Shouldn't surprise you, a corporation has no reason to be ethical in a relief situation. Everyone can point at everyone else in the corporation, and still all reap some nice profits.
Yep, the interest the collection while sitting on your donation should give you further warm fuzzies. Want money to go to a charity? Go directly to the charity website, local office or mail them a donation. Corporate cooperation with charity gives them some sort of PR for being a middle-man. Sounds rather indecent when looked at that way, doesn't it?
The day the Tsunami hit I scampered out the door to give a pint of blood. Later that day I thought of putting a item on an eBay auction to raise some fundage for American Red Cross. Ebay listing page allowed me to pick a charity and a percentage to go there. Wonderful. The listing was published and had a big banner about the Red Cross added to it.
After the auction ended the trouble began. The buyer paid and I found the money sitting in my PayPal account, with their customary cut removed from it. WTF?!? I drop a note to PayPal that this must be some sort of error, the money should have gone straight to American Red Cross. No reply, typical.
Then I get on the online support with someone and tell them about it and ask them to send the answer to my email (the one I provided) and again I get nothing. Bother.
Finally over the weekend I spend 2.5 hours waiting through the queue for help by apparently the only on-line customer support person they had working (this smells like the business model: we have few complaints to our customer support so satisfaction must be nearly 100%, but I digress) It is finally explained to me that I had to set up a Mission Fish account first so the payment would have been routed to them. Excuse me? You let me list an item where 100% was to go to a registered charity, but didn't establish a precondition of publishing the listing that the Mission Fish account be set up first, while the charity logo and mission are splashed all over a listing - yet the payment for it can completely bypass the charity? Hello, this looks like enabling Donor Fraud.
I finally have had enough of their stupidity and go over to American Red Cross website and donate directly, including the sum I received for the auctioned item. I'm beside myself with the stupidity of corporations, but with eBay this is nothing new. Since 1999 they've gone from good to bad to worse.
Be wary of donating via eBay. No guarantee the funds you pay do go where you think.
Ghosthunters don't need gadgets. The only thing they need is the desire and ability to separate idiots from their money.
I'll not cast aspersions on Ghost Hunters, alleging they are confidence tricksters. If you really, really do believe in spooks then you'll need a thick skin to take the skeptics and a load of patience. Other than that, energy bars, water, change of clothing are always handy, because you never know where you'll be going or how long you'll be there, waiting for a manifestation to occur.
I've stopped watching new shows as a result of the cancellations of so many good shows. Now I only bother if it has a good run or completes. I only just started watching Lost. Futurama is excellent and I'm glad it has been renewed but it is a rarity that shows survive this long regardless of quality, especially shows that get cancelled and then come back.
Not watching new shows saves a lot of time and I guess I should thank those willing to waste their time getting into a new show with all the risk of cancellation and the disappointment associated.
I just stopped because I couldn't sit through a show, even a half hour show anymore. The writing, the acting, I dunno, it just doesn't hold my attention and I get all restive and start looking for things to do. You know you're really not paying attention when the TV is on and you think about turning it on to see if there's something on - uh, but it's already on - it's just become some kind of background white noise. Now I could really get into staring at an aquarium of fish for a half hour, no problem, at least the fish are doing something interesting, compared to TV shows.
I stopped watching TV about 10 years ago and most of the shows I see are on DVD, I watch as I have time available. I did like the series, but never enough to tune in or buy cable.
I've been to the Sears Tower. I've walked around it. It's quite an impressive building. This Willis Tower, can someone give me directions as to where to find it? Every time I'm in Chicago I can't find a building taller than the Sears Tower. It's truly one of the great mysteries of the 21st Century.
IIRC there was an SF story by A.C. Clark where a space craft used a huge block of ice as a radiation shield.
Probably work great until the thing has totally sublimated.
They'll probably develop something which captures it in a magnetic envelope or has a game of kick about with particles and nano-tubes, then find the composite material of a standard childrens rain coat works just as well.
Remember, the more litigious the company, the less innovative.
Apple is not excluded and obviously neither is MS. The only time a company goes "nuclear" with the patent option is when they are betting that in the short term they can make a profit off extortion. Given the open source nature of the products and the sheer size of the companies MS is going after, this is so hilariously shortsighted I don't know where to begin, not to mention how easy it is to get around a patent with GPL'd software.
Shades of dBase and Ashton-Tate! They sued rather than innovate. Did you have to Google dBase or Ashton-Tate to see who they were?
While I am uneasy about patents, a case for truly innovative products can be made. But this is not innovation. This is patenting whatever one can. Like:
Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
You have got to be effen kidding me. That's a patent? Who was the bonehead that thought something like that is innovation?
I thought it was "Buffering Input" which precedes even Microsoft being in business.
This is the result of letting companies get patents that boil down to numbers and abstract generic processes. I think the only way to fix it is to reform how patents are granted, for what, and for how long. If USPTO simply can't handle the load they're under, then they should complain to their bosses for more resources, reform their practices, or change applicant's expectations.
I'm just sick and tired of the intellectual property arms race/cold war that's been going on now for some time.
Visualize this scenario: Alien civilization arrives on earth tomorrow. Wants to engage in trade, they desperately want food and what they have to offer is very advanced technology, much of which at some point infringes on IP held by Earth companies. We explain how the process works and they boggle, "The only way we ever were able to develop space travel was by rolling back IP laws - bar one: All processes or inventions are Fair Use after no more than 5 years (one of theirs is roughly equivalent to one of ours) with financial incentives to those who release their ideas to the public immediately.
Rich poor Customer Service Company buys up and then subverts Quality of Service and Support. This is not in the best interests of the market, it's a stab in the heart, with a stab in the back to consumers.
Same here. I deliberately did NOT go with ATT. I guess I should have gone with Sprint or Verizon.
Also deliberately avoided AT&T, Spring & Verizon. I did like what T-Mobile had to offer and have been on their service since 2005. I'm certainly going to write a letter. I do not want the US Cellular market to come a choice between Larry, Curly or Moe.
No wonder they drink so much. Every time they go outside and look up, all they see is a depressing cloud blocking all the sunlight. Being sh*t faced is probably the only way to get the gloom out of the day.
By that same logic you'd find more drunks in London than in Dublin.
Ok, capitalism, blah, blah, blah... but can anybody tell me WHY are companies allowed to buy other companies ? I mean if the owners/investors in company A want to purchase (stock in) company B and make them work together, then go for it; but I don't understand why a company should be allowed to purchase another one.
In Soviet Russia company owns YOU.
...
Come to think of it, that's how it works in the Capitalist world, too.
Think of a corporation as being the embodiment of a business, with rights and responsibilities similar to those of an individual. An individual may own one or more companies. Why not a Corporation?
They may not carry much importance, but yes they still get passed around in meetings.
I sure wish I had some. My employer doesn't foot the bill for them much, I suppose because they suspect many just drop them in fishbowls for draws for coffee, dinner, iPads, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't surprise you, a corporation has no reason to be ethical in a relief situation. Everyone can point at everyone else in the corporation, and still all reap some nice profits.
Yep, the interest the collection while sitting on your donation should give you further warm fuzzies. Want money to go to a charity? Go directly to the charity website, local office or mail them a donation. Corporate cooperation with charity gives them some sort of PR for being a middle-man. Sounds rather indecent when looked at that way, doesn't it?
The day the Tsunami hit I scampered out the door to give a pint of blood. Later that day I thought of putting a item on an eBay auction to raise some fundage for American Red Cross. Ebay listing page allowed me to pick a charity and a percentage to go there. Wonderful. The listing was published and had a big banner about the Red Cross added to it.
After the auction ended the trouble began. The buyer paid and I found the money sitting in my PayPal account, with their customary cut removed from it. WTF?!? I drop a note to PayPal that this must be some sort of error, the money should have gone straight to American Red Cross. No reply, typical.
Then I get on the online support with someone and tell them about it and ask them to send the answer to my email (the one I provided) and again I get nothing. Bother.
Finally over the weekend I spend 2.5 hours waiting through the queue for help by apparently the only on-line customer support person they had working (this smells like the business model: we have few complaints to our customer support so satisfaction must be nearly 100%, but I digress) It is finally explained to me that I had to set up a Mission Fish account first so the payment would have been routed to them. Excuse me? You let me list an item where 100% was to go to a registered charity, but didn't establish a precondition of publishing the listing that the Mission Fish account be set up first, while the charity logo and mission are splashed all over a listing - yet the payment for it can completely bypass the charity? Hello, this looks like enabling Donor Fraud.
I finally have had enough of their stupidity and go over to American Red Cross website and donate directly, including the sum I received for the auctioned item. I'm beside myself with the stupidity of corporations, but with eBay this is nothing new. Since 1999 they've gone from good to bad to worse.
Be wary of donating via eBay. No guarantee the funds you pay do go where you think.
Geocache with legs! =)
Ghosthunters don't need gadgets. The only thing they need is the desire and ability to separate idiots from their money.
I'll not cast aspersions on Ghost Hunters, alleging they are confidence tricksters. If you really, really do believe in spooks then you'll need a thick skin to take the skeptics and a load of patience. Other than that, energy bars, water, change of clothing are always handy, because you never know where you'll be going or how long you'll be there, waiting for a manifestation to occur.
It's a 20 lb grain of salt.
I've stopped watching new shows as a result of the cancellations of so many good shows. Now I only bother if it has a good run or completes. I only just started watching Lost. Futurama is excellent and I'm glad it has been renewed but it is a rarity that shows survive this long regardless of quality, especially shows that get cancelled and then come back.
Not watching new shows saves a lot of time and I guess I should thank those willing to waste their time getting into a new show with all the risk of cancellation and the disappointment associated.
I just stopped because I couldn't sit through a show, even a half hour show anymore. The writing, the acting, I dunno, it just doesn't hold my attention and I get all restive and start looking for things to do. You know you're really not paying attention when the TV is on and you think about turning it on to see if there's something on - uh, but it's already on - it's just become some kind of background white noise. Now I could really get into staring at an aquarium of fish for a half hour, no problem, at least the fish are doing something interesting, compared to TV shows.
I stopped watching TV about 10 years ago and most of the shows I see are on DVD, I watch as I have time available. I did like the series, but never enough to tune in or buy cable.
A way around that would be to declare the software is all free. It's just the hardware they are selling.
Happy Birthday William. For your 80th birthday we have heavily Photoshopped this picture of you.
It's life, Jim, but not as you knew it.
I've been to the Sears Tower. I've walked around it. It's quite an impressive building. This Willis Tower, can someone give me directions as to where to find it? Every time I'm in Chicago I can't find a building taller than the Sears Tower. It's truly one of the great mysteries of the 21st Century.
IIRC there was an SF story by A.C. Clark where a space craft used a huge block of ice as a radiation shield.
Probably work great until the thing has totally sublimated.
They'll probably develop something which captures it in a magnetic envelope or has a game of kick about with particles and nano-tubes, then find the composite material of a standard childrens rain coat works just as well.
Radiation is funny that way.
Remember, the more litigious the company, the less innovative.
Apple is not excluded and obviously neither is MS. The only time a company goes "nuclear" with the patent option is when they are betting that in the short term they can make a profit off extortion. Given the open source nature of the products and the sheer size of the companies MS is going after, this is so hilariously shortsighted I don't know where to begin, not to mention how easy it is to get around a patent with GPL'd software.
Shades of dBase and Ashton-Tate! They sued rather than innovate. Did you have to Google dBase or Ashton-Tate to see who they were?
Tinfoil Hat thing didn't play out?
I was fascinated to find wood is effective in blocking a stream of neutrons - how about not so much Revolutionary as trying what you have, first.
Seems to be the first line of defence for many...
While I am uneasy about patents, a case for truly innovative products can be made. But this is not innovation. This is patenting whatever one can. Like:
Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
You have got to be effen kidding me. That's a patent? Who was the bonehead that thought something like that is innovation?
I thought it was "Buffering Input" which precedes even Microsoft being in business.
Because those who can, do. Those who can't, litigate.
Those who can do.
Those who can't teach.
Those who can't do either litigate those who can.
This is the result of letting companies get patents that boil down to numbers and abstract generic processes. I think the only way to fix it is to reform how patents are granted, for what, and for how long. If USPTO simply can't handle the load they're under, then they should complain to their bosses for more resources, reform their practices, or change applicant's expectations.
I'm just sick and tired of the intellectual property arms race/cold war that's been going on now for some time.
Visualize this scenario: Alien civilization arrives on earth tomorrow. Wants to engage in trade, they desperately want food and what they have to offer is very advanced technology, much of which at some point infringes on IP held by Earth companies. We explain how the process works and they boggle, "The only way we ever were able to develop space travel was by rolling back IP laws - bar one: All processes or inventions are Fair Use after no more than 5 years (one of theirs is roughly equivalent to one of ours) with financial incentives to those who release their ideas to the public immediately.
You people are still driving cars?!?
They can't make a decent media device or phone, so they hold IP and sue those who do make them.
What next? A counter arguement : Why shouldn't we use this idea, it's not like you had any clue how to properly implement it!
The company is amoral. The management are evil.
Rich poor Customer Service Company buys up and then subverts Quality of Service and Support. This is not in the best interests of the market, it's a stab in the heart, with a stab in the back to consumers.
Same here. I deliberately did NOT go with ATT. I guess I should have gone with Sprint or Verizon.
Also deliberately avoided AT&T, Spring & Verizon. I did like what T-Mobile had to offer and have been on their service since 2005. I'm certainly going to write a letter. I do not want the US Cellular market to come a choice between Larry, Curly or Moe.
No wonder they drink so much. Every time they go outside and look up, all they see is a depressing cloud blocking all the sunlight. Being sh*t faced is probably the only way to get the gloom out of the day.
By that same logic you'd find more drunks in London than in Dublin.
I imagine it fell from the sky one day and landed in the ocean very far away...
Ok, capitalism, blah, blah, blah... but can anybody tell me WHY are companies allowed to buy other companies ? I mean if the owners/investors in company A want to purchase (stock in) company B and make them work together, then go for it; but I don't understand why a company should be allowed to purchase another one.
In Soviet Russia company owns YOU.
...
Come to think of it, that's how it works in the Capitalist world, too.
Think of a corporation as being the embodiment of a business, with rights and responsibilities similar to those of an individual. An individual may own one or more companies. Why not a Corporation?
They may not carry much importance, but yes they still get passed around in meetings.
I sure wish I had some. My employer doesn't foot the bill for them much, I suppose because they suspect many just drop them in fishbowls for draws for coffee, dinner, iPads, etc.
Maybe they weren't holding the iPhone correctly.
The correct holding method is to be standing in queue at the Returns counter.