David f “How much of the Gates fortune has been built on more efficiently dealing death?”

Actually, when one considers the motivating force behind the development of microprocessors in general and LVSI in particular, which is a core technology, not simply behind computers, big or small but also behind mobile telephones, the internet, email etc

and then recall the US military's search for a navigational / directional control system for cruise missiles, I think the real question to ask is

How much of the entire commercial and domestic application of modern computers, telecommunications and associated applications -

is due to the US military's resolve for a process for “more efficiently dealing death”, whilst simultaneously trying to balance the relative merits, in terms of reduced collateral damage, of pinpoint munitions targeting versus blanket bombing.

All that apart, if I were flying any aircraft (either military of Airbus as in WA recently) or in any submersible vessel or when targeting a smart bomb, I would not want “Microsoft Vista” to be the installed operating system.

A “crash” has far more significance when flying jets and sailing submarines than when dealing with personal computing issues.

Col Rouge wrote:

"How much of the entire commercial and domestic application of modern computers, telecommunications and associated applications -

is due to the US military's resolve for a process for “more efficiently dealing death”, whilst simultaneously trying to balance the relative merits, in terms of reduced collateral damage, of pinpoint munitions targeting versus blanket bombing."

That's a great question.

With the continued reliance of the US military on cluster bombing, land mines and depleted uranium I have the distinct impression that reduced collateral damage is desirable but not a priority.

I assume the US military or any other military would use more reliable systems than those in personal computers. It is the nature of the beast to hurry a new system on the market before it is well tested and then issue correcting software later. This is done to keep up market share.

Ludwig

An after thought for clarification.
The ONLY political party I have ever joined was the ‘Australia Party’ forerunner to the Dems. One of their key policies in 1969 was ZPG it was true then as now.

My comment were aimed at pointing out that THE MORE URGENT PROBLEM is our (the relatively rich’s) profligate life style. Environmental degregation et sec are sub set or caused by the lifestyle/magic pudding economic mentality.
ZPG or birth control on a grand scale must be implemented sooner than later but reality dictates it will be later. Consider the fiasco of Global Climate Change.
Secondly to point out the flaws in a businessman’s logic towards aid.
I hope this helps.
Cheer
Examinator.

*I’ve got to ask; what’s point of addressing all the other stuff if we are just going to continue with our rush towards the cliff?*

Well you know my view on that one, Ludwig. As Darwin suggested,
individuals of any given species will keep multiplying and
multiplying, until in the end it is unsustainable and the whole
lot crashes with a thud. I can't see why humans will behave
any differently, so most likely they will learn the hard way.

Today they speak of a global human population of 10 billion as
a given and few seem to care. I guess what humans will do is
just keep stealing habitat from other species in the short term.

As to the Gates Foundation, I could be wrong, but I would be
amazed if spermicidal effect will not be included in these new
products. There are many political reasons why they would not
broadcast that fact, including access to African populations.

Africa is a place of conspiracy theories and witch doctors etc.
When HIV first kicked off and people were warned to use condoms,
many claimed this was all nonsense and just a way for the white
man to try and control the population of the black man. Next
a rumour went around that if you slept with a virgin, that would
cure you. Even the South African Govt did not accept the scientific
explanation of HIV.

The Catholic Church would fight tooth and nail against anything
containing spermicide, for of course they want more little
Catholics.

So it would not be silly to launch a product that focuses on HIV,
even if it does alot more then that.

One thing about Bill Gates, he is not stupid.

Have you sent an email to the foundation and asked? They
have a contact on that website.

Examinator “My comment were aimed at pointing out that THE MORE URGENT PROBLEM is our (the relatively rich’s) profligate life style.”

That is very much a matter of conjecture

What constitutes a ‘profligate life style’ will vary according to the free choice in desires and priorities of each individual.

Speaking personally, any ones degree of individual “profligacy” can only be reasonably assessed as being (or not) within ones ability to fund such indulgences.

The personal expenditure of discretionary income and resources is a completely private matter and

the nature of belief in “personal choice” within Australia, makes criticism or comment on another’s self-funded personal and private decisions inappropriate.

Therefore, the notion of any ones “profligate life style’ is entirely moot.

My concern is more with governments who act profligately, supposedly in our name (I say supposedly, having rarely seen any government action which could be described as being for the benefit of the electorate, as an act of sincere altruism or philanthropy).

We see the incumbent federal government considering levels of ‘profligacy’ which would see them spending more than they receive by way of income.

Since I do not and have never directly benefited from government profligacy of the state, in any manner which exceeds the taxes I am regularly levied, I reject any culpability for government profligacy.

Yabby “Well you know my view on that one, Ludwig. As Darwin suggested,
individuals of any given species will keep multiplying and
multiplying, until in the end it is unsustainable and the whole
lot crashes with a thud. I can't see why humans will behave
any differently, so most likely they will learn the hard way.”

Not being a past reader of Darwin, I thank you for your comment.

I can see the ‘nature of humanity’ to pursue a chaotic and irrational resolution to a resource based problem.

A primal desire to propagate and continue ones genetic strain prevailing over more reasonable and nobler considerations.

I suppose I might congratulate myself for having surrendered to the knife and a vasectomy after siring only 2 :-)

Col Rouge

"Speaking personally, any ones degree of individual “profligacy” can only be reasonably assessed as being (or not) within ones ability to fund such indulgences."

This is not at all what examinator was driving at when he referred to our 'profligate life style'. He was quite correctly making the point that over-population isn't the only threat to our future sustainability, but that the selfish rate at which we're consuming the earth's resources, particularly in the West, is also critical.

Whether a person can pay for their lifestyle or not is irrelevant. It's the consumption levels themselves which are profligate, not any individuals who might be living beyond their means.

"The personal expenditure of discretionary income and resources is a completely private matter and the nature of belief in “personal choice” within Australia, makes criticism or comment on another’s self-funded personal and private decisions inappropriate."

Personal expenditure might be private, but the rate at which individuals consume the earth's resources is a matter for us all. We can no longer afford to let the extreme libertarian 'I can, so I will' attitude dominate. This issue is much bigger than the individual. Collective solutions are required. And constant ranting about individual rights is both unhelpful and unwanted.