http://www.prognosisx.com/cgi-bin/cg...one&id=19&op=t

Interesting. Although they have so much money it wont make a difference to them. Microsoft could shut down today and the Gates' would still be the one of the richest people in the world, even after giving all that money to charity.

Tax write-offs not withstanding, I think Bill Gates is probably a pretty charitable guy when it comes to things other than strong-arming computer sellers.

Of course, a lot of rich people become charitable, I reckon.

What's with the "possibly"? On the news and primetime news programs over the last many years they have had stories on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

They support humanitarian projects around the world. So what if they're getting a tax cut. At least they're doing something.

I didnt know about him giving to charity, although now you mention it I think i recall somebody mentioning something about him giving to charity in another forumn hence the topic.
However they are playing with the data slightly, as other people are giving a much bigger % of there total net worth. The other people arent giving as much money, but they are giving as much as they can afford.

Anyway, I'm not saying the Gates' arent generous, I just found the article interesting. Although this still doesnt explain why people get charged so much for so little .

He gets a good tax break and if you check with your local library he probably gave them computers so users could get on the internet. I don't know what motivates this; true philanthropy or to get Windows on those computers

Anyway, he is a hard-nosed buisnessman who doesn't think ANY source code should be open source. My main difference with him is philosophical.

It is not a secret that they do charitable things. As I (may) have said before, I don't really have a problem the guy (I am not one of those people that goes 'Kill Bill Gates'), and to be perfectly honest, I don't really have a problem with the company (if any company is allowed to become that large, they are likely to adopt unsavoury business practices to keep them in that position), and I even don't have a problem with some of their product (they do make good mice/keyboards/joysticks/etc, if somewhat overpriced). I do, however, have a problem with their two main pieces of software. I say leave the man alone and go for the company.

And what about the $25mil the Bill and Melinda foundation put towards GM research in developing nations?

Oh what a nice guy.

I'm not too sure whether you mean this in a genuine 'oh what a nice guy' or that is sarcasm (you may notice that I usually put in html style tags to denote sarcasm, etc).

<rant>
As far as GM is concerned: I all for it! Personally I see no problem with taking the genes from one plant species and putting them into another plant species. It is basically hyper selective breeding. I have read about people being scared of the scientists putting animal genes into plants, and so on, but a) it doesn't tend to work too well, b) so how do you think they produce penicillin? They take the genes from penicillin producing yeasts and insert them into bacterial cultures that can be used in batch to mass produce the drug. You don't get people being hysterical about penicillin production.

Anyway, I think GM crops is the way forward for developing nations. Certainly for those in harsher climates.
</rant>

Yes, that is indeed sarcasm.
I don't have any problem with GM itself but there is no way I trust any of the corporations on this planet to use such a powerful tool responsibly.
This is the building blocks of life we're playing with here. We don't have the knowledge or the experience to understand the ramifications of the changes we are making. Mistakes are not an option. All any of these corps are interested in is making a profit.
They are quite happy to sacrifice the lives and welfare of the people to turn a buck. This they have demonstrated over and over. They will not test their changes enough, that would cost too much and take too much time. They do not disclose the full details of what they do and don't know.
The government agencies that should be keeping tabs on this are corrupt, especially in developing nations. The US government is a farce and interested in no one else (including the people of the US) but themselves and the continuing mindless economic growth.
Do we really need GM food to feed the people of the planet? I don't believe so. Why not just our GM knowledge and tools to monitor and learn from the natural breeding processes? What's so wrong with the plant's we have today that we need to take risks we don't understand? We don't need to push this technology as fast as possible, in fact we need to take the time to allow it to mature before we put it to use and wide scale production.

Do you really trust Bill and his gang of suits with your future? That is what he's buying here.

may be he is doing this stuff for microsoft future because some day their CDs can have label

"Please buy us and help the poor children in ugenda"

why dont they do a charity for schools and some free educational campuses and give them a free license of their OS.
Popular people do this to become the part of the news.they donate less and advertise more.

People could then go to "The School of Bill"

Free licences for Windows from Microsoft in Uganda, eh? I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that if a country doesn't have copyright laws of its own (and I think that Uganda is in that category) then copying and distributing 'pirated' copies of the software was perfectly legal (a US company cannot, I believe, prosecute for someone breaking a US law in a country that does not also have that law... think Skylarov), so free (as in no money) licences of Windows are available anyway.

Considering the number of people on the planet that are starving to death on a daily basis, I would say yes we do need GM plants. Production of GM strains that resistant to disease and can thrive in areas of low water would go along way to allow these countries to feed themselves without having to depend on foreign food aid which (usually) has strings attached.