Slashdot Mirror
Wil Wheaton playing for EFF
Quintin Stone (and every other Slashdot reader on the planet) writes: "Wil Wheaton is among the many Star Trek actors on tonight's Weakest Link, except that the charity he's playing for is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though so far he's been doing well." CD: I don't want to give away the ending, many people have yet to see the show.
The few exceptions tend to be those episodes that are made up of celebrities from a similar background. They're generally all independently wealthy, so aren't driven by personal gain. In addition, they've all got "personal history" between them which often leads them to vote off other players without regards to what would give them the best chances of winning.
It's nice to see the EFF getting national publicity though, as I'm a paying member myself.
In all, though, when I watch game shows (not often) I tend to watch Jeopardy for the reasons stated above.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Yeah, freedom is not nearly as important as children.
Not.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Actually this tends to confirm a theory I have- the coolest/healthiest/sanest people out there are those who HAVE to be, because they learned the hard way. I think Wil definitely illustrates this- if you get heavy into being not only a Hollywood teenager, but are also saddled with being Wesley Crusher, you'll get off to a really bad start- and then, unlike most people, you have to _really_ grow up.
That's my theory, anyway, for explaining how Wil Wheaton turned out to be one of the cooler humans I've ever seen. Keep it up my ex-starfleet friend :)
The EFF is fighting for our freedom, one of the most important and central issues in the world. Women's Rights, Human Rights, Children's Rights, these are all worthy and important issues. They all have on thing in common: they need freedom to make progress.
I have to agree with this. With starvation-related deaths in Afghanistan (conceivably going over a million) as just the most obvious example, there are better ways to spend the money. Sure, the EFF is cool. General human rights is even cooler. But... let's keep people from dying of things like starvation, disease, and our own political expediency before we worry too much about their rights - or ours.
Wil, I like ya - I really do. I just have to wonder, though - if you had a million dollars to invest on a cause, why you'd pick the EFF. I hope it wasn't just because of some 31337 haxor image or something...
Disaster and famine relief organizations (I'm thinking Mercy Corps, not the Red Cross), Doctors Without Borders, CARE, and UNICEF have relatively low administrative overheads (Mercy Corps claims 5%!) and work to stop people from dying. If slashdotters want to concentrate on helping people at home, plenty of homeless shelters and havens for abused and/or addicted women and children, not to mention any number of cancer and disease societies and, yes, famine relief organizations in almost every city, also are desperate for funding.
Get off my launchpad!
Your comments reflect a common sentiment, but it's not logical to take that position. Here's why:
1) First statement (yours) summed up neatly: why play for charity A when charity B appears to address a more pressing need. That is where you stopped thinking about it and reached a conclusion.
2) The conclusion was premature: one can go further - why play for charity B when charity C is addressing an even more pressing need. But that's not the end of it either.
3) The set of all charities is finite, meaning that if you continually favor the charity that address the more important need, then eventually you will find THE charity that addresses the MOST important need. That is where you stop. Give them your money.
4) Unfortunately, that situation leads to starvation. If you accept the first idea as true, (the one that you offered) then only one charity can logically be funded. Obviously, this is a far worse situation than we intended,
5) Therefore, we must reject the original premise as leading to an undesirable outcome, and therefore flawed for purposes of efficiently distributing money to charity.
The insult "get a life" is similarly flawed. At the end of the chain of thinking, one must live as the finest human being ever, and to be any lesser earns the "get a life" smackdown. One could offer my argument that I gave above as a logical retort. Or, one could simply offer a middle finger and a "hearty colloquialism".
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
When you get on The Weakest Link, then you can decide where you want your money to go. I have to say I agree with all the other people--the EFF is an important foundation, now more than ever, what with the terrorist backlash seriously threatening our civil liberties. It's not just about whether we can watch DVDs on Linux, you know.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra