The parent post that I was responding to said that IBM would not be that stupid. I gave evidence that they have been that stupid in the past and will, more than likely, be stupid in the future.
When you grow up perhaps you will learn which company gave a small corp from Washington state is't start because they didn't think the PC would take off.
Alias/Wavefront(TM), an SGI (NYSE: SGI) company, today announced that its Maya Personal Learning Edition(TM) software will be distributed with the highly-anticipated PC game, Unreal(R) Tournament 2003 (UT2003), developed by Digital Extremes in collaboration with Epic Games, Inc. and distributed by Infogrames, Inc. Each UT2003 box will contain a copy of Maya Personal Learning Edition and a special plug-in jointly developed by Epic and San Francisco-based Secret Level, Inc. This plug-in will allow dedicated game players/developers (MOD makers) to build and export game objects and characters to the game engine.
Every company I have worked for and/or invested I have know as much of their financials as I could. And most non-profits do not have the 'interesting' structure that greenpeace has, a structure that appears to be only there to work around what they law says can be done with tax deductable donations.
And what front companies am I shilling for? Please let me know so I can have them send me my checks.
As to why I dislike greenpeace? Well, the don't really do anything, they take money that could be better used by real envirnomental groups and use it for crap, and they don't practice what they preach (FF are bad, save for when we use them to power our boat).
And please have who every is doing the mail bombing stop. T
You can download a learning edition of Maya and what features does PS have that a simple hobbiest would need? There are other, less expensive (free = gimp/win32) solutions out there.
It was 134,000,000.00 USD. It's also very sad that you don't know how much money the org you work for brings in. Why don't you know?
= But greenpeace doesn't want to solve problems, they want the money to keep coming in.
Greenbacks for Greenpeace By Joel Mowbray Townhall.com | November 21, 2003
After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called "Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron's dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world--all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.
That's why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
Here's where things get sticky with Greenpeace's green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy--and typically illegal--media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.--the most recent available--over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.--which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs--gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group's 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.
PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace's accounting gimmicks: "It's a form of money laundering, plain and simple."
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media's interest did
Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood pays protection money to DC, one the game industry starts doing the same thing their problems will be 'forgotten'
It sucks, but it's true.
What license fees? CSS was a trade secret, there are no keed to use it.
Or are you talking about somthing else?
Well, the writers have gone on the record as saying it was about race relations.
The PP said that such a tool does not exist...
True, but purses are bigger on the inside then on the outside, haven't you seen the crap they put in such a small space? ;->
Notice how when you go to gmail.com it redirects you to gmail.google.com? They do that so they can read cookies from *.google.com.
:->
That's tracking
The parent post that I was responding to said that IBM would not be that stupid. I gave evidence that they have been that stupid in the past and will, more than likely, be stupid in the future.
Read the history of IBM.
When you grow up perhaps you will learn which company gave a small corp from Washington state is't start because they didn't think the PC would take off.
Walmart doesn't like spending 0.01 USD more than it has too.
Bush fact of the day: Supports abortion, just not in this country. When it happens in MFN china, it's OK.
IOW, you can't name anything either?
How long did it take you to make that crap up? It looks like the result of a marketing dept that ate the wrong type of mushrooms on their pizza. -:
But what as MSRES done?
Alias/Wavefront(TM), an SGI (NYSE: SGI) company, today announced that its Maya Personal Learning Edition(TM) software will be distributed with the highly-anticipated PC game, Unreal(R) Tournament 2003 (UT2003), developed by Digital Extremes in collaboration with Epic Games, Inc. and distributed by Infogrames, Inc. Each UT2003 box will contain a copy of Maya Personal Learning Edition and a special plug-in jointly developed by Epic and San Francisco-based Secret Level, Inc. This plug-in will allow dedicated game players/developers (MOD makers) to build and export game objects and characters to the game engine.
Ma Bell is now called SBC and ATT.
Every company I have worked for and/or invested I have know as much of their financials as I could. And most non-profits do not have the 'interesting' structure that greenpeace has, a structure that appears to be only there to work around what they law says can be done with tax deductable donations.
And what front companies am I shilling for? Please let me know so I can have them send me my checks.
As to why I dislike greenpeace? Well, the don't really do anything, they take money that could be better used by real envirnomental groups and use it for crap, and they don't practice what they preach (FF are bad, save for when we use them to power our boat).
And please have who every is doing the mail bombing stop. T
Thanks!
You can download a learning edition of Maya and what features does PS have that a simple hobbiest would need? There are other, less expensive (free = gimp/win32) solutions out there.
Yes. That software does a lot and enables one to bill a lot for there services. It will pay for itself within a month or two at most.
I love the fact that you consider the FACT that greenpeace is a 134,000,000.00 USD/year org a troll.
Last time, WTF do they spend the money on?
Will they overcharge as much for the CD's as they do for that 'coffee' they sell? ;->
Then don't fscking watch it. It's not that hard.
They look up the max their insurance will pay and use that number; ;->
Greenpeace doesn't know what the word ethics means.
" I thought the third Matrix movie was the best."
;->
IOW, you have no taste?
It was 134,000,000.00 USD. It's also very sad that you don't know how much money the org you work for brings in. Why don't you know?
=
But greenpeace doesn't want to solve problems, they want the money to keep coming in.
Greenbacks for Greenpeace
By Joel Mowbray
Townhall.com | November 21, 2003
After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called "Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron's dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world--all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.
That's why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
Here's where things get sticky with Greenpeace's green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy--and typically illegal--media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.--the most recent available--over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.--which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs--gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group's 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.
PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace's accounting gimmicks: "It's a form of money laundering, plain and simple."
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media's interest did
When they moved from Austin to CA a few months ago, most of the UXO team did not make the move/where not offered the op to move.
They didn't fire anyone/let anyone go when they announced this because they ALREADY did it.