
Chuck Feeney: The Billionaire Who Is Trying To Go Broke - clicks
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/
======
dools
Websites that start autoplaying video on page load need to be removed from the
internet.

Is there a good chrome extension to tell you which tabs are producing audio
output? I couldn't find one with (an admittedly cursory) search ... .

~~~
Ellipsis753
Adblock plus will block those ads. (So no sound to worry about.)

~~~
Wingman4l7
It's also expressly what Adblock was designed for -- essentially punishing
websites who choose to partner with advertisers who ignore common browser
courtesy.

~~~
bad_user
AdBlock is not " _punishing_ " websites, doing in fact the exact opposite by
making annoying websites usable to a loud and easily annoyed, but very active
demographic. This means that even though you (the Adblock user) aren't seeing
the blocked ads, you are still giving them eyeballs, which means that:

(a) you can still be targeted with advertising hidden in the actual content,
and

(b) you can still forward that link to your acquaintances, many of whom do not
have AdBlockers installed

Sure, you can think of it as " _punishment_ ", but Adblock is in fact a net
win for advertisers and a net loss for everybody else. It is no coincidence
that AdBlock Plus is developed by an advertising company.

If you want true punishment for such websites, the only real way to punish
them is to stop giving them eyeballs entirely, being the online equivalent of
voting with your wallet. Doing anything else that helps with the two afore
mentioned points is helping them grow their bottom line, encouraging their
current practices.

~~~
Ntrails
I disagree, in part.

AdBlock punishes ALL websites equally (assuming you use the standard
blacklist), not just those who have obnoxious content. But you can be assured
that it is punishment as it impacts their revenue when ads are not loaded.

~~~
bad_user
It doesn't impact revenue negatively, as users using ad blockers are more
likely to be annoyed by or immune to ads, having an impact on the publisher's
ranking in its relation to advertisers. Publishers are ranked based on the
quality of the conversions they provide, whether it's views, clicks or
actions. A lower ranking translates in lower earnings per view, click or
action.

I stand by my point, ad blockers are a net win for publishers and advertisers.

------
forgingahead
Interesting that he is/was big on reducing his tax liability so that he could
give away more.

~~~
gadders
Seems fair enough to me. I believe there is also a link that countries have
the lowest tax rates have the highest levels of philanthropy.

~~~
ljf
Fair enough, but not something personally agree with - why should people go to
lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government, so
that they can choose where it goes. If you don't agree with the way the
government works or spends, then it's time to help change that through voting
and engaging in politics.

Otherwise only pet projects and passions get funded, while the daily bread and
butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets
forgotten and sidelined.

Just my 2pence

~~~
yummyfajitas
_the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities
functioning gets forgotten and sidelined._

These functions are only a small portion of government spending - it's mostly
just wealth redistribution.

[http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total)

~~~
clicks
And that is a-okay with me.

I say that because the term 'wealth redistribution' when it's used usually
carries with it a loaded connotation, which I'm not sure if you meant to
communicate across or not.

It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution'
programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.

~~~
mseebach
> It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution'
> programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to
> day.

Many people disagree and believe that this end is much better served through
charity than through (wasteful, bureaucratic, inherently un-personal)
redistribution.

Tax planning for the purpose of charity is just "putting your money where your
mouth is".

~~~
satellitecat
I'm not sure it actually is wasteful, though.

Social Security in the US is supposed to have minuscule overhead.

In Canada, even the government can't always be trusted to not give money to
charity groups that are anti-gay -- individuals might find that a feature, not
a bug, of the charity :P.

Knowing an accountant, I know that many charities put barely any of their
income towards the actual charity (the legal minimum is 2%.. two percent!).

Breast cancer gets huge amounts of donations, while less glamourous, but more
lethal cancers get much less.

I know that if I were to hit hard times, I'd rather have something not too
personal, rather than feeling beholden to random people, nice and generous as
they may be.

Plus, do we really want selfish people to keep the most money? :) Screw those
people, give with the rest of us, with professionals deciding where the money
goes, not random people's pet interests :P

------
Peroni
_The man who arguably has done more for Ireland than anyone since Saint
Patrick..._

 _What Feeney does is give big money to big problems–whether bringing peace to
Northern Ireland..._

Whilst there's no doubting Feeney's massive philanthropic efforts in Ireland,
the two claims quoted above are just absurd.

------
jrn
Well that article was better than expected, I lost my money on out of the
money options, whereas this is a generous philanthropy piece. I'd like to
think my way was more effective.

~~~
marcosscriven
Oh dear, that sounds stressful. You mean _all_ your money?

------
breakyerself
I'm tired of all the worshiping of rich people because they go around spending
a fortune trying to reshape the world in their own image. Bill gates is
ruining school systems in the US. As far as I'm concerned no one can "earn" a
billion dollars. People get that rich because the system is broken not because
they are brilliant and hard workers.

------
kstop
My family's sign-making business back in Ireland got a lot of work out of UL
and the Plassey Technological Park back in the day. It always did feel weird,
like an alien had plonked them down on the edge of Limerick. Now I know that's
at least partially true!

------
kevin818
Anyone else think of "George Feeny" when they saw his last name? :)

------
auganov
There'a actually a documentary about him.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI‎](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI‎)

~~~
andrewcamel
And a book -- The Billionaire Who Wasn't

------
ansgri
Currently reading Atlas Shrugged, this story is amusing. I'm afraid that book
is more relevant that I would wish.

------
dsschnau
Wow - this guy is my new role model.

------
alx
A relevant anagram can be found in his name...

~~~
TheBeardKing
Close anyway. One extra 'e'.

~~~
zmitri
Not a fan of Che(e)ney are we?

------
bwb
Awesome awesome book, highly recommend you read it!

