In response to Bill Gates is ONLY listed as having 9 Patents. So what. Giving $58 Billion to various charities is a far more greater achievement than Steve Jobbs has achieved!
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
We have no idea as to what his plans are for after he passes on. I have little doubt that it will leave us impressed.
Any predictions on where his money will be directed? (Mine: Climate change-related issues).
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
Your thought process is exactly why Gates is giving away money that he doesn't need, to redeem his image for posterity.
How many people remember that Andrew Carnegie was a brutal, selfish, uncaring bastard who built his fortune on the blood of American workers, not to mention the victims of the Johnstown flood? Not many. Most people remember him as the "wonderful philanthropist" who gave us Carnegie Hall.
Admittedly, Bill Gates doesn't even begin to compare to Andrew Carnegie for sheer evilness, but his whole philanthropy thing is simply a PR project to reclaim his image and make us forget his bad behavior. It's worth it to him spending his excess cash on this because his ego is so big that he can't stand the idea that history will judge him harshly.
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
Folk, not to say what Gate's (this is Bill and his wife BTW) are doing it not a good thing, and at least he is trying to give back while he is alive. The Gates foundation is not all his money, others have put into as well. They also have not given the $58B to charities out right, this money is part of a trust which is set up to distribute the money over time. As much as we all like to think the Bill is a generous person there is fundamental business reasons to do what they did.
Just so people know Rockefeller and Carnegie have been dead for a long time and their foundations are still providing funds to the communities everyday, they put in lots of money when they were alive for the same business reason Gates is doing and that base investment made a long time again is still giving back, oh their are a lots of people who make their living keeping these trusts alive like the Rockefeller family
I am just curious if Steve plans or has done something similar, I suspect he has, it is just not publicized. As we know Steve has not collect much of pay check, he gets paid for being on apples board as well as Disney. However, most all his value is tied up in stocks which he has not sold much if any of it. I am not sure how he making his living, how he makes money from renting his jet to Apple to use.
"...and his influence on lives of all those living in the 21st century..."
I like Apple stuff and no disrespect to Jobs but that's a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte.
...so only those who live in marginalized circumstances count for the purposes of this article? You surely understand the ripple effect in technology right? Where innovation travels out from its point of origin and touches things not even anticipated in the initial innovation?
So why are you commenting here and not out doing something about those "people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte."? Oh wait, that's right, we don't actually DO anything about stuff like that we just opine about from the comfort of our den, our rec room or basement.
So let's take this a step further as long as we are in a mood to opine out of our uncomfortable entitled guilt. You do realize that the iPad has been found to be an innovative tool to assist learning for autistic children - or don't those matter? How about the reports of use in situations where there is serious motor impairment relieved by the simplicity of the interface of the iPad.
A pediatric surgeon of my acquaintance is able to remote connect via his iPad to another friend of ours who is doing surgical work and training in parts of Africa where surgery is direly needed but not generally available? Yeah no impact there at all. Seriously. How about studying the effects of innovation a bit before launching a snide, guilt-ridden commentary like this? Please? Thank-you.
EDIT: and for the record - while you want to laud the common man innovator, say the garbage collector who figures out a better way to dump the trash can into the truck, it is the scale of the innovation and not the press coverage that matters. Michael Dell innovated supply-side computers sales via the internet - but he will likely be only vaguely remembered in general "for selling computers". Innovation occurs constantly at all levels, from the aboriginal who figures out a better spear design to the Carnegie-Mellon post-doc who figures out a uniquely powerful kernel to drive OS development, to the cutting edge fuels and energy innovations occurring right under our noses. It is the size of the stone that is heaved out over the cultural pond that determines the splash it makes. I argue that Steve Jobs far from just innovating technologies, innovated a business approach that is far different from the mainstream which is paired to the vision of continuing innovation, innovated a radical approach to retailing technology that everyone, from Wall Street pundits to retail "experts" decried as going to fail miserably, and now is a textbook study in many retail business programs at key institutions of higher learning. I don't deify someone like Steve Jobs, but I also don't waste time and effort trying to belittle his efforts to drive innovation into western culture in a way few others have done.
...so only those who live in marginalized circumstances count for the purposes of this article? You surely understand the ripple effect in technology right? Where innovation travels out from its point of origin and touches things not even anticipated in the initial innovation?
So why are you commenting here and not out doing something about those "people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte."? Oh wait, that's right, we don't actually DO anything about stuff like that we just opine about from the comfort of our den, our rec room or basement.
So let's take this a step further as long as we are in a mood to opine out of our uncomfortable entitled guilt. You do realize that the iPad has been found to be an innovative tool to assist learning for autistic children - or don't those matter? How about the reports of use in situations where there is serious motor impairment relieved by the simplicity of the interface of the iPad.
A pediatric surgeon of my acquaintance is able to remote connect via his iPad to another friend of ours who is doing surgical work and training in parts of Africa where surgery is direly needed but not generally available? Yeah no impact there at all. Seriously. How about studying the effects of innovation a bit before launching a snide, guilt-ridden commentary like this? Please? Thank-you.
[/rant]
Dude; I'm more than happy to take this as many steps as you want.
Prologue: Are those in 'marginalized circumstances' not included under the umbrella term "all those living in the 21st century" as written by the initial poster? Or is it your wish that they not be included here? Either answer will be very telling.
First: Despite your newfound expertise on my life, you know nothing at all about what I do for a living, as a volunteer, consultant, or in any other facility. Am I a wrestler, a cowboy, a development worker, or all (or none) of the above? You might want to back off before you confirm even more the ignorance than you already seem to hint at. And while I'm at it; Can one not both comment and do? Or does one confirm the exclusion of the other under your terms of logic?
Second: It's great that your pediatric friend has used some nice high technology for some good in Africa but the 'ripple out effect of high tech' line is vastly overblown, is as old as the hills, and is more often than not a total myth espoused by 'aid' agencies such as the World Bank and other conservative organizations. If you knew anything at all about international development and communication you'd realize that that tired old line has for decades been disproven time over in the real world of rural development.
What has always mattered far more than access to high technology is access to things like structures of power, public health, communication and information processes and structures (not simply high-cost IT and its peripheral high technologies), the powers of structure themselves, and governments and other authorities and organizations which are committed to real grassroots development, particularly in rural areas. What's more, small-scale 'appropriate technology' is far more useful in the development field than the big whiz-bang stuff. Always has been. A prime example is the difference between large scale- vs. micro-hydro development projects. If you're still uncertain ask yourself what exactly it is that the the 1969 moon landings (of which I'm a fan), or stealth bombers (of which I'm not) are doing for the rural poor in places like India today. Not much. Sorry to blow your preconceptions out of the water but geniuses like Schumacher have always blown even a guy like Jobs out of the water in terms of direct impact in such situations. In other words, communication and processes and access to appropriate technologies are far more important than gizmos like iPads, which are -at best- tools of processes which can be utilized to facilitate some communication processes in international development. But you already knew all that stuff, right?
Third: Mind filling me in on what it is exactly that you're so cocksure I feel "guilty" about?
varipis ?utility patents? which can cover technical details such as ?a software algorithm or computer chip,? and it?s worth noting that not all of the devices described in these fillings have been released to consumers.
Apple has also patented the ingenius external iPhone 4 antenna design.
And then they also patented the bumper case which makes iPhone 4 usable.
Your thought process is exactly why Gates is giving away money that he doesn't need, to redeem his image for posterity.
How many people remember that Andrew Carnegie was a brutal, selfish, uncaring bastard who built his fortune on the blood of American workers, not to mention the victims of the Johnstown flood? Not many. Most people remember him as the "wonderful philanthropist" who gave us Carnegie Hall.
Admittedly, Bill Gates doesn't even begin to compare to Andrew Carnegie for sheer evilness, but his whole philanthropy thing is simply a PR project to reclaim his image and make us forget his bad behavior. It's worth it to him spending his excess cash on this because his ego is so big that he can't stand the idea that history will judge him harshly.
But that's exactly my point. Who cares? Do you think it matters to people in life-or-death situations that their treatments are only products of someone's manipulative image-serving benevolence? If it doesn't matter a damn to me why should it to them, or anyone else for that matter? In the end Gates' long term image means NOTHING compared to the lives his donations are impacting today in the real world. And anyway, what's so wrong about a guy giving away billions of dollars to deserving projects (we're not talking simple endowments to the arts and such here) having a good image for posterity? I have no problem with that at all. Do you?
Dude; I'm more than happy to take this as many steps as you want.
Prologue: Are those in 'marginalized circumstances' not included under the umbrella term "all those living in the 21st century" as written by the initial poster? Or is it your wish that they not be included here? Either answer will be very telling.
First: moot
Second: moot
Schumacher? As in E.F. Schumacher??? Sorry, as much as I respect his heterodox economic views on things (which I assume since you laud him so are yours as well), they are impractically idealistic, and assume that a major part of human nature can be ignored.
Third: Mind filling me in on what it is exactly that you're so cocksure I feel "guilty" about?
So having stated all of that, you basically confirmed my previous assumptions, and then joined the ranks of so many of my friends who are ideologues with no practical background in implementing one whit of their ideologies. I have no time for lovely ideas that have no practical approach for implementation. Much of the sort of thing you went on about is fine as long as you ignore the realities of global economics and the impact it has on smaller less developed countries.
There are hardened practicalities that on one hand you decry and then on the other seem to assume they will magically disappear with the wave of the "grass roots" development ideal. Sorry. We have seen time and time again how that fails miserably. Gates gifts are much needed to be sure and yes, you are correct that the starving hand that grasps the loaf doesn't care about the intent of the giver. It supposedly is more important (at least to the starving person) to relieve the hunger for the day than to find lasting solutions.
"Grass roots" is just another recurring fad that westerners trot out to entertain themselves while watching other countries struggle with corruption, corporate interventionism, and deprivation. Your Schumacherian ideals do not go far enough - as is typical of most western thought and solutions.
The entire system is broken. And this is somehow Steve's responsibility to fix. Because otherwise he is no great man, his impact is diminished by the suffering of every individual that cannot be helped by his contributions. Got it.
So having stated all of that, you basically confirmed my previous assumptions, and then joined the ranks of so many of my friends who are ideologues with no practical background in implementing one whit of their ideologies. I have no time for lovely ideas that have no practical approach for implementation. Much of the sort of thing you went on about is fine as long as you ignore the realities of global economics and the impact it has on smaller less developed countries.
There are hardened practicalities that on one hand you decry and then on the other seem to assume they will magically disappear with the wave of the "grass roots" development ideal. Sorry. We have seen time and time again how that fails miserably. Gates gifts are much needed to be sure and yes, you are correct that the starving hand that grasps the loaf doesn't care about the intent of the giver. It supposedly is more important (at least to the starving person) to relieve the hunger for the day than to find lasting solutions.
"Grass roots" is just another recurring fad that westerners trot out to entertain themselves while watching other countries struggle with corruption, corporate interventionism, and deprivation. Your Schumacherian ideals do not go far enough - as is typical of most western thought and solutions.
The entire system is broken. And this is somehow Steve's responsibility to fix. Because otherwise he is no great man, his impact is diminished by the suffering of every individual that cannot be helped by his contributions. Got it.
Movin' on.
Actually you missed it with an Admirable Fail; give yourself a cigar
First off, I have no idea about you or your friends, but I DO have an extensive practical background in implementing these development and communication methods. Do you?
Most of the failures associated with rural development are due not to grassroots 'fads' as you allude but to traditional trickle-down development approaches which by their very reliance on World Bank-like 'external expertise', tied aid, etc. (the usual suspects) are relegated to long-term dependency and short-term outcomes. At best they provide stopgaps and at worst cause far more problems than they ever solve.
'Small is beautiful' (new-age and flakey sounding, sure, but effective) and development approaches involving grassroots communication methods scare the Bejesus out of Princeton-educated PhDs and traditional conservative development policy makers precisely because these communication processes remove them?the supposed 'development experts'? from power. Be it the self-assessment of local needs, implementation of community co-ops used to market local products, the selection, training, use, and maintenance of appropriate small-scale technologies, reevaluation/action strategies, communication with lending/government agencies, etc. (In passing, you state that Schumacher doesn't go 'far enough' but neglected to specify an alternative.)
But "What?!" you say! Let third world non-literate farmers assess their own development needs?! That's not what they taught us at the Wharton School! Thing is, some people are finally starting to understand what a small group of development practitioners has known for a long time. That given the right tools (and here I don't mean at the latest iPad, but access and training with non-traditional information and organization methods), rural communities can usually make far better decisions for themselves, collectively, than anyone else ever can. This is not some hippy-dippy quick fix, it requires long term commitment and dedicated external and local workers (money doesn't hurt either). But it can, and does, work.
As for fads that really need to go, how about deregulated market capitalism and trickle-down approaches to rural development? For the most part these have been a massive disaster; whether mega hydro/agricultural/industrial projects (endemic with corruption and rarely very profitable to those they supposedly benefit), or the recent rather perverse fascination with providing netbooks to those living in absolute poverty. It may come as a surprise to you, but third world non-literate villagers tend to benefit more from small-scale water filtration devices, mosquito nets, and producer co-ops than Facebook accounts or iPad-delivered updates on how their Wall Street hedge fund portfolios are doing. Clean water, access to public health providers, adequate nutrition, basic education, etc. should *cough* 'probably' come before the Internet and its accompanying high-tech peripherals, dontcha think?
But traditional trickle-down economics has also been a disaster domestically. (Unless you think that having to come up with $14 trillion to have exactly Dick Squat is an economic model third world villagers should emulate? It's both pathetic and darkly comedic that Apple now has more cash reserves than our own war-addicted government). So we become beholden to the dictates of China...uh, great?
As for me blaming international development imbalances and absolute poverty on Steve Jobs, that's quite a feat of logical acrobatics on your part. There are many things about companies like Apple which I greatly admire. If you take the time to read more carefully next time you'll see that my beef isn't with Steve Jobs at all but with a media fixated on the lives of tech gurus while people who do just as much if not far more for the world?or, more obscenely, those with nothing much at all?are relegated to anonymity.
He patented the ornamental design of a glass staircase?
Jesus.
I was thinking the same thing. And does the patent office know that no one else ever built a similar staircase? Someone who was proud of their work, but never thought to patent a staircase. That would be like someone applying for a patent on the design of their backyard pool.
Comments
In response to Bill Gates is ONLY listed as having 9 Patents. So what. Giving $58 Billion to various charities is a far more greater achievement than Steve Jobbs has achieved!
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
We have no idea as to what his plans are for after he passes on. I have little doubt that it will leave us impressed.
Any predictions on where his money will be directed? (Mine: Climate change-related issues).
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
Your thought process is exactly why Gates is giving away money that he doesn't need, to redeem his image for posterity.
How many people remember that Andrew Carnegie was a brutal, selfish, uncaring bastard who built his fortune on the blood of American workers, not to mention the victims of the Johnstown flood? Not many. Most people remember him as the "wonderful philanthropist" who gave us Carnegie Hall.
Admittedly, Bill Gates doesn't even begin to compare to Andrew Carnegie for sheer evilness, but his whole philanthropy thing is simply a PR project to reclaim his image and make us forget his bad behavior. It's worth it to him spending his excess cash on this because his ego is so big that he can't stand the idea that history will judge him harshly.
I'm a Mac user and one who will likely stay away from Windows when possible but I have to admit my opinion of Gates has done a 180. That $58 billion has done some incredibly important things - by far surpassing the research grants supplied by the US or any other government in many many areas. I don't care if Gates is using it for tax write-offs or publicity or whatever, the lives his foundation has saved or improved gives him a get out of jail card for anything. If Jobs could try to match that it would be truly impressive.
Folk, not to say what Gate's (this is Bill and his wife BTW) are doing it not a good thing, and at least he is trying to give back while he is alive. The Gates foundation is not all his money, others have put into as well. They also have not given the $58B to charities out right, this money is part of a trust which is set up to distribute the money over time. As much as we all like to think the Bill is a generous person there is fundamental business reasons to do what they did.
Just so people know Rockefeller and Carnegie have been dead for a long time and their foundations are still providing funds to the communities everyday, they put in lots of money when they were alive for the same business reason Gates is doing and that base investment made a long time again is still giving back, oh their are a lots of people who make their living keeping these trusts alive like the Rockefeller family
I am just curious if Steve plans or has done something similar, I suspect he has, it is just not publicized. As we know Steve has not collect much of pay check, he gets paid for being on apples board as well as Disney. However, most all his value is tied up in stocks which he has not sold much if any of it. I am not sure how he making his living, how he makes money from renting his jet to Apple to use.
I am a huge Apple fan, and admire Steve Job's abilities greatly.
But...
That round mouse was a supreme fail.
-IQ78
"...and his influence on lives of all those living in the 21st century..."
I like Apple stuff and no disrespect to Jobs but that's a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte.
...so only those who live in marginalized circumstances count for the purposes of this article? You surely understand the ripple effect in technology right? Where innovation travels out from its point of origin and touches things not even anticipated in the initial innovation?
So why are you commenting here and not out doing something about those "people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte."? Oh wait, that's right, we don't actually DO anything about stuff like that we just opine about from the comfort of our den, our rec room or basement.
So let's take this a step further as long as we are in a mood to opine out of our uncomfortable entitled guilt. You do realize that the iPad has been found to be an innovative tool to assist learning for autistic children - or don't those matter? How about the reports of use in situations where there is serious motor impairment relieved by the simplicity of the interface of the iPad.
A pediatric surgeon of my acquaintance is able to remote connect via his iPad to another friend of ours who is doing surgical work and training in parts of Africa where surgery is direly needed but not generally available? Yeah no impact there at all. Seriously. How about studying the effects of innovation a bit before launching a snide, guilt-ridden commentary like this? Please? Thank-you.
EDIT: and for the record - while you want to laud the common man innovator, say the garbage collector who figures out a better way to dump the trash can into the truck, it is the scale of the innovation and not the press coverage that matters. Michael Dell innovated supply-side computers sales via the internet - but he will likely be only vaguely remembered in general "for selling computers". Innovation occurs constantly at all levels, from the aboriginal who figures out a better spear design to the Carnegie-Mellon post-doc who figures out a uniquely powerful kernel to drive OS development, to the cutting edge fuels and energy innovations occurring right under our noses. It is the size of the stone that is heaved out over the cultural pond that determines the splash it makes. I argue that Steve Jobs far from just innovating technologies, innovated a business approach that is far different from the mainstream which is paired to the vision of continuing innovation, innovated a radical approach to retailing technology that everyone, from Wall Street pundits to retail "experts" decried as going to fail miserably, and now is a textbook study in many retail business programs at key institutions of higher learning. I don't deify someone like Steve Jobs, but I also don't waste time and effort trying to belittle his efforts to drive innovation into western culture in a way few others have done.
[/rant]
...so only those who live in marginalized circumstances count for the purposes of this article? You surely understand the ripple effect in technology right? Where innovation travels out from its point of origin and touches things not even anticipated in the initial innovation?
So why are you commenting here and not out doing something about those "people on this earth who don't even have electricity or potable water, let alone access to the Internet, an iPhone or a latte."? Oh wait, that's right, we don't actually DO anything about stuff like that we just opine about from the comfort of our den, our rec room or basement.
So let's take this a step further as long as we are in a mood to opine out of our uncomfortable entitled guilt. You do realize that the iPad has been found to be an innovative tool to assist learning for autistic children - or don't those matter? How about the reports of use in situations where there is serious motor impairment relieved by the simplicity of the interface of the iPad.
A pediatric surgeon of my acquaintance is able to remote connect via his iPad to another friend of ours who is doing surgical work and training in parts of Africa where surgery is direly needed but not generally available? Yeah no impact there at all. Seriously. How about studying the effects of innovation a bit before launching a snide, guilt-ridden commentary like this? Please? Thank-you.
[/rant]
Dude; I'm more than happy to take this as many steps as you want.
Prologue: Are those in 'marginalized circumstances' not included under the umbrella term "all those living in the 21st century" as written by the initial poster? Or is it your wish that they not be included here? Either answer will be very telling.
First: Despite your newfound expertise on my life, you know nothing at all about what I do for a living, as a volunteer, consultant, or in any other facility. Am I a wrestler, a cowboy, a development worker, or all (or none) of the above? You might want to back off before you confirm even more the ignorance than you already seem to hint at. And while I'm at it; Can one not both comment and do? Or does one confirm the exclusion of the other under your terms of logic?
Second: It's great that your pediatric friend has used some nice high technology for some good in Africa but the 'ripple out effect of high tech' line is vastly overblown, is as old as the hills, and is more often than not a total myth espoused by 'aid' agencies such as the World Bank and other conservative organizations. If you knew anything at all about international development and communication you'd realize that that tired old line has for decades been disproven time over in the real world of rural development.
What has always mattered far more than access to high technology is access to things like structures of power, public health, communication and information processes and structures (not simply high-cost IT and its peripheral high technologies), the powers of structure themselves, and governments and other authorities and organizations which are committed to real grassroots development, particularly in rural areas. What's more, small-scale 'appropriate technology' is far more useful in the development field than the big whiz-bang stuff. Always has been. A prime example is the difference between large scale- vs. micro-hydro development projects. If you're still uncertain ask yourself what exactly it is that the the 1969 moon landings (of which I'm a fan), or stealth bombers (of which I'm not) are doing for the rural poor in places like India today. Not much. Sorry to blow your preconceptions out of the water but geniuses like Schumacher have always blown even a guy like Jobs out of the water in terms of direct impact in such situations. In other words, communication and processes and access to appropriate technologies are far more important than gizmos like iPads, which are -at best- tools of processes which can be utilized to facilitate some communication processes in international development. But you already knew all that stuff, right?
Third: Mind filling me in on what it is exactly that you're so cocksure I feel "guilty" about?
varipis ?utility patents? which can cover technical details such as ?a software algorithm or computer chip,? and it?s worth noting that not all of the devices described in these fillings have been released to consumers.
Apple has also patented the ingenius external iPhone 4 antenna design.
And then they also patented the bumper case which makes iPhone 4 usable.
Your thought process is exactly why Gates is giving away money that he doesn't need, to redeem his image for posterity.
How many people remember that Andrew Carnegie was a brutal, selfish, uncaring bastard who built his fortune on the blood of American workers, not to mention the victims of the Johnstown flood? Not many. Most people remember him as the "wonderful philanthropist" who gave us Carnegie Hall.
Admittedly, Bill Gates doesn't even begin to compare to Andrew Carnegie for sheer evilness, but his whole philanthropy thing is simply a PR project to reclaim his image and make us forget his bad behavior. It's worth it to him spending his excess cash on this because his ego is so big that he can't stand the idea that history will judge him harshly.
But that's exactly my point. Who cares? Do you think it matters to people in life-or-death situations that their treatments are only products of someone's manipulative image-serving benevolence? If it doesn't matter a damn to me why should it to them, or anyone else for that matter? In the end Gates' long term image means NOTHING compared to the lives his donations are impacting today in the real world. And anyway, what's so wrong about a guy giving away billions of dollars to deserving projects (we're not talking simple endowments to the arts and such here) having a good image for posterity? I have no problem with that at all. Do you?
Dude; I'm more than happy to take this as many steps as you want.
Prologue: Are those in 'marginalized circumstances' not included under the umbrella term "all those living in the 21st century" as written by the initial poster? Or is it your wish that they not be included here? Either answer will be very telling.
First: moot
Second: moot
Schumacher? As in E.F. Schumacher??? Sorry, as much as I respect his heterodox economic views on things (which I assume since you laud him so are yours as well), they are impractically idealistic, and assume that a major part of human nature can be ignored.
Third: Mind filling me in on what it is exactly that you're so cocksure I feel "guilty" about?
So having stated all of that, you basically confirmed my previous assumptions, and then joined the ranks of so many of my friends who are ideologues with no practical background in implementing one whit of their ideologies. I have no time for lovely ideas that have no practical approach for implementation. Much of the sort of thing you went on about is fine as long as you ignore the realities of global economics and the impact it has on smaller less developed countries.
There are hardened practicalities that on one hand you decry and then on the other seem to assume they will magically disappear with the wave of the "grass roots" development ideal. Sorry. We have seen time and time again how that fails miserably. Gates gifts are much needed to be sure and yes, you are correct that the starving hand that grasps the loaf doesn't care about the intent of the giver. It supposedly is more important (at least to the starving person) to relieve the hunger for the day than to find lasting solutions.
"Grass roots" is just another recurring fad that westerners trot out to entertain themselves while watching other countries struggle with corruption, corporate interventionism, and deprivation. Your Schumacherian ideals do not go far enough - as is typical of most western thought and solutions.
The entire system is broken. And this is somehow Steve's responsibility to fix. Because otherwise he is no great man, his impact is diminished by the suffering of every individual that cannot be helped by his contributions. Got it.
Movin' on.
Can we now finally have the "Wireless Keyboard with Numeric Keypad" please?
Nope.
Jesus.
So having stated all of that, you basically confirmed my previous assumptions, and then joined the ranks of so many of my friends who are ideologues with no practical background in implementing one whit of their ideologies. I have no time for lovely ideas that have no practical approach for implementation. Much of the sort of thing you went on about is fine as long as you ignore the realities of global economics and the impact it has on smaller less developed countries.
There are hardened practicalities that on one hand you decry and then on the other seem to assume they will magically disappear with the wave of the "grass roots" development ideal. Sorry. We have seen time and time again how that fails miserably. Gates gifts are much needed to be sure and yes, you are correct that the starving hand that grasps the loaf doesn't care about the intent of the giver. It supposedly is more important (at least to the starving person) to relieve the hunger for the day than to find lasting solutions.
"Grass roots" is just another recurring fad that westerners trot out to entertain themselves while watching other countries struggle with corruption, corporate interventionism, and deprivation. Your Schumacherian ideals do not go far enough - as is typical of most western thought and solutions.
The entire system is broken. And this is somehow Steve's responsibility to fix. Because otherwise he is no great man, his impact is diminished by the suffering of every individual that cannot be helped by his contributions. Got it.
Movin' on.
Actually you missed it with an Admirable Fail; give yourself a cigar
First off, I have no idea about you or your friends, but I DO have an extensive practical background in implementing these development and communication methods. Do you?
Most of the failures associated with rural development are due not to grassroots 'fads' as you allude but to traditional trickle-down development approaches which by their very reliance on World Bank-like 'external expertise', tied aid, etc. (the usual suspects) are relegated to long-term dependency and short-term outcomes. At best they provide stopgaps and at worst cause far more problems than they ever solve.
'Small is beautiful' (new-age and flakey sounding, sure, but effective) and development approaches involving grassroots communication methods scare the Bejesus out of Princeton-educated PhDs and traditional conservative development policy makers precisely because these communication processes remove them?the supposed 'development experts'? from power. Be it the self-assessment of local needs, implementation of community co-ops used to market local products, the selection, training, use, and maintenance of appropriate small-scale technologies, reevaluation/action strategies, communication with lending/government agencies, etc. (In passing, you state that Schumacher doesn't go 'far enough' but neglected to specify an alternative.)
But "What?!" you say! Let third world non-literate farmers assess their own development needs?! That's not what they taught us at the Wharton School! Thing is, some people are finally starting to understand what a small group of development practitioners has known for a long time. That given the right tools (and here I don't mean at the latest iPad, but access and training with non-traditional information and organization methods), rural communities can usually make far better decisions for themselves, collectively, than anyone else ever can. This is not some hippy-dippy quick fix, it requires long term commitment and dedicated external and local workers (money doesn't hurt either). But it can, and does, work.
As for fads that really need to go, how about deregulated market capitalism and trickle-down approaches to rural development? For the most part these have been a massive disaster; whether mega hydro/agricultural/industrial projects (endemic with corruption and rarely very profitable to those they supposedly benefit), or the recent rather perverse fascination with providing netbooks to those living in absolute poverty. It may come as a surprise to you, but third world non-literate villagers tend to benefit more from small-scale water filtration devices, mosquito nets, and producer co-ops than Facebook accounts or iPad-delivered updates on how their Wall Street hedge fund portfolios are doing. Clean water, access to public health providers, adequate nutrition, basic education, etc. should *cough* 'probably' come before the Internet and its accompanying high-tech peripherals, dontcha think?
But traditional trickle-down economics has also been a disaster domestically. (Unless you think that having to come up with $14 trillion to have exactly Dick Squat is an economic model third world villagers should emulate? It's both pathetic and darkly comedic that Apple now has more cash reserves than our own war-addicted government). So we become beholden to the dictates of China...uh, great?
As for me blaming international development imbalances and absolute poverty on Steve Jobs, that's quite a feat of logical acrobatics on your part. There are many things about companies like Apple which I greatly admire. If you take the time to read more carefully next time you'll see that my beef isn't with Steve Jobs at all but with a media fixated on the lives of tech gurus while people who do just as much if not far more for the world?or, more obscenely, those with nothing much at all?are relegated to anonymity.
Next.
He patented the ornamental design of a glass staircase?
Jesus.
I was thinking the same thing. And does the patent office know that no one else ever built a similar staircase? Someone who was proud of their work, but never thought to patent a staircase. That would be like someone applying for a patent on the design of their backyard pool.
We have no idea as to what his plans are for after he passes on. I have little doubt that it will leave us impressed.
Any predictions on where his money will be directed? (Mine: Climate change-related issues).
I'd be very surprised if he isn't donating money to cancer charities, as well as the fund backing organ donations.