Slashdot Mirror
Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?
theodp (442580) writes "Over the years, Mozilla's reliance on Google has continued to grow. Indeed, in its report on Brendan Eich's promotion to CEO of Mozilla, the WSJ noted that "Google accounted for nearly 90% of Mozilla's $311 million in revenue." So, with its Sugar Daddy having also gone on record as being virulently opposed to Proposition 8, to think that that Google's support didn't enter into discussions of whether Prop 8 backer Eich should stay or go seems, well, pretty much unthinkable. "It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Interestingly, breaking the news of Eich's resignation was journalist Kara Swisher, whose right to marry a top Google exec in 2008 was nearly eliminated by Prop 8. "In an interview this morning," wrote Swisher, "Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead the company that makes the Firefox Web browser had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue, which had actually been known since 2012 inside the Mozilla community." Swisher, whose article was cited by the NY Times in The Campaign Against Mozilla's Brendan Eich, added that "it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today." So, was keeping Eich aboard viewed by Mozilla — perhaps even by Eich himself — as a possible threat to the reported $1 billion minimum revenue guarantee the organization enjoys for delivering search queries for Google?"
to have a miserable life, i.e. to be married.
Our new tech overlords, made rich by a market that dropped in their laps, now want to experiment with "social engineering."
This has a bad history. Hitler, Stalin, et al.
However, they don't care -- this is about their egos and feeling good for having done something socially popular, at least among their somewhat incestuous and nepotistic California cult.
Naturally, any dissenters must be weeded out, as they were in the Soviet Union and after the French Revolution.
Ideology of this sort never changes. Since it is not based in reality, but in thinking about what "ought" to be, it views any dissent as a threat that might invalidate its own claim to being morally right.
Thus, the dissenters must be squashed. Gulag, guillotine, or boycott. It matters not which is used so long as it silences them.
Futurist Traditionalism
They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...
Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.
Do you have ESP?
There is no Mozilla as we know it today without that fat Google subsidy.
It is a huge problem. People are probably going to argue differently, but they are only deluding themselves.
If it was known in the Mozilla "community" why was he promoted to the position?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just how "compromised" is Mozilla and the Firefox browser?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I understand the Church seems to think it has a monopoly on marriage as they are they most common institution to perform the ceremony. I also understand that many politicians will read the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However it is not the government's role to decide who can and can't be together.
So why not abolish marriages from governments?
Have the government only recognise civil unions. Treat all civil unions equally. Introduce a reciprocal relationship with the Church's marriage so that any marriage performed by the church ends in a government recognised civil union. Finally provide other non religious methods of registering civil unions.
Everyone's happy. Except for those in government who think the Church's view that two dudes shouldn't touch each either. But to them I say one of the tenants of modern democracy is the separation of Church and state and go find another job where your bias and lack of impartiality doesn't affect the people who you are supposed to represent.
I knew they once were absolutely reliant on Google, and it is news to me how much they still are, but I see nothing in theodp's post itself to suggest there is anything other than speculation that I won't find substantiated in the links that Google would pull the plug. I have to say I dislike stories across the net that are just link farms. If there is an important link, emphasize it.
I hate social bullshit, buckets of unsubstantiated rumors, speculation, and accusation. Timothy's specialty, I guess.
Sad thing, though, is that at least half the "stories" here are posted just to elicit whining comments like this one - a click is a click, eh.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Mozilla do Google the favour, not the other way around.
Are you now,or have you ever been, a member of the traditional marriage party?
They could make a new movie with Sean Connery, called The Hunt for the New World October.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.
Better known as 318230.
Sealed lips and a medium-sized monetary contribution is "virulent"? Please.
... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?
To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.
Because, politicians can you the issue to divide voters. Why make it simple or follow common sense when you can funnel a crowd of voters by constantly prodding and poking at every divisive idea you can come up with?
Sorting proponents into governments that test them is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) than do mere ecological correlations.
So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.
Here's the problem:
In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".
These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:
It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.
But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".
Seastead this.
Our new tech overlords, made rich by a market that dropped in their laps, now want to experiment with "social engineering."
This has a bad history. Hitler, Stalin, et al.
However, they don't care -- this is about their egos and feeling good for having done something socially popular, at least among their somewhat incestuous and nepotistic California cult.
Naturally, any dissenters must be weeded out, as they were in the Soviet Union and after the French Revolution.
Ideology of this sort never changes. Since it is not based in reality, but in thinking about what "ought" to be, it views any dissent as a threat that might invalidate its own claim to being morally right.
Thus, the dissenters must be squashed. Gulag, guillotine, or boycott. It matters not which is used so long as it silences them.
Your analogy fails to make a point of comparing a market-driven and very diverse tech industry, and then dishonestly trying to brand it with a form of fascism via military-backed state leaders who govern with a strict top-down hierarchy.
If you're somehow scared of Microsoft, Apple, & Google, rest assured that they are nowhere near as scary as the boogeymen armed with guns who you make references to. I don't know if you are truly as ignorant as you sound, but realize that not all forms of power are the same. The tech industry (which isn't a monolithic entity lead by one dictator as you might believe) has soft power (money & a bit of diplomacy.)
Your scare tactics are referring to Hitler & Stalin, those guys had military power, coercion through the use of force, and the authority of an entire nation state. They can simply point their guns to your head, take your money, and laugh at your diplomacy.
Don't be so stupid & dishonest.
The last commented on Slashdot were always bringing up free speech rights, freedom of religious, etc, and were always modded +5 insightful, but missed the topic completely. I can see that which this story comments like "Google pressuring Mozilla", "Google is against free speech", etc. will get +5 insightful again. But again it would miss the topic completely.
Google is entirely in their rights to chose what company or organization they deem to support. Instead we should be thankful to Google to support a competing product and to protect the rights of your fellow citizens. Where is, for example, Microsoft, so support a competing product with $1 billions and to come in protection of basic rights of your fellow citizens? The example of Kara Swisher just shows that Prop 8. would take away basic rights, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.
The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?
If I still lived in California I would also have been "virulently opposed" to prop 8, but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote. To suggest that Google would treat Mozilla differently simply based on a single-issue stance of its new CEO is really selling them short. They invest in Mozilla for strategic reasons. (Mozilla isn't some sort of lazy couch-crasher that Google supports because of Mozilla's charming personality.)
And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.
This is an honest question, no sarcasm or trolling here.
On a different case from this one... What if a CEO is against abortion or/and has an open public position against it? Should he be considered a bad person? Should he be forced to step down?
The hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time. According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.” One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism. Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage. “Exit question: When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve ‘marriage’ for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.” Purge them all!!!!!!
Marriage has always been about property and later other rights like gardianship of children and whatnot.
In the old days, people would get married by the state (coiurt house or whatever) and then have another marriage in the church.
It was condensed later on.
That's why when you want a divorce, you go through the courts to get the legal union disolved.
What gay people want is to have that legal union so that their partner can have some of those rights: insurance, property transfer, rights to Social Security, etc ... Yes, a will can cover some of that, but it doesn't have the same power as a marriage.
The last episode of "Boston Legal" have a wonderful scenario of why two men (hetrosexual in that instance) would want to get married.
I could see others stepping up to pay for that lucrative space. Perhaps Microsoft (although similar issues as Google/Chrome), or maybe someone else like Amazon or Yahoo.
Companies do have restrictions on what their employees can do and say after work hours because they fear it reflects on them. Having an employee in the news that, for example, gets busted for protesting a war and it gets splattered over the news that Joe Blow, an employee of big corp, is protesting for/against abortion, gets many businesses nervous.
That's one of the reasons why they search social networks for information on you.
A CEO is an agent of a company. A CEO sets the tone for the company and is the public face of that company.
Whatever he says is considered to be the position of said company.
I don't give a shit if a CEO hates gays, blacks, Jews, white people, Spanish, and puppies; he MUST keep his oppinions private.
There's a certain CEO of a very large tech company that is quite pro-gay but he keeps his mouth shut - and rightfully so.
