| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Bill’s Biggest Bet Yet | |
|
||
| Time: 00:36 EST/05:36 GMT | News Source: MSNBC | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks Paul. "The richest people on earth have created a fund of more than $24 billion to save the poorest from disease. How much of a difference can Bill and Melinda Gates make?" To a man like Gates, this is not just an outrage but an opportunity—one he is uniquely positioned to seize. Over the past several years, Gates and his wife, Melinda, have created what is now the largest foundation in history. Its assets stand at more than $24 billion. And though it supports some programs to improve schools and wire libraries to the Internet, its primary focus is health. Nothing about the foundation is conventional. Instead of turning it over to a board of directors, Gates placed his dad and a longtime friend in charge. And applying his legendary business sense to the enterprise, he has helped create a whole new model of philanthropy—a spare, lean, entrepreneurial model that employs leverage instead of largesse to make things happen. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:26:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 1/28/2002 2:44:56 AM |
| http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ |
| #2 By 1401 (24.74.52.28) at 1/28/2002 8:17:09 AM |
| How right you are #3... |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/28/2002 11:16:29 AM |
|
Bah... this must be another ploy by Gates to take over the world. I bet he is trying to get a monopoly in curing diseases so he can threaten death to anybody who resists Windows.
That must be it. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 1/28/2002 1:50:54 PM |
|
RMD - Totally correct! His intention is to improve the economic conditions of poor countries so that they will buy more computers! Thus Microsoft can extend their monopoly all throughout the world!
We must stop this evil! Keep people poor and destitute, it's the only way to be sure they won't buy Microsoft! |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/28/2002 3:07:08 PM |
|
#10 - Ideally, as long as you don't physically threaten somebody, you should be able to "get" money more or less any way you choose. While you can do many extremely immoral things to get that money, the government has no business regulating morality.
I personally don't see anything that Gates and Co. did as immoral. Aside from questionably breaking a contract with Sun, all they did was use every resource they had to make money - and that's the exact point of business. At any rate, I often hear people exclaim that Bill Gates is evil and greedy. Evil is a subjective term (although I think it has an objective meaning... at least to me), and he at least used to be fairly miserly. But his generosity is now pretty obvious. |
| #6 By 3653 (166.63.11.94) at 1/28/2002 4:44:07 PM |
| #17, you are a real idiot. These gents you speak of are some of the hardest working, most successful capitalists this planet has EVER seen. If you have a problem with them, then your real problem is with capitalism. And if you have a problem with capitalism, I encourage you to tour China or Russia sometime. If a free market erupted in those countries TODAY, it would still take 300 years to overcome the HORROR of their anti-capitalism past. |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/28/2002 7:48:16 PM |
|
#17 - "monopolistic robber barons"? Qualify and quantify that term.
If you mean they maximized profits at the expense of competitors, then sure... it's called capitalism. If you mean they maximized profits at the expense of consumers, that doesn't make sense... as the best way to make money selling something is to sell something consumers want. Now, I've heard some good arguments from progressive economic thinkers that suggest that sometimes capitalism can fail because of various inherent weaknesses in capitalism itself. I have in no way made up my mind about the virtues or weaknesses of the institution of capitalism, but I do know that Gates has fairly consistantly provided me with a product that I want, and that is why he is the richest man in the world. While he certainly understands and exploits things like positive feedback loops (create an OS people like -> make money, developers create applications for OS -> makes more money, because more popular, more applications are written... loop), he is focused far more on the technology than on the money. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/29/2002 12:08:09 AM |
|
#24 -
"So it's okay if I sell crack cocaine to your kids, eh, RMD? I won't physically threaten them, and crack is illegal only because the goobermint feels it's immoral to treat one's body in such a shoddy manner." Yup. Well, in this case not really... children, by definition, can't legally consent to doing anything. So you're actually forcing them to do something by giving them the option.... legally speaking. But if I want to sell crack to an adult, I should be able to. If I want to use crack (I am an adult), I should be able to. This is really another discussion. "The monopoly bit isn't about Gates providing you what you wanted. The monopolist bit is about Microsoft preventing competitors from providing you what you wanted, through contracts that as good as prevented suppliers from installing anything but Windows on your machine. And so on and so forth." I am unaware of any products that Gates prevented me from puchasing. Gates may have used his resources to better distribute his product, but how is that any different from a rich company buying up all the advertising on a TV channel to advertise their product? Do they have an unfair advantage which should be regulated by the government? |
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 1/29/2002 1:31:43 AM |
|
#24 Windows is a platform that Microsoft distributes to OEMs. In order to provide users with a consistent experience on the computers that run Windows and to lessen support calls to Microsoft over issues caused by flaky software or hardware, Microsoft should be able to dictate to CONTRACTED OEMs what comes on a Windows PC. It is no different than Apple wanting to provide a consistent platform on Macintosh computers.
One of the main issues was that the contracted OEMs couldn't install other OSes, boot loaders, etc. on PCs that had Windows preinstalled. This, again, is to create platform consistency for users and developers, and to lower support calls for non-Microsoft issues. The OEMs that agreed to the contract did so to get lower price deals on Microsoft's products. If they had a problem with the terms of the contract, and weren't simply interested in the money savings, they could have chosen to license Microsoft's products the same way smaller system builders do. This would have freed them from any restrictions on what software could be installed. Smaller OEMs have had no problem installing whatever they wanted on the computers they sold. You can't expect to have Microsoft give you a special deal without doing something for them in return. The bottom line is that Windows is a Microsoft-produced product. It is made to offer a consistent and familiar platform for developers and end-users. The product is made to be easy to use and offer many valuable features, but it is not made to offer customizability to the point of letting one produce their own customized kernel, etc. It is a package. The product is paid for in research, development, and production costs by Microsoft. As such, they should be able to decide the feature set and licensing requirements. Like any other product, if Windows does not offer what desired, or doesn't fit your definition of an OS, or you don't understand the need to offer developers a standard platform for which they know what services they can develop to by default, then there are alternatives. |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/29/2002 11:14:14 AM |
|
#26 - To be fair, I think we all know exactly why Microsoft really contacted with OEMs.
IMO, however, that shouldn't matter... (see previous post) |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/29/2002 3:28:23 PM |
|
#28 - He has placed $24 billion dollars in a fund which will be used to directly research cures for diseases and help fund clinics and medical supplies for 3rd world countries. Seems like he is "spending it to help people" pretty well.
As far as what he pays his "cronies" I think people should be able to spend their money any way they choose, and I think that Gates is (finally) doing it in a very admirable and honorable way. Gates pays himself around $200,000 a year... versus the 1+ million that most other execs in the computer industry make. (Ellision, McNealy, etc.) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 302 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:26:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
