion under the guise of "we all want to think for ourselves".

No one is telling you what to think.

Pointing out that when a person does good, and that person deserves credit is just that, stating one's opinion. (Just as someone else pointed out, criticism works this way as well)

Now, anyone who constantly checks whether their "nose is clean of the brown stuff" is obsessed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not buying it
by Celerate on Mon 19th Dec 2005 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not buying it"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"You, instead of noticing it, attempt to derail everyone's opinion under the guise of "we all want to think for ourselves". "

Actually that in no way is derailing people's opinions, I simply pointed out that we don't need to be told to applaud, we all know how our own opinions about the man. You are overstating what I said to your own ends.

"No one is telling you what to think. "

That depends on your perspective. While not being overly forceful, some posters did insist on "asking" for applause.

"Pointing out that when a person does good, and that person deserves credit is just that, stating one's opinion. (Just as someone else pointed out, criticism works this way as well) "

Saying that you yourself will applaud is opinion, suggesting that everyone else does the same can also be considered opinion, but trying to enforce that suggestion isn't opinion any more.

"Now, anyone who constantly checks whether their "nose is clean of the brown stuff" is obsessed."

I don't constantly check, I just know better then to go with the crowd when I think they're zeroing in their lips on someone's backside. I won't ignore my common sense just to be part of the majority.

If you like Gates that's fine and if you want to applaud I'm not telling you not to. What I am saying is that the people insisting on applause and reverence towards the guy shouldn't be trying to get it out of all of us.

Reply Score: 1

Uninspired choice
by moleskine on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:31 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

It's a dull choice and a pretty dumb and meangingless rhetorical dedication as well. Very unadventurous of Time magazine. It's not that Bill and Melinda Gates don't deserve recognition for their great works, because they do. It's just that they'v'e already got all the recognition they need and, to be blunt, it's a bit easier to do these things when you have a few billion in the bank.

I'd like to think there are a few other folks out there who've done extraordinary things and who could be genuinely inspiring to the rest of us. Lead by character and example. Money doesn't have anything to do with it unless Time magazine genuinely think that nothing can be achieved in this life without a few hundred million in the bank at a minimum. Cp Nelson Mandela.

I'll pass on Bono who strikes me as a prat but, perhaps, a highly deserving prat. Bob Geldorf is ten times the more inspirational to me.

Reply Score: 3

This is not OSNEWS material
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Were there any questions or comments about Windows or Microsoft directions in the market? If not, I must ask why this is posted on osnews.com

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is not OSNEWS material
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 22:28 UTC in reply to "This is not OSNEWS material"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ok, now you are the troll of the year

Reply Score: 0

RE: This is not OSNEWS material
by protagonist on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:35 UTC in reply to "This is not OSNEWS material"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

Twould be a dull publication indeed if twere held to rigid guidelines as to what could be written about. :-)

Reply Score: 1

smitty_one_each
Member since:
2005-07-07

>You Americans probably aren't familiar with Robbie Williams
I, for one American, know that Robbie's chief motive always boils down to his monkey... ;)

Reply Score: 1

Charity?
by timosa on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:50 UTC
timosa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now I wish I had put the money consumed to Windows NT 4 - the last operating system I bought - to real charity.

Reply Score: 1

I have my doubts about BG
by eantoranz on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:50 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

I don't think it's all about "being a giving person" in the case of BG.

Take this a rather old sample:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/
So the adoption of linux is four times more dangerous for the world than HIV? It could be four times more dangerous... but for microsoft. There you have it. The "BG's a giving person" fairy tale.

And, please, let's not forget they are giving away money that was unfairly obtained in the very first place. That's the kind of crap we have being served today.

I agree it's important people do charity.... but naming BG Time's MOTY because of doing that kind of charity? I think it's way over the top.

Edmundo

Reply Score: 5

Gates' charity shifts policy
by snds24 on Sun 18th Dec 2005 18:52 UTC
snds24
Member since:
2005-07-01

"Investment in drugs firms could leave the foundation open to criticism. A representative sits on the board of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations which buys vaccines from some of the pharmaceutical firms in which the foundation now holds shares."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/microsoft/Story/0,2763,717789,00.html

Reply Score: 2

Cowards
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is pathetic. It's easy for the rich to give charity and "make a difference". But real honor belongs to those who do so against the odds.

So why did they ignore Cindy? Bunch of cowards.

How obvious has become that all American's care about is how many $$ are invloved. Makes me sick.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Cowards
by protagonist on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:50 UTC in reply to "Cowards"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"How obvious has become that all American's care about is how many $$ are invloved. Makes me sick."

I find the post a bit amusing considering the subject line and the posted by part of the message.

Seriously, I think you pay too much attention to the U.S. media. I use the term U.S. because technically America is the whole Western Hemisphere. Anyway, in the job I recently retired from I had daily contact with many, many charitable, caring and giving people. I think you condemn the masses based on an incomplete view of what the average person here is like. For a country of people who only care about money we sure seem to be willing to donate money, food, shelter and even our time helping whenever a major disaster strikes anyplace else in the world.

But I will agree with your third sentence. That would be the true measure who deserves to be honored.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cowards
by sappyvcv on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:52 UTC in reply to "Cowards"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep. It's easy to give away close to $30 billion. You are absolutely right.

Reply Score: 1

Right...
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I bet I'm giving the same amount of money (or probably even more) relatively to my wealth as Gates. I know he COULD keep all the money for himself, like many of us bastards would probably do, but the amount he gives away is extremely small compared to his total wealth. Not to mention all the side-details, like if some public instance was to stop using Microsoft products, Gates would stop his charity to this instance right away.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Right...
by sappyvcv on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:53 UTC in reply to "Right..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh.. he has given away close to $30 billion. That's NOT extremely small relative to anyones wealth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Right...
by Googlesaurus on Mon 19th Dec 2005 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Right..."
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"Uh.. he has given away close to $30 billion. That's NOT extremely small relative to anyones wealth."

$30 billion is an amount most reading this post can't even begin to comprehend. A single billion is well beyond most.

Start dropping $5 coins into a slot machine.... and it would take you ages to drop a billion dollars.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Right...
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 12:37 UTC in reply to "Right..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I must add that in Bill and Melindas will it is stated that upon their deaths all their wealth will go into charity except 1% that will go to their children. (Before everyone feels sorry for their children. 1% makes you set for life.)

Basically. Their death could save a small country. And I think what they are doing while alive is a good thing. Putting money into charity is one thing but that is not the reason why they are getting this award. The thing is that they are putting their time into it as well. And Bill Gates is a man that has the phone numbers of kings and presidents on his speed dial.

I do not dislike Bill Gates becouse of Microsoft. From the point of view of us europeans Microsoft seem to be playing the same corporate game as all other US corporations. I do not care if Microsoft screws some other company becouse it is likely that the other company had just screwed someone else the day before.

Reply Score: 0

Hey its all our money!
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Thinking about it I doubt if there are many OSNEWS readers who have not contributed over the years financially to Microsoft.
Nice to see that some minute fraction of the money has gone to good causes.

Reply Score: 2

Doesn't this sound odd?
by d0nk3y on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:26 UTC
d0nk3y
Member since:
2005-12-15

"...rewiring politics and re-engineering justice."

Good on him for giving back to the global community - whatever the motives - he could just as easily keep the money and do stuff less subtly pro-MS/anti-competition etc.

But doesn't being recognised for the above things sound a little odd to the rest of you guys too??

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: They deserve it
by ma_d on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:37 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Motive is more important than affect; this is why attempted murder is a crime on the same scale as murder.
Motive is much more difficult to determine however, and this is why I wouldn't crucify someone's charity over alterior motives.

Generally, I loathe it when celebrities and corporations give money:
1.) Corporations because they're essentially stealing that via higher prices to give away to their pet causes.
2.) Celebrities because they won't shut up about how "good" they are.

For Gates, neither 1 nor 2 is accurate to him. This is *his* money from *his* company which doesn't give many dividends. If he's inflating the price of Windows it's for R&D and not his own wallet or his pet causes. He's actually giving of his own riches, and simple lives the life of a wealthy man instead of the life of a mogul.