Seems logical to me.
Obama's opposition was a political calculation and not an expression of his real belief. It may surprise you to find out that politicians regularly lie to get elected.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
There really isn't much to go on, at this point. We do know that the Prop8 issue made him a toxic pick from the perspective of some of the groups that Mozilla's message might ordinarily work well with(except that they are cryptographically incapable of supporting iPads; but so it goes); but organizations have soft-pedaled all sorts of stuff, including much more serious matters, without serious incident before, and there appear to be confounding factors here (eg. half the board resigning over the choice, allegedly because they didn't think he was a good choice for 'mobile' or something; but something irrelevant to Prop8. If anything, that faction probably is wildly annoyed that their disagreement with 'sure, the CTO seems like a good CEO to me' got sidetracked into a culture war, especially if they want their mobile strategy in emerging markets to not pick up a potential liability.)
There similarly seems to be no available report that he was overtly pushed, though reports vary on whether he 'left' or whether he was 'given the opportunity to leave', so we don't really know if he was told privately that he could go the easy way or the hard way, or whether he was personally butthurt about the whole affair. We just don't know.
I think his "evolved" position was a political calculation, and not an expression of his real belief.
Speaking of rights, a person has the right to their opinion, possibly different from the (local) majority, and they have the right to support causes they believe in. This is about a set of people penalizing a person for having a different view by taking away his employment.
It's ironic that, while arguing for one right, the proponents have exactly violated several others.
I'm disgusted by the entire soap opera and very disappointed that Mozilla (and this guy whom I'd never heard of before) caved in to outside pressure. I'll be looking at other browsers.
Naah... Everybody knows that ideology takes precedence over everything.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Discrimination based on one's sexually or discrimination based one's religious/political beliefs? It's seems the discrimination of homosexuals has been replaced by discrimination against anyone who opposes gay marriage. http://hotair.com/archives/201... Which seems to be the majority of the people that voted for the ban because it passed.
" virulently opposed to Proposition 8".
Why virulently? He never made any statement about that.
There's a difference between giving money to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, and supporting a ballot initiative to make it unconstitutional (not just illegal mind, but *unconstitutional*). I'm opposed to people getting drunk, but I wouldn't vote for prohibition.
If that's true, the Google are hypocrites of the highest order for funding the Russian Olympics on one hand for profit, while meagerly wagging their fingers with the other to maintain face with their LGBT supporters. Dwelling on Eich (who was with Mozilla since before it was called Mozilla) and turning him into a supervillain for donating a few grand seems a downright petty witchhunt in that light.
Societies have rejected homosexual behavior for centuries. Why is there now a push to make this behavior acceptable now?
Someone with some common sense:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
Well, the posts here are about what I would expect on /. Denigrate someone for their thoughts and convictions (be they right or wrong, which is sbujective). How about merit over personal convictions. Looks to me like the long arm of Google and it's Yahoo minion strike again. I am glad that I don't need them. Too bad I like FireFox, but that may change also
Read your comments folks. Your prejudices and biases and intolerance are as bad or worse than what the man has been accused of. Might as well tar and feather him while you are at it.
So many of you equating him(and his type) to Hitler or some such thing need to look inwards.
It's actually a serious argument:
There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.
The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.
The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In support of Eich, and in opposition to fag marriage.
"Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits."
You're half right. This isn't about forcing acceptance. It's about forcing equal treatment under law. It's a little thing called "personal freedom". You can be critical of gays and of gays getting married all you want. The minute you try to use the government to force your beliefs on other, by denying them the same choices everyone else has, however, you've stepped across the line into the "anti-freedom" camp. When you do that, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You rightfully deserve scorn and boycotts and the label of "bigot". If Eich doesn't like gays getting married, fine he can talk about what he thinks and try to persuade people. That's not what he did though, is it? He worked to try to force his view on others by controlling their actions with legislation.
"If the gay community and it's supporters put as much effort into really creating equality for all, instead of selfishly grabbing benefits for themselves..."
