Print 70 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Jan 25 at 6:39 AM

  (Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)
Former CEO remains focuses on charity, says no country will be "poor" by today's standards by 2035

William Henry "Bill" Gates III, former CEO and co-founder of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), had some good news for third world countries -- by 2035 there will likely be no "poor" countries by today's standards.  Today, Gates is known for his philanthropic work in fighting poverty and disease in developing nations.
I. Poverty Can be Defeated, Says Gates
The world's richest man said in the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's annual letter to donors that by 2035 -- 21 years from now -- he expects all 35 countries currently classified as "low-income" by the world bank, to reach the modest levels of income.  He predicts 70 percent of nations will at least reach the level of average inflation adjusted income seen today in China, and 90 percent will reach at least the levels seen today in India.
He says that the currently impoverished countries most at risk include a handful of countries controlled by extremist political regimes like North Korea and a handful of countries with challenging geographical locations, such as the countries of war-torn Central Africa.  Still he feels even these countries have hope of prosperity within a couple of decades.

In the letter he attacked the idea that charitable donations to the third world are wasted via local corruption.  He points to the vital role of donations in reducing the number of nations with active polio cases from 125 in 1988 to 3 today.

Bill Gates
Bill and Melinda Gates visit India in 2011 for charitable work.
[Image Source: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]

He pointed skeptics to a commissioned study from his foundation and its economic partners, which was published in a special report [PDF] from The Lancet, the medical organization known for its titular prestigious peer-reviewed journal.  The December report predicts that by 2035 child mortality rates will fall to those of the U.S. or UK in the 1980s -- even the rate in today's poorest nations.
He also took issue with the belief that a more prosperous third world would lead to overpopulation.

He commented in a Bloomberg  interview:

The facts are on the side of the optimists.  It’s actually dangerous that people are focusing on the bad news and not seeing the progress we’ve made. It means they don’t look at the best practices, it makes them less generous.

The belief that the world is getting worse, that we can’t solve extreme poverty and disease, isn’t just mistaken. It is harmful.  By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. In two decades it will be better still.

Headlines in a way are what mislead you because bad news is a headline and gradual improvement is not.  We almost have to take a letter like this and speak out and say, ‘Wait a minute, despite how bad we feel about what’s not yet done, we have some approaches that work.’ And the cynicism is holding us back.

If he's right that will be great news for the third world/developing world and for humanity in general.

II. No Return to Microsoft CEO Spot for Gates

While Mr. Gates had good news for charities, he had not so good news for Microsoft -- he's not coming back, despite the company's struggles.

Mr. Gates steered the company through years of record growth, establishing Windows as the dominant computer operating system.  Unlike Steve Jobs, who had to leave Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and mature before returning, Mr. Gates always seemed mature ahead of his years.  And since he's left Microsoft, he's been mature enough to stand by his decision not to come back, despite the temptation of his old post.

Since his retirement in 2000 his successor Steve Ballmer has had more of a hit or miss track record with success such as Windows XP and Windows 7 and flops such as Windows Vista and Windows 8.

Bill Gates
Bill Gates steered Microsoft through its boom years. [Image Source: Corbis]

But today with Microsoft struggling in the increasingly integral mobile market, the company's relevance is arguably at its lowest point in a couple of decades.  PC sales are in historic decline.  OEMs are turning their backs on Windows 8, offering customers the ability to pick Windows 7 instead.
Those struggles forced CEO Steve Ballmer -- Bill Gates' hand-groomed successor -- to announce an early retirement, leaving the CEO seat vacant.
Some might argue that Microsoft is a charity case these days, and Bill Gates should try to save it.  But Mr. Gates, who is leading the CEO search committee, refuted rumors that he might return to lead his troubled firm back to success.

My full-time work will be with the foundation for the rest of my life.  [In terms of the urgency of selecting the CEO] you always feel that way, but then again you want to pick the best person. They'll move at the right pace.

This isn't the first time Bill Gates has been forced to deny a return.  In 2012 he resoundingly denied rumors that he might return to Microsoft as CEO.

While that news may disappoint the Microsoft faithful, he did add a bit of reassurance commenting that he already is "help[ing] out part time" at the company, and that he will act as an advisor to the new CEO, whoever it may be as they navigate these troubled times for the company.

Well, that's better than nothing, at least.

Windows Device chief Stephen Elop (right) is among those rumored to possibly replace Steve Ballmer (left) as Microsoft's CEO. [Image Source: Reuters]

Leading candidates for the high-pressure position include current Microsoft Devices chief Stephen Elop (formerly CEO of Nokia Oyj. (HEX:NOK1V)) or former Skype CEO-turned-Microsoft chief evangelist/business development head Tony Bates.
Bill Gates has committed to donate nearly all of his massive fortune to charity by his death, slowly selling off shares in Microsoft.  While he remains chairman of the company and its largest shareholder, he's been slowly cutting his financial ties with the firm in the name of his charitable goals.
Mr. Gates owned 49 percent of Microsoft shares when the company went public in 1986, but entered a plan to sell off his holdings on a pre-set basis, selling about 80 million shares a year.  Sales to date have reduced Mr. Gates' stake to 4.5 percent of current shares, or about $12.4B USD worth of stock.  The share sales plan will eliminate Mr. Gates' ownership entirely by 2018, at which point he would presumably step down as board chairman -- a spot reserved for a top investor.

Sources: Bloomberg, YouTube

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Graphene Condom
By knightmike on 1/22/2014 1:45:10 AM , Rating: 1
I'm still looking forward to the graphene condoms. I hope they come out before I get HIV.

RE: Graphene Condom
By troysavary on 1/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: Graphene Condom
By powerwerds on 1/22/2014 10:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're pathetic if you still think HIV is just a gay disease.

RE: Graphene Condom
By prophet001 on 1/22/2014 10:59:46 AM , Rating: 4
Stay away from sex outside of marriage then.

RE: Graphene Condom
By FITCamaro on 1/22/2014 11:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
It still is PRIMARILY a gay disease in America. That's why you can't give blood if you're gay now or in the past.

RE: Graphene Condom
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
HIV Infection Among Heterosexuals at Increased Risk — United States, 2010 -- March 2013 CDC report

Around 30% of HIV cases in 2009 were from heterosexual sex. The blood donation and sperm donation bans (the latter was implemented by George W. Bush's government) are political heterosexism because both are tested before they're used. Given that 30% of cases of HIV infection involve heterosexuals, it's hardly safe to assume that blood or sperm donated by heterosexual men is safe.

Unsafe sex engagement is what should be used to screen blood and sperm donors, not sexual orientation. Around 50% of young American men report engaging in heterosexual anal sex. Many of them do this without condoms. Furthermore, a large number of men are at least somewhat bisexual. They may transmit HIV to female partners who then transmit it to other male partners. Unprotected anal sex is the primary conduit.

RE: Graphene Condom
By KCjoker on 1/22/2014 6:47:42 PM , Rating: 4
Well that means about 70% is from homosexual(men) sex which is a very large %. Actually my guess is it's probably closer to 60% and the other 10% from iv drug use. And no there isn't a large % of men that are bisexual. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cure Aids but don't put your head in the sand.

RE: Graphene Condom
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
And no there isn't a large % of men that are bisexual.

Bisexual men are the primary source of HIV transmission to women in India. They are a major disease vector.

You're wrong about bisexuality. It's more common than most people realize -- likely because they think it means a person is equally attracted to both sexes.

HIV is a penile disease. If you want to stop its transmission, give all male infants sex reassignment surgery. You can transmit it vaginally and contract it vaginally.

Lesbians, gay women, have the lowest HIV rate -- far below that of heterosexual males.

RE: Graphene Condom
By Da W on 1/22/2014 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, that because US are a bunch of retards!

RE: Graphene Condom
By troysavary on 1/22/2014 1:15:29 PM , Rating: 4
It was meant to be a joke, but since you went there, time for some schooling. In the developed world, AIDS is mainly a gay and IV drug user disease. Know why? It is spread mainly through blood-blood or semen-blood contact. Vaginal intercourse rarely results in bleeding, anal intercourse does. The walls of the rectum are not designed for throusting into, and frequently tear during anal. If HIV infected sperm are unloaded into a torn rectum, infection is far more likely than if it is in a healthy vagina.

The reason AIDS is so prevalent in Africa in heterosexuals is because of a combination of very high promiscuity and very poor healthcare means there are often open sores from other STDs, leaving a ready access point for the virus.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

RE: Graphene Condom
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:27:38 PM , Rating: 5
Around half of young American men report engaging in heterosexual anal sex.

The "gay disease" nonsense should be left back in the 1980s with the other HIV myths.

RE: Graphene Condom
By KCjoker on 1/22/2014 6:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Graphene Condom
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's more prevalent in men in general. Does that make it a "men's disease"?


Women aren't immune and neither are heterosexual men.

RE: Graphene Condom
By powerwerds on 1/22/2014 6:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't trying to tear your butt about it, but there are jokes and then there are jokes. Thank you for your tutelage, but I only commented because you sounded uneducated.

Why would he?
By Motoman on 1/21/2014 7:19:25 PM , Rating: 5
There is no valid reason that Gates would take on that whole mess again. He did his part, and not only is he now living the Good Life (tm), but he's actually doing everything he can to make the lives of the poverty-stricken better.

Whether or not MS "stole" DOS, or whatever else you want to level at them during the Gates era, this much is certain: while the comparison of Jobs to Gates is too compelling to resist, the fact of the matter is that there is no comparison.

Gates has practically become a new Mother Theresa, while Jobs spent his entire life as the progeny of PT Barnum and Ebenezer Scrooge.

RE: Why would he?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2014 7:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
He's still a pretty hands-on guy though, but yeah I agree.

RE: Why would he?
By marvdmartian on 1/22/2014 7:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, now that Steve Baldilocks is on his way out, why wouldn't Gates sit back and wait to see how the new CEO handles things? Why jump into a mess, if you don't have to??

RE: Why would he?
By Flunk on 1/22/2014 8:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, his current work is much more important. Frankly, Microsoft will likely be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Bill Gates mark on history. If he really succeeds in his plan half the world is going to thank him.

Not again!
By melgross on 1/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Not again!
By Motoman on 1/21/2014 8:01:28 PM , Rating: 5
I'm tired of hearing about gates.

OK. Tell us then about how much of his personal fortune Jobs spent to better humanity. Tell us about how Jobs wasn't as big a prick as Gates is. Tell us about how...oh wait, nevermind. Jobs was the biggest, most paranoid, narcissistic, backstabbing conman the world has ever seen. And he spent $0 of his own money...or even of Apple' make anything better...anywhere...for anyone.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 12:24:00 AM , Rating: 3
Hey Tony... I don't see the word Jobs anywhere in his post.

I suggestre ading Paul Allen's take on Gates before wasting time changing the subject. Oh, and it's called the tu quoque fallacy.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 12:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
From the time we’d started together in Massachusetts, I’d assumed that our partnership would be a 50-50 proposition. But Bill had another idea. “It’s not right for you to get half,” he said. “I should get more. I think it should be 60-40.”

Bill’s intensity was nonstop, and when he asked me for a walk-and-talk one day, I knew something was up. We’d gone a block when he cut to the chase: “I’ve done most of the work on BASIC, and I gave up a lot to leave Harvard,” he said. “I deserve more than 60 percent.”

“How much more?”

“I was thinking 64-36.”

