Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Wait... Who got that other half of the $$$ rais (Score 2) 20

I spent about fifteen years of my career in the non-profit sector, so I have some perspective on this.

Raising money in a non-profit is just like selling stuff is for a for-profit. Generating gross revenue is relatively easy -- if you spend a lot of money you can rake in a lot of dough. What's a bitch to generate is net profit. In the non-profit sector we don't use the term "profitability" very much, so the metric that's often used to describe financial is "cost to raise a dollar." For typical fundraising activities cost-to-raise-a-dollar runs from 0.25 to 1.5 dollars/dollar.

Take junk mail. The cost to raise a dollar for a well-run direct mail campaign is in the range of $1.25 to $1.50, so if I want to raise $115,000 to spend on other things I have to scale my direct mail campaign to bring inover $258,000 gross. As you can see I chose a net target that was exactly 1/1000 the size of the ALS bucket challenge net, so you can compare the efficiency of the processes readily. The cost to raise a dollar for the ALS bucket challenge is actually better than a well-run direct mail campaign -- $0.91.

And it should be more efficient than direct mail, because direct mail is about the least efficient method there is. The marginal costs are huge because you pay for the names and addresses as well as printing and mailing of each piece, and most of those pieces will end up in the landfill unopened. So if direct mail is so inefficient, why use it? Because the financial inefficiency doesn't matter to the organization doing the fundraising. The end result of my hypothetical direct mail campaign is that my organization has $115,000 it didn't have before. That probably pays for one and half full time staff positions (at the low do-gooder wages we pay) for a year.

So the ALS challenge was in the financial efficiency range of methods normally used by non-profits, albeit a little towards the inefficient end. That doesn't really tell us if the campaign was responsibly run or not; to know that you'd have to look at all the expenses and compare those to costs in other viral Internet fundraising campaigns. But the bottom line is that the ALS association ended up with $115 million it didn't have before.

Can you think of a way of raising $115 million in a few months? I thought not. So presuming the guys who ran the campaign didn't spend the money on hookers and blow, I wouldn't be unduly concerned by a cost-to-raise-a-dollar of $0.91 if I was on the board.

Should donors care that the ALS challenge was a little high on the cost-to-raise-a-dollar metric? Well, I look at it this way. People did it because it was fun and for a good cause, and two years later we can point to concrete and significant scientific results from the money raised. That's not only pretty good, it's pretty damned awesome.

Comment Re:Dork Article (Score 0) 291

The trouble is, Cortana is consistently effective at doing whatever search you don't want. If I want to do a general web search, it doesn't show me web results, it just shows me apps that are vaguely similar (whether I have them installed or not). But if I want to run a program I already have installed, instead it will take me to the web page to install that app. You think Cortana is a waste of space and time for file and folder search? Then you can bet your sweet bippy that's all Cortana will do for you.

Comment Re:anti-science environmentalists (Score 1) 171

Actually, it's thoroughly impossible to tell how the new standards work based upon by the linked articles, but it sounds like in plain language that Florida is using a computer model that could allow more flexibility in discharge permitting. This can lead to better results, whether your definition of better is "more rationally defensible" or "more in line with what my donors want." Determining which way it is better requires review by a competent expert. It might be both.

The real issue here is this phrase from TFA: "one of a kind." That's not so good.

It's important in managing environmental data to do things in the usual way. This is contrary to the way public thinks about new technologies. If there's a new iPhone, you expect it to be better in every way or at least as good. It's not like that with scientific methods; new techniques are proposed because they have certain advantages, obviously. But they always have one big disadvantage: their results are hard to compare with what you already know. You need to do a lot of work to justify doing things a new way, otherwise you can find yourself unable to compare what is happening now to what was happening before.

Fortunately Florida can't do this on its own; it has to get EPA approval. Since this is an administration that is generally favorable to environmental regulation, if they can get this past Obama's EPA that will help give these new methods more credibility.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 2) 811

Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?

So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 3, Insightful) 811

As opposed to waiting six months at a time for Clinton to even hold a press conference (it's been that long - that's how scared she is of her own supporting media) and then knowing, based on years of examples, that quite a bit of what she says are bald-faced lies? And, you're not scared of HER scary proposals? She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights, supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies, and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level. She also "says a ton of things," but because it's done in that focus-group-tuned, calculating Clinton way, it's actually a lot more sinister.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 811

Do members of a golf club have the right know all the emails and conversations within the club's administration?

That may depend on the club's bylaws. We do not know, what they are.

But we do know the laws of the US, which NY Times broke when they published classified information, which was illegally obtained. So, whatever excuses were found for NY Times back then and the reasons to reward them, would certainly apply for the publishers of DNC-leaks today.

There is a difference between "members" & their "club" and "citizens" & their "government".

Nope, your anonymous sock-puppet is wrong. There is a distinction, but it is without difference to the matter at hand.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 811

a government that is accountable to the public and a private organization that is not

Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...

Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?

Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.

When it comes to private organizations, members can accept the rules or vote with their feet.

The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 811

The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate.

Ah, so if it turns out, a Russian newspaper is behind it, you'll have no problem?

Those are held to different standards than the media

Wow, a Clinton-supporter justifying a double standard... Do go on...

And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers

Trump didn't call on anybody to do it either — he just said, he "hopes" they'll do. But you missed the analogy by comparing NYTimes to Trump (even if incorrectly)

NY Times were the ones ordering the leaks back then. Putin — or whoever ordered it this time — will be in their position.

Comment Re:Rhetorical... (Score 0, Interesting) 214

They'd save on gold and silver.

But seriously, the amount I care about the Olympics: 1.01-1.011%

Olympic games are all about politics, nothing is about sport (and I don't care watching people perform sports, but I realize many do).

If games have to happen they should be happening in Greece, there should be permanent stadiums there, they could be maintained by everybody who cares about the games.

But this way how could the governments steal billions from the populations and redistribute that money to their close friends? That's the real problem, apparently governments still need some pretext for stealing for some reason.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants