Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News Science Technology

Bill Gates's Plan To Improve Our World 445

Posted by Soulskill
from the quest-to-bluescreen-malaria dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Bill Gates has written an article in Wired outlining his strategy to improve people's lives through philanthropy and investment in technology and the sciences. He says, 'We want to give our wealth back to society in a way that has the most impact, and so we look for opportunities to invest for the largest returns. That means tackling the world's biggest problems and funding the most likely solutions. That's an even greater challenge than it sounds. I don't have a magic formula for prioritizing the world's problems. You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women. ...I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest. This system is responsible for many of the great advances that have improved the lives of billions—from airplanes to air-conditioning to computers. But capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor. This means market-driven innovation can actually widen the gap between rich and poor. ... We take a double-pronged approach: (1) Narrow the gap so that advances for the rich world reach the poor world faster, and (2) turn more of the world's IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Gates's Plan To Improve Our World

Comments Filter:
  • Fan of capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArsonSmith (13997) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:20PM (#45406203) Journal

    Of course someone who made a lot of money helping a lot of other people make a lot of money helping millions of people have jobs to do. While pissing off the largest portion of the readership here due to quality of the product. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to get a fair shake here on Slashdot.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:38PM (#45406405)

      Most of the hate for Microsoft was due to their monopoly status; not so much anymore. That monopoly let them sit on their laurels and collect money without needing to produce the best product quality. Today, MS the _underdog_ in a lot of hugely important markets. Furthermore, Gates is only a Chairman at MS anymore and has little or nothing to do with day to day operations. He's spent a an enormous amount of time, effort, and money sincerely trying (and in many cases succeeding) to make things a little better for humans everywhere. People need to let go of the hate, it's no longer useful in this context.

    • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:43PM (#45406455)

      Microsoft hating is soooo 90's, and we didn't know how good we had it back then. With the NSA around, why bother to get upset about bad software?

      • because microsoft is complicit in helping the feds set up monitoring.

        If Bill Gates wants to end capitalism it starts with microsoft and the exploitation of tech workers.

        I don't take anyone seriously who wants to end exploitation, but won't end or denounce the exploitation they participate in, or solicit first.

    • by Krishnoid (984597)

      I'm pretty sure this isn't going to get a fair shake here on Slashdot.

      No, no, I'm willing to be fair about this. Now that the web has such rich functionality, let's say he takes an important flagship product and makes the core functionality available easily to the poor over the web, so anybody could use it as long as they have some basic internet access.

      It wouldnt need a lot of enterprise features, just something that people can use to perform basic functions. Start with a word processor and a spreadsheet, and make it possible for poorer users to maintain data without ha

    • by Bogtha (906264) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @07:24PM (#45407475)

      The problem I have with Bill Gates is essentially the broken window fallacy. Microsoft had a stranglehold on the computer industry. They held back the computer industry by years. A decade even! In the web development industry alone, we're still shaped by the impact Internet Explorer 6 left - which was released in 2001, twelve years ago. What economic value would Be Inc. have brought? What charitable donations would have resulted from that company? Or Netscape? Or any of the tens of thousands of companies Microsoft had a deleterious impact upon?

      He has since spent some of the money he earned holding back some of the most important industries in the world trying to help people. That's good. He didn't have to do that. But people judge that work as if it stands alone. It doesn't. The work he does with the money he has comes at the expense of the tens of thousands of companies that were held back or destroyed by the illegal and monopolistic actions he took.

      I think it's unlikely that, economically speaking, the actions he took were a net win for society. Yes, once he had the money, he did good things with it. But the cost to society for him to obtain that money is far too high in my eyes. Higher than the value he brought.

      Essentially, he took it upon himself to be Robin Hood. He stole from the rich - Western society - to give to the poor. However I don't see any reason to believe that the theft he perpetrated - the value he stole from society - was less than the value he brought to society. And I don't think it was his right to commit those crimes to do those things.

      By all means, judge him for what he has brought to society. But you should not do that without judging him for all that he has took from society as well.

    • by golodh (893453) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @07:42PM (#45407629)
      Please keep in mind that Bill Gates' interview was aimed at a US readership, and that comes with certain complexities.

      All of us know that whosoever dares criticise the "free market" in any form or way whatsoever in front of a US audience will automatically be branded a 'Bleeding Heart Liberal', a 'Socialist', if not 'Communist' by that same audience (depending on their mood and how threatened they feel) without further investigation of what he actually has to say.

      Practically the only way a US audience will pause long enough to actually listen is to bring impeccable credentials as a 'Capitalist' and to start off by clear endorsements of Capitalism in general. Only then is it considered acceptable to point out one or two weaknesses or deficiencies of the system and suggest improvements.

      This is what Bill Gates has done, and he's one of the few people alive who can not only say something like that and still be listened to, but who *wants* to point anything like that out to the world. I guess that Warren Buffet is another, but I wouldn't know many others. That's why he said that.

      And please note that the quality of MS software or its competitive practices have no bearing on the issue.

  • by wrackspurt (3028771) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:27PM (#45406291)

    I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

    The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor. The old question remains whether unbridled capitalism and philanthropy can better address the world's woes, or, would a more socialist political structure like those seen in Scandinavian countries better address and more quickly narrow the divide.

    • by operagost (62405)

      The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor.

      Yeah, like he said in the summary. But you were rushing in too quickly with your "government solves everything, even though it's made up of the people we think are too greedy to handle their own money properly, much less other people's" ideology.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because anarchy will just make things better, of course.

        Seriously, stop buying into this "government is evil!" propaganda -- governments have problems, like anything else, but they're the only mechanism we've really come up with to control any of this stuff. About the most that can be sanely argued is that the current governmental structure is poor, so we need a new one.... Which is pretty much what the GP said, when referring to the political institutions seen in parts of Europe being preferable in their o

    • Could we discuss this issue instead: Is it better to allocate your donations yourself, or to simply give it to the public (government) and let the public decide? What makes one think that they are better qualified to allocate public spending than elected representatives? (Yeah, you can make the argument that it's my money, I decide how to spend it. But, you already decided to donate it to public causes....)
    • by Tom (822)

      > I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

      The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor.

      Oh, please. Even addressing that point seriously is just stupid. Of course he's a fan of capitalism - it made him the richest man on the planet for many years.

      People at the top are significantly more likely to be fans of the system than people at the bottom. What a surprise!

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      silly me, I thought capitalism made a middle class in my country

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I don't know which country is your country, but the middle class continues to dwindle in the USA.

    • by poity (465672) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @06:42PM (#45407089)

      How many times will misinformed people trot out this crap? Scandinavian countries are, to the last one, all capitalist free market economies. Capitalism and the laws that protect private property enable those countries' people to generate the excess wealth with which to fund their social welfare programs.

      Scandinavian countries are actually examples of "capitalism and philanthropy" being "better at addressing woes"

  • Whups (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:30PM (#45406329)

    'We want to give our wealth back to society in a

    ... BURN THE WITCH!

    No, seriously. As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor. There's an inverse relationship between income and charity. The more you make, the less you give, proportionally speaking. You can outline all the reasons why it would be better if this wasn't the case... I doubt you'll find much disagreement here. But making the case for it doesn't mean anyone's going to adopt it; A concept Mr. Gates and the company he used to captain both seem ill-equipped to grasp. Simply understanding the problem better doesn't result in a solution; It is one of the oldest delusions humanity has to offer... that knowledge will lead to action.

    Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less, and address the issue within that cognitive framework. And the Just world phenomenon is a great place to start: The belief that you deserve whatever is happening, or has happened, to you. Fundamentally, I think you'll find the reason the rich give less is because on a subconscious level, having adopted the belief that they earned their wealth rather than simply having won a cosmic lottery, they then build on that with confirmation bias. That is, every action that comes after that in some fashion just confirms that they're more deserving than the next guy... and eventually, that makes them not very charitable. Afterall, if I did it, you can do it, right? It's such a basic failure of reasoning that entire books have been written on the subject, and yet... here we are... still not getting it.

    • Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fwipp (1473271) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:33PM (#45406353)

      "Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less"

      Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.

      • Re:Whups (Score:4, Interesting)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:58PM (#45406595)

        Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.

        That does not explain how people who were previously poor, and then became wealthy, also follow the same pattern. Not everyone who becomes wealthy changes their social class, but most do. Put another way, once you're rich, you don't hang around with poor people much. And thanks to socialization, it's not very long at all before those old behaviors and worldview fractures and dissolves. Does it happen to everyone? No. But it seems the only people resiliant to this are those that suffered a significant trauma prior and usually early on in life that became a core belief.

        It's not a coincidence that when you read about people who ran into burning buildings to save a bunch of children, or saw a car run off the road, lept from their car to go assist... everyday heroes tend to have one thing in their background: They grew up in a small town. Go look it up. And surprise, most people who join the military also come from small towns. Their personalities are no different than those in the city, but their social environment imparted certain values -- specifically, that they're not just a face in a crowd. In the city, we choose our own subculture, our own groups to be a part of. In a small town, you have to learn how to be part of a community you may not strongly identify with. Avoiding certain types of people isn't an option. So as a consequence of that, we get people who later move to the big city or whatever, and retain that sense of community... so when they see someone in trouble, they don't have a tribalistic view.

        We are social creatures; And our desire to help others is based directly on how much they are like us. They have to be part of our tribe. It's how we're wired. And social class is a big division -- when you surround yourself with rich people, you start to think like rich people do. It seems like a really obvious thing to say, but then I see people like you say things like this and I realize... you're not understanding this tribalistic element of human behavior.

      • Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:59PM (#45406605) Homepage

        I think the previous poster is correct to talk about the "just world fallacy". Without getting into too much of an argument as to who is "right", we all create a world view that helps to prop up our own ego.

        It's common for rich people to believe (or want to believe) that we are all in control of our own lives, and the reason they have so much is because they deserve it. They think that they're either inherently superior people, or at least that they've done better things and made better choices. To believe otherwise would induce a lot of angst.

        Meanwhile, if you're poor, it's much more ego-soothing to believe that we are powerless in our own lives, and the reason you have so little is either because of luck, or because someone has screwed you over. To believe otherwise would imply that you are somehow inferior to everyone who makes more money than you.

        If all that is true, then it would help to explain why poor people would give more, proportionately. You have one set of people who believe that poor people are unfortunate, and another set which believes that poor people deserve their problems. Which would you expect to donate more to charity?

      • by geekoid (135745)

        This is becasue the poor tend to be more devote* and as such easier to manipulate into tithing.

        *got have some reason for being in a crappy situation

    • by JWW (79176)

      Add in the fact that a good portion of the rich, in addition to believing they're more deserving of wealth, have also taken moral and ethical shortcuts to increase that wealth. These ethical and moral lapses are very contrary to charitable giving.

    • As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor.

      But that hardly seems to apply to Gates (damn, second time I'm defending him, truth is stranger than fiction).

    • As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor.

      It's worth pointing out that this statistic takes into account all spending by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for over a decade. The Foundation was started in 1997. Sixteen years of fairly spectacular giving by the Foundation has failed to move that bar. I haven't seen the most recent statistics that would take into account Warren Buffet's mammoth donation of Berkshire Hathaway stocks to the Gates Foundation, but I suspect the rich still contribute a lower percentage.

      I don't think knowing why wi

  • In the old days when this was a small town calling itself a city, I'd frequently be at a play with Bill or some other event.

    I like his focus on where we need to fix it, but the cold hard fact is he lives in an area where the ultra-rich are taxed much less than the poor, and he goes to great lengths not to pay taxes on many levels.

    Capitalism is no problem - but Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, railed against Mercantalism that Bill worships at the head of.

  • by gilgongo (57446) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:43PM (#45406449) Homepage Journal

    This is worth a read:

    http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics/ [newint.org]

    TL;DR

    Gates's and others' philanthropy prolongs poverty by sowing as it does the seed of more inequality (in Gates's case, through the formation of health policies in the third world that make it easier for Western drug companies to open up markets for treatments there). They give away the fruit, but never the trees.

    As Oscar Wilde observed of the philanthropists of his era: ‘They seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see in poverty, but their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it.’ Then and now, as Wilde said, ‘the proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.’

    This is really the question that needs to be addressed: why is poverty still possible - and why can it even get worse - after 200 years of Gates's capitalism? Surely by now if capitalism was the answer, we'd not be where we are today.

    • by JWW (79176)

      But yet there is still truth in the expression:

      "Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."

      If everyone in the world were still subsistence farming, then we would have equality for all, but it would still be worse than what Capitalism has generated.

      • But yet there is still truth in the expression:

        "Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."

        That statement is obsolete. Look here [wikipedia.org] for details.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The reason Capitalism is breaking is that a core underpinning is being broken by technology. For the longest time the reason that labor had value is that the skills necessary were held behind a paywall - lack of ready communication, then guilds just after the printing press, then unions in the industrial era, now ... labor has nothing. Education via communication is becoming cheaper and work is being done by automation or easily moved somewhere with no rules / cheaper labor. We are nearing singularity an

    • by paiute (550198)

      This is really the question that needs to be addressed: why is poverty still possible - and why can it even get worse - after 200 years of Gates's capitalism? Surely by now if capitalism was the answer, we'd not be where we are today.

      When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.
      --Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheSync (5291)

      why is poverty still possible

      The problem is that there still remains too much socialism and regulation of free market activities in much of the developing world. A graph [myopera.com] of economic freedom versus per capita GDP tells the story. Countries with lower economic freedom [heritage.org] tend to have lower GDP per capita, correlation=0.67.

      The good news is that the adoption of less socialism and more capitalism (especially in India and China) has lead to less global income inequality: [isn.ethz.ch]

      "The period between 1988 and 2008 witnessed

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because government is in the way. Let the market regulate itself and poverty will disappear.

  • I don't have a magic formula for prioritizing the world's problems. You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women.

    All of those things are good causes, but since Gates is struggling to find a place to begin, I'd like to suggest that he starts by fixing the blight-on-humanity that he created. Microsoft screws many of us over on a regular basis. It hurts the economy. It hurts technological progress. How about pushing his company to be more cooperative? How about pushing for open standards? How about pushing back against terrible patent and copyright abuses, insane EULAs, and absurd licensing fees? How about open so

    • Microsoft screws many of us over on a regular basis.

      Much as I hate having to use Microsoft products, I don't feel too sorry for myself compared to people living with endemic malaria.

  • by wjcofkc (964165) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @05:51PM (#45406537)

    I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

    Someone forgot to tell Bain Capital.

    I personally know someone who worked for a mid-sized IT firm out of Texas. They were small but growing and successful. Then Bain Capital stepped in, waived some money around and purchased the company. The day after the deal was finalized, everyone was fired and the company was liquidized - sold of bit by bit. The poor lady is now in the Mid-West working in a call center.

    Capitalism for the wider interests my ass. When the wider interests are served, it's incidental. Capitalists only care about the 99% when it means making more money off of them, and they wouldn't serve the wider interests if they didn't have to. Granted, they often do, but it's not because they are on the moral high ground. Perhaps Bill Gates really truly is trying to say that the evils of capitalism truly equal good for the people, but I don't think that makes it a good system - it's open to mutation and a future where we see the raw, unabashed, exploitation of the people. Like I said, it's incidental. We are carefully watching the US government become dystopian, while corporations are more quietly doing the same. Bill gates might be a true philanthropist, but he is nearly alone in his level of giving and is kidding himself if he believes all capitalists have the greater good or wider interests at heart.

    • by TheSync (5291) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @06:46PM (#45407121) Journal

      I personally know someone who worked for a mid-sized IT firm out of Texas. They were small but growing and successful. Then Bain Capital stepped in, waived some money around and purchased the company. The day after the deal was finalized, everyone was fired and the company was liquidized - sold of bit by bit. The poor lady is now in the Mid-West working in a call center.

      Seen vs. unseen...

      First, if Bain Capital was called in, it is likely the company was in trouble, so she would have been laid off anyway.

      Secondly, the owners of the company felt it was worth it to sell out to Bain, so they benefitted versus possibly having their investment worth nothing.

      Thirdly, the company had assets, and these assets have been redeployed to more profitable use, likely employing new people who you don't know.

  • by Tom (822) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @06:05PM (#45406649) Homepage Journal

    'We want to give our wealth back to society in a way that has the most impact, and so we look for opportunities to invest for the largest returns.

    Well, Mr. Gates, here's how:

    Don't take away their wealth in the first place.

    It's well-established fact that the poor make the best use of money. There is less waste and more immediate progress than with any organisation or institute. Micro-credits are a blasting success wherever they are granted in the interest of helping people. (they fail when the same banks that caused the housing bubble/burst get in on the game hoping to make a quick buck, because they don't screen the applicants).

    Monopoly rent is known to damage the economy disproportionately. For every $ you give to charity now, Mr. Gates, you've already taken two away.

    "Don't be a greedy bastard." is a much, much better formula for helping other people than giving away even most of your money. Because it's not a zero-sum game, it's not just redistribution of wealth, the 1% gain most of their wealth not just by taking it from the rest, but by causing damage in excess of their profit.

    • by TheSync (5291)

      Micro-credits are a blasting success wherever they are granted in the interest of helping people.

      Micro-credit exists where a functional banking system for the poor is regulated out of existence...it is more a symptom of an over-regulated & poor economy than a solution to one.

      • by Tom (822)

        Micro-credit exists where a functional banking system for the poor is regulated out of existence...it is more a symptom of an over-regulated & poor economy than a solution to one.

        Where do you get your information from? Some of the countries that have the highest success rates with micro-credits have pretty much no regulation whatsoever in banking.

        Banks don't do what micro-credits do, period. If they would, they had a century to prove it and failed. Interestingly, after micro-credits were successful to the point of attracting the interest of the Nobel Price committee, several banks tried to move into this sector, smelling good business. They failed miserably.

        If nothing else, that pro

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "It's well-established fact that the poor make the best use of money.
      no they don't. They can't becasue ti takes money to us e money wisely. The poor do what they can to maximize the moment, and in the long run that is far more expensive.

      "There is less waste and more immediate progress than with any organisation or institute. "
      No. for the same reason as above.

      You want to help the poor? the best way I can see is double min. wage, and force them to put 15% away in a saving fund for 5 years.
      Another way would be

  • No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paiute (550198) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @06:16PM (#45406759)
    After the way he "improved" my computing experience over the last few decades, I will take my chances without his plan.
  • I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest. This system is responsible for many of the great advances that have improved the lives of billions—from airplanes to air-conditioning to computers.

    Airplanes got invented by individuals - the french were gliding down hillsides and the Wrights read about that and said "fuckin' cool lets do that" and then did it better than anyone else. Only after did they try to commercialize it and ca

  • by al0ha (1262684) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @06:52PM (#45407175) Journal
    Jeezus Bill, if both you and Warren Buffet really want to make the greatest impact on humanity, use every cent of your wealth to establish a global free press foundation beholden to no person or government. Only via this method can humankind be as sure as is humanly possible that we're getting an unbiased view. Fund a Free Press Foundation now!
  • by organgtool (966989) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @07:55PM (#45407739)

    .I am a devout fan of capitalism....turn more of the world's IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face.

    Capitalism is all about maximizing profit, so using the world's IQ toward devising solutions for people who cannot afford to buy products is a horrible capitalist strategy. It's taking resources that could be spent on maximizing profits by developing products for more profitable demographics and shifting them towards something systemically unprofitable. I'm not trying to take anything away from the hard work that Bill is doing - he seems determined to use his money to make the world a better place, but I can't help but see some cognitive dissonance going on in his defense of capitalism.

  • Billy Gates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Suffering Bastard (194752) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @08:53PM (#45408163)

    It's hard for me to see Bill Gates beyond being a spoiled, insecure boy. He talks about all these grand visions (The Road Ahead, et al) yet clearly is out of touch with the real world and the realities of human nature to the point that he dreams up these fanciful dreams of utopia that only get taken seriously because he happens to be insanely rich. It's hard for me to see Bill Gates as machiavellian or otherwise diabolical (not that he doesn't throw a good capitalist tantrum now and again), because he's so clearly scared of being caught for what he isn't -- a man in charge of his own fate. He can't possibly be able to imagine living a life not saddled to his silver, free to be bold like many of the "not haves". If he were to no longer "have", then he'd lose the very thing that defines him -- massive wealth. His ego must be terrified at the idea that he is nothing more than paper and ink.

    So he props up these grand visions and philanthropic ventures as a way to give validation to his existence, never manning up to working out his own inner deficiencies. And since he lacks the real world understanding to do so himself, he allies with Warren Buffet types to guide him on what he should do, swallowing completely their belief in the supremacy of the capitalist ethos. But his "plans to improve our world" always come off as childish and unworkable. Indeed, can anyone here enumerate the number of grand plans Bill Gates has put forth that have fulfilled their objectives in improving our world? (that's an honest question, by the way)

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday November 12, 2013 @11:30PM (#45409259)

    I was getting a better opinion about Bill Gates with his charitable efforts and then he went and created InBloom (along with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp). For those who don't know, InBloom was created to help school districts manage data. To that end, they are collecting hundreds of data points on students. Examples include home addresses, SSN, medial diagnoses (autism/deafness/emotional disturbance), whether they were disciplined and how much including any jail time, and whether the student gets pregnant. To make matters worse, they are storing it in the cloud. (We all know cloud storage is 100% secure, right?) Not only don't they need parental approval (the law governing schools protecting student information was amended to allow the schools to participate), but parents can't even opt out. Yes, if you have kids in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Louisiana, or New York, your childs' information may already be in the cloud.

    Thanks, Gates for seriously compromising my son's personal information and leaving me nearly powerless to stop it. (I can protest, but the politicians here have all drunk large amounts of InBloom Kool-Aid and think us parents are just annoying pests to be ignored.)

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger

Working...