The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,399
Sounds all good to me. Just don't mention my name when it comes to collecting!
(Helped me make the 11th-week bump, too!)
(Helped me make the 11th-week bump, too!)
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
I am stating the obvious when I say that no mention of the changes were made today. I say wait until TAM5 or later.
Pinocchio;2173574[* said:
Just thought I'd point out that this is actually exactly what happens. The problem is that the draft protocol the applicant provides is never adequate, and they are usually extremely resistant to change, especially changes that would elliminate any chance of succeeding by anything other than paranormal powers. I don't think this problem can ever be solved. Either the JREF sets the protocol itself with no arguments, in which case very few people would ever apply, or the applicants are allowed to work out a mutually agreeable protocol, in which case months of debate are pretty much guaranteed.
I think the donation idea is quite a good one, but I'm fairly sure the JREF does not make any money from the challenge prize, it is simply held in a trust account and is impossible to access until someone wins.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
I believe this is incorrect. I think I've read that JREF does use the interest collected from the prize for operating expenses.
I don't think you'd have a problem with applicants. It seems like most of the applicants now are overconfident about their "abilities." My guess is they'd still apply. And when the JREF demands to test them under "proper observing conditions" they balk and run away, that shouldn't be the JREF's problem.
I believe that somebody who has seen a recent declaration from Goldman-Sachs has said that there are now about two million dollars on that account. Combined with the JREF effort to save on expenses, it seems that the JREF is not actually drawing on the prize account, even if they are allowed to do so.
That figure seems highly unlikely. It would take years to accumulate $1 million in interest, and any significant increase to the prize fund would surely be well publicized by the JREF.
Many people already claim that the JREF fixes things to make sure no-one can win. Using only set protocols and refusing to negotiate would only make things worse. There is also the much discussed problem that many claims are completely new, so there is no way to set a protocol before the application. When you say it is not the JREF's problem if they run away, since the whole point of the JREF is to test people it really is a big problem if no-one gets tested.
Well, I've been wrong before. I'd have thought that would make a great complaint from woos that the JREF is using the challenge money to live off, so I'm surprised I haven't heard that claimed if they are using it. In fact, I'm surprised I haven't heard it claimed even if they aren't.
As Reager says, it seems unlikely they would have that much money, especially considering that they haven't said anything about it. I would say that if they are getting enough interest to make almost a million they would be able to take out thousands without the account really noticing, so we wouldn't be able to tell if they were using it or not.
Does this help: http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php ?
Search for: randi
Search for: randi
Fantastic! I did not know these informations were available online.
So the JREF has increased it assets to more than two million dollars!
But, the assets are probably more than what is at the Prize account at Goldman Sachs, and may include the house, and so on. It may be difficult to find out how much is in the Prize account without having a statement about this specifically.
I didn't mean to imply that there should be "standard" procedures for every type of claim (as you say, that would be impossible). I merely think that the JREF should not "bend over backwards" to appease applicants, especially applicants who would bring no benefit the JREF through their test (I am thinking of the vast majority of applicants: unknown, random woowoos). If such an applicant makes it impossible to formulate a protocol without months of back-and-forth negotiations, which the JREF has neither the manpower nor the patience to tolerate, that applicant doesn't get tested.
If the applicant were someone like Sylvia Browne, who would bring publicity and noteriety to her test (for herself and the JREF), such negotiations may be "worth the trouble." I am anticipating protestations of favoritism or bias, and I would remind people that the purpose of the Challenge is as a publicity device for the JREF. It is not a contest that must be "fair" to everyone at the expense of the JREF itself. The JREF is well within its rights to only test those they deem "test-worthy."
WRT the people who claim the JREF test is "rigged," well...they would think it is rigged no matter what the rules say. Those are not the people the Challenge is designed to appeal to.
As I said above, they will claim the worst about Randi and the JREF no matter what, so who cares what the woos claim? Not only that, but your example perfectly illustrates why such complaints should not be given a second thought. There is nothing remotely wrong with using interest from the million for operating expenses. The JREF is putting up $1 million for the Challenge. Period. There is no law (legal or moral) that says someone putting up money for something must use the interest on that money to increase the sum. Would it be "wrong" for the Nobel Prize people to use the interest from their not-yet-distributed prize money to help operate the organization? The interest is still the JREF's money, it does not affect the Challenge amount, and they can do what they want with it. There is nothing unfair about that, no matter what woos want to claim.
That information can be obtained through Goldman Sachs. However, Randi has repeatedly stated the amount is at least $1 million (give or take interest). There is no reason to suspect that has changed.
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,608
About 10 years at 7% interest (which is admittedly a number I grabbed out of my arse).
AgingYoung
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 973
Rule of 72WP is a quick way to estimate an investment's doubling time that also keeps your hands (elbows?) clean.
I tried to search http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php using:
and it comes back
- 0 documents matched. 0 documents displayed.
Gene
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Actually, you will see that argument quite often. The argument goes that JREF will never award a win, because that would take away the investment source providing the operating funds for JREF. Give away the million, no more operating cash, and JREF folds. Hence, even though it isn't JREF's million, it has a very vested interest in not awarding the million dollars to anybody.
Except 1) the interest from the Challenge does not provide all of the JREF's operating cash, and 2) the worldwide publicity and fame that will occur as a result of a succesful demonstration of paranormal powers will be worth well more to the JREF (financially and otherwise) than the interest.*
*Assuming someone doesn't win the prize through cheeting. Possible, but Randi is a very smart guy. ;-)
Try "James Randi".
Hey SchemeGene (1000 points and a bow to everyone who gets this reference!),
try the link above again and simply type "randi" in the field labeled "Organization Name", hit enter, then click on the link "James Randi Education Foundation Inc." in the first cell of the second row and hopefully find all you searched for - in this context.
(Gene, the salutatory address was meant in good spirits.)
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,608
Well you still gotta get the interest rate from somewhere. That's the number that got my hands dirty, the 10 years was from actual calculation.
I believe Randi has stated before that the million is in a low interest, conservatively-invested account specifically so that the principal never dips below $1 million.