Go back to2005
21 years laterFileCabi is back..Read the story →

The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

Bill Gates Is At It Again

Salvaged from archive These posts were salvaged from the web archive of the original FileCabi forum (2007–2008). Usernames are as they were then and aren’t linked to today’s accounts.
  1. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive29 Jan 2010, 10:08
    Bill Gates just committed to donate another 6.2 billion to help find new vaccines for impoverished countries. Those evil rich folks. I'm telling you, capitalism is evil....isn't it?
  2. MCMXCIISalvaged from archive29 Jan 2010, 10:30
    Yeah, douchebags.. Still, I think Bill Gates is just trying to buy his way into Heaven, to repent for his sin of stealing the design of Windows from Apple, for making shitty operative systems like Windows ME and so on.. :rolleyes2:
  3. QuackersSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2010, 11:51
    Still dosn't make up for windows. I don't really give a shit about dying niggers (infact the longer they stay impoverished, the easier they are to exploit), my comp not crashing is far more important.
  4. mousewallratSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2010, 14:24
    He can never buy his way out of having made and released Vista. All the flu shots on Earth won't fix that.
  5. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive29 Jan 2010, 15:59
    Bill Gates just committed to donate another 6.2 billion to help find new vaccines for impoverished countries. Those evil rich folks. I'm telling you, capitalism is evil....isn't it?No, capitalism isn't evil per se. However, seeing as the chief, even sole (?), value of capitalism is profit then it certainly isn't what I'd call good. Philanthropy, on the other hand, is very worthwhile. Hats off to Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. :thumb:
  6. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive30 Jan 2010, 20:22
    No, capitalism isn't evil per se. However, seeing as the chief, even sole (?), value of capitalism is profit then it certainly isn't what I'd call good. Philanthropy, on the other hand, is very worthwhile. Hats off to Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. :thumb: I guess I don't see how profit is evil. Profit allows a business to expand, and create jobs. It allows for people to receive bonuses, and it rewards hard work. It allows businesses to reward investors that had the foresight to believe in an idea. Without profits, the only way to move forward is through debt or government intervention, which requires someone to give up their income against their will. Profit is the result of building value into a product or service.
  7. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive30 Jan 2010, 21:13
    I didn't say profit was evil HB. Of course capitalism has merit, but unless the drive for profit is balanced by wage, OH & S and environmental constraints -all of which eat into the bottom line- then capitalism can do more harm than good. I'm not disagreeing with you HB; merely pointing out that historically and currently capitalists have had to be dragged screaming and kicking to the table to change business practices: "Catalytic converters? No no, too expensive so we'll have to keep using leaded." Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy could even be seen as a form of socialism.
  8. rubicksSalvaged from archive30 Jan 2010, 21:58
    let us just hope that EVERY $ they donate actually gets used properly
  9. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive30 Jan 2010, 22:48
    I didn't say profit was evil HB. Of course capitalism has merit, but unless the drive for profit is balanced by wage, OH & S and environmental constraints -all of which eat into the bottom line- then capitalism can do more harm than good. I'm not disagreeing with you HB; merely pointing out that historically and currently capitalists have had to be dragged screaming and kicking to the table to change business practices: "Catalytic converters? No no, too expensive so we'll have to keep using leaded." Capitalism is not philanthropy. Philanthropy could even be seen as a form of socialism. I see what you're saying about constraints, but government tends to be overly specific. You mentioned the catalytic converter. Like most things, the government decided it was the best solution and mandated it. Maybe if they would have said that they wanted emissions to be reduced by X amount, and the catalytic converter is one way of doing it...then the brilliant minds that create vehicles that Congress couldn't build in their wildest dreams could have come up with their own solutions. These solutions may have been more cost effective and may have set a new standard. Airbags are great, but maybe I could have achieved the same level of safety and a cooler look by putting a 5 point harness in the 2010 Mustang. I don't know, but I think companies like Ford have more intelligent people than Congress. As for Philanthropy being a form of socialism, nothing could be further from the truth. Philanthropy is just one way of expressing your freedom and liberty. This is what I choose to do with my money. Socialism actually restricts philanthropy by taking what you have earned and deciding what is going to be done with it.
  10. QuackersSalvaged from archive31 Jan 2010, 15:18
    I see what you're saying about constraints, but government tends to be overly specific. You mentioned the catalytic converter. Like most things, the government decided it was the best solution and mandated it. Maybe if they would have said that they wanted emissions to be reduced by X amount, and the catalytic converter is one way of doing it...then the brilliant minds that create vehicles that Congress couldn't build in their wildest dreams could have come up with their own solutions. These solutions may have been more cost effective and may have set a new standard. Airbags are great, but maybe I could have achieved the same level of safety and a cooler look by putting a 5 point harness in the 2010 Mustang. I don't know, but I think companies like Ford have more intelligent people than Congress. That only works if you trust the companies though, look at all the fat cat bosses taking massive bonuses whilst your tax dollars are bailing out their companies? Happened over here too. There may well be a more cost effective way of reducing carbon emissions etc, but can you trust them to do it without compromising the issue when there's money involved?
  11. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive31 Jan 2010, 15:47
    I could also talk about monopolies and price gouging but I don't. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but we need regulations too.
  12. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 07:46
    That only works if you trust the companies though, look at all the fat cat bosses taking massive bonuses whilst your tax dollars are bailing out their companies? Happened over here too. There may well be a more cost effective way of reducing carbon emissions etc, but can you trust them to do it without compromising the issue when there's money involved? We shouldn't have bailed them out. That's the bottom line. We have a bankruptcy system for a reason. The bailout legislation stated that the company had to honor current contracts, which included the bonuses. Companies like AIG were profitable in almost every department except the department that dealt in these sub-prime loans. In a normal bankruptcy hearing, there would have been a restructuring. The restructuring would have resulted in a leaner and more efficient company, and maybe the bonuses wouldn't have been honored. Our government, and our media loves to cherry pick too. They never said a word about the bonuses at Fannie, and Freddie (government run), and they benefited from TARP money also. Since the government has liquidated the toxic assets, Fannie and Freddie (bonuses and all) have shown profits that make Exxon Mobile look like chump change. With the way the government handled this bailout, Fannie and Freddie own the majority of US mortgages. They were a part of the problem, and they are benefiting from it. It's like a big game to the politicians in Washington, and they're doing it at our expense. Regulation is one thing, but stacking the deck is another. As weird as it sounds, it's almost as if government is trying to combine fascism and socialism into one giant cluster fuck. You can't say that you're for the little guy, and then say that someone else is too big to fail. You can't say that Exxon makes too big of a profit, and AIG can't honor contracts, but Fannie and Freddie are A-Okay. Now, Barney Frank wants to get rid of any smaller financial institution that ISN'T too big to fail. I can only assume that he's talking about credit unions, and smaller banks that did well by making smart investments when everyone else was giving sub-prime loans to illegal immigrants without a social security number, and giving adjustable rate mortgages for $500,000.00 homes to people who only have a household income of $50,000. I know you say that we have to trust that people will do the right thing, but I don't trust that the people in Washington are any better than that CEO of a fortune 500 company. I might be able to trust them if all they were doing was regulating, but they're picking who the winners will be and who the losers will be.
  13. QuackersSalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 11:24
    I know you say that we have to trust that people will do the right thing, but I don't trust that the people in Washington are any better than that CEO of a fortune 500 company. I might be able to trust them if all they were doing was regulating, but they're picking who the winners will be and who the losers will be. At the end of the day you choose who's running your country though, you don't pick who the CEO of Walmart is. The people get the government they deserve blah blah blah. The human race is never gonna all play nice and fair though, we're not built that way. It's the idealists who ain't got a grip on reality that piss me off and do the most damage imo.
  14. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 11:49
    I guess collectively we do get the government we deserve. Hopefully we'll do better in the future, and people will also realize that if we don't like a CEO we can take our business elsewhere.
  15. QuackersSalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 11:53
    I guess collectively we do get the government we deserve. Hopefully we'll do better in the future, and people will also realize that if we don't like a CEO we can take our business elsewhere. Collectively getting everyone to take their business elsewhere is even harder than collectively getting everyone to vote for the 'right' politician though. And we all know how well that can turn out. The fairtrade nutjobs have been trying to get people to boycot Nestle or whatever for years to no avail. As much as I hate the idea of forcing anyone to do anything, I think the Aussies have got the right idea in forcing people to vote on election day. Least that way it's not a small percentage of the population choosing a government for everyone else. And you could always spoil your ballot paper.
  16. Echo1Salvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 11:55
    I guess collectively we do get the government we deserve. Hopefully we'll do better in the future, and people will also realize that if we don't like a CEO we can take our business elsewhere. wishful thinking my friend. very wishful thinking.
  17. loadrunnerSalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 13:21
    Money can't buy a place in heaven.
  18. QuackersSalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 13:31
    Um, that would be because heaven is fictional. :thumb:
  19. Echo1Salvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 15:43
    Money can't buy a place in heaven. i have to disagree http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/people/richguy.jpg
  20. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive1 Feb 2010, 16:09
    Collectively getting everyone to take their business elsewhere is even harder than collectively getting everyone to vote for the 'right' politician though. And we all know how well that can turn out. The fairtrade nutjobs have been trying to get people to boycot Nestle or whatever for years to no avail. As much as I hate the idea of forcing anyone to do anything, I think the Aussies have got the right idea in forcing people to vote on election day. Least that way it's not a small percentage of the population choosing a government for everyone else. And you could always spoil your ballot paper.While it's true that it's "against the law" not to vote here, the penalty is a joke. There's no criminal conviction involved which is of course reasonable; but the fine is a mere $25. Given that this number is roughly in the ballpark of average pay rates, and considering that weekend (all elections are on Saturday) time is more valuable (many awards have time-and-a-half weekend loading) then it's not much of a deterrent from a cost-benefit analysis POV. As far as it goes "compulsory" voting is a good idea. Regrettably, it is slightly enfeebled by lack of compulsory education on the candidates and issues, and the ludicrous fact that there is no law against candidates using manipulative, emotive rhetoric in place of actual debate. Now, back on topic: Warren Buffett's pledge to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is about half a million shares (currently worth about $150 million) annually for the twenty years from 2006; providing that Bill and Melinda match it. Malaria is a huge problem. How huge? Malaria vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28epidemiology%29) control, ie. killing anopheles mosquitoes, is the only exemption for an otherwise completely banned substance: DDT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt). A small digression: If the vested interests in the chemical industry had prevailed in the debate on DDT provoked by Rachel Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring), it's quite likely that the Bald Eagle would have had to be re-introduced to the 48 States from Canada and Alaska by now. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contribute to efforts to reduce malaria prevalence. The goal is a vaccine and eventual elimination of the disease, as was done with smallpox. This will reduce childhood mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa by eight percent and reduce the burden of that chronically ill malaria patients currently place on societies that can least afford it: Nothing to sneeze at when you look at the broad picture of development and poverty. As I said before, hats off to the Gateses and Buffett. :thumb:
  21. QuackersSalvaged from archive2 Feb 2010, 06:50
    While it's true that it's "against the law" not to vote here, the penalty is a joke. There's no criminal conviction involved which is of course reasonable; but the fine is a mere $25. Given that this number is roughly in the ballpark of average pay rates, and considering that weekend (all elections are on Saturday) time is more valuable (many awards have time-and-a-half weekend loading) then it's not much of a deterrent from a cost-benefit analysis POV. As far as it goes "compulsory" voting is a good idea. Regrettably, it is slightly enfeebled by lack of compulsory education on the candidates and issues, and the ludicrous fact that there is no law against candidates using manipulative, emotive rhetoric in place of actual debate. LOL, well over here more people voted in the first season of xfactor than they did in the election around then....
  22. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive2 Feb 2010, 07:04
    LOL, well over here more people voted in the first season of xfactor than they did in the election around then....It's facts like these that make me want to... umm... do something extremely unpleasant to about 65% of all people. :mad:
  23. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive2 Feb 2010, 13:52
    While it's true that it's "against the law" not to vote here, the penalty is a joke. There's no criminal conviction involved which is of course reasonable; but the fine is a mere $25. Given that this number is roughly in the ballpark of average pay rates, and considering that weekend (all elections are on Saturday) time is more valuable (many awards have time-and-a-half weekend loading) then it's not much of a deterrent from a cost-benefit analysis POV. As far as it goes "compulsory" voting is a good idea. Regrettably, it is slightly enfeebled by lack of compulsory education on the candidates and issues, and the ludicrous fact that there is no law against candidates using manipulative, emotive rhetoric in place of actual debate. Now, back on topic: Warren Buffett's pledge to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is about half a million shares (currently worth about $150 million) annually for the twenty years from 2006; providing that Bill and Melinda match it. Malaria is a huge problem. How huge? Malaria vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28epidemiology%29) control, ie. killing anopheles mosquitoes, is the only exemption for an otherwise completely banned substance: DDT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt). A small digression: If the vested interests in the chemical industry had prevailed in the debate on DDT provoked by Rachel Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring), it's quite likely that the Bald Eagle would have had to be re-introduced to the 48 States from Canada and Alaska by now. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contribute to efforts to reduce malaria prevalence. The goal is a vaccine and eventual elimination of the disease, as was done with smallpox. This will reduce childhood mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa by eight percent and reduce the burden of that chronically ill malaria patients currently place on societies that can least afford it: Nothing to sneeze at when you look at the broad picture of development and poverty. As I said before, hats off to the Gateses and Buffett. :thumb: Won't all those additional lives contribute to global warming, and overpopulation? LOL....global warming....I laugh every time I say it :40:
  24. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive2 Feb 2010, 15:14
    ^^^ They sure will contribute to AGW. Probably to the tune of about one fifth of the average Australian's CO2 emissions, but there you go. Yep, the IPCC have been caught out with one false claim recently, over Himalayan Glaciers. The more recent brouhaha over Amazon desertification is more a case of referencing secondary sources... Still, the precautionary principle is a pretty powerful argument for curbing greenhouse gas emissions... if only it could be applied to curtail international arms sales.
  25. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive2 Feb 2010, 15:39
    I'm currently working on a catalytic converter that fits inside the human throat. It reduces CO2 emissions associated with the human respiratory system. If I can make it work, I'm sure I can get legislation passed that will require all humans to wear one. I'll be RICH AS FUCK!!!

Reply

Sign in or create an account to reply to this old topic.

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.