It's kind of crazy when you think about his goals of eradicating some diseases completely. Totally. From the face of the Earth.

There are definitely worse ways to spend your time and money.

He's uniquely suited to the task, that's what he did to Be and Netscape.

Be was so hard to catch, you practically had to infect yourself with it. Netscape mutated into the Communicator Virus, and what with it's bigger molecular structure, transmission became so difficult, that it eventually died out.

Since smallpox I've heard of several diseases removed, but no talk about saving a few vials. Is this still done?

I'd guess it is. Diseases are still organisms, and we try pretty hard not to let them go extinct.

What's the reason for keeping them though? Is it to make vaccines if they potentially come back or more sinister pre-emptive military reasons?

We are always learning how to learn more. Destroying the specimens would destroy an opportunity to learn about an organism that has had a significant impact on our own species.

Research. Vaccines just in case we didn't get the all.

Larry Ellison has put virtually all of his assets into a trust with the intent of giving away 95% of his money to charitable causes when he dies.

I wasn't sure of this, so I looked it up:

http://cms.givingpledge.org/#larry_ellison

The full letter is an interesting read

I did not know that. Do you have a source?

I'm not judging Ellison at all. Bill could have done the same, but I think it's cool that he is choosing to oversee how that money is spent while he's still alive.

From a purely selfish point of view, if I was to choose one path or the other, Bill's seems more pleasant.

By spending the money on charity while alive, Bill is celebrated as a benefactor while he is alive and charities (and people) worldwide will mourn his death.

Larry, on the other hand, is not celebrated as a benefactor while alive, and charities will celebrate after he dies and they finally get the money.

And ofcourse Larry will live to be 105.

What's he using to buy all his boy's toys, like yachts and plans and sports cars? Or is that just a meaningless percentage of his wealth?

The man has a net worth of $41B. 5% of his wealth is still $2B.

I don't know about you, but I don't begrudge a man worth $41B who plans to give away nearly all his wealth, a yacht or two.

He said "95%". 5% of Ellison's wealth is 2 billion. His yacht was in the $200m range.

Who cares if he spends his money on that?

And without pretending that he can fix the world. Which is fatuous and provides a cover for business to continue as usual. Ellison is satisfied with being destructive in one domain of affairs. Gates isn't happy with just screwing up computing. He has to poop other people's parties, too.

Give me Ellison over Gates any day.

I don't believe the children who would have died from diseases the Western world doesn't even have anymore would call it "screwing up" their lives.

He's trying to eradicate disease and help people who don't have billions of dollars, or even millions...or even hundreds of dollars to their name.

Bill Gates didn't screw up computing. The Microsoft that exists today is an entirely different animal than it was when it was just a startup, just as Google and Apple are different.

This isn't cynicism about startups' growth trends; this is a point that Bill Gates has revolutionized the entire industry multiple times over. How he chooses to spend his wealth is what most people would call generous and altruistic.

Wow. That was amazingly insightful. However, comparing Microsoft to Linux or Macintoshes is like comparing Sushi to French Fries or Pork. Each one has its draws and vehement opponents. So yes, they are all different, even Microsoft today and Microsoft circa 1994.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, as I thought everything I said was pretty self-evident. But thank you.

Although I wasn't comparing the operating systems, I was comparing the pattern of the companies' growth and changing management over the years. That's why I included Google.

Very true, and that was far from sarcastic. :)

Well then thanks again :)