On 11/10/2011 10:41 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 10/11/2011 10:33 AM, kreed wrote:

>> On Oct 11, 5:45 am, Trevor Wilson<tre..._at_SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>

>> wrote:

>>> On 10/10/2011 11:00 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

>>>

>>>> keithr<ke..._at_nowhere.com.au> wrote:

>>>

>>>>> On 6/10/2011 10:50 AM, Metro wrote:

>>>>>> Steve Jobs who died this day.

>>>

>>>>> He had a way overblown reputation, he was a very savvy marketing man,

>>>>> nothing more. He took ideas from others, had his guys package them

>>>>> nicely and then sold them to an adoring group of followers at inflated

>>>>> prices.

>>>

>>>> Surely it took more than "a very savvy marketing man" to convince the

>>>> world, not just his adoring followers, that they must have a desktop

>>>> computer and then that they needed a WIMP computer interface. He

>>>> followed that by persuading us we needed a telephone that knows where

>>>> it is and a computer that we can take to bed. Apart from some failures

>>>> like the Lisa and the NeXT workstation Jobs showed a brilliant ability

>>>> to assess the junction of cost, technology, design and consumer

>>>> desires.

>>>

>>>> I don't own any Apple products but I am sure that Jobs earned "the

>>>> adoring group of followers" and that there are some electronic gizmos

>>>> that I would like to own but that will never be produced because Jobs

>>>> is not there to launch them.

>>>

>>> **Coincidentally, I was sorting through some boxes of old magazines last

>>> weekend. I happened across a 1977 issue of Scientific American.

>>> Contained within the magazine was a report from one of the writers who

>>> had visited Xerox PARC. The screen shots looked VERY similar to what

>>> early Macs looked like. All controlled by a mouse and there were clear

>>> references to 'windows' to describe what was on the screen.

>>>

>>> Jobs was an excellent sales man and a superb marketer. That's it. Let's

>>> not get carried away with his other alleged skills. Whilst I have no

>>> love for Bill Gates, he is, at least, giving away a huge amount of his

>>> personal wealth to those far less fortunate. Gates may, indeed, change

>>> the world in a very meaningful way.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

>>

>> um - if you look deeper, these "foundations" that the US billionaires

>> set up in order to look good, do little for the "poor" and are mere

>> tax dodges, and they actually profit hansomely from them. People like

>> these who go through life doing evil and unethical things don't just

>> suddenly turn Mr. Nice guy.

>

> **Gates has promised to give away the vast majority of his wealth.

> Whilst that may assist his tax issues, it is also likely to DECREASE his

> total wealth. I don't see how Gates will profit from the charitable

> enterprise, except that he may feel better about himself (which is why

> most people are charitable) and other people may feel better about him.

> Here is a link to the Gates Foundation:

>

> http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

>

> If you can find any bad things about it, please let us know.

>

> --

> Trevor Wilson

> www.rageaudio.com.au

>

>

Once your wealth gets beyond a certain point, it really makes no 

difference whether you keep it or give it away, after all there are 

limits to how many yachts you can own (although Larry Ellison is trying 

to disprove this)

It would be interesting to scale Gate's charity to an average person's 

income say $50K per year and see how it compares to the general 

population's efforts.