backtop

Print 110 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Jun 16 at 11:08 AM

Through his innovation and tireless work ethic, Microsoft founder Bill Gates became the world's wealthiest man.  (Source: Corbis)

The only Apple products found in the Gates household come from trees.  (Source: Google Images)

Mr. Gates revealed that close friend Mark Zuckerberg, the richest person under 30, is engaged to long-time girlfriend Priscilla Chan.  (Source: Facebook)

Bill Gates dreams of someday helping to fund the world's first reliable malaria vaccine.  (Source: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)
Some things just don't fly in the Gates household

The UK's DailyMail has published an entertaining interview with renowned tech visionary and philanthropist Bill Gates, founder and former chief executive officer of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).

I. No iPads, No Big Inheritance For the Gates Brood

These days Mr. Gates is still deeply involved with Microsoft, where he serves at the Chairman of the board, as the company's largest shareholder.  But he's been busier with his family and charity than his "workaholic" days of the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Gates has donated $28B USD of his fortune to charity, via his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, reducing his wealth to $56B USD -- a fortune second only to Mexican media mogul Carlos Slim's $74B USD net worth.  Mr. Gates plans to give away most of his fortune to charity, reportedly leaving his children -- two daughters and a son -- with less than $10M USD each.

He did not explicitly confirm this rumor to the Daily Mail commenting reservedly, "It will be a minuscule portion of my wealth. It will mean they have to find their own way. They will be given an unbelievable education and that will all be paid for. And certainly anything related to health issues we will take care of. But in terms of their income, they will have to pick a job they like and go to work. They are normal kids now. They do chores, they get pocket money."

In his mind, Mr. Gates is just a regular guy.  He comments, "I drive myself around town in a normal (sic) Mercedes. I’ve had a Lexus. The family has a Porsche, which is a nice car that we sometimes take out. We have a minivan and that’s what we use when it’s the five of us. My eldest daughter rides horses, so we go to a lot of three-day shows. The kids are a big part of my schedule."

And a massive inheritance isn't the only thing his children are going to miss out on.  When asked if the kids get iPods, iPhones, or iPads he responds, "They have the Windows equivalent. They have a Zune music player, which is a great Windows portable player. They are not deprived children."

Zing.  The Daily Mail has some critique of its own describing Mr. Gates as follows:

To say that Gates is socially awkward is putting it mildly. This is a man who built a multi-billion-dollar company yet seems totally unaware of the social niceties of life. His voice is loud and oddly high-pitched. He’s in constant motion as he speaks, rocking in his chair with his arms folded protectively in front of him, tapping his toes, fiddling with a pen. He fails to look me in the eye and doesn’t engage in small talk.

Overall, though the tone of the interviewer Caroline Graham is adulatory.

II. A Focus on Philanthropy

Mr. Gates' charitable foundation currently has $37.1B USD, thanks to major contributions from fellow billionaire Warren Buffett.  The charity disperse funds from a slick new $500M USD state-of-the-art "eco-friendly" headquarters in the Seattle, Wash. area.

The foundation's roots trace back to Mr. Gates' father, Bill Sr. who began sending his son carefully selected requests from "begging letters" sent to Microsoft's headquarters.  Bill Sr. turned to the past time after Bill Gates mother passed away from breast cancer.  He recalls the letter his mother sent him, which stated:

From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

He says that he thinks the best way to donate money to impoverished nations is vaccines.  He states, "You get more bang for your buck...There are more people dying of malaria than any specific cancer. When you die of malaria aged three it’s different from being in your seventies, when you might die of a heart attack or you might die of cancer. And the world is putting massive amounts into cancer, so my wealth would have had a meaningless impact on that."

He has allocated $3.7B USD to inoculate 243 million children in the world's poorest countries.

He dismisses criticism of aid to the third world, stating, "Charities like the World Food Programme go in on a direct basis. When we buy vaccines we are super-smart about what we pay. We get price reductions. We can track how many kids get the vaccines. People don’t stockpile vaccines. It’s not like you’re going to go to Mugabe’s mansion and you’d find polio vaccines in the basement and he’s going [Dr. Evil impression] 'Ha, ha, ha! I took it ALL!'"

And he says criticism of aid to developing nations like India, which has 70 billionaires, is overstated.  He comments, "Countries which receive aid do graduate,’ he insists. ‘Within a generation Korea went from being a big recipient to being a big aid donor. China used to get quite a bit of aid; now it’s aid-neutral. India in the north still needs all the help we can give in terms of helping with childhood death rates, maternal deaths and polio."

Mr. Gates insists that he's not doing the charity for fame.  He rebukes, "Legacy is a stupid thing! I don’t want a legacy. If people look and see that childhood deaths dropped from nine million a year to four million because of our investment, then wow! I liken what I’m doing now to my old job. I worked with a lot of smart people; some things went well, some didn’t go so well. But when you see how what we did ended up empowering people, it’s a very cool thing."

He says his biggest passion today is finding a vaccine for the malaria virus -- though speech recognition software is a close second.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 7:03:13 PM , Rating: 4
For pennies on the dollar of what a malaria vaccine would cost, we could DDT those buggers and be done with it. Or we can continue to watch millions die in third world countries due to unfounded and baseless environmental concerns.




RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By phantom505 on 6/13/2011 7:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Keep reminding us how dumb you are. Please.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 7:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
So we shouldn't be using the greatest, and safest, mosquito killing insecticide known to man? Yeah, I'm dumb.

Malaria isn't the only mosquito-borne infection. Even if a malaria vaccine is discovered, what about West-Nile, Yellow Fever or Dengue?

Common sense does not become you.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By michael2k on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 8:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, we shouldn't, because it isn't safe enough, kills people too


That's a lie.


By yomamafor1 on 6/13/2011 10:52:00 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Boze on 6/14/2011 9:37:41 AM , Rating: 4
It doesn't kill people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSYla0y9Wcs

Pay close attention.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2011 3:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for posting that. I'm, obviously, just as passionate.

30 million deaths...it's just numbing.


By fteoath64 on 6/16/2011 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
Not vaccine cure. Thats dangerous. If he spends a fraction of that money on MMS, he would save a lot more people. MMS cure malaria in 4 hours and all other parasitic infection. It is dirt cheap to produce too.

Just Google MMS Jim Humble and see the secret.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By ussfletcher on 6/13/2011 7:32:00 PM , Rating: 4
DDT has single handedly saved millions of lives. It has an extremely low mammalian toxicity.. you can literally ingest it with no ill effects. Rachel Carson gave DDT a bad name by claiming that it thins the egg shell of birds.. which she didn't really have any evidence to prove.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 8:07:18 PM , Rating: 4
Malaria currently infects 300 to 500 million people annually, mostly in Africa, and causes as many as 2.7 million deaths. Alternative methods of mosquito control cost more and are less effective. Some 400 scientists and doctors have signed a petition opposing the inclusion of DDT among the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to be banned under a United Nations treaty now up for ratification, and a few public health experts are campaigning to bring DDT back.

DDT's ban was politically based, it was never about health. The drawbacks have to be weighed against the MASSIVE benefit to mankind. And that clearly was not done at the time of the ban. Malaria is even trying to make a comeback in the United States of all places!


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By GulWestfale on 6/13/2011 8:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
forget DDT...
this does show you how far removed from an ordinary person's reality these people are, when 10 mil isn't a 'big' inheritance... wtf.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Bateluer on 6/13/2011 8:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
10M as opposed to 50B?

10M may seem like a lot to someone who makes 40K a year, but even if his kids invest well, they'll have to work some kind of job to make it to retirement.


By GulWestfale on 6/13/2011 11:15:46 PM , Rating: 5
no... with 10 mil they can live comfortably off the interest. at 4% annually, that is 400k/year.


By ClownPuncher on 6/14/2011 12:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
A job? Damn, what a rough life.

Also, no. They can easily live off 10m


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By LBID on 6/14/2011 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely correct. I hope more people hear the truth about the benefits of DDT, and we can stamp out the FUD once and for all.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By senbassador on 6/13/2011 8:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you may be right, but you forgot to realize that over the long haul, mosquitoes will develop immunity to DDT. We need a long term solution.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/14/2011 3:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need a long term solution.


Copious amounts of Mortein spray cans!

/joke


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By LBID on 6/14/2011 3:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, you may be right, but you forgot to realize that over the long haul, mosquitoes will develop immunity to DDT. We need a long term solution.


Unless I misunderstand how it works, developing a resistance to this would be nearly impossible as long as they still breathe.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 3:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Resistance is already fairly widespread due to DDT use in agriculture.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2011 3:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Resistance is already fairly widespread due to DDT use in agriculture.


Where? Maybe in America, where we can already afford more expensive substitutes. But I can tell you there are no "DDT resistant" mosquito's in third world countries where people are dying of malaria.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By CZroe on 6/15/2011 1:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. They developed an avoidance, which STILL saves lives.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By CZroe on 6/15/2011 1:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
And that avoidance would not have been developed if it were not being misused and many argue that the misuse was directly cause by making it illegal.


