Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
If I'm reading this correctly you have donors who have given $770k to the charity and specifically said "but don't spend it on the kids"
It'd be the other way around.
You'd apply to some grant organisation or whatever for "1 administrative staff member for X time", or "2 computers" or whatever. Then you can, like Rick has done, present donations from the public as being more able to go to the cause.
The money can then only be spent on what you apply for. The funding organisation will require receipts to match what you applied for.
So I presume that money is driven by KidsCan applications to sponsors and grant organisations.
-
Thanks for posting that Rick. I thought most of it was fair. This however I'd take exception with:
KidsCan Income
Total income $1,953,056
Less income tagged or not contributed for programmes ($770,901)
Equals income available for programmes (Y) $1,182,155Programme delivery
Cost of programmes as shown in accounts $357,289
Plus in kind support $760,000 (approximate, some not included)
Equals total programme delivery (X) $1,117,289X/Y= 94.5%
If you're going to include the 'in kind' support, which seems fair enough, you have to include the 'income tagged or not contributed for programmes'. While that income might not be directly supporting the programmes, you couldn't provide the programmes without that expenditure - wages, rent, computers, phones etc.
A much better representation of the output of your charity would be:
Total programme delivery/Total expenditure of Charity.
Which is 57.2%.
-
Financial pain is probably the only thing that would make Fox News reel him in.
Based on the figures that were on the Daily Show last night, Fox is probably feeling OK about things financially at the moment. CNN is apparently burning however.
-
Also, that those using it wear a scarf and a sweatshirt with a crest to every lecture.
There's a note in the minutes of the executive of the Otago University Students Association from the 1940s "expressing concern" that not all students were wearing academic gowns when on campus.
It would make my year if someone could get that policy followed again, even for a day.
-
Well, no, I meant medically. Drug regimens are pretty hard to keep straight at the best of times, let alone for people training/travelling/competing etc constantly, I'd have thought.
He probably could have a personal staff of half a dozen people and not notice the financial impact. Someone to carry his pills and add them to his muesli wouldn't be too hard.
-
They are going to end up with law suits flying all over the place if they try and relegate teams that didn't finish in the bottom 4.
I think the relegation at the end of this season isn't just based on position. There's a formula which includes population, registered player base, financial situation, previous years performances will all be considered. They agreed on something a couple of months ago.
I suspect, even if they come dead last, Auckland couldn't be relegated this year on the basis of the formula. In future years, possibly.
-
Kyle: I had no problems with O'Hare putting forward an argument regarding his area of expertise. Just could have done without the ""Why do we do research?" plaint -- especially when the Prime Minister's own science advisor seems to have a more realistic understanding of the limits of his influence.
I'm not sure what the point of doing research into the risks of using cell phones when driving if it's not to affect public policy. Perhaps it might be useful for cell phone companies or car companies, though I suspect neither would be interested in research which says "umm, don't talk and drive at the same time".
-
Kyle, you seem to be assuming that all cell-phone users will convert to hands-free in their cars. Is that a valid assumption? (Happy to concede that it might get an 80% uptake.)
Oh yes indeed.
But what you're saying is "by making using a cell phone slightly more inconvenient, they won't be any safer, but some people will just stop using them in cars, which is safer".
If the research indicates that not having them on in cars is actually what will make us all safer, it seems strange to bag on the academic who knows this for getting publicly frustrated when the government claims that making them hands free will make them safer, when he obviously feels that his research shows that isn't the case.
If the government doesn't want to have the debate about doing what the research indicates would be safer, well that's politics. Ragging on the academic for calling them on it?
There's a lot of bitching that goes on PAS about science and academics not getting coverage for their research and the implications it should have for policy, in the media. Until a newspaper covers an academic doing that very thing and then people attack that. WTF?
-
NB In possibly the most horrible example of our sad domestic life, my eldest daughter said the word "discourse" before she ever saw the Wiggles. (Actually, I don't think she's ever seen the Wiggles).
Christ. Someone engineer a rescue of these poor tikes. Someone in red, yellow, purple, and blue tops!
-
Not exactly, he's asking that he and his research determine the policy and law, much more than inform it. It seems he can only imagine Government either ignoring his research, or doing his bidding.
He's pointing out that as far as his research goes, the change won't improve the situation. Contrary to your statement:
But it is perfectly rational to pay careful attention to the results of his research, accept that it is the cell-phone conversation that is dangerous; then ban hand-held cell-phone use by drivers on the basis that this would be enforceable and effect a major reduction in cellphone-related distraction and resulting deaths, injuries and crash costs.
He's saying that it's not holding onto the cell phone that's the problem, it's talking into it while driving, held or hands free. If that's true the law change won't help things.
Enforceable: yes. Reduce distraction/deaths/injuries/costs?: Not according to his research.