You aren't ready to understand this yet, but I hope some day you look in the mirror and realize how fucking wrong you were. Straw man (toilets) after straw man (cheap glass beads). It still seems like you have not taken a look at what they do. I'm having trouble figuring out what you really don't know shit about and what you are purposefully misrepresenting. Colonialism is about forcibly replacing a government with a regime that will allow external corporations to extract the wealth of the colony. Not the same as researching and supplying drugs and aid.

Obviously you don't know me well enough to call me a racist, so you attack me with weasel language. I know where you are coming from. You think that advocating helping people is the same as insinuating that they (as a race) are incapable of helping themselves. (No, it isn't. I advocate helping people no matter their 'race', and whether or not they 'need' it.)

I'm all in favor of open borders and dismantling agricultural subsidies in US. But there is a difference between domestic agricultural subsidies and researching effective agricultural techniques for use in Africa. The difference is that the former is not actually useful for increasing production and is an unnecessary manipulation, and the latter will increase production. What, did you think they were just shipping food there?

Why limit yourself to the auditory domain? Art has no limitation to just audio.

If you aren't going to spend your money at all, what's the point of getting all that money? To leave it to your spoiled progeny?

Yes, less fortunate people do actually exist. I don't have my head stuck in the sand like you. Yes, they do need help, in the sense that many of them will die without help. Call it handout if you will, to help people directly or to give out grants to research cures or better techniques for fighting global problems. Maybe you should take a look at what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation actually does. You are so ideological that you can't judge a person for his actions but by how much he adheres to your free market religion.

I don't understand where people get this weird idea that tax write-offs compel people to donate. The math just doesn't work out. Given some level of altruism in a person, tax write-offs do push the equation slightly toward higher giving, but donating still cuts into their personal wealth after tax. If there was no underlying altruism, tax write-offs won't get people to donate without some truly bizarre tax brackets (>100%).

I do believe you are projecting your own sentiments on to billionaires as a whole.

Clearly Bill Gates is a monster compared to the typical Slashdot user, who would never stoop so low.

Are you sure it's not useful? So he made a big profit and now uses a lot of that money to help the less fortunate. Suppose someone else (or a group) profited from the aforementioned ideas. What would the chances be for these people would be as philanthropic as him? Not many rich people are as generous. Usually, the very wealthy, when they do donate, donate to causes which are more relevant to the rich people, such as endowments to the arts and contributions to politicians or churches. The rich also give to universities, which is kinda nice, but not nearly as effective as helping the truly less fortunate in poor countries.

He's not "trying" to salvage his reputation. He has already done it. Only in Slashdot do you find such vile hate for him. I try to save my hate for people who are much worse than average.

You set the standards high enough that nobody qualifies. He might not be Jesus Christ, but he's done a lot more good than most other people. Why don't you start improving yourself, then trying to bring him down to your level by disparaging him. How many people give away *all* of their money?

What do you think this technology will be used for?

Research universities have tons of old junk that they would love to get rid of for very little cost.

A run off has a few serious advantages over instant run off. It's easier for a voter to be sufficiently informed when the choices are fewer. If there are 10 candidates on the ballot and an innumerable number of write-ins, how is a typical voter supposed to be informed enough to rank them? A common voter probably doesn't know much about anyone except their top pick, and maybe the top running opponent. In a run-off scenario, there is time between the primary and the run-off for voters to become informed about the final two candidates. In principle, a finalist could be a write in, and nobody but their supporters knew anything about them before the primaries were tabulated.

So how much is made off of surcharges? I want to know!

Guessing that anesthesia has long term effects on the brain certainly isn't news. But demonstrating it using a controlled experiment is news indeed.

Circumcision is typically done without anesthetics.

And why shouldn't an office worker embezzling from an employer be subject to criminal penalties? What is your distinction between a civil and criminal matter?