If Bill Gates had a net worth of $40k, he just pledged to give $60 per year to this charity.,
Yes, that would be to "this" charity.
But when you look at the totals that he gives, he far surpasses the 50% of his income that he is allowed to write off. He and Melinda are the only people that I know that currently do this.
In fact, if you compare the amount of money that he has given to the Gates Foundation (including the entire recent one time dividend) to his current paper net worth, it is approaching parity.
I believe that his stated goal is to leave only a couple hundred million to his kids. Yeah, that isn't much of a hardship, but point out another current billionare that comes close
I suspect that by "off-base" it is meant, "he was right on the AZ analysis, when PJ was wrong. And that pisses off the groklawyers.
(See Walter, I can agree with you sometimes. Just not on that "other" subject;-)
Personally, I would put the analysis skills of a good hacker above an average old paralegal any day. The paralegal may have more experience, but they rarely are as smart as a hacker.
For those of you that don't know, you can get your paralegal certificate in as little as 6 months or maybe even less.
There ain't nothing wrong with being a paralegal. You just should not be talking about it like she has a law degree.
What paralegals do is research, proofread, look up caselaw to give to the lawyers, etc.
It is an honorable profession, but they do not get any more training in any particular area of the law than anyone with half a brain could not figure out in a couple of weeks.
And here Al actually has some credentials as a programmer with some brains, and a significant amount of analytical skill.
PJ is pretty good at it too. She is just lousy at admitting that she might be wrong sometimes. And her ego cannot deal with anyone suggesting that she is wrong, so she turns to name calling and revenge the only way she knows how.
Where PJ makes any such statement is all over Groklaw.
We can start with blocking anyone from even indexing the content of GL, even though it is plainly legal in the united states.
Go to the article on the Mission statement being updated, and search on the word "nasty". She actively discourages people from releasing their comments under the CCL.
She believes in free code, she does not believe in free information.
"Yes I have. PJ is discrete and courteous,"
Now that is funny. Everyone on Y!SCOX is a troll, astroturfer etc.
"Again, your unsubstantiated opinion. "
that one I did substantiate. Go back an reread.
"Care to cite or is this yet another unsubstaniated whinge?"
What is a whinge?
Of course I'll cite them for you . . . there are none! Every time it comes up, it is settled in favor of the linker!
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
PJ is not in favor of open information. I care fare more about the openness of FOSS than I do about SCO. If PJ is going to be given the podium to speak, I want the world to know that she does not speak for me.
As for whiney little diatribes, have you seen what Pam dishes out? Have you ever read what she writes about slashdot? She certainly is not a fan of this site and its open communications.
Hell, she doesn't even understand the value and openness of the internet. How much more effective could groklaw have been if it could be found by the wall street types when they would search for information on SCOX.
And she even has the gall to suggest that she has some sort of right to stop deep linking. She should spend some time reading the court decisions on that.
Yup, the link in the ip-wars article is to Al's site, so the grandparent is correct. Al got the documents, and they are on his site. ipwars is not his site.
"Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual."
That really is pretty funny, considering that in the AZ case, it was Al that got it right and Pam that got it wrong. But Al's account got deleted for even suggesting that she didn't quite have it right.
Personally, what really bothered me was that ever since that time, she would use his work, but she would never give him credit.
Granted, Al has never complained about this, but it bothers me none the less.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah he gets tax writeoffs. Only up to 50% of his income.
That means that he can write off a few hundred million a year. How about doing some quick math and see how much ahead that puts him.
If Bill Gates had a net worth of $40k, he just pledged to give $60 per year to this charity.,
Yes, that would be to "this" charity.
But when you look at the totals that he gives, he far surpasses the 50% of his income that he is allowed to write off. He and Melinda are the only people that I know that currently do this.
In fact, if you compare the amount of money that he has given to the Gates Foundation (including the entire recent one time dividend) to his current paper net worth, it is approaching parity.
I believe that his stated goal is to leave only a couple hundred million to his kids. Yeah, that isn't much of a hardship, but point out another current billionare that comes close
I suspect that by "off-base" it is meant, "he was right on the AZ analysis, when PJ was wrong. And that pisses off the groklawyers.
;-)
(See Walter, I can agree with you sometimes. Just not on that "other" subject
Personally, I would put the analysis skills of a good hacker above an average old paralegal any day. The paralegal may have more experience, but they rarely are as smart as a hacker.
For those of you that don't know, you can get your paralegal certificate in as little as 6 months or maybe even less.
There ain't nothing wrong with being a paralegal. You just should not be talking about it like she has a law degree.
What paralegals do is research, proofread, look up caselaw to give to the lawyers, etc.
It is an honorable profession, but they do not get any more training in any particular area of the law than anyone with half a brain could not figure out in a couple of weeks.
And here Al actually has some credentials as a programmer with some brains, and a significant amount of analytical skill.
PJ is pretty good at it too. She is just lousy at admitting that she might be wrong sometimes. And her ego cannot deal with anyone suggesting that she is wrong, so she turns to name calling and revenge the only way she knows how.
No problem.
Where PJ makes any such statement is all over Groklaw.
We can start with blocking anyone from even indexing the content of GL, even though it is plainly legal in the united states.
Go to the article on the Mission statement being updated, and search on the word "nasty". She actively discourages people from releasing their comments under the CCL.
She believes in free code, she does not believe in free information.
"Yes I have. PJ is discrete and courteous,"
Now that is funny. Everyone on Y!SCOX is a troll, astroturfer etc.
"Again, your unsubstantiated opinion. "
that one I did substantiate. Go back an reread.
"Care to cite or is this yet another unsubstaniated whinge?"
What is a whinge?
Of course I'll cite them for you . . . there are none! Every time it comes up, it is settled in favor of the linker!
It seems to me that when I read it, it was fairly accurate as far as it went. If anything it was far from complete.
It actually missed out on a lot of complaints that some of us had, and how long ago people were starting to have misgivings.
But I just don't think that is what you were suggesting.
Uh, PJ is just a paralegal, not an attorney. The requirements to understand the law are actually quite minimal.
They are trained to do research.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. PJ is not in favor of open information. I care fare more about the openness of FOSS than I do about SCO. If PJ is going to be given the podium to speak, I want the world to know that she does not speak for me. As for whiney little diatribes, have you seen what Pam dishes out? Have you ever read what she writes about slashdot? She certainly is not a fan of this site and its open communications. Hell, she doesn't even understand the value and openness of the internet. How much more effective could groklaw have been if it could be found by the wall street types when they would search for information on SCOX. And she even has the gall to suggest that she has some sort of right to stop deep linking. She should spend some time reading the court decisions on that.
Yup, the link in the ip-wars article is to Al's site, so the grandparent is correct. Al got the documents, and they are on his site. ipwars is not his site.
"Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual." That really is pretty funny, considering that in the AZ case, it was Al that got it right and Pam that got it wrong. But Al's account got deleted for even suggesting that she didn't quite have it right. Personally, what really bothered me was that ever since that time, she would use his work, but she would never give him credit. Granted, Al has never complained about this, but it bothers me none the less.