So, whatever motive Gates has, I don't care; it's actually his money. When he takes from Microsoft's coffers; then I'll be mad.

I remember in anti-trust where the "Gates like" guy mentions that FOSS is silly because you might as well be the one to make money and then use it for noble causes. Remember that? That's a perfect example of 1; and it's wrong because when you sell a product you should be selling the product and not your own politics as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: They deserve it
by JLF65 on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: They deserve it"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

For Gates, neither 1 nor 2 is accurate to him. This is *his* money from *his* company which doesn't give many dividends. If he's inflating the price of Windows it's for R&D and not his own wallet or his pet causes. He's actually giving of his own riches, and simple lives the life of a wealthy man instead of the life of a mogul.

So, whatever motive Gates has, I don't care; it's actually his money. When he takes from Microsoft's coffers; then I'll be mad.


You are joking, right? Gates' money IS from Microsoft's coffers. Bill Gates' grandfather left him a million dollar trust, and his father was a well-to-do lawyer, but the BILLIONS of dollars Gates has today is all from Microsoft. As such, it is ill-gotten goods since MS has been convicted several times of all sorts of offenses, from stealing to illegal monopolist practices. Bill Gates is arguably the greatest Robber-Baron the world has ever known. There is no way that can be disputed. To do so is the same kind of deception the tobacco companies practiced for decades.

By the way, Gates lives in a huge (modern) castle surrounded by a moat. That is the simple life of a wealthy man? Hardly.

Reply Score: 3

ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Seriously, what fanfare? Bono may have fanfare when he's throwing a "charity concert" but TMK Gates does nothing like this.
There's a certain amount of publicity in trying to start your own charity; if you want it to be at all successful; but is he really doing more than is necessary? Is he bragging? Is he reminding us all the time?

Reply Score: 1

What America needs to realize:
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is that Gates has no intention of "giving" the charity of a USD 100 computer to the American masses, but rather would have Americans subsidize his global influence peddling, with the apparent and IMO perverse "approval" of the American media. Gates is helping to "give" the world the product activation and EULA tyranny which will pervade your car, bank account, computer, and passport.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: They deserve it
by superstoned on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:03 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

tough i don't deeply disagree, you are on thin ice here.

if one would go back in time, and kill Hitler - before he caused millions to die, would that be bad or good?

if one would have the choice of pressing a button, killing 5 ppl to save 100 - should this person press the button or not?

ethics aren't easy. you can't solve it with 'thou shall not kill' or similair simple statements.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Gates helping or not?
by superstoned on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:08 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

that's why, in my opinion, the government should fund the development of medicine, not companies. many ppl that don't have money aren't cured, while others, simply by having lots of money, can afford (medially) unneccesary 'corrective' surgery.

i'm pro kapitalism and free market ideology, but it has certain disadvantages - and shouldn't be applied to several areas.

Reply Score: 1

Argue all you want.
by Googlesaurus on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:24 UTC
Googlesaurus
Member since:
2005-10-19

You can argue all you want about the source of the Gates fortune. You can question the motivation behind their gifts. You can question any of it.

HOWEVER:
The gifts will continue a long time after Gates is no longer a part of Microsoft. They will be remembered long after both he and Microsoft are long gone.

Gates is far from the only one in the Microsoft camp to be sharing their individual fortunes with very worthy causes.

Reply Score: 2

v Bill Gates is person of the year?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:25 UTC
Bono Should go it alone
by RGCook on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:29 UTC
RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

He deserves it. The man has demonstrated that just because you have an artistic side, doesn't mean the other side of your brain is an empty void (like most of the celebs in Hollywood seem to demonstrate). He continues to make outstanding music and is one of my personal champions. I think that Time nailed that one.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

What a joke of an award!

Bono and the Gates are despicable for what they do and they get an award like this. Not a surprise if you know what kind of people that give this award.

Bono and his "Make poverty history" campaign is rediculous.

Ever wondered why even Tony Blair runned around showing off his "Make poverty history" wrist bands ?

Ever wonder why Bono and Geldof were eating the same caviar with the other's on the G8 meeting?

Why do you think Bono was also at the G8 meeting in Geneva 4 years ago?

