Giving it away

[ibe98765]

This weeks Businessweek has some very good stories on philanthropy entitled "America's Top Givers" and some of the good it does for the world. Note the Bill & Melinda Gates are far ahead of anyone else! Even if you hate Windows, at least some of your money is going to worthy causes...http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/0...00348giving.htmI believe this link should be generally available to all but as a subscriber, I'm not sure. Give it a try.

[beeTee]

It works for me....which usually means it should work for ANYbody.

[havnblast]

@beeTee -- got to have more confidence than that in yourself

[Guest LilBambi]

Yep, always gives me the 'warm and fuzzies' to know we pay more so they can look good and get tax breaks. LOL! Sheesh! I don't think I will be going to businessweek for any more articles. My popup stopper was in overdrive while loading AND closing the browser window for that site! Bet half of them were WhenU popups ... courtesy of U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds!

[ibe98765]

Yep, always gives me the 'warm and fuzzies' to know we pay more so they can look good and get tax breaks.  LOL! Sheesh! I don't think I will be going to businessweek for any more articles. My popup stopper was in overdrive while loading AND closing the browser window for that site! Bet half of them were WhenU popups ... courtesy of  U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds!

Hmmm, curious... There's always a variety of ways to look at any subject. Steve Ballmer, in a recent interview, said that their statistics show the average person only gets a new OS when they buy new hardware and that tends to be every 4 years. He goes on to say that since a company like Dell pays around $50 for the OS, the average consumer is therefore paying about $12.50/year for the OS. Are you saying that $12.50/year is too high a price?????? Another example: State supported gambling in the form of lotteries is a losing bet, percentage wise. But since most states allocate a high percent of the lottery revenues to education, many people tend to look at the tickets as a way of giving to education. Not sure what you mean about the pop-ups. If you have a pop-up stopper, why are you seeing anything at all? I don't see anything myself but I have two pop-up blockers running. One in Slim Browser and the other in my ad block filter (Filtergate).

[Guest LilBambi]

Well, as far as Windows pricing goes, I haven't bought a 'NEW' computer since 1990. I buy my own parts at discount and built my own. So I am approaching it from a different view point.As far as popups go, I am aware of the popups that my popup stopper stops even though I don't see them.

[pc-tecky]

Hmm, prices for OSes. Oh please! Like everybody pays the same price. I laugh at that claim everytime I hear it now. Did I just see it's only worth $50? Oh the bitter truth. Despite the claim that everybody pays the same price, I think we all know better than that as volume pricing exists, and I think we all know there are at least 5 price ranges for the OS. And Ofiice is just as bad. Going with brand name might get you somewhere on the cheap, but look at what you get. Buy retail and pay $300 for Windows XP Pro. Buy OEM and pay $160 for XP Pro with other new hardware of course. Students and teachers get to pay $60-$130 for full or upgrade (respectively - depending on institution) XP Pro.Sorry, doesn't the economic rules say the more supply and the more demand the lower the price, or something like that? So is Microsoft willfully overpriced, or holding back supply to hold the price artifically high? How does it defy the rules like that?

[ibe98765]

Hmm, prices for OSes. Oh please! Like everybody pays the same price. I laugh at that claim everytime I hear it now. Did I just see it's only worth $50? Oh the bitter truth. Despite the claim that everybody pays the same price, I think we all know better than that as volume pricing exists, and I think we all know there are at least 5 price ranges for the OS. And Ofiice is just as bad. Going with brand name might get you somewhere on the cheap, but look at what you get. Buy retail and pay $300 for Windows XP Pro. Buy OEM and pay $160 for XP Pro with other new hardware of course. Students and teachers get to pay $60-$130 for full or upgrade (respectively - depending on institution) XP Pro.Sorry, doesn't the economic rules say the more supply and the more demand the lower the price, or something like that? So is Microsoft willfully overpriced, or holding back supply to hold the price artifically high? How does it defy the rules like that?

I think you are trying to turn your personal perception into a generalization that applies to everyone. And that would be incorrect. I would venture to guess that Steve Ballmer knows pretty well where his sales come from. When he says the majority of people get their OS through a new hardware purchase and the typical price they sell to the hardware manufacturer is $50, I think we can count on that being accurate.I brought the system I have now in early 2001 and it came with Win2k. About one year later (2002), I upgraded to WinXP Pro. I paid $150 through Amazon. I expect this will last me until Longhorn comes out and gets stable. Let's say 2006. I may or may not upgrade the box or some pieces by then or I might buy another system. But if I don't, then it looks like I will get 5 years of use out of WinXP Pro. Let's see, that's $150/5 which = $30/year net cost. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. If you want unreasonable, how about a company like Intuit where you generally have to spend $40-70 EVERY YEAR to keep up-to-date on their software. Similarly with Symantec and many other big name software companies. Oh and don't forget all the shareware authors who feel their single function product is worth $30-50 plus another $10-15 every time they engineer another release number upgrade.I think too many people like to pick on Microsoft because, well just because they are Microsoft. Their products are really not overpriced when amortized over the term of usage.Personally, given that I don't think I am being overcharged by Microsoft, I'm happy to see that some of the money I spend with them winds up going to worthy causes through Bill Gates philanthropy, which is more than can be said for money that I pay to many other companies...

[Jeber]

doesn't the economic rules say the more supply and the more demand the lower the price,

This is the model that has served us well for many years, but was really intended for the manufacturers of hard goods. Say I want to make and sell widgets. First I have to spend money to design my widgets, and build a plant to make them, and hire workers. When I have widgets to sell, I have to price them with a mind to recoup my expenses. The more widgets I sell, the less I have to charge for each one to make the same profit. So the greater the demand, the lower the price.But software doesn't fit that same model. The manufacturing process is already in place, so I only have to hire employees to write the code and spend a few dollars per disk to have my program ready for distribution (even cheaper if I only provide electronic delivery). So the price doesn't change much due to demand. If it's an ongoing project (say an OS), I have to retain the employees and the cost to make the disks stays constant, so the price most likely will as well.That's really oversimplified. But I hope it makes sense.

[GolfProRM]

Wow... this thread is going off topic even for the water cooler! Wasn't this about philanthropy?

[Jeber]

We were simply tracing the origins of the money being used in the mentioned philanthropic ventures. We're we guys?Guys?Oh guys...

[ibe98765]

I wish I had enough money to give it away. Here's another good story that ran on 60 Minutes last Sunday. About the medical Foundation Howard Hughes set up before he died and which now has about $11 billion to work with and is funding some great science!http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/...ain584945.shtml

[pc-tecky]

Thanks Jeber for the explanation and sorry for veering off topic. In a strange twisted logic, I've paid my dues through Gates' Microsoft. I suppose I should throw in my last 2 cents for good measure into the movement and declare myself officially poor. Maybe I can get more money that way. B)

[Prelude76]

oh, for pete's sake. i'm so with lil'bambi's view on this. this is called "charitable donations" so that your taxes are lower. Just look at number 2. we are to believe that a person worth $5 billion is giving $7 billion, or 144% of his assets? or that one guy who gave 247% of his assests? is anyone buying this load of bs?wouldnt that leave him $2 billion in debt?no. he gave $7billion in donations from his company, Intel, which might've saved the company $15 billion in taxes over the 4 years they are calculating, and he probably got a billion dollar CEO bonus for his 'good job'. so in the end, a charity got $7billion, taxpayers got shafted from $15 billion, and the world's richest billionaires keep getting richer AND they get to be called philantropists instead of their real term, crooks.the article should only list direct contributions from personal wealth, NOT charitable donations from company's coffers.

[ibe98765]

oh, for pete's sake.  i'm so with lil'bambi's view on this.  this is called "charitable donations" so that your taxes are lower.  Just look at number 2.  we are to believe that a person worth $5 billion is giving $7 billion, or 144% of his assets? or that one guy who gave 247% of his assests?  is anyone buying this load of bs?wouldnt that leave him $2 billion in debt?no.  he gave $7billion in donations from his company, Intel, which might've saved the company $15 billion in taxes over the 4 years they are calculating, and he probably got a billion dollar CEO bonus for his 'good job'.  so in the end, a charity got $7billion, taxpayers got shafted from $15 billion, and the world's richest billionaires keep getting richer AND they get to be called philantropists instead of their real term, crooks.the article should only list direct contributions from personal wealth, NOT charitable donations from company's coffers.

Argh! So much negativity...It would be be best to spend the time reading through ALL the material available at the link instead of taking a few itmes out of context and jumping to mistaken conclusions.All the gifts tallied up in the list of The 50 Most Generous Philanthropists was from their own PERSONAL fortunes, not drawn from the companies they are or were associated with. As is explained at Methodology: Counting The Bounty

We ranked the Top 50 by what they've pledged and given in the past five years. We also estimated their total contributions and presented these figures as a percentage of each candidate's current net worth, for another way of measuring generosity.We chose to count pledges because we believe gifts alone don't adequately reflect a philanthropic culture in which donors often make sweeping multiyear promises that inspire their peers to greater charitable endeavors. But pledges proved difficult to value. In many cases, the gift amount had changed since the pledge was made. For example, Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY ) heiress Ruth Lilly's $100 million pledge to Poetry magazine was worth roughly 25% less by the time her bank cashed in the promised shares of Lilly stock. For consistency, we counted all pledges at their value at the time they were announced.

If your beef is with donations by coporations, then I'd suggest you read the segment on that here: The Corporate Donors which discusses the possible value and downsides of corporate specfic donations.As to taxes, remember that even a tax deduction is only a percent of the total amount (maximum 35% in the USA currently). You have to lay out 100% to get say, 35% back in tax reductions. In this example, that's still a net difference of 65% out of the person's/companies pocket. Two, the fact that a tax deduction is involved is not necessarily a negative. Taxation policy can be used to encourage certain behaviors which in the final analysis, have a greater potential for good in society than the loss of the tax revenues to the system. And at its most cynical, one could posit that the less money any government gets, the better, since politicians tend to spend anything they can get their hands on.

[Prelude76]

from their own PERSONAL fortunes, not drawn from the companies they are or were associated with

ok, then figure this out mathematically:how did one person donate 147% of his assests to charity?and another, over 240%? i just find their calculations fishy. not calling them outright LIARS, but something is not amiss. VERY VERY misleading to say Bill Gates donates 54% of his money, while Intel donates 147% of his money. numbers are being fudged around somewhere.

[Prelude76]

and about philantropist numbero uno, bill gates...Peru was going to pass legislation to adopt 100% open-source across government. Bill Gates flies in, gives $550 million charitable donation. Peru reconsiders and sticks with M$ products.India was considered switching everything to open-source. Bill Gates flies in. $100 million given to AIDS. $400 million given to Indian schools. India still undecided on open-source (look for more India donations soon).some might call it Charitable Donations, but it sometimes goes by other term:Bribe (def.) - Payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment.also known as hush money; kickback; payola sorry for being always so negative, but i call it the way i see it. the day i believe that the first man who reached the $100 Billion mark (back in 1999) is also the number one Philantropist, well, its the day i'll start believing that GW Bush's has a fair and just plan to bring peace and freedom to the Middle East.

[ibe98765]

from their own PERSONAL fortunes, not drawn from the companies they are or were associated with

ok, then figure this out mathematically:how did one person donate 147% of his assests to charity?and another, over 240%? i just find their calculations fishy. not calling them outright LIARS, but something is not amiss. VERY VERY misleading to say Bill Gates donates 54% of his money, while Intel donates 147% of his money. numbers are being fudged around somewhere.

One more time, sigh...1. PLEASE read the quoted section in my post, right above yours that I am quoting in this one. It explains how the amounts were determined and quite clearly explains how and why the amount given can be higher than apparent income.2. Again, Gordon & Betty Moore ARE NOT Intel...

[ibe98765]

sorry for being always so negative, but i call it the way i see it.

The glass is either half-empty or half-full... Each person makes the choice to take a negative or positive view. How about we leave it at that and move on?

[Prelude76]

sorry for being always so negative, but i call it the way i see it.

The glass is either half-empty or half-full... Each person makes the choice to take a negative or positive view. How about we leave it at that and move on?

yeah, but sometimes its 3/4 empty, in which case, whats the point of concentrating on the 1/4 that's full? i had a good debate going on with someone else on another board, and they kept insisting US did no harm to Vietnam, that 3 million vietnamese dead should be viewed in a good way since US could've 'nuked' them and did a lot more harm. i mean, thats like looking into a glass that has a driplet of water in it and saying "it's still full". dont get me wrong, i'm happy that Gates and the others are donating so much of their wealth, but when taken in context of all the competitors he crushed and entire markets he engulfed on his way to the top, his donations once he's reached the very top of the ladder (first $100 billion man ever, let's not forget) makes his donations seem fishy.then again, maybe they're all trying to make amends for all the wrong they've done in life before they have to meet the maker.

[ibe98765]

sorry for being always so negative, but i call it the way i see it.

The glass is either half-empty or half-full... Each person makes the choice to take a negative or positive view. How about we leave it at that and move on?

yeah, but sometimes its 3/4 empty, in which case, whats the point of concentrating on the 1/4 that's full?

Please... There must be something good you can say about something?

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Hansen1.htmlCREATING A POSITIVE ATTITUDE TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE RESULTS - By Mark Victor Hansen  Your attitude determines the state of world you live in. It is the foundation for every success and every failure you have had and will have. Your attitude will make you or break you. Attitude creates the way you feel about people and situations. Your actions are a result of your attitude, which, in turn, creates a reaction from others. So, basically, what you think...you get. It is your attitude toward others and the Universe that determines the resultant attitude toward you. Incorporate a positive, joyful attitude and you'll have positive, joyful results. Put out a bad, negative attitude and you've failed before you begin. I know it sounds simple, but the truth is...it IS simple! WHERE DO NEGATIVE ATTITUDES COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Negative attitudes come from thinking negative thoughts over and over until they have become a part of your subconscious – they've become habitual, a part of your personality. You may not even realize you have a negative attitude because it's been with you for so long. Once you have a bad attitude, you expect failure and disaster. This expectation turns you into a strong magnet for failure and disaster. Then it becomes a vicious circle. You expect the worst - you get the worst - your negative beliefs are reinforced – you expect the worst – you get... ...Got the picture? SO, HOW DO WE SHIFT OUR THOUGHTS AND CREATE A POSITIVE ATTITUDE? It takes work, but creating anything of value takes work. In order to have a new attitude we have to change our subconscious thinking. How do we do this? By analyzing every thought we have until positive thinking becomes habit. You're merely replacing an old habit with a healthy habit, much like replacing exercise for smoking. You can't just stop being negative – you have to replace those negative thoughts with positive ones. Some people would say, "But negative situations are a reality. They just show up in every day life." This is absolutely not true. Situations are a reality, yes. They do show up. It is your ATTITUDE that makes a situation positive or negative. It's time for you to realize that YOU are in control of how you think and feel – no one else on earth has this power unless you give it away. Take control of your attitude, and you take control of your results. "Your state of mind creates the state of your results."

[Prelude76]

ibe98765, are you trying to get me on Dr. Phil show? "Be Positive. Be Well. Smile" :ermm:i dont think its that i have a negative state of mind, i think it's more like i refuse to believe the richest 100 billion dollar man can dare be called biggest 'giver' to the world. it's about as silly as when Henry Kissinger got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969 (i think it was that year).

[ibe98765]

ibe98765, are you trying to get me on Dr. Phil show?  "Be Positive.  Be Well.  Smile" 

Just trying to help out...

How to get on the Dr. Phil show:http://www.drphil.com/show/boths.jhtml

[ibe98765]

Anyway, back on topic (hopefully)...Here's two good stories I read in the newspaper today.This guy is perhaps one of the most generous people in the world. And yet, there are people who still disparage him.

Thursday November 27, 2003By JERRY SCHWARTZAP National WriterJENKINTOWN, Pa. (AP) Zell Kravinsky doesn't get it. He has tried, he says, to live a moral life. How could he be the bad guy?Starting from nothing, he made millions and then gave millions away to save human lives.Then, this summer, he relinquished something more precious. He donated one of his kidneys to a complete stranger, a poor woman who had struggled through life.And yet, he has suffered insults and attacks by Internet posters, like the man who called him "a nut job.'' By newspaper columnists, like the one who questioned his motives."Generous man or heartless lunatic?'' read the headline.Kravinsky is befuddled. ``I'm not generous and I'm not insane,'' he says. "Maybe the sanest thing I do is to give things away.''The Giver 

And here is a positive story that happened over 30 years of time.

Disfiguring burns link two men across decadesPatient, caregiver inspired each other after Detroit nightclub arsonBy Helen O'Neill, AP special correspondentNovember 27, 2003SOUTHFIELD, Mich. -- Thirty years after the fire, Delbert McCoy blinked again for the first time. Using reconstructed eyelids that surgeons fashioned from skin grafted from his leg, McCoy just blinked and blinked for days. Having eyelids meant being able to close his eyes to sleep. It meant an end to constant infections that had partially blinded him. It meant he could shed real tears. So McCoy allowed himself some tears. He wept because the operation brought such hope -- that maybe there was more the doctors could do, that perhaps one day he might have a nose again, and lips, and ears and hair. And he wept because it brought back memories of a time when he was healthy and strong, when his eyes shone shyly from his handsome young face and his skin was smooth, a time when strangers didn't shudder, or stare, or turn away. Disfiguring burns link two men across decades

[Cluttermagnet]

ibe98765, are you trying to get me on Dr. Phil show?  "Be Positive.  Be Well.  Smile"  :ermm:i dont think its that i have a negative state of mind, i think it's more like i refuse to believe the richest 100 billion dollar man can dare be called biggest 'giver' to the world.  it's about as silly as when Henry Kissinger got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969 (i think it was that year).

Perhaps you need to pick your fights more carefully, Prelude. When you looked into that big vault, you saw both the huge piles of money and gold bullion on one side and the piles of dead bodies on the other side. Your own calculations show it to be a cynical zero-sum game. But you cannot control the biases and perceptions of others.For my part, I was a bit disappointed to hear about Peru. If I remember right, that was the country whose minister wrote a devilishly rapier- witted letter explaining how Linux was a better deal for that little country. It was a satisfying read, but I realized even then that throwing around large amounts of weight- and money- can sometimes make the inferior product look 'best' and reverse technically sound decisions. Like I say, cynical zero-sum game. So Peru caved. Too bad. In street fights, it is not always the 'best' who win. So they went above the head of the minister and greased the palms of some greasy pols. What's new? Maybe they let the guy live- stuffed his clothing so full of million peso notes that he could hardly stand unassisted. He was made to see 'the truth' by his associates. Whatever.As I see it, you can stay here in this no-win zone and let yourself be labeled "negative" for not wearing the mandatory blinders, or you can move on. I suggest you do the latter, in affirmation of your being your own best judge of your own reality. Abandon the argument, gain your freedom, eh? When someone tries to serve you a fancy catered meal- in an outhouse- and it does not please you- what can you do but move on? Having no sense of smell, they are never going to understand your 'poor manners'. Oh, I tried soooo hard to stay out of this thread, but putting a blonde wig on a bulldog and trying to pass it off as a hollywood startlet doesn't pass the 'smell test'. (Sign in outdoor market) "Don't worry about the flies, we won't weigh 'em!""Now, player, what are you doing here? Well, I want to get out.Ah, well then you're going to have to play to win. OK, but how do I win?Abandon the game..."(Thanks Firesign Theatre)

[beeTee]

"Now, player, what are you doing here? Well, I want to get out.Ah, well then you're going to have to play to win. OK, but how do I win?Abandon the game..."

Hey CM, is that from the "Ender's Game" series? or maybe from SK "Hearts in Atlantis"??? something about "number 7"curious, curious

[ibe98765]

As I see it, you can stay here in this no-win zone and let yourself be labeled "negative" for not wearing the mandatory blinders, or you can move on. I suggest you do the latter, in affirmation of your being your own best judge of your own reality.

I've been expecting you to weigh in here CM. Negative people are rarely willing to acknowledge that the label may be correct. Somewhat akin to compulsive gamblers, drug addicts and so on who are unable/refuse to acknowledge their addiction. It takes a lot of soul-searching to be able to do so. So yes, rather than dig to the truth and attempt to deal with the issue, as you suggest, often it is easier to just pull your own blinders tighter and move on. From: http://www.nanay.com/MEDICAL%20NEWS/Englis...rt%20Attack.htm

People with negative attitude have 4.7 times greater risk of coronary heart disease compared to those with positive attitude in life. 

[Cluttermagnet]

"Now, player, what are you doing here? Well, I want to get out.Ah, well then you're going to have to play to win. OK, but how do I win?Abandon the game..."

Hey CM, is that from the "Ender's Game" series? or maybe from SK "Hearts in Atlantis"??? something about "number 7"curious, curious

No, it is not from either of those, so far as I know, but perhaps they inspired it. I should always add attributions, in my case usually the Firesign Theatre. They wrote some of my best material, many years ago. Many of us just keep recycling their timeless humor. I always try to give credit where due. This time I forgot for some reason. The first brief quote was from an earlier Firesign work, the 5-line quote is from a later Firesign work with only 3 out of the 4 crazy guys recording. Phil Proctor was busy with his work at NPR (National Public Radio) at the time, and did not participate. The album was called "Eat Or Be Eaten" and had a definite mid-1980's computer game or more likely arcade game flavor to it. The entire album is about how an ace gamer buys a flawed high skill level game and manages to navigate it safely from beginning to end, and even to 'win'. I always loved their definition of 'winning'. I happen to agree with it. It reminds me of the classic bamboo 'chinese finger grip puzzle', which requires mental flexibility to master, but only the first time. Play that game the wrong way, and you can tear a finger off. This being exactly my point- some arguments are just not worth staying in, and are intrinsically 'no win' for most (depends on your motives).

[Prelude76]

As I see it, you can stay here in this no-win zone and let yourself be labeled "negative" for not wearing the mandatory blinders, or you can move on. I suggest you do the latter, in affirmation of your being your own best judge of your own reality.

Negative people are rarely willing to acknowledge that the label may be correct. Somewhat akin to compulsive gamblers, drug addicts and so on who are unable/refuse to acknowledge their addiction. It takes a lot of soul-searching to be able to do so. So yes, rather than dig to the truth and attempt to deal with the issue, as you suggest, often it is easier to just pull your own blinders tighter and move on.

Clutter, i got your reference to the mandatory herd-mentality blinders, yet somehow it was twisted and mislabeled to ibe's definition of 'blinders'.my brother took a seminar called "Positive Reassurance Training" for a sales job he had. ever since then, he's not the same. 'brain-washed' seems to come to mind, but its not exactly that too. bascially, he kept believing everything was good and happy and POSITIVE, and that nothing can hurt him as long as he's positive. in those courses (not unlike that cheezy computer game you mentioned in "Christmas gifts ideas, ibe), they teach you to be well, brother. be well, ignore negative elements, only see positives in people. well, he got swindled out of $75,000 in high-risk investment by some of his co-workers, and had to declare bankruptcy at the end of it. let's hear it for Positiveness. a cynic (or a negative person as you refer to it incorrectly) would've seen right thru that business plan to ship rocks from the north to the city so people can put big boulders on their lawn. sarcasm: ON(Prelude goes and puts on his blinders, says "baaaah, baaaah" a few times to clear the throat, and plumps down in front of Television and tunes in to Fox News to be re-educated properly so he can be re-born as a productive patriotic serf so he can toil away in Lord Gates' empire in the lovely land of Bushtopia.)scarcasm: OFF

[rolanaj]

Well lets all put our rose tinted glasses on and pretend that the world is a perfect place full of love and charity. If we refuse to see the bad then we are not obligated to fix anything, because of course nothing is wrong. Excuse my sarcasm but there is a difference between being a positive person and buring your head in the sand. The world is not a perfect place nor is it even mostly decent and good look around, there is starvation and hunger everywhere, the rich do get richer and the poor just exist.

Negative people are rarely willing to acknowledge that the label may be correct. Somewhat akin to compulsive gamblers, drug addicts and so on who are unable/refuse to acknowledge their addiction. It takes a lot of soul-searching to be able to do so. So yes, rather than dig to the truth and attempt to deal with the issue, as you suggest, often it is easier to just pull your own blinders tighter and move on.

And people with there head buried in the sand are usually unaware that's where it is.