Umm, grabbing benefits everyone else has IS creating equality for all. All your attitudes are a rehash of the same bullshit we heard about interracial marriage and marriage for non-christians. Go back to the stone age already.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It fascinates me how many people want to stifle those they disagree with; are willing to put up with the chilling effects.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Right, in the same way that you can be personally opposed to abortion but would not support any attempts to restrict it.
"It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."
He also wrote: "While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument.."
Clearly they forgot that part.
The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
This is culture war, not common sense. They want to legalize gay marriage so that they have a way of smashing marriage and traditional values.
It has nothing to do with "tolerance." This is intolerance of the majority, intolerance of history, and hatred of normalcy by a group that wants to seize power.
This is the same group that has traditionally run nations into the ground.
Futurist Traditionalism
There's a difference between social pressure against a culture and getting someone fired because they publicly disagreed with you. You personify the problem with the right wing.
"The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have."
As opposed to pretty much the christian which think they have a god given right (pun intended) to impose their moral value on people, among others things by refusing those people either the same right as others (gay marriage) or by imposing their moral view to stops some type of operation (abortion) or by imposing their religious view in classrooms (creationism in sheep fell - ID), or even by trying to sneak prayer and religion in government stuff like classroom, courtroom. As opposed to the people which want to be inclusive in rights. Welp. The irony burns deeply in that one.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I have a suspicion that the whole "Prop 8 support" thing is a smokescreen for the real reason he stepped down. It makes a great bone to support to the LGBT crowd and let's them have a "win."
However, three members the Mozilla board quit after Eich was named CEO - and they did that before the OKCupid stuff and have said it was entirely unrelated to his support for Prop 8. (Apparently one was planning on quitting after the CEO selection anyway, but the reasons for the other two leaving aren't known.)
So it's entirely possible that Eich left less over the Prop 8 stuff and more over internal politics. Apparently there was a group inside Mozilla that wanted an outside CEO to be named in order to better monetize Mozilla. (And if that's the case, losing Eich may be the worst thing that's ever happened to Mozilla.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Firefox is gay.
It seems crap false equivalencies are all the rage these days. Do tell how not-even-a-boycott of a consumer product is on the same planet as legalized discrimination against a minority. If there was a not-even-a-boycott against Godfather's pizzas because of Herman Caine's harassment towards woman, would you be comparing it to Jim Crow?
If not, why not?
Did you hate the idea of putting businesses out of business and workers out of jobs because of consumer boycotts against legalized discrimination? If not, why not? Now before someone complains that Prop 8 isn't Apartheid, remember that not-even-a-boycott of a browser isn't remotely close to personal discrimination against Eich because he's a minority.
I decided to remove Firefox from my computers (work and home) in the last 24 hours because I think Brendan was not treated fairly. I have always used multiple browsers at the same time, so its not a big deal and I'm find out about some other browsers I didn't know about.
That would only be hypocritical if their problem was with Eich's donations to individual candidates. But the opposition I've seen is to the specific donation to the proponents of Proposition 8.
It's quite easy to recognize that a person won't necessarily agree with every position a politician or candidate has, while seeing a specific endorsement to a deliberate agenda group as substantially different.
It's not just that you live a long time with somebody - both parties also have to agree to the concept of being married. If you have a roommate for 20 years you're not suddenly married to him/her. You have to acknowledge and act as a married couple.
Link for those still comparing a man marrying another man to a man marrying a dog, or in your case, a horse.
This is abso-fucking-lutely ri-goddamn-diculous. So many of these organizations bitching about Mozilla are relying on Javascript! I can't wrap my head around such stupidity. It's bad to use a web browser Mozilla created far before they hired a guy who donated his own money to Prop 8, but you can use a programming language he created just because you can't do business without it? Kick rocks. They guy is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of those assholes.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Campaign: Work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
So the humanist/atheist/leftist/non-christian-religion arguments (rarely) and snark (mostly) against Christianity aren't a campaign. They are a bunch of people giving their opinion.
Unless you can show me Letsattackchristianityonslashdot.com where they get together and organize and set anti-christian goals.
So here's my (not part of a campaign) snark against Christians: You lot are paranoid!
Mozilla is not a public company. It is a 501C3 tax exempt non profit and its wholly owned taxable subsidiary. Our stockholders are the people of the world. Our decisions are based on maximizing the value of the Internet for the benefit of everyone everywhere, especially those who lack representation from the giant institutional multinational publicly traded corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft.
So long as the state isn't acting for or against anyone, I see no problems. If public outrage forces someone to step down because of a political view, more power to the people.
Eich was not fired. He chose to resign. Maybe he did so because he cares about the foundation and didn't want to be a distraction. Maybe he was told he'd better resign or they would lose their funding and have to lay everyone off. We don't know, but the insinuations of the original story are out of line for implying so. The truth is we just don't know.
This isn't some free speech issue or some form of inquisition trying to purge the unbelievers.
Eich chose to wade into a controversial issue by making political donations (after all, a conservative majority of SCOTUS claims money == speech). Those "free speech" statements offended a bunch of people and he chose to resign rather than drag the non-profit Mozilla foundation through an ordeal over it.
Anyone in a leadership position is certainly free to make any statements or support any political cause they want. Employees, customers/donors, etc are also free to loudly complain or refuse to associate with the organization if they disagree. That comes with the territory. We wouldn't give Eich a pass if he were sending checks to neo-Nazi organizations. A leader always takes a risk that they'll piss people off by taking a stance. He was CTO of Mozilla at the time, he knew what the consequences could be and made the donation anyway.
A few decades ago it was accepted that blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. Even some people who campaigned for civil rights still held such a view. If Eich were donating to a group promoting a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages almost none of you would be wringing your hands over free speech. Everyone would laugh at him for being a dumbass and move on with their lives.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Even if someone faces no offical sanctions for speaking out, they can certainly be excluded socially, even to the point of being driven out of the organization. That's how human group dynamics have always worked since we were grunting at each other and throwing pointy sticks.
Furthermore, technology has always been intertwined with personalities, politics, and the like. Only very rarely is it always 100% about the pure technology. You can write the best code in the world but if you can't play nice with others you run the risk of your code languishing in obscurity.
Social norms are changing; you can change with them, you can keep your mouth shut about it, or you can fight for the status quo. Each of those courses of action has risk associated with them. Eich chose to fight for the status quo, then chose to stick by his guns when it pissed a lot of people off, including a lot of the very people his organization depends on to contribute money and code from their own good will! That has consequences and it always has.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time.
Were these donation tied specifically to this issue? I don't recall Barack Obama's 2008 campaign being based around opposition to gay marriage, but rather that there were dozens of issues and opinions in play. If you only donate to candidates that you agree with on every single issue, you will probably be holding on to your money for a very long time.
There's also the lesser of two evils aspect. If one candidate is not real supportive of gay marriage, but the other candidate(s) thinks gays should be burnt at the stake, then the first one doesn't look as bad.
So much for a free country? Load of rubbish, america is not free. Pro-gays are the new nazis.
Your entire post is a tour force in willful ignorance and false equivilancies, but I'll just respond to the first point here.
More like it's no longer socially acceptable to be bigoted towards gays, any more than it is socially acceptable to be bigoted towards Jews or blacks. If this were 1960, would you be defending Eich if he had donated a thousand dollars towards defending Jim Crow?
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Is Glenn Beck writing the summaries now?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I get scared as hell when I see people expressing themselves with this kind of tone in public and thinking there's nothing wrong with it.
exercise his rights and not see things exactly as he is supposed to! its simply intolerable that he not accept the voting and political opinion standards of the technology sector and as such he needs to be punished!
who is intolerant here exactly?
well, on the left, its not okay to exclude anyone-- unless they're republican or christian or a capitalist or hold a slightly different view than i do-- then, then they need to be excluded and burnt at the stake, because theyre intolerable obviously. of course, that this makes the left more or less the same as the right with just different adjectives for different nouns is irrelevant, the left is correct and therefor its behavior is okay! its goverened by the lefts decision on whats reason and not something arbitrary and immutable like god! geez, dont people just get it, its okay to discriminate so long as its for political reasons
like your job because you vote differently than the party deems acceptable!
Get a persona login and watch the townhall meeting that reveals the real truth.
Depends on if they all hypocritically run companies that claim to strive for diversity.
Eich was the very definition of diversity. With him being forced out that claim is a lie.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think Eich would have been considered for the post if he supported a hypothetical "Atheist" campaign that called Christians idiots and Christian leaders charlatans.
What utter bullshit. He would have been accepted without question, there are a lot of VERY vocal atheists throughout the tech industry. No-one would have said a word.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you guys want some respect, I recommend doing something about the batshit insane folks that seem to think that anything less than the biggest baddest gun that's manufactured is insufficient.
You simply do not understand that the guns most places try to ban first "assault rifles" are not the "biggest baddest" guns by far, but instead the most modular and among the easiest to shoot - the "bigness" off them helps reduce recoil making them much more pleasing to use.
And yet you see some reason to persist in claiming people shouldn't use a well-designed tool simply because you fear it because of size??
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different.
More like being tortured and killed for the homosexuals whom have been tortured and killed because they were homosexual.
Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Who, Google?
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-dart-will-rescue-browsers-from-javascript/
This post is garbage.
"I got an idea! Let's ask a loaded question and answer it with little more than conjecture."
Let the circle-jerk ensue.
Way to slide further into irrelevance by pushing gossip and bullshit, timothy.
OP, you're a shit head.
Married couples in most of the US pay higher taxes than they'd pay if they were single and filing as two individuals. The tax code USED to encourage marriage (in large part because married couples tended to take better care of each other and their kids than the unmarried, thus costing government less) but that's a thing of the past.
And what's with the vile racism you are spreading? Being black (a matter of genetics) has nothing in common with being a sexual deviant; there is no gay gene. Every time some supporter of gay rights equates this with race it's as bigoted against blacks as equating any other behavior that large parts of society frowns upon with being black. Are you going to equate shoplifting with being black? Is being black, in your mind, similar to using drugs? Pick some other group to use in your gay fight, black people have been used enough.
What I don't get is why. I mean, we are talking about a job? This is Mozilla right? They make a web browser? As much as I disagree with him on gay marriage (hell, the last wedding I went to had two grooms) I really don't think making a political contribution should cost a person a job.
I mean, I could understand if he actually was a politician, yes, they should be fired for their political statements and beliefs, but, wtf does it have to do with producing a browser? If it was about some policy he was pushing for at the company that is one thing but.... for a campaign donation, to a cause that lost and is over with?
I mean, he didn't come out and say he was going to make the company ignore the law and refuse to acknowledge same sex spouses of their employees? Did I miss that? because, this seems to me like being sore winners.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If the gay community and it's supporters put as much effort into really creating equality for all, instead of selfishly grabbing benefits for themselves, they would probably find a lot more support and eliminate a lot of the divisive tones that fight their desire to get the same entitlements current married couples have.
I agree with you pretty much in entirety. Although you place all the blame on "the gay community" as if it is noone's fault for using the existing state of things to grab benefits for themselves.
Other than that, you are spot on. However, "the gay community" and "the straight community" and "everyone" needs to work to fight entitlements.
Your implication is "the gay community" should work to take away entitlements from others. That sounds great, but really, the ones getting unfair entitlements need to stop being so greedy themselves, come to terms with what they are doing, and work together with others.
When people DO exactly what you say, the response is "why are you redefining marriage?" "why are you taking away my rights?" That is what needs to change.
Kara Swisher. The clueless bitch sitting next to Mossberg in interviews, interrupting him or his guests with stupid comments from time to time. Now I remember...
Intolerance is intolerance. And it will always exist. Mr Eich did not beat up gays, he simply exercised his right to an opinion. He exercised that right within the bounds of the law, as a proper citizen should. He was subsequently bullied out of a job.
