求比尔盖茨《The Road Ahead》(未来之路)的英文版,只要英文的。

kuaidi.ping-jia.net  作者:佚名   更新日期:2024-07-07
比尔盖茨的英文名

William H. Gates
微软公司主席和首席软件设计师


William (Bill) H. Gates 是微软公司主席和首席软件设计师。微软公司是为个人计算和商业计算提供软件、服务和Internet技术的世界范围内的领导者。在截止于2000年6月的上个财年,微软公司收入达229.6亿美元,在60个国家的雇员总数超过了44,000人。

盖茨出生于1955年10月28日,和两个姐姐一块在西雅图长大。他的父亲,William H. Gates II,是西雅图的律师。他的后母,Mary Gates,是学校教师,华盛顿大学的董事以及United Way International的主席。

盖茨曾就读于在西雅图的公立小学和私立的湖滨中学。在那里,他发现了他在软件方面的兴趣并且在13岁是开始了计算机编程。

1973年, 盖茨考进了哈佛大学. 在那里他和现在微软的首席执行官史蒂夫·鲍尔默住在一起。 在哈佛的时候,盖茨为第一台微型计算机 – MITS Altair 开发了BASIC编程语言的一个版本。

在大三的时候,盖茨离开了哈佛并把全部精力投入到他与孩提时代的好友Paul Allen在1975年创建的微软公司中。在计算机将成为每个家庭、每个办公室中最重要的工具这样信念的引导下,他们开始为个人计算机开发软件。盖茨的远见卓识以及他对个人计算的先见之明成为微软和软件产业成功的关键。

在盖茨的领导下,微软持续地发展改进软件技术,使软件更加易用,更省钱和更富于乐趣。公司致力于长期的发展,从目前每财年超过40亿美元的研究开发经费就可看出这一点。

1999 年, 盖茨纂写了《未来时速》一书,向人们展示了计算机技术是如何以崭新的方式来解决商业问题的。这本书在超过60个国家以25种语言出版。 《未来时速》 赢得了广泛的赞誉,并被纽约时报、今日美国、华尔街日报和Amazon.com列为畅销书。盖茨的上一本书,于1995年出版的《 The Road Ahead》(未来之路), 曾经连续七周名列纽约时报畅销书排行榜的榜首。

盖茨把两本书的全部收入捐献给了非赢利组织以支持利用科技进行教育和技能培训。

除了对计算机和软件的热爱之外,盖茨对生物技术也很有兴趣。他是ICOS公司的董事长,这是一家专注于蛋白质基体及小分子疗法的公司。他也是很多其它生物技术公司的投资人。盖茨还成立了Corbis公司, 它正在研究开发世界最大的可视信息资源之一 – 来自于全球公共收藏和私人收藏的艺术及摄影作品综合数字档案。此外,盖茨还和移动电话先锋Craig McCaw 一起投资于Teledesic。这是一个雄心勃勃的计划,计划使用几百个低轨道卫星来提供覆盖全世界的双向宽带电讯服务。

对于盖茨来说,慈善事业也是非常重要的。他和他的妻子Melinda已经捐赠了超过210亿美元建立了一个基金,支持在全球医疗健康和知识学习领域的慈善事业,希望随着人类进入21世纪,这些关键领域的科技进步能使全人类受益。到今天为止,盖茨和他的妻子Melinda Gates 建立的基金已经将20多亿美元用于了全球的健康事业,将5亿多美元用于改善人们的学习条件,其中包括为盖茨图书馆购置计算机设备、为美国和加拿大的低收入社区的公共图书馆提供Internet培训和Internet访问服务。此外将超过2亿元用于西北太平洋地区的社区项目建设,将超过2900万美元用在了一些特殊项目和每年的礼物发放活动上。

盖茨和Melinda French Gates 于1994年1月1日结婚。他们有两个孩子:女儿Jennifer Katharine Gates,生于1996年; 儿子 Rory John Gates, 生于1999年。

盖茨是一个热心读者,喜欢打高尔夫球和桥牌。


I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: "Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care." I completely disagree. I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with. All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.

The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.
To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.
Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.
But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: "Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent." The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.

We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away. If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.
Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks "How can I help?," then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.
Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.

The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.
Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.

You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.
But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.

I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.

What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.

Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.

Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: "I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation."
Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.
The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.
We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.
Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.
What for?

There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?
Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:
Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?

Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.

My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: "From those to whom much is given, much is expected."
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.
Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.

You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
Knowing what you know, how could you not?And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.