philanthropist is the word I'm 90% sure your after.shintakie10 said:At this point its hard to really hold anythin against the guy. He did some douchey things while he was in charge of microsoft in its early and middle years. But the latter years and especially since he left he's been probably one of the more giving rich people out there. Theres a word for it...but I honestly can't think of it.The_root_of_all_evil said:After Windows, I already assumed he be used to... Ah no, it's far too easy.
Tough call.
Would you cheer Jack Thompson giving all his litigation fees to Childsplay?
It's a good thing he's doing, but he got the ability to do it by doing bad things. Can one cancel the other?
I'll have to come back on this.
I quoted another thread that had that exact word in it (although that one was a typo).Greg Tito said:excrement.
this.Hagi said:Being the #2 philanthropist in the world has to count for something... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists#Greatest_philanthropists_by_amount_of_USD]The_root_of_all_evil said:It's a good thing he's doing, but he got the ability to do it by doing bad things. Can one cancel the other?
I'll have to come back on this.
Granted, 29 billion is a lot easier to give away if your net worth is guessed at 59 billion. But still, that's a hell load of money....
And even with the bad stuff taken into account he's probably doing more good for the world then those who've done volunteer work their entire lives whenever possible.
By helping to improve living conditions worldwide he's actually doing just that. When the death rate goes down in a country what's keeping the birth rate up?Ulquiorra4sama said:So maybe afterwards he can donate some money to help combat over-population(or whatever you call that in english. I think i'm right though >_>)
What bad things are we talking about? did he enslave third-world populations for the manufacture of his products like one of his peers? Did he fling lawsuits at anyone doing anything remotely like it? Did he refuse startup companies attempting to get a slice of his pie?The_root_of_all_evil said:It's a good thing he's doing, but he got the ability to do it by doing bad things.
Well, i thought about that myself too, but i suppose that could go either way. Big families are just something people want in certain parts of the world so i guess some places the birth rate would go down and in some it would go up. What i'm holding out for is a gradual decline.Lord Mountbatten Reborn said:By helping to improve living conditions worldwide he's actually doing just that. When the death rate goes down in a country what's keeping the birth rate up?Ulquiorra4sama said:So maybe afterwards he can donate some money to help combat over-population(or whatever you call that in english. I think i'm right though >_>)
Yes.Ympulse said:What bad things are we talking about? did he enslave third-world populations for the manufacture of his products like one of his peers? Did he fling lawsuits at anyone doing anything remotely like it? Did he refuse startup companies attempting to get a slice of his pie?The_root_of_all_evil said:It's a good thing he's doing, but he got the ability to do it by doing bad things.
A US state lawsuit was brought against Microsoft in 1992 representing 8,558 current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", and became known as Vizcaino v. Microsoft. In 1993, the suit became a US Federal Class Action in the United States District Court Western District Of Washington At Seattle as No. C93-178C. The Final Settlement[44] came in 2005. The case was decided on the (IRS-defined) basis that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks including three reversals on appeal, Microsoft settled the suit for US $93 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigationMicrosoft has also come under criticism for developing software capable of analyzing the output of remote sensors in order to measure the competence and productivity of workers based on their physical responses.
Once you get over a certain amount to sustain your lifestyle, all your money is excess. If I gave away 50% of my income, would I be held in as much reverence?Granted, 29 billion is a lot easier to give away if your net worth is guessed at 59 billion. But still, that's a hell load of money....
Now here's the really scary point. Are you saying that Bill Gates is a better person than someone like Mother Theresa, who devoted her entire life to looking after others?And even with the bad stuff taken into account he's probably doing more good for the world then those who've done volunteer work their entire lives whenever possible.
Mother Teresa was no saint (see what I did there?):Now here's the really scary point. Are you saying that Bill Gates is a better person than someone like Mother Theresa, who devoted her entire life to looking after others?
Because then you're measuring charity strictly based on business terms.
edit: Steve Jobs will always be a tyrannical bully though. Gates may redeem himself.
Bill Gates did some sketchy things while running Microsoft, even some arguably illegal things, but he didn't torture people to help them "be closer to God."[Mother Teresa] has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."(http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm)