Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Rusty Shackelford
Feb 7, 2005


greazeball posted:

Only 90! Program expenses are what they're raising the funds for and what you want >80% of the expenses to be. Those guys spend 91 cents to raise one dollar and then spend less than 6 cents of that dollar on sherrifs or policemen

Program expenses are how much they spend to operate, which is separate from how much they spend to raise funds. That top "charity" only has about 3% left over after their total expenses.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

greazeball
Feb 4, 2003





Rusty Shackelford posted:

Program expenses are how much they spend to operate, which is separate from how much they spend to raise funds. That top "charity" only has about 3% left over after their total expenses.

No, there's a separate category for administration. The table is only comparing fundraising to program expenses, which they define as the percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers. These guys actually have a great score for admin expenses! :classiclol:

If you click the image in my first post, you can click through the links there for all the stats on each one.

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


greazeball posted:

According to Charity Navigator, they spend about 25% on fundraising and 10% on admin so only 65% goes to the program which is pretty poor IMO for an org with revenue of $35 million/year.

ah yes, Charity Navigator. the organization that is a thinly-veiled attempt to push a single, narrow, ideological standard as the only way to discuss nonprofits

Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Sep 2, 2017

greazeball
Feb 4, 2003





Lutha Mahtin posted:

ah yes, Charity Navigator. the organization that is a thinly-veiled attempt to push a single, narrow, ideological standard as the only way to discuss nonprofits

It's far from perfect, but is has collected and compared financial records for hundreds if not thousands of charities so they can be compared in a consistent manner. I don't think their accountability and transparency metrics are the best but just for getting basic info I use it a lot. What other sites should I be checking when I want to look into a charity (genuine question, I'm trying to donate more and I do check places out)?

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


I'm just saying that it's good to not take the reports from a "watchdog" uncritically. I am not any kind of expert but I ran across this article recently:

http://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/who-watches-the-charity-watchdogs-charity-navigator/

My favorite part is where Charity Navigator was giving four stars to scams and only changed their score when the news got picked up by the New York Times or whatever. But aside from that, it's important to keep in mind that Charity Navigator is the one inventing the rules of how to score organizations. Their formula is not based on any immutable laws of the universe, and is influenced by the biases and ideologies of the powerful people in that organization.

greazeball
Feb 4, 2003





I don't, personally. But I see that I presented it that way. Thanks for the article. To your point, there are no immutable laws of how to run a charity so evaluation will always be done on subjective criteria no matter who does it. They do seem to be pretty clear about what their criteria are though so if you get to know them you learn how to look through their reports to find what you're looking for. And in cases like the image I posted in the thread, they make it obvious just how lovely some charities are being.

Depressio111117
Oct 18, 2014

A whole world of imagination beyond the oompah band.

There's no way I've donated more to Planned Parenthood than they've spent trying to get me to donate more. I've called on three separate occasions trying to get them to stop sending me mail several times a god drat week.

If I weren't certain that this government is gonna try to put Roe v. Wade on the chopping block the second Kennedy retires, I'd be a lot more pissed off.

Safety Biscuits
Oct 21, 2010



EL BROMANCE posted:

In the UK it's common to get hit by a wave of 'chuggers' in the high streets, (charity muggers). They're a vile type who do their best to guilt you into paying a monthly subscription to a charity - some really well known, some unheard of. They also make it sound like they're in the streets volunteering but the ones in my old area were on about £8 ($12) an hour. They're told that they generally need 2 years worth of money from a person to break even. Scams all the way down.

Try telling them you live abroad. As soon as I said that, the chugger said I couldn't sign up. I didn't ask why, maybe it's because I don't pay tax.

Qu Appelle
Nov 3, 2005

"If a COVID-19 pandemic occurs, public health officials may have additional instructions, such as avoiding close contact with others as much as possible, and staying home if someone in your household is sick." - Official insights from Public Health: Seattle & King County staff



Vinny the Shark posted:

Later on, I heard there are scammers who thank people for donating to a charity they never gave any money to, and when the victim tells them so, the scammer tells the victim it's all a mistake and has the victim give their credit card and personal info so they can have their donation credited back to them. Of course, it's all a ruse to get the victim's info. I wish I had kept the guy on the line and asked him questions like "what's my name" and "why do you need my information? Shouldn't you already have it?" just to see how he would respond.

Oh, I can totally tell you how they respond - they hang up on you. Because that's exactly what I ask them. I think they hang up on any sort of pushback whatsoever.

hyper from Pixie Sticks
Sep 28, 2004



Fil5000 posted:

Chuggers are the worst. They're all working from the same playbook down to the emphatic hand gestures. I hate them.
"That's only the price of a coffee a week"
I'd rather have the coffee, thanks.

peanut
Sep 9, 2007




Some environmental organization did that on my college campus. Just $5/month to save the environment??? Of course​! It's my parents money...

Corrode
Apr 24, 2010

HORSE'S ASS



I feel bad for a lot of chuggers because it's a poo poo job everyone hates, and it's mostly done by gullible students who burn out quickly. It's like being a traffic warden except instead of being done by a grizzled 40 year old alky from the council it's 19 year old Olivia who just wants to buy a new dress.

peanut
Sep 9, 2007




More like someone who actually cares about the cause and doesn't know the money is used ineffectively :(

Old Binsby
Jun 27, 2014



Eh it depends, not a lot of people can keep up that stuff long term but my brother has done it for ages going door to door. He knows it's scummy given his bonuses but it's a nice side job if you enjoy sales and want to git gud at it. He did and he's pretty happy for the experience now

Fil5000
Jun 23, 2003

HOLD ON GUYS I'M POSTING ABOUT INTERNET ROBOTS


peanut posted:

More like someone who actually cares about the cause and doesn't know the money is used ineffectively :(

I've seen the same people on different days collecting for different charities so either they're massively into everything or they're not really into the cause and just need a job.

hexa
Dec 10, 2004

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom


peanut posted:

More like someone who actually cares about the cause and doesn't know the money is used ineffectively :(

Very unlikely, you work for a "charity fund-raising organisation", not the charity themselves. You can end up working different charities in the same week if you're really unlucky.

As somebody who worked as a chugger for 2 months, let me just say: nobody cares about deaf kids.

stringball
Mar 17, 2009



Can a UK goon tell an idiot american about TV taxes? The concept of it is odd and I remember hearing the collectors go door-to-door, bringing up great opportunities to scam people apparently

Fil5000
Jun 23, 2003

HOLD ON GUYS I'M POSTING ABOUT INTERNET ROBOTS


stringball posted:

Can a UK goon tell an idiot american about TV taxes? The concept of it is odd and I remember hearing the collectors go door-to-door, bringing up great opportunities to scam people apparently

It's not hugely complicated - you need a license to watch broadcast TV or to watch the BBC online. The usual approach that the beeb takes to enforcing this is to just repeatedly send mailings to any address without a license telling them if they watch TV without getting one they're breaking the law, but there are also TV detector vans. How these vans work is subject to some debate (with some people believing they don't actually do anything at all) as the beeb says it doesn't want to put the mechanics out there as then people would work around them.

What IS apparently the case though is that as a form of suveillance, the beeb has to get the same permissions to use a detector van as the security services do to use a wiretap. Which is weird.

I guess you could scam someone by driving down a street full of students with a van with a big antenna on the top, knocking at each door and demanding they give you 150 for a TV license because you detected their laptop watching Doctors.

Edit: If you google TV License scam you get a LOT of results. And frankly I'm amazed only one of them is from a Murdoch owned paper saying the concept of the license itself is the scam.

Fil5000 fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Sep 5, 2017

Collateral Damage
Jun 13, 2009



We have a similar system in Sweden, where each household owning a TV has to pay a yearly fee to finance public service broadcast.

They stopped using detector vans because unlike CRTs, LCDs don't leak RF noise that can be easily detected. It used to be you could get a guy come knocking and asking if you have a TV (and trying to peep into your house to see if they could see one) but nowadays they just send passive aggressive letters. I've never heard of anyone trying to turn it into a scam though.

The public service corporation tried to bend the interpretation of the law a few years ago to include computers and smartphones as well, by arguing that since you can watch public service TV on the web, any device capable of accessing the web should be licensed. Unfortunately for them the law says "...any device intended to receive broadcast..." and they failed to argue that the intended function of a computer is to receive broadcast TV.

Fil5000
Jun 23, 2003

HOLD ON GUYS I'M POSTING ABOUT INTERNET ROBOTS


If you watch the BBC iplayer now it asks you for your address and name, so I assume if you're dumb enough to put your own in and you have no license it sends you a fine through the post. That's kind of it for ways they could enforce it though.

Aix
Jul 6, 2006
$10

One dumb old joke I kept hearing on the radio was BBC people would be digging through your trash looking for old TV guides so youd better be shredding them

peanut
Sep 9, 2007




Japan's NHK does door-to-door collections too. Satellite/cable tv has the NHK fee bundled in and managed apartments should have a group contract. The NHK guys are notoriously stubborn and have been said to demand things like, "sign this contract before we determine if you need to pay or not."

stringball
Mar 17, 2009



Fil5000 posted:

It's not hugely complicated - you need a license to watch broadcast TV or to watch the BBC online.

The Wikipedia page on it left me very confused before I asked this, thank you!

£147 seems like a lot of loving money to watch TV, why is it so expensive or even needed?

Whybird
Aug 2, 2009

Phaiston have long avoided the tightly competetive defence sector, but the IRDA Act 2052 has given us the freedom we need to bring out something really special.

https://team-robostar.itch.io/robostar




Nap Ghost

stringball posted:

The Wikipedia page on it left me very confused before I asked this, thank you!

£147 seems like a lot of loving money to watch TV, why is it so expensive or even needed?

The BBC doesn't have commercial breaks.

greazeball
Feb 4, 2003





stringball posted:

The Wikipedia page on it left me very confused before I asked this, thank you!

£147 seems like a lot of loving money to watch TV, why is it so expensive or even needed?

Because there are no ads on BBC TV or Radio, only some promotion of BBC content between shows.

edit since this was already answered:

Not only does this mean the programmes are longer, and that they will play full films without breaks, it also affects programme development. The point of a show on a US TV network is to bring viewers in to watch ads, so you want the show to run for as long as possible. The point of a show on the BBC (there are commercial networks that compete with them, they're not all license fee supported) is to provide value to the license fee payers, so the emphasis is (theoretically) on good storytelling with pre-determined conclusions, since you're usually only signed for a few episodes of a drama series.


I'll also add that in Switzerland our license fee is over $400/year and we still have commercials and very little original content. :11tea:

greazeball fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 5, 2017

Zamboni Apocalypse
Dec 29, 2009


Old-school BBC Radio detection vans usually had their best days during summer, when they could just cruise down the streets and listen for people's radios playing through open windows.

Haifisch
Nov 12, 2010

Objection! I object! That was... objectionable!



Taco Defender

Why not just make it something subsidized through regular old taxes? It seems like they're making way more work(and spending more money) with the TV fees than if the funding just came through income tax.

Captain Monkey
Aug 23, 2007



Who in the world thinks 147 pounds a a year is 'expensive' for television? That's like a netflix sub.

Fil5000
Jun 23, 2003

HOLD ON GUYS I'M POSTING ABOUT INTERNET ROBOTS


Haifisch posted:

Why not just make it something subsidized through regular old taxes? It seems like they're making way more work(and spending more money) with the TV fees than if the funding just came through income tax.

I guess the thinking back in the day was that not many people have it so they'll pay for it and it's just continued through inertia, similar to the annual car tax we have. This way though, there's distinct funding for the BBC that a hostile government has to do a lot more work to defund and dismantle. It's like how national insurance makes the tory dream of putting a bullet in the NHS a bit harder.

blugu64
Jul 17, 2006

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

Captain Monkey posted:

Who in the world thinks 147 pounds a a year is 'expensive' for television? That's like a netflix sub.

A Netflix that shows bbc

EL BROMANCE
Jun 10, 2006

COWABUNGA DUDES!



Captain Monkey posted:

Who in the world thinks 147 pounds a a year is 'expensive' for television? That's like a netflix sub.

If only the BBC had anything worth watching, then it would be a bargain.

It's draconian bollocks, and sadly the guy I asked about how legit the detector vans were who used to work for them had an Irish accent so thick I simply couldn't understand his response. But their tactics are super assholey at the very least, so if you can get around paying for it for any amount of time go right ahead.

If the detector vans were real, they certainly can't detect poo poo these days with everyone having a dozen screens in the house and none of them necessarily being TVs.

Corrode
Apr 24, 2010

HORSE'S ASS



Haifisch posted:

Why not just make it something subsidized through regular old taxes? It seems like they're making way more work(and spending more money) with the TV fees than if the funding just came through income tax.

The whole point is that it's outside of the ordinary system of taxation and therefore is theoretically less vulnerable to political meddling.

maskenfreiheit
Dec 30, 2004


Collateral Damage posted:

We have a similar system in Sweden, where each household owning a TV has to pay a yearly fee to finance public service broadcast.

They stopped using detector vans because unlike CRTs, LCDs don't leak RF noise that can be easily detected. It used to be you could get a guy come knocking and asking if you have a TV (and trying to peep into your house to see if they could see one) but nowadays they just send passive aggressive letters. I've never heard of anyone trying to turn it into a scam though.

The public service corporation tried to bend the interpretation of the law a few years ago to include computers and smartphones as well, by arguing that since you can watch public service TV on the web, any device capable of accessing the web should be licensed. Unfortunately for them the law says "...any device intended to receive broadcast..." and they failed to argue that the intended function of a computer is to receive broadcast TV.

they apparently send people out to knock on doors and it's basically the uk equivalent of harassing census workers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=channel?UCZI13IWiffBVBvhQLEMUCSg

GreyjoyBastard
Mar 28, 2010


peanut posted:

Japan's NHK does door-to-door collections too. Satellite/cable tv has the NHK fee bundled in and managed apartments should have a group contract. The NHK guys are notoriously stubborn and have been said to demand things like, "sign this contract before we determine if you need to pay or not."

Oh, so that's where Japanese cops and prosecutors come from

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


Collateral Damage posted:

They stopped using detector vans because unlike CRTs, LCDs don't leak RF noise that can be easily detected. It used to be you could get a guy come knocking and asking if you have a TV (and trying to peep into your house to see if they could see one) but nowadays they just send passive aggressive letters.

All radio signal receivers produce disturbance in the RF spectrum. CRTs are obviously in an entirely different league than non-CRT technologies like LCD, but your LCD or computer TV tuner card still produces some level of disruption compared to the background level. I don't know enough physics to know if this level could be picked up by a van parked outside a building, but the theoretical basis for detection still exists.

Another way that one could test for this is by trying to detect "smart" appliances related to TVs. For example if you can detect the WiFi MAC address of a DVR manufacturer that isn't used or sold by anyone locally, but supports compatible antenna input, this might be a pretty good indicator that someone is trying to skirt the license.

Proteus Jones
Feb 28, 2013





Lutha Mahtin posted:

All radio signal receivers produce disturbance in the RF spectrum. CRTs are obviously in an entirely different league than non-CRT technologies like LCD, but your LCD or computer TV tuner card still produces some level of disruption compared to the background level. I don't know enough physics to know if this level could be picked up by a van parked outside a building, but the theoretical basis for detection still exists.

It's barely a ripple and you'd have to inline with the broadcast origin with the receiver between to even have a prayer of picking up such a small perturbation.

Honestly outside of lab conditions and being only feet away, I fail to see how anyone can detect a passive receiver.

quote:

Another way that one could test for this is by trying to detect "smart" appliances related to TVs. For example if you can detect the WiFi MAC address of a DVR manufacturer that isn't used or sold by anyone locally, but supports compatible antenna input, this might be a pretty good indicator that someone is trying to skirt the license.

That would be a transceiver then and you'd be detecting it transmitting, which is why you'd see the MAC since it will tag it's MAC in the SRC of the wireless packet (and of course you'll also see the corresponding DST). However, the chipset in a Samsung BluRay with wireless will have the same OUI as the chipset in a Samsung phone.

Basically, it boils down to: those vans are fake. Unless someone is using a CRT, which leaks a ton of EMF, they're "detecting" poo poo when it comes to who's watching the BBC.

goatsestretchgoals
Jun 4, 2011

in soviet russia, you shove robot

Could they even (theoretically) figure out what channel you were watching on a CRT? Someone else upstream said the UK also has ad-supported channels; could the van tell the difference?

sweart gliwere
Jul 5, 2005

better to die an evil wizard,
than to live as a grand one.


Pillbug

Proteus Jones posted:

It's barely a ripple and you'd have to inline with the broadcast origin with the receiver between to even have a prayer of picking up such a small perturbation.

Honestly outside of lab conditions and being only feet away, I fail to see how anyone can detect a passive receiver.

If I lived in the UK, I'd hope to scavenge yard sales until I could one day put an amplified TV receiver or two along with an oscilloscope in every room of my residence for the fabled telly van squad.

It'd be like cops finding a grow house via infrared, except everyone involved would awkwardly agree the situation is silly and stupid and mildly shameful.

Remulak
Jun 8, 2001

The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics. Oh, and that stupid children's book 'The Little Prince,' ugh.
:krad:


Yams Fan

OLd CRTs were incredibly emissive, I had one that would interfere with a nearby radio (battery-operated, so not a wiring issue). Given that analog horizontal and vertical syncs times are well-known I suspect they would be easy to identify.

Actually, your could probably look for x-rays too, CRT glass wasn't even leaded until 1980 or so!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

peanut
Sep 9, 2007




Now that I think about it, television switched to all-digital in Japan a few years ago, including interactive buttons for 24 hour weather maps, show info and quizzes so it should be very easy to see who is connecting or not.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply