Slashdot Mirror


What If There Was a Microsoft Appreciation Day?

theodp writes "In 2005, Microsoft came under fire after withdrawing support for an anti-gay-discrimination bill. 'I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides on social policy issues,' explained CEO Steve Ballmer. That was then. Microsoft — like Google and Amazon — has since very publicly declared its support for gay-marriage legislation, which means it — unlike Chick-fil-A — needn't worry about the 'deeply-held beliefs of any employee' causing it to be blocked from doing business by the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. I guess we'll never know what Microsoft versions of 'Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day' or 'National Same-Sex Kiss Day' would have looked like."

362 comments

  1. What's the point of this "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Other than just trying to rile up commentators? Clickbait much?

    1. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, if you don't agree with me, you hate me.

      Duh!

    2. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      Well, you're either gay... or vagina? Go Steve Balmer... no really. Go

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    3. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Funny

      If there were a Microsoft Appreciation Day, there would be a story on Slashdot about it. It'd get over 1K comments, about a third of which would be iOS vs Android and libertarian vs liberal flamewars, a separate 100-comment thread on the evil on H-1B, another one about why Unity sucks, and the rest would be uniformly panning the UI Formely Known As Metro (occasionally diverging into the 5-minute hate of ribbon). All of that would, of course, generate a quite astronomical amount of ad views.

      Given that there isn't a Microsoft Appreciation Day, Slashdot has to content itself with imagining that there is one, and going from there. It's not as good as the real thing, but for some reason people mostly ignore the Bitcoin stories outright these days, and even the regular AGW flamewars barely scrape a measly 400 comments, so you have to do with what you have...

      In other news, what if Richard Stallman said "I laid off the 'shrooms and bought an iPad - fuck GPL, it was all just a bad trip all along" - stay tuned!

    4. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well as long as it doesn't start yet another vi vs emacs war, I'm all for it.

    5. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot editors have a contract with Burson Marsteller.

      They have to mention BM customers or their products in a majority of front-page stories or forfeit part of the SLA fee.

    6. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Maybe it can look like this instead? Where gays accost homeless street preachers. Kinda assine isn't it? But no it's no click bait, maybe you've heard of the guy who runs the blog too. He's a Associate Professor at Cornell Law. Then again, there's no shortage of hate floating up today either, just a small sample.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

      In other news, what if Richard Stallman said "I laid off the 'shrooms and bought an iPad - fuck GPL, it was all just a bad trip all along"

       
        LOL !!
      Thanks for the needed laughter !!
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    8. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're going to have a Microsoft Appreciation day, it should be August 28.

      That way you'd get to celebrate the anniversary of Stockholm Syndrome with a bullying, abusive, extortionist.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

    9. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show you how EVERYONE sucks when mob mentality kicks in.

      Also, I was really amused by the annoying gay hipster waving his iPhone around while pretending to be polite as he accosted the old black man.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    10. Re:What's the point of this "story"? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Accosted? According to that story, they just mocked him. And this preacher was just "reading the Bible" -- which implies that he thinks the protesters deserved to, and would, burn in hell. I'd say that mockery was the exactly correct response in this case.

      I guess that time that the preacher came by my university library to tell us we were all going to hell, and a huge group gathered around and mocked him for it (he called my roommate 'the devil' -- we couldn't have been more proud), we were all accosting him as well.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  2. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Microsoft is pew pew along the lines of magazine? I'm a 1990's nerd.

    1. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you must be new here

    2. Re:What if... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You have a relatively low UID, perhaps you remember and long for Slashdot before the politics section was installed temporarily and never got removed.

      I too remember of a better time in slashdot history. I guess we are getting old and useless or something.

    3. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too remember of a better time in slashdot history.

      If Soulskill keeps it up you will be having that memory more often.

    4. Re:What if... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call a 6-digit UID "relatively low". Mine is in the same ballpark, and I don't remember Slashdot ever being without a lot of political flamebait. Heck, didn't it date back before 9/11? Looking at comments in that story, and I don't see any UIDs above 500k.

    5. Re:What if... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Things are different in this post-Columbine environment.

    6. Re:What if... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The "politics" section of slashdot was added supposedly for a temporary measure around the 2000 or 2004 elections because people were trying to inject politics about the elections into normal discussion.

      The temporary turned into permanent and the quality of articles and the discussion went down hill since then. That was my point, it was about the politics section. Before that was around, stories like this never would have made it out of someone's journal entry.

      And I would say a 6 digit UID is pretty low considering the hardrive crash of circa 2000 and a some people like me had to find new logins (mostly due to inactivity and switching ISP's too often to recover the password to the old log on before and after the crash). But I know there are at least 1,900,000 UIDs or more, almost double the 800,000 some odd number the op received. I got my new UID sometime in the middle of 2001 or 2002, considering that Slashdot was created in 1997 and this is 2012, I would say it's relatively low.

    7. Re:What if... by clifyt · · Score: 1

      6-digit is low? I'm still bitching about the fact that I asked Taco years ago to change my name because too many people associated me with someone else (having used that ID on BBS's in the '80s) and he just up and created a new account for me instead giving me a 5-digit account.

      Actually, I would have done the exact same thing...and do on my own board...but it still pissed me off anyways!

      But 6-digit is no where near low. Hell...5 digit isn't even low...

    8. Re:What if... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I say a UID of almost 2.5 million. pwngeek (2485940) to be exact. While you are right, a 5 digit UID is lower then an 6 digit, the 2,485,940 UID is 2.5 times higher then the op's 970136 id. Or if my math doesn't fail me, there has been at least as many users plus half the amount of users who signed up before him that have signed up after him.

      Maybe it's a sign that we are getting old. I did just buy a girl a rocking chair and roller skates the other day for her 49th birthday. Told her the skates was so she could push the chair around easily.

    9. Re:What if... by unitron · · Score: 1

      What hard drive crash?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    10. Re:What if... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I'm imagining it.

      I could have swore that some time around 2000 a hard drive went out and they found the backups only contained parts of the database. This would be about the time they moved the servers to California. They recovered the articles but not the comments and a lot of users had to do a password reset

      But I can't seem to find one article about it. I thought there was a mention to it in the fact page on slashdot even but I can't find it now either.

    11. Re:What if... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call a 6-digit UID "relatively low". Mine is in the same ballpark, and I don't remember Slashdot ever being without a lot of political flamebait. Heck, didn't it date back before 9/11? Looking at comments in that story, and I don't see any UIDs above 500k.

      I would guess that it dates before 9/11, possibly with the hiring of John Katz. Things really started going off the deep end in 1999 and the Columbine High School massacre.

      The Microsoft anti-trust trial certainly brought out a lot of trollish people, but at least it fell under the "news for nerds, stuff that matters" moniker.

      (I have a low 6-digit uid but lurked without an account for a couple years before registering)

    12. Re:What if... by unitron · · Score: 1

      I ain't sayin' it didn't happen, I just don't happen to remember it.

      Of course if it happened around May of 2000 I might easily never have seen it.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    13. Re:What if... by unitron · · Score: 1

      See my other reply first.

      Of course if it had happened January 1st, 2000, we'd never have heard the end of it.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  3. Ready... set... Troll! by pspahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not even sure what this post is about or why it is something that matters.

    I imagine there will be a troll fest coming in 3... 2...

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 2

      How can you have an article on LGBT issues without trolling?

      The post actually presents an interesting issue (via the time.com link): why do corporations feel they have to take sides on the gay marriage issue? The problem is that the poster gave into the temptation to make his headline and post cute and snarky.

      It's worth pointing out that whole "appreciation day" thing happened because Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.

    2. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if there was a troll appreciation day? Trolls have feelings too.

    3. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.

      Interesting. Maybe I ought to try this Chick-Fil-A business.
      The ACLU has strongly criticized the mayors of Boston, Chicago, et cetera. They say if the government follows-through on blocking Chick-Fil-a then the ACLU will sue the local governments for discrimination against a business (or group) based upon its religious beliefs. Though I am pro-same sex marriage, I agree with teh ACLU that it is not the role of government to punish/boycott/ban people or businesses or groups for their speech or ideas.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      because Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.

      Well, I don't know about Microsoft, but ol' Ronald McDonald was quite well known for his affection to some of his customers...

    5. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, the CEO made the comments outside the business realm to a group at a southern baptist online convention. His son repeated and clarified the remarks when asked by reporters outside that. The official company stance on the issue was somewhat agnostic as they said they didn't want o be involved in the debate and wanted to leave it to the political and government arenas.

      It is really being blown out or portion to state that Chick-Fil-A itself as a company other then donating to a charity the owner's wife is involved with has an anti gay or anti gay marriage stance. Even with the controversy in the headlines, we haven't seen any gays step forward saying they were refused promotions or denied jobs because of their orientation.

    6. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chick-Fil-A isn't refusing to serve gays, so I don't see how is your post relevant.

    7. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No you don't. You've often stated that you believe that, as part of the incorporation license, government does get to tell businesses "you will serve blacks/gays/jews/etc. Or Else."

      And Chick-fil-a has not refused service to blacks/gays/jews/etc. Nor would they even if it were legal. The Openly Christian CEO was asked his views on same-sex marriage for an article, and suddenly a million Internet hate mongers got all riled up and declared the company to be a hate monger.

    8. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about Microsoft, but ol' Ronald McDonald was quite well known for his affection to some of his customers...

      Plus Mayor McCheese was pretty flamboyant - and let's not even start with the Hamburgler!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by mdf356 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The post actually presents an interesting issue (via the time.com link): why do corporations feel they have to take sides on the gay marriage issue?

      As I recall, Microsoft's reasoning was made explicit at least once. MSFT believes that, by supporting issues such as same-sex marriage, it can attract the most talented gay people in the software industry as employees, who may see the company's support of such an issue as a reason to work for MSFT rather than a competitor.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    10. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACLU is one of the few groups that consistently surprise me because their policies consistently can't be put under either "More merging of humankind into a categoryless vat of pink slime" or "As much money for rich people as possible".

    11. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, leaving out that the views of the CEO are that God will punish US for our presumption to challenge Him, that we will suffer God's Vengeance from it, but that he believes we can be saved by opposing it.

      Go ahead, blanketly call others the hate mongers. I'm sure there were some on the Internet, but telling them from the trolls is hard enough that you can't be sure who's actually expressing such a few.

      The rest of us, maybe actually have grounds for our disagreement with a position that we find to be intolerant.

    12. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by miracle69 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The turnout wasn't because the owner said he was for the Biblical View of Marriage.

      Everyone knows Chick-Fil-A is a Christian company. They're closed on Sundays. Was it really news that the CEO stated that he supported the Biblical version of marriage? No, it wasn't.

      The reason there was such a response was the media putting words in his mouth combined with the threatened tyranny of mayors trying to bully Chick FIl-A.

      And good for the ACLU.

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    13. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then allow me to elaborate. I was demonstrating cpu6502's acceptance of government telling a business what it can and cannot do (and punishing a business for violating those rules), in the face of a post by cpu6502 which seemed to say the exact opposite.

    14. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why would personal views of CEO matter?

    15. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      why do corporations feel they have to take sides on the gay marriage issue?

      Sometimes it's because their employee base (both existing and potential) leans strongly one way over some particular issue, and so officially supporting it is good for morale, and makes it more attractive to people seeking employment. At least that seems to be the case for most IT companies when it comes to LGBT.

    16. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Omestes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.

      This appreciation day thing is creepy, since its supporting them just because they are run by an asshole. I'm glad that hatred can make you the money here in America, for no reason but for the fact that you hate someone who someone else hates. I find this depressing as hell.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    17. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      How can you have an article on LGBT issues without trolling?

      on slashdot? Simple. 1) Make it news, 2) make it matter, and 3) make it for nerds.

      Here, it's not news because it's a speculative question. A question about a horse of a news story that has been beaten into a bloody pulp by the national media. Does it matter? The basic topic might, but the hypothetical doesn't. Is it for nerds? Nope. And simply dropping MS in there doesn't make it so.

      This is the kind of bullshit that degrades the quality of slashdot. This site is only as good as its editors, and it's definitely seen its peaks and valleys over the last, what, 15ish years? Seems like it's reaching a low ebb again thanks to crap like this. And in case anyone cares, yes, I'm in favor of gay rights, but that's not why I read slashdot.

    18. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's not just the personal views of the CEO. From Wikipedia, Chick Fil A donates a significant amount of money to anti-gay rights organizations:

      In January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against the trial ruling striking down Proposition 8 in California (see Perry v. Brown).[1][2][3][4][5] PFI had also lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[6] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent Restaurant Operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[7]

      Another organization connected to Chick-fil-A through financial support, the WinShape Foundation,[8] was also quoted as stating it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[9] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[10] Between 2003 and 2009, the WinShape Foundation gave more than $2 million to groups such as Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum that are politically active in opposing same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues.[11][12][13] Some of these groups are also listed and recognized as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [1]

    19. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by AdamWill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, statistically speaking, since approx. 50% of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, you can no longer ever buy anything at all, because at least _someone_ whose salary is paid by the business probably opposes same sex marriage.

      Look, I'm gay. Hell, I'm married to someone of the same sex. But I really think some of the pro-marriage activists in the U.S. are going off the freaking deep end. It's a complex issue which deeply divides your country (and many countries). Approaching it like a cartoon in which everyone who supports same-sex marriage is a glorious white knight and anyone who opposes it is evil and eats babies isn't really a mature approach. It's frankly disingenous, disrespectful, rude and counter-productive to imply that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is necessarily a hate-mongering bigot. A lot of them aren't.

      But then, this is America, where major sociopolitical issues are fought out in fast-food chicken restaurants.

    20. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But what if a company said "No Blacks Allowed" would that be okay? Don't forget that was 'religious based" too, The Curse Of Ham. The point is the religious texts are ambiguous enough frankly you can condone or condemn damned near anything just by cherry picking the right passages.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we stop with the dishonesty?

      It's not his views that are the problem, it's the fact that he gives money to organizations that try to limit gay people's rights.
      Apparently some of these organizations have also successfully encouraged the persecution of gays abroad and are placed on the same list as the KKK by the feds.

      I'm not saying if he wasn't giving money everybody would be ok with his views: there will always be idiots who care more than they should about what people think. But for most people (myself included) the problem is the donations, ans this is why so many people refuse to eat at Chick-Fil-A: because if we do eat there, part of our money will go to those anti-gay organizations.
      Anyway it's just ridiculous and a blatant lie to talk only about the guy's opinions and make it sound like his views are the only problem people have with his restaurant.

      Now regarding the banning of Chick-Fil-A:
      In principle I'm against it - it shouldn't be up to the government to discriminate against a business for the views of their owners. Let's keep in mind that the donations were not made in the name of Chick-Fil-A or from the company's wallet, but was made by Cathy from his own wallet (which is in fact filled by Chick-Fil-A's profits).

      However, because the organizations he has given money to are apparently considered hate groups and might have helped some pretty nasty persecution against gays in foreign countries (I heard Sudan if I remember correctly), there's a question of what the law says about such donations and the source of the donation money (Chick-Fil-A).
      There might in fact be something in the law that makes these donations illegal and holds Chick-Fil-A responsible. Even though it's Cathy's donations, it's not uncommon for the law to sometimes hold responsible the income source of criminals. For instance I'm pretty sure the mob could legally have their businesses fined, shut down or seized by the authorities even if their businesses don't break the law and only provide the mobsters with income to further their criminal activities.
      I don't have the answer or an opinion on that. But if it is the case that the law has something to say about Chick-Fil-A generating money for a guy who donates to hate groups, then these mayors who have banned Chick-Fil-A might actually be doing what the law tells them to.

      But again, if it's just a matter of "I don't like what you have to say so I'm banning you from my city" then no, that isn't right.

    22. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

      Chick-Fil-A isn't refusing to serve gays

      Perhaps not, but I bet gays are pretty much never going to shop there ever again, so it's not really a problem for them anyway.

    23. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The funny part? There is NO "biblical view of marriage" and in fact many of the great leaders of the bible had multiple wives. In fact most of the "traditions" we have of marriage are less than a century old and the ones that are older than that most would be horrified if they knew where they came from. An example, the throwing of the garter? Came from the middle ages when they would rip the clothes right off the "bride' who was usually outright bought and didn't have shit to say about the whole thing, to "loosen her up" before being drug off to the bedroom. Source.

      So while there is plenty of precedent for hiding bigotry with the bible, both slavery and racism were considered defensible by scripture, to say its "biblical tradition" to have a single man and a woman is complete horseshit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "yes, I'm in favor of gay rights, but that's not why I read slashdot."

      --- "I support the rights of other races... as long as they stay in their own countries" Right?

    25. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      The problem is that that's not a good analogy.

      Chick-Fil-A doesn't refuse to serve gays. If they did, your analogy would apply. Instead, the owner supports policy (read: laws) that would deny gays certain rights (in this case, the right to marry).

      A better analogy would be if a restaurant owner supported legislation banning interracial marriage, but still served blacks and interracial couples in the restaurant.

      Support for the laws that discriminate is detestable, but it should not be illegal. Discriminating against who you serve, however is both detestable, AND illegal.

    26. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but people weren't boycotting them back then over it. They are boycotting them now, and it's clear that CEO's remark is what started the brouhaha.

    27. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would personal views of CEO matter?

      Because of what they are leading to, which is an attempt to change the laws for the worse.

      He's not just sitting around quietly doing things on his lonesome, but actively engaging in conduct to influence the government to suit his personal views.

    28. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      They are boycotting them now, and it's clear that CEO's remark is what started the brouhaha.

      So? I believe it's justified. The link between Chick Fil A and anti gay rights isn't some tenuous maze or an exercise in 6 degrees of separation. Truett Cathy owns Chik Fil A and makes money selling chicken sandwiches. Truett Cathy started the WinShape Foundation, which donates money to anti gay rights organizations. It's very clear that for every dollar you give Truett Cathy, a portion of that goes into the pockets of an organization that actively campaigns against gay rights. Perhaps the public was not aware of this before a couple of weeks ago, but he made that abundantly clear now.

    29. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're concerned about the pro-same-sex marriage side seeing a distorted view of the opposition.

      And yet you're silent on the disingenuous, disrespectful, rude and counter-productive efforts of the anti-gay marriage side to portray the same-sex marriage side as defying the will of God, of being somehow the intolerant ones for not tolerating but actually oppressing them, and the host of things that they've cooked up to defend themselves from criticism.

      Maybe you ought to think about whether you have a problem of too much self-introspection to avoid being judgmental and ignoring how the other side is actually behaving.

      I'm sorry if you feel it's being offensive to say what we see in the other side, but I think you left out a big portion of the picture in your disapproval of what you present one side to be.

      But hey, you keep trying to be impartial and fair.

    30. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'll miss them.

    31. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you have a point with the "single biblical view of marriage". But you don't understand what christians mean when they say things like that. They don't mean that there is a single view of marriage that is consistently promoted through the bible. They understand the bible as a progression of a view from old testament to new. From the new testament on, its pretty consistant. As is the writings of the early Christians as well. There is a single Christian view of marriage 1 man+ 1 wife that has been held since the time of christ by the majority of christians and that's what they mean.

    32. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Which parts of the bible? Remember, the whole first half of the bible was pre-Christian, and there is plenty in there that would not have been considered Christian by Christ at the time when he was on Earth.

      It makes the way some of the more 'conservative' Christians struggle to interpret every single thing written in the Old Testament totally O.K. see a little silly.

    33. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it your view that when someone disagrees with your position he is a hate monger? I know lot's of people that believe that Christianity is based on a book of fairy tales and yet I don't consider them "hate mongers" simply because they don't believe what I believe. It's not hate to state that you feel something is wrong morally. If he had stated that all gays should be shot on sight then certainly that would be hate mongering but his statement in no wise resembled anything like that. The appreciation day for chick fil-a was in response to the backlash they received in the media and by certain politicians. People wanted to show that they appreciated Mr. Cathy for standing up for what he believed. I shop lots of places that are run by people that dislike what I believe. I don't see any reason to avoid them simply because we differ in opinion.

    34. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      As I recall, Microsoft's reasoning was made explicit at least once. MSFT believes that, by supporting issues such as same-sex marriage, it can attract the most talented gay people in the software industry as employees, who may see the company's support of such an issue as a reason to work for MSFT rather than a competitor.

      Silly question: shouldn't MSFT be interested in the most talented people in the software industry as employees, PERIOD ?? Software engineering and development doesn't care if you're gay, straight, or even reproduce by fission. . . .

    35. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I agree with both parts. The people tell the government what to think, not the other way around.

      Any such actions by any civil authority will get bodyslammed by the courts, and rightly so.

      Government will adjust to having gay marriage...because the people told it to.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    36. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The post actually presents an interesting issue (via the time.com link): why do corporations feel they have to take sides on the gay marriage issue?

      Why does the government?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    37. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      Chick-Fil-A isn't refusing to serve gays

      Perhaps not, but I bet gays are pretty much never going to shop there ever again, so it's not really a problem for them anyway.

      You lost that bet.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    38. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.

      Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago. The difference is that the CEO for Chick-Fil-A can do nothing about it. Obama is the most powerful man in the free world and very well COULD do something about it.

      So, the more you bitch and moan about Chick-Fil-A and the worse the things are you say about them and accuse them of being, the more you show that this is nothing more than feigned outrage bullshit. You don't hate Chick-Fil-A because of the CEO's views. You pretend to hate Chick-Fil-A because you think it's cool and hating Chick-Fil-A is in fashion. You are the worst kind of bigot.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    39. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just the personal views of the CEO. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Chick Fil A donates a significant amount of money to anti-gay rights organizations:

      And Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act". President Obama said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

      Strange that I didn't see any kiss-ins at the White House. Strange that so many of the people protesting Chick-Fil-A today voted for both Bill Clinton AND Barack Obama after they said the same things that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A said. The difference is that these men were/are president of the United States and could put that anti-gay rights stuff into LAW!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    40. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you'd best keep your money to yourself, because everyone hates *something*. There isn't a person on this planet that doesn't find something so disgusting that they hate it and those that support it.

      I'm not a hatist by any means, but marriage is a religious state, unions are a civil state.
      Since religions don't allow gay marriages, that's the end of it. There can never be a gay marriage.
      There can be gay civil unions. No worries, no haggling, no hate.

    41. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The EXACT same thing? No, he did not. You are lying.

      Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage. You can't. He said he didn't believe in it, which isn't support, but is nowhere near the dogmatic theological opposition you tried to make it out to be.

      The more you produce bald-faced lies like this in a dishonest attempt to create false equivalencies the more you show that this is nothing more than a feigned attempt to defend your cause with bullshit. You are dishonest, and you overplayed your hand with your "EXACT same thing" nonsense. Not that you had anything in the first place, but you might as well go on about his Kenyan birth certificate and how he wants to take away military votes.

      No reason you should hold back on the mendacity.

    42. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Obama said he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and believes it should be repealed:

      As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full
      equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
      way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
      stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
      lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
      Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
      – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal
      only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
      discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I
      have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
      American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as
      married couples in our immigration system.

      That's from 2008. You obviously missed that, and the discussion early last year where Obama told the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.

      Keep up with that same things nonsense, it doesn't hold water, but it does show your case is full of holes.

    43. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only support female-female marriages, not male-male(yuck!)

    44. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the straw man, but I'm not arguing about the policies of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

    45. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      It's frankly disingenous[sp], disrespectful, rude and counter-productive to imply that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is necessarily a hate-mongering bigot.

      This is a bizarro idea I have never seen expressed before on the internet, much less by a gay. Care to expand on this? Is there something wrong with your brain? Have you been for a CAT scan recently?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    46. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appreciated Mr. Cathy for standing up for what he believed? No, that's the lie that keeps getting told, that this reaction was about saving the poor oppressed Christian CEO from being the victim of intolerance, but in reality, the people who bought into it were the ones who agreed with what he believed.

      That God was very angry with the idea, and that we would suffer as a nation for it, unless we changed our sinful ways. Not quite the same as the pastor going for the Homosexual concentration camp, but the tone is a lot more hate-oriented than you'll care to admit.

      Besides, hate's not wrong. We don't have to love everything in some weird hippie world appreciation thing. But some reasons to justify your hate are wrong. That's the case here. But you don't want us to recognize that, or speak out against it, do you? Because that's the REAL intolerance here, or so their supporters would have us believe.

      Such a fallacy.

    47. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, statistically speaking none of your money that goes into a business goes to anyone other than the C class executives, since they typically make in the range of 150-200x the average.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    48. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      "I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman"
      --President Obama

      “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.”
      --Dan Cathy

      Yeah... I'm not seeing much difference.

      Also, I'm not talking about what Obama did recently. I'm pointing out that Obama clearly stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Cathy stated that he supports the Biblical definition of the family. These are very similar statements, only separated by a few years, yet the liberal response is night and day. Now why do you think that is? Why did liberals support Barack Obama and protest Chick-Fil-A?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    49. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the straw man, but I'm not arguing about the policies of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

      It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and feigned outrage. And why would you protest Chick-Fil-A, which has absolutely no power over your life, and NOT protest the policies singed by Bill Clinton? Sure, there was some mention by the gay community, but NOTHING like the reaction Cathy received.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    50. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Link failure! Here is Obama quote:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    51. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Surt · · Score: 2

      I think they are. But gay rights is a wedge issue that attracts a substantial number of gay employees, but costs relatively few religious bigots (who, for whatever reason are not as common in software engineering as they are in the general populace, possibly because the rest of us make them feel sufficiently unwelcome that they give up on the industry). So taking such a position is a net win in competing for employees, and comes at almost no cost.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    52. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      The EXACT same thing? No, he did not. You are lying.

      "I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman"
      --President Obama

      “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.”
      --Dan Cathy

      Um.... Looks like the same thing to me.

      Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage.

      Actually, that would be Jeremiah Wright. He was the preacher at the church Obama attended for about 20 years. Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country. I believe he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Who knew he literally meant chicken sandwiches?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    53. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Surt · · Score: 1

      What if there was a troll appreciation day? Trolls have feelings too.

      Actually, I have some first hand evidence that they do not. Just yesterday I took a troll down into my dungeon. He had annoyed me with a post about black people. Anyway, I pulled his entrails out through his mouth, and he didn't even scream. Crap, I just realized he probably couldn't scream because of the entrails. Now I have to start this experiment all over again.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    54. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the more you flail around trying to make it seem like obama didnt support the same man-woman marriage that mr cathy does, the funnier it is to me. You can attempt to spin it any way you want, but until it was politically worth it to obama, he was not supportive of gay marriage.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    55. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yeah, who cares what people who can make a difference have to say, I mean, they only write laws, and run our country. No, lets chastise a CEO, that will cause a real "change".....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    56. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between a business giving millions of dollars to an anti-gay marriage organisation, and some fry cook behind the counter who doesn't like the gays.

      I agree that this isn't a cartoon, but the CEO went on the radio and talked about how Christianity defines marriage. That's not just a threat to gay marriage, it's a threat to all marriage. It's a threat to democracy. The guy thinks that Christianity invented marriage. I'm not sure that's a bigotted response, but it sure as hell isn't one I want to support though going to these restaurants.

      I'd never heard of this fast food joint before, but now you can be sure I'll never go to one.

    57. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Uh, because they issue the marriage licenses?

    58. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I've often heard people say, "Ronald McDonald is so gay" but I'm not sure that's what they meant.

    59. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you left part out:

      "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." Dan Cathy again

      Why did you do that?

      Oh I know, so you wouldn't have to admit that the character is completely different.

      Thanks again. Sorry, but an incomplete representation only shows your attempt to distort and manipulate the truth. Did I say that President Obama and Dan Cathy never said similar things? No. But you claimed they said the exact same thing. Then you try to present it that way with bits and pieces of the truth with pointless platitudes that ignore the depth of difference.

      That only defeats your argument. Did you expect ignorance of Dan Cathy's full sentiments to carry you through? That's like saying the Mona Lisa is the same as some kindergartner's macaroni art, which you try to prove by a super-zoomed image that takes away the full perspective?

    60. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly question: shouldn't MSFT be interested in the most talented people in the software industry as employees, PERIOD ??

      Yes, exactly. Microsoft competes for employees with a number of other companies in a number of other states (and countries) where same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships have a variety of legal situations. Because only the government can provide certain protections and rights, working and living in Washington state is less attractive than, say, Massachusetts in this regard. By that same token, if the Washington referendum is approved, you can bet Microsoft and other companies will use this fact in their recruiting employees from out of state.

    61. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I think you're kind of minimizing the issue. Some of Day's remarks definitely struck me as being in the "Heaven shall smite them!" category. And a lot of gay people consider those "charities" hate groups.

      That said, I'm dubious that it makes sense to start a boycott every time a CEO expresses an opinion you don't like. There are better ways of educating people.

    62. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, you missed his quote was from 2008, and you're trying to present a few bits and pieces to cover your deceptions?

      Find where President Obama invoked God to defend his positions, where he said God's judgment would come upon us for embracing it.

      Obama's believe was grounded in personal sentiments. Dan Cathy's was entirely premised upon the support of God and threatened punishment. The one is open to change and does not present itself as better, the other rests on calling upon the Divine to make it unchallengeable.

      You try to get us to ignore that, to not remember it, but it's there, and we're aware of it, even if you don't want us to be.

      Maybe that's why you can't understand the liberal response, because you're deliberately skewing the picture.

    63. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      And if that most talented person happens to be gay, MS has a better chance at recruiting them. It's not any different from catering to the needs iof any other group (people with children get help with childcare, etc.).

    64. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I wish people would read a little more carefully. I wasn't looking for an answer to a question. I was describing the issue raised by a linked article.

    65. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 2

      As I recall, Microsoft's reasoning was made explicit at least once. MSFT believes that, by supporting issues such as same-sex marriage, it can attract the most talented gay people in the software industry as employees, who may see the company's support of such an issue as a reason to work for MSFT rather than a competitor.

      Silly question: shouldn't MSFT be interested in the most talented people in the software industry as employees, PERIOD ?? Software engineering and development doesn't care if you're gay, straight, or even reproduce by fission. . . .

      Sure. But software developers care if you're tolerant; and this may be an important point among gay potential employees, and for most straight potential employees supporting same-sex marriage is a minor but positive point. I work for a different top-tier software organization; there's lots of pro-gay-marriage stickers around the office, mostly put up by people I know to be straight. Software developers are rationalists; so there's fewer fundamentalist religious than among the average population, and thus more support of gay marriage.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    66. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever microwave Ben and Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough for 11 seconds before eating it? Soo much better...

    67. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it wrong for religious people to have a say in how others live? These did:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19132089

      Some people are really sure that they can spot sinners:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jealous-tennessee-man-allegedly-smacks-girlfriend-a-pic-guy-facebook-page-mitt-romney-article-1.1126074

    68. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      but costs relatively few religious bigots (who, for whatever reason are not as common in software engineering as they are in the general populace, possibly because the rest of us make them feel sufficiently unwelcome that they give up on the industry).

      No, that's because they are stupid, and expect that God Almighty will keep them from writing buggy code because he loves them, even if they have no idea what they are doing.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    69. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The personal views of a CEO are the political views of his corporation. And since, in the US, corporations are people with regards to free speech (thus political power), this CEO's personal views are now an influential political weapon.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    70. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Nearly half of marriages end in divorce. I guess he just wants gays to stay together instead of getting married ;)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    71. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'm minimizing it. I understand your concerns but the realty is that the CEO did not make the remark as the CEO, that was ancillary to the comment. The best or most that can be said that the company participated in was donating to the CEO's wife's charity which does other things then fight gay marriage. You may call that a hate group but others don't.

      I find that it's a lot like condemning a family because a crazy uncle went on a crime spree. "no, junior, you can't play with your best friend billy, his uncle is a criminal". Especially when you have the mayors of cities saying that legal businesses cannot participate in their economy because of political speech and religious beliefs.

    72. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 2

      The core of this whole issue is the following quote:

      I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

      That's pretty extreme. I think even if I weren't for gay marriage, I'd be offended by his theocratic tone. "You can't pass any laws that disagree with my religion!" What's next? Banning divorce and birth control?

        I agree (reluctantly) that it's not fair to hold the whole company accountable for the CEO's opinion, but that doesn't mean the opinion isn't something to get pissed off about.

    73. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      Don't remind me. I recall my undergrad Physics 2 class, where we were asked to derive the field strength, or something similar, of coaxial conductors, and one particularly obsessive religious sort "solved" the problem by drawing the diagram and then providing the solution (which was textbook correct. . ).

      Then when asked by the professor to PROVE his solution, he replied "Because God made it that way. . . . "

      Needless to say, said zealot did not last more than a year past that in Engineering School. . .

    74. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sure it is pretty extreme, but it was a person who said it as a person, not a CEO as he was representing the company's views. Now I understand you cannot totally divorce the views of a company's CEO, but it is being over played here concerning the company's involvement. That's all I was saying.

    75. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if executives make 150-200x the average, more goes to the average worker due to there being more than 150-200x as many workers in businesses big enough to have C class executives. Chances are a larger portion of the money goes to regular workers that oppose same-sex marriage than to executives that do as the working class is more likely to oppose gay marriage.

    76. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be anti-gay marriage without hating gays themselves. The conservative Christian view of homosexuals would resemble that of their view of alcoholics, drug addicts, or adulterers - gays have a desire for sinful behavior in their view and showing them love would be to help them overcome those desires rather than sanctify sin. This can be summed up in the popular expression "hate the sin, not the sinner." Many religious orders take vows that go against human nature - vows chastity, poverty, or service run counter to our base animal desires, so why is it shocking that they would advocate restraining one's feelings of attraction toward another? For that matter, marriage itself includes precisely this denial for attraction toward anyone not your spouse.

    77. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, why would you say such hateful things about the president and Bill Clinton?

    78. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably more that their natural base of employees skews toward pro-gay rather than anti-gay - as a west coast company, they are less likely to hire from the American south than say Red Hat or other tech companies in the Carolinas/Georgia.

    79. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by mellyra · · Score: 1

      Which parts of the bible? Remember, the whole first half of the bible was pre-Christian, and there is plenty in there that would not have been considered Christian by Christ at the time when he was on Earth.

      That's quite a leap, afaik the biblical Christ never promotes the idea that there is "Christian" faith or set of rules that is distinct from the "Jewish" ones and the idea of "Christianity" as something distinct from Judaism is something we mostly owe to Paulus.

      I don't think we have any indication that Jesus did not consider himself Jewish and would have considered any "outdated" laws and traditions "not Christian" (as opposed to "not Jewish"). What we do have is Matthew 5.17-18 which states exactly the opposite to your claim (i.e. it shows that Jesus did see himself firmly rooted within the Jewish faith and tradition, not as a splitoff.

    80. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      That's only because he doesn't understand what's going on. It's not about "one person's opinion," like he thinks, it's about the company donating millions of dollars to anti-gay and certified hate groups.

      Just goes to show you that being gay doesn't automatically make one enlightened. They aren't special, they're just as human as everyone else.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    81. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      His personal views don't matter, what matters is that CFA donates millions of dollars to anti-gay groups and hate groups like the Family Research Council. Cathy's interview just reminded everyone that they do this.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    82. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      Polls over the last few years show that it is pretty close to 50/50 when the question is "Should gays be allowed to marry?" But when the question is "Should gays be allowed to marry OR have a civil union allowing insurance/adoption/other married rights?" then the response is overwhelmingly positive, usually around 80%.

      CFA supports the 20% with millions of dollars of donations to anti-gay and hate groups like the Family Research Council. That's why this is an issue, not because a person in their employ, no matter how high up, is personally a homophobe.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    83. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Actually, an even better analogy would be a restaurant owner that serves minorities while donating money to anti-minority groups.

      LBGT and fat people are pretty much the only classes of people left to safely hate on in this country without social repercussion. If we'd been talking about Blacks or Latinos instead of gays there would be few people out there jumping to defend this guy's views. How many people would get on CNN and defend a person's right to hate minorities? How many people would publicly declare their support of him and patronize his restaurants more because of it?

      But you know, because it's gay people, and they're icky, then it's okay. Just like fat people, and how they're icky, too. You're allowed to point and laugh. God Bless America!

    84. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you hadn't stopped reading, you'd understand what cpu6502 actually meant. Here, I'll give you a hand:

      it is not the role of government to punish/boycott/ban people or businesses or groups for their speech or ideas.

      Refusing to serve someone is not a speech or idea.

    85. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Wow - a rational view, it seems.

      Corporations are in business to offer products that people want or need, and to skim a profit off of that want or need. Corporations have absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER promoting any political, ethical, or moral view in public. As for ethics, their only concern should be internal, ie, not hiring known thieves, preventing theft, catching and disciplining thieves, along with the prevention of various types of prejudice. Work ethics are a legitimate concern of corporations - nothing else.

      When I see a corporation taking a public stance on any issue, I make a mental note NOT to buy their products.

      The one time I want to see a corporation even respond to pressure on a public issue, is in regard to pollution and environmental concerns. Some kid discovers some yucky shit being drained into a creek, it makes the news, I want to see the corporation responsible offering the media access to the plant, as they investigate and clean up the pollutants. That's just about it.

      In other words, STFU, and get on with business!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    86. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      >>>Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.

      Interesting. Maybe I ought to try this Chick-Fil-A business.
      The ACLU has strongly criticized the mayors of Boston, Chicago, et cetera. They say if the government follows-through on blocking Chick-Fil-a then the ACLU will sue the local governments for discrimination against a business (or group) based upon its religious beliefs.

      I don't know about the US, but where I live (Finland) "religious beliefs" are not a valid excuse to discriminate people based on sexual orientation.

    87. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by unitron · · Score: 1

      I think Wright was talking more about the results (backlash, unforeseen consequences, etc.) of faulty foreign policy than it being a specific punishment inflicted by The Creator.

      Unless maybe God was trying to tell us something about the deficiencies of our foreign policy.

      And while Obama may have had difficulty stretching his mind around an expansion of the definition of marriage, I don't think he ever said anything about the occurrence of that expansion incurring the wrath of a vengeful Jehovah, so I'm not seeing the exact 1 to 1 equivalence.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    88. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Want to know the difference?

      Obama's not the one going "and my personal view on marriage ought to be be forced on everyone".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    89. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by unitron · · Score: 1

      The ACLU is one of the few groups that consistently surprise me because their policies consistently can't be put under either "More merging of humankind into a categoryless vat of pink slime" or "As much money for rich people as possible".

      It's that seldom-seen phenomena known as having principles and sticking to them, which, even if practiced imperfectly, is rare enough to stand out when it occurs.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    90. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Thing of it is, if you stipulate God as creator of the universe, and therefore of physics, his answer is correct.

      And an atheist could have said "because physics makes it that way", and been equally correct.

      And both would have been equally guilty of not performing the assignment correctly.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    91. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um.... Looks like the same thing to me.

      Nope, it looks like you did us the favor of proving that you were lying, thanks for sparing us the effort. Nowhere in Obama's quotes did you find anything stating that 'God would be angry with us for redefining marriage'.

      Then there's the matter of Chic's donations to the National Organization of Marriage, a right wing homophobic hate group. Unless you can find similar donations from Obama to similar groups, your false equivalence is even more dishonest.

      Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country.

      You're lying. Again. If you're trying to gain points through consistency, it's not working.

    92. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Is it your view that when someone disagrees with your position he is a hate monger?

      Don't be willfully obtuse. There's having a disagreement on the best film of all time, and having a disagreement where someone dehumanizes you based on who you are.

      You wouldn't say the above nonsense about the Klan hating on blacks or jews, why say it for homophobic hate groups?

    93. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You can be anti-gay marriage without hating gays themselves.

      Distinction without a difference.

    94. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a straw man. It's called deflection, and it's just as dishonest when you're ignoring the LGBT activists that chained themselves to the White House fence for gay rights and got arrested for it.

    95. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace the phrase "same sex marriage" with "Interracial marriage" in your post. Because many decent people were against interracial marriage doesn't mean they were hate mongering bigots right?

    96. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but one of the many differences between Obama and Chick-Fil-A is that only one of them has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay hate groups like the American Family Association and the Family Research Council as well as the "reparative therapy" group Exodus International. The Chick-Fil-A CEO's comments only helped remind people of the disgusting things he's been doing with the money people spend at his restaurants.

    97. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was it really news that the CEO stated that he supported the Biblical version of marriage? No, it wasn't.

      You're missing the context. It wasn't the CEO merely stating, out of the blue, that he supported a particular view of marriage. It was him explaining why Chic-fil-A gives money to certain "Christian" organizations that lobby, for example, African governments to pass laws that mandate the execution of gay people.

      While a lot of people have pretended this is merely about the personal beliefs of the CEO of a fast food chain, it isn't. It's about the fact that buying products from said fast food chain directly contributes to utterly horrific homophobic actions.

      And BTW, as for that "Christian" label people like to slap on homophobia - as I've said elsewhere, despite the actions of "Conservative Christians" to make me believe otherwise, I refuse to believe our creator is an evil intolerant jackass.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    98. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because the CEO is also the founder and chairman and it's a private company.

    99. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      I'm married. It's purely a civil state. Some forms were filed with the government, nothing was done involving a religious institution at all.

      So clearly, marriage is not just "a religious state".

    100. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Jiro · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a business giving millions of dollars to an anti-gay marriage organisation, and some fry cook behind the counter who doesn't like the gays.

      There's a difference between a business giving millions of dollars, and a fry cook. But the business has thousands (or more) fry cook level employees. The effect all adds up.

    101. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Obama's quote was from 2008, but then, the question is "why did this not bother you assuming you voted for him in 2008"? After all, you didn't know he was going to change his mind later. At the time, you must have realized "if this man becomes president, he could put these ideas into practice" and you were perfectly fine with that without caring that it is what you now call anti-gay.

      If Obama in 2008 didn't bother you, why should Chick-Fil-A in 2012 bother you, considering that Obama has a lot more power than the head of Chick-Fil-A even counting monetary donations?

    102. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      sure the first part is as christian as any, real problem is that 99.99% percent of people who say "in biblical sense" actually mean "in my traditionalist sense". in most sects of christianity there's though there's also a common sense approach that if you focus just on jesus's teachings you can throw away most of both books and stop looking for answers for your problems from old men who try to scam you from your cash and make you fight their wars.

      but what the fuck this has to do with microsoft appreciation day I have no fucking idea.
      MS was kind enough to ship qbasic with dos, that was the first thing I coded on, thanks for that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    103. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      And BTW, as for that "Christian" label people like to slap on homophobia - as I've said elsewhere, despite the actions of "Conservative Christians" to make me believe otherwise, I refuse to believe our creator is an evil intolerant jackass.
      I'm sorry -- I must be having a really bad day or something -- but were I to become any sort of deist, I would refuse to bow down to a god who makes nearly all deaths rather painful. Whether it's higher apes who hamstring their prey and start eating it while it's alive, or alligators who pull prey underwater and wait for it to drown, or humans coughing their life out in a months-long stream of bloody sputum and TB germs, death is horrible. You'd think a "loving god" could find a better way.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    104. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Omestes · · Score: 2

      So, the more you bitch and moan about Chick-Fil-A and the worse the things are you say about them and accuse them of being, the more you show that this is nothing more than feigned outrage bullshit. You don't hate Chick-Fil-A because of the CEO's views. You pretend to hate Chick-Fil-A because you think it's cool and hating Chick-Fil-A is in fashion. You are the worst kind of bigot.

      So, I'm a bigot because I'm speaking with my wallet, and not supporting views I can't stand, and find generally destructive to society? Am I also a bigot because I don't buy Sony products, or vote for the majority of Republicans? As a customer, or voter, I can decide who I give money or votes too, and I can have any criteria I want for deciding.

      I also wouldn't eat at a restaurant owned by a Klansman, or Neo-Nazi. Am I still a bigot?

      Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing...

      I, sadly, did. But the thing with politics is that there are other metrics and issues to consider. People who vote on one issue are morons ("He hates abortion, but want to kill everyone in the world? SOLD!"). I voted for Obama because I was hoping he'd stop the civil abuses of Bush, I voted for him because he might actually change our fiscal policy towards something that benefits Americans. I voted for him because I hoped he'd stop killing our young people for no reason. I voted for him because I wanted to stop being somewhat embarrassed for being an American, and having to apologize to all my European and Middle Eastern friends. I also voted for him because I had suspicions that he was actually an undercover atheist. I didn't agree with him on his stance on Gay marriage. But I didn't agree with McCain/Palin either. There was no one with a chance of winning that stood anywhere close to having what I view as an acceptable solution, meaning that it wasn't really a consideration at the time.

      Also, Obama didn't say, basically, that "God hates fags". Sure, it wasn't as Phelpsian, but the gist was basically that. How is it bigoted to decide not to give them money?

      I also don't buy Sony products (as much as possible), or shop at Walmart, am I bigot for that too?

      And no, I don't agree with the mayors saying they'll block Chickfila from opening business in their town. That is a very different issue than me, and individual, choosing not to buy their overpriced (but admittedly tasty) food.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    105. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      When I see a corporation taking a public stance on any issue, I make a mental note NOT to buy their products.

      So, you never buy anything? Because all corporations take public stances and they do it constantly. They employ huge teams of publicists to broadcast their views. It's just that most of it passes under your radar.

    106. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Is it your view that when someone disagrees with your position he is a hate monger?

      It depends on the position. If you disagree with my taste in ice cream, prefered economic practices, political preferences, or pretty much anything else... No. Thats fine. If you disagree about the equality of man, and the worth of individuals, then yes, you might be a hatemonger. I view that the current stance of many Americans towards people with different sexual preferences are more akin to racism than valid differences of opinion. Restricting people's rights based on what they do behind closed doors is not the same as liking Ron Paul (I disagree with both), but I can respect the latter, and not the former.

      Restricting rights and freedoms, and forcing your views on others is very different than mere politics or disimular ethics.

      Similarly, I respect the Muslim religion, and their choice to follow it, but disagree (strongly) with the treatment of women in many of their communities. I respect Christians, until they start trying to force their values on others.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    107. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Well, statistically speaking, since approx. 50% of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, you can no longer ever buy anything at all, because at least _someone_ whose salary is paid by the business probably opposes same sex marriage.

      I'm sure my purchases fund all sorts of people I disagree with. As long as they keep their mouths shut, and don't make it an issue, then I really don't care. But now its an issue, and things are different.

      I personally don't even get it... People, for some reason, seem to find it objectionable that I would choose to, or choose not to give money to someone based on personal criteria, but don't really find it odd that people are doing the same to support the same criteria. Can we also poke at the people who are doing the "Support this Chicken place based on their CEO making himself superior to vast swaths of the population based on an old book"?

      I also don't give money to Sony (or at least directly, I'm sure their products are inside many things I own), or Walmart... Is this also odd?

      I'm not saying all people who oppose it are all hate mongerers, or bigots. There are some valid reasons not to, not based on religion. And I do think that the "rights" community goes a bit far, demanding marriage or nothing at all (even when often the legal differences between a "union" and a "marriage" are purely semantic). But I've gotten sick of the debate, and it has started to piss me off. Let the gay community have their damn cake, so we can just move on as a society. This issue is also a big Religion and Government issue to me, when people forget that their religious beliefs are only valid to them, and try to force them on others, I get mad.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    108. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh - no. They don't, actually. There are tens of thousands of companies in the United States that go about the business of business, and don't waste their time or money on social engineering. There are probably one or two in your own hometown. And, they probably fly under YOUR radar.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    109. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Name one.

    110. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should claim I "stopped reading" before your quoted line. Because that's the bloody line that is in direct conflict with cpu6502's stance of "corporations are fictional entities created by the government, and as such, the government can set whatever rules it wants to regarding the continued existence of a corporation since corporations are not privy to the natural rights inherent in free men".

      My original post doesn't even make sense unless I had read that line. How you get off claiming that I didn't bother to read it...

    111. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Powersports Extreme Powdercoating

      Engineered Products, Inc

      Foreman Cement

      Frigidaire Home Products (not to be confused with the multi-billion dollar Frigidaire, which makes your refrigerator)

      I'll hazard that Fastenal meets my criteria - I deal with them, and I've never heard them make an official public statement regarding gay rights, voting rights, immigration, border control, or any other hot topic. And, Fastenal is much larger than the four examples that I've already given.

      Businesses small and not so small are going about the business of doing business. A properly run business simply doesn't give a damn about your views on gay rights, voting rights, etc. They want to make money, not change the world.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    112. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between some guy mopping floors disagreeing with gay marriage if you ask him, and a CEO of a corporation going on record. CEO's represent the company, always. That's what they're there for.

      And Chicago isn't blocking locations. They just said, "their values are not our values."

    113. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet this won't stop Rush Limbaugh from painting all liberals, and the ACLU, as being on the side of the mayors.

      Just watch (if it hasn't already happened)

    114. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      FHP is a subsidiary of the Swedish conglomerate Aktiebolaget Electrolux. That's a major concern that can hardly avoid taking a position on issues.

      You might have a point with these other companies. But as a consumer, do fasteners, Portland cement, and metal paint form a big part of your buying decisions? No, you buy things like food and clothes. Are you boycotting Kraft Foods? (Difficult, since they own half the brands in a typical supermarket.) How about J.C. Penney?

      Big companies have sound business reasons for taking stands on social issues. It's a kind of marketing.

    115. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uhhh...I had to take my youngest son out of school because he was being bashed routinely and not only did the teachers know, some encouraged it. the final straw was when a teacher BROUGHT A BIBLE into class and gave a lecture about "sodomites and heathens" because he was gay and his brother catholic and we are in the middle of baptist land.

      And before you say "Why didn't you sue" it was because at the time my sister was suffering through a slow and agonizing death due to a rare nerve disorder and frankly there was no way in hell my family could have taken the extra stress of a lawsuit on top of that. Hell we would have probably fallen apart if my GF hadn't told her boss when she heard it was the end "You can write it off as sick leave and vacation or you can fire me, but either way i'm going" and spent a month and a half giving the boys a shoulder to cry on and helping keep us together.

      So don't think just because YOU don't see it that bashing isn't happening every, single, day, forget Matthew Shepard? In many places even the cops won't give a shit if you bash away on a gay, and there is a REASON why the highest suicide rate among teens is gay teens, its because their lives are made living hells and frankly nobody in power gives a shit.

      I know ALL ABOUT racist bashing, I have a 2 inch scar on the back of my head for daring to give a black man a ride in MS and before being bashed in the head by the cop I heard 'fucking dirty niggers and god damned hippie freaks, i don't know which makes me more sick" and I can tell you the treatment of gays i'm seeing in many places is NO DIFFERENT than how they treated blacks. Lynching wasn't an everyday occurrence,bashing was. Matthew Shepard style murders aren't an everyday occurrence, bashing is.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    116. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I don't buy Kraft, I don't shop Penny's. Big companies have unsound reasons for social engineering the masses. You are being manipulated, and you don't even care.

      SOME social engineering might actually be good. The cereal companies manipulated the masses to eat grain products and milk for breakfast. You, your parents, and grandparents have been indoctrinated to believe that cereal is the breakfast food. Your GREAT grandparents probably ate beans, and maybe a bit of meat. There were no Frosted Flakes back then. It seems that rich folk thought that poor folk eating beans for breakfast was obnoxious, because the poor folk passed gas all day long. Social engineering at it's finest, ehh?

      How are you being socially engineered today? Do some critical thinking, alright?

      No, corporations do NOT have some inherent right to spend billions to persuade tools and fools to think in a manner that might be profitable to the corporations.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    117. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You don't eat Oreo cookies? How sad.

      I know I'm being manipulated. The right response is to resist the manipulation, not waste time on one-person boycotts.

    118. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      That's only because he doesn't understand what's going on. It's not about "one person's opinion," like he thinks, it's about the company donating millions of dollars to anti-gay and certified hate groups.

      Are the recipients of these donations going around beating homosexuals to death in the street? Are they dragging them behind pickup trucks?

      Arguing for legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman may be becoming politically incorrect, but that doesn't mean they're hate groups.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    119. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Um.... Looks like the same thing to me.

      Nope, it looks like you did us the favor of proving that you were lying, thanks for sparing us the effort. Nowhere in Obama's quotes did you find anything stating that 'God would be angry with us for redefining marriage'.

      Then there's the matter of Chic's donations to the National Organization of Marriage, a right wing homophobic hate group. Unless you can find similar donations from Obama to similar groups, your false equivalence is even more dishonest.

      Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country.

      You're lying. Again. If you're trying to gain points through consistency, it's not working.

      I'm not lying. You are illiterate. I never said that Obama thought that homosexuality would result in God punishing America. I said that both Obama and Cathy said that they think marriage is between a man and a woman. And guess, what: They both said that. I provided links that proved what I said, not what you wished I had said.

      Now, when you learn reading comprehension at a second grade level, please look up "Strawman" and feel free to apologize.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    120. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      A good friend of mine lives in South Carolina. There's a barbecue chain there called Maurice's Barbecue. Big chain, everyone knows about them. And everyone knows that they are openly unapologetic racists.

      The guy who runs them fought a court case all the way to SCOTUS to keep blacks out of his restaurants (lost by unanimous decision). Walk in today, and you'll find literature on shelves with racist tracts and his book promoting "a lost way of life" and promoting slavery.

      http://www.amazon.com/Defending-My-Heritage-Maurice-Bessinger/dp/0971336903

      The Chick-Fil-A analogy is apt. These guys can't keep blacks out of their restaurants any more than Chick-Fil-A can keep gays out of theirs. And the kids behind the counter making minimum wage, along with the management of individual stores may or may not have a prejudiced bone in their bodies.

      But the owners are intolerant dinosaurs from a bygone era. They may not have a completely free hand to run the company the way they wish with regards to bigoted policies. But they're still jerks.

      The point is bigots of all kinds are still around. But there are disgusting things that we have decided are lawful (for instance, hate speech), and disgusting things that we've decided as a society that will be unlawful (discriminating in places of public accommodation).

    121. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Here is the quote from the CNN article I linked:

      The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.

      "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

      The "controversy" was about what CNN quoted, not about the "God's judgment" bit. No one cared about that. They were mad at the "Biblical definition of the family unit" part. Which, if you watch the video I also linked, you'll see that Obama said the pretty much the same thing, and yet, no one protested.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    122. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      (sigh)

      Read the response I posted to the other two morons.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    123. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      You're right, just trying to get marriage to conform to 'biblical' standards doesn't make a hate group, which is why I specified 'anti-gay' as well as 'hate groups.' The SPLC guidelines for a 'hate group' are as follows: "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."

      Here're some qualifications of one of the hate groups CFA has supported, the Family Research Council:

      In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.”

      More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.”

      Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.”

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    124. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bud...seriously. Your knowledge of the Bible is pretty terrible. Go read up more before commenting.
      Sheesh.

    125. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      "No biblical view of marriage?" OK, go sit in the corner because you're clearly talking out your bum. While there may be some disagreement on the fine details, biblical scripture is clear about the whole one man/one woman aspect of marriage being the ideal.

      If you read the bible you see a clear progression. Slavery and racism (and multiple wives) were TOLERATED in the old testament, with the ultimate goal of them being eliminated. Much like how a father tolerates his child's annoying habits and quirks while working on the larger picture of raising the child. God tolerated David's multiple wives because there were more important things that needed to be done. The regulations of slavery in the OT were quite restrictive vs the standards of the day and included many passages protecting the rights of slaves that other cultures of the day had no concept of. Also, much of what people call "slavery" was actually indentured servitude, in which a person would voluntarily sell themselves to someone for a set period of time.

      Your main argument seems to be that "Because Christians weren't following the teachings of Christianity, therefore Christianity has no standards of marriage." The fact that some Christians were jerks doesn't make Christianity false. In Christian doctrine, man is fallen and imperfect. Perfection is a standard we can never meet, thus the need for Christs sacrifice. Of course though perfection is impossible, that doesn't mean one shouldn't try.

    126. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I almost never eat McDonald's, either. Remember Snoopy, from Peanuts? Not eating at Mickey D's merits a "Happy Dance" if you ask me!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    127. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      This is a bizarro idea I have never seen expressed before on the internet, much less by a gay. Care to expand on this? Is there something wrong with your brain? Have you been for a CAT scan recently?

      Nice re-run of the liberal playbook.

      Abortion:
      Start discussion by restricting who can discuss the subject : "Only woman should have a say on this." Next step, attack any woman that is against abortion or can sympathize with the other side "Any woman that does not believe in abortion is a sell out or mentally deficient."

      Now we are seeing this with gay marriage.
      First "If you aren't gay, it doesn't effect you and you shouldn't have an opposing opinion." The next step has started as can be witnessed in your post.

    128. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Scriptures? And be sure to use a concordance because frankly the King James translation should be banned because of how badly that misogynistic prick fucked with the translation. And don't forget that Matthew 5.17-18 from Jesus' mouth says the old testament counts so you gotta cover that too.

      Whether you like it or not is irrelevant but just actually reading the words you'll find the deity in the bible, if the exact same actions were attributed to any king today, would be seen as a monster. Look up what he told David when he took a city, it was pretty much "Kill the men and boys, have fun with the women and any girls that are cute, only catch is you gotta keep 'em if you bang 'em". There are those that give similar orders today, we don't consider those nice leaders, much less worth our belief.

      To me that is the truly sad part about religion, by being indoctrinated by only the nice parts for most of their childhoods most refuse to actually just sit down and read the book with a dispassionate eye, because if they did? Your God is...well not nice, not nice at all.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    129. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      What, you don't like overprocessed pseudoburgers and paper fries? That's more of an aesthetic statement than a social one.

      But to really implement your "stop manipulating me" boycott, you'd have to refrain from buying anything that has a national brand on it. Kind of hard to do.

    130. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Refusing to serve someone is not a speech or idea.

      But doesn't that fall under the "freedom of association" category?

    131. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Are the recipients of these donations going around beating homosexuals to death in the street? Are they dragging them behind pickup trucks?

      Actually, yes, though not in the US, and it's a small amount compared to the total.
      Some of these donations are going to conservative Christian groups in Uganda who are pushing to make homosexuality a capital crime.

    132. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.

      I'm afraid that if your requirement is "no assholes as CEOs," you're going to be cutting out a pretty big section of the American economy.

    133. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's that seldom-seen phenomena known as having principles and sticking to them, which, even if practiced imperfectly, is rare enough to stand out when it occurs.

      I admire a person who can say "these are my principles, and I'll follow them even if they're not always in my personal or political self-interest." Doing otherwise is trading away your long-term credibility.

    134. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking liar. Those 'morons' are just calling you out.

      And the whole thing is irrelevant anyway: we're talking about 2012, not 2008, and support for bigotry against gays has plummeted in the last few years.

    135. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Not according to Runyon v. McCrary. Not to mention that "freedom of association" is not an explicit right in the US constitution, just derived from Freedom of Speech.

    136. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    137. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      It's the government's job to administer the will of the people, not to dictate it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    138. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I'm not lying.

      Of course you are. It's what you do.

      You are illiterate.

      You are projecting. With a canon.

      I never said that Obama thought that homosexuality would result in God punishing America. I said that both Obama and Cathy said that they think marriage is between a man and a woman.

      What, do you think we can't go back up thread and see exactly what was said? Just how stupid are you anyway?

      I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.

      Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago.

      The EXACT same thing? No, he did not. You are lying.

      Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage. You can't. He said he didn't believe in it, which isn't support, but is nowhere near the dogmatic theological opposition you tried to make it out to be.

      To which you said: "Um.... Looks like the same thing to me." Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.

      Feel free to apologize for your lying at any time.

    139. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      To which you said: "Um.... Looks like the same thing to me." Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.

      BULLSHIT! I gave links to the quotes I was referring. You pointed to something to which I was not referring. Basically, this is what you did:

      Me: Dave Cathy and Obama said the exact same thing. They both said they think that marriage is between a man and a woman.
      You: Liar! Obama said, "Michelle, I want to stick it in your pooper and have a beer." Dave Cathy NEVER said that, they did NOT say the same thing.

      See, I said they both said that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what the liberals are protesting about. If you think they are protesting about something else, like I said, you need to take it up with CNN.

      Let me take you provided from me and clarify it for those that are too stupid to understand:

      Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said, that marriage was between a man and a woman and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago.

      From you:

      Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.

      Wait! Now you are saying that it's "right wing homophobic hate groups." Now it's a fallacy of "moving the goal post". Earlier, you were demanding "Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage." Doesn't matter as they are both red herrings. I never said any of those things. Here, let me state it one more time and if you don't get it this time, you are too fucking stupid to post on the Internet:

      BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.

      Oh, and since you are so quick to call others liars and projecting, I thought I should point out that you have lied, which means you are projecting when call me a liar, especially since I have proven that I did not lie:

      Here, you said:

      Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.

      First, I never said that Obama donated to any groups at all. I said he believed a marriage is between a man and a woman (got that yet?). But since you imply that Chick-Fil-A has donated to "hate groups", I looked up what that could mean. I found that they were accused of donating to a group trying to get Uganda to outlay homosexuality. Then, I found out it was complete BULLSHIT.

      But again, that is not really the subject. The fact is that BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    140. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, let me backtrack: exactly how has the government "taken sides" on the gay marriage issue?

    141. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      The Family Research Council. Not based in Uganda, but they supported the Ugandan bill. Right now, they are back-pedaling on their earlier statements which intentionally misrepresented what the Ugandan bill did, and they have deleted the evidence of those statements from the Family Research Council website after public backlash. They have changed their tune and now say that they are in favor of the bill with the death penalty for being gay removed. Fortunately, the Wayback machine never forgets:

      http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CM10B11

    142. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      OK, let me backtrack: exactly how has the government "taken sides" on the gay marriage issue?

      When the mayors of cities started threatening to deny licenses to a business because they disagree with that business's COO on the issue of same sex "marriage".

      That's what started this whole business.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    143. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, I agree that that's over the line. (As does the ACLU.) But that's not at all what started the whole business. The licensing thing was just a small part of a much bigger reaction to the CEO's statements. You did hear about the boycott and the anti-boycott, right?

    144. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      There have been boycotts for over a year. I happen to think the boycotts are great. People are voting with their dollars and I support that.

      The Appreciation Day was organized because of those mayors. I attended the Appreciation Day.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    145. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That may be your understanding of what it was about. But when Mike Huckabee called for an "Appreciation Day", he didn't even mention the government interference issue. He did talk about angry rhetoric.

      https://www.facebook.com/events/266281243473841/

    146. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150986533848634&set=oa.334212813331817&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf&_rdr

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    147. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So, the Facebook page you saw first focused on the misuse of government powers. That's the pet issue of whoever created that page. Doesn't make it what the whole antiboycott is about.

    148. Re:Ready... set... Troll! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Mike Huckabee made reference to it when he called for the appreciation day.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  4. What's the news here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this just an excuse to have a Chick-Fil-A discussion? Because there sure isn't much news to be seen.

  5. Tee hee! by M4n · · Score: 1

    I love satire.

    --
    In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
  6. I'm sorry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry.. wait, what was the purpose of this article?

    1. Re:I'm sorry.. by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry.. wait, what was the purpose of this article?"

      To get the ball rollin' on the violent political upheaval (the clock is ticking--we only have 8 years), and to point out they're doing it wrong--those Chick-fil-A events should have been on the same day.

  7. There would be a peak in Linux downloads by dehole · · Score: 1

    Just because, that is how many people would appreciate it.

    This is a non-story, which isn't "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters".

  8. Meme time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Soulskill: This article is bad and you should feel bad.

  9. Microsoft Appreciation Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a day would be a holiday.

    Holiday is derived from 'Holy Day'.

    A 'Holy Day' has the assumption of a divine being.

    A diving being couldn't make GNU/Hurd into a usable operating system.

    RMS has developing GNU/Hurd since 1984.

    1984 is symbolic of Big Brother and a panopticon society.

    RMS is an atheist, also an advocate of privacy and freedom.

    Clearly a single day to venerate a corporation runs counter to Slashdot's core beliefs.

    1. Re:Microsoft Appreciation Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates is an atheist too. This post is as nearly as pointless as the article.

    2. Re:Microsoft Appreciation Day? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Such a day would be a holiday.

      Holiday is derived from 'Holy Day'.

      A 'Holy Day' has the assumption of a divine being.

      A diving being couldn't make GNU/Hurd into a usable operating system.

      RMS has developing GNU/Hurd since 1984.

      1984 is symbolic of Big Brother and a panopticon society.

      RMS is an atheist, also an advocate of privacy and freedom.

      Clearly a single day to venerate a corporation runs counter to Slashdot's core beliefs.

      Is that scuba? Is that hard hat? Is someone in the tank?

  10. Missing Borg Logo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how much $$$ did /. receive to remove it?

    1. Re:Missing Borg Logo! by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      Bill hasn't been CEO in over a decade, or a Borg encounter on Star Trek in almost as long. It's an old icon whose time is past.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Missing Borg Logo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Microsoft hasn't been in a position to assimilate anyone in much of anything for years now.

      The borg icon was fun, but it's not exactly relevant anymore.

    3. Re:Missing Borg Logo! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Nokia.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  11. " or 'National Same-Sex Kiss Day' " by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    If we could look at this with the same objectivity through which we see Father's Day and Mother's Day, perhaps we could have two; one for each gender. I'm pretty sure I'd celebrate one of them by staying home though.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  12. So much for the whole "stuff that matters" thing, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eh slashdot?

    This is the first time I've seen a blatant troll as a topic at slashdot.

    Shark duly jumped (yawn).

  13. Just. Not. Possible. by reboot246 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Appreciate Microsoft? No way, no matter who or what they support or don't support.

    I tolerate the stuff they produce, but I don't like it.

    1. Re:Just. Not. Possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After the 247th reboot, you'll stop tolerating the stuff produced by Microsoft.

    2. Re:Just. Not. Possible. by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Do you think you could say that with straight face while gazing into the empty eager eyes of a Microsoft lobbyist?

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    3. Re:Just. Not. Possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 are both excellent products.

    4. Re:Just. Not. Possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound exactly like the type of personality I p0wn every day in a professional work environment

  14. Questions, Always These Questions.... by macraig · · Score: 5, Funny

    What If There Was an End to All These Silly Interrogatory Posts at Slashdot?

    1. Re:Questions, Always These Questions.... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      I don't know! They're asking us a What If question! Are we commenters supposed to write an essay about it now?

    2. Re:Questions, Always These Questions.... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      No.

  15. free meal ticket by rossdee · · Score: 1

    If there was a Microsoft Appreciation day, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer would get a free meal ticket to the cafe at work.

  16. It seems by maroberts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that most IT companies have led the way on gay rights.

    OK, Microsoft was a little slower than a few off the blocks, but in general I think that IT corporations should be proud of their lead in this issue, and MS should be applauded for being among them.

    Still won't stop me loading up Linux instead though...

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:It seems by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Microsoft was actually historically one of the leading companies on this, with things like benefits for same sex couples same as hetero ones long before any official recognition. Google "GLEAM Microsoft" for some context. 2005 was a setback of sorts.

    2. Re:It seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think gay rights are a corollary of Constitutions, that forming a union with an arbitrary number of (arbitrary gender) partners should be legally recognized just as marriage, that calling it marriage is linguistically incorrect.

      There, your opinion may vary.

      What do corporation policies have to do with this, they either obey laws or should be reformed if they break some. Letting them dictate policies, even in implicit ways and for correct reasons, is a recipe for disaster later.

      The entity in question could be microsoft, apple, or the FSF, it is irrelevant.

  17. People bash Microsoft by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... because they don't know what the software market was like before them.

    A good CAD setup including workstation and licenses could be $100K. A mainframe to handle your accounting could be $6000 per month.

    Personal computing - IBM, Microsoft, and Apple - demolished the old model which was low volume, buggy software at high prices. I have no illusions about their intentions, they've made more money than any emperor. But I do appreciate what they created.

    1. Re:People bash Microsoft by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      This stuff would have all existed without Microsoft. IBM would have asked some other company to make their PC-DOS. Like Atari. Or Commodore.

      Who knows? We might all be running GEOSworks on our PCs instead of windows. (And WordPerfect with Lotus 1-2-3 and OrCad and Netscape..... not a single microsoft program in sight.) Hmmm. I think I just thought of an alternate history short story: The Year 2012 w/o Microsoft.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:People bash Microsoft by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. Most people don't know what the software market was like before MS, and those people are divided between bashers and non-bashers. Some people know what the software market was like before MS, and they are also divided between bashers and non-bashers.

      I used QDOS before Microsoft bought it and renamed it MS-DOS. I helped develop software for the IBM PC before it was released to the general public. I used CP/M, Apple II DOS, C64 OS, and Unix before MS was more than an obscure BASIC vendor. I contributed to at least one ISO language standard before the PC was released. I know what the market was like back then, and I unreservedly bash MS.

      The best thing they've done is try to implement Gary Kildall's vision--badly. The worst thing they've done is set software development back by years if not decades by deliberately ignoring or undermining open standards, and by destroying competition in the market. Between those two, I think the latter is more significant, so I freely bash them. I think I've earned the right.

      You seem to be confusing "personal computers" with Microsoft. Microsoft didn't invent the personal computer, and they weren't the first to come up with the idea of creating a vendor-independent OS. In fact, I come up empty trying to list their actual contributions to the world--aside from not dropping the market IBM handed them on a silver platter.

    3. Re:People bash Microsoft by Nethead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I too was an early MicroSoft user. I remember the paper tape of BASIC 1.0 being passed around at the computer club. I grew up using MS BASIC on the Altair, TRS-80, Kaypro, VIC-20 and C64 (sysres made that so sweet to work with.) I even "re-engineered" the VIC-20 BASIC and ROM for use in a telecom board (think of a VIC-88 with 4x6522 and 4x20 LCD display with a 4MHz 65C02, hella board for the day.) Come the PC I used QBASIC to run broadcast automation. I could freaking fly around a DOS machine with Norton Commander and my Northgate keyboard ("Function keys on the left, where God intended!")

      When Windows came along and I found this Linux thing, and then later, this BSD thing. I just can't do Windows anymore.

      But I do have to give it to them for giving us a common language that was easy to port from platform to platform back in the day. Not an easy thing considering the vast architectural differences between those machines. I'm not sure if that is what they intended, but it worked out that way. I mean, you could take a BASIC program for calculating orbits that was developed on a Cromemco and quickly get it running on a C64.

      I do have to thank Bill Gates for choosing to locate in the Pacific Northwest. I've never worked for Microsoft, directly, (and god knows I've had the offers) but he created a great ecosystem where I am able to get people to pay me to play with very expensive network toys.

      As much as I don't like working with current MS products (except keyboards and mice, hell, I'm typing on one now) I sure am glad to have grown up in their shadow.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:People bash Microsoft by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      ... because they don't know what the software market was like before them.

      A good CAD setup including workstation and licenses could be $100K. A mainframe to handle your accounting could be $6000 per month.

      Personal computing - IBM, Microsoft, and Apple - demolished the old model which was low volume, buggy software at high prices. I have no illusions about their intentions, they've made more money than any emperor. But I do appreciate what they created.

      I know what the software market was like. I supported a software product that we had bought for $60,000 1980 dollars initial fee and $5K a month to run on a million-dollar mainframe. But when I put together my first personal computer (long before there was a "PC"), I spent $2-3K on the hardware, so speding tens of thousands for personal sofware was not something people could or would do. Fortunately, they could make it up on volume.

      Give Microsoft credit, but not too much credit. My first C compiler ran under MS-DOS on a Z-80 and cost about $45 from the Software Toolkworks. And was actually less buggy than most more expensive compilers I've purchased since. Borland helped keep prices down, too.

      But perhaps the biggest contributor for keeping personal software afforable was something called "GNU". That's right. I was using copylefted software on MS-DOS years before Linux was released. Honorable mention should also go to Ward Christensen who not only was instrumental in getting PC-to-PC modem transmission to the major leagues, but also did a set of very useful utilities that quite remarkably resembled the Norton Utilitities. Except that Norton was as yet unheard-of. Microsoft could rarely be accused of larcenous pricing, but there were a lot of other sources that probably helped keep them honest. More or less.

    5. Re:People bash Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a horrible company. Try reading this http://web.archive.org/web/20110519051938/http://msversus.org/

      And that archive doesn't contain newer crimes such as ooxml and uefi. You can read about those here, respectively http://www.noooxml.org/ and http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/

      FUCK MICRO$OFT!

    6. Re:People bash Microsoft by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      But I do have to give it to them for giving us a common language that was easy to port from platform to platform back in the day. Not an easy thing considering the vast architectural differences between those machines. I'm not sure if that is what they intended, but it worked out that way. I mean, you could take a BASIC program for calculating orbits that was developed on a Cromemco and quickly get it running on a C64.

      I used Forth for that, which was even more portable, and is the language I referred to earlier when I mentioned contributing to the ISO standard (I'm the reason that the tick operator returns the execution address instead of the data address). It had its warts (like being a write-only language), but it was smaller than BASIC, generally faster than C, and usually more compact than assembler. You got both an interpreter and a compiler in about 2k, making it suitable for everything from exploratory hobbyist stuff to real-time industrial applications. And it was essentially open-source years before such things were common--the Forth Interest Group had ports for most common microprocessors and some minis, and they charged $25 for a listing, but once you had one, you could do whatever you wanted with it, including sell commercial versions. And portability of application source code was generally superior than that of most BASIC versions.

      I'm actually responsible for one of the commercial versions of Forth on the C64. I did end up switching to C almost as soon as it became available on PCs, but for the eight-bit machines, Forth really was da bomb, IMO.

      Anyway, MS didn't create BASIC. (I actually learned BASIC on an HP mainframe at a local science museum when I was in Junior High, a few years before MS was founded.)

      Also, I grew up just outside of Silicon Valley, and knew many of the original members of the Homebrew Computer Club, so I'm not too impressed with MS's selection of the Pacific Northwest as a home--I'm not a huge fan of that much rain. And the thought of snow still boggles me. Seattle's ok, but I'll stick with the SF Bay, thanks. :)

    7. Re:People bash Microsoft by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Trust me, snow boggles Seattle drivers.

      I started on BASIC before MS, the first was from Xerox via a DECwriter and a long distance phone call in high school. The next was on a friend's SWTPC 6800 loaded via Kansas City format. This was in Yakima, WA, a mountain range away from Seattle.

      I did use a Forth on the C64, also made a breadboard using that 65HC11 Rockwell chip that came with embedded Forth. Great language but not everyone could wrap their head around it.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re:People bash Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm typing this on a Lexmark M15.

      To my mind, their chief crime was to make computers "fragile" so that people feared breaking them and losing hours of work. This really didn't happen before they came around and isn't a big problem now, but the fear remains.

  18. What if there was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if there were a black yachting regatta?

    1. Re:What if there was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there were a black yachting regatta?

      Those would have to be some awfully fat black men for sailors to ply them through the water.

  19. Microsoft seems pretty apolitical on this by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely sure what the point of this story is, but afaict, Microsoft, like most large firms, has always taken the most boring possible position on any political issue that doesn't directly affect their bottom line. Their two driving factors are: 1) appeal to likely employees, who are generally urban, young, and moderate social liberals; while 2) not pissing everyone else off too much. Both their 2005 and 2012 actions are consistent with that.

  20. They are a compnay by houghi · · Score: 1

    I applaud them for NOT choosing sides. I wish ALL companies would do the same. Politics should be done by people, not by companies.
    Unfortunately they and many other companies still buy influence by using lobbyists.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. What if... by SpeZek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if Slashdot just stuck to posting actual news stories instead of speculatory flamebait?

  22. I'll appriciate them when they pay me to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like the idiotic shills and crap "help" articles they pay to have propagate the web.

  23. Let's all buy licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all buy additional licenses for Windows and Office to show our financial support to Microsoft!

    1. Re:Let's all buy licenses by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You have a point there. I mean, why would any company need any extra appreciation. Buying and using their products should be enough. Because of this reason, being a fan of some company in Facebook is usually a bit retarded too, I think.

  24. What about GNU/Linux? And freedom? I don't use MS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know computers before Apple, IBM, or Microsoft. Hell, I didn't even exist. The companies that brought us change though were these companies. There were other personal computers that came before. It might have taken a little longer to get some applications although I have found it to be well worth the wait. I'd rather have freedom and contribute to that freedom than be a slave to these companies or predecessors.

    ThinkPenguin.com's doing a lot of good. I can't say I have much respect for any other company though. They all suck and I certainly don't appreciate them.

  25. Microsoft Appreciation Day on one condition by jiteo · · Score: 2

    Only if it coincided with Opposite Day.

    1. Re:Microsoft Appreciation Day on one condition by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      My first thought was that April fools day would be appropriate.

  26. A gay viewpoint by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't consider it real progress that some companies come out in support of gay marriage, while others are against it. I go to Pride, but I wish we didn't have it. Real progress will be when it ceases to matter whether or not you're gay; When it's as natural as not being gay.

    It's like black history month. I don't support that either. People call me racist for it, but I don't. There is no black history month; Black history is American history. It's human history. And their accomplishments should be celebrated the same way as every other historical accomplishment is. We don't need a "special olympics" history for people based on the color of their skin, we need to delete those divisions from our history books, mentioning only that there was a period of time (known as the Stupid Ages) when it was relevant, and then we grew up and put a stop to it. Ta-da, the end.

    It'll be progress with companies like Chic-Fil A say they don't support gay marriage or homosexuality, and gets no press coverage at all. Like, wait, what? Why the fuck does anyone care what a fast food restaurant owner thinks about a perfectly natural state of being? That'd be like Ford Motor Co., coming out and saying they're against red heads marrying. It would go on the back pages, in the "News of the Weird" section.

    That's where shit like this belongs, and until that's where it ends up and people pay it no more attention than as a source of fringe humor and entertainment when companies make announcements like this, we're still in the Stupid Ages of our future history books.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:A gay viewpoint by Omestes · · Score: 2

      Er... you realize that through vast swath of world history being gay (or bisexual, or not-strictly hetero) was perfectly fine and normal? Maybe you should go look up some history, and learn about Greece and Rome, two of the most important and influential societies in Western history. Learn about the fact that some of the people who were the basis of all of our values and most of our philosophies probably liked to have sex with men from time to time... The horror the horror. Actually, one of the men whose ideas are the basis of most of Christianity liked men (Plato).

      Sexual values are as mutable as any other values... In time people will look back at today and scratch their heads, just like we look back at any other era and do the same. Just like we look back at much of our history and wonder why we were such assholes to everyone else (women, Jews, blacks).

      In the end, I really don't get why anyone cares. What people do in their bedrooms is their business.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:A gay viewpoint by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Real progress will be when it ceases to matter whether or not you're gay; When it's as natural as not being gay.

      I broadly agree (on this, and on race, too). But specifically with respect to LGBT issues, it won't happen for as long as traditional religions retain a wide following. There's only so much wiggle room when your "holy book" says that homosexuality is a sin in no uncertain way.

    3. Re:A gay viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be so sure about that. Cultural changes sometimes lead people who follow the traditional religions away from what is called for by the texts. For example, a key part of the biblical texts are the Ten Commandments, yet I know many Christians who seem to have no problem doing work on the Sabbath.

      The commandments against coveting what belongs to one's neighbor is also one that tends to be forgotten, at least by those of certain political persuasions.

      I'm pretty sure that eventually the prohibitions against homosexuality will be viewed as one of those historical curiosities that many otherwise religious people simply ignore.

    4. Re:A gay viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding right?

      It isn't possible for gay relationships to be as natural as traditional relationships.

      the fact that you think they should be shows just how far gone you are and how corrupt modern society has made you and any who think the same way.

      A few hours from now I will be at a lecture organized by the local zoo about homosexual relationships amongst animals. They have a gay penguin couple, for instance. Homosexual behaviour has been observed with more than 1500 different species of mammals and birds. It's perfectly natural if nature is full of it, regardless of what your interpretation of the bible says.

    5. Re:A gay viewpoint by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Christianity is a bit unique in having a disjoint holy book where there's a strong ongoing debate over which parts supercede which. That's why many mainstream Christian denominations don't uphold sabbath, for example, or follow kashrut (but some do). However, one thing that all Christians tend to agree upon is that the New Testament is definitely binding - and then there's Romans 1.

      The only way around it is to treat the passages in question as not divinely inspired, which liberal Christian denominations do - but that is a very shaky path, since it puts pretty much the entirety of that religion to question. When you have liberal Christian ministers telling that Jesus may or may have not existed, one can't help but question whether they can truly be called Christian at that point, or whether it's really just do-good secular humanism with some fancy rites on top. If that's the ultimate form of the evolution of Christianity, that's perfectly fine by me - it solves the problem just as well - but a traditional religion, it ain't.

    6. Re:A gay viewpoint by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Err...you realize you're making a sweeping assertion based on a couple of anecdotes, right? Does the fact that Israel exists as a Jewish state today means that persecution of Jews was a historical rarity?

    7. Re:A gay viewpoint by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Er... Rome and Greece were, arguably, the two most important cultures in Western history... We owe pretty much most of our thought and science, and a lot of our current cultural identity to them. I wouldn't really call them anecdotes, when they support my point that our (America's, not the rest of the Western world's as much) attitude towards sex is the anecdote, not the rule. Attitudes towards sex are subjective, and temporary, and in no way objective.

      Does the fact that Israel exists as a Jewish state today means that persecution of Jews was a historical rarity?

      But this is pretty much the point that the AC was making.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    8. Re:A gay viewpoint by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Er... Rome and Greece were, arguably, the two most important cultures in Western history... We owe pretty much most of our thought and science, and a lot of our current cultural identity to them. I wouldn't really call them anecdotes, when they support my point that our (America's, not the rest of the Western world's as much) attitude towards sex is the anecdote, not the rule. Attitudes towards sex are subjective, and temporary, and in no way objective.

      Best of all, rediscovery and embrace of Rome and Greece spurred the Renaissance and Enlightenment in Western Europe, bringing it out of the Middle Ages. It's interesting to look at the differences in culture, in terms of what that culture considers important, between cultures that went through the Enlightenment and those which did not.

    9. Re:A gay viewpoint by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Err...you realize you're still compounding both the historical and logical fails?

      Greece and Rome had democracy. Thefore, for the next couple thousand years, most European nations had democracy as well!

    10. Re:A gay viewpoint by Omestes · · Score: 1

      We're arguing at cross purposes here. My point is merely that sexual mores are transitory and arbitrary, and were vastly different for a very long period of time (longer than the period of time that has passed since the birth of Christ). There also is a slight flavor of mocking involved, hence pointing out their influence on modern thought, and their direct influence on the handful of zealots who dislike pretty much anything that anyone who isn't them do.

      It also highlights the terrible harmfulness of deviant sex acts.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    11. Re:A gay viewpoint by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      We're arguing at cross purposes here

      Not really. You pointed to exceptions (Greece and Rome) and talked about them as if they were the rule.

    12. Re:A gay viewpoint by Omestes · · Score: 1

      And people point to the period of time after, and talk about them in the same way. Which supports my point; there is no rule.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    13. Re:A gay viewpoint by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If you think that medieval Europe supported polytheism just because they kept talking about Greek/Roman gods, sure.

  27. People bash Stalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... because they don't know how he stopped Hitler from winning World War II.

    1. Re:People bash Stalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because they don't know how he stopped Hitler from winning World War II.

      Except that WWII would not have happened in the first place if Stalin hadn't allied himself with Hitler.

    2. Re:People bash Stalin by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot and a true American patriot. Kill all your friends, then yourself.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:People bash Stalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you kill yourself instead?

    4. Re:People bash Stalin by unitron · · Score: 1

      ... because they don't know how he stopped Hitler from winning World War II.

      Except that WWII would not have happened in the first place if Stalin hadn't allied himself with Hitler.

      It would have, it just would have happened differently. Neither some "worth no more than the paper it was written on" non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany nor the lack of one would have kept Imperial Japan bottled up or caused Hilter to lose interest in dragging France back to that same rail car to surrender to him.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  28. Re:So much for the whole "stuff that matters" thin by icebraining · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

  29. Joking... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    It's a joke... right?

  30. I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by codepunk · · Score: 2

    I ate and or bought chick-fil-a for others every single day this week and will continue.

    Now before anyone goes hating on me know this.

    1. I donate large sums of money to GLBT causes every year and have nothing against gay marriage.
    2. I am not religious.
    3. I believe in evolution not creationism.
    4. I am a hard core right wing Republican.

    All that being said, I am extremely pro private business and that value far outweighs anyones little pissing match with the management of chick-fil-a.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should've just inserted freshly cooked mini chickens into their anus instead of kissing

    2. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate chick-fil-a because they kill lots of chicken with their pro-carnivorous business model. Now wait there while I finish making my lettuce bomb.

    3. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I don't get your last point. Are you under the impression that Chick-fil-A is the only private business that can serve you food? Because otherwise, I don't see how exactly does being "pro private business" has anything to do with eating at C-f-A.

    4. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by codepunk · · Score: 1

      No but they are the ones under attack for their president stating his opinion. Which of course has nothing at all to do with any of the franchise owners and or their employees.

      That and well the simple fact they sell hands down the best chicken sandwich.

      --


      Got Code?
    5. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I understand the sentiment, but please reconsider your choice. Chick-Fil-A did not come under attack because of its CEO's statements, although those statements did fan the flames afterwards. Chick-Fil-A came under fire for its funding of hate groups. And I'm not using "hate group" here in a wishy-washy, "anyone who disagrees with me is a hate group" way. I'm talking about groups that are pushing for Ugandan law to make homosexuality a capital crime. There's some confusion out there about much of Chick-Fil-A's millions of dollars of donations research that particular organization, but I would anyone involved in supporting GLBT issues to find any association with that hate group to be reprehensible.

    6. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

      ("reached", not "research")

    7. Re:I ate at chick-fil-a every day this week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so in a right wing country you are a 'hard core right wing' party voter?
      better be sure I'm going to hate on you for that.

  31. Being gay does not mean worshipping the Devil by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I though that was clear by now...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Because we aren't intolerant by MartinSchou · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously.

    Why is it that there's this need to "celebrate" the idea that some people are intrinsically worth less than others?

    If you're born on that side of an arbitrary line, you're a great guy, if you're born on the other side, you're a piece of scum who deserves to die a painful death.

    If you happen to have a different skin pigment than the other people, you're filth and less evolved.

    If you believe that this myth is reality you're an idiot, but believing that myth makes you a saint.

    If you're this gender and not that one, then you shouldn't do this or that.

    Etc. etc. etc. It's all idiocy and lunacy.

    Yes, for some reason, there seems to be this constant push to celebrate intolerance.

    I think we should just kill all the intolerant people and enjoy a much saner world.

    1. Re:Because we aren't intolerant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should just kill all the intolerant people and enjoy a much saner world.

      How intolerant of you.

    2. Re:Because we aren't intolerant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously.

      Why is it that there's this need to "celebrate" the idea that some people are intrinsically worth less than others?

      If you're born on that side of an arbitrary line, you're a great guy, if you're born on the other side, you're a piece of scum who deserves to die a painful death.

      If you happen to have a different skin pigment than the other people, you're filth and less evolved.

      If you believe that this myth is reality you're an idiot, but believing that myth makes you a saint.

      If you're this gender and not that one, then you shouldn't do this or that.

      Etc. etc. etc. It's all idiocy and lunacy.

      Yes, for some reason, there seems to be this constant push to celebrate intolerance.

      I think we should just kill all the intolerant people and enjoy a much saner world.

      Hating feels good. It is some deep-down primeval thing, I guess. Hating with some air of legitimacy (eg "the Bible says so") is even better.

  33. Tolerance by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    For one to truly be against intolerance, they would have to be tolerant of those who are intolerant. To NOT tolerate those who are intolerant - IS intolerance.

    1. Re:Tolerance by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being tolerant of intolerant people does not make you tolerant. It is you standing idly by as bad things are done to people.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, it's being tolerant by definition. Tolerance means overlooking something you dislike.

      And most people, or a lot of them, do not consider defining marriage between a man and a woman a bad thing.

    3. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But many people do consider allowing marriage to encompass same-sex relationships to be a bad thing, that invokes the furious wrath of an Angry GOD!

      So they seek to prevent others from doing that. Showing their intolerance. They will not accept others, they will not live and let live.

      But we're supposed to tolerate that desire to be oppressive. It's a tortured and twisted logic that the right-wing has adopted so they don't have to defend their own conduct, but can pretend that it's simply the default that they should be accepted for who they are, repressive as they may be.

      What escapes them is that liberals aren't stupid, we recognize the fallacious attempt at sophistry for what it is, and realize that what it shows is how truly wrong the conservatives are that they have to try such a manipulative strategy.

      They can't defend the rightness of their cause on its own. All they can do is try to attack the other side with disingenuous argumentation.

      So...I say thanks, right-wing conservative pundits, your very defense exposes your vile and disgusting center.

      It's like a bully arguing that the victim is the one at fault for punching them back, and not enough to cause serious harm, but enough to stop the bullying.

    4. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Marriage in the majority of the world is or was defined until recently between a man and a women. Changing from that definition does not make this great conspiracy to deny new founded civil rights by some political group. In fact, it would imply the opposite as all the sudden something had been found and claimed to be a violation of rights. Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now they want to marry someone of the same sex on top of that.

      Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I think even polygamy should be accepted if someone wants it. Anyways, the GP said if you are going to claim tolerance, you need to be tolerant of the intolerant too. Not a profound statement but a solid one.

    5. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage in the majority of the world is or was defined until recently between a man and a women. Changing from that definition does not make this great conspiracy to deny new founded civil rights by some political group. In fact, it would imply the opposite as all the sudden something had been found and claimed to be a violation of rights.

      Conspiracy implies a secret agenda or cabal. That's not the case, but there are plenty of groups working in concert to fight the rights of same-sex couples to get married. Please don't tell me you can't recognize how there are organized groups with the agenda to "protect" marriage.

      Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now they want to marry someone of the same sex on top of that.

      LOL, yes that's a great argument there. They have the right to also marry somebody of the opposite sex and you won't complain. Completely indifferent to the desires and feelings of the homosexual to be with who they want, not be bound by your imposition upon them.

      And you try to present them as wanting more rights than others. Colbert already mocked both of these points.

      Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I think even polygamy should be accepted if someone wants it. Anyways, the GP said if you are going to claim tolerance, you need to be tolerant of the intolerant too. Not a profound statement but a solid one.

      Nope, it's empty rhetoric meant to make people get lost in a knot of twisted logic, confusing people with the idea that somehow the real victims in the situation here are the ones who want to deny a freedom to others, not the ones objecting to that intolerance. It's a vacuous attempt to dis credit the opposition by turning their arguments against them, in a way that completely misses the point of genuine tolerance is not to blind ourselves to oppressors, but to not oppress others. This does not stop the tolerant from resisting or rejecting those who do express bigotry no matter how often those same bigots try to argue it is so.

      Maybe if you actually cared, you'd be able to recognize it.

    6. Re:Tolerance by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For one to truly be against oppression, they would have to give freedom to those who want to oppress freedom. To NOT grant freedom to those who are anti-freedom - IS anti-freedom.

    7. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's the kind of sophistry that they're trying to push on us.

      But to be against oppression, you must not trick yourself into letting it master you through duplicity.

      Tyranny is dangerous, it convinces you to invite it in like a sparkly vampire, then sucks the lifeblood from your veins.

    8. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy implies a secret agenda or cabal. That's not the case, but there are plenty of groups working in concert to fight the rights of same-sex couples to get married. Please don't tell me you can't recognize how there are organized groups with the agenda to "protect" marriage.

      Conspiracy implies collusion. And yes, there are plenty of groups colluding to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't particularly find fault with that and I don't particularly find fault with gays wanting extra rights to marry someone of the same sex either.

      LOL, yes that's a great argument there. They have the right to also marry somebody of the opposite sex and you won't complain. Completely indifferent to the desires and feelings of the homosexual to be with who they want, not be bound by your imposition upon them.

      It's completely indifferent to the desire and feelings of the polygamist too. Marriage laws between a man and a woman are not stopping homosexuals from being with whoever they want, it's only stopping them from marrying whoever they want. A good portion of society who can marry choose to not marry and get along just fine.

      And you try to present them as wanting more rights than others. Colbert already mocked both of these points.

      Are you surprised that a comedian mocked something? I'm not, it is what they do. Or do you have a hidden point in here? Perhaps it's because a comedian mocked something it means it's baseless now. Look out, Jay Leno mocked global warming a few weeks ago. I guess the consensus was wrong.

      Nope, it's empty rhetoric meant to make people get lost in a knot of twisted logic, confusing people with the idea that somehow the real victims in the situation here are the ones who want to deny a freedom to others, not the ones objecting to that intolerance. It's a vacuous attempt to dis credit the opposition by turning their arguments against them, in a way that completely misses the point of genuine tolerance is not to blind ourselves to oppressors, but to not oppress others. This does not stop the tolerant from resisting or rejecting those who do express bigotry no matter how often those same bigots try to argue it is so.

      Actually, it's saying why should I listen to you pretending to be all moral when you can't follow your own advice. As I said, keeping marriage between a man and a women is not seen as oppression by the majority of the world and quite a few people in the US. Calling them bigots and claiming it is bigotry is really only reinforcing that they made the right decision because it makes you look batshit crazy.

      Even if gays are born that way (as if Evolution said no more of your genes need to be in the gene pool), the defining act is still very much a choice, a choice some people aren't comfortable with.

    9. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're agreeing that there IS collusion? Then why did you deny it? Your words were "Changing from that definition does not make this great conspiracy to deny new founded civil rights by some political group" but now you're saying you don't dispute it? If you want to say a conspiracy is collusion, whatever, I don't think there's a conspiracy, I just think there's a bunch of people with that agenda. And you don't seem to be disputing it, so what were you trying to say?

      If you want to discuss polygamy, you can, but you're missing something about marriages. They provide specific benefits as a matter of law, that can't be awarded any other way. You may not care. But others do. Yet you are so willing to support the people who would deny that access to others, by proclaiming that the truly intolerant people are the ones who just won't get with the program and accept the discrimination and abuse.

      But do keep trying to fool us with that sophistry. See your premise is that somehow we must be foolishly tolerant, to the point of being unable to resist any oppression. All that reflects is a maliciously inaccurate understanding of the concept of tolerance to the point of being an absolute and crippling position, as opposed to the more nuanced reflection it really is. Not that you care, and no, we don't all necessarily call the majority of people bigots because they don't support same-sex marriage, what we do is point out the bigots who DO oppose same-sex marriage due to their intolerance of homosexuality. You're just trying the same deceptive argument they are, that somehow we can't point out bigotry and intolerance because that's the real crime. Have you even read Dan Cathy's position? He wasn't saying "I don't support Same-Sex Marriage" but expressing that it was offensive to God.

      And you don't even say one word about it.

      You know what what makes you look like? That you've bought into their bat-shit crazy sophistry. That you believe they're somehow the victims since they're being asked to refrain from oppression and abusiveness. Really, in what universe do the bullies get to make that argument, and the rest of us are just supposed to swallow that obvious fraud without noticing? Do you think we've never encountered children attempting to be manipulative and convince us that they're being picked on when they're the one who started the fight?

      And the point of referring to the mockery is to spare myself the trouble of bothering to refute your arguments which might as well be taken out of the anti-same-sex marriage playbook. I don't know if you've following it intentionally or not, but you really are doing it. Especially with your nonsense about evolution somehow making homosexuality to eliminate unwanted genes. Where are you getting this stuff?

    10. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you're agreeing that there IS collusion? Then why did you deny it? Your words were "Changing from that definition does not make this great conspiracy to deny new founded civil rights by some political group" but now you're saying you don't dispute it? If you want to say a conspiracy is collusion, whatever, I don't think there's a conspiracy, I just think there's a bunch of people with that agenda. And you don't seem to be disputing it, so what were you trying to say?

      Lol.. You must have a comprehension problem or something. "plenty of groups colluding" does not mean all groups. Some people may be conspiring but not all people. Hence there is no grand conspiracy by any single political group.

      If you want to discuss polygamy, you can, but you're missing something about marriages. They provide specific benefits as a matter of law, that can't be awarded any other way. You may not care. But others do. Yet you are so willing to support the people who would deny that access to others, by proclaiming that the truly intolerant people are the ones who just won't get with the program and accept the discrimination and abuse.

      So you are saying that the gays want to marry to take advantage of those benefits reserved for traditional marriages? Polygamist still fall into that same category then.

      And it's not that I support those apposing gay marriage, I just see the hypocrisy of those supporting it saying be nice, be accepting, you bigoted evil people who should go away.

      But do keep trying to fool us with that sophistry. See your premise is that somehow we must be foolishly tolerant, to the point of being unable to resist any oppression. All that reflects is a maliciously inaccurate understanding of the concept of tolerance to the point of being an absolute and crippling position, as opposed to the more nuanced reflection it really is. Not that you care, and no, we don't all necessarily call the majority of people bigots because they don't support same-sex marriage, what we do is point out the bigots who DO oppose same-sex marriage due to their intolerance of homosexuality. You're just trying the same deceptive argument they are, that somehow we can't point out bigotry and intolerance because that's the real crime. Have you even read Dan Cathy's position? He wasn't saying "I don't support Same-Sex Marriage" but expressing that it was offensive to God.

      Yep, you are batshit crazy. First, I'm explaining what someone else was saying, not me. I happen to agree with them in that you will never get someone to support your side by attempting to insult them. All it does it drive them further apart. If you were serious about gaining support for two people of the same sex to marry, you would take their advice and find peaceful ways to change their minds.

      You know what what makes you look like? That you've bought into their bat-shit crazy sophistry. That you believe they're somehow the victims since they're being asked to refrain from oppression and abusiveness. Really, in what universe do the bullies get to make that argument, and the rest of us are just supposed to swallow that obvious fraud without noticing? Do you think we've never encountered children attempting to be manipulative and convince us that they're being picked on when they're the one who started the fight?

      In the universe where you come in kicking and screaming about how horrible everyone is, how fake their god is, and demand they discard the values held by generations upon generations of their civilization. That is the universe where the so called bullies have a right to stand up for themselves. As I said, most of these people do not see it as oppression or abusive any more then it being against the law to rob or murder someone is oppression and abusive.

      And the point of referring to the mockery is to spare myself the trouble of bothering to refute your arguments

    11. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I never thought they were all conspiring together anyway, so I guess you were objecting to something that wasn't in my words either. I guess we have a mutual failure of reading comprehension. That said, there is a readily identifiable group with a given pattern of behavior that I have observed, whose arguments tend to follow in particular directions regarding this situation. If you haven't noticed, maybe you need to pay more attention.

      But you're manufacturing a hypocrisy where there is none. You're seeing something that isn't there, except by your own false warping of the views of the people who want equal treatment. Which you try to treat as bigoted because we want ourselves to be accepted, and not to be oppressed? You must think we're morons to not recognize how you're ignoring the one side to attack the other.

      That's why YOU are batshit crazy. (Note I'm repeating your words again, did you really think that would persuade?) If you're not endorsing something, then I think you're going to have to do a lot better job distancing yourself from it, but I'm seeing you as endorsing it with your repetition of it. You thought it was a solid idea. But I disagree with the idea that it's an insult to criticize somebody in this way, or that it's always ineffectual. Sometimes it's important to say somebody is a bigot, to complain about their lack of tolerance. Sometimes you're not playing to that person, but to others. And I really consider an insult to be of a different character, like saying "You're a basement dwelling geek who can't get a woman" than the criticism we're talking about here. Which I've received too.

      But actually, peaceful ways are tried. Peaceful ways are used. Politeness is all around the discussion. You seem to be confusing the idea of the discussion you have with being representative of all of what's going on. But just because persuasion is useful sometimes, at other times you need to call out somebody for who they are and what they're doing. Or sometimes you just decide to be a bit rude.

      Also, guess what you're not mentioning? Who is also doing that. Why are you silent on what the other side does, when they come in kicking and screaming about how God disapproves of people who have homosexual relationships, how we should go to hell, how we should be locked up into concentration camps, and how dare we even think about asking them to stop in even in the politest of ways. No, you just ascribe to one side your complaints about belligerency but ignore the others. And you can think it's not bullying, but you know what? You obviously don't know the situation very well. When somebody says they believe God will be vengeful upon you, they're using that idea as a tool to bully.

      That's the same sophistry you are stuck in, that somehow one side needs to temper itself, even though you blind yourself to the faults of the other side. The one that's not trying to avoid the hostility that comes from invoking the divine to defend itself. Or do you really think you're offering valuable advice? Because you're not. You're seeming like somebody who thinks he knows better, and yet your advice is as disrespectful as what you complain about.

      And yes, there is a playbook, because it's pretty obvious how similar posts are, how common the same ideas get passed around. Now it may not be in the explicit form of a guide to arguments, let alone a script, but there's plenty of people who follow the discussion and repeat the same twisted arguments to each other, like some weird game of telephone. And shame on you for thinking I bash them every chance I get. You know nothing about me other than what I've said in this discussion. And if you think I've been engaging in bashing with you, then I'm sorry, but we have an entirely different understanding of it.

      You won't believe it, but in general I try to be polite and reasonable, and not call people bat-shit crazy. But I'm human, so sometimes when somebody does it to me, maybe I do push it back on them. Oh well, I g

    12. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, I never thought they were all conspiring together anyway, so I guess you were objecting to something that wasn't in my words either. I guess we have a mutual failure of reading comprehension. That said, there is a readily identifiable group with a given pattern of behavior that I have observed, whose arguments tend to follow in particular directions regarding this situation. If you haven't noticed, maybe you need to pay more attention.

      Fair enough.

      But you're manufacturing a hypocrisy where there is none. You're seeing something that isn't there, except by your own false warping of the views of the people who want equal treatment. Which you try to treat as bigoted because we want ourselves to be accepted, and not to be oppressed? You must think we're morons to not recognize how you're ignoring the one side to attack the other.

      I'm not manufacturing it, I'm pointing it out. The parent said those claiming to be tolerant need to be tolerant. You, well, I can't be certain it was you because you haven't logged in with an account that can reference your input to, said it was ok to be interlocutor with those you expect to be tolerant. That is hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not.

      That's why YOU are batshit crazy. (Note I'm repeating your words again, did you really think that would persuade?) If you're not endorsing something, then I think you're going to have to do a lot better job distancing yourself from it, but I'm seeing you as endorsing it with your repetition of it. You thought it was a solid idea. But I disagree with the idea that it's an insult to criticize somebody in this way, or that it's always ineffectual. Sometimes it's important to say somebody is a bigot, to complain about their lack of tolerance. Sometimes you're not playing to that person, but to others. And I really consider an insult to be of a different character, like saying "You're a basement dwelling geek who can't get a woman" than the criticism we're talking about here. Which I've received too.

      I said I agreed with him. Why are you trying to make it sound like I'm objecting to it at the same time I'm saying it's logical? As for the batshit crazy, I'm talking about- trying to persuade someone by insulting them..lol

      But actually, peaceful ways are tried. Peaceful ways are used. Politeness is all around the discussion. You seem to be confusing the idea of the discussion you have with being representative of all of what's going on. But just because persuasion is useful sometimes, at other times you need to call out somebody for who they are and what they're doing. Or sometimes you just decide to be a bit rude.

      I'm only commenting to you about what I saw here. The rudeness can easily out do any politeness brought to the table. It reminds me of when I was a kid in the 80's and was told that gays are just like us, then a flammer dressed in a couple feathers that barely covered anything jumped out saying he was in our face then pretended to perform oral sex on another guy in an assless leather chaps with a fake dick hanging out the zipper. It cause my dad who just got done explaining that gay people are just like normal people to beat the piss out of him, calling him slurs in the process right in front of us. And no, we had no clue some gay parade was happening the day we ended up on an otherwise pleasant vacation. He later explained that it wasn't because they were gay, it was because of what they did in front of the children. The cops agreed which goes to show how much things have changed since then.

      Also, guess what you're not mentioning? Who is also doing that. Why are you silent on what the other side does, when they come in kicking and screaming about how God disapproves of people who have homosexual relationships, how we should go to hell, how we should be locked up into concentration camps, and how dare we even think about aski

    13. Re:Tolerance by bmo · · Score: 0

      >reads your flawed logic in reply to the AC

      Your name fits you.

      Plonk.

      --
      BMO

    14. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Is that the best you have? lol..

      You mom must be so proud.

    15. Re:Tolerance by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Observation is accurate until you get around to answering the AC's point.

    16. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not manufacturing it, I'm pointing it out. The parent said those claiming to be tolerant need to be tolerant. You, well, I can't be certain it was you because you haven't logged in with an account that can reference your input to, said it was ok to be interlocutor with those you expect to be tolerant. That is hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not.

      You're not pointing anything out, you think you're pointing something out, but it's not really there, because you know what? Tolerance isn't just some fool-headed concept where you can't possibly stand up to anything, but a more nuanced recognition that while it's good to let others be as they wish, the idea that you can never say anything critical to anybody who tries to be oppressive, because that would somehow be intolerant. It only works if you take tolerance as "You must accept others for as they are, always, and you're evil if you say otherwise" when most people can recognize how absolutist that position is, and how most people's real idea of tolerance does involve the understanding that protecting the whole requires the recognition of people who would compromise the whole system. The only people espousing the former idea are the people trying to manufacture a strawman.

      That's why you're manufacturing hypocrisy. Or just going along with it.

      Either way, it's not honest. And it's actually been hardening opposition, since it's such a fraud. I know, you think it's the truth, but it's sophistry that has convinced me that those who endorse it are liars and frauds. Which means you should actually take your own advice, and desist with it. I bet you won't though. Because you're convinced it's somehow the way. When it's actually been the opposite.

      But I see your problem is you're assuming this dialogue has been about persuading or convincing anybody. Sorry, but it's not been that way at all. If you want to see the actual attempts to persuade and reason, you will have to look elsewhere. I don't try very hard to persuade or be nice to people who rest their arguments on the twisted logic you've supported. Why? Because I've learned to recognize that people like you think the same way. And it's not open to change.

      So I suggest take your attempt to be "helpful" and shove it. Because you know what? You're not being helpful, the one-sidedness of your presentation actually has discredited you, especially given your support for a position that I recognize as nothing more than sophistry. In other words, what you've said here has been agreeing with the people who I've seen be bat-shit crazy. So, the only thing you've managed to do is convince me of your own failings.

      And seriously, excuses? Your word choice is most unfortunate.

      PS, FWIW, I've seen hetereosexual people engage in that self-same conduct, at Mardi Gras. So don't pretend that your personal experience is somehow a good reference. No population is without people who should know better. Try not to judge the whole based on individuals.

      Though your father should have practiced better methods of conflict resolution.

    17. Re:Tolerance by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      Why does being tolerant of intolerance automatically equal bad things being done to someone?

      Speech does not equal action

      Someone once said "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

      Intolerance is similar in that it is always in the third person that it is unacceptable. Yet it is that position that truly tests the virtue of tolerance. For if a virtue is not tested, it is not a virtue.

      The argument being made quite often when people call for tolerance is done from a position of weakness and directed at people in a position of power, for if the people calling for tolerance were in a position of power, they would call it policy. We would readily call those in a position of weakness as being in the minority, which is often the root justification to call for tolerance in the first place.

      If the people in the minority, or position of weakness, that are calling for tolerance for their group achieve majority status and therefore can cease to call for tolerance, but rather just announce policy, will they have tolerance for those people who were once the majority in the position of power and who are then the minority and in a position of weakness?

    18. Re:Tolerance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Forgive me if I do not spend much time arguing with idiots to scared to log in from an account that might be traceable to them in some way.

      But you and the GP aren't adding anything of value either. i'm sort of glad too, because from both your attempts at posting so far, it appears we all would be more dumb after reading it if you did.

    19. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to stay on the subject : i'd prefer gay marriages more than microsoft appreciation day....
      and like a lot of us here, yes i worked on ms basic, then on dos (before that some kind of unix), win311 windows 95, 98, NT 3.5, nt4, nt 5 (later win2000), win2000, win 2003 server( and some others ), win XP, vista, windows 7, and i definetly do not appreciate microsoft...
      bill gates might be a very nice guy and doing a lot of cool charity work now, but still microsoft is a big nono for me....
      running linux since the first slackwares, now a lazy assed ubuntu user (okok i do kernel developpement and run centos, gentoo, freebsd, openbsd and netbsd as well, but at home for personal use and my main system @ work : ubuntu...) and really can't go back to ms-based systems...

      BTW why do people protest against gay marriages?
      I cant find any reason unless they're the ones who are gay and they dont want to marry with their boy(or girl)friend.
      Or... they're jealous of the gays that are in couple, and still not admitting that they are gay and stuck with their opposite sexe husbands or wives...

    20. Re:Tolerance by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Living up to your name better, harder, stronger isn't answering the AC's point any faster:

      Being tolerant of intolerant people does not make you tolerant. It is you standing idly by as bad things are done to people.

    21. Re:Tolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol.. What exactly was the point then?

      It's like the stupid leading the blind. You should adopt a name exactly like the guy you are replying to.

    22. Re:Tolerance by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection, since you are too stupid to read the thread?

  34. One critical difference by eclectro · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chic-Fil-A is a private company serving the interests of a private owner. Microsoft soft is a publicly held company which primarily exists to serve the interests of their shareholders.

    The same sex marriage debate is divisive and there are strong beliefs on both sides. Does a public company exist to sell a product and provide a profit to its shareholders, or help enact social change even if it means the cost of business? Even if it hurts shareholders?

    It simply does not make sense to take sides on a on a highly divisive social issue.

    In Chic-Fil-A's case, Rahm Emmanuel shot his mouth off saying "Their values are not our values" and supported his alderman's postion to stop Chic--Fil-A from building a restaurant based on Chic Fil A's president stance on opposing same sex marriage. Which subsequently led to the anti-boycott and Chic-Fil-A's single biggest sales day in the history of the company Aug 1

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:One critical difference by icebraining · · Score: 1

      A company, public or not, exists to do whatever its owners want it to do. If the Microsoft shareholders don't like the position of the current board they can vote it off.

    2. Re:One critical difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Chic-Fil-A's case, Rahm Emmanuel shot his mouth off saying "Their values are not our values" and supported his alderman's postion to stop Chic--Fil-A from building a restaurant based on Chic Fil A's president stance on opposing same sex marriage.

      Which is probably illegal - you have the right to your own opinions, and the right to express those opinions, without repercussions from govt.

      More importantly, are the Illinois governor, legislators and judges welcome in Chicago? After all, Illinois does not allow gay marriage, and that is entirely due to the actions of the Illinois governor, legislators and judges.

      Is Obama welcome in Chicago? Up until a few months ago, Obama was against gay marriage. (funny how people forget that)

      While the owner of Chick-Fil-A doesn't like gay marriage (which is also the opinion of many Americans), the owner of Chick-Fil-A conducts his business in full compliance with the law, and does not discriminate against homosexuals.

      I don't understand why people are picking on Chick-Fil-A, when far bigger opponents of gay marriage are out there, let alone far bigger opponents of gay rights.

    3. Re:One critical difference by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The same sex marriage debate is divisive and there are strong beliefs on both sides.

      "Both sides"? As if they were of equal moral standing? How mainstream media of you. The day is coming where the homophobic views of Chic-Fil-A and NOM will be as acceptable in polite discourse as the Klan's views on interracial marriage.

      The same sex marriage debate is divisive and there are strong beliefs on both sides.

      Which is irrelevant in the long term, unless the fundies are willing to support the company en mass on a continuing basis.

    4. Re:One critical difference by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      is the public stock the voting kind and is it in such proportions to board held stock that it's even possible for the board to get voted out in MS?

      genuinely interested, at least ms pays dividends to that stock.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  35. You missed the real reason not to hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their chicken is super delicious. Maybe being anti-gay marriage makes things delicious. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know, but I intend to eat more anti-gay marriage stuff to find out.

  36. AoE II by Terranex · · Score: 1

    I will support any MS appreciation day that includes AoE II in its celebrations.

  37. Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember when /. used to be good?

  38. What If There Was a Microsoft Appreciation Day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and nobody came?

  39. appreciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best thing that MS could do for the world is get out of the OS Business. Their craptastic software is behind the vast wasteland of "cyberspace " nonsense. The open source community OS are more secure "out of the box " than this Multi-billion dollar fiasco. Seriously. Everyone who has ever been hacked based on LM hash compromises, pass -the -hash, XP _CMD, ms08 -067, activex, local DLL, or thousands of similar ridiculous implementation errors should sue for every penny of damage and cost incurred trying to protect their software. We're wasting trillions due to the EPIC failure that is MS OS security.

  40. Re:shills defend microsoft by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    I don't see the problem here.

    If people were indeed massively pirating commercial software, Bill is right.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  41. Re:What If There Was a Microsoft Appreciation Day. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    ...and nobody came?

    During the Cold War, MAD stood for Mutually Assured Destruction.

  42. We need a way MS people could identify each other by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    We could all wear bright blue t-shirts.

  43. Contrawise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.

  44. Jebus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when you think Slashdot can't get any lower they somehow manage to drain a little more out of the pool. Worst. Article. Ever.

  45. I'll say something positive of microsoft... by Nexion · · Score: 2

    The old CEO, Mr. Gates, is a much better man then I once thought of him. Microsoft's operating system did get better... in fact it was finally worth its price! It is a shame though... the decided to do a power grab with a BIOS mod. It becomes laughable when they tried to push Windows 8 on us with so much bad news. They might have had a chance with Windows 7.

    I find humor in the fact that game companies are now looking hard at Linux. As Microsoft shovels two healthy spades of dirt upon their own grave I know there is a good chance the next motherboard I buy might cost me a couple hundred dollars and wont run Windows, but in truth I really don't care. Linux has long made a better workstation, and there are games on the way! Sony will produce a better console for playing games, and maybe I should bother gaming on my workstation. The only two games I play anymore are EQ2 and Diablo 3, so I'm halfway there already.

    I thank Microsoft for being pragmatic about such hot button issues that only fools invest so much passion in. Don't get me wrong my gay friends. I hate tyranny as much as you do, but "marriage" is a silly stupid word that can never eclipse true love. Those who cling to the word "marriage" like it was some God given right to a man and woman are often found forsaking their vows as they bed others. It is a worthless word unless there is love, commitment and truth behind it. There is no love, commitment to their fellow man or so much as a stick of truth behind denying that all people should have the same rights.

    So, in a time where you can seem to do nothing right, thank you Microsoft... thank you for being just a hair less daft.

    1. Re:I'll say something positive of microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I have a dilemma. Do I admire you for having reached the conclusion that you may have misjudged a man?

      At once, I am enraged at your "doublespeak" as I am at the Orwellian construction that has led you to poison your own soul.
      While your moral comparisons of love, fidelity and marriage are accurate, They also show at the same instant that society has confused you to the point of not knowing the difference.

      Furthermore, marriage is NOTHING BUT a God given right to a man and a woman. Which is exactly why I took my vows in a church. As did my cultural ancestors. It is for exactly that reason - I chose to preserve my culture. Not because some piss ant state government or king decided to "get a piece of the action" by regulating and licensing marriage.

      Now i could give 2 pennies for what grown men and women do with their own lives. Not because i am not reactionary, mostly cause I really don't care. I don't care nearly enough to hear it bandied about by some politician. Even less so by any CORPORATION? You see the progression? in my lifetime a corporation has evolved from an entity, to a person, to a moral governing being.

      Orwell was an optimist.

      Please refrain from equating how me and my wife have lived for the last 20 years with whatever you are doing that i don't care about. There are plenty of words left in the language, try picking one that isn't purposely designed to savage a culture that has existed for millennia.

      If nothing above made sense to you consider this:

      "You can put your boots in the oven, but that doesn’t make them biscuits”

    2. Re:I'll say something positive of microsoft... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The old CEO, Mr. Gates, is a much better man then I once thought of him. Microsoft's operating system did get better... in fact it was finally worth its price! It is a shame though... the decided to do a power grab with a BIOS mod. It becomes laughable when they tried to push Windows 8 on us with so much bad news. They might have had a chance with Windows 7.

      What does Gates have to do with Win8 secure boot (or Win7, for that matter)?

    3. Re:I'll say something positive of microsoft... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      He founded the company and was the previous CEO. Much of what Microsoft was, and now is, can be attributed to him.

    4. Re:I'll say something positive of microsoft... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if that isn't enough for you... he is still Chairman of the board of directors for Microsoft.

    5. Re:I'll say something positive of microsoft... by unitron · · Score: 1

      "Furthermore, marriage is NOTHING BUT a God given right to a man and a woman."

      Then all government recognition of it should be abolished.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  46. Public Companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should not be allowed to publicly support or endorse any social policies without a shareholder vote.

    Chick-Fil-A is not a public company, they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their money. But hey, I think any companies should be able to hire/fire whoever they want as long as they publicly "opt out" of the equal opportunity / anti-discrimination crap.

  47. People bash Microsoft because Microsoft is awful by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    People bash Microsoft because Microsoft used its monopoly to force Windows down the throats of people who did not want it.
    People bash Microsoft because it dumped MSIE into the market until Netscape died, then let MSIE stagnate for an eternity. Also, because MSIE had awful standars compliance and, because it was dominant, alternative browser makers had to emulate its infinite bugs, which took many years to achieve.
    People bash Microsoft because of the Halloween Documents.

    And, what would happen without Microsoft? Likely, open source would be far more prevalent than it is today.

    Now, I agree that Apple has become worse than Microsoft. This suggests that if a company gets too big, it will probably become Microsoft-style harmful. And if Microsoft shrinks, and can become good.

    But saying that Microsoft was a benefactor? Oh please.

  48. Will there be... by jacerie · · Score: 1

    Ballmer Pinatas? If so, count me in.

  49. BIG BOOBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor Microsoft, so misunderstood. If someone would just give MS a girlfriend...

  50. If there was a MS Appreciation Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which the links don't exactly seem to be talking about, there would be riots, fire bombing, and probably at least some sysadmins would be committing ritual suicide.

    The other 80-90% of the population would be ignorantly happy.

  51. As the saying says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You are more alone than Ballmer in Microsoft Apreciation Day"

  52. Out of troll points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm out of troll points. So here's my reply.

    I appreciate MS for all the hours of work they provided me. They are very good for economy. I hated them every day.

    Back in 1995. My dream was to work at MS campus. I hate them everyday since.

    I stubbornly tried not to hate them for many years. Justifying that my job relied on, directly or indirictly, Ms products.

    I choose to run a MS-free life today as much as possible - yes you'r patches are welcome but despite i'll hate you the same as i do oracle or apple. I don't trust either of them. That includes goggle yet mickey is a magnitude more worse.

    RMS is right. It's not about the freedom you choose. It's about the freedom 'they' will let you. i refuse to spend 1 byte of programming in an insane environment. i refuse to waste my time on something that shouldnt be waisted but just a matter of 'find the right way please'.

    MS development equals occupational therapy. There's no sane 'best approach' pragma in their concepts. If any, its more work, not less, so we create jobs for more coders.

    One way, i'm fine with that. 'Digital era good for economy' 'In land of blind, one-eye is king'.

    But. they do obstruct and sabotage sane solutions, protocols, standards. MS sabotages anything. because they dont care digital age. They only care profit.

    It's not because they made inferior yet popular operating system that i hate them. It's their policy and their visions. Modern slaverly. And you'll be a brave humble certified slave worker. That's why i hate them. Because they mix some insane politics, bad movies pale, with 'technological development'.

    I'd almost bought an xbox. for fun. And i happily run OS for many years now. MS. I give you all advantages of the doubt a human would imagine possible. But you are traitors to technology. There's no advance. There's only disadvance. There's no curing digibetism. It's training idiocracy.

    Posting anymous nevertheless hope you don't mind. Uncut. Soz for types. Was a bit moody.

  53. It's MAD by deniable · · Score: 1

    MAD, I say.

  54. Sponsorship by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    If there were a Microsoft Appreciation Day, I'm sure it would have quite a few corporate sponsors. All of the anti-virus, anti-malware, third-party firewall vendors would be happy to sponsor it along with all of the other companies who's business model depends on patching up holes and vulnerabilities in various versions of Windows. After all, if it weren't for Microsoft, they wouldn't be in business.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  55. Sept 31 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I declare Sept 31 to be Microsoft Appreciation Day!

  56. They can have one when.... by TCPhotography · · Score: 2

    They bring back the Trackball explorer line and not a moment before.

    1. Re:They can have one when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that. Down to 2 spares and one in use. Don't know what I'll do when the last one dies.

    2. Re:They can have one when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They bring back the Natural Keyboard Pro and not a moment before.

      Fixed that for you.

  57. lets have Government appreciation day then as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear US Government I hate Americans as much as you do. So let me say

    Thank you:

    for shooting rubber bullets and sending attack dogs after protestors
    for incarcerating millions of Americans over petty things like Marijuana,
    for maintainig secret databases on Americans and wiretapping their phones,
    for tsa genital massage and fullbody xrays
    for homeland securty checkpoints
    for nofly lists
    for regulating small businesses out of existence
    for gun control
    for forcing fluoride into their water supplies
    for mandatory health insurance
    for gifting trillions in dollars ("bailouts" ) to banks that are too busy foreclosing Americans out of their homes to say Why thank you sucker,
    for the IRS
    for all your wars and every civilian you killed
    for New Orleans and shooting at those trying to leave this calamity,
    for killing women and children "insurgents" all over the globe with drones
    for every unemployed American whose job was moved to China and India using the tax dollar to do it too
    for election fraud and "recounts"
    for aspartame, msg and carcinogenic food additives
    for not requiring gmo "foods" to be labeled
    for raiding marijuana dispensaries despite state laws that make them legal
    for the trillions spent on black projects
    for exempting big pharma from all lawsuits over the harm caused by vaccines
    for floating the myth that federal law preempts state law when the opposite is true
    for prosecuting those who dare tell jurors about jury nullification of laws
    for literally inviting millions of illegals to come here to live on welfare
    for fining old ladies until they lose their homes because they grew tomatoes in their front yards
    for ripping up and destroying those same vegetable gardens
    for selling roads and bridges built on American tax dollars to foreign corporations
    for hiv drug experimentation on foster children
    for the deadly pesticides permitted on american crops long outlawed elsewhere
    for prosecuting those who sell raw milk
    for all the dirty lies you spew forth and all the
    hundreds and thousands of other things you do
    we dont even know about.

    Thank you we really appreciate everything you do.

    s/Thank/Fuck/g

  58. you ate there every day.... but not on Sunday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chik-fil-A song by Anonymous Coward (after Sammy Cahn):

    Oh, you can eat here on a Monday, a Monday, a Monday is very very good.
    Or you can eat here on a Tuesday, a Tuesday, a Tuesday, in fact we wish you would.

    Or you can eat here on a Wednesday, a Thursday, a Friday and Saturday is best.
    But never, never on a Sunday, a Sunday, a Sunday, cause that's God's day of rest.

    Oh, you can take out on a Cool day, a hot day, a wet day Whichever one you choose.
    Or try to take out on a gray day A May day, a pay day And see if we refuse.

    And if you make it on a bleak day A freak day, a weekday Well, you can be my guest.
    But never ever on a Sunday A Sunday, the one day God makes us take a rest.

  59. What if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if we just dubbed it "Appreciate shit paper day" and made it sound like it's praising the real products m$ provides?

  60. Corporations need love too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all corporations are people, they need love too, lets give them an appreciation day.

    IMHO, your answer misses parents point. The world without MS would be equal or better. MS copies a lot of code, Mac OS was better than Windows earlier, and to pretend MIcrosoft brought some special sauce to the market, is to ignore their many many failures since.

    There is no MS special sauce, they're just a corp, badly run, bloated, milking a dying market.

  61. Its only natural by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has been bending customers over for decades, why wouldn't they support gay marriage?

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  62. What does sexuality have to do with coding? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Nothing.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:What does sexuality have to do with coding? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you code porn sites.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:What does sexuality have to do with coding? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Because using what MS codes leaves you feeling like they did it to you without lubing up first?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  63. Re:We need a way MS people could identify each oth by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    We need a way MS people could identify each other

    That's pretty easy, you just look for a Windows Phone. Those new candy colored Lumias make it especially easy to spot.

  64. Jesux and .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly all the Christians and others opposed to homosexuality and same sex marriage should run Linux.

    I hear there is a distribution called Jesux that comes pre-installed with the full text of the bible, and biblical quotes upon login rather than all those satanic quotes from that evil program 'fortune' which of course is the devil's witchcraft.

    Obviously Moslems should make their own distribution and call it Islamex or something.

    No BSD of course because it's logo is clearly Satan, and we all know BSD stands for things I cannot speak of due to their evil nature.

    We need to alert all the churches and other houses of worship of this, so they can convert all their systems.

  65. Appreciate a company that sues schools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous because we're under a gag order. Microsoft sued our school because we "didn't have the right licenses". The thing was we purchased everythign as an educational institution, so we figured the vendor had that figured out. Needless to say we're now buying Apple products, but we lost a lot of money which directly impacted our ability to provide a rich education to our students. And we're not the only school this has happened to, but MS uses gag orders to prevent it from being widely known.

    Maybe if we had more gay kids MS wouldn't have screwed us. Microsoft: loves gays, hates kids?

    1. Re:Appreciate a company that sues schools? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Just curious- was it MS directly, or their hired thugs the BSA? Note that Apple is also a member of the BSA.
      Also- did you consider any of the free, Linux-based alternatives?

  66. words are funny things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Gay marriage" is an oxymoronic obfuscation lauded by many.
    "be fruitful and multiply" is simply a misinterpretation practiced by a few.
    see the difference?
    i didn't think you would..
    Orwell was writing a prophetic warning, not a manual.

  67. Point of this story is ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... to get someone to appreciate Steve Ballmer, and his flying chair
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Point of this story is ... by toriver · · Score: 1

      He should patent that flying chair.

  68. We know too well the terrible cost of Microsoft by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    ... because they don't know what the software market was like before them.

    Yes we do, because we were using UNIX in those days. And before then, cheap systems like Atari and Amiga,

    And then while Microsoft grew we were using things like UNIX or Linux or OS2.

    And we watched as Microsoft used share in the market and FUD the likes of which the world had never seen to curb stomp competitors.

    I don't hold much ill will against Microsoft these days, indeed I even support them in some efforts - but none of us should EVER be deluded that the computer industry as a whole did not lose a decade of real advancement to the ravening beast that WAS Microsoft.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  69. What if we were to use the subjunctive? by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

    If there WERE a Microsoft appreciation day, we would no longer have to use the subjunctive mood when referring to it, since we would no longer be describing a wishful or fanciful situation contrary to fact. Asking "What if there WAS a Microsoft appreciation day?" questions whether such a day occurred at some point in the past -- this is not what the poster meant to ask.

    1. Re:What if we were to use the subjunctive? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  70. ads? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    you mean there are /. readers who havent heard of adblock+?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the people whose ad clicks keep this site running. What sort of idiot would do that?

    2. Re:ads? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Also those of us that are locked out of our boxes at work, forced into IE6, of all things. *sigh*

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    3. Re:ads? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      you mean there are /. readers who havent heard of adblock+?

      I've heard of it. I consciously choose not to use it.

      Ads that you have to have around are the penalty you pay for a free Internet in the age when everything (content, servers, bandwidth) costs money. Or, you could subscribe to Slashdot, paying a small fee for the ads to go away. It's another way to support the site.

      adblock+ applied liberally (not just to get around the more aggressive/hostile/exploit ads) makes you a freeloader. I mean, how are places like Slashdot supposed to remain operational?

      I'm in a trolling mood today, apparently.

  71. Re:People bash Microsoft because Microsoft is awfu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People bash Microsoft because their products aren't free.

  72. Vogon Poetry by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    It would require something like a Vogon Poetry Appreciation Chair...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  73. Betteridge's Law of Headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No

  74. Subjunctive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if there were a Microsoft Appreciation Day, dammit!

  75. What we need ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is the microsoft depreciation day. Or is that all the other days?

  76. Attending services at Gulnare church as well? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You know, the church that just denied an interracial marriage. Since you seem to engage in asshattery for the sake of asshattery, this would be right up your alley....

  77. Hitler was charming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your point?

  78. Look out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Battle of the 4-digit UID's! Everyone else take a step back!

  79. Horseshit. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The time for civil rights and equality is always "now". The time for putting them off to appease the tender sensibilities of bigoted fucksticks is "never".

  80. A nonsensical viewpoint by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    I don't consider it real progress that some companies come out in support of gay marriage, while others are against it. I go to Pride, but I wish we didn't have it. Real progress will be when it ceases to matter whether or not you're gay; When it's as natural as not being gay.

    If you are actually gay, you know perfectly well that we're several generations away from that point. So shouting down any group (jews, blacks, gays) wanting to take pride in it's existence after recent or ongoing persecution makes less sense than finding Chewie on Endor.

  81. National Day of Mourning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I'm going to ignore what appears to be a fucktard that can't match a title to story content in order to suggest a National Day of Mourning in response to the idea of a Microsoft Appreciate Day.

    My reasoning is that if there were such a thing as a Microsoft Appreciation Day (an event which would cause my immediate desire to either move out of the country or set myself on fire) then there needs to be a National Day of Mourning for all of the sorry bastards who have any version of the Microsoft virus installed on their computer.

  82. And no one showed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFY

  83. Are you on drugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5k max and that includeds (Autocad or Microstation) the software and dual monitors

  84. Companies should NOT take sides on social issues by elabs · · Score: 1

    Sure it's wonderful when they happen to choose the side that you are on. But what about when they don't? No, it's not the place of some corporate CEO to decide the fate of your sexuality or how your tax dollars are spent. Let them focus on making great products. The moment they take their eye off that prize the products and consumers will suffer.

  85. Corporations are "people" and their leadership... by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Corporations do whatever the management want, if there are shareholders, they can do plenty before enough shareholders push their weight around. Corporations can take sides on any issue they want in almost any way they want and do it with a HUGE voice. If they do not mind a minor decrease in earnings they can ignore boycotts, especially if they sell common goods everybody buys they are basically untouchable. Private companies can do just about anything. If any break laws they are not subject to punishments like a human--- that is, if they even are convicted of something in the 1st place... which is far less likely as well.

    Legal marriage should never have been called marriage because too many stupid people can't tell the differences between legal definitions and traditional/religious ones.

  86. Marriage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the most innovative way for humans to live a happy life and at the same time, peacefully reduce population from 7 Billion people. The Educated knows that WAR reduces profitability for companies and corporations. And, WAR is probably the worst way to reduce population.

  87. This Essay says it all, re: Chick-Fil-A by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    Of all the words written about the controversy and boycott, on each side, this single essay says it the best and most clearly IMHO.

    Written by a gay Christian, it's respectful, yet passionate; personal, yet relatable and approachable.

    Don't be put off by the cheeky headline, the actual text of the article is serious and very well written. A "must read" if you haven't seen it make the rounds on Twitter or Facebook already:

    http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  88. Unionize! Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Los Angeles United Union of Fudge Packers Local 232 meets tonight. Blue Oyster Club on Osbourne Ave. All night.

  89. Re:People bash Microsoft because Microsoft is awfu by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    This is false and you know it.

    If Microsoft simply provided proprietary products, we could simply ignore them.

    The problem is that they manipulate the market in unethical ways.