That’s ‘Doctor Woz’ to you

North Carolina State University Chancellor Marye Anne Fox on Saturday conferred an honorary Doctorate of Sciences degree to Steve Wozniak, CEO of Wheels of Zeus, a company that designs wireless electronics products, and co-founder of Apple Computer Inc. and inventor of the Apple I and Apple II computers. (Attribution: MacNN)

See potos of the event here.


  1. I use a Mac and don’t like Microsoft products, but The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for research and programs to fight diseases that kill millions of people in developing countries, including many many children.

    At least some of the profits are being put to very good use!

  2. Malaria Researcher, while that is somewhat true, Bill Gates only does it so he doesn’t have to pay as much tax to the gov. @ the end of the yr. U know all the donations are Tax-deductable. but all in all I guess it is still a good thing.

  3. I think it’s presumptious to say that the only reason Gates donates so much money is because of the tax write-off. Is it not possible that he actually has a desire to see such diseases eliminated?

    Hell, I’ll make plenty of donations to charitable organizations over the next year because I’d rather give the money to those entities than the government. If nothing else, the tax write-off is an incentive to give in a way that doesn’t financially inconvenience me.

    The question of whether either of us would give were there no tax breaks attached is moot. The government is happy, we’re happy, the charitable organizations are happy, and no harm is done. For people that find fault in this system, I’d like to hear a more viable alternative.

  4. Bill Gates business practices are less than desirable but you can’t fault him for giving to charity. By the way does anyone know offhand what percentage of his cash he is donating?

  5. It’s a tax writeoff and a publicity stunt for Bill and Melinda…perhaps also a slightly guilty consciounce(sp) for manipulating the world with a lesser quality OS.

  6. I believe that he has contributed quite a few billion to the foundation. Like many uber-wealthy people, he seems to have reached a point in his life in which the accumulation of wealth no longer holds any allure. The natural transition for these people is a philanthropic role and he and his wife seem to be doing a good job. I don’t like most M$ products, either (although Excel is OK), but I applaud Bill’s commitment to charity.

  7. Always wondered whatelse an “honourary” degree brings the recipient aside the “ooh” factor. Well, Robin Williams said it best during his appearance on The Actor’s Studio: he described the usefullness of the honourary degree bestowed to him by Juliard’s as “a vibrator made by Nerf…great to look at but basically useless” ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> (or something along that line)

  8. Bill Gates didn’t begin ‘giving’ money to charity until the anti-trust trials. His charity is nothing more than the cost of doing business.

    I found it interesting that he chose to give money to India for AIDS research but not to Africa, which has a MUCH higher AIDS infection rate per capita. What begins to bubble to the surface is that there is business to be had in India and not much in Africa. He’ll give to Africa when the business climate is ripe.

  9. RE Mac Daddy
    Whether it’s the cost of doing business or pure altruism, the end result is that the money is made available for research. Now, India vs Africa: consider for a moment that corruption is rife in many African countries thus he probably felt it best to hand it to a country who, if you remember, has been at the forefront in producing generic tri-cocktails at a substantially lower price than the money grubbing pharmas and would most probably guide the money where it’s supposed to be going and not in some despot’s pocket.

  10. While giving the money to charity is a wonderful thing, there is still a problem with the fact that he has the money to spend.

    I pay for Microsoft products because I have to in order to put bread on my own table. Microsoft is a monopoly — believe me, I tried to use alternative products but in the end had no viable alternative (I’m a Mac user but still must currently use Office).

    Microsoft is an abusive and coercive monopoly. They charge more than necessary, use ruthlessly unfair business practices to destroy competition (and destroy the lives of those in competitive businesses), and coerce customers, business partners, and competitors into technology choices that are not the best choices, not more functional, more usable, or more innovative. But the choice has to be made because of “compatibility” and the financial influence of Microsoft.

    In the end, the problem is that the money Gates is spending for charity is not justly his money, and the people of the world had the right to decide what charities that money should go to, not him. He is able to exercise the whimsical goodwill of a dictator, and while we should encourage the goodwill, in the end he must be evaluated by the sum of his actions.

    True goodwill would trickle over into establishing a business based on the highest ethical principles and structured to leave behind a world that is on a firmer foundation. First, that would mean establishing appropriate limits on their competitive practices. Long-term, it would mean leaving behind a society with greater competition, a healthy and prosperous free market, greater innovation, robust diversity, and established ethical business standards for the whole business community that benefit customers, employees, the world community, and the environment, in addition to the owners.

    Historically, such generosity requires rare vision, though there have in fact been some dictators who arranged a peaceful transfer of power to democracies, thus serving their people best. We can only hope Bill Gates will also eventually come around.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.