Forum: Internet Links Topic: 26 "facts" started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,10:17
I did not check the "facts", but I found a few of them interesting...if true.< Link. > Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2013,10:32
Humans are not the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. Not even close. I guess it kind of depends on how you interpret "best" but if we're talking "traveling 30 miles per day on demand at more than a few miles per hour," other animals win. Most canines, antelopes, camels, and some flightless birds (ostriches, for example) would beat the shit out of us.Given a slow enough pace, humans can outlast most animals in terms of aerobic endurance, but it takes us forever to achieve the distance. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,11:25
I really questioned the Gates/Buffet giveaway numbers. Rich people don't get or stay rich by being stupid.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2013,11:49
(Leisher @ Jul. 09 2013,13:25) QUOTE I really questioned the Gates/Buffet giveaway numbers. Rich people don't get or stay rich by being stupid. < 103 other billionaires, too >, give away 50% of their personal income. Wow, that dick Bloomberg (NY mayor) is on there. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,12:16
QUOTE The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. That's all you need to know right there. I mean seriously, look at all the blatant corruption in charities. The richest people in the world didn't get there by being stupid. They're not going to hand >50% of their wealth to strangers. They know it'd be way to easy for that person to take the money and run. What they'll do is establish their own charities and have some backdoor bullshit that enables their family to still access the money. Anyone who believes this should circulate another "pledge" that politicians can sign promising they'll never take bribes or waste taxpayer money. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2013,12:28
Buffet actually does this shit. He's on record as saying his kids aren't going to inherit the bulk of his cash.QUOTE He pledged about the equivalent of 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately US$30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006) ... The foundation will receive 5% of the total donation on an annualised basis each July, beginning in 2006. (Significantly, however, the pledge is conditional upon the foundation's giving away each year, beginning in 2009, an amount that is at least equal to the value of the entire previous year's gift from Buffett, in addition to 5% of the foundation's net assets.) < Record of his donation >. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,12:57
First of all, one out of 105 doesn't mean they're all doing it. Which would you rather do: pledge your cash and do nothing EVER or say no outright and sit back as the other assholes shame you and try to get the public to turn on you?Secondly, Buffet is a fucking nutcase. I mean, look at his politics. On top of that, feel free to show me a list of all the diseases cured by charities. I know of charities that have improved conditions in places and for people, but curing diseases? And I say this as someone who gives hundreds of dollars annually to the CFF. Third, and I quote: QUOTE “There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way,” said Buffett. He presented the biggest gift to Gates, and $1 billion donations to his own foundation and the foundations run by each of his three children.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2013,13:11
QUOTE First of all, one out of 105 doesn't mean they're all doing it. Not saying they're all doing it. But Warren and Bill appear to be heading it. I'll state right now that I think Zuckerberg's full of shit for putting his name on this. QUOTE On top of that, feel free to show me a list of all the diseases cured by charities. I know of charities that have improved conditions in places and for people, but curing diseases? Yeah, because unless they actually cure something, it's just a waste of money. Being wrong about a theory or investigating an ultimately failed cure or vaccine has no bearing on fixing the problem in the long run. So all the organizations that are actively researching solutions to cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's are wasting time with their giving of money to the various pharmaceutical institutions. I'm sure charities had nothing to do with funding to eliminate smallpox, malaria, or polio. Even if the "curing disease" thing falls by the wayside, making everyday life non-shitty for people in shitty environments isn't a noble cause? QUOTE “There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way,” said Buffett. He presented the biggest gift to Gates, and $1 billion donations to his own foundation and the foundations run by each of his three children. I missed the part where he gave it directly to them and told them to go buy a new Ferrari with a matching yacht. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,13:57
QUOTE Not saying they're all doing it. But Warren and Bill appear to be heading it. I'll state right now that I think Zuckerberg's full of shit for putting his name on this. Warren and Bill, two liberals with NO idea what real life means to the average American, started this whole thing. Of course, they're following through...well, Warren is... And yeah, people like Zuckerberg are just avoiding bad press. QUOTE Yeah, because unless they actually cure something, it's just a waste of money. Being wrong about a theory or investigating an ultimately failed cure or vaccine has no bearing on fixing the problem in the long run. So all the organizations that are actively researching solutions to cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's are wasting time with their giving of money to the various pharmaceutical institutions. I'm sure charities had nothing to do with funding to eliminate smallpox, malaria, or polio. Even if the "curing disease" thing falls by the wayside, making everyday life non-shitty for people in shitty environments isn't a noble cause? < If it actually reaches those purposes... > Also, you don't read very well: QUOTE I know of charities that have improved conditions in places and for people, but curing diseases? Improving lives and "curing diseases" THEIR WORDS, not mine, are two very different things. And since when do you promote the "throw money at it" strategy? QUOTE I missed the part where he gave it directly to them and told them to go buy a new Ferrari with a matching yacht. I missed the part where rich people don't use foundations like this to protect funds. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 09 2013,14:06
QUOTE And since when do you promote the "throw money at it" strategy? Just a quick interjection: there is a world of difference between the idea of throwing tax dollars at something and encouraging private dollars to be thrown at something. It is entirely possible to support one while condemning the other. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2013,16:20
QUOTE And since when do you promote the "throw money at it" strategy? < Because sometimes that shit works >. That list might look boring to anyone that's not a math nerd, but the implications of "does P equal NP" are fucking huge. Someone solving that problem means the world of computing changes forever. The entire motion picture industry started off on two dudes making a bet whether or not a horse ever had all four of its legs off the ground. Know how they did that? By throwing enough money at the problem to buy the l33test of l33t cameras back in the day. < And of course, > as South Park has taught us... ![]() ... money cures AIDS. Not miraculously, not instantaneously. < Here > are some dudes that are now free of HIV, due to a procedure that I'm sure never received charitable contributions at any point in its development. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2013,19:41
And again, I stand by everything I've said.1. I highly doubt 105 billionaires are going to hand over the majority of their fortune, but I do believe they'll sign a meaningless pledge to do so. 2. Charities have helped a lot of folks, but haven't cured much. (And you're still ignoring the fact that I said the first part of that.) Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 10 2013,09:21
Eh, there are supposedly 425 billionaires in the US, so the ratio of about 100 of them being very highly charitable is reasonable. That seems in line with the rates of highly charitable folks across the population of the US as a whole in recent times.In no way conclusive, of course, but I find the figures to be reasonable. |