By Revlemmon on 6/16/2011 2:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17111979

Seems they are developing a resistance after all.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By room200 on 6/13/2011 7:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Please shut up.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By FATCamaro on 6/13/2011 7:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
While I think Reclaimer77 often has views in the nutjob territory the DDT claim is not unfounded. It WILL save millions of human lives but at a cost to wildlife.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By yomamafor1 on 6/13/2011 11:01:20 PM , Rating: 1
...except the part where DDT has been repeated shown to have neurotoxicity, and cause developmental problems among new born babies. DDT is also associated with increased likelihood of miscarriage.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Boze on 6/14/2011 9:41:12 AM , Rating: 3
Only with massive overuse. Once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSYla0y9Wcs


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Bateluer on 6/13/2011 8:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Thought you were going to state that we should cut of sources of standing water.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By senbassador on 6/13/2011 8:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
In the SHORT TERM, DDT would save tens of thousands lives. In the LONG TERM, the mosquitoes would eventually develop immunity to the DDT. We need a long term solution (as well as a short term solution), and the vaccines are the answer. So yeah, I think vaccines are good investment.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Solandri on 6/13/2011 11:48:52 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't the malaria parasite as likely to develop immunity to whatever vaccination we come up with, as mosquitoes are likely to develop immunity to DDT? Mind you, I don't really have a problem with the DDT ban. But organisms developing immunity doesn't really seem like a valid argument against it when vaccination suffers from the same problem.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Parhel on 6/14/2011 8:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like just one person in this thread to explain why they believe that DDT isn't used to control malaria, and provide a reputable link.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Boze on 6/14/11, Rating: 0
By senbassador on 6/15/2011 8:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Spoken like a true econut.

Let's not use DDT in the present day, where its still effective and could actually save lives, because one day insects might eventually develop resistance to it, and because we might, one day in far future, develop a vaccine."

I don't consider myself an econut, and I actually support using DDT as a short term solution. I was simply pointing out that we can't rely on DDT forever, and that we need a long term solution too.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2011 5:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
DDT kills mosquitoes AND the larvae. How are you going to have DDT "resistant" mosquitoes when it completely disrupts the insects reproductive chain and stops breeding? No larvae= no mosquito, in case you need me to spell it out for you.

quote:
So yeah, I think vaccines are good investment.


I agree, but investments have a FUTURE payoff. People are dying right now, today, in absolutely astounding numbers.

But I guess when it's thousands of miles away, happening to poor black and Asian people, we can sit here and dispassionately debate the issue. If this was happening in your backyard, people like you would be the first to scream for DDT loaded planes to spray your city.


By Skywalker123 on 6/15/2011 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
"People are dying right now, today, in absolutely astounding numbers."

Yet every year the world population increases. Their is no danger of people going extinct.


By senbassador on 6/15/2011 8:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
"I agree, but investments have a FUTURE payoff. People are dying right now, today, in absolutely astounding numbers."

I support using DDT to kill off mosquitoes 100%. I don't think I ever said I was against it. I was simply pointing out that DDT isn't a good long term solution, and why I support Bill Gates's idea to work on vaccines. Obviously, we need both a long term and short term solution.


By Revlemmon on 6/16/2011 3:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
All it will take is a random mutation that gives the bugs immunity from its effects. Happens with bacteria, random mutation in the genes and poof its gains antibiotic resistance.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 3:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
/full sarcasm..

Yeah we all know DDT doesn't kill pollinating insects that are so essential especially in a starving continent.

"Spray poison everywhere...that'll save lives!"

Pennies on the dollar? Pfft.. Bill Gates got rich by weighing all factors then choosing the most expensive one. For just a couple pennies he could have killed every Mosquito on the continent (I know I can't manage to even clear them from a neighborhood but that's why I'm not Gates)

/sarcasm off
/serious on.

DDT has it's uses and may win some battles. It will not win the war.

You're a retarded dipshti.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/11, Rating: 0
By Skywalker123 on 6/15/2011 1:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
If the 30 million dead had survived, they probably would have lived long enough to starve to death.


By EricMartello on 6/14/2011 8:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For pennies on the dollar of what a malaria vaccine would cost, we could DDT those buggers and be done with it. Or we can continue to watch millions die in third world countries due to unfounded and baseless environmental concerns.


Nah, better to let them die. The mosquitoes are keeping their numbers in check. They're reproducing readily enough and they're not contributing anything useful to the world or the human, other than providing a living record of how primitive humans used to be.


RE: Cut malaria off at it's source
By zBernie on 6/15/2011 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right -- Malaria skyrocketed and tens of millions of people died when DDT was banned. But the story was largely ignored by the politically correct and environmentally over-zealous mainstream media.

