You'll need to clarify the last statement, if you want me to understand.
To be clear, I don't mind them profiting handsomely. I'd quite prefer they be well rewarded. There are other worthy groups and I donate to them as well. (If you're curious, I'm partial to the ACLU and Heifer International.) If you mean the volunteers at WMF, I'd mention, again, that I've volunteered in the past and consider that to be a gift, as well. Volunteering is gifting - if pay is expected then it isn't volunteering. I don't gift WMF all the funds that I'd donate, I can donate to multiple groups. I'm not (yet) convinced that I shouldn't donate to WMF, and this information doesn't make me think I should stop doing so.
I'd say that this information doesn't even concern me, but it obviously concerns me enough to respond. It doesn't concern me in the direction that others seem to be concerned. It concerns me enough to feel obligated to share my individual view on the subject, lest people think those of us who have donated are all unhappy.
As I said in a different comment, I've never been under the illusion that they were hurting financially - only that they needed continued donations to keep the project in good shape. I *like* that they have extra money. This isn't going to stop me from donating, not at all. That they gave someone(s) a parting bonus, not even a very large sum, is immaterial.
As a rough guess, since the early days, I've donated a large five figure sum to WMF. I consider it money well spent - and I kinda hate spending money, unless I have to. I'm also pretty sure they'd have done even better, financially speaking, at for-profit organizations. If I give someone a gift, it belongs to them - it is their property to do with as they want. If I'm telling them what they have to do with the money, I'm not giving them a gift - I'm paying for a service.
Unfortunately, all people are (mostly) hearing is the voices of the angry. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us aren't angry. I've even seen folks complain about not knowing the specific executive salaries. Nope. That didn't deter me, upset me, or even make me do more than take a quick look to check the veracity of the claims. The job gets done and I am grateful. I give them money. They can do with it what they want - including stop doing the job. (I'd stop donating at that point, of course.)
If people go out seeking umbrage, they'll find it.
I might be too old to understand the outrage culture that we've developed.
Trivially related, I think that'd make an interesting essay topic.
Being a part of that community, but fairly "normal" by most metrics, I'm inclined to think the group is actually pretty welcoming. Hell, there are furries and bronies, and they're judged by the quality of their code submissions.
I'm a very poor coder, a hack job coder - more than anything, and yet I'm accepted. Trust me, you don't want my code - unless you *really* can't find a better source. Yet, they'll take something like my "fix" and make it better. I love that they explain what changes they made - and why. I love that they're grateful for my spotting a mistake and trying to fix it. I love that I've been made to feel welcome, for a long time - even if my code hasn't improved that much.;-)
(I'm not a professional programmer. I'm a retired mathematician.)
I don't actually think of that as being a whole lot of money, certainly not when compared to many others. I can do dig up some numbers, if I can find publicly available data, but (at first blush - and only going by memory) that's a paltry sum, when compared to many other organizations - both for ant not-for profit. It's really not that much and I'm not even a wee bit bugged by it.
I kinda doubt that I'm in the minority. I just expect you're going to see the most comments from people who are displeased. Had the subject not come up on Slashdot, it's rather unlikely that I'd be seeking out a place to write about my lack of displeasure. So, yeah... Of course you're going to see comments from the displeased. Content and happy people don't really take the time to go out and tell folks they're not unhappy.
It does make me question how much it'd take, in renumeration, for me to be angry - or to cease donating. I don't have an exact figure, not that I can think of. It'd probably take a sum that's significantly greater than this. $200,000 really isn't all that much. In the late 90s, I employed senior developers and some of them made figures similar to that. Maybe that'll help you see it from my perspective?
I'm not even a wee bit distraught, by this. I will continue to donate yearly. I typically send them a goodly sum and will continue to do so.
I don't think I've ever thought WMF was in financial trouble. That's kinda why I donate - so they won't be in financial trouble. And no, no - I'm not bothered by the executive salaries, bonuses, or departure compensations. Not even a wee bit.
I'd take issue with your use of the phrase "rightful compensation" but I doubt that's going to be a productive conversation.
Yeah, I'm okay that they get paid - and get paid well. I'm grateful for the services rendered and haven't any issue with them being paid well.
She didn't leak any dirty laundry. Well, not our dirty laundry, at any rate. It's pretty much the most pointless leak ever. I am unable to think of a more pointless leak. There probably are a few, I just can't think of them.
You miss the point. If you go to one of those hypothetical events, and act stupidly, they kick you out. You still retain your rights, just not at that venue. He can let the puppy people in and decline to meet with Nazis.
You don't get it, do you? I'm a retired mathematician. I have contributed quite a bit to their site, in time, money, and knowledge. I haven't done so, in a while, but that is for other reasons.
I volunteered this. I did this expecting nothing in return, not even gratitude. I did it because I wanted to. I did it because I could.
When I donate, it is a gift. Gifts are given without expectations of recipricocity, or even gratitude. When I gift something, it is a gift without strings. They may do with my gift what they want. They can throw it away, even. They don't even have to like it, or appreciate it.
I did these things, and more, knowing this. Volunteering is just another form of gifting.
If I give you something, it belongs to you. Do with it what you will.
This isn't important, but I am not doing anything better.
I am a secular Buddhist. I've even been on refuge. I've spent lots of time listening to the venerable.
In my experience, most of them will tell you that they don't drink. They will tell you that they feel as though they shouldn't drink. Not a whole lot of them are going to tell you that you shouldn't drink. Now, if you're going to become a monk, they may tell you that you shouldn't drink.
Assuming you're not a monk, they are more likely to just ask you a few questions, should you ask their opinion on drinking. They will probably answer your questions about why they don't drink, if you ask them.
No two people can cross the same stream. It is different, every time. The path you walk is not my path and I can't tell you how to walk your path.
Now, if enlightenment were your goal, they might tell you that you shouldn't drink. Chances are, that's not your goal. We're not exactly the type to go knocking on doors and moralizing. We don't actually go out seeking converts, as a general rule.
If asked, I'd say drink as much as you want, unless it is becomes problem for you or affects others in a negative fashion.
I am a doctor. I have been a doctor for almost exactly 25 years, now that I think about it. Huh, I should do something to celebrate.
At any rate, you probably shouldn't take medical advice from me. However, there's a moderate chance that I've had a positive impact on your life, though that may be from someone basing their work on my work.
I am also pretty sure they won't let me prescribe drugs.
Strangely, I haven't been drunk in years. I am, by no means, a Puritan. Hell, I'm smoking the rest of a joint, even as I type this.
That said, I've a huge history of drug and alcohol abuse. It's kinda impressive, actually.
But, I have made a discovery. I don't actually need alcohol to get laid. The ladies don't need it, either. Singular lady, currently and thankfully, but I digress.
It's true. I am just as surprised as you. I haven't ever been drunk with my girlfriend. She doesn't even drink. I never have more than two, and seldom even have that. Hell, she's even cute as a button and a tiny little thing. Even better, she's many years my junior.
It took no alcohol.
I'd like to think it wasn't required, but I do have some money. Of course, I also have some nice automobiles and some fancy toys. I might have a good personality, I am told I do. I figure I am too biased to accurately opine, but I think I'm spectacular.
Either way, no booze required. I don't even need to be drunk to want to put my penis in her, she's pretty cute. However, as I said, I have a few bucks and some nice toys. She's probably in it for the money.;-)
I am not sure, but it looks like the OP was referring to something bigger than a travel ban. It looked like they wanted to just ban them, perhaps as some sort of solution meant to be final. That was my reading, anyway.
You believe you can go tweet the official POTUS account stuff like, 'I would have sex with your little boy, if it were legal.' Additionally, you believe you think they can't ban you, legally?
They don't actually have to let you in to a public forum, nor do do they have to allow all speech within one. These people can still speak, still seek redress, and still petition. They just have to use alternative methods. There is no right to access by any mechanism you want.
I could probably make a well-reasoned argument as to why this should be a right, but it is not currently a right. The normal communications channels are still in place. This appears to just be outrage for attention. It's pretty basic stuff, actually.
You can't even hold a protest on the White House lawn.
They are not being prevented from speaking. They are not being prevented from sending him messages. They are being disallowed to send him messages by that specific platform.
It may be stupid. It might even be immoral. It is, however, not illegal. I realize this isn't what you want to hear, but you don't actually have a right to communicate by the method of your choosing. You can write on the bathroom wall at the White House, for example.
You have all the rights you've always had. Responding to Trump, by Tweet, is not even remotely a right. You can call him an idiot by mail, phone, and email. Feel free, you have the right and he is an idiot. However, tweeting the president is not a right.
This is pretty basic civics. You don't even have a right to attend his press conferences. If you did, you don't even have the right to say anything you want at one. I'm not actually sure why people would think they have this right. I assume they smoked crack.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll need to clarify the last statement, if you want me to understand.
To be clear, I don't mind them profiting handsomely. I'd quite prefer they be well rewarded. There are other worthy groups and I donate to them as well. (If you're curious, I'm partial to the ACLU and Heifer International.) If you mean the volunteers at WMF, I'd mention, again, that I've volunteered in the past and consider that to be a gift, as well. Volunteering is gifting - if pay is expected then it isn't volunteering. I don't gift WMF all the funds that I'd donate, I can donate to multiple groups. I'm not (yet) convinced that I shouldn't donate to WMF, and this information doesn't make me think I should stop doing so.
I'd say that this information doesn't even concern me, but it obviously concerns me enough to respond. It doesn't concern me in the direction that others seem to be concerned. It concerns me enough to feel obligated to share my individual view on the subject, lest people think those of us who have donated are all unhappy.
Right? LOL
As I said in a different comment, I've never been under the illusion that they were hurting financially - only that they needed continued donations to keep the project in good shape. I *like* that they have extra money. This isn't going to stop me from donating, not at all. That they gave someone(s) a parting bonus, not even a very large sum, is immaterial.
As a rough guess, since the early days, I've donated a large five figure sum to WMF. I consider it money well spent - and I kinda hate spending money, unless I have to. I'm also pretty sure they'd have done even better, financially speaking, at for-profit organizations. If I give someone a gift, it belongs to them - it is their property to do with as they want. If I'm telling them what they have to do with the money, I'm not giving them a gift - I'm paying for a service.
Unfortunately, all people are (mostly) hearing is the voices of the angry. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of us aren't angry. I've even seen folks complain about not knowing the specific executive salaries. Nope. That didn't deter me, upset me, or even make me do more than take a quick look to check the veracity of the claims. The job gets done and I am grateful. I give them money. They can do with it what they want - including stop doing the job. (I'd stop donating at that point, of course.)
If people go out seeking umbrage, they'll find it.
I might be too old to understand the outrage culture that we've developed.
Trivially related, I think that'd make an interesting essay topic.
Being a part of that community, but fairly "normal" by most metrics, I'm inclined to think the group is actually pretty welcoming. Hell, there are furries and bronies, and they're judged by the quality of their code submissions.
I'm a very poor coder, a hack job coder - more than anything, and yet I'm accepted. Trust me, you don't want my code - unless you *really* can't find a better source. Yet, they'll take something like my "fix" and make it better. I love that they explain what changes they made - and why. I love that they're grateful for my spotting a mistake and trying to fix it. I love that I've been made to feel welcome, for a long time - even if my code hasn't improved that much. ;-)
(I'm not a professional programmer. I'm a retired mathematician.)
LOL Among other things - there's a journal post, if you want to see more info.
Nope. She doesn't even smoke pot. (Crazy, right?) I was even sober when we first hooked up.
I don't actually think of that as being a whole lot of money, certainly not when compared to many others. I can do dig up some numbers, if I can find publicly available data, but (at first blush - and only going by memory) that's a paltry sum, when compared to many other organizations - both for ant not-for profit. It's really not that much and I'm not even a wee bit bugged by it.
I kinda doubt that I'm in the minority. I just expect you're going to see the most comments from people who are displeased. Had the subject not come up on Slashdot, it's rather unlikely that I'd be seeking out a place to write about my lack of displeasure. So, yeah... Of course you're going to see comments from the displeased. Content and happy people don't really take the time to go out and tell folks they're not unhappy.
It does make me question how much it'd take, in renumeration, for me to be angry - or to cease donating. I don't have an exact figure, not that I can think of. It'd probably take a sum that's significantly greater than this. $200,000 really isn't all that much. In the late 90s, I employed senior developers and some of them made figures similar to that. Maybe that'll help you see it from my perspective?
I'm not even a wee bit distraught, by this. I will continue to donate yearly. I typically send them a goodly sum and will continue to do so.
Wait, what?
I don't think I've ever thought WMF was in financial trouble. That's kinda why I donate - so they won't be in financial trouble. And no, no - I'm not bothered by the executive salaries, bonuses, or departure compensations. Not even a wee bit.
I'd take issue with your use of the phrase "rightful compensation" but I doubt that's going to be a productive conversation.
Yeah, I'm okay that they get paid - and get paid well. I'm grateful for the services rendered and haven't any issue with them being paid well.
She didn't leak any dirty laundry. Well, not our dirty laundry, at any rate. It's pretty much the most pointless leak ever. I am unable to think of a more pointless leak. There probably are a few, I just can't think of them.
You miss the point. If you go to one of those hypothetical events, and act stupidly, they kick you out. You still retain your rights, just not at that venue. He can let the puppy people in and decline to meet with Nazis.
So read my post. I explicitly stated I offered no other opinion than that.
You don't get it, do you? I'm a retired mathematician. I have contributed quite a bit to their site, in time, money, and knowledge. I haven't done so, in a while, but that is for other reasons.
I volunteered this. I did this expecting nothing in return, not even gratitude. I did it because I wanted to. I did it because I could.
When I donate, it is a gift. Gifts are given without expectations of recipricocity, or even gratitude. When I gift something, it is a gift without strings. They may do with my gift what they want. They can throw it away, even. They don't even have to like it, or appreciate it.
I did these things, and more, knowing this. Volunteering is just another form of gifting.
If I give you something, it belongs to you. Do with it what you will.
This isn't important, but I am not doing anything better.
I am a secular Buddhist. I've even been on refuge. I've spent lots of time listening to the venerable.
In my experience, most of them will tell you that they don't drink. They will tell you that they feel as though they shouldn't drink. Not a whole lot of them are going to tell you that you shouldn't drink. Now, if you're going to become a monk, they may tell you that you shouldn't drink.
Assuming you're not a monk, they are more likely to just ask you a few questions, should you ask their opinion on drinking. They will probably answer your questions about why they don't drink, if you ask them.
No two people can cross the same stream. It is different, every time. The path you walk is not my path and I can't tell you how to walk your path.
Now, if enlightenment were your goal, they might tell you that you shouldn't drink. Chances are, that's not your goal. We're not exactly the type to go knocking on doors and moralizing. We don't actually go out seeking converts, as a general rule.
If asked, I'd say drink as much as you want, unless it is becomes problem for you or affects others in a negative fashion.
Doctors are morons? :-(
I am a doctor. I have been a doctor for almost exactly 25 years, now that I think about it. Huh, I should do something to celebrate.
At any rate, you probably shouldn't take medical advice from me. However, there's a moderate chance that I've had a positive impact on your life, though that may be from someone basing their work on my work.
I am also pretty sure they won't let me prescribe drugs.
Strangely, I haven't been drunk in years. I am, by no means, a Puritan. Hell, I'm smoking the rest of a joint, even as I type this.
That said, I've a huge history of drug and alcohol abuse. It's kinda impressive, actually.
But, I have made a discovery. I don't actually need alcohol to get laid. The ladies don't need it, either. Singular lady, currently and thankfully, but I digress.
It's true. I am just as surprised as you. I haven't ever been drunk with my girlfriend. She doesn't even drink. I never have more than two, and seldom even have that. Hell, she's even cute as a button and a tiny little thing. Even better, she's many years my junior.
It took no alcohol.
I'd like to think it wasn't required, but I do have some money. Of course, I also have some nice automobiles and some fancy toys. I might have a good personality, I am told I do. I figure I am too biased to accurately opine, but I think I'm spectacular.
Either way, no booze required. I don't even need to be drunk to want to put my penis in her, she's pretty cute. However, as I said, I have a few bucks and some nice toys. She's probably in it for the money. ;-)
I kinda suspect that sex didn't even cross their mind. This is Slashdot, after all.
Sequitur.
The red squiggly line wasn't wrong.
I am not sure, but it looks like the OP was referring to something bigger than a travel ban. It looked like they wanted to just ban them, perhaps as some sort of solution meant to be final. That was my reading, anyway.
You didn't even read the question you quoted and responded to. I'm not so sure I'd stand behind the quality of your education.
Well, we can expect them to reoffend sooner than usual. See? That's change!
Umm... We do pay to educate people. I'm not sure it is working, given your post.
Just so that I understand what it is you think...
You believe you can go tweet the official POTUS account stuff like, 'I would have sex with your little boy, if it were legal.' Additionally, you believe you think they can't ban you, legally?
What would make you believe that?
They don't actually have to let you in to a public forum, nor do do they have to allow all speech within one. These people can still speak, still seek redress, and still petition. They just have to use alternative methods. There is no right to access by any mechanism you want.
I could probably make a well-reasoned argument as to why this should be a right, but it is not currently a right. The normal communications channels are still in place. This appears to just be outrage for attention. It's pretty basic stuff, actually.
You can't even hold a protest on the White House lawn.
They are not being prevented from speaking. They are not being prevented from sending him messages. They are being disallowed to send him messages by that specific platform.
It may be stupid. It might even be immoral. It is, however, not illegal. I realize this isn't what you want to hear, but you don't actually have a right to communicate by the method of your choosing. You can write on the bathroom wall at the White House, for example.
You have all the rights you've always had. Responding to Trump, by Tweet, is not even remotely a right. You can call him an idiot by mail, phone, and email. Feel free, you have the right and he is an idiot. However, tweeting the president is not a right.
This is pretty basic civics. You don't even have a right to attend his press conferences. If you did, you don't even have the right to say anything you want at one. I'm not actually sure why people would think they have this right. I assume they smoked crack.
That still doesn't change anything.
You could argue that it should be a right, I'd be willing to hear that argument.
However, it isn't a right. It's not a free speech issue, not even remotely.
Yes.
Or I am.
Jobs left. They brought him back. That is one.
Jobs died. He is still dead. That is two.
So, there's at least two. I am not sure if we want to refine it further, but two is more than one. Hell, it's twice as many.