Light posting of late as I'm getting over a virus -- of the digital kind. This one was particularly nasty. Our PC wouldn't boot at all in any mode (just giving us the lovely Blue Screen of Death) and, after running numerous diagnostics, I decided to re-install Windows. (Fortunately everything is backed up in the Amazon cloud -- thank you, JungleDisk!)
My bleary eyes lit up with success when I finally heard that XP Startup Sound
Hold on there just a minute. I don't have a program called Security Tool. The malware was camouflaged as an anti-malware program. We're through the looking glass here, people.
It was also blocking my AVG anti-virus, and any other process it didn't like. I'd tussled with spyware this belligerent before, so went to get Malwarebytes which took care of the problem. Nice. I now have it in "Protection mode" all the time. It was certainly worth the $22.45.
Could the LHC have been sabotaged -- by particles from the future? I guess it's time to go check on Temporal Anomalies and see if this theory's kosher.
And by the by -- aren't these wonderful time travel posters? But not as useful as this poster to keep in your time machine.
LHC story via Rebecca Blood.
So there's been quite the debate going on in the NPIN (Nonprofit / Philanthropy / Internet Nexus, a term I just invented) about Kiva. Kiva is a microlending site where you can pick an entrepreneur and make them a loan. (Sort of a P2P Grameen Foundation.) Poor people get to start their own businesses, you actually get your money back (to re-loan or cash out), what's not to like?
Well, the problem is in that "pick an entrepreneur" part. Apparently all the entrepreneurs on the site have already received their loans. Their stories are real, and the funds you gave will actually help them, but the idea that you are choosing where your funds are going is an illusion.
Lots of debate is going on, from an opening salvo (Kiva Is Not Quite What It Seems) to the CEO's response. You can read more over on the Tactical Philanthropy blog, whose author was kind enough to put my comment into its own post. I'll reproduce here for those of you who won't read any other site than Ishbadiddle:
The central issue, to me, isn't that the pool of money is fungible (i.e., my donation goes into a large pool, out of which the partners are funded, out of which individual loans are made). Nor is the question of microphilanthropy vs. the need to fund overhead. The issue is that Kiva implies that the lender's choice helps determine who gets a loan.Kiva gives the impression that if lenders do not fund a project, that project will not happen. Right now there's a project with $250 left to go, and it "expires" in 8 hours, 15 minutes. That gives me a sense of urgency. I might even give the whole amount. But if the loan has already been made, then the "expiration" isn't true. There is no real choice.
I worked for a number of years at DonorsChoose.org, and I can tell you that giving donors an actual choice is hard. Good projects will go unfunded. You have to return credits to donors who have partially funded a project that never happened, and convince them to reapply those funds to a new project, which itself might not be fully funded, etc. Tracking it all is no piece of cake, either. But if you don't do all of this, you're not being transparent, and you're not giving your donors real choice.
I don't believe that microphilanthropy (or microfinance, peer-to-peer giving, etc.) is a good solution for most problems. DonorsChoose.org has an advantage, in that they are funding discrete classroom projects within public schools, but do not have to fund the infrastructure of the schools themselves. Most problems just couldn't be solved in this way. ("I'd like to fund only the violas in the orchestra, please.") But if you're going to advertise yourself as giving choice to the donor, you'd better do it.
I must say that I'm disappointed in Kiva. Time to switch to GlobalGiving?