Who is Your Hero, Gates or Jobs? 660
feranick writes "Wired and Ars Technica are both running articles comparing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, not for their business/technological achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates? And even more important: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?"
throw the first stone (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a huge mistake to make assumptions and judge others when you really don't know anything about what is going on in their life, especially in regards to their finances.
I do admire that the authors of these articles are in favor of investing ones resources in ways that are intended to make the world a better place. I spend a good amount of my time trying to encourage people in the same way. But to criticize someone, even with the caveats about anonymous giving, is not really helpful. What a person does with their money, be it Steve Jobs or the kid grilling burgers at your local Jack in the Box, is their business. And we are in know place to judge them as human beings for what they do with their money, especially since we don't know what is going on in their lives.
When I approach people to support what I do, I try very hard to not develop preconceptions based on what I know about them, because I am almost always wrong when I do. People I think will give a lot, don't (often for very good reasons, whether I know those reasons or not) and people I think wont give at all, surprise me with their generosity. But judging one as better than the other without the whole picture would be a grave error.
Finally, when Christ wanted to give an example to his disciples of great giving, he pointed out the poor widow giving two mites. It was not the amount that mattered, but the attitude and the self-sacrafice. And from this distance who can judge those factors about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?
Gates deserving of "rock star status"? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the fine article, near the end, drawing a conclusion:
I respectfully disagree with the author's conclusion, unless by indicating "much more deserving", he is setting the bar incredibly low. Gates' fortune is every bit as obscene as the author claims Jobs' fortune is, and probably much more suspect in how Gates acquired it.
I get sick of the implied (or inferred by the masses) rags-to-riches yarn of Gates, college dropout made good. It's not true, Gates is of wealthy background, was a spoiled brat from the start and never had anything to lose, i.e., he was always destined to be rich and that would never have been in doubt. Unfortunately, he chose to become a goon and run roughshod over the technology world, amassing wealth unethically, and eventually (by DOJ judgement) illegally.
While I expect good to come of money Gates gives away, it's certainly less because Gates is a good guy and more that money can buy good things.
As for the slashdot question posed: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?, probably yes. But probably more important is the motivation. I don't get any sense Bill's motivation is humanitarian, but do sense much of the work and generosity comes more from his wife Linda.
Obvious Third Option: The Woz (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a thought though: Does it matter how much people give, or is it the reason that they give?
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't think that using $49 Billion of your own money to start a charitable foundation could *possibly* be out of a motive to help your company financially. Why on earth wouldn't he reinvest it if his motives were to help Microsoft?
That's messed up, man.
Bill or is it Melinda (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the question, I favor Jobs.
-S
Steve Jobs will bring down Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve Jobs.
Pro prio: He has done a remarkable job with Apple. From securing the first steps of Maslow, to the rocket Apple is destined to be for the next five years.
Pro secundo: He has won every victory, fighting honestly with QUALITY as the preferred weapon. Pixar never had a "B Team". People invest in Apple because of innovation and quality. People invest in Dell because they are slightly better than other PC distributors when it comes to logistics.
Pro tertio: Steve Jobs ultimate motive is to bring Microsoft to its knees. And he will do that. And he will be using innovation and quality - to prove his point.
From "Pirates of Silicon Valley":
Steve Jobs: We're better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
Oh yes. Guess what. It does matter. And it will bring down the Microsoft empire.
But to bring down Bill Gates - the most skillfull businessman alive - you will have to be outstanding. There are no shortcuts. No quick deals. You will have to be or become smarter, better, more profitable, eventually bigger and in the end richer than Bill Gates. Take away the reason for buying Microsoft products.
Myself, I think the turning point was when Steve Jobs demoed his NeXT, proud as a peacock, showing Illustrator, Framemaker and other major apps. A journalist later asked Bill Gates if Microsoft would develop software for the NeXT and Bill Gates stated Develop for it? I'll piss on it. [vnunet.com]
Those seven words, that single quote - my friends - is the essence of how our work, our businesses and tools will develop for the next 20 years.
We do live in interesting times. I enjoy every moment.
Gates (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why, I'd rather have Microsoft be a monopoly and make billions and use a chunk of that to help the world, rather than a lot of other companies and executives (Darth McBride, Larry Ellison) who just have all that money and do no good with it. Well, no good for the world that is.
For humanitarian things, definitely Gates.
If I wanted opinions on being stylish and wearing turtlenecks, I'd ask Jobs.
Who is the bigger hero? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Woz. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I like Hemlock or Arsenic? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:can it be neither? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mad, bad and dangerous to know - Jobs by a mile! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a creative sort of chap, I've always thought Jobs' heady mix of insanity, cunning and insight to be quite refreshing. Bill Gates is a nasty cold fish who seemingly knows nothing about humanity save that which he can buy.
Jobs makes things that are not just useful to me - they've helped bring out my artistic talents over the years - they've enabled me to create.
What has Bill Gates done for me and my world? Nothing, actually. He perpetuated some highly dysfunctional ways to interact with machines and generally works at dominating the distribution of information.
So he uses he obscene wealth (and it is obscene - and a bit of a fluke combined with Sam Walton-like business sense) for good. Well, that's great and I expect nothing less. Maybe he'll be considered another Andrew Carnegie someday, but I see very little to be interested by or admiring of about the man.
The things that Jobs and Co dream up bring pleasure and fun into my life.
Loaded Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Do what you do best. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more important to do what you do best. Jobs really is a showman, and he really is technologist. Gates? Gates was a damn good coder, and he is a damn proficient businessman. The humanitarian stuff only started in earnest when he realized he had to do some serious brown-nosing with the government in order to get a free pass from the DOJ for his abuse of his monopoly.
On that score - it's Jobs by a million miles. He knows what he's good at. He does it.
Besides, you really don't wanna see Gates putting on a show with technology [snopes.com] anyways, but at least now you know where Steve "monkeyboy" Ballmer got his dance lessons.
Private or public donations? Not my money, none of my freaking business.
If it were my money, it'd be donated in private.
You don't have to believe in Jesus -- hell, you don't even have to believe in God to see that the long-haired hippy freak had a pretty good point. If you support a cause - donate. There doesn't have to be a God for you to feel pretty fucking good about what you've done to advance your views.
Greedy capitalists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill or is it Melinda (Score:3, Insightful)
Buffett has a very similar attitude in that he thinks he is a better accumulator of money while he is alive, but near death most of it will be sent back out into the world.
s
I'd say Woz. (Score:3, Insightful)
I met him at Apple Boston in 1983 and he had a great attitude, even when I asked him about the Franklin.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a family practitioner who gave up his lucrative practice to work in Sudan under horrific conditions. He has no plans to return, I guess when the money runs out.
IMO, people like him are the real heroes.
Get over your own bias (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate to bring down the moon on everyone, but gates simply wins by a landslide in this category.
Yes, I know he is rich and that you don't like him for his business practices, and that we are all special flowers who do our little part to help humanity and should all be thanking each other for our little sacrifices....
But the giant foot of absolute impact strikes us in the face like a shovel full of cold reality..... Gates gives an enormous amount... in an absolute sense.
If Jobs didn't exist it would have little to no impact on the unfortunate of our world... if gates never existed it would have an enormous impact.
Gates (together with his wife who we can't exclude) are among the world's most effective philanthropists and will leave a lasting impact on this world.
Re:Gates deserving of "rock star status"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. And there is a long history of abusive behavior investigated by the government, and consent decrees signed by Microsoft that were later ignored by the government. Or the response to Microsoft's violation of the consent decree is yet another investigation.
That he is generous with his ill-gotten goods puts him in the same moral standing as a mob boss who gives generously to support the village he came from back in the old country.
Depends on the question (Score:4, Insightful)
The question seems too simplistic. If you want to ask the question -- who has done more for humanity: Gates or Jobs? Then you can look at acts of charity or whatever. If you want to ask who is the "most capitalist", then look at net worth. If you want to know whose actions illustrate the values one wants to live up to, look at their respective actions. If you want to ask who is the most selfless humanitarian, the answer is probably neither, as the parent indicates:
> It was not the amount that mattered, but the attitude and the self-sacrifice
The poster's submission makes it sound like all four of those are the same type of thing (hero).
It's really easy for a billionaire to donate a million dollars to charity. It's a lot harder for someone making $20k a year to donate a dime to charity. But the latter qualifies more as a humanitarian because of the self sacrifice, at least from a Christian perspective. When the billionaire does it, it's often for tax purposes or for PR. If they do it anonymously, at least they're not trying to secure favorable impressions in the history books.
I read the Wired article, and it was basically an author baiting Jobs to try to one-up Gates and his highly-publicized public giving. The author at least admitted that Jobs might be giving money anonymously, which is probably more in Jobs' character -- I'm thinking about Jobs meeting with a young man through the Make a Wish foundation [wish.org]. As far as I know, the meeting didn't appear on Apple Hot News [apple.com] for publicity.
As for a more riveting personal/business story, Jobs wins hands down. Gates used ruthless tactics to build his empire and then showed nothing but contempt for the justice system. Now that he's rich, he can through a few crumbs (albeit, crumbs to him are billions to the rest of us) to build his PR.
Jobs' story is more compelling to me: Apple's founding, buying Pixar from Lucas and turning it into a billion dollar business, failing at NeXT, but selling it back to Apple, and then rebuilding Apple with the iPod to chagrin of the loud protests from critics [nytimes.com]:
Founding a successful company is some skill and a lot of luck. Doing it three times (Apple, Pixar, Apple again) is more skill than luck.
Re:throw the first stone (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:let bono decide (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
A parent suggested Gate's charity gave away close to fifty-billion dollars. If I was hiring a team to manage that amount of money I'd want to ensure they were paid very well too, for two key reasons:
1) Paying well ensures you get good-quality people skilled in managing this much money
2) The motivation for embezzlement is reduced if you are well-paid. (This is one of the reason that judges are well-paid in many jurisdictions - They're less susceptible to bribes).
Re:throw the first stone (Score:5, Insightful)
If they screw it up, that's too bad, and if we're in a position to give them advice that will help them to do a thing that will produce more happiness for them, that's wonderful, but usually we're not in that position, and if we aren't, then making judgements about it boils down to gossip.
One might make the argument that it's wrong for a person to amass great wealth in the abstract, and that therefore a person who accidentally amasses great wealth should do their best to divest themselves of it in a constructive way. But again, this falls to the person who makes the "mistake" of amassing this great wealth to judge, not to me.
Now if Mr. Jobs or Mr. Gates were to do something illegal to get their money, or something that we think should be illegal, then we could have a debate about whether the legal system had failed, and what to do about it, but again we wouldn't be talking about whether or not Mr. Jobs or Mr. Gates were a good or bad person - we'd be debating matters of public policy, which in itself would require no judgements to be made about the motivations of either party.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:2, Insightful)
When he has given so much that he has no money left, then maybe he has broken even,
morally.
neither actually (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs on the other hand has always associated himself with cool stuff though none of it can really be attributed to him. He was just sort of there at the right moment, surrounded by brilliant people doing really great stuff.
If I'd have to pick one it would be Jobs. Mainly because I like people capable of thinking out of the box. There's too few of those in this world. And Jobs has certainly proved that he's capable of that. Gates on the other hand
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus Christ you ungrateful bastard.
Yes, I am posting this under my account.
more right-wing BS (Score:2, Insightful)
"Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database."
If this article is about charitable giving, why does the political party recieving the money matter?
"To the best of my knowledge, in the last decade or more, Jobs has not spoken up on any social or political issue he believes in -- with the exception of admitting he's a big Bob Dylan fan."
Oooh, that awful hippy Bob Dylan.
"Jobs once offered to be an advisor to Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election, and he invited President Clinton over for dinner when Bubba visited Silicon Valley in 1996 -- hardly evidence of deep political convictions."
He tried to help Democrats! And everyone knows Clinton is evil, so drag him into it and then tag on a line about Jobs just schmoozing with big Democrats but not really caring about politics.
Is there any liberal a right-wing kook with a Blog won't attack anymore? And why the hell are the right-wingers always so bad at it?
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
In the public's and regulators' minds, Gates and Microsoft are one and the same. Thus, the public and regulators will tend to go easier on MS if they see Gates in a positive light. Regulators will be less likely to penalize anticompetitive MS behavior, switch to Linux, or adopt OpenDocument. Members of the public will be more likely to criticize regulators if they go against MS wishes: "why are you penalizing that nice company and its wonderful CEO who is doing so much to fight world poverty? The worst thing they did was give me a free Web browser!"
I don't know if Gates is truly this cynical, but it is certainly possible that Gates' donations are driven, at least in part, by a desire to help his company financially.
Anonymous or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't care whether it's anonymous or not. He wants the credit? Fine. Let him have it. I mean, imagine that you're some dude living in the third world, and some rich American is willing to spend a few bucks so that you don't die from some easily-preventable disease. He's doing it because he wants to be considered a good guy, rather than because he really cares about you, poor third world person that you are. Do you care? Or are you grateful that he did it, for whatever reason? You bet you're grateful. What's more, you probably consider him to be a pretty good guy.
It's like the actor who, immediately after Katrina, went down to New Orleans, rented a boat with his own money, and started pulling people out of houses. So he had a video crew with him. So? If I'm one of the people he saved, do I care that he wanted some publicity? Not at all. In fact, if I ever wound up talking to a reporter, I'd be sure to mention how this wonderful guy spent his own money to rescue me (thereby giving him some publicity).
I'm no Bill Gates fanboy. I despise his business ethics. But I appreciate his charity work.
Don't require the motives to be perfectly pure. Just be glad that he's doing something, for whatever reason.
Whos the Best Technica Ars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given the choices, all in all, I'd say I'd have to go with Steve Wozniak as my choice for hero, or possibly Larry Wall.
Giving, doing, being (Score:3, Insightful)
Later, I decided that attention to the letter of the law was less important than doing what I thought was right in the higher sense. My opinion of others followed.
Still later, I realized that giving to others of my money, my time, and personal kindness was the key to being a good person. Still, that's how I began to judge.
Now, I don't care about being a "good person" in anyone else's eyes, and I tend to be a lot less judgy than before.
Anonymously helping others, showing kindness when you can, taking care of your responsibilities, and being a good citizen are all faces on the same multisided die.
Giving a trunk full of cash to the needy is no more important than dealing fairly with your customers, your employer, or your employees. An overflowing generosity in public doesn't make up for churlish behavior in private, nor do kind words and clean hands cover stingyness.
It's all the same.
So tip the waitress the price of the meal, and tell her she's great. Hug a child. Vote well. Be virtuous, and you know exactly what I mean.
Life is sweeter if you play nice.
Ok, for those of you who don't know what I mean by virtue: you're not trying.
Re:Who is the bigger hero? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not neccesarily because they don't care for microsofts software.
Perhaps it is because microsoft is a convicted monopolist and Bill Gates is the worst of the bunch. They have been found guilty in court of illegally crushing their competition in the name of profits. Had they not done that, there would have been more competition and prices would have been driven down. Gates and microsoft would not be so rich in the first place and the money would instead distributed in the rest of society where it should have been in the first place.
Gates gestures are nothing IMO compared to the harm he and others have caused society with their monopolistic practices.
This is nothing to do with software, and everything to do with a bunch of over powerful, greedy, damaging people who will stop at nothing to "stay ahead" in their industry.
Forgive me for not falling at their feet when they give a few percent of their immorally gained wealth back to society in some way.
Re:throw the first stone (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't about judging, there are certain facts here. I'll use Gates as an example. He has made no financial sacrifices. WHAT?! But he has given millions upon millions to charity - maybe billions!
About 5 years ago, I did a rough calculation on his net worth. If he gave $1 million away, it was the equivalent of someone worth $100,000 giving away $5. And this didn't account for the fact that both live in the same world, where things cost the same... e.g. if Gates gave away 3/4 of everything he owned, he could still live incredibly comfortably. Someone who makes $50k/year cannot.
And let's remember, Bill Gates named his foundation after himself and his wife. Yes, it is his and he founded it, but it speaks to the level of his altruism (or lack therof). Bill Gates doesn't have to give any of his money away IMO. But when someone goes on and on about how great he is because of his charity, I tell them they are full of shit. He has made no sacrifice to do so.
And he is but one example, there are many others. Why is this even a news story? There are probably people much more deserving of your awe and respect right in your own community.
Re:Gates deserving of "rock star status"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:throw the first stone (Score:1, Insightful)
The only unfair assessment here is your off-topic tirade. Please, enlighten an Anonymous Coward with the logic you use to connect "judging Christians" and "ignoring Catholic charities" to the parent poster's blanket statement--which I interpret to be a bash on the way many (note that GP used the word many, not all) "prominent" Americans whore out their religion for cheap points with the unwashed masses.
Thanks for acting like an ignorant, knee-jerking reactionary. It does your demographic such service.
Generous Criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
TWW
I find the whole thing disturbing (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do they need so much money? I respect the fact they worked bloody hard to get it, but you reach a point where having $1 Billion vs having $10 Billion really doesn't make that much off a difference! Now, imagine what that $9 Billion could do for humanity.
Most donations I see from celebrities and other wealthy individuals represent less than 1% of their net worth. This makes me sick.
Re:Who is the bigger hero? (Score:1, Insightful)
However, I don't think because he has donated more money than I have, he is a better person than I am. Would he be willing to donate enough money so he wasn't listed as the worlds wealthiest individual? When I go to church each week, and put my little donation in, I worry if I will have enough money to put gas in my car to get to work that week, or put milk on the table for my kids. Does Bill have these concerns?
No, I don't consider myself a hero, and I know that a lot of people are worse off. That being said, while I do appreciate what Bill has done, I have seen real heroes, and he doesn't make the cut.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I have to question the veracity of this story on 2 counts:
1. Posted by Anonymous Coward
2. Why would an organization that has free access to MS software use Linux to cut costs?
Donald Knuth (Score:3, Insightful)
My hero would be somebody like Donald Knuth [stanford.edu]. He is a true computer scientist and wrote TAOCP [stanford.edu] and TeX singlehandedly, amongst many other accomplishments.
As a future computer scientist, I would rather be in Knuth's shoes than in Gates's shoes or Jobs's shoes (even though I like Jobs a lot).
Gates' giving is just part of the plan (Score:2, Insightful)
1) He would step out of the CEO role
2) He would step out of the Chairman role
3) That he would spend the rest of his life giving his money away
He has done 1 & 2 and well into 3. He was certainly wealthy back then, but has even more to give away now. Gates is a smart, determined man and it would be out of character for him to execute #3 without a lot of forethought into how best to achieve the desried results. The world is better off with his well planned and reasoned approach to philanthropic giving than the hap-hazzard and self-serving approaches of the Jobs and Ellison varieties.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
OS/2 died because of some really STUPID things IBM did.
1. Insisting that it ran on the 286. That held up development for a very long time and never was very useful. Yes the 386 was out at that time.
2. Too expensive.
3. Lack of driver support. Maybe not IBMs problem but if they hadn't tried to make Microchannel an IBM controlled standard things might have worked out better.
Linux?
When Windows 3.11 was taking off Linux was not usable on the desktop. It didn't run MS-DOS. And printer support was a nightmare.
Without Microsoft there wouldn't be Linux. Linux was born because you could buy relatively cheap 386 computers and a very smart college student didn't want to run MS-D0S and Windows.
IBM+Microsoft+Intel created the mass market expandable open pc. What the world would have been like without Microsoft no one knows. Would be be stuck with expensive closed OS and hardware from IBM? IBM wasn't always the champion of open standards that it is now. In fact if Microsoft hadn't have pushed them into loosing billions of dollars, who knows what they would be like?
Those billions where not sucked out as much as created by the creation of the PC and a standard OS. I just hope that now the next stage will be a return to diversity.
For the life of me I could not figure out why anyone in 1986 bought PC when the Amiga had color, sound, and true multitasking. Not to mention the Atari ST which was also a much more advanced system. I used to wonder why none of the computer magazines declared the PC dead. I understand now.
Bill Gates has not killed anyone. His money may save many thousands of lives. I have often seen people say how much is a life worth when getting bent over profit vs safety. So how much is a life worth vs money got by strong arm business tactics?
And when seeing how much good all the money Microsoft's money has done let's not forget Paul Allen. He has done a lot of good science with his share of all those billions.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:can it be neither? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, see, I didn't know you knew them both well enough to say this. Just out of curiosity, why does Melinda Gates do it then?
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:2, Insightful)
2. - I think Bill Gates just might have the power to get them some free licenses... maybe?
Re:throw the first stone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
puleeeze (Score:1, Insightful)
Now that is a funny statement. You mean two of the most influental figures in allowing the pc to get to where it is today is outwayed by the guys maintaining ogg vorbis? Puleeze. Talk about not even coming close to "getting" it. As much as you may hate windoze, it helped drive the pc into the mainstream. Jobs/Apple helped push gui's into the mainstream (ok, kinda against his will at first, but it was still his company and he still eventually had to give the green light). Linus simply "cloned" (I know, not technically) an existing interface standard. He owes everything to the Unix pioneers before him. How about the BSD guys that allowed much of their kernel to be truely Free (since everyone knows that GPL'ed software isn't truely free right?).
Plus, what's even more disturbing is that you know almost nothing about Linus the man himself. He may torture kittens in his spare time. Of course that'd be ok because he gave us the Linux kernel, right? Nice of you to pick a single attribute and simply use that to identify people as "deserving of praise".
Re:"True" Christianity (Score:4, Insightful)
Sophistry. Being a flawed human being and being a good person are not mutually exclusive. As for you thinking you deserve the wrath of a God who apparently impulsively flooded the entire planet and killed everything ... that is unfortunate. You're probably a decent person in real life.
Wait, so the atrocities in the Old Testament are humanity's fault? God ordered most of them! Hell, he committed a few himself!
That's very poetic, but it makes no sense. God comes down to Earth to lift a curse that he himself put on us? Why not just snap his fingers and make it all better? Isn't he omnipotent? Why all the theatrics? Could it be because Jesus was ripped off of earlier Messiah stories?
Yes, when we try to live by the laws of the Old Testament, everything gets fucked up. But God himself gave those laws to us, and they are clear as day. He himself ordered many massive slaughters in the Old Testament. He even created a slave class out of the Sons of Ham. Humanity isn't perfect, but we're nothing near the monster the Judeo-Christian God is.
Re:The Devil on the Left or the Devil on the Right (Score:3, Insightful)
He died from a fall he took when he was out drinking he was not murdered.
As I said I don't really like Microsoft or Bill Gates but the man is doing a lot of good with the money he has. I suggest you look at what they are doing in health care.
Yea Bill Gates uses illegal tactics in business but he isn't Hitler and he hasn't killed anyone.
Calling it a tax break is a joke (Score:2, Insightful)
a robber barron... (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Wozniak versus Paul Allen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not like you're going to convince anyone with logic; logic doesn't work against the faithful. Life's too short to bother arguing with the Christians, unless you really enjoy that sort of thing. I grew out of that.
What's the third choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the Forbes 2005 net worth list:
$3 billion dollars net worth
$46.5 billion dollars net worth
There is no denying that Bill Gates has donated alot of money. But that isn't too surprising considering he makes a ridiculous amount of money. His money makes ridiculous amounts of money just sitting around. Bill Gates is also seeking good will from the public because his image needs the good will.
While his donations DO help people, it is doubtful that the intentions originated from charitable origins.
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, has a fairly good public image. His goodwill currency is good and he has no need to be charitable. In fact, it could very well be that he donates anonymously so that there isn't publicity drawn to him.
Articles like the one Wired and ArsTechnica leads one to believe that those who donate more are better people. The natural conclusion from such an observation is that richer people are better people because they can donate more. History has shown this to not be the case.
There are quite a few stories, sayings, and proverbs which illustrates the the above. My favorite is one involving donations at a temple during the New Years. Many people are donating money at the local temple. Whenever someone makes a particularly generous donation, there is a gong sounded. A fairly wealthy man comes in and donates chest after chest of gold. He is thanked, but there is no gong sounded. Shortly after, as he is leaving, a poor begger woman approaches and tries to donate a handful of copper coins. When she drops her few coins into the charity box, a monk sounds a gong, signifying a great contribution.
The wealthy man notices this and angrily questions why his many chests of gold did not sound the gong but her's did?
The monk answered that she had very little and yet gave as much as she could. While her few copper coins were not worth much to wealthier people, it was a great sum of money for her. Whereas the amount given by the wealthy man represented a much lesser sum. It was money the man can easily afford to part with whereas the coppers were not for the begger woman.
I do not deny the good the money will do. But I have to say that to judge someone by how much they donate is a poor means of judging.
The wealthy tend to donate because it is something which gives them the attention of others or because the charitable donation garners them profitable returns elsewhere.
Charity really should be for the benefit of those receiving the charity, not for the adulation of the giver. To know that you have done good for an organization, a group, or a cause should be enough. For someone like Bill Gates, such charitable givings are like bandages to his and his company's public image.
In stark contrast, Steve Jobs is a fairly private man. Mainly keeps to himself and doesn't make a scene unless it's at one of his company's presentations or unveilings. He's either at work or he's not. If he donates to charity, he certainly isn't making any noise about having done so.
Given the chance, I'm sure Steve Jobs' company would behave much like a Microsoft Monopoly. But it isn't. And neither is Steve's worth.
Given the choice, I would choose neither Bill nor Steve as my hero. They are both geniuses and visionaries in their own way. But they are not heroes.
You want to pick a hero? Pick Steve Wozniak. Now there is a hero. Pick the local volunteer at the homeless shelter. There's a hero. Pick the dutiful daughter or son who attends to their elderly parents and/or grandparents. Now there's a hero.
There are everyday hero's all around us. But most of us ignore them like we do the beggar woman who gives, because we are so distracted by the chests of gold. I wouldn't choose Bill or Steve.
Its a toss-up (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs I admire for not taking second best, he may be a tyrant to get things done but he knows (or at least knew, I'm not too fond of OSX's shortcommings either) how to get his crew to code the extra hour and make something absoutely great into insanely great (at least he did).
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
The Creationist (or "Intelligent Design") drivel that is destroying our school system is from the Old Testament. It's Christians, not Jews, who want this and not the Theory of Evolution taught in schools.
Sure, Christians don't stone people to death for planting the wrong crops side-by-side -- but who does?
Re:Which Gates is the Best Gates? (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be bothered by this line, too, before I started my own corporation and realized it's a load of crap. The reason that numerically so many corporations don't pay much in taxes is that the vast majority of corporations in America are small businesses. Mom and pop shops, or individuals working for themselves. Many or most of these corporations lose money each year or just barely break even. That's why they pay no taxes. There's no income tax on no income.
I've never seen any numbers on how much tax small business vs. big business pay in taxes each year, just the previously mentioned line that, if you think rationally about it, doesn't mean anything, and is just meant to make non-thinking people's blood boil.