Those of you who have been conditioned to ignore the truth should try googling the subject. Even the left-wing NY Times ran an article on the subject.


...
By sprockkets on 6/13/2011 8:23:58 PM , Rating: 5
...And then we have Steve Jobs, who rather spend his billions building a big fucking donut with all curved windows and his favorite apricot trees and cart around in bio diesel buses and bikes. Wifi? Fuck that.

But hey, less paved driveways!!!




RE: ...
By spread on 6/14/2011 2:12:25 AM , Rating: 1
That's actually pretty cool. I always thought Jobs was interested in the money instead of making something substantial.


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 6/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By geekman1024 on 6/14/2011 3:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
Apple Customers' Money = Jobs' Money.

There, that should be right.


RE: ...
By icanhascpu on 6/14/2011 7:15:04 AM , Rating: 1
Funny thing is, Im sure Jobs has contributed a hell of a lot more to charities than you EVER will, so this just says what kind of person you are than anything.


RE: ...
By TSS on 6/14/2011 9:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
http://news.change.org/stories/the-600-billion-cha...

Unless he's done it anonimously we've probably all donated more to charity then steve jobs has.

Not only that but i'm sure none of us have ever used people actually doing good in the world to sell our overpriced crap.


RE: ...
By TheDoc9 on 6/14/2011 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
This worship of the lives of rich people needs to stop. Who cares what Steve or Bill do with their money.

I know he likes to be humble about this in the media but lets inject some reality into this: the little bit of money that Bill Gates gives his kids will be more than enough to pay for several generations of his family to live wonderful lives and never have to work a middle class job.

In any case it's most likely that his children will work for his foundation or be closely tied to it. And if they aren't, they have first class educations and are 'Gates', which guarantees them CEO level positions on any career path.


RE: ...
By hexxthalion on 6/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By chick0n on 6/14/2011 9:16:01 AM , Rating: 1
he gets enough dividend from the stock he is holding. MORON. plus his expenses is all covered by Apple's cult ... I mean Apple Inc.

1 dollar salary don't mean shit. Bloomberg gets 1 dollar from NYC too. so? his business will get all kinds of benefit from it.


RE: ...
By nafhan on 6/14/2011 10:11:36 AM , Rating: 1
$1/year plus millions of shares of stock, but I guess since Apple stock hasn't done all that well...


RE: ...
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 3:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
My only personal gripe with Jobs: He used wealth and power to place himself in multiple organ waitlists simultaneously.

Somewhere on this planet someone is dead because Jobs got the Liver that they needed.

Bill Gates seems to have a different idea of what to do with wealth and power.


RE: ...
By Skywalker123 on 6/15/2011 1:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
You think that Bill wouldn't buy a liver if he needed it? He'd steal his Granny's.


RE: ...
By TakinYourPoints on 6/14/2011 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Dell net worth - 14BN
DELL market cap - 30BN

Steve Ballmer net worth - 14.5BN
MSFT market cap - 200BN for the last decade

Steve Jobs net worth - 8.3BN
AAPL market cap - 300BN and still climbing

If you really want to talk greed combined with complacency, Michael Dell is the perfect example. No big deal though, he still gets to build mansions around the world while his company continues to lose money for shareholders and play catch-up with every other tech company out there.


Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By BansheeX on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2011 11:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Vaccines don't only benefit poor nations. The sooner we make malaria extinct the sooner we eliminate a possible threat to developed nations in the future (it could mutate to evade current treatments). By helping them, it also helps us.

If you think there should be a fund to supply Africans with contraceptives you're welcome to start one. I'll be among the first to donate to it.


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By Just Tom on 6/14/2011 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize even if we vacinated every human that would not eradicate malaria since it exists in other animals? Or do you plan to go around vacinating every animal also?

There will always be a pool of readily available malaria parasites as there are mosquitoes.


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 11:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
How is malaria going to transfer from an animal to a vaccinated person? WTF?


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By 91TTZ on 6/14/2011 11:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
He said that it wouldn't eliminate Malaria since animals would still carry it. If everyone was vaccinated then people wouldn't get it, but the disease would still be out there.


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By Akrovah on 6/14/2011 11:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
The Disease may still be out there, but if everyone is vaccinated then the disease is impotent, unless it mutates. But even if it does, updating a vaccine, once one is created, is a much simpiler process.


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By Just Tom on 6/14/2011 12:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
The disease is impotent until vaccinations stop or the disease mutates. Either one will cause an upswing is cases.

A good example of a disease with a readily available vaccination that is far from impotent is the recent measles outbreaks in the UK.

Updating a vaccination is not nearly as simple as you imply. The only way to make a disease truly impotent is to eliminate the vectors associated with it. In this case, mosquitoes carrying the parasite that causes maleria.


By mcnabney on 6/14/2011 2:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Malaria infects numerous vertebrates. Removing humans by way of vaccine will not apply selective pressure on the parasite. It is still a risk, but much lower risk.


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By Just Tom on 6/14/2011 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
It could mutate. But that is not the point. I was replying to the original post which implied vacination would eradicate malaria. Which is just silly. Eradication implies the need to vacinate will disappear when in fact malaria vacinations mean no such thing.


By Smilin on 6/15/2011 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed then.

Nonetheless eliminating it from the human population should still be sought. Since we are only one of many carriers the pressure on it to mutate to resist immunization would be low. Such a vaccine might be good for generations or even centuries. The cost of constant administration of it would be trivial compared to the impact the disease itself is wreaking on Africa and South Asia. I thought I heard it was a -1% annual hit to GDP growth?


RE: Africa Needs More than Just Vaccines
By karlostomy on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
By gixser on 6/14/2011 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are mischaracterizing Bill Gate's position here.

Is Bill Gates talking about "subsidising unsustainable populuation growth"? Please see http://www.gatesfoundation.org/familyplanning/Page...

Bill Gates has repeatedly said in interviews that Family Planning is part of his foundations approach. He also repeatedly says education and standard of living increases decrease infant mortality and child birth rates.

Bill Gates also insists the West has much to gain from a stable, healthier 3rd world because it increases the market available to Western businesses and helps stablilize markets and political entities.

Please take a look http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx before mischaracterizing the situation.

I don't love Bill Gates but folks should actually read about a subject before expressing an opinion.


His goals don’t make sense.
By Spoogie on 6/14/11, Rating: 0
By piroroadkill on 6/14/2011 5:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but you'd be a real asshole if you were Bill Gates and you left your kids anything less.


RE: His goals don’t make sense.
By bupkus on 6/14/2011 6:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
Consider what it costs today for a first rate education and what it will likely cost in the future.

Bill didn't finish his degree because he was in the right place at the right time but if his children wish to attend medical school or pursue some other personal passion they will need that education.


RE: His goals don’t make sense.
By 91TTZ on 6/14/2011 11:11:33 AM , Rating: 3
Bill Gates didn't happen to be in the right place at the right time, he MADE it the right place at the right time. He started his business when IBM was the big name in town and you'd be a fool to challenge them.

He's not some ordinary guy who got lucky without a degree, he was always much more intelligent than the normal person and was pretty much destined to succeed anyway. He got a 1590 on his SAT and was accepted into Harvard, that's not exactly the path that a normal Joe takes. Then he left school so he could start a business with a guy who scored 1600 on his SAT and went to Harvard as well.

That's like saying that Mark Zuckerberg was an average Joe who was at the right place at the right time. No, he was also a member of the intellectual elite, one who scored 1600 on his SAT and was accepted into Harvard, and out competed his competition in a field that already had a big name (MySpace)

If Bill Gates' kids are as smart as he was, they'll succeed regardless of the path they take. They'd simply out compete their competition intellectually and muscle their way in. I'm not saying that they could be a doctor without going to medical school, but they could easily be entrepreneurs.


RE: His goals don’t make sense.
By Cerin218 on 6/14/2011 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Bill Gates stole DOS from his roommate. He stole Windows from Steve Jobs. Zuckerberg stole Facebook from a project he was paid to work on.

Neither of these people came up with an original idea, what they did was take an idea from someone else and make it better. So it takes a massive intellect to do that?I would argue that BOTH of them were in the right place at the right time. Neither are technical geniuses so much as they are marketing geniuses. And both are quite ruthless in their business practices.


RE: His goals don’t make sense.
By 91TTZ on 6/14/2011 1:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
Gates bought DOS from a smaller company and then resold it to IBM. Both Microsoft and Apple got the idea for Windows from a demonstration that Xerox did.

There are a lot of people that would like to make money in business, but the smartest usually win out.


By Cerin218 on 6/14/2011 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of doing the OS themselves (as they had said), they went to a neighbouring company who was working on a direct rip-off of CP/M (that wasn't that good a rip-off either). This company was Seattle Computing and the product was QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System). MS bought all the rights for $50,000 (or $40K - $100K depending on who you talk to), and with a few changes the work was complete. Microsoft had, for a song, IBM-DOS and MS-DOS 1.0 (the same products, but different names).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_did_Bill_Gates_steal...

He also LEASED it to IBM, he never SOLD it to them. Because they wanted to sell hardware and didn't understand the value of they operating system.

Microsoft shipped Windows on November 20 [1985], and two days later during Fall COMDEX (a huge industry trade show) in Las Vegas, Gates and Sculley signed a confidential, three-page agreement that granted Microsoft a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nontransferable license to use these derivative works in present and future software programs, and to license them to and through third parties for use in their software programs." In other words, Apple got Microsoft's commitment to upgrade Word for Macintosh, delay Excel for Windows until October 1, 1986, plus an acknowledgement that "the visual displays in [Excel, Windows, Word, and Multiplan] are derivative works of the visual displays generated by Apple's Lisa and Macintosh graphic user interface programs." In other words, Microsoft got Apple's crown jewels, and Apple got shafted. Not since British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler with the Munich Pact of 1938 had the world seen such a fine demonstration of negotiation skills.

So again, Gates WASN'T a technical genius, he was a marketing genius. He understood the value of the early technology, he didn't create the early technology. He didn't create it, he made it better. Zuckerberg didn't create it, he made it better.


By Argon18 on 6/14/2011 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 1
wrong. $10 million isn't all that much. think of inflation. 20 years ago, a well paid doctor or lawyer in the usa made $60k. today, $60k isn't even enough to live off of in most major cities. that $10 million he set aside today will be $2 million in inflation adjusted dollars (or maybe less, seeing as how O'bama is driving inflation through the roof... but I digress) by the time his kids are young adults and get access to it. yes, it's a comfortable sum to buy a home with and have money in the bank, but a bottomless fortune it is definitely NOT.


By nafhan on 6/14/2011 10:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
10 million is giving them a huge advantage in life, but you can blow through 10 million pretty easily (see Michael Jackson, various bankrupt sports personalities, etc.). 20 billion, though, that would take some real work to burn through.


Taxes
By bobsmith1492 on 6/14/2011 9:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Right now, the exemption for the inheritance tax is 5 million dollars. So, any amount over 5 million gets taxed at 35% as of now.

It makes sense from an estate planning perspective to not give much more than 5 million; otherwise the government would just gobble it all up.

It would be very hard for Bill to give his company to his kids. The government would end up taking 1/3rd of it since Bill's wealth IS the company! So, there's not much Bill can do but give away his money to causes he sees fit. I'm assuming giving 1/3rd of his money to the government isn't a cause he particularly likes.

(My girlfriend works in estate planning...)




RE: Taxes
By Argon18 on 6/14/2011 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
speaking of bill gates donating to government, well, he really is. aside from all this vaccine charity stuff, he is spending $Billions in trying to get the usa to adopt a national school curriculum. this is just wrong! school curriculum belong at the state level, closest to the people they serve. a national curriculum is horrible, very orwellian and big brotherish to have congress dictating what our children will and won't learn, what books they will and won't read, etc. it's wrong! shame on you bill gates.


RE: Taxes
By Cerin218 on 6/14/2011 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
The school systems were originally set up to be "incubators of democracy". As in each state could learn from the successes and failures of the other states and adapt their curriculum accordingly. If education is national, then a failures and poor curriculum will be distributed across ALL. But the reality is that the collectivists wanted this to happen as they would only have to lobby one body to enact their changes where before the Dep of Ed they would have to work harder to change each state or local system. That's why education today is less about teaching our children anything useful and more an experiment in social engineering. So we produce dumber kids today, because that is what the system was designed to do. And we wonder why we aren't globally competitive.


RE: Taxes
By avxo on 6/14/2011 4:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
school curriculum belong at the state level, closest to the people they serve


Right -- and that's why we have the travesty known as school boards.

We "elect" (and I use the term loosely -- when's the last time you voted for a school board candidate and did you know his/her positions/credentials?) a bunch of people there, to dictate what the schools in the district should teach. They're closest to the people they serve. And the people get exactly what they deserve.

Guys who don't know squat about physics dictating the curriculum to be taught in Physics class. Housewife who didn't graduate high school in control of the math curriculum. People with no scientific background but an unwavering faith in Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God voting to require that ID be taught as a viable, legitimate scientific theory.

You get people like Don McElroy of Texas -- a fervent young-earth creationist -- of the Texas Board of Education. He evaluates History textbooks thusly: "first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan — he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes." He votes against biology textbooks that include a full account of evolution. And he voted to have textbooks that focus only on abstinence in regard to instruction about pregnancy and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

You get people like Kathy Martin, from Kansas. She's also a creationist and pushed hard to get Intelligent Design in the curriculum. "Darwin and some of his cronies had some great ideas, but it can't be proven" she said. "We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say."

You get people like Bill Buckingham, another creationist, who says that biology "is laced with Darwinism" and is in conflict with his views and a new book is needed to counter the Darwinism with Intelligent Design.

You get people like Connie Morris, who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis and who calls evolution an "age-old fairy tale" that's full of "anti-God contempt and arrogance" vote in favor of teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory instead of the bunk that it is.

Why shouldn't school curricula be standardized across the country for science topics? Is the periodic table different in your part of the country? Is the cosine of 90 degree, somehow, not zero because a school board votes that way? Should a theory of "Intelligent Falling" be taught alongside gravity on equal footing?


RE: Taxes
By Argon18 on 6/14/2011 6:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, very clever with your cosine argument. Perhaps you're deluded into believing that "Congress Knows Best" but those of us who have been around a while, don't fall for that kind of baloney. Do you really think Congress is going to create an impartial curriculum that puts the interests of the students first, above all else? Or do you think they're going to do as they always do - which is to accept lobbying dollars in exchange for their votes. Your children's textbooks will all be decided by lobbying dollars, shady backroom deals, and which congressman's wife or son happens to be an author or publisher or boardmember of a book company. No thanks!


Good on Billy Gates
By phantom505 on 6/13/2011 7:04:15 PM , Rating: 5
I absolutely agree with his stance with his kids. $10 million is more than enough to have every advantage the US has to offer, yet if they use it poorly it won't last them a New York minute. Teach them how to be as good as he has been and then wean them.

I wish everyone in his position was a responsible to society as he is. It's disgusting that we crown economic kings and their lineage. Just repeating monarchic mistake that we allegedly fought a war to end their tyranny on the world.




RE: Good on Billy Gates
By ForeverStudent on 6/13/2011 7:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with you. I'd probably go way less than $10M, maybe $1M, maybe less. I'd probably set up a trust fund to cover their medical expenses, and their children's education for life, and maybe some other small things I can't think of right now. But beyond those "necessities", they've got to make it on their own. Everyone should have to learn what it means to work for your money. It teaches what a dollar is worth.


RE: Good on Billy Gates
By surt on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Good on Billy Gates
By just4U on 6/13/2011 11:59:22 PM , Rating: 1
Overall he hasn't really come out and confirmed the exact ammounts that will go to his children nor has he stated what will be set aside for future generations of the Gates family... only that it will be small in comparison to his overall wealth which will be dispersed to his charitable organizations.

I agree with you.. Setting up your descendants for several generations is what I'd do as well.. but I think he's probably considered that and it's likely not off the table. This is Bill Gates and as long as he lives he will likely continue to accumulate massive wealth.


The real points to take away from this
By Pessimism on 6/14/2011 11:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
-Bill Gates needs an assistant to shop for him. How can he have 56 billion dollars and pants that are halfway up to his kneecaps?

-Mark Zuckerberg has no game. If someone that young and that loaded can't find someone better looking, or for that matter one for each day of the week, there has to be something seriously repulsive about him that we don't know about.




By edge929 on 6/14/2011 4:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking roughly the same thing. Not trying to hate on Zuckerberg, I'm sure she's nice/wife material but if I sit here and think about all the damage I did to the opposite sex in my twenties and then add a few billion dollars into that equation..... hell I'd probably be dead but one thing is near-certain, I'd have a new Brazilian supermodel on my arm at every event, make DiCaprio look like a rookie.


I don't care
By Argon18 on 6/14/2011 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 1
I don't care how much he gives to charity. Until he gives me refund for Windows ME, the biggest turd of an OS ever, I will continue to loathe him and his greedy corporation.




RE: I don't care
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 3:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
At least you have your priorities straight and aren't desperately clinging to some imagined slight that occured 11 years ago (and some 10 years after Gates stopped writing code). I agree it would be more important to get an ME refund than save millions of lives.


Eye contact and small talk...
By tlbj6142 on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2011 11:35:28 PM , Rating: 1
Your post might apply to men, but women seem to think of eye contact differently.

As far as I can tell men have evolved to communicate while focusing their eyes on a task at hand (eyes on delicious mammoth, communicating meaning to each other). Women are the ones that like to stare at each other to gauge reactions while making small talk so they can attempt to gain social standing by spreading gossip about rivals.

This is probably an oversimplification...


Welll I guess
By jvillaro on 6/13/2011 11:01:51 PM , Rating: 1
I guess his kid hides his iPhone like I hid my porn mags... Not that my father was in the adult publications industries -.-




Beauty and the Beast
By gevorg on 6/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Beauty and the Beast
By phantom505 on 6/13/2011 6:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Key word here is girlfriend.


RE: Beauty and the Beast
By amanojaku on 6/13/2011 7:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
A good woman could care less about how much money you make, as long as you are responsible with your money. Having too much wealth leaves you open to gold diggers, who generally DO look much better than Priscilla. Until they hit 35. By then all the soap operas and bonbons catch up to them. My 34-year old girlfriend makes Megan Fox and Vanessa Hudgens look like stick figures, and I'm nowhere near being a millionaire. But there's always next year. ;-)

What I didn't understand was why Jason felt Mark Zuckerberg's engagement was relevant to this.


RE: Beauty and the Beast
By DerekZ06 on 6/13/2011 8:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Mine too, and I'm just a hundredenaire!! I think we deserve some damn cookies!


So....
By TEAMSWITCHER on 6/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By someguy123 on 6/13/2011 8:52:09 PM , Rating: 5
Really? If you were the CEO and cofounder of a massive company and your kid wanted your competitors products, you'd let them use it and take all the unnecessary drama and PR associated with it, as well as likely damaging your stock value and harming your investors?

Well, I guess we know why you aren't a CEO.


RE: So....
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2011 11:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
In Gates' defense, the iPhone is a piece of overpriced crap that he's right to protect his children from.


RE: So....
By Solandri on 6/14/2011 12:03:59 AM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't call them pieces of crap. They excel at what they do. But that's also the reason I'd agree with Gates (never thought I'd ever say that, but there it is).

The Apple products are really geared for the average person. They're dirt simple to use, but they achieve this by hiding or shielding the user from a plethora of options and complexity. This is the reason I don't own any Apple products. I admire their UI and design, but I'm a hacker, a tinkerer. I like to get into the guts of a device and figure out how it works. The way Apple locks down their products makes them hostile to people like me (my friends think I'm weird because I troubleshoot their macs by opening up a command prompt).

Unless you want your kids to be average socialites, I would encourage them to tinker with the innards of non-Apple devices. "It just works" is fine for the average consumer. "Why/how does it work?" is what I'd want my kids to be asking if I wanted them to excel in life.


RE: So....
By bupkus on 6/14/2011 7:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
Very good statement. I suppose that is the reason I on occasion download and explore a linux distro.


RE: So....
By icanhascpu on 6/14/2011 7:23:10 AM , Rating: 3
They cost just as much on plans as any android phone. Made of metal and plastic just the same. Slimier performance (iphone currently has superior screen)

Grow up.


RE: So....
By Parhel on 6/14/2011 9:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
Slimier performance???


RE: So....
By TEAMSWITCHER on 6/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 11:18:37 AM , Rating: 1
No matter which product you use, you'll still be a dick. Just look at what you write.


RE: So....
By INeedCache on 6/14/2011 1:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you can enjoy your Mac, because my PC has better parts and kicks the crap out of any Mac that Apple offers. For less. But I'll stay from the Apple stores, because I would feel really bad for the stupid folks who are getting sucked into those quad-core iMacs for $1200 or more. Unbelievable.


RE: So....
By Cerin218 on 6/14/2011 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Apple cultist rule at self delusion and rationalization.


RE: So....
By adiposity on 6/14/2011 1:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I love my OG Droid, but I don't agree that the iPhone is "overpriced crap." It's one of the few Apple products that costs basically exactly as much as competing products.

It has similar performance to Android and Phone7. It has similar hardware to other high-end phones, and in some cases, superior (display).

Samsung products are nearly identical in form factor these days, and have very similar hardware.

On top of this, Android phones have a frequent "lag" that is on my Droid, the Droid 2, the Droid X, the Incredible, and Samsung Captivate (these are the ones I've tried). Every once in a while, they just don't respond for 5-30 seconds at a time. I don't really understand it. One thing about the iPhone is it is always very responsive.

Now, I personally a willing to accept any tradeoffs because, for me, the Android experience is much more to my liking. I prefer having the extra buttons, the kind of multi-tasking, notifications, and ui approach Android uses.

But, my mother in law has a Droid X, and she wants her iPhone back--because it has longer battery life, it doesn't require a reboot every once in a while, and it is more responsive. On the other hand, there are things she likes better about the Droid X (bigger screen, certain apps).

It just seems like pathetic fanboyism to declare the iPhone "overpriced" and a "piece of crap" when it costs the same and has similar capabilities to competing products.


New Charity
By icanhascpu on 6/14/11, Rating: -1
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki