Seriously, there is a concept in Judaism (also in Christianity but it's - tellingly - rarely spoken of) wherein if you talk about your charity, it is displeasing to God. The gift that pleases God most is the one no man knows about. The gift you give in secret.
Jobs was not Christian or Jewish (as far as I know) but it's not an 'exclusive' idea and he could have adopted the concept at many points along his spiritual journey.
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
I had a feeling you were being sarcastic, but just to let you know, that "sarcasm punctuation" to me, in my browser, looks like a small box with a "2E" inside it. Is that what a sarcasm punctuation mark is supposed to look like?
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
The sarcasm punctuation in your initial response does not render correctly on many platforms.
It just shows up as a garbled character on my work PC (Windows 7). It also is garbled on my iPad's Safari browser (iOS 5).
If you were using the forum's standard smilies, then something must be broken, so please inform the site administrators. If you were using some other character set/font/emoji/whatever, you might want to stop using something that is so clearly causing confusion.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jobs' were making significant anonymous contributions. It's merely wishful thinking from the Cult of Steve. While he may well have done so (from all indications I kinda doubt it though) there's no real reason to assume he did.
And you know what? It's all right if he didn't. Any giving, anonymous or otherwise, should be none of our concern.
The sarcasm punctuation in your initial response does not render correctly on many platforms.
!!!!!!
I? did not know that.
Quote:
It just shows up as a garbled character on my work PC (Windows 7). It also is garbled on my iPad's Safari browser (iOS 5).
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
Quote:
If you were using some other character set, you might want to stop doing so.
I suppose I will, then? It's standard Unicode, though? that's strange.
Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jobs' were making significant anonymous contributions. It's merely wishful thinking from the Cult of Steve. While he may well have done so (from all indications I kinda doubt it though) there's no real reason to assume he did.
And you know what? It's all right if he didn't. Any giving, anonymous or otherwise, should be none of our concern.
True, there is no direct evidence. However, Laurene Powell Jobs is very involved in a number of educational nonprofits. People who sit on the board of charities tend to have some sort of monetary involvement.
Go ahead and look at the donor list of any large performing arts organization, museum, etc. Look at the names of the board of trustees, board of directors, officers, etc. Then look at the donor list. Even at the highest levels, there will usually be at least one anonymous donor, often several.
Assuming the Jobs family wealth is in a private trust (Laurene was an investment banker before she married Steve), there would be no public records of their charitable activities. The only people that would need to know would be the charities themselves, the Jobs tax attorney, and the IRS. Nothing would go through the probate courts.
Remember that there are significant tax benefits, especially for the Jobses whose vast fortune is mostly in fully-appreciated shares of Disney. They can donate shares without paying capital gains and write off the full market value at the time of the donation. Let's say the Jobs trust donated $1,000,000 in DIS shares. Let's say Steve paid the Disney share equivalent of $5 for those Pixar shares, but DIS is trading at $35. That means the trust gets a million dollar writeoff but the out-of-pocket was only $142,000. If the trust sold the shares, it would get dinged by the 15% long-term capital gains tax, meaning the charity would get $850,000 while the out-of-pocket would balloon to $292,000.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
All we know about his "stance of philanthropy" is that he doesn't discuss it.
I'd be willing to bet that he donated more money to charitable activities than anyone reading this. But we can only speculate. Whether he gave away $0 or $1B, all we know is that he didn't want to talk about it.
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
It was the standard rectangle on my iPad. On my Windows box, it was box with some embedded characters as someone else described.
Quote:
I suppose I will, then… It's standard Unicode, though… that's strange.
Well, there's the issue: assuming that everyone's browser default is for Unicode character encoding.
Firefox on my Wintel box is set for Western (ISO-8859-1) encoding. I finally saw the sarcasm mark when I switched page encoding in the browser to Unicode.
Sure are a lot of asswipes on this thread. None of us know how much or little he gave to charity. He didn't want to discuss it, yet many construe that as some sort of confirmation that he was a jerk. Geez. If he had gone around making a big deal about his charitable giving, the same people would be whining that he was doing it for the publicity. Bottom line is no ones knows and it's really no one's business. I would be willing to guess he gave quite a bit. But no one really knows. And that's the way he wanted it.
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
I suppose I will, then? It's standard Unicode, though? that's strange.
Some weird tall skinny rectangle with squiggles in it. I assumed it was the Chinese character for jerk or something to reinforce your point. I apologize for not recognizing it as sarcasm.
While I agree that is the case now, initially Gates' reputation was abysmal, and his philanthropic activities definitely helped to alleviate that. People forget the image that he had in the early 90's, and it's a very different image now.
Don't get me wrong, he has done amazing things, I'm just pointing out the cause and effect and it was due to public opinion that he was donating initially.
How do you really know why Gates donated initially?
Some weird tall skinny rectangle with squiggles in it. I assumed it was the Chinese character for jerk or something to reinforce your point. I apologize for not recognizing it as sarcasm.
I agree with these views. In an article about bullshit yesterday, Steve Rushin of Sports Illustrated used the term "conspicuous pseudo-philanthropy". I believe this term is an apt description of the Buffett/Gates efforts. I like to think of it as the Camel through the Eye of a Needle project.
That is, of course, total BS.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
How do you really know why Gates donated initially?
We don't, although some guess that his mom told him to loosen the purse strings. This was right about the height of the company's visibility while the Department of Justice was investigating the company for antitrust behavior.
"But Ms. Powell Jobs's activities paint a picture of a family deeply involved in supporting education reform, women's issues and other philanthropic causes, as well as Democratic Party candidates and issues."
plus an early interview where Jobs talks about philanthropy
Jobs: That’s a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some time, I’m going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.
PB: You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.
Jobs: Oh, you have to. I’m convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar."
there are too many people on here saying there is no proof of anonymous donations. Please go off and think about it until you can understand that statement.
I think Steve was very product focussed, and anything that didn't contribute directly to better products he did not want to know about.
I actually found the book quite boring. There was not much revealed that was not already common knowledge to fans of the man. It might have been more interesting to the general public I guess.
What somebody does with their money is nobody else's business.
A lot of that philanthropy stuff is just a bunch of rich people seeking publicity for themselves. Who's to say that Steve Jobs didn't donate a bunch of money to various causes anonymously? Maybe he wasn't an attention seeking whore like some other people who give money away.
And I also feel that the hurtful comments should have been included in the book, as hurtful comments always serve a purpose, otherwise they wouldn't have been made.
When I become rich, one of my goals is to become an anti-philanthropist.
My guess is Steve wanted to do good -- not set up another PUBLICITY stunt philanthropy.
Personally I think that Charities have gotten out of hand -- and they don't solve a damn thing. I'd much rather have the wealth spread out, than to have kids making bake sales so that they can beg for book money.
If the Philanthropist/ King doesn't like you -- he won't shower you with his lordly beneficence.
I really want a nation that can decide it's priorities and drive solutions -- not a nation that solves flood damage by holding a church pot-luck. The fact that so many people are so misty eyed about yet another "charity" is what is so messed up with our psychology. There aren't any problems we cannot fix as a nation if we have the will to do it.
Comments
Seriously, there is a concept in Judaism (also in Christianity but it's - tellingly - rarely spoken of) wherein if you talk about your charity, it is displeasing to God. The gift that pleases God most is the one no man knows about. The gift you give in secret.
Jobs was not Christian or Jewish (as far as I know) but it's not an 'exclusive' idea and he could have adopted the concept at many points along his spiritual journey.
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
I had a feeling you were being sarcastic, but just to let you know, that "sarcasm punctuation" to me, in my browser, looks like a small box with a "2E" inside it. Is that what a sarcasm punctuation mark is supposed to look like?
Wow, you people certainly have absolutely no idea what the sarcasm punctuation is, do you?
The sarcasm punctuation in your initial response does not render correctly on many platforms.
It just shows up as a garbled character on my work PC (Windows 7). It also is garbled on my iPad's Safari browser (iOS 5).
If you were using the forum's standard smilies, then something must be broken, so please inform the site administrators. If you were using some other character set/font/emoji/whatever, you might want to stop using something that is so clearly causing confusion.
You're welcome.
And you know what? It's all right if he didn't. Any giving, anonymous or otherwise, should be none of our concern.
The sarcasm punctuation in your initial response does not render correctly on many platforms.
!!!!!!
I? did not know that.
It just shows up as a garbled character on my work PC (Windows 7). It also is garbled on my iPad's Safari browser (iOS 5).
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
If you were using some other character set, you might want to stop doing so.
I suppose I will, then? It's standard Unicode, though? that's strange.
Personally I think Jobs didn't like the idea of charity....ie simply giving away something valuable without it being earned. It simply went against his world view. I think he was absolutely fine with helping people, but was uncomfortable with the conventional idea of simply giving away money. I think he much rather would have created new companies and products that would help people help themselves, rather than just handing over money, which probably seemed crass to him and non-renewable. I think he had far more faith in capitalism to do good than conventional charity.
So do I. Giving money away like Gates and Buffet do is not the best use of that money. It creates short-term benefits but not long-term, sustainable ones. And while it does benefit some needy people, it also benefits the slick do-nothing types that often run and work for philanthropic organizations, which is an ugly side effect.
...then read your post again.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jobs' were making significant anonymous contributions. It's merely wishful thinking from the Cult of Steve. While he may well have done so (from all indications I kinda doubt it though) there's no real reason to assume he did.
And you know what? It's all right if he didn't. Any giving, anonymous or otherwise, should be none of our concern.
True, there is no direct evidence. However, Laurene Powell Jobs is very involved in a number of educational nonprofits. People who sit on the board of charities tend to have some sort of monetary involvement.
Go ahead and look at the donor list of any large performing arts organization, museum, etc. Look at the names of the board of trustees, board of directors, officers, etc. Then look at the donor list. Even at the highest levels, there will usually be at least one anonymous donor, often several.
Assuming the Jobs family wealth is in a private trust (Laurene was an investment banker before she married Steve), there would be no public records of their charitable activities. The only people that would need to know would be the charities themselves, the Jobs tax attorney, and the IRS. Nothing would go through the probate courts.
Remember that there are significant tax benefits, especially for the Jobses whose vast fortune is mostly in fully-appreciated shares of Disney. They can donate shares without paying capital gains and write off the full market value at the time of the donation. Let's say the Jobs trust donated $1,000,000 in DIS shares. Let's say Steve paid the Disney share equivalent of $5 for those Pixar shares, but DIS is trading at $35. That means the trust gets a million dollar writeoff but the out-of-pocket was only $142,000. If the trust sold the shares, it would get dinged by the 15% long-term capital gains tax, meaning the charity would get $850,000 while the out-of-pocket would balloon to $292,000.
Still: His stance on philanthropy is dickish. I see his point, but he's still a dick.
All we know about his "stance of philanthropy" is that he doesn't discuss it.
I'd be willing to bet that he donated more money to charitable activities than anyone reading this. But we can only speculate. Whether he gave away $0 or $1B, all we know is that he didn't want to talk about it.
!!!!!!
I… did not know that.
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
It was the standard rectangle on my iPad. On my Windows box, it was box with some embedded characters as someone else described.
I suppose I will, then… It's standard Unicode, though… that's strange.
Well, there's the issue: assuming that everyone's browser default is for Unicode character encoding.
Firefox on my Wintel box is set for Western (ISO-8859-1) encoding. I finally saw the sarcasm mark when I switched page encoding in the browser to Unicode.
!!!!!!
I? did not know that.
What is it there, just the standard rectangle? Or is it n͚̭̥̥̫̆͊̍̇̈́o͍̳͕̘̥̓̏̈ͤ̋̀͢͝n̜̠̬ͩͧͬͪ͆͐́́s̸̨͚̦̭̟͖̺͊̇̓ ͐ͭ̽̈e̪͎͉͖̖̹̦̦̜͆̅ͨͭ̅̐̃͡n̥̱ͣ̅̏ͯ͐̐͘͡ͅs̷̢͉͇̞ͨ̑̂͒͛́͝e͍̳ ̫͎͓̖̍ͮ͊̌ͩ̚͞ͅ ̛̰̭̂̂̕͢l̤̣͙͚̩̰̗̣ͧͬ͋͂̑ͤi̎̇͏̹̫͓k̷̍̇̇͐ͩ́҉̛͙̯̣ę̡͚̜̤͙͎̗ ̙̳̀̊ͥ͛̓̈́̃͘ ̥͕͚̹̣̜̦̭̳ͬ̆̆̂ͭ̅͛t̠̍͋̒̐̐͊h̵̺̘̠͕̬̲̮̏ͣ͆̋͋ͣi̼̳̮̱͛̏ͥ͠ș̶ ̦̙̫͕͗̊ͪ?͖̼͖̻̉ͯ̆ͪ̉ͫ
I suppose I will, then? It's standard Unicode, though? that's strange.
Some weird tall skinny rectangle with squiggles in it. I assumed it was the Chinese character for jerk or something to reinforce your point. I apologize for not recognizing it as sarcasm.
While I agree that is the case now, initially Gates' reputation was abysmal, and his philanthropic activities definitely helped to alleviate that. People forget the image that he had in the early 90's, and it's a very different image now.
Don't get me wrong, he has done amazing things, I'm just pointing out the cause and effect and it was due to public opinion that he was donating initially.
How do you really know why Gates donated initially?
Some weird tall skinny rectangle with squiggles in it. I assumed it was the Chinese character for jerk or something to reinforce your point. I apologize for not recognizing it as sarcasm.
Hey, no problem. Didn't know it didn't show up!
I agree with these views. In an article about bullshit yesterday, Steve Rushin of Sports Illustrated used the term "conspicuous pseudo-philanthropy". I believe this term is an apt description of the Buffett/Gates efforts. I like to think of it as the Camel through the Eye of a Needle project.
That is, of course, total BS.
Gates has donated the majority of his wealth to doing things for others around the world - mostly in education and health care. His efforts have saved lives and supported research to help find cures and treatment for numerous diseases.
Buffett has pledged to donate half of his wealth to charity upon his death.
How is either of those "pseudo-philanthropy"? Have you donated >50% of your net worth to charity?
How do you really know why Gates donated initially?
We don't, although some guess that his mom told him to loosen the purse strings. This was right about the height of the company's visibility while the Department of Justice was investigating the company for antitrust behavior.
How do you really know why Gates donated initially?
you can join the dots after remembering his public image, and the mounting public opinion.:
http://5z8.info/malicious-cookie_h0u...lder-goats.mov
also some other links about the Job's family's' charity activity.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...729373784.html
"But Ms. Powell Jobs's activities paint a picture of a family deeply involved in supporting education reform, women's issues and other philanthropic causes, as well as Democratic Party candidates and issues."
plus an early interview where Jobs talks about philanthropy
http://www.redmondpie.com/steve-jobs...-playboy-1985/
"On philanthropy
PB: So what do you do?
Jobs: That’s a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some time, I’m going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.
PB: You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.
Jobs: Oh, you have to. I’m convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar."
there are too many people on here saying there is no proof of anonymous donations. Please go off and think about it until you can understand that statement.
I actually found the book quite boring. There was not much revealed that was not already common knowledge to fans of the man. It might have been more interesting to the general public I guess.
No, the exact opposite.
A philanthropist doesn't help others for his own fame. True charity is given without personal fanfare.
I agree with you to a point, but sometimes making it known that you are doing it can help encourage others.
Larry Ellison's Giving Pledge is a good example:
http://cms.givingpledge.org/Content/...son_080310.pdf
What somebody does with their money is nobody else's business.
A lot of that philanthropy stuff is just a bunch of rich people seeking publicity for themselves. Who's to say that Steve Jobs didn't donate a bunch of money to various causes anonymously? Maybe he wasn't an attention seeking whore like some other people who give money away.
And I also feel that the hurtful comments should have been included in the book, as hurtful comments always serve a purpose, otherwise they wouldn't have been made.
When I become rich, one of my goals is to become an anti-philanthropist.
My guess is Steve wanted to do good -- not set up another PUBLICITY stunt philanthropy.
Personally I think that Charities have gotten out of hand -- and they don't solve a damn thing. I'd much rather have the wealth spread out, than to have kids making bake sales so that they can beg for book money.
If the Philanthropist/ King doesn't like you -- he won't shower you with his lordly beneficence.
I really want a nation that can decide it's priorities and drive solutions -- not a nation that solves flood damage by holding a church pot-luck. The fact that so many people are so misty eyed about yet another "charity" is what is so messed up with our psychology. There aren't any problems we cannot fix as a nation if we have the will to do it.