Typically, big charitable donors get a sense of enjoyment from the publicity related to their large donation. Most would be turned off if they were told that their donation would be kept anonymous.
I suggest that the donor would still be free to announce their donation and enjoy the publicity,
but the foundation would be unwilling and unable to confirm or deny that they made the donation, is all.
The real insinuation is whether the Wikimedia Foundation is correct to keep the gifts from donors who especially brazenly violate Wikipedia's community norms
The Wikimedia foundation would be best off not scrutinizing or reviewing the identity of who makes donations to them...instead, preferring to keep all donations anonymous, and the foundation and community blind to the identities of any donors.
Companies and individuals edit articles about themselves, if they ARE or ARE NOT donors.
Please explain the logic that says you should not donate to Wikipedia, if you have edited an article about yourself?
OK, just because you edited your own article doesn't mean it's not NPOV. But let's say it was biased in your favor...
So what if the article is not NPOV? Other editors will participate in its development.
Also, if you can't prove your notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, there turn out to be an army of deletionists visiting all the articles who will be more than happy to nominate you for deletion in a few heartbeats.
Making a report automatically gets you reported. Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
That is classified information, you have just revealed, Troubleshooter!
Please report to an Internal Security self incrimination station as soon as
possible.
So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I don't see it as much different... as France deciding to invade Quebec, if Canada chooses to ban use of the French language on any signage or official documents, and refuses to allow Quebec independence and such.
Associations that are ORIGINALLY administrative become more complicated over time.
A lot of the US states only had administrative ties with the federal government. Seceding was still not permitted.
They can also require web filtering and surveillance software, of course.
In many schools, this kind of software, web filtering (including filtering of proxies and category of SSL-based websites) is ACTUALLY REQUIRED in the US, for many schools to keep funding under various federal programs -- eg E-rate.
Sure, there are things that may be tweaked by the school, but the are laws setting the basic boundaries for such modifications.
Well, they are perfectly within their rights to provide a policy of "No laptops allowed past this point", at the door.
Anything less is a concession on their part.
In the case of your physical PERSON, they can't require arbitrary concessions, such as body cavity searches without infringing on people's rights.
With laptops however; they can require arbitrary modifications or standards of their choosing, before the laptop is permitted access.
Fully updated, not running an EOL operating system such as Widnows XP, No infections present and working antimalware, would be some common restrictions.
The big difference is between this and the OP, though, is that my company owns these laptops.
Yeah... and you and YOUR COMPANY (rather) potentially get to share liability with your service provider, in the event that your CA's private key facilitates the commission of fraud or some other crime against the user, for example, if the zScaler CA or zScaler's infrastructure is used to steal banking information or PII from someone using one of these laptops; the person can sue your company and/or Information Technology professionals responsible for the intercept or misappropriation of information.
For what it's worth though.... the user could also sue if there was a keylogger installed on it by your company that lead to to damages against them, or possibly if there was malware -- that the owner of a laptop had a duty to prevent or detect.
It doesn't matter that your company owns the laptop. Legally you can surveil the activity of the laptop, BUT there is a duty of care that comes with you and your company's choice to do so and legal owernship of the laptop.
So your company best be darned 100% certain that zScaler passes all due dilligence for protection of crypto secured information.
anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.
Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?
Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit
The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."
Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.
Also, it isn't "Mt. Gox". It's "Magic, the Gathering online exchange".
Totally emphasizing their proper place in the world --- trading Magic cards, not currency.
Although, I suppose if they hadn't shortened it --- they could be at risk of trademark action against
them from the owners of the Magic the Gathering game.
I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that you are giving your hard-earned money to an unknown source to be looked over by unknown people by unknown means?
Perhaps that would be a bad decision, and those considering it have done more research to turn 'unknowns' into knowns.
Federal law has said the exact and complete opposite, at least since the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other related acts.
Just another armchair Slashdot lawyer, spouting off irrelevent cases and laws which don't apply to the situation.
Service providers with a contractual relationship for providing a service, are not beholden to laws that govern the warranties for manufactured consumer products. There is no warranty in the first place, in such arrangements.
Sometimes this slowing down is an especially good thing as it makes a more dependable product.... unfortunately MS didn't slow down Windows development fast
enough, so we got left with this Metro garbage
That may be written in the contract, but it would never stand up in court.
Service provider contracts are not subject to the courts, but binding arbitration is nearly a universal requirement among all the major service providers.
You can't rent out defective products, then instead of fixing them during their mandatory warranty period, *charge* the customer for the broken equipment and additional fees.
Unless the consumer can prove that it's defective, then, yes you can, and most all the major service providers will not provide free replacements for equipment apparently damage by the customer OR by lightning or other environmental problems that are the customer's responsibility.
And you've got a high burden to prove that the customer's actions caused irreparable damage.
The service providers don't have to prove it, once they've made their determination to fine for damages, that's that. The burden of proof rests with the customer of the service providers, after the service providers' team made the determination.
The kind of person who thinks an education has value?
I agree that education has a value, and I still wouldn't buy this for $2400, or even $1200 or $600.
When you consider that it is just video material --- it's definitely not worth so much.
"Has value"; does not mean "each individual course infinite value", AND the majority of the cost
that goes into education should be the student's time.
Partly because I am familiar with Linux and don't need an intro class.
But even if I was not familiar with Linux; I wouldn't buy this because $2400 is 75% of
a full semester college tuition, and this is just one class
which might or might not turn out to be a good or useful class.
A price of $2400 for a couple weeks worth of coursework is obviously intended to provide profits for the institution putting the class on moreso than to provide an education at an economically reasonable price.
Imagine how much you need to pay, if you actually want more than an intro, and you want 5 or 6 classes worth of organized course work, to learn somewhat more than just the basics?
Is it really worth it to pay an extra $30,000 to become somewhat skilled in Linux?
Probably earn no more money from a Linux-related job, even if you have one, or afew extra $K for some years than otherwise... obviously not recouping training cost.
I don't know.... but there are plenty of people who won't take it for free, because of the number of hours commitment required.
I am not sure what the Linux Foundation was thinking charging such exorbitant rates for an introductory level course; that is close to 1 semester of college tuition.... if they're supposed to be a non-profit whose goal is to support and/or promote Linux and universal access.
The only folks who can muster $2400 for a single course.... are very rich folks, and professionals, who think they have something to immediately gain by taking the training, so they can justify paying out of pocket, or more likely-- secure financing from their employer.
But it's doubtful that an introductory class alone could be so valuable --- there are plenty of free resources for a hard-working individual to learn the basics.
Accurate advanced material is what's tougher to get ahold of.
Characterizing an "investment" in bitcoins as a big risk is being very generous. Bitcoin was designed from the start to be a vehicle to steal from those gullible enough to convert real money into it.
You begin to sound like one of those Fragilistas.
That might be why Mt.Gox was started; I don't know.
But there are some significant advantages to antifragile systems such as the Bitcoin protocol.
Did you even READ Satoshi's paper?
What gives you the right to say 'Bitcoin was designed as a vehicle to steal' ?
How come you are able to be so certain based on so little evidence?
It's fine. You have no duty to sympathize for people who took a big risk and lost, on the other hand,
if you withhold sympathy, then you have no right to envy those who took a big risk and succeeded.
Personally... I think Bitcoin represents many huge opportunities.
Not in buying coins, though.
It represents an opportunity for businesses to accept coins as payment for goods or services (that they promptly convert back to fiat dollars).
Since there are so few good Bitcoin-related businesses, and there is an ecosystem, with many people running around with Bitcoins, there are plenty of potential opportunities for business to profit, regardless of what direction the currency's value takes for the near term.
Doesn't matter what they assume is happening. Legally, they need to PROVE the cause of the problem is nothing even incidental to the equipment
No. My understanding is that these folks only need to prove it legally in order to sue. There are plenty of self-help remedies available... for their 1 out of 1 million customers that would be a problem The fact is, that they can tell the difference between a "faulty" CPE, and one that has been reset or that was damaged due to physical abuse.
Not to mention, using the 'reset hole' on the CPE normally leaves evidence in the form of an electronic log.
Nope. The user is under no obligation to say if they've done anything to the device to cause it to stop working, while the company that provided it, IS obligated to fix it.
This is not true. The loss prevention organization has it within their authority to gather their equipment, forcibly terminate service, and add the contractual disconnect fee to be made against the bill, or by forfeiture of the deposit for leasing the equipment -- which includes the truck roll cost, and cost recovery for any equipment that the service provider couldn't recover, or that was found to have physical abuse, such as physical damage to the enclosure or breaking of warranty seals.
The service provider is inclined to continue service, as long as the customer abides by the rules they require to ensure that providing the service is not a net loss for to the service provider.
Slashdot Mirror
Typically, big charitable donors get a sense of enjoyment from the publicity related to their large donation. Most would be turned off if they were told that their donation would be kept anonymous.
I suggest that the donor would still be free to announce their donation and enjoy the publicity, but the foundation would be unwilling and unable to confirm or deny that they made the donation, is all.
The real insinuation is whether the Wikimedia Foundation is correct to keep the gifts from donors who especially brazenly violate Wikipedia's community norms
The Wikimedia foundation would be best off not scrutinizing or reviewing the identity of who makes donations to them...instead, preferring to keep all donations anonymous, and the foundation and community blind to the identities of any donors.
Companies and individuals edit articles about themselves, if they ARE or ARE NOT donors.
Please explain the logic that says you should not donate to Wikipedia, if you have edited an article about yourself?
OK, just because you edited your own article doesn't mean it's not NPOV. But let's say it was biased in your favor...
So what if the article is not NPOV? Other editors will participate in its development.
Also, if you can't prove your notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, there turn out to be an army of deletionists visiting all the articles who will be more than happy to nominate you for deletion in a few heartbeats.
Making a report automatically gets you reported. Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
That is classified information, you have just revealed, Troubleshooter! Please report to an Internal Security self incrimination station as soon as possible.
Clone 5 just died.
So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I don't see it as much different... as France deciding to invade Quebec, if Canada chooses to ban use of the French language on any signage or official documents, and refuses to allow Quebec independence and such.
Associations that are ORIGINALLY administrative become more complicated over time.
A lot of the US states only had administrative ties with the federal government. Seceding was still not permitted.
It seems Ukraine's people are powerless to restore order to their country and expunge the Russians.
If they had a stronger military, they could have defended their sovereignty.
As is, they will probably lose their independence.
They can also require web filtering and surveillance software, of course. In many schools, this kind of software, web filtering (including filtering of proxies and category of SSL-based websites) is ACTUALLY REQUIRED in the US, for many schools to keep funding under various federal programs -- eg E-rate.
Sure, there are things that may be tweaked by the school, but the are laws setting the basic boundaries for such modifications.
Well, they are perfectly within their rights to provide a policy of "No laptops allowed past this point", at the door.
Anything less is a concession on their part. In the case of your physical PERSON, they can't require arbitrary concessions, such as body cavity searches without infringing on people's rights.
With laptops however; they can require arbitrary modifications or standards of their choosing, before the laptop is permitted access.
Fully updated, not running an EOL operating system such as Widnows XP, No infections present and working antimalware, would be some common restrictions.
The big difference is between this and the OP, though, is that my company owns these laptops.
Yeah... and you and YOUR COMPANY (rather) potentially get to share liability with your service provider, in the event that your CA's private key facilitates the commission of fraud or some other crime against the user, for example, if the zScaler CA or zScaler's infrastructure is used to steal banking information or PII from someone using one of these laptops; the person can sue your company and/or Information Technology professionals responsible for the intercept or misappropriation of information.
For what it's worth though.... the user could also sue if there was a keylogger installed on it by your company that lead to to damages against them, or possibly if there was malware -- that the owner of a laptop had a duty to prevent or detect.
It doesn't matter that your company owns the laptop. Legally you can surveil the activity of the laptop, BUT there is a duty of care that comes with you and your company's choice to do so and legal owernship of the laptop.
So your company best be darned 100% certain that zScaler passes all due dilligence for protection of crypto secured information.
Given the normal response patterns when someone complains at a Linux installation your inability to install the free Classic start menu feels odd.
This is a Microsoft-unsupported shell tweaking application that Microsoft can break at any time.
I don't want to support Windows 8 by purchasing, UNTIL the user experience is good out of the box.
'pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government's prying eyes.
It doesn't work if their last round of spying got them the root password, and the backdoors planted.
They can still infiltrate the companies' datacenter employee staff with their own operatives.
And another mechanism at their disposal -- is, of course, lawful orders together with gag orders.
anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.
Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?
Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit
The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."
Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.
Also, it isn't "Mt. Gox". It's "Magic, the Gathering online exchange".
Totally emphasizing their proper place in the world --- trading Magic cards, not currency.
Although, I suppose if they hadn't shortened it --- they could be at risk of trademark action against them from the owners of the Magic the Gathering game.
I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that you are giving your hard-earned money to an unknown source to be looked over by unknown people by unknown means?
Perhaps that would be a bad decision, and those considering it have done more research to turn 'unknowns' into knowns.
Federal law has said the exact and complete opposite, at least since the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other related acts.
Just another armchair Slashdot lawyer, spouting off irrelevent cases and laws which don't apply to the situation.
Service providers with a contractual relationship for providing a service, are not beholden to laws that govern the warranties for manufactured consumer products. There is no warranty in the first place, in such arrangements.
Sometimes this slowing down is an especially good thing as it makes a more dependable product.... unfortunately MS didn't slow down Windows development fast enough, so we got left with this Metro garbage
Wake me up, when they concede to bring the Windows 7 start MENU back.
That may be written in the contract, but it would never stand up in court.
Service provider contracts are not subject to the courts, but binding arbitration is nearly a universal requirement among all the major service providers.
You can't rent out defective products, then instead of fixing them during their mandatory warranty period, *charge* the customer for the broken equipment and additional fees.
Unless the consumer can prove that it's defective, then, yes you can, and most all the major service providers will not provide free replacements for equipment apparently damage by the customer OR by lightning or other environmental problems that are the customer's responsibility.
And you've got a high burden to prove that the customer's actions caused irreparable damage.
The service providers don't have to prove it, once they've made their determination to fine for damages, that's that. The burden of proof rests with the customer of the service providers, after the service providers' team made the determination.
The kind of person who thinks an education has value?
I agree that education has a value, and I still wouldn't buy this for $2400, or even $1200 or $600. When you consider that it is just video material --- it's definitely not worth so much.
"Has value"; does not mean "each individual course infinite value", AND the majority of the cost that goes into education should be the student's time.
Partly because I am familiar with Linux and don't need an intro class.
But even if I was not familiar with Linux; I wouldn't buy this because $2400 is 75% of a full semester college tuition, and this is just one class which might or might not turn out to be a good or useful class.
A price of $2400 for a couple weeks worth of coursework is obviously intended to provide profits for the institution putting the class on moreso than to provide an education at an economically reasonable price.
Imagine how much you need to pay, if you actually want more than an intro, and you want 5 or 6 classes worth of organized course work, to learn somewhat more than just the basics?
Is it really worth it to pay an extra $30,000 to become somewhat skilled in Linux? Probably earn no more money from a Linux-related job, even if you have one, or afew extra $K for some years than otherwise... obviously not recouping training cost.
I don't know.... but there are plenty of people who won't take it for free, because of the number of hours commitment required. I am not sure what the Linux Foundation was thinking charging such exorbitant rates for an introductory level course; that is close to 1 semester of college tuition.... if they're supposed to be a non-profit whose goal is to support and/or promote Linux and universal access.
The only folks who can muster $2400 for a single course.... are very rich folks, and professionals, who think they have something to immediately gain by taking the training, so they can justify paying out of pocket, or more likely-- secure financing from their employer.
But it's doubtful that an introductory class alone could be so valuable --- there are plenty of free resources for a hard-working individual to learn the basics.
Accurate advanced material is what's tougher to get ahold of.
Characterizing an "investment" in bitcoins as a big risk is being very generous. Bitcoin was designed from the start to be a vehicle to steal from those gullible enough to convert real money into it.
You begin to sound like one of those Fragilistas. That might be why Mt.Gox was started; I don't know. But there are some significant advantages to antifragile systems such as the Bitcoin protocol.
Did you even READ Satoshi's paper?
What gives you the right to say 'Bitcoin was designed as a vehicle to steal' ?
How come you are able to be so certain based on so little evidence?
It's fine. You have no duty to sympathize for people who took a big risk and lost, on the other hand, if you withhold sympathy, then you have no right to envy those who took a big risk and succeeded.
Personally... I think Bitcoin represents many huge opportunities. Not in buying coins, though.
It represents an opportunity for businesses to accept coins as payment for goods or services (that they promptly convert back to fiat dollars).
Since there are so few good Bitcoin-related businesses, and there is an ecosystem, with many people running around with Bitcoins, there are plenty of potential opportunities for business to profit, regardless of what direction the currency's value takes for the near term.
"And then after a while we throw those records out."
No... the full Blockchain contains every transaction ever made.
Not every Bitcoin client needs to download the full blockchain, which is what he must have been talking about.
The Bitcoin network doesn't "forget" the details of transactions --- the record is indeed permanent.
Doesn't matter what they assume is happening. Legally, they need to PROVE the cause of the problem is nothing even incidental to the equipment
No. My understanding is that these folks only need to prove it legally in order to sue. There are plenty of self-help remedies available... for their 1 out of 1 million customers that would be a problem The fact is, that they can tell the difference between a "faulty" CPE, and one that has been reset or that was damaged due to physical abuse.
Not to mention, using the 'reset hole' on the CPE normally leaves evidence in the form of an electronic log.
Nope. The user is under no obligation to say if they've done anything to the device to cause it to stop working, while the company that provided it, IS obligated to fix it.
This is not true. The loss prevention organization has it within their authority to gather their equipment, forcibly terminate service, and add the contractual disconnect fee to be made against the bill, or by forfeiture of the deposit for leasing the equipment -- which includes the truck roll cost, and cost recovery for any equipment that the service provider couldn't recover, or that was found to have physical abuse, such as physical damage to the enclosure or breaking of warranty seals.
The service provider is inclined to continue service, as long as the customer abides by the rules they require to ensure that providing the service is not a net loss for to the service provider.
be it training, QA, or make the jump from dev to IT.
The last one is a trap! At least when you're in dev, you can blame IT when your code unexpectedly breaks.
Rarely do devs get to be on call outside business hours, and there's no such thing as a "development" emergency.... for IT it's usually 24x7.
I never want to be stuck in a job where my customer is an opinionated moron again.
There... fixed it for you.