Ask to talk to a supervisor, it takes time and money to train them, regular employees are a dime a dozen, it has the advantage of costing the TM money, scaring the employee (at least if they're new,) and aggravating the supervisor:)
Yes. I really did not even need to sign up for the new list. It has been 2 years since I got a single telemarketing call. For a couple of years I used the "Anti-telemarketing Script" from the excellent Junkbusters website. It actually made dealing with telemarketers fun.
I recorded the date and time at the top of each form. Then asked the *long* list of questions. At the slightest bobble (usually when I insisted they add *all 3* of my phone numbers to their "do not call" list - which they didn't know how to do since they just had a check mark on the computer screen for the one number they had called -) I would ask for the supervisor and put them through the whole thing again. If they answered any of the questions incorrectly, I would read to them from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
I filed every form in a folder I kept by the phone which also had lots of blank copies of the form. When a certain long distance telephone company continued to call me for 18 months after I asked to be put on their "do not call" list, I wrote my congressman, and eventually he urged me to file a formal complaint with both the FTC and the FCC." I sent every piece of documentation, including all the times I had asked to have a copy of their do not call policy sent to me, which they are required by law to do if requested, and which they had *never* done.
Turns out, they take the feds seriously! After that, I think I got put on a very special list which they must share with one another - the "Consumer Bitch from Hell" list. Never got another telemarketing call (except local businesses) from that day to this.
Quote from Justin Kruger and David Dunning,
Department of Psychology,
Cornell University - "...when people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
Quote from Charles Darwin - "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
My translation - The dumber you are, the less likely you are to know it.
Re:Super ultra elite developers
on
The Bionic Office
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Makes you whether the industry is vastly deluded as to the actual abilities of those they hire...
Maybe, but not in Joel' Spolsky's case I wouldn't think. He's apparently a fan of Phillip Greenspun, whose writing he links to in the part about a coder needed a nicer workspace than his home.
In that same article, Greenspun links to this article from The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which addresses that very thing. Article is titled:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
I'm concerned about people who provided cell numbers and unlisted numbers to the list.
Telemarketers have been able to download the list for some time now from donotcall.org. That means they not only have verified that your number is current but that they also have the potential to add to their call lists additional numbers they did not have before.
The nice lady at the court office said attorney's from neither side had ever mentioned that issue and that the judge had not considered it. I asked whether it was not incumbent upon a responsible judge to educate himself as to all the ramifications of any ruling he might make, whether those issues were raised by the parties or not. I reminded her that up to 50 million people are unofficial and apparently unrepresented parties to the suit and I would think the judge should have given a little thought to protecting my privacy rights as he made his ruling.
Congressman Tauzin's aide who is specifically taking calls re this ruling said 1) this issue isn't over - they are looking at legislation and/or challenges to the ruling and that they are moving quickly and 2) as far as she knows, no one at the legislative level has thought about the issue of unlisted numbers which might now be on that list in the hands of telemarketers. Oops. By the way, I started and ended that conversation by expressing appreciation to the Congressman for his efforts on our behalf.
Charlie, who answered the consumer complaint phone for the FTC Southeast region, was a little confused at first as to what my concern was. As soon as he "got it," he asked to be excused for a moment. When he came back a good while later, he reported that as far as they could tell, the download was still available on the website and they were escalating the question up the chain to the national level as quickly as possible so that someone could address it pronto. Good on Charlie! Very sharp young man -- he deserves a promotion!!
Don't you just love the level of foresight on the part of those working to "protect" our privacy? I mean, I truly do appreciate the effort, but they need to do their homework a little better.
Thanks for the number. When he asked for my email addy, I insisted on giving my snail mail addy instead. He claims they'll send the info there - we'll see. I hope I do force them to waste the postage.
Then I asked for a press response since I also host a weekly call-in computer show on our local talk radio affiliate. He tried for my email addy again, but I made him give me a voice number for press inquiries. I got an answering machine there. We'll see whether I get a call-back. You can be sure we'll be talking about this on Saturday!
...as long as it's not illegal or immoral and he's willing to pay my price. And I'm not trying to be funny.
In the last year, that has included IT security auditing, training on various office apps, database development, needs assessment, small network administration, technical writing, etc.
Title- owner. Company size - one. Being self-employed means plenty of non-IT tasks like bookkeeping and janitorial and marketing and purchasing. Hours? Depends. When business is good, I put in 80 hour weeks. When business is not so good, 40-60 hour weeks. But then I pretty much take off all of November and December and a couple of weeks in the summer.
I love my job. My boss is a bitch, but her profit-sharing plan is awesome -- I get 100% of the profits.
Judge John Roberts is a Bush appointee. He's only in since May 2003. According the the article, he "questioned the RIAA's expansive interpretation of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which allows copyright holders to glean the identity of alleged infringers without filing a lawsuit first. Roberts said that if he left the door to his library ajar and someone entered, "that doesn't make me liable for copyright infringement."
Judge Douglas Ginsburg is best known for having his nomination by Reagan for the Supreme Court thwarted when he admitted to smoking pot at Harvard. He has protested what he calls "insane drug laws." In 2001, he accused Microsoft of using "saturation bombing" tactics against Netscape.
Does anyone know the name of the 3rd judge? I haven't found it yet.
Because sometimes what made you sick isn't what you are puking up or droping out.
OK, but it should be at least as good a memory jog as looking in my day planner. How much of what they typical geek eats and drinks came from the corner Smash 'n Grab while he was paying for his gasoline? Like that goes in his PDA or checkbook...
From the site: "How am I supposed to remember what I ate?... Consult your daily planner or calendar. Consult your check book record or credit card statement.... Talk to the other people you were with on that day and ask them if they remember what and where you ate."
Duh. How about just examining your vomitus and/or feces? That should jog your memory. I mean, if you aren't puking or drizzling, you wouldn't be reporting to this site, right?
Academics can be so, well - academic. This is not intended as humor, just hopefully informative...
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but sometimes they try to use some nit-picking thing like this to get rid of someone they don't want for other reasons...
Oops! On second pass I found him again. First mention was on "Governmental Award Winners" but second mention is on "Grand Award Winners" where he *is* listed as a second place winner in Physics. My bad (very).
This would seem to be the major schizm,... in general between people who just don't like the RIAA and those who don't like IP law.
True. But just for clarification, I am myself a writer who gets paid for my work, so I'm going out on a limb here.
I'd like you to reconcile this inconsistency first:
Yes, I was not clear there. I was thinking of the auction site linked in an earlier reply - The Digital Art Auction. He has some very interesting ideas. The unwashed masses bid on the creation of a new work. The artist would either be someone with an existing fan base, or would submit a concept/sample. The artist makes his money up front - if it's not enough to satisfy him, he can refuse. He would know in advance how much he would get. I'm not sure that site went so far as to suggest immediate release to public domain upon creation, but I see that it could work. In effect, the unwashed masses becomes patrons of the arts - actually paying artists, not for already created work, but to create the work.
So the website is not "selling" the work, but rather facilitating the monetary incentive to the artist to create the work in the first place.
This would stimulate the creation of more art since the artist can't just live forever on a couple of "hits."
Who is going to pay someone 40k to write a book
This is the cool part! 40,000 fans willing to pay $1 each for their favorite writer to write a new book. Or 4,000 fans willing to pay $10 each. Or the writer might have 40,000 fans willing to pay $10 each! The writer is not compelled to write until he agrees that the amount tendered is acceptable. The site would charge a flat fee - the artist keeps the bulk of his earnings. The fans get what they want, and get the satisfaction of playing a small part in actually helping the work get created - being a "patron."
"The focus of the industry needs to shift from Soundscan numbers to downloads," said Draiman. "It's the way of the future. You can smell it coming. Stop fighting it, because you can't."
Yes, yes, yes. And the focus of the industry also needs to shift from labels to artists. Artists are finally, albeit slowly, shrugging off that "plantation mentality" that had them convinced they couldn't make it without the big labels. End result is more, not less, music.
Well, this article lends credence to the claim that we geeks are really good at making things complicated. This thing sounds like it was cooked up by the Louisiana Legislature during Mardi Gras.
how would anything you propose get rid of middlemen?
There would still be middlemen of a sort (websites for auctioning art, for example, and studios for rent, etc.) but the middlemen would only perform a service for fee - not bankroll the entire risk and conrol the profits. Again, big difference from current system.
Among other things the patron could do, the patron could sell likeness of the painting for a nominal fee.
No. All art would immediately become public domain as soon as created. The artist makes his money up front. The only continuing monetary benefit is the reputation he builds from creating good work to begin with. And no one else continues to make money off that piece of work either.
What you describe is more of a name change than a radical proposal.
Well, it may not be so radical, but I don't think it's anywhere near the same as the current system.
As Johnny Cash said in that interview: "Give people something they really want to see and they'll save their money for it." This attitude carried him through decades of fame and generations of fans; We'd all be better off not to forget the wisdom of the legend.
Sorry for the oversight, but who else's humble opinion would I be spouting?
An artist should make money from both publishing and performance,..
That's why I'm looking for a way for the fans/patrons to subsidize the creation of art, rather than having it subsidized by a broker who is then free to screw both the artist and the fans. Is the studio the same as a patron? No. A patron subsidizes the art either for his own or the public's enjoyment. He does not resell the art for a profit.
Are the masses currently subsidizing the creation of art? No. The studios are re-selling art to the masses. Not the same at all.
I think we should re-think the whole idea of "art" and "intellectual property" from the ground up.
Once upon a time, rich people subsidized art. Everyone got to enjoy some of it - Italian fountains come to mind, and the Sistine ceiling, etc. Some was enjoyed only by the owner and his friends - Mona Lisa et al. (Can you tell I'm of Italian origin?)
The patron paid the artist, often subsidizing his entire existence. There was no charge to the public for public art - the masses enjoyed it freely.
Why would it be impossible for wealthy people or masses of poor people like me pooling their resources to again subsize the very creation of art?
When enough of us are hungry for a new song from Norah Jones, we pool our resources and negotiate with Norah, her band, and the techs necessary. They make the music, we pay them, we enjoy the music, we share with the rest of the world. Same for visual arts, literature, etc.
Or, even better, artists support themselves (as most do anyway) by working at other jobs until they demonstrate that they create something a lot of people want. Along the way some patron or patron-group might subsidize some things. Eventually, they are creating and giving away their art - BUT making money by private engagement, much like ex-politicos make their money speaking at a half-million a pop.
You'd get all the music, art, drama, literature, etc. you want - free. But if you want to see/hear the person perform live, you pay for it. Can't make a living that way? Nonsensense. Bill Clinton is making money for the first time in his life (he claims) just from opening his mouth and posing for pics at group gatherings. Already it's claimed that musicians make their money, not from CD sales, but from concerts.
The internet makes most of the middlemen unecessary. The internet makes much of the marketing cheaper. Let's start all over with an internet-based art model and stop trying to fit it all into old paradigms.
Disclaimer: I know this idea is chock-full-a-holes, but my point is that we don't have to "tweak" the old system. It's time for a totally new system. And not just a new system of "payment" but a totally new way of thinking about the relationship among artist/patron/public and about how artists can profit.
Everyone is quick to say "won't work" about Sun's proposal. But just think what the world would be like if RIAA ran things - if there were a "Technology Industry Association" (TIA) levying fees on behalf of all the tech companies.
Every living human would be assessed $500 a year for tech use. Then charged a royalty everytime he turned on a machine of any type, opened any software, printed, etc. Of that, somewhere between 1% and 5% would be divided up amongst all the software companies and the rest would be used by TIA to sue people who looked over someone's shoulder to read a website or xeroxed a printout.
I'll bet their IT staff is real anxious to help put computers in schools and non-profits now.
The machines, minus the hard drives, did end up being donated to the computer club for refurbishment. The bank also donated about 85% of the cash to buy used drives from another source, to replace those removed. They have since also cleaned out two storage areas and donated a couple dozen 56K modems, some additional 14-15 inch monitors, and beaucoup keyboards and mice. They also found a home for some old mainframe displays - giving them to a national diving association that will use them to display results at "coach's stations" so that the coaches won't be pestering the scorekeepers all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask to talk to a supervisor, it takes time and money to train them, regular employees are a dime a dozen, it has the advantage of costing the TM money, scaring the employee (at least if they're new,) and aggravating the supervisor:)
Yes. I really did not even need to sign up for the new list. It has been 2 years since I got a single telemarketing call. For a couple of years I used the "Anti-telemarketing Script" from the excellent Junkbusters website. It actually made dealing with telemarketers fun.
I recorded the date and time at the top of each form. Then asked the *long* list of questions. At the slightest bobble (usually when I insisted they add *all 3* of my phone numbers to their "do not call" list - which they didn't know how to do since they just had a check mark on the computer screen for the one number they had called -) I would ask for the supervisor and put them through the whole thing again. If they answered any of the questions incorrectly, I would read to them from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
I filed every form in a folder I kept by the phone which also had lots of blank copies of the form. When a certain long distance telephone company continued to call me for 18 months after I asked to be put on their "do not call" list, I wrote my congressman, and eventually he urged me to file a formal complaint with both the FTC and the FCC." I sent every piece of documentation, including all the times I had asked to have a copy of their do not call policy sent to me, which they are required by law to do if requested, and which they had *never* done.
Turns out, they take the feds seriously! After that, I think I got put on a very special list which they must share with one another - the "Consumer Bitch from Hell" list. Never got another telemarketing call (except local businesses) from that day to this.
Quote from Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Department of Psychology, Cornell University - "...when people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
Quote from Charles Darwin - "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
My translation - The dumber you are, the less likely you are to know it.
Makes you whether the industry is vastly deluded as to the actual abilities of those they hire...
Maybe, but not in Joel' Spolsky's case I wouldn't think. He's apparently a fan of Phillip Greenspun, whose writing he links to in the part about a coder needed a nicer workspace than his home.
In that same article, Greenspun links to this article from The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which addresses that very thing. Article is titled:
I'm concerned about people who provided cell numbers and unlisted numbers to the list.
Telemarketers have been able to download the list for some time now from donotcall.org. That means they not only have verified that your number is current but that they also have the potential to add to their call lists additional numbers they did not have before.
The nice lady at the court office said attorney's from neither side had ever mentioned that issue and that the judge had not considered it. I asked whether it was not incumbent upon a responsible judge to educate himself as to all the ramifications of any ruling he might make, whether those issues were raised by the parties or not. I reminded her that up to 50 million people are unofficial and apparently unrepresented parties to the suit and I would think the judge should have given a little thought to protecting my privacy rights as he made his ruling.
Congressman Tauzin's aide who is specifically taking calls re this ruling said 1) this issue isn't over - they are looking at legislation and/or challenges to the ruling and that they are moving quickly and 2) as far as she knows, no one at the legislative level has thought about the issue of unlisted numbers which might now be on that list in the hands of telemarketers. Oops. By the way, I started and ended that conversation by expressing appreciation to the Congressman for his efforts on our behalf.
Charlie, who answered the consumer complaint phone for the FTC Southeast region, was a little confused at first as to what my concern was. As soon as he "got it," he asked to be excused for a moment. When he came back a good while later, he reported that as far as they could tell, the download was still available on the website and they were escalating the question up the chain to the national level as quickly as possible so that someone could address it pronto. Good on Charlie! Very sharp young man -- he deserves a promotion!!
Don't you just love the level of foresight on the part of those working to "protect" our privacy? I mean, I truly do appreciate the effort, but they need to do their homework a little better.
Thanks for the number. When he asked for my email addy, I insisted on giving my snail mail addy instead. He claims they'll send the info there - we'll see. I hope I do force them to waste the postage.
Then I asked for a press response since I also host a weekly call-in computer show on our local talk radio affiliate. He tried for my email addy again, but I made him give me a voice number for press inquiries. I got an answering machine there. We'll see whether I get a call-back. You can be sure we'll be talking about this on Saturday!
The article used the term "permanent" as contrasted to the temporary 3-year moratorium that had originally been passed and then renewed.
Not only can Congress change a law, the courts can overturn it as well.
...as long as it's not illegal or immoral and he's willing to pay my price. And I'm not trying to be funny.
In the last year, that has included IT security auditing, training on various office apps, database development, needs assessment, small network administration, technical writing, etc.
Title- owner. Company size - one. Being self-employed means plenty of non-IT tasks like bookkeeping and janitorial and marketing and purchasing. Hours? Depends. When business is good, I put in 80 hour weeks. When business is not so good, 40-60 hour weeks. But then I pretty much take off all of November and December and a couple of weeks in the summer.
I love my job. My boss is a bitch, but her profit-sharing plan is awesome -- I get 100% of the profits.
A little about the judges in this article...
Judge John Roberts is a Bush appointee. He's only in since May 2003. According the the article, he "questioned the RIAA's expansive interpretation of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which allows copyright holders to glean the identity of alleged infringers without filing a lawsuit first. Roberts said that if he left the door to his library ajar and someone entered, "that doesn't make me liable for copyright infringement."
Judge Douglas Ginsburg is best known for having his nomination by Reagan for the Supreme Court thwarted when he admitted to smoking pot at Harvard. He has protested what he calls "insane drug laws." In 2001, he accused Microsoft of using "saturation bombing" tactics against Netscape.
Does anyone know the name of the 3rd judge? I haven't found it yet.
Because sometimes what made you sick isn't what you are puking up or droping out.
OK, but it should be at least as good a memory jog as looking in my day planner. How much of what they typical geek eats and drinks came from the corner Smash 'n Grab while he was paying for his gasoline? Like that goes in his PDA or checkbook...
From the site: "How am I supposed to remember what I ate? ... Consult your daily planner or calendar. Consult your check book record or credit card statement. ... Talk to the other people you were with on that day and ask them if they remember what and where you ate."
Duh. How about just examining your vomitus and/or feces? That should jog your memory. I mean, if you aren't puking or drizzling, you wouldn't be reporting to this site, right?
Academics can be so, well - academic. This is not intended as humor, just hopefully informative...
"Sneaker net" was when you used your sneakers to transport data?
Oh my. How old I feel when someone has to ask what "sneaker net" was. And someone has to answer...
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but sometimes they try to use some nit-picking thing like this to get rid of someone they don't want for other reasons...
I'm curious about the "tiny helix-shaped particles." What the heck are they?
Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind?
Or just maybe the CEO of SBC has 3,000 illegal MP3s on his hard drive?
Oops! On second pass I found him again. First mention was on "Governmental Award Winners" but second mention is on "Grand Award Winners" where he *is* listed as a second place winner in Physics. My bad (very).
Go here and notice how hard it is to find him amongst the many, many "winners" at the Cleveland event. I don't see anywhere that he won "2nd place."
This would seem to be the major schizm, ... in general between people who just don't like the RIAA and those who don't like IP law.
True. But just for clarification, I am myself a writer who gets paid for my work, so I'm going out on a limb here.
I'd like you to reconcile this inconsistency first:
Yes, I was not clear there. I was thinking of the auction site linked in an earlier reply - The Digital Art Auction. He has some very interesting ideas. The unwashed masses bid on the creation of a new work. The artist would either be someone with an existing fan base, or would submit a concept/sample. The artist makes his money up front - if it's not enough to satisfy him, he can refuse. He would know in advance how much he would get. I'm not sure that site went so far as to suggest immediate release to public domain upon creation, but I see that it could work. In effect, the unwashed masses becomes patrons of the arts - actually paying artists, not for already created work, but to create the work.
So the website is not "selling" the work, but rather facilitating the monetary incentive to the artist to create the work in the first place.
This would stimulate the creation of more art since the artist can't just live forever on a couple of "hits."
Who is going to pay someone 40k to write a book
This is the cool part! 40,000 fans willing to pay $1 each for their favorite writer to write a new book. Or 4,000 fans willing to pay $10 each. Or the writer might have 40,000 fans willing to pay $10 each! The writer is not compelled to write until he agrees that the amount tendered is acceptable. The site would charge a flat fee - the artist keeps the bulk of his earnings. The fans get what they want, and get the satisfaction of playing a small part in actually helping the work get created - being a "patron."
"The focus of the industry needs to shift from Soundscan numbers to downloads," said Draiman. "It's the way of the future. You can smell it coming. Stop fighting it, because you can't."
Yes, yes, yes. And the focus of the industry also needs to shift from labels to artists. Artists are finally, albeit slowly, shrugging off that "plantation mentality" that had them convinced they couldn't make it without the big labels. End result is more, not less, music.
Well, this article lends credence to the claim that we geeks are really good at making things complicated. This thing sounds like it was cooked up by the Louisiana Legislature during Mardi Gras.
how would anything you propose get rid of middlemen?
There would still be middlemen of a sort (websites for auctioning art, for example, and studios for rent, etc.) but the middlemen would only perform a service for fee - not bankroll the entire risk and conrol the profits. Again, big difference from current system.
Among other things the patron could do, the patron could sell likeness of the painting for a nominal fee.
No. All art would immediately become public domain as soon as created. The artist makes his money up front. The only continuing monetary benefit is the reputation he builds from creating good work to begin with. And no one else continues to make money off that piece of work either.
What you describe is more of a name change than a radical proposal.
Well, it may not be so radical, but I don't think it's anywhere near the same as the current system.
Nor to forget the legend himself...
You forgot "In my humble opinion,".
Sorry for the oversight, but who else's humble opinion would I be spouting?
An artist should make money from both publishing and performance,..
That's why I'm looking for a way for the fans/patrons to subsidize the creation of art, rather than having it subsidized by a broker who is then free to screw both the artist and the fans. Is the studio the same as a patron? No. A patron subsidizes the art either for his own or the public's enjoyment. He does not resell the art for a profit.
Are the masses currently subsidizing the creation of art? No. The studios are re-selling art to the masses. Not the same at all.
I think we should re-think the whole idea of "art" and "intellectual property" from the ground up.
Once upon a time, rich people subsidized art. Everyone got to enjoy some of it - Italian fountains come to mind, and the Sistine ceiling, etc. Some was enjoyed only by the owner and his friends - Mona Lisa et al. (Can you tell I'm of Italian origin?)
The patron paid the artist, often subsidizing his entire existence. There was no charge to the public for public art - the masses enjoyed it freely.
Why would it be impossible for wealthy people or masses of poor people like me pooling their resources to again subsize the very creation of art?
When enough of us are hungry for a new song from Norah Jones, we pool our resources and negotiate with Norah, her band, and the techs necessary. They make the music, we pay them, we enjoy the music, we share with the rest of the world. Same for visual arts, literature, etc.
Or, even better, artists support themselves (as most do anyway) by working at other jobs until they demonstrate that they create something a lot of people want. Along the way some patron or patron-group might subsidize some things. Eventually, they are creating and giving away their art - BUT making money by private engagement, much like ex-politicos make their money speaking at a half-million a pop.
You'd get all the music, art, drama, literature, etc. you want - free. But if you want to see/hear the person perform live, you pay for it. Can't make a living that way? Nonsensense. Bill Clinton is making money for the first time in his life (he claims) just from opening his mouth and posing for pics at group gatherings. Already it's claimed that musicians make their money, not from CD sales, but from concerts.
The internet makes most of the middlemen unecessary. The internet makes much of the marketing cheaper. Let's start all over with an internet-based art model and stop trying to fit it all into old paradigms.
Disclaimer: I know this idea is chock-full-a-holes, but my point is that we don't have to "tweak" the old system. It's time for a totally new system. And not just a new system of "payment" but a totally new way of thinking about the relationship among artist/patron/public and about how artists can profit.
Everyone is quick to say "won't work" about Sun's proposal. But just think what the world would be like if RIAA ran things - if there were a "Technology Industry Association" (TIA) levying fees on behalf of all the tech companies.
Every living human would be assessed $500 a year for tech use. Then charged a royalty everytime he turned on a machine of any type, opened any software, printed, etc. Of that, somewhere between 1% and 5% would be divided up amongst all the software companies and the rest would be used by TIA to sue people who looked over someone's shoulder to read a website or xeroxed a printout.
Enough to give one a small stroke, eh?
I'll bet their IT staff is real anxious to help put computers in schools and non-profits now.
The machines, minus the hard drives, did end up being donated to the computer club for refurbishment. The bank also donated about 85% of the cash to buy used drives from another source, to replace those removed. They have since also cleaned out two storage areas and donated a couple dozen 56K modems, some additional 14-15 inch monitors, and beaucoup keyboards and mice. They also found a home for some old mainframe displays - giving them to a national diving association that will use them to display results at "coach's stations" so that the coaches won't be pestering the scorekeepers all the time.