TIME Magazine has gone outside of the usual circle of government leaders to select three persons for their charity work as its Persons of the Year for 2005. Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Bono were placed on the cover of this weeks issue for their charity work.
The Gates couple obviously has more money to give than almost anyone in the world. Bono has been a major figure in the world of entertainment fund raising for causes.
Was this a good choice by TIME? Were there other candidates who were more deserving?
TIME Persons of the Year
-
sauronsfinger
- Posts: 3508
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am
TIME Persons of the Year
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46144
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Bill Gates is evil. Or maybe that's just a way of saying he's a very, very tough competitor against whom one would do well not to bet. And I speak as one who has been using his products for years; in fact has no choice but to do so.
An example. Once upon a time there was a very fine web browser called Netscape. It was based on the Mozilla standards, and it was without a doubt the best browser out there. I was working in San Jose in those days. I remember the day Netscape went public. A bunch of Netscape employees became millionaires that day from stock options. That's how much better their product was than the competition.
Bill Gates, who had been sort of asleep at the wheel when it came to the emeging importance of the internet, narrowed his eyes and went to work to kill Netscape. It took him a few years, and Netscape isn't quite completely dead, but it's moribund. How did he do it?
He copied their browser, feature for feature, and bundled it for "free" with Windows. Why would anyone pay for Netscape's product if they could get one with equivalent functionality for free? But that wasn't enough. No, he forced computer manufacturers to refuse to load Netscape, even for free, on new machines - else he wouldn't license Windows to them. Try selling a PC with no operating system.
There was a big lawsuit about all this. Netscape, by then owned by AOL, won. At least, Microsoft had to pay a lot of money to AOL. But by then, you see, the competition was over and Microsoft had won.
And that's why I use Mozilla Firefox as a web browser.
An example. Once upon a time there was a very fine web browser called Netscape. It was based on the Mozilla standards, and it was without a doubt the best browser out there. I was working in San Jose in those days. I remember the day Netscape went public. A bunch of Netscape employees became millionaires that day from stock options. That's how much better their product was than the competition.
Bill Gates, who had been sort of asleep at the wheel when it came to the emeging importance of the internet, narrowed his eyes and went to work to kill Netscape. It took him a few years, and Netscape isn't quite completely dead, but it's moribund. How did he do it?
He copied their browser, feature for feature, and bundled it for "free" with Windows. Why would anyone pay for Netscape's product if they could get one with equivalent functionality for free? But that wasn't enough. No, he forced computer manufacturers to refuse to load Netscape, even for free, on new machines - else he wouldn't license Windows to them. Try selling a PC with no operating system.
There was a big lawsuit about all this. Netscape, by then owned by AOL, won. At least, Microsoft had to pay a lot of money to AOL. But by then, you see, the competition was over and Microsoft had won.
And that's why I use Mozilla Firefox as a web browser.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46144
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.
Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]
[removed]
Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]
[removed]
Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Macs just aren't an option for me. I earn my living with my computer skills, and in the business world it's Mircrosoft all the way. I am even willing to acknowledge that there are some benefits to the Microsoftian Hegemony - I remember the chaos before it. At least there are some standards and uniformity now.
But I won't pretend it didn't come at a very high price. In technology, as in so many other fields, the best product doesn't necessarily win. I mean, it's not usually the worst product that wins either, but things like market position and competitive clout ultimately matter a whole lot more than technical excellence.
*takes a brief moment to mourn the passing of WordPerfect 5.1*
But I osgiliate!
I have mixed feelings about naming the Gates' as persons of the year, and not just because of the Evil Empire thing. I think when you have boatloads of money as Bill and Melinda do (is Gates still the richest man in the world or is he down to number 2 now?) - well, how praiseworthy is it really to give away something you're not going to miss? It surely can't be seen as a sacrifice.
And yet the recipients of the donations don't really care about that, and why should they? Good gets done regardless, and it's appropriate to acknowledge that. And there are plenty of rich people who do much less for the unfortunate among us.
So, yeah. Mixed feelings. More than anything else, Gates reminds me of the robber barons of old - getting rich through predatory business practices, then getting respectable through charity. Then again... the town I lived in as a girl in Ohio had an Andrew Carnegie library. It was a beautiful, spacious stone building with a fabulous collection of books, and I loved it. I didn't give a rip about whatever else Mr Carnegie might have done.
But I won't pretend it didn't come at a very high price. In technology, as in so many other fields, the best product doesn't necessarily win. I mean, it's not usually the worst product that wins either, but things like market position and competitive clout ultimately matter a whole lot more than technical excellence.
*takes a brief moment to mourn the passing of WordPerfect 5.1*
But I osgiliate!
I have mixed feelings about naming the Gates' as persons of the year, and not just because of the Evil Empire thing. I think when you have boatloads of money as Bill and Melinda do (is Gates still the richest man in the world or is he down to number 2 now?) - well, how praiseworthy is it really to give away something you're not going to miss? It surely can't be seen as a sacrifice.
And yet the recipients of the donations don't really care about that, and why should they? Good gets done regardless, and it's appropriate to acknowledge that. And there are plenty of rich people who do much less for the unfortunate among us.
So, yeah. Mixed feelings. More than anything else, Gates reminds me of the robber barons of old - getting rich through predatory business practices, then getting respectable through charity. Then again... the town I lived in as a girl in Ohio had an Andrew Carnegie library. It was a beautiful, spacious stone building with a fabulous collection of books, and I loved it. I didn't give a rip about whatever else Mr Carnegie might have done.
I have Mozilla, too, but I don't like it. Many flaws, little annoyances that make me frown. 
I don't know if Bill Gates' actions regarding Netscape were "evil". Hard, yes. If he broke the law, that's a different matter. But when you get as big as Gates, its almost as hard to "deal with" you as to deal with the government.
The thing is, I'm firmly convinced that the "next big thing" will come from so far out in left field it will leave Microsoft in the dust. Not that I know what it will be, but just that it's coming.
It always is.
Did anyone ever think to see GM and Ford in the straits they're in now? Or US Steel? Or a dozen great corporations that once ruled the world, and destroyed their competition? It will come to Microsoft, too, one day. And we can all dance around the pyre and chant, "Take that Reality Pill, Bill!"
I don't know if Bill Gates' actions regarding Netscape were "evil". Hard, yes. If he broke the law, that's a different matter. But when you get as big as Gates, its almost as hard to "deal with" you as to deal with the government.
The thing is, I'm firmly convinced that the "next big thing" will come from so far out in left field it will leave Microsoft in the dust. Not that I know what it will be, but just that it's coming.
It always is.
Did anyone ever think to see GM and Ford in the straits they're in now? Or US Steel? Or a dozen great corporations that once ruled the world, and destroyed their competition? It will come to Microsoft, too, one day. And we can all dance around the pyre and chant, "Take that Reality Pill, Bill!"
Dig deeper.
It's here. Google. Watch them, they're not just a search engine anymore. It won't be long before Google Desktop starts making waves. Gmail is already becoming huge, Google Earth, Google personalised homepages, Google API, Gmail for your mobile, Google Picassa... the list just keeps growing.vison wrote: The thing is, I'm firmly convinced that the "next big thing" will come from so far out in left field it will leave Microsoft in the dust. Not that I know what it will be, but just that it's coming.
And most of it is free to consumer. Yahoo tried to copy Google Maps but they just don't get simple. They tried to put in more features and I probably could have figured them out, but why bother when Google Maps are there and so much cleaner.Alatar wrote:It's here. Google. Watch them, they're not just a search engine anymore. It won't be long before Google Desktop starts making waves. Gmail is already becoming huge, Google Earth, Google personalised homepages, Google API, Gmail for your mobile, Google Picassa... the list just keeps growing.
About Gates - it's not just the amount of money he gives away. I believe his cause of choice is the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, and he brings his entire business savvy and drive to the project. He doesn't just sponsor researchers to make himself feel good, but insists on results. And I think he's more likely to get them than any government agency.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
speaking of Bill Gates
I love this urban ledgend.
At a computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release (by Mr. Welch himself) stating:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason at all, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuver such as a left-turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, and you would have to reinstall the engine.
4. When your car died on the freeway for no reason, you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought 'Car95' or 'CarNT', and then added more seats.
6. Apple would make a car powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would run on only five per cent of the roads.
7. Oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single 'general car default' warning light.
8. New seats would force every-one to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag would say 'Are you sure?' before going off.
10. Occasionally, for no reason, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of road maps from Rand-McNally (a subsidiary of GM), even though they neither need them nor want them. Trying to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 per cent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Every time GM introduced a new model, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You would press the 'start' button to shut off the engine.
I love this urban ledgend.
At a computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release (by Mr. Welch himself) stating:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason at all, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuver such as a left-turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, and you would have to reinstall the engine.
4. When your car died on the freeway for no reason, you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought 'Car95' or 'CarNT', and then added more seats.
6. Apple would make a car powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would run on only five per cent of the roads.
7. Oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single 'general car default' warning light.
8. New seats would force every-one to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag would say 'Are you sure?' before going off.
10. Occasionally, for no reason, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of road maps from Rand-McNally (a subsidiary of GM), even though they neither need them nor want them. Trying to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 per cent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Every time GM introduced a new model, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You would press the 'start' button to shut off the engine.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46144
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact: