Anything is possible, but I couldn't find anything with a quick google, and I'm assuming Bill Gates has more time and resources than myself to verify that statement before making it.
The Guardian (yeah, I know) had a very in-depth look at how the current progress in fighting Ebola from the viewpoint of Prof. Tom Solomon: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/14/meet-the-man-le.... Long read, so make sure you have a cup of coffee handy.
I'm not actually sure what his specific criticism is. Some people don't like it because it's quite leftwing. Possibly, though, he just said that because no newspaper is going to have great scientific content.
Exactly as blumkvist replied: immorality and neutrality are quite different things. In fact, I'd argue that the Guardian's political alignment is strongly linked to its integrity.
Having political inclination does not make you morally compromised. Le Diplo and its parent organization are openly left-wing. This doesn't stop them from attracting one of the most sophisticated audiences on the planet. Same with Le Figaro, which is a lot more like my taste.
I would imagine this would be something that Google would be skittish to get into. Flu symptoms are a) common and b) well known. Tracking symptoms of arbitrary potential epidemics could be very difficult to design, let alone verify, and there's little benefit to Google. Not even PR if they raise a false flag.
Tracking symptoms of arbitrary potential epidemics could be very difficult to design
Does it need to be terribly precise, though?
If, for example, lots of searches spring up for vomiting or sweating in a small radius, I'd imagine that'd raise a "Hey, you might like someone to look at this flag," which could be useful - just as long as the computers aren't shouting all day long.
It's awesome, because companies use this to drive profit. I worked IT for a company that had an entire department (think up to ten people!) just crawling sites like this all day to determine where to increase their advertising. They made flu-related medicines.
Highly recommended If you're interested in this sort of thing: This Coming Plague, by Laurie Garrett. It's a very good book about, in a nutshell, how easy international travel is, and how lower investment in medical infrastructure and social services affect us all.
The PC was the greatest tool given to man in a long time, the Internet would have been impossible without it. What is your beef? That Gates was a fierce competitor in a competitive business?
He shouldn't have made his software closed source. Too many business men followed him, leading to a vast amount of bullshit software no one can easily relay on to make something better.
The free software culture slowly recovers. But we are still far away from the good old and worthy traditions for commercial software developers.
What exactly is your point in this thread? Are you somehow trying to draw an analogy between Bill Gates and "mass murdering dictators"?
We get it. Bill Gates made some reprehensible business decisions, in his time, that hurt people. He also made some good ones, and created vast amounts of wealth for many, many people. Microsoft continues to do so. I'd argue it nets out. Now, in the twilight of his life, he's spending his time and wealth helping society.
He didn't destroy the software world, or its "culture". What is it you do that allows you to throw so many stones?
Gates took wealth from many, many people and gave it to the few. It is the inversion of free software. You don't see how he hurt the society and how much more wealth could have been created without his decision.
I don't throw stones because of the mistakes someone made. I throw stones because of the lack of will or understanding why to fix the own mistake when he is capable of it.
It isn't the point that Gates made money. The point is: at what cost?
In capitalism, its considered fair to hurt people within legislation, just to make oneself rich. It is argued as the market and "the better shall win", but we are far away from sane market mechanics. More often people suffer than profit from it. The overall goal is to make everyone happy. But this can't be achieved by our capitalism.
Microsoft actually predates the free software movement. And proprietary software predates Microsoft. And free software 'culture' still exists, in as much as it ever did.
This article is more about the man than about what he does. There are lots of people who try to stop diseases and epidemics. The difference is, its Bill Gates and its posted on a tech-heavy news site.
Premise is fair, though more details are needed to discuss the validity of any particular approach.