Along these lines, a while ago I was fortunate enough to come into (indirect) contact with an organization that was retiring a bunch of old Apple systems and a

Along these lines, a while ago I was fortunate enough to come into (indirect) contact with an organization that was retiring a bunch of old Apple systems and a few PCs. Because of this, a number of people too poor to consider buying a computer have one. One larger family has two. One small family has three, but it allows the father to work from home, rather than working another 70 hours at work (for no extra pay). I'm sure that a number of the people in this thread, on seeing these computers in these homes, would immediately jump to the conclusion that these poor people are undeserving of any kindness or welfare because they wasted their money on shiny computers - an attitude often proudly worn on the sleeve. I've heard the satellite dish argument before, which makes the very same assumption. ("I was in a poor area and I saw satellite dishes on most houses!" What percentage of houses? Why assume they were hooked up? Why assume that in every house is a poor family? At what threshold would you allow people to start spending their own money as they see fit, and what if there's no way they can earn enough to reach this threshold? Who died and made you dictator of the world, anyway?) Funny thing is that while some small number know who I am, and some think I'm awesome for giving them a computer, I'm not. All I am is the middleman. It's the organization doing the upgrading who got the computers to me that's the real star here. I just happened to know some people in need - and I'm quite excited because the organization may be retiring a few more computers in the near future. We might be able to help change a few more lives for the better. I will have to start looking for more struggling families.