You tell those sick, needy ppl that saving their life from the ravages of disease and malnutrition is outwieghed by the need to have a slightly less buggy internet explorer. If you honestly believe this, you should be placed right next to Darl, because that is obtuse logic by anyones standards.
Interesting. Do you also think Microsoft's competitors should be outlawed in order to provide more income to the benevolent Mr. Gates? Is sending money to needy people in other countries which are too backwards to help themselves, more important than fostering a competitive environment in one of the world's leading technology nations? I think the idea that the ends justify the means here is rather shortsighted, but I'm not a sniveling Gates worshipper either.