Did anyone catch this article on Wired? A quote: So far the discussion thread for the article seems overwhelmingly negative towards the author. My main problem with the article aside from the fact that I find judging a person based on their public contributions to charity extremely distastasteful, is that he bases his conclusions on "non evidence" rather than solid evidence. "You are not on that list as a publicity seeking donor, so you must not be doing any good for your fellow man." What kind of crap is that?