Is make poverty history not a campaign to lead the opposition against the G8 & co on the wrong path?
I think it is.


This is something you can read on http://redpepper.blogs.com/g8/make_poverty_history/ :
-------------
Live8 organiser Bob Geldof has been nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Why not? Look at these recent statements in the media:

Sir Bob Geldof has warned an unnamed American musician not to criticise US President George W Bush during the American Live 8 concert next month. (...) The mystery singer, who is anxious not to be named, was told by an angry Geldof, "Please remember, absolutely no ranting and raving about Bush or Blair and the Iraq war."
-------------

Says enough, doesn't it?

Who gives a damn if they give some money away.
I could just as well rob people, earn millions with ruining other's lives and then give away some millions to finally receive my long deserved nobel peace prize.
After all, I didn't even know what to do with so much money!

Reply Score: 0

Bards of the powerful
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Bards of the powerful

Far from challenging the G8’s role in Africa’s poverty, Geldof and Bono are giving legitimacy to those responsible

by George Monbiot
from The Guardian – Tuesday June 21 2005

‘Hackers bombard financial networks”, the Financial Times reported on Thursday. Government departments and businesses “have been bombarded with a sophisticated electronic attack for several months”. It is being organised by an Asian criminal network, and is “aimed at stealing commercially and economically sensitive information”. By Thursday afternoon, the story had mutated. “G8 hackers target banks and ministries”, said the headline in the Evening Standard. Their purpose was “to cripple the systems as a protest before the G8 summit.” The Standard advanced no evidence to justify this metamorphosis.

This is just one instance of the reams of twaddle about the dark designs of the G8 protesters codded up by the corporate press. That the same stories have been told about almost every impending public protest planned in the past 30 years and that they have invariably fallen apart under examination appears to present no impediment to their repetition. The real danger at the G8 summit is not that the protests will turn violent – the appetite for that pretty well disappeared in September 2001 – but that they will be far too polite.

Let me be more precise. The danger is that we will follow the agenda set by Bono and Bob Geldof.

The two musicians are genuinely committed to the cause of poverty reduction. They have helped secure aid and debt-relief packages worth billions of dollars. They have helped to keep the issue of global poverty on the political agenda. They have mobilised people all over the world. These are astonishing achievements, and it would be stupid to disregard them.

The problem is that they have assumed the role of arbiters: of determining on our behalf whether the leaders of the G8 nations should be congratulated or condemned for the decisions they make. They are not qualified to do so, and I fear that they will sell us down the river.

Take their response to the debt-relief package for the world’s poorest countries that the G7 finance ministers announced 10 days ago. Anyone with a grasp of development politics who had read and understood the ministers’ statement could see that the conditions it contains – enforced liberalisation and privatisation – are as onerous as the debts it relieves. But Bob Geldof praised it as “a victory for the millions of people in the campaigns around the world” and Bono pronounced it “a little piece of history”. Like many of those who have been trying to highlight the harm done by such conditions – especially the African campaigners I know – I feel betrayed by these statements. Bono and Geldof have made our job more difficult.

I understand the game they’re playing. They believe that praising the world’s most powerful men is more persuasive than criticising them. The problem is that in doing so they turn the political campaign developed by the global justice movement into a philanthropic one. They urge the G8 leaders to do more to help the poor. But they say nothing about ceasing to do harm.

It is true that Bono has criticised George Bush for failing to deliver the money he promised for Aids victims in Africa. But he has never, as far as I can discover, said a word about the capture of that funding by “faith-based groups”: the code Bush uses for fundamentalist Christian missions that preach against the use of condoms. Indeed, Bono seems to be comfortable in the company of fundamentalists. Jesse Helms, the racist, homophobic former senator who helped engineer the switch to faith-based government, is, according to his aides, “very much a fan of Bono”. This is testament to the singer’s remarkable powers of persuasion. But if people like Helms are friends, who are the enemies? Is exploitation something that just happens? Does it have no perpetrators?

This, of course, is how George Bush and Tony Blair would like us to see it. Blair speaks about Africa as if its problems are the result of some inscrutable force of nature, compounded only by the corruption of its dictators. He laments that “it is the only continent in the world over the past few decades that has moved backwards”. But he has never acknowledged that – as even the World Bank’s studies show – it has moved backwards partly because of the neoliberal policies it has been forced to follow by the powerful nations: policies that have just been extended by the debt-relief package Bono and Geldof praised.

Listen to these men – Bush, Blair and their two bards – and you could forget that the rich nations had played any role in Africa’s accumulation of debt, or accumulation of weapons, or loss of resources, or collapse in public services, or concentration of wealth and power by unaccountable leaders. Listen to them and you would imagine that the G8 was conceived as a project to help the world’s poor.

I have yet to read a statement by either rock star that suggests a critique of power. They appear to believe that a consensus can be achieved between the powerful and the powerless, that they can assemble a great global chorus of rich and poor to sing from the same sheet. They do not seem to understand that, while the G8 maintains its grip on the instruments of global governance, a shared anthem of peace and love is about as meaningful as the old Coca-Cola ad.

The answer to the problem of power is to build political movements that deny the legitimacy of the powerful and seek to prise control from their hands: to do, in other words, what people are doing in Bolivia right now. But Bono and Geldof are doing the opposite: they are lending legitimacy to power. From the point of view of men like Bush and Blair, the deal is straightforward: we let these hairy people share a platform with us, we make a few cost-free gestures, and in return we receive their praise and capture their fans. The sanctity of our collaborators rubs off on us. If the trick works, the movements ranged against us will disperse, imagining that the world’s problems have been solved. We will be publicly rehabilitated, after our little adventure in Iraq and our indiscretions at Bagram and Guantánamo Bay. The countries we wish to keep exploiting will see us as their friends rather than their enemies.

At what point do Bono and Geldof call time on the leaders of the G8? At what point does Bono stop pretending that George Bush is “passionate and sincere” about world poverty, and does Geldof stop claiming that he “has actually done more than any American president for Africa”? At what point does Bono revise his estimate of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as “the John and Paul of the global-development stage” or as leaders in the tradition of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee? How much damage do Bush and Blair have to do before the rock stars will acknowledge it?

Geldof and Bono’s campaign for philanthropy portrays the enemies of the poor as their saviours. The good these two remarkable men have done is in danger of being outweighed by the harm.

Reply Score: 1

Bards of the powerful
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Make poverty history critique:
http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=323

Reply Score: 0

hmm...
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, whatever these three people did are no doubt are laudable and should be honored accordingly. But is this the place to post such things ??? This, i think/fee, is a tech place together. Not a news paper site. Times it self is a news magazine/paper. Posting it again on a tech site ?? Well I think in future we can see news related to regular things. Some how i am disappointed with the trends of Osnews after the inclusion of Thom. He/She can be any thing. But the quality of the posts gone down when i used to see eugene was posting the articles or quoting other technical articles.

Well change inevitable. Some lose shine and some retain. In which category, osnews falls, time has come.

Reply Score: 0

Above our means
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There are a lot of comments in this thread about how what Bill gives is too little... but think about it for a second, at least he's giving something back. I bet a lot of us OS News readers, while not as wealthy as Bill, live above our means and don't give anything back. I guess what i'm saying is, i hope if you're being critical of how much Bill gives, don't be unless you are charitable yourself...it doesn't matter if he has more money, it's the spirit of giving the matters.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Above our means
by Soulbender on Mon 19th Dec 2005 11:17 UTC in reply to "Above our means"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I guess what i'm saying is, i hope if you're being critical of how much Bill gives, don't be unless you are charitable yourself...it doesn't matter if he has more money, it's the spirit of giving the matters."

It's not about wether he gives a lot or not. It's well known that he does.
The question is wether it warrants him to be Person of the Year. A hella lot of people dedicate their life and make much bigger sacrifices to help those in need yet they seldom become Person of ther Year or get any recognition at all. Is being famous a prerequisite?

Reply Score: 1

v More Jurrasic Niggers = Good??
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 21:35 UTC
RE[5]: They deserve it
by ma_d on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:24 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

If you think Bill Gates makes a lot of money from Microsoft proportional to the amount of profits Microsoft makes you need to go to another forum where you have some clue what you're talking about.
Gates money is not from Microsoft's coffers. As a 51% shareholder in one of the largest companies around, especially as a software company, the piddley amount of money Gates makes is QUITE fair.

"There is no way that can be disputed."
Gates is hardly a robber-baron. It's idiots that have been paying him for his crapware that are to blame ;) . While I too would like to have seen the anti-trust cases be more affective against him they weren't and you can't blame the defense for not losing.

Hmm, it seems I've been mistaken about Gates home. I always thought he had an a-typical 5mil $ house. Apparently he has a $113 million house...

However, that's not much in comparison to his charitable contributions ;) .

Gates may be a scummy businessman, but he seems like he's good at philanthropy ;) .

If you'd like to see what I mean when I say he lives the simple life for a wealthy man I suggest you tune into VH1 sometime; they run almost constant specials on rich people blowing money on crap: $3,000 a night hotels, $1000 massages, $10,000,000 rings, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: They deserve it
by ma_d on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:33 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Life, like most real problems, is the solid application of basic rules to complex situations.
Only an idiot would throw out the basics because they can't be simply applied to the complex.

You have to take into account a full situation with all of it's issues and decide a solution based on the basic rules you know to be correct. This is the way all complex problems are solved. In fact, in math and logic at least, you won't find many rules that can't be broken down to basic rules. Unproven rules aren't accepted, and guess how you prove them ;) .

Of course, applying basic rules to complex situations is extremely difficult and invariably leads to a lot of arguing.

Reply Score: 1

v What is this doing here ?!?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:40 UTC
Is this OS related?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 23:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Great human interest story. However, is this OS related?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Is this OS related?
by jayson.knight on Mon 19th Dec 2005 06:32 UTC in reply to "Is this OS related?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Considering Gates founded the company that wrote the most successful OS in computing history...most definitely.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Is this OS related?
by protagonist on Mon 19th Dec 2005 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Is this OS related?"
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Bill Gates did not write the original OS that Windows is founded on. The original DOS was based on CP/M. And Windows was nothing more than a program that put a pretty face on DOS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Is this OS related?
by jayson.knight on Mon 19th Dec 2005 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Is this OS related?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

At what point in my comment did I state that Gates wrote the OS himself? At what point did I even specifically state what OS it was? I simply said that he founded the company that *ended up* writing the most successful OS in the computer realm. I'm neither applauding nor lauding him (or MS) for this, just stating a fact.

Read my comment in its entirety first.

Edited 2005-12-19 08:11

Reply Score: 1

Bill gates Worth
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 00:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well if you search online you can find several articles of Bill gates worth which is somewhere around $50 billion roughly. Probably more now thats last years figure. Donating 30 billion since her started the charity is pretty large. But you are right he should hold onto his money cause its gathered through what some consider "illegal" means (based on software of all things) and those children didn't really need $30 billion for things like saving their lives or trying to give them a chance at having a logner life which they otherwise couldn't afford. Because you know having an Open Source OS is more important.

Honestly I really think Bill gates and his wife do really care for their charity and I really don't think they do it for publicity. He does have chldren of his own and he probably wouldn't want anything to happen to them and he can get them the best treatment possible. But what about those parents who can't? he helps them too. He wouldn't want his children not to have a chance and I honestly thinks he feels that they deserve a chance at life.

As for the whole pharmacutical company thing. Drugs are not cheap or free to make. They need to make money. Comapnies dump MILLIONS into drug research. They take like several hundred possible drugs take the most likely to be able to be made maybe like 50 then they dump millions into each of those for R/D and then they may get 1 maybe 2 drugs a year if they ar elucky maybe three. Some years they get no new drugs. There is a lot of money that goes towards R/D that becomes gone. Its not cheap and they are in the business of making money but so far it works. The government cannot subisidize everyhting or your taxes get to high.

Reply Score: 1

Money is not everything
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 01:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Frankly, its disappointing when the Man of the Year award is based on monetary terms.
Sure $30 billion may be a lot, even if it was 80% of his wealth, does it really matter when you still have an additional $20 billion? It's money his family could frankly never use personally and the only option for individuals with that kind of money is using it on others.

They may very well have done it with sincere intentions, but come on, does this out weigh that unnamed nurse that gives up everything to travel to Africa and help sick children?

I think there are many more deserving candidates.
$$$ isn't everything.

Reply Score: 0

Right, money wins all
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 02:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So someone who takes the easy option of donating part of their riches is Person of the Year? Yet someone who devotes their life, including living among people in need, gets nothing. Money begets power begets awards.

Applaude all you want but this is a sham in my eyes.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Right, money wins all
by Googlesaurus on Mon 19th Dec 2005 07:57 UTC in reply to "Right, money wins all"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"So someone who takes the easy option of donating part of their riches is Person of the Year? Yet someone who devotes their life, including living among people in need, gets nothing. Money begets power begets awards."

Yup.
So before you dedicate your ass to open source consider the financial gain at the end of the rainbow.

Reply Score: 0

This isn't Charity
by EliGottlieb on Mon 19th Dec 2005 02:54 UTC
EliGottlieb
Member since:
2005-10-30

Giving to the needy is in no way charity or a laudable virtue; it is simple justice.

Furthemore, dirty money used for a righteous cause doesn't become clean.

Reply Score: 1

RE: This isn't Charity
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 04:12 UTC in reply to "This isn't Charity"
Anonymous Member since:
---

so in effect Gates has become a Robin Hood of sorts. =D

Reply Score: 0

"hero" of the year
by foez on Mon 19th Dec 2005 08:11 UTC
foez
Member since:
2005-08-29

Why do 3 rich people get this "reward"? So they can get a place at Madam Tussauds and will be reminded when they are dead? Maybe because they can make more money when the world thinks they are doing good.
Reward someone who actually had a tough life and did good all his life. Not someone who wants a positive "account" when they see the end in sight.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Gates' charity dysfunction
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 13:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Bill Gates was once so charitable to donate to a rather poor public school in Africa half of the price of 20 MS Windows licenses. Well, the remaining half, together with the new computers Win XP would have required, would have eaten most of that schools budget. So it happened that they found out that a lean Linux desktop, set up on older Hardware, would be much cheaper than to accept the "donation" from Bill Gates.

[sarcasm] What a charitable person, I sure applaude him [/sarcasm]

I hope his other charity projects don't make the people he donates to poorer than they were before.

Reply Score: 0

ah yes...
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 15:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

An he can join the ranks of previous "Great Men" from Time Magazine like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Seriously though, how many other people of the World's 100 richest people GIVE ANY MONEY to help others? Mostly they just step on other people to maintain their positions.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: They deserve it
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 15:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Really?? you think Hitler got it for doing bad? Do you just assume that or did you look it up?

Because if Hitler got it in 1938 I wouldn't be surprised if it was for "doing good" in the eyes of the Times. What I learned from studying the 30's was that Hitler was respected alot in the west. Germany was the example of how a country could get out of the depression. Let's also not forget that all over Europe and the USA many people were anti ***(Hitler's feelings for jews weren't strange at all at that time). Ford and the boss of IBM even received the highest medals for foreigners from Hitler. Maybe the people from the Times also got some kind of medal for their award who knows? Maybe they had the same ideas and thought what Hitler did was good.

But you're right that Gates deserves the award if even it's just for being very influential.

Reply Score: 0

big difference between the two
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 16:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Bill and Melinda Gates are giving their own money to charity, while Bono wants the government to seize your money to give to charity. There is a HUGE difference between the two... and the former is much more noble than the latter.

Reply Score: 0

richest man == man of the year?
by Anonymous on Mon 19th Dec 2005 17:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I guess money really does come first. So the richest man on the planet must be the most worthwhile man. No matter that his wealth was achieved through some of the nastiest an most unethical business tactics ever criminally indicted in a court of law. ;)

Why not nominate someone who actually has done something substantial to improve the lot of humankind? Why not Eckhart Tolle, whose breakthrough books have helped tens of thousands? Why not Mark Shuttleworth, who used some of his wealth to create Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu linux and give it, free and no strings attached, to anyone who needs it? Why not the MIT team behind the $100 laptops?

-Gnobuddy

Reply Score: 0