... I concluded that it was just this simple: What’s the most I can get? I think Bill knew that I would balk at a two-to-one split, and that 64 percent was as far as he could go. He might have argued that the numbers reflected our contributions, but they also exposed the differences between the son of a librarian and the son of a lawyer. I’d been taught that a deal was a deal and your word was your bond. Bill was more flexible; he felt free to renegotiate agreements until they were signed and sealed. There’s a degree of elasticity in any business dealing, a range for what might seem fair, and Bill pushed within that range as hard and as far as he could.

Like Jobs, it appears that Gates exploited his friend.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 12:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
And, as for the notion that Jobs, not Gates, needed to mature:

He was growing into the taskmaster who would prowl the parking lot on weekends to see who’d made it in. People were already busting their tails, and it got under their skin when Bill hectored them into doing more. Bob Greenberg, a Harvard classmate of Bill’s whom we’d hired, once put in 81 hours in four days, Monday through Thursday, to finish part of the Texas Instruments BASIC. When Bill touched base toward the end of Bob’s marathon, he asked him, “What are you working on tomorrow?”

Bob said, “I was planning to take the day off.”

And Bill said, “Why would you want to do that?”

Bill liked to hash things out in intense, one-on-one discussions; he thrived on conflict and wasn’t shy about instigating it. A few of us cringed at the way he’d demean people and force them to defend their positions. If what he heard displeased him, he’d shake his head and say sarcastically, “Oh, I suppose that means we’ll lose the contract, and then what?” When someone ran late on a job, he had a stock response: “I could code that in a weekend!”

And if you hadn’t thought through your position or Bill was just in a lousy mood, he’d resort to his classic put-down: “That’s the stupidest ****ing thing I’ve ever heard!”


you could hear our voices up and down the eighth floor. And so we’d go at it for hours at a stretch, until I became nearly as loud and wound up as Bill. I hated that feeling. While I wouldn’t give in unless convinced on the merits, I sometimes had to stop from sheer fatigue. I remember one heated debate that lasted forever, until I said, “Bill, this isn’t going anywhere. I’m going home.”

And Bill said, “You can’t stop now—we haven’t agreed on anything yet!”

“No, Bill, you don’t understand. I’m so upset that I can’t speak anymore. I need to calm down. I’m leaving.”

Bill trailed me out of his office, into the corridor, out to the elevator bank. He was still getting in the last word

Some said Bill’s management style was a key ingredient in Microsoft’s early success, but that made no sense to me. Why wouldn’t it be more effective to have civil and rational discourse? Why did we need knock-down, drag-out fights? Why not just solve the problem logically and move on?

Sounds like the same management style that young Jobs employed.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 12:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
That management style also seems to fit with the terrible stack ranking system that Microsoft adopted. Why create a comfortable working environment when you can have the boot on your employees and exploit them as much as possible?

In April 1980, shortly before leaving town on a business trip, I agreed that we should offer him up to 5 percent of the company, because Bill felt certain that Steve wouldn’t leave Stanford unless he got equity. A few days later, after returning from my trip, I got a copy of Bill’s letter to Steve. (Someone had apparently found it in the office’s Datapoint word-processing system, and it made the rounds.) Programmers like Gordon Letwin were furious that Bill was giving a piece of the company to someone without a technical background. I was angry for another reason: Bill had offered Steve 8.75 percent of the company, considerably more than what I’d agreed to.

It was bad enough that Bill had chosen to override me on a partnership issue we’d specifically discussed. It was worse that he’d waited till I was away to send the letter.


I was in Bill’s office one day talking about MS-DOS revenues. Our flat-fee strategy had helped establish us in several markets, but I thought we’d held on to it for too long. A case in point: We’d gotten a fee of $21,000 for the license for Applesoft BASIC. After sales of more than a million Apple II’s, that amounted to two cents per copy. “If we want to maximize revenue,” I said, “we have to start charging royalties for DOS.” Bill replied as though he were speaking to a not-so-bright child: “How do you think we got the market share we have today?” Then Steve came by to weigh in on Bill’s side with his usual intensity (Microsoft later switched to per-copy licensing, a move that would add billions of dollars in revenue.)

One evening in late December 1982, I heard Bill and Steve speaking heatedly in Bill’s office and paused outside to listen in. It was easy to get the gist of the conversation. They were bemoaning my recent lack of production and discussing how they might dilute my Microsoft equity by issuing options to themselves and other shareholders. It was clear that they’d been thinking about this for some time.

I replayed their dialogue in my mind while driving home, and it felt more and more heinous to me. I helped start the company and was still an active member of management, though limited by my illness, and now my partner and my colleague were scheming to rip me off. It was mercenary opportunism, plain and simple.

When Microsoft incorporated, in 1981, our old partnership agreement was nullified, and with it his power to force me to accept a buyout based on “irreconcilable differences.” Now he tried a different tack, one he’d hinted at in his letter. “It’s not fair that you keep your stake in the company,” he said. He made a lowball offer for my stock: five dollars a share.

Sounds a lot like Jobs to me.

RE: Not again!
By ebakke on 1/22/2014 2:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus. We get it already. Post the link. Let us go read it. You don't have to duplicate the whole VF article in the DT comments.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 3:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
That is only a very small portion and contains only the most relevant parts. Most people aren't going to read the article.

RE: Not again!
By ClownPuncher on 1/22/2014 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Neat. That was 30+ years ago.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman's frothing and klutzy indictment of Jobs didn't contain any such caveats, nor do I think one's behavior as an adult is exempt from being taken into consideration when evaluating the person's character.

In other words... nice try.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 2:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's also worth noting that Jobs never conspired to steal the share of a co-founder while he was trying to recover from cancer. The Breakout money rather pales in comparison.

RE: Not again!
By ClownPuncher on 1/22/2014 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
You're only interested in evaluating one part of this person's character.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 2:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
My post was counterpoint to Motoman's post.

Find me anything about his post that evaluates the positive aspects of Jobs' character.

Plus, my posts contain a lot of substance, not screamy rhetoric with no facts behind it.

You really should give up. No amount of evasion is going to erase Gates' quite poor behavior from the record.

RE: Not again!
By ClownPuncher on 1/22/2014 3:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is trying to erase it. We all know it happened. It just doesn't matter, since he has done more good than harm by a large measure.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 4:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
That is very debatable.

RE: Not again!
By ClownPuncher on 1/22/2014 6:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't. Helping save thousands of people, or (many) more, is a net positive vs. being a jerk to some guy with cancer.

If you're going to go on some baseless eugenics rant, I'm going to ask you to kick yourself in the balls.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/23/2014 4:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
Do you believe your babble, or just post it for some sort of postmodern pointlessness?

RE: Not again!
By ClownPuncher on 1/23/2014 12:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you aren't a good person and have some sort of need to bring down people who are.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:29:47 PM , Rating: 3
The tu quoque fallacy wasn't enough. Now it's time for a baseless ad hominem.

I don't need to believe that your rhetoric is empty and your logic asinine. Anyone who claims that someone who tried to scam the person who cofounded their company more than once, including when that person is trying to recover from cancer is a better person than someone who criticizes that behavior is not being rational.

And, since you clearly don't understand that fallacies don't count as a rebuttal, remember that it doesn't matter who I am. What matters are the facts about Gates. As I said before, no amount of evasion is going to erase his behavior from the record. That includes deigning to give some of his hoard to the poor and it includes the empty PR you and Motoman are posting.

RE: Not again!
By Motoman on 1/22/2014 11:15:02 AM , Rating: 5
[slow clap]

Uh-huh. And then what happened?

Gates grew up. He became possibly the most important philanthropist in the world, and is directly credited with saving tens of millions of lives.

And Jobs? Did he ever grow up? No...not in the slightest. He started his life as a megalomaniacal a$$hole of Biblical proportions, and he died that way too...never having helped a single soul his entire life, and instead made his life's work the conning of every person he could get his hands on.

Maybe they both started out as dicks. But Gates has practicaly become a saint, while Jobs will go down in history as one of the worst people ever to live who wasn't actually a Nazi.


RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your hyperbolic obsession with Jobs is comical. The post you responded to was about Gates. Giving away some of the spoils of your greed hardly turns you into a saint, nor does finding someone else who you think is worse.

Again, that's called the tu quoque fallacy. Look it up sometime before trying to pass it off as some sort of revelation.

Gates has never been and never will be a saint. But, I'm glad the PR is working so well for him. Maybe you can construct a shrine for him in your bedroom.

RE: Not again!
By Motoman on 1/22/2014 2:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hyperbolic? Look at the vast reams of stuff you've frothed all over this article and compare to the few lines of stuff I've posted.

Gates has never been and never will be a saint.

OK. Find me someone who has done more to improve the lives of the world's wretchedly poor than Gates. Go on. I'll wait.

You irrationally hate Gates. Fine. And no, he probably won't ever be beatified or declared an actual saint. But to even imply that he's not one of the most beneficial people in the world today does nothing but label you a lunatic.

Please go do your foaming-at-the-mouth elsewhere.

RE: Not again!
By Motoman on 1/22/2014 2:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh...and as for the tu quoque fallacy - that's what *you're* doing.

YOU are the one trying to prove that Gates is as bad a person as Jobs was...when it's blindingly obvious that it isn't true.

Tens of millions of lives saved prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You're a cock.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2

Look at the vast reams of stuff you've frothed all over this article and compare to the few lines of stuff I've posted.

Yes, it's mostly substantive information from Paul Allen -- in comparison with your hyperbolic flaming that irrelevantly changed the subject to Steve Jobs when the post you were responding to was about Gates.

RE: Not again!
By nikon133 on 1/22/2014 3:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Difference is, Jobs grew up from the prick he was in '80 to a person he is now. I'm finding this acceptable, even natural.

Jobs remained very much the same person till his last days. More beard, less hair - that was about how much he changed.

RE: Not again!
By Samus on 1/22/2014 1:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
Until Warren Buffet dies (and leaves 95% of his wealth to charity, as written in his Will) Bill Gates will continue to stand as the most generous charitable single entity in recent history.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton deserve noble mention as well. Some Presidents do great things in their retirement. Others just paint.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not again!
By piroroadkill on 1/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not again!
By therealnickdanger on 1/22/2014 7:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness to the Bible, it also tells people to be good stewards of their resources. If you are blessed with wealth, there's nothing wrong with being generous with it while also investing the rest of it in order to generate more wealth to be generous with. It would be stupid for Gates to dump all his $78 billion or whatever into one charity at once and then live on the street when that money can manage multiple charitable campaigns and buy influence over more wealthy people to get involved. That meager $30 billion he gives to charities quickly becomes hundreds of billions when applied smartly.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:45:51 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, he's given an estimated $28 billion to his foundation. He's still worth $72+ billion. He hasn't given most of it away.

I won't deny he's doing good things. But his road to getting there wasn't this great philanthropic zeal some think he's had. According to his father, it was his idea to have his son do this, when he complained about being hit in the face with pies and other not so wonderful things, his being caught lying on the stand three times in the last federal lawsuit against Microsoft, and closely avoiding contempt of court for that.

The way he ran Microsoft was, as we all know, through intimidation and threats against OEMs, refusal to share critical information with third party developers, and other partners, as came out in the first lawsuit, and the second.

His management style isn't quite possible for Microsoft any more, and so why should he come back? He's been divesting himself of Microsoft stock for years, and making mother investments. Why would he come back as CEO. It's enough that he's still Chairman, and will have the most influence on the choice of the next one.

I know this post is harsh, but if he really believed all he says, he would resign as Chairman, quit the board of directors, and just manage his foundation.

Nothing in that post supports your hyperbolic dichotomy of donating enough to charity to enhance one's image (PR) and actual generosity -- which is giving beyond one's comfort level.

The business of Gates is business.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
More clearly... nothing in that post says anything about having to become homeless.

RE: Not again!
By nikon133 on 1/22/2014 3:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't come easy to Jobs...

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 4:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Dahmer killed people which means Gates' attempts to rob his co-founder who was trying to recover from cancer is no biggie.

See how the fallacy works? If not, it's called tu quoque.

Oh, and Jobs never tried to exploit a cancer patient. The Breakout money doesn't quite compare.

RE: Not again!
By senecarr on 1/23/2014 11:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
Forcing his own child to live off welfare because he wanted to play legal shenanigans to deny a paternity test for no reason (he claimed to be infertile, for no medical reason) doesn't compare?

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Lisa Jobs turned out fine. However, putting such a strain on a cancer patient is a bit worse.

Regardless, you're engaging in the tu quoque fallacy. The post was about Gates' behavior, not Jobs', and not Dahmer's.

Don't you get it that it doesn't matter how good or bad Jobs was when you're evaluating Gates? It's not like Gates was an automaton who Jobs programmed. He's not his child.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Generosity comes easily to someone who has managed to take so many resources away from others.

The most generous person, as the Biblical parable shows, is the person who gives not what they won't miss but what they can't afford to do without.

(Whether you like the Bible or not is irrelevant to the soundness of the parable's logic, by the way.)

RE: Not again!
By Belegost on 1/21/2014 9:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm tired of hearing about gates. Yes, he's given an estimated $28 billion to his foundation. He's still worth $72+ billion. He hasn't given most of it away.

Even taking your numbers for granted, that would mean that he has already given away 30% of all the wealth he has had. Perhaps not a majority, but definitely significant.

According to his father, it was his idea to have his son do this, when he complained about being hit in the face with pies and other not so wonderful things, his being caught lying on the stand three times in the last federal lawsuit against Microsoft, and closely avoiding contempt of court for that.

So he matured as a person? Throughout life we make mistakes, hopefully learn from them. We get new opportunities, and those help us grow. I'm not aware of what influences encouraged him to philanthropy, but it seems fairly clear that for the past decade plus he has devoted himself to it strongly.

I know this post is harsh, but if he really believed all he says, he would resign as Chairman, quit the board of directors, and just manage his foundation

As someone who has started endeavors (not of the scale of MS obviously) in the past, I completely understand his involvement. When you invest yourself in building something and then later find yourself moving onto new paths, there is also a part of you that doesn't want to let go, that wants to keep watching, and giving some input. That's not the same as wanting to be the full time guy in charge...

RE: Not again!
By w8gaming on 1/22/2014 4:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
So are you claiming that Bill Gates will not give away all his wealth upon his death, like it has been made known all this while? Are you sure about that?

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
If he hasn't set aside some of that money in trust funds or something for his children then he isn't nearly as bright as people claim. Maybe his kids won't want to take after his footsteps and bilk cancer patients.

What's the money to him once he's gone?

RE: Not again!
By darthmaule2 on 1/22/2014 5:10:00 AM , Rating: 4
"I'm tired of hearing about gates."

Well too bad, here is more...
It's estimated that Bill Gates has saved over 5.8 million lives:

What the fuck have you done?

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/22/2014 1:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
I never exploited someone who co-founded a company with me, conspiring to steal his share while he was suffering from cancer.

I guess I'm just not smart enough.

RE: Not again!
By senecarr on 1/23/2014 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
You're stating this all purely from Paul Allen's perspective though. It isn't like Paul is going to say, I got cancer, it gave me new perspective so I quit putting in as many hours at work, but felt ripped off when I didn't get the exact same equity as the people who actually put in more hours. Or you won't hear him say, yeah, I was never as hard on negotiating as Bill, so I kept letting him diminish my shares instead of threatening to walk away, so I'll later on write my sob story over what happened.
Could Gates have been nicer about everything? Certainly. Did he "exploit" someone who still ended up receiving shares that are now worth billions? I wish I was so exploited.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
So your argument is that it's Allen's fault that he wasn't a terrible selfish bastard and that because he got money out of the partnership it doesn't matter how much he was ripped off.

Great points.

What you also aren't seeing, of course, is that for every dollar Gates snatched from someone else that's a dollar someone else couldn't use to do something good.

The need for charity is proportional to the amount of social corruption. The fact that anyone was able to scam society enough to hoard so many billions is an indictment of the system. It's only a positive reflection on the person's character if your a fascist who believes "the strong" were placed upon the Earth to rule over "the weak".

Arguing that Gates deserved to rip off his friend and cofounder, including when he was suffering from cancer, multiple times -- because he was "strong" is not reasoning I'm going to buy into. People act like having money is proof of a person's goodness. The net worth concept is really fascinating in that regard.

RE: Not again!
By Makaveli on 1/23/2014 10:50:44 AM , Rating: 1
Melgross that is what it takes to be a billionaire.

You think people that are nice make it to the top.

No you will get eaten alive. When your surrounded by animals you have to act like an animal or its your ass. They smell fear.

People that a nice,timid and weak minded don't run successful companies. They flip burgers!!!

And while I wish it wasn't so that is the world we live in.

either do or die!

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/23/2014 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
The key, of course, in today's Internet world is to convince everyone you're a saint by doing enough PR work and using enough of your hoard to make your net worth really shine.

RE: Not again!
By Motoman on 1/23/2014 5:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the tens of millions of people who would have died without Gates' money would agree with you.

What in the f%ck is wrong with you? Did your mom whore herself out to Satan to spawn a child as hateful as you are? Jesus f%cking Christ you're an a$$hole.

RE: Not again!
By superstition on 1/25/2014 6:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
So, there is a special press somewhere that prints money with his picture on it?

"Gates' money" is an interesting construct.

Let's see if your twisted logic can be straightened out a bit, eh?

I. Gates ripped a lot of people off to get a lot of money.
a) That's good for society.
b) That shows he's a good person.

II. Gates has given up a portion of that hoard.
a) Good PR is equivalent to being a good person.
b) Giving away what you're unlikely to miss is a demonstration of really impressive altruism.

III. Someone who criticizes hoarders is a terrible person.
a) It doesn't matter that he still hoards billions because he's given a portion of the hoard back.
b) The billions (resources) that he is still hoarding wouldn't accomplish anything positive in others' hands.
c) No matter what the facts are about the person doing the criticizing, it's a good idea to smear their character because a rich person is like a king and it's not good to criticize a king.

There's an amusing mathematical anecdote about how many miles per hour he would have to fly to pick up "his" hoard if it were laid out as twenty dollar bills. I wonder how that velocity has changed since he starting his charity PR.

I also wonder how his Monsanto shares are doing.

By damianrobertjones on 1/22/14, Rating: -1
RE: ??
By bitmover461 on 1/22/2014 8:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Is this post a joke?

RE: ??
By retrospooty on 1/22/2014 2:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think it is... DRJ kind of pops in anytime anyone mentions Windows 8 to try and make it like the issues with Win8 are non-existent and there are no problems. Hell, OWMS are offering Win7 downgrades, the whole enterprise sector from ALL OEM's has only ever offered Win7 - MS has come out and said Win8 was a mistake and they are putting the start menu back on the next OS. DRJ STILL cant admit it even though MS has... LOL

RE: ??
By Motoman on 1/22/2014 3:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
I used to say that MS didn't have fanbois the way Apple does.

Then Win8 happened. And then I discovered that, lo and behold, there were people that stupid on the MS side of the fence too.

RE: ??
By nikon133 on 1/22/2014 3:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
There's a fanboi in every mirror, mate.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki