It seems to me that Bill's "first" donation was the largest ever in history.
Wasn't it 2.3 BILLION dollars, or was it 3.2 billion? Anyway, it's far into
the billions of dollars. That's thousands of millions...
If I understood the press correctly at the time, he had therefore donated more
money than any person or company in world history (that's got to be more than
the gross national product of many of the places we're thinking of, right? Or
at least a significant chunk of it.) The man has given! Oh wait, he's still
got some left... He hasn't given enough yet. (?) Where do you draw the line?
And if you draw a line, how will that effect the economy (everyone else)?
Could he have done that if a rule was imposed that says you/your company can
only have a net worth of $1 million? If that was a rule, I know of at least
one building with a lot of workers in it that would shut down. Anyone else in
a similar boat (or car)? Then I'd be starving too and that really wouldn't
help anyone. My job would not exist if the owner of the company didn't want to
streamline things and make things more profitable even though he was already
making a truckload of money every day before taking on a new, exciting,
potential headache. (In my book, that means doing more with less resources,
probably how most rich people get rich in the first place?) He would NOT have
bothered to do this had he/the company been over a salary cap. I would not be
employed there and there would be xx less jobs in the world, it's as simple as
that.
That "greedy, money hungry" drive of his created our department that sells
computer equipment on eBay, and is giving me and a few other folks some
interesting opportunities that would not have existed otherwise. On top of
that, more PC's on eBay equals increased competition. That drives prices down
on used PC's (and therefore new ones, probably) so you can donate more of your
income to Starvin' Marvin if you choose to do so. And yes, it does drive down
prices noticeably. We have to be careful not to list too many identical
machines on any given day for this very reason.
It doesn't seem logical that I can stand in line with millions of other people
(big store, ok? ;-)) to spend $100 on a Microsoft product, then point the
finger at M$ for starving the people of the world afterwards. Let's face it.
That money in Bill's pocket came from us. If we weren't spending our money on
Microsoft stuff, how many of us would really be donating more than we currently
are anyway (if at all)? Or how many of us would go out to the movies or buy
something for ourselves instead? As much as I'd love to be the martyr here
(not really), I know what I would really do! Same thing that happens when I
get a raise.. More money... I spend more on myself! Heck, I might even buy
two racing sims instead of one this month. That feeds someone, doesn't it?
Maybe I should feel guilty because it feeds the wrong person? Maybe someone
who is doing any different can tell me what a bad person I am.
If we don't want Bill to have any more money, then for goodness sake, we should
stop giving it to him. We should donate it ourselves and stop blaming Bill for
not doing it AFTER we forked over our hard earned cash for a Microsoft FF wheel
(which is necessary for survival, right? Oh wait... This is r.a.s. :-) ).
I wonder at what point some people taking part in this discussion would think
it's ok to start pirating my stuff (now maybe someone will do it just for
spite, or not at all because it isn't interesting anyway! :-)). Scary
thought... After one spends a few months or a couple years on a project,
taking a gamble with crossed fingers that it *might* make some money so you can
get some of that invested time back in some form so what you've done has
become, in your own opinion, "worth it", one's relaxed attitudes towards piracy
can shift substantially. (One's sentences might also become noticably shorter
and to-the-point as well, but that remains to be seen.) Especially when things
fail or don't succeed as much as hoped for.... Frequently. And then some!
I agree. Let's not pirate Live for Speed. Let's not pirate anything :-)
And after every sim nut on the planet dishes out $50 for Live for Speed because
they decided for themselves that it's worth that much to them, let's not start
hollering at the three guys that created it about how greedy they are, or how
they're starving mankind and ruining the world because suddenly they have too
much money. If you've got $50 in your hand and want LFS, buy it. If you want
to feed a starving person instead, please do so. Your choice. If they get
rich while Marvin starves, that's as much our fault as it is theirs.
Or of course, I could just be a babbling idiot.. That's quite possible :-P
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com
My little car sim screenshots:
http://performancesimulations.com/scnshot4.htm
