Re: news from Google
--- math@sizone.org wrote: From: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org> topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox... from the horse's mouth, as it were. So, how bout that DNS. -------------------------------------------- Um, yeah. Them there micro$loth folks is WAAAAYYYY more privacy oriented than them google rascals. DBS scott
Um, yeah. Them there micro$loth folks is WAAAAYYYY more privacy oriented than them google rascals.
Well, we still have hope that bing logs are stored in windows servers making them more difficult to access or even retain after the seasonal color of the screen of death. The article is not worse than some messages being circulated on other lists citing privacy concerns because of Chrome dns-prefetch where evil Google will not only know where you go or what you are looking for, they will also know your intentions when with your mouse you hover over a link (according to Roskind there may be some cases where chrome sends a query when you do so). Ohhh well ... Cheers Jorge
Scott Weeks wrote:
--- math@sizone.org wrote: From: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org>
topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox... from the horse's mouth, as it were.
So, how bout that DNS. --------------------------------------------
Um, yeah. Them there micro$loth folks is WAAAAYYYY more privacy oriented than them google rascals.
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy. ~Seth
Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google business model is at odds with notions of personal privacy, so it's not even a question of the occasional excess on their part. Schmidt did what Michael Kinsey calls a gaffe: when a politician accidentally tells the truth. On 12/11/2009 12:36 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Scott Weeks wrote:
--- math@sizone.org wrote: From: Ken Chase <math@sizone.org>
topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox...
from the horse's mouth, as it were.
So, how bout that DNS. --------------------------------------------
Um, yeah. Them there micro$loth folks is WAAAAYYYY more privacy oriented than them google rascals.
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
~Seth
-- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
At least Google seems to be honest about it. What does Bing say they keep about you when you search, not logged into your Passport account? IP + searches, date and time? And what do they actually do? What about Yahoo, now that they will use Bing? Or even AltaVista? How do we know the difference between the reality of what they do versus their Privacy Policy? If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data. If you ARE breaking the law, and you live in the US, you gotta be careful about what you do on the Internet, 'cause it all gets logged differently in different places. I find it REALLY HARD TO BELIEVE that NO OTHER SEARCH ENGINE COMPANY is retaining search data with IP address and maybe even account ID for a period of time. Not even Netflix, who thought they scrubbed the Netflix Prize Dataset, was able to rid the data of your personal information. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/netflix-faq.html We're living in a world where every web request writes to a log file. Those log files live for days, weeks, years, even decades, and depend on the admins running the site, not the Privacy Policy. If you've ever visited my site, I've kept those logs for 10 years. Your IP, your browser, all that crap. This is the internet. You are logged at almost every action you take, somewhere. It's easy to archive those logs, and hard to cull them of "personally identifiable information." Because disk is cheap, we tend to horde data, not delete it. I'd like to see an independent source compare Mozilla's Privacy Policy to their actual practices, and see if they are truly leaders in personal privacy or just being hypocritical. And even if they do keep to their Privacy Policy, they provide a useful service, and I'm not breaking the law (that I know of). They can have my IP, what I search, what AddOns I've added, my crash signatures. At least I know what they have and that they will follow US Law and give it to authorities when properly requested. You don't get to have Privacy on the Internet. It's a fallacy. You have to work really hard to truly have privacy on the 'net. And lie a lot. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
At least Google seems to be honest about it.
What does Bing say they keep about you when you search, not logged into your Passport account? IP + searches, date and time? And what do they actually do? What about Yahoo, now that they will use Bing? Or even AltaVista? How do we know the difference between the reality of what they do versus their Privacy Policy?
"We want your money" versus "we want your life".
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data.
If you ARE breaking the law, and you live in the US, you gotta be careful about what you do on the Internet, 'cause it all gets logged differently in different places.
We are all likely breaking some law on a daily basis.
I find it REALLY HARD TO BELIEVE that NO OTHER SEARCH ENGINE COMPANY is retaining search data with IP address and maybe even account ID for a period of time. Not even Netflix, who thought they scrubbed the Netflix Prize Dataset, was able to rid the data of your personal information.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/netflix-faq.html
We're living in a world where every web request writes to a log file. Those log files live for days, weeks, years, even decades, and depend on the admins running the site, not the Privacy Policy. If you've ever visited my site, I've kept those logs for 10 years. Your IP, your browser, all that crap. This is the internet. You are logged at almost every action you take, somewhere. It's easy to archive those logs, and hard to cull them of "personally identifiable information." Because disk is cheap, we tend to horde data, not delete it.
I'd like to see an independent source compare Mozilla's Privacy Policy to their actual practices, and see if they are truly leaders in personal privacy or just being hypocritical.
And even if they do keep to their Privacy Policy, they provide a useful service, and I'm not breaking the law (that I know of). They can have my IP, what I search, what AddOns I've added, my crash signatures. At least I know what they have and that they will follow US Law and give it to authorities when properly requested.
You don't get to have Privacy on the Internet. It's a fallacy. You have to work really hard to truly have privacy on the 'net. And lie a lot.
Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits (or that I can't find): "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties." ~Seth
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
"We want your money" versus "we want your life".
I don't pay any of those search engines -- they make money off of advertising. Huh, just like Google. And to think that none of the search engines are taking that data and trying to build better products or services is naive.
We are all likely breaking some law on a daily basis.
Now this I agree with. There are so many laws, so many unenforced, that it is hard to know all of them, and to know which ones (in which state, city, local, or country!) you are breaking. You have the choice to be more private -- pay cash for everything, wear a hood or a mask to avoid being caught on camera, no EZpass, no bank account, no credit card, no cell phone, no phone at all, no Internet access. But that's kinda difficult to do, given that most of us have jobs and income based solely on this medium. The ease of logging and the human justifcation of hording that data pretty much prevents you from having a private life. Trust me, what you search on Google is much less valuable than your cell phone records, credit card statements and EZpass records. Your search records are just icing on the cake to the proscecutor.
Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits (or that I can't find):
"We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties."
Have you opted out of your credit card company from doing so? Do you feel as comfortable with your Credit Card company as you do with Google? Do you feel MORE comfortable with Microsoft managing your Credit Card? C'mon. Your personal information is so easily gotten right now it's silly for anyone to think that knowing Microsoft won't sell their customer lists will somehow protect you. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
Peter Beckman wrote: <Snip>
Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits (or that I can't find):
"We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties."
~Seth
You aren't Bing's customer, you are a user. The line you quote, even if they follow it, would not prohibit them from selling any and all information they get from your searches. *yahoo* is Bing's customer. -- http://neon-buddha.net
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data.
That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it mildly. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data.
That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it mildly.
That may be. But the government has a lot better data than "what did Peter Beckman search for online in the last 12 years?" Could it help them build a case against me? Sure. Should I be more careful about using search engines? Probably. I know there is TORbutton (easily turn on and off TOR) and tor-proxy.net plugins for Firefox, but is there a plugin that will use a user-defined proxy for certain user-defined sites/URLs (such as Google, Bing, etc) and allow one to surf directly on all other URLs? Or even a NoScript (whitelist) type deal that sends everything via a proxy except for those sites you decide to trust? That'd be handy to avoid this privacy stuff. Getting offtopic. You simply need to assume that every company who you reveal even small pieces of your identity or online persona will sell, reveal, badly secure or misuse the information you provide. I think this assumption is realistic, and that you need to be aware of it. Google is simply telling you what all the other companies already do -- archive their data, which you generated, and which can be used to identify you and against you in a court of law. I'm shocked that really smart people like Asa Dotzler are shocked by what Eric Schmidt said, what I assumed was simply common knowledge - that there is no real privacy on the internet. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman wrote:
I'm shocked that really smart people like Asa Dotzler are shocked by what Eric Schmidt said, what I assumed was simply common knowledge - that there is no real privacy on the internet.
"On the Sprint 3G network... If [the handset uses] the [WAP] Media Access Gateway, we have the URL history for 24 months ... We don't store it because law enforcement asks us to store it, we store it because when we launched 3G in 2001 or so, we thought we were going to bill by the megabyte ... but ultimately, that's why we store the data ... It's because marketing wants to rifle through the data." http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/cell-phone-subterfuge-produces-n...
LRMAO
Coming from a gmail user...
Yes, and very satisfied with their service (not happy with the line wraps though and plain text formatting), very convenient to receive messages from e-mail lists and a more efficient way to deal with spam and other nuisances. I've to admit that actually MSFT online privacy notice (which it is not clear if it's equal to their privacy "policy") includes the statement you mentioned in your message, but you forgot to include the rest ...
From http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx : (short version, if you want all the yada yada you need to click on "Additional Details")
Personal Information - When you register for certain Microsoft services, we will ask you to provide personal information. - The information we collect may be combined with information obtained from other Microsoft services and other companies. - We use cookies and other technologies to keep track of your interactions with our sites and services to offer a personalized experience. Uses of Information -We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising. - We use your information to inform you of other products or services offered by Microsoft and its affiliates, and to send you relevant survey invitations related to Microsoft services. - We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties. In order to help provide our services, we occasionally provide information to other companies that work on our behalf. And then there is another section that is related to "Your Choices", but nowhere (and I'm not saying that others provide this option either) says you opt to keep all the information Microsoft collects about you private and not shared with affiliates (very vague term) or other companies working on their behalf (ie the telemarketers bothering you at home in the middle of your favorite football game to sell something you don't need). Every single provider that collects information about you tries to find the way to monetize it and make some extra bucks. Cheers Jorge
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data.
Welcome to China, host country of IETF 79, the first IETF meeting that will break the record of VPN tunnels ... Also, what law ? what government ? Ask Yahoo about what happened in France about some collectible items, ask Dow Jones for distributing news in Australia that some guy didn't like, ask Google about providing search results that famous people don't want to see everywhere. On the other hand, name it Google, Yahoo, Bing, or whatever, their biz model is to make money based on information they collect about you (even in an abstract form) or that put through your throat as advertisement, but keep in mind that most of the time there is only one source for such information: You ;-) If you don't like it, get isolated, (I was going to say move to Mars but it won't work since it's already on Google's master plan and Vint's interplanetary network vision) move to Wassila and enjoy fishing alone. My .02 Jorge
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data.
This seems overly optimistic. Remember the whole telecom fiasco? Even if you are breaking the law in some mild way, do you really want the government to be using toll records or traffic-cams to enforce speeding laws, etc? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Another one from the "Evil Doer" http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ... Cheers Jorge
Why would they do that and advertise the fact? Advertising the fact generates the possible interpretation that they were pursuing other goals other than pure altrusim. Marketing comes in many shapes and forms. CSR is a big deal these days any Im sure there are many pros at it at google now too. /kc On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:24:32PM -0600, Jorge Amodio's said:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers Jorge
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers Jorge
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is evil. Shamed
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer" http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is evil.
I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and multiple people here can find bad things about it. I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of their profit!". Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say this is very much not one of them. -- TTFN, patrick
I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and multiple people here can find bad things about it.
I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of their profit!".
Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say this is very much not one of them.
Indeed !! BTW, my reference to "Evil" was a sarcasm in relation to those who constantly need to label a company like Google as such, I don't even find Microsoft to be "Evil". Well they have been trying that for many years :-) ... Also for clarification, I didn't find that piece of information from Google on their home page or any reference from a visible site, I don't believe they are doing it just to generate some noise or PR. I just received a message from them for being their user saying: "Hello, As we near the end of the year, we wanted to take a moment to thank you for the time, energy, commitment, and trust you've shared with us in 2009. With sharing in mind, this year we've decided to do something a little different. We hope you'll find it fits the spirit of the holiday season. We're looking forward to working with you to build lasting success in 2010. Happy Holidays, Your Google Team" The link to that page was embedded in the "something a little different" text. To be frank, for all the years I've been suffering with MS-DOS, and the many versions of Windoze, I never/ever received a message from Microsoft thanking me for being their user/customer ... Cheers Jorge
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong. Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arguing FOR them. Well played, Google. /kc On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:28:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore's said:
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer" http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is evil.
I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and multiple people here can find bad things about it.
I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of their profit!".
Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say this is very much not one of them.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arguing FOR them.
Well played, Google.
No, I'm arguing against people who think this is evil are being silly. Including you. Sometimes donating money to charity is just donating money to charity. I really don't see Google getting more business because I posted to NANOG. Are you honestly arguing otherwise? I guess we should get upset at them if they take a tax write off too? -- TTFN, patrick
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:28:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore's said:
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer" http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is evil.
I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and multiple people here can find bad things about it.
I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of their profit!".
Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say this is very much not one of them.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
The tax write-off alone is going to be significantly more than 1%... Scott
Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
The tax write-off alone is going to be significantly more than 1%...
Scott
Bingo! We have a winner. Having been a executive at several "for profit" large companies in the past, at the end of the day anything that we did for charity was always justified by the "what do we get out of it?" question. If we couldn't answer that question we moved on to the next charity. Bret
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers Jorge
Other companies also do provide millions to charity each year: http://ycorpblog.com/?fr=yscpb&mobvs=1&s=YEF&x=0&y=0&mobid=U0ROzK69GDJdQAADgp6BU Some companies are better at marketing that fact than others. I happen to work for a company that seems particularly dysfunctional when it comes to trying to let people know that it's done something useful or good. ^_^; Matt
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
Cheers Jorge
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
From a corporate standpoint, comparing to 2006 donations as reviewed by Businessweek: http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_corporate/ Google's $20M on $6B profit for 2009 is miniscule and basically just PR hype. Wanna compare Bill to Larry & Sergey? Your comment on "wish Redmond would copy this action" is libelous and I certainly hope that major philanthropists do not "copy" Google's joke of a donation.
-Hank Further references: http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/resources/benchmarking-reports/giving-i... http://philanthropy.com/philanthropy50/index.php?view=topdonors&year=2008
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>wrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
Just to put this in the right context you might want to read http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/21/google-2009-holiday-gift/ ie, this is not a charity donation from "Google", but from one part of Google on behalf of their customers/suppliers. Either way, I think we're a little off topic by this stage... Scott.
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
Yes, the Gates Foundation gives a lot of money to worthy causes, which is truly admirable. However, to put things into perspective let's take a look at the history of these two companies. Microsoft was founded 34 years ago (in 1975) and IPOd 23 years ago (in 1986). Bill Gates didn't start his foundation until 12 years after the IPO. Google was founded (incorporated) 11 years ago in 1998, IPOd 5 years ago in 2005. Google Foundation was created as part of the IPO: "a commitment to contribute significant resources, including 1% of Google's equity and profits in some form, as well as employee time, to address some of the world's most urgent problems. That commitment became a range of giving initiatives including Google.org." How much did Microsoft give to charity in 1991, 5 years after their IPO? Would you bet against a proposition that by 2028 the Google Foundation does just as much (or more) than the Gates foundation is doing today? jc
Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
Yes, the Gates Foundation gives a lot of money to worthy causes, which is truly admirable. However, to put things into perspective let's take a look at the history of these two companies.
Microsoft was founded 34 years ago (in 1975) and IPOd 23 years ago (in 1986). Bill Gates didn't start his foundation until 12 years after the IPO.
Google was founded (incorporated) 11 years ago in 1998, IPOd 5 years ago in 2005. Google Foundation was created as part of the IPO: "a commitment to contribute significant resources, including 1% of Google's equity and profits in some form, as well as employee time, to address some of the world's most urgent problems. That commitment became a range of giving initiatives including Google.org."
How much did Microsoft give to charity in 1991, 5 years after their IPO? Would you bet against a proposition that by 2028 the Google Foundation does just as much (or more) than the Gates foundation is doing today? jc
-- “Discovering...discovering...we will never cease discovering... and the end of all our discovering will be to return to the place where we began and to know it for the first time.” -T.S. Eliot
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bruce Williams <williams.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to another list pls? Merry Xmas! :) -chris
Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to another list pls?
Unless the Gates Foundation and Google wish to substantially fund NANOG, *NOG & IETF, in that case I'd not mind talking about them until we ran out of space for IPv6 allocations :-)
Merry Xmas! :) Same
-Jorge
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Jay Ess wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of the Microsoft founders, what does that have to do with Microsoft's corporate charitable giving? B
William Hamilton wrote:
Jay Ess wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of the Microsoft founders, what does that have to do with Microsoft's corporate charitable giving? I would guess that the money originally comes from the profits of MS so i think its related. But you are right that it does not come directly from MS.
participants (21)
-
Bret Clark -
Bruce Williams -
Christopher Morrow -
Corey Travioli -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jay Ess -
JC Dill -
Jim Richardson -
Joe Greco -
Jorge Amodio -
Ken Chase -
Matthew Petach -
Michael Painter -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Peter Beckman -
Richard Bennett -
Scott Howard -
Scott Weeks -
Seth Mattinen -
sthaug＠nethelp.no -
William Hamilton