Here is how it should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The WSJ reports that neither Mozilla nor Google would address the $1B elephant in the room: "Mozilla is negotiating with Google Inc. to renew a search contract that provides most of its revenue. Google is openly supportive of gay rights, so it may have been difficult to renew such a deal with Mr. Eich at the helm, said a former Mozilla insider. Mozilla and Google declined to comment on the negotiations."
OK lets get back to the original question. Do I believe Google bullied Eich into resigning? I think perhaps a better question would be who doesn't? The answer is so obvious they have done everything but put up a neon sign. And since everyone seems so concerned in making the issue about his believe in prop 8, OK. I'll give you MY opinion. EVERYONE deserves the same rights. It is justice for ALL, not except Bob over there. People do not just wake up one day and go "Hey think I'll be gay today!". They are born with that sexual preference. Everyone should be treated fairly and I don't think Mr Eich has been.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
and the most interesting thing, the Hitler/Nazi reference is appropriate, The Nazi's were the ones that "perfected" rockets as a method of a payload delivery, without which we would have never made it to the moon. Does that mean we should have accepted their beliefs as our own just because of what they offered technologically? Hell no.
..and certainly they have ways of nailing any Firefox behind a mixnet. The financier of all this has very close ties to those who attempt to keep a file on 100% of people.
There is no other side to the discussion. If this were talking about someone who was openly Racist or Antisemitic there wouldn't even BE a discussion at all.
You're not being discriminated against because you aren't married because you DO have the option to marry, something the greater majority of Gays and Lesbians simply do not have, even now with marriage in place in some states and not in others. There is absolutely a HUGE difference in simply living together and being married, over 1050 rights, responsibilities and obligations, which you shrug off as unimportant and odds are wouldn't even have to consider because they were always there for you regardless, your biological attraction is sanctioned by society. Mine isn't. Your red herrings are an interesting distraction but that's all they are, a distraction, not truth nor are they reality. You have the very same right that "we" are fighting for and cast it away, yet demand the rights without doing what it takes to qualify and have the balls to call someone else selfish? There's an entire selection of lawyers out there, that's what they do, draw up papers like Power of Attorney, Living Will, and a couple of dozen other "partnership" type of contracts. Make use of them. Don't want to shell out those kinds of bucks for all that stuff? Get Married. Having sex, not having sex? Not my problem. "Divisive tones"? You flatter yourself.
Let me guess: you think you're the first person to come up with this, and that it's clever. Let me disabuse you of both those notions. This is a common internet trope, the "inverse Godwin."
Slavery has taken many forms. In the Western tradition, it was reserved for prisoners of war who served a kind of indentured servitude. It was part of the feudal system and was thus managed by social, not governmental forces. Chattel slavery -- which is what you're speaking of -- came about when this system was overthrown.
In other words, not only did your argument fail, but you made my point for me.
Futurist Traditionalism
He did not beat up gays. He did something much worse: Monetarily supporting a law that would make gays less-than-human. How so? Equality under the law is a human right. Refusing gays access to the laws pertaining to marriage means they no longer have equality under the law, thus they don't have full human rights. And only humans have human rights.
As for the whole "political donations is free speech" idea: Try donating to Al Qaeda, and see if donating to an organization that takes action is considered speech or action.
He funded an organisation which tried to deny fundamental rights to people. His opinion was never stifled. He has a right to an opinion, but not to a job. He was the bully, not those who don't like injustice.
Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!
How many times do you see this under beta compared to the previous version?
Obligatory Simpsons
two of them were on their way out whereas 1 (33% of resigners 16.6% of the board.) resigned over the choice of CEO. He was removed in a boardroom coup by the losing faction because they knew they could manipulate a hysterical gay lobby by pointing out the Prop 8 donation.
It is the current batch of homophobic religious nuts that are trying to redefine things. The Christian church had same sex vows almost a thousand years ago.
Zontar's "touched in the head" by schizophrenic multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... now go take those meds, you whacko!
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.
Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!
---
You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...
---
Why, Lastly?
You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):
"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!
(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)
... apk
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.
Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!
---
You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...
---
Why, Lastly?
You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):
"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!
(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)
... apk