Mark Klein does the reality check thing (and others made
various similar comments):

> > First of all kudos to Lars for thinking of this....   and I'm not at
> > all against the idea in principal....  but....  let me play hard-
> > nosed grinch for a moment;  and throw out another possible
> > variant:
>
> Forgive me too, for being curmudgeonly, but ...
>
> We get better bang for the buck with all of it going to a
> WSJ ad. The purpose (IMHO) is to raise the conciousness
> level of the 3000, both in Carly's view and in John Q. CEO's
> view.  $150K to charity is really peanuts in the scheme of
> things.  Yes, it would deserve note somewhere, but as
> someone else pointed out, it would probably only be a side
> note. Donating the entire amount to bring equipment into
> schools, even with matching funds would still not get the
> platform the same exposure that a very simple and direct full
> page ad in the WSJ would.

While still giving Lars credit for a major nice idea, I am now at
a point where I am completely in agreement with M.:  "Forget
the split", and focus on the prime objective.  Besides the good
reasons M. mentions above, note that:

(1)   HP already has a special education program to put HP
3000's in schools;  or at least at one time they did;  i.e.:  It's old
news (which equates to no news).  Think we would just be seen
as duplicating an old / existing effort.

(2)   It might be difficult to get a school to accept an unsolicited
HP 3000 and actually use it;  i.e.:  They are already set up with
something else.  Even large .edu institutions tend to have small
and overworked IT staffs.  Taking on a completely new OS
where none existed before might very well be viewed as just
another unnecessary burden...  At the very least, some very
careful and extended ground-work would have to be done;  to
avoid the ultimate unwanted outcome:  "Thanks for the offer,
but we don't want it";  that could go on for months....

(3)   And (as the clincher) there were some excellent points by
Joseph "Yossarian" Rosenblatt:

> ..  I believe this is neither "good" charity nor good marketing.
> .....

Without further serious objection, and while still taking my hat
off to Lars for a neat idea, I respectfully suggest "end of
thread":  Back to the cold, hard business world of the WSJ..

:-) ,
Ken Sletten