← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · heritagelost
Thread ID: 3475 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2002-11-11
2002-11-11 18:39 | User Profile
[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021111/ts_nm/health_india_gates_dc_2]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ndia_gates_dc_2[/url]
What a jerk! Bill Gates gives 100 Million to gight AIDS in India.
2002-11-11 20:29 | User Profile
**Gates defended criticism that his foundation had upset people by backing the estimate that India was heading toward 20 million HIV cases. He said past estimates had proved to be low.
"There is no doubt that India has a serious problem on this front," he said. **
What a buffoon.
2002-11-11 22:54 | User Profile
Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to buy some TV spots in India warning people to stay away from queers and other high-risk activity? An ounce of prevention is worth many pounds of cure.
2002-11-12 00:16 | User Profile
From The Register, available online at: [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28039.html]http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28039.html[/url]
Billg tosses coins to India's poor, touts MS
By Thomas C Greene in Washington Posted: 12/11/2002 at 00:09 GMT
In his twilight years John D Rockefeller liked to play the benevolent, eccentric old geezer, giving shiny new dimes to children whenever he had a chance to be photographed in their presence. Nowadays there aren't enough urchins and ragamuffins in North America for Billg to pull the same act, at least not in neighborhoods where he stands a reasonable chance of walking out alive, so he's gone off to India for a bit of philanthropic pandering to women and children, and selling of MS products to developers. The actual selling will be handled by legions of MS flacks, not Gates, to help establish the illusion that this trip is purely humanitarian in nature.
In a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, His Billness claimed that India's economic progress (and value as an MS marketplace) "will be threatened by AIDS. India already has at least 4 million people living with HIV, and the United States National Intelligence Council predicts that the number of people infected in India could jump to between 20 million and 25 million by 2010."
Gates says he'll donate $100 million, possibly more, to reduce the spread of HIV in India. Adjusted for inflation, that might come out to less than a John D dime for each Indian child, but if it's distributed and spent wisely it may just do some good.
The last thing I wish to do is make light of the worldwide AIDS crisis or discourage anyone doing anything to address it. Still, there is something profoundly tasteless in donating money to avert human suffering as part of a commercial publicity campaign, and touting it so publicly.
Many of us donate money to charities, and still we manage to refrain from bleating about it in the op-ed pages of the NYT. Indeed, the Times has run four items related to the Gates Indian giveaway in three days, starting with the op-ed letter. Usually, coverage this comprehensive is reserved for matters of greater significance than what Billg is doing on his trips overseas.
Yet we have the Gates letter in the Opinion section; a roundup of his itenerary in the Technology section; a list of the goodies he's pledging in the Technology section; and a three-page piece on AIDS in India in both the Health and International/Asia sections.
That's one hell of a lot of NYT ink in one hell of a short time. The US president would probably get less if he were to go to India. Of course we have no idea what Billg and MS have done to deserve this immense generosity, but we're certain it has nothing to do with the NYT's whopping share of the MSN-8 advertising budget.
Nope, nothing whatsoever.
2002-11-13 01:28 | User Profile
I guess that it reallyis time to switch to a Mac.
2002-11-13 01:56 | User Profile
Gates is only pulling this "philanthropic" stunt to grease palms and buy political influence.
India and Eastern Europe are hotbeds of crackerjack programmers, but a lack of hard cash to buy Microsoft and other proprietary software has forced them to become adept at Linux and open source.
Between cost savings and anti-American/anti-Microsoft sentiment, open source is making serious inroads overseas, and this scares Gates.
2002-11-13 04:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Nov 12 2002, 18:56 **India and Eastern Europe are hotbeds of crackerjack programmers, but a lack of hard cash to buy Microsoft and other proprietary software has forced them to become adept at Linux and open source. **
You think consumers in those countries buy licensed Microsoft software? :lol:
2002-11-13 04:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by NativeExile@Nov 12 2002, 18:28 I guess that it reallyis time to switch to a Mac.
Now that they have an operating system based on Unix (meaning stability, (familiar) Unix shells, free Unix tools and development environment), MacOS looks especially compelling. And MacOS has always been aesthetically pleasing and straightforward to use.
2002-11-13 04:55 | User Profile
Mad Russian, I first became acquainted with a Mac on the OS 9 system, and found it often a frustrating and nonsensical OS in comparison to Windows. (That's saying something, eh?) But this new Linux-based Mac OS X system, while not without its quirks, is such an improvement that I couldn't help being impressed. Now all of those annoying MacAddicts really do have something to feel smug about. Also, their wide-screen monitors, with their high-end color resolution, are the best for graphics works, no argument there.
2002-11-13 05:08 | User Profile
**You think consumers in those countries buy licensed Microsoft software? **
Everyone knows they pirate software like crazy, but the point is that they can't always afford the newest hardware, and Linux and *BSD run much smoother on older boxen than the current bloated code Redmond ships, whether it's legit or otherwise.
I have read stories of old 386s running Linux/BSD being rigged as routers for many E. European networks because buying Cisco was just too expensive.
In the states you can go on ebay and get decent hardware dirt cheap these days, but factor in the exchange rates and it's still not that cheap to eastern Europeans.
2002-11-13 14:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Nov 12 2002, 22:07 > Originally posted by NativeExile@Nov 12 2002, 18:28 I guess that it reallyis time to switch to a Mac.**
Now that they have an operating system based on Unix (meaning stability, (familiar) Unix shells, free Unix tools and development environment), MacOS looks especially compelling. And MacOS has always been aesthetically pleasing and straightforward to use.**
It's not at all about selling MS products to Asian. It's about outsourcing jobs to Asia so they can pay experienced asian programmers $4.00 an hour with no benefits instead of paying an experienced American $50.00 an hour with benefits.
Microsoft is known for paying alot. Now they will be known for laying off 1,000's of Americans and sending all the top jobs to India.
2002-11-13 14:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Nov 12 2002, 23:08 > You think consumers in those countries buy licensed Microsoft software? **
Everyone knows they pirate software like crazy, but the point is that they can't always afford the newest hardware, and Linux and *BSD run much smoother on older boxen than the current bloated code Redmond ships, whether it's legit or otherwise.
I have read stories of old 386s running Linux/BSD being rigged as routers for many E. European networks because buying Cisco was just too expensive.
In the states you can go on ebay and get decent hardware dirt cheap these days, but factor in the exchange rates and it's still not that cheap to eastern Europeans.**
Keep in mind that most of your hardware is made in Asia, so it is real cheap over there.
2002-11-13 17:00 | User Profile
Is money sent overseas tax deductable in America? If Gates can claim it as a tax deduction, he'll get 50 million back anyway. The rest he will more than make up for by using Indian labor.
2002-11-13 21:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by heritagelost@Nov 11 2002, 18:39 **[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021111/ts_nm/health_india_gates_dc_2]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ndia_gates_dc_2[/url]
What a jerk! Bill Gates gives 100 Million to gight AIDS in India.**
Like I argued here
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?s=724bce66f9928c606]Sobran and the State[/url]
The evil of men like Bill Gates is in part a consequence of paleo's libertarian leanings (which I no longer understand at all), which assumes corporate criminality like that of Gates are categorically different than government criminality.
What's the difference?
2002-11-13 21:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Nov 13 2002, 15:17 **The evil of men like Bill Gates is in part a consequence of paleo's libertarian leanings (which I no longer understand at all), which assumes corporate criminality like that of Gates are categorically different than government criminality. **
Well, I would differentiate between libertarian "leanings" and hard-core doctrinairism. I would probably be counted somewhere in the former and, say, your run of the mill, shrill Randian in the latter.
I would say that Paleo's libertarian leanings stem from a basic stance of wanting to be left the hell alone, especially from meddling government in any form.
2002-11-14 02:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by rban@Nov 13 2002, 07:31 **Apple's problems stem partly from its own obstinacy. The management of the firm refuse to make the OS available on alternate hardware platforms, including Intel, and remain wedded to a Motorola based processor. Even today, Unix-based Mac OS X routinely gets outgunned in specmark evaluations against Wintel.
There were rumours that Apple would shift over to a new AMD 64-bit processor, but that is unconfirmed.**
Not quite true. While I won't take up space regarding some of the myths regarding the "megahertz" myth as its called in some areas, the Apple machines outperform their PC counterparts handily when it comes to graphics and audio work, and are on par with the PC's in most other important areas. Most of the tests are done by groups and such that have a vested interest in promoting PC's. Of course, the same could be said for some of the specmark testing showing Mac on top. The Motorola processors are considered superior to those from Intel - it's just that agreements signed "early on" have led to many companies being stuck with Intel. In fact, many engineers etc. also consider the AMD processors better than most of Intel's products.
The other advantage to Macs are their plug and play abilities. The PC's are being run out of the music, graphics and film businesses because of their propensity to crash, the headaches that occur when adding peripherals and new software, etc. These things are rare on Macs. I'm not attempting to write an ad for Apple, but it is a fact. Here's some fuel for the fire: Apple has been running their "Why I switched.." ads, showing various people explaining why they dumped PC's for Macs. Microsoft fired back with their own "switch" ads, but quickly had to pull them. That's because it turned out ALL their ads used actors, and all the stories were "made up", outright lies, one could say. The Apple ads used real customers.
OSX is very, very stable. And when you sit down to use an Apple these days, they seem to run much more smoothly than PC's. ((I will agree with Native Exile - when I first began to use Macs, I found their OS, 8.5 at the time, to be non-sensical as well, in terms of the file hierarchies, etc. But now, I'm a big fan of Apple.))
Gates? He's just joining the rest of the corporate crowd in trying to curry favor with the turd worlders and cultivate an army of cheap labor.
2002-11-14 06:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Nov 13 2002, 21:48 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Nov 13 2002, 15:17 The evil of men like Bill Gates is in part a consequence of paleo's libertarian leanings (which I no longer understand at all), which assumes corporate criminality like that of Gates are categorically different than government criminality. **
Well, I would differentiate between libertarian "leanings" and hard-core doctrinairism. I would probably be counted somewhere in the former and, say, your run of the mill, shrill Randian in the latter.
I would say that Paleo's libertarian leanings stem from a basic stance of wanting to be left the hell alone, especially from meddling government in any form.**
I was a libertarian for a long time, but I never really asked myself why. I just posited "rights" and took it from there. Most libertarians do that. They don't ever ask themselves their motives for adopting their position.
As I became more racially aware I began to realise that my libertarianism was really a defence mechanism designed to resist the efforts of the Democrats' Racial Extortion Coalition to plunder me and mine - to transfer resources from whites to members of their minority coalition.
Anyone who's read MacDonald and other of the evolutionary behaviourists will see the truth of this assertion upon a moment's reflection.
Indeed, I read a statement recently, where Don Black said precisely this: that white group interests are best served now by advancing a broadly libertarian agenda, and that we white racialists should adopt these stealth tactics.
It makes sense. Being a libertarian allowed me to argue positions that were, under the circumstances of a major university in late 2oth century America, broadly conducive to white group survival WITHOUT appearing "racist." In fact, I could call the liberals "the real racists" quite truthfully, while wrapping myself in the mantel of anti-racism. I've come to see libertarianism is a sort of ju-jitsu rhetorical move - it allows us whites to use the PeeCee veiled attack against their Jewish and Black racist proponents.
The purported libertarianism of Newt Gingrich, whatever I think of him personally, allowed the GOP Congress to put through at least a tepid welfare reform - and it also forced Clinton to sign it. It forced Bush to sign a small tax cut, and thus on average helped to keep a few more cents in white pockets and prevented them from begin transferred to Black and Jewish ones.
Many Freepers are in the "libertarian" camp. As such, Freepers are generally useful to our cause.
Those of us who have seen through the libertarian mask to its racialist essence need to understand this clearly. The Jewish media has so thoroughly conditioned our people against taking any care of their natural racial interests that we cannot effectively discuss these truths with our people - they've been conditioned to shut us off and to extrude us for harbouring "hateful" opinions. Wrapping our arguments in the mantel of "libertarianism" or "conservatism" allows 90% of our arguments to penetrate the darkened minds of our brethren, and prepares them bit by bit for the full truth.
We must use folks like the Freepers to advance our ideas and defend our race until such time as our people will have ears to hear us.
As our enemy Lenin said, we (i.e. the Jewish Bolsheviks) must support the British Labour Party as a rope supports a hanged man.
Walter
2002-11-14 17:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 14 2002, 06:51 > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Nov 13 2002, 21:48 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Nov 13 2002, 15:17 **The evil of men like Bill Gates is in part a consequence of paleo's libertarian leanings (which I no longer understand at all), which assumes corporate criminality like that of Gates are categorically different than government criminality. **
Well, I would differentiate between libertarian "leanings" and hard-core doctrinairism. I would probably be counted somewhere in the former and, say, your run of the mill, shrill Randian in the latter.
I would say that Paleo's libertarian leanings stem from a basic stance of wanting to be left the hell alone, especially from meddling government in any form.**
It makes sense. Being a libertarian allowed me to argue positions that were, under the circumstances of a major university in late 2oth century America, broadly conducive to white group survival WITHOUT appearing "racist." In fact, I could call the liberals "the real racists" quite truthfully, while wrapping myself in the mantel of anti-racism. I've come to see libertarianism is a sort of ju-jitsu rhetorical move - it allows us whites to use the PeeCee veiled attack against their Jewish and Black racist proponents.
The purported libertarianism of Newt Gingrich, whatever I think of him personally, allowed the GOP Congress to put through at least a tepid welfare reform - and it also forced Clinton to sign it. It forced Bush to sign a small tax cut, and thus on average helped to keep a few more cents in white pockets and prevented them from begin transferred to Black and Jewish ones. **
I don't know Walter. Disguising ourselves as libertarians may result in a few tentative advantages - not appearing as racists on college campuses, the few incremental gains made by the 1994 contract with America etc. However could you not easily say also that it is responsible for the very quickly realized impotence of these venues - campus conservative counterreaction and the 1994 Republican Congress. Both after all remained rhetorically, and very soon actually, committed to fighting racism and embracing diversity.
I am surprised you and all the other pseudolibertarians openly admit how little you are content with. By rephrasing the fight as that of groups against individuals, rather than that of non-european Christian groups against WASP's and cultural clones/cousins, we do avoid the charge of racism, but at what cost?
This type of thing sometimes makes me think that the accussations of timidity the Linderites make of us are not entirely unjustified.
Our invisibility to the charge of being racist seems largely psychological anyway. LF etc. are hardly immunized against charges by their opponents.
I'm still curious about the idea of apearing libertarian as a tactical move. Overall though it seems a little like the story about what a group of girls should do if a fire broke out in the dorms while they were showering, and all they had time to do was take a small hand towell. Responding to the questin of wher they should cover themselves, one gorl said "wrap it around your head".
It strikes me you're just fooling yourself by such, rather than other people.
2002-11-15 07:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Nov 14 2002, 17:53 ** I don't know Walter. Disguising ourselves as libertarians may result in a few tentative advantages - not appearing as racists on college campuses, the few incremental gains made by the 1994 contract with America etc. However could you not easily say also that it is responsible for the very quickly realized impotence of these venues - campus conservative counterreaction and the 1994 Republican Congress. Both after all remained rhetorically, and very soon actually, committed to fighting racism and embracing diversity.
I am surprised you and all the other pseudolibertarians openly admit how little you are content with. By rephrasing the fight as that of groups against individuals, rather than that of non-european Christian groups against WASP's and cultural clones/cousins, we do avoid the charge of racism, but at what cost?
This type of thing sometimes makes me think that the accussations of timidity the Linderites make of us are not entirely unjustified.
Our invisibility to the charge of being racist seems largely psychological anyway. LF etc. are hardly immunized against charges by their opponents.
I'm still curious about the idea of apearing libertarian as a tactical move. Overall though it seems a little like the story about what a group of girls should do if a fire broke out in the dorms while they were showering, and all they had time to do was take a small hand towell. Responding to the questin of wher they should cover themselves, one gorl said "wrap it around your head".
It strikes me you're just fooling yourself by such, rather than other people.**
I should add that I no longer call myself a libertarian. I'm a white nationalist, pure and simple. While I try to exercise caution (not always successfully) in advancing my views, to my friends I make no bones about my nationalist politics.
My point is that the libertarians make a good front organization for us.
I could have been clearer on that point.
Walter
2002-11-15 09:41 | User Profile
Software (programming) seems like it would be the ultimate import. There's essentually zero transport costs nor can import taxes really be applied. Countries like India have millions of guys learning to program and willing to work for very little. . .
Rban, if Apple drops their Motorola platfrom they'd just be another Linux/BSD distribution. They'd hardly be more relevant than the Bigfatnose version of Linux. They'd also lose the advantage of tightly controlling the hardware, such as a higher degree of stability and plug-n-play.
Rban, Linux is cheaper to use than Windows. The biggest cost is switching to Linux because most people are familiar with Windows, not Linux. A company can buy a reliable brand, like RedHat, and have all the on-going support they could hope to have from Apple. And, there's a whole lot more free Linux support on the Internet than for Apple. Upgrades, patches, etc. are generally free for Linux.
Heritagelost, the only charities based in overseas countries that you can donate money to and take a tax deduction are those charities based in Israel! But, this is Bill Gate's own charity based in the US, so even if the money goes to India he still gets to write it off. Even if he couldn't write it off, it would be no big deal. Microsoft hardly pays any federal tax in the first place.
Roger Bannister, sorry, the PC leaves the Mac in the dust. And, when you consider bang for the buck, PCs still leaves Macs in the dust even if you're using photoshop. About the only people suffering from a "vested interest" are the Mac users. Indeed, its kind of sad for Mac advocates to benchmark duel-processor $5,000 Macs vs. PCs you can buy from Microtel for $500 bucks and then they use Apple-optimized video software (e.g. Quicktime) and then announce that the Mac is faster. That comparison is made doubly sad by the fact that most Mac buyers don't do video editing. Also, using the latest OS (we aren't talking about Win9x anymore) with good hardware, reliability and plug-and-play really are no longer advantages had by Mac. PC retains the advantage of price, speed, compatibility, software selection, hardware selection, multiple-venders, massive internet support, etc. Even still, PC users have very little brand loyalty.
2002-11-15 17:14 | User Profile
I was a libertarian for a long time, but I never really asked myself why. I just posited "rights" and took it from there. Most libertarians do that. They don't ever ask themselves their motives for adopting their position.
I think the libertarian formulation of the non-aggression principle provides the optimal ingroup morality for our "group". Adherence to this principle maximizes productivity and, thereby, the strength of the group.