Will Bill Gates give away his fortune ?

[Gr44]

*relates to bill gates asap*

[shiato storm]

Originally posted by spikegifted


As someone correctly pointed out that most of Bill Gates' wealth is tied up in Microsoft shares. A good reason why the wealth goes to a charitable trust is because if you want to gain control of Microsoft, you'd need to have the concent of the largest shareholder(s) and guess what the charitable trust will never give that concent and hence once the shares are transferred to this trust, MS will never face the danger of being taken over.

so in effect he's doing himself and charities a favour... microsoft wont ever lose out and the charities are guarenteed stable returns...

[ERU]

And you dont appreciate it till it's gone...

[PHTC]

It's not like he's a bit short of cash.

[Blub2k]

Check this article out from Greg Palast

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Check this article out from Greg Palast

Hardly an unbiased source by the look of it. It's a diatribe more full of bile than analysis.

TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him the kind of monopoly the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of.

Cobblers.

Gates has a monopoly on Microsoft operating systems, maybe. But if MS products are so bad, or so overpriced, why is there no alternative? Oh, yeah - Linux.

I wonder what the computing world would be like if Gates hadn't founded Microsoft? Well, had IBM followed their usual practice instead of buying in the OS for their tiny little PC 'experiment', and thereby not given Gates the way in, we'd likely either have a totally fragmented market with little consistency or we'd have a market dominated by IBM. IBM, of course, in their heyday, we known for the sweetnessand light of their business practices


I'm not pretending that Gates is a saint or that all his business practices are, at least by my standards, 100% ethical, BUT - I wonder how many large businesses can say they've never indulged in hard practices? My bet - VERY few. MS and gates are natural targets because not only are they so successful, but they are so prominent in all our lives too.

Personally, I can't give that article much credit, since it seems to me to be so biased and loaded that there seems to be no journalistic objectivity at all. Gates main crime seems to be that he benefits from Intellectual Property Rights protection. Whoop-de-do. SO DO I.

[Blub2k]

Dunnno why you have changed the subject or at least deflected from what was being discussed, no one mentioned crap MS software at all here. Would a link to a Sun article have carried more weight or some other right wing source? You have a tendency to completely discount the views of the left which can be amusing but doesn't make for very much debate, but makes you a good patriot or something in post-war UK.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Dunnno why you have changed the subject or at least deflected from what was being discussed, no one mentioned crap MS software at all here. Would a link to a Sun article have carried more weight or some other right wing source? You have a tendency to completely discount the views of the left which can be amusing but doesn't make for very much debate, but makes you a good patriot or something in post-war UK.

ME change the subject???

I wasn't the one that gave that reference to the article I quoted. YOU were. If you didn't want people to read, and comment, on that article, why the heck quote it?

When I read any article on the web, I try to assess the content and the purpose of the writer, especially when the content is as loaded as that one. Not doing so is plain naive. I view ANY article in the light of any obviously displayed bias, and that referenced article was, in my opinion biased as hell.

I made it clear in my comment that my opinion of that article was just that - my opinion. If I regard an article as biased or loaded, I'm hardly likely to accept claims in it as gospel. It is, as you should know, easy to take facts in isolation and make them appear to say something they don't. If, then, the writer appears to have a clear agenda, then I regard their claims in the light of that agenda. I neither accept, nor dismiss, anything because it is left-wing. I'll assess anything I read, and give my opinions on it. I'll argue my point of view, and expect others to do the same. I'm sure as hell not just going to accept a point of view because someone else holds it, or quotes an article on it. If you think that quashes debate, then tough. I'm not going to stop expressing my viewpoint or arguing against something because you find it "amusing". That, mate, is your problem.

So, instead of telling me I'm quashing debate, how about putting your side? Defend it. Refute my points instead of suggesting I don't make them.

And what in hell has an article about TRIPS, or Bill Gares, got to do with whatever you think my level of "patriotism" is?

Oh, and I wouldn't read the Sun if you paid me. I'm capable of forming my own opinions and don't need a fourth-rate rag to form them for me.

[Blub2k]

The thing is what would have been an article that was not biased? Why should the article be biased? Please explain what gives an article journalistic integrity? If someone else was being analysed in the article would it have any more integrity in "your" opinion? What makes it loaded? You dismiss an article that is from creditable sources (albeit left wing) and give no reason except that it is biased/loaded, the fact that it is a correct or could be a correct analysis of the situation does not seem to enter into it for you. Also judging by your questioning in another thread about whether or not the US/UK supplied weapons to Iraq you seem to have a softspot for US propaganda so it is rich that you question "other" news sources and their bias, suppose you are just on the other side of the present arguments to me and that has a lot to do with it, it is hard to discuss things with diametrically opposing views.

[Saracen]

Look at the phraseology - pejorative and loaded terms. Look at the way language is used. It is, in my opinion, an article long on rhetoric and short on fact. THAT is what makes it loaded.

What makes for journalistic integrity is to look at a situation objectively, report in a neutral way and present facts and, where applicable, verifiable references. A journalist is supposed to report things, not push one viewpoint or another.

Who is being analysed in an article is nothing to do with whether it is loaded or not.

Examples of "loaded" phrasing :-

• nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called “TRIPS” – the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization.
  
• legally granting him the kind of monopoly the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of
  
• The bully billionaire’s “philanthropic” organization is currently working paw-in-claw with the big pharmaceutical companies
  
• enthuses the Times’ cub reporter
  
• and condescending references to the Times reporter as "gushing" this and that.
  

And so on. Bully billionaire? "Nasty" trade treaty. Etc. Nice and objective phraseology. When someone resorts to "loaded" terms like that, I take it as a clear sign that they have an agenda, and interpret what they have through a bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish filter accordingly. It is NOTHING to do with whether such material is left-wing or not.


That article COULD indeed be an accurate analysis. But when someone so obviously has an agenda as the writer of that diatribe, I can't give it much credibility, because if they are so desperate to make their case as to use the kind of loaded wording they use, then how are we supposed to trust that they aren't using only the 'facts' that suit their argument and ignoring the rest?

You can give it what credibility you like. I'm not telling you what to make of it. I'm telling you what I make of it.

As for the other thread on WMD - you have several times made claims that it is a FACT that the US supplied Iraq with WMD. All I have said is PROVE IT. If it is such an obvious fact, rather than an allegation that might or might not be true, then PROVE IT.

I'm not accepting US propaganda at all. But I have read extensively on the subject, and yet to find ANY proof that the US supplied WMD. I haven't said they didn't, just that I have yet to find ANYONE able to prove it.

As I said in that thread, I'm not prepared to accept that the US did so just because you or anybody else says they did.

I've said repeatedly, and at length, WHY I believe what I believe. You however, have just repeatedly made bald claims of fact and don't seem to like it when I challenge those claims. Well, justify the claims. Prove me wrong. My mind is not made up, as you seem to think. But if you want me to accept that the US supplied WMD, you'll have to supply some evidence, and moreover, some that is not capable of interpretation in more than one way. Simply stating it as a fact is not debate.

All I'm doing is looking at what little hard evidence there is, and being PREPARED to accept that it might not mean what some people claim it means.

So once again, I'm not claiming the US haven't supplied WMD. What I'm claiming is that if you are going assert, as a fact, that they HAVE supplied them, be prepared to back it up when someone calls you on it.

If you have the evidence, or can point to it, don't moan at me for not taking your word for it - PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

[Number5]

well I think he's just a successful guy who I imagine will be true to his word.

[bouncin]

hope he gives it to something worthwhile