And without pretending that he can fix the world. Which is fatuous and provides a cover for business to continue as usual. Ellison is satisfied with being destructive in one domain of affairs. Gates isn't happy with just screwing up computing. He has to poop other people's parties, too.
I don't believe the children who would have died from diseases the Western world doesn't even have anymore would call it "screwing up" their lives.
He's trying to eradicate disease and help people who don't have billions of dollars, or even millions...or even hundreds of dollars to their name.
Bill Gates didn't screw up computing. The Microsoft that exists today is an entirely different animal than it was when it was just a startup, just as Google and Apple are different.
This isn't cynicism about startups' growth trends; this is a point that Bill Gates has revolutionized the entire industry multiple times over. How he chooses to spend his wealth is what most people would call generous and altruistic.
Wow. That was amazingly insightful. However, comparing Microsoft to Linux or Macintoshes is like comparing Sushi to French Fries or Pork. Each one has its draws and vehement opponents. So yes, they are all different, even Microsoft today and Microsoft circa 1994.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, as I thought everything I said was pretty self-evident. But thank you.
Although I wasn't comparing the operating systems, I was comparing the pattern of the companies' growth and changing management over the years. That's why I included Google.
Not necessary unemployment, maybe conversion. Perhaps cleaning industries will take care of providing and deploying hydrophobic substances in toilets, firms, public services etc.
Or maybe as you suggest it will create a completly new market. It depends entirely on the ability of these companies to move forward.
If I were a bettin' man I'd wager that more people have access to the internet than to public libraries.
Also, no one ever snags that last book that you really need for class. (Instead publishers charge you out the ass for a digital copy you dont even own!)
Not sure why you need a cognitive explanation for what, outside rightist establishments, is hardly a controversial sentiment.
Western countries telling the rest of the world what to do is not only condescending; it repackages old imperial propagandas of improvement, development, dependency, etc., and serves to further entrench Western power abroad.
>Western countries telling the rest of the world what to do is
Bill Gates is not a Western country. He is a really smart guy who has proved himself pretty good at solving big problems by spending his own money. [1]
If you read the article, he actually criticizes aid linked to furthering political interests. All he is saying is "Aid and development programmes should use feedback to improve things they do." I can't think of a good reason why any one on hacker news who would disagree with such a simple, logical argument.
Are we so blinded by misdeeds of Western nations in the past that we want a man who has experience running some of the largest scale aid operations in the world to shut up and not talk about what he has learned just because he is a citizen of America and he is white?
Except that the Gates Foundation acts like one. Its endowment is larger than the GDP about half of the countries of the world. It exists to promote a "creative capitalism" in which the domain of public, governmental services is now understood to be yet another market open for business (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/billg/speeches/2008...).
Give me Ellison over Gates any day.