But it will give him legal privileges that are otherwise unobtainable. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care whether you approve of him or not -- he starts caring when you try to push laws to deny him that.
They hate people like you trying to change the definition of "normal".
If "but that's the way it's always been!" is the only argument you've got, you're no different from people who would deny women the right to vote or make interracial marriage illegal.
Eich invented Javascript.
Fuck that guy, then, that's way worse than just donating a wad of cash to an increasingly irrelevant hate group.
I suggest that you stop using Javascript and all pages with Javascript on it including Slashdot.
If you have such a problem with gay people, I suggest you stop using computers. Surely you're familiar with Alan Turing?
He did nothing wrong. He used his own personal funds to support something that the majority of voters in California also supported.
Let me make sure I'm getting this right. Are you saying that if a majority of people support something, it isn't wrong? Do I even need to start making the obligatory historical references?
I have never seen such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry until I saw how he was treated for expressing his absolutely-protected right to freedom of speech and expression.
Seriously? What exactly did they do to him? As far as I can tell, they complained loudly on the internet. Also, some people signed a petition saying they wouldn't use Firefox as long as he represented it. That's it.
He hasn't been physically harassed. He wasn't fired; he chose to step down. Heck, nobody even donated money to an organization dedicated to stripping his legal rights away. That would be some bigotry!
But you have never seen "such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry"? Where do you live?
Hmm interesting logic, do you think of it as evolution in action? Once homosexuals are no longer living double lives, in a few generations the number of homosexuals will decrease by an order of magnitude.
Sexuality is not a trait that is passed down from parent to child. Heterosexual parents have homosexual kids all the time (and the other way around, too).
Also, that's not how evolution works. It's not something that happens to an individual, it's a process that a species goes through. Individuals who don't reproduce still influence the evolution of their species by affecting who reproduces and which traits are valuable, and it takes far more than just a few generations.
I for one want a society where people are free to choose what to beleive without persecution, even if it happens not to match some PeeCee agenda.
You sure are obsessed with "persecution" and some "PeeCee agenda." Please show me where this guy was actually persecuted. From what I can tell, here's what happened: 1) Lots of people vocally objected to his actions. 2) He willingly stepped down from his position.
At no point did anybody force him to do anything. He is still free to say and do whatever he wants. People are not obligated to support a company if that company's CEO has beliefs they disagree with. He could have easily just kept going and ignored his opposition.
If OkCupid was actually doing more than just attention-seeking, they would've boycotted Javascript
What alternatives are there for browser-side scripting other than Javascript? Demonstrate a viable one and you'll have people flocking to it in droves.
without being persecuted for that or even loosing their job.
Vocally objecting to something somebody does isn't persecution, and he chose to step down from his job. He didn't even try to smooth things over with the people who were upset.
This is true even if their beleifs happen not to be the same PeeCee bullshit that the liberals and media are trying to opressively brainwash everyone with.
Apparently in this thread, asserting that it's wrong to push legislation that strips rights away from an entire class of people is "PeeCee bullshit."
You seem to be confused. People aren't throwing a fit because he's Christian (I don't know if that's even been confirmed anywhere), people are throwing a fit because he donated money to a group that pushes anti-gay legislation.
Find me an American company with a pro-equality position that has a Muslim CEO who supports anti-gay legislation, and I'll find you people who oppose him.
If you think there's a lack of general anti-Muslim rhetoric on the internet, you must be new here. Welcome.
Not sure you know what an ad hominem is. I'm not attacking the author of that post at all.
Where is this abhorrent belief here? He thinks it wrong that same-sex couples should be allowed to gain legally married status. Apart from anything else, that view coincides with what Christian and most other religious beliefs teach.
Yep, that's it. I'll give you that other Abrahamic religions are pretty similar, but what other families of religions have such a hate-on for homosexuality? Honestly, though, I don't really even care what they think. The source of his belief is irrelevant.
If we assume everyone in the US who claims to be Christian acutally beleives the teachings/priniciples of their own religion
You shouldn't assume that. Given that gay marriage is legal in many states and the rate at which it's being accepted is spreading increasingly quickly, I doubt that's the case at all. Besides, the USA's government isn't religious in nature, anyway, so why should its legislation be based on Christian teachings?
That means according to you over 75% of all Americans hold beleifs abhorent enough to be punshed by loss of their jobs.
Wow, this is a real stretch. First, Eich wasn't "punished" by the loss of his job, he stepped down voluntarily.
Second, I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to force it on other people. When you donate money to groups that try to push laws that oppress others based on those beliefs, though, that's when it crosses the line, and then I care.
But even if you have such beliefs and donate money to push them, no, I don't think you should be fired. But if enough people find your beliefs offensive enough to boycott your company and hurt its bottom line, then that means you get to pick between either staying the captain of a sinking ship or resigning, and I think that's perfectly acceptable.
Yes, really. Maybe you should look up "crucified" in the dictionary? Being painfully tortured to death is a far cry from stepping down from a leadership position due to public pressure. Even trying to make that into a metaphor is insulting and deceptive.
He will probably never get another shot at being a CEO anywhere else because of this.
Do you live in America? There are plenty of places who still hire bigots. He could probably get snapped right up by Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A.
Sounds like the LGBT community has finally caught up to the Catholic Church of the 1600s. Congratulations./golfclap
You're saying the LGBT community threatened him with physical torture and imprisoned him for life? How horrible. Or are you still pushing this false equivalence thing as far as you can go?
The last time I checked America was a country of free speech.
It still is. The government has done absolutely nothing about this issue. You know the first amendment is about restrictions on what the government can do, not private citizens, right?
Then you get fired for expressing your opinion.
He didn't get fired, he chose to step down.
He contributed $1000 to a campaign opposing gay marriage. It doesn't mean that the guy hates gays.
"I don't hate gays, I just want them to be treated as second-class citizens and be denied rights and privileges and I'm willing to donate a chunk of money to people who are fighting to do that. But I don't hate them." Sure, whatever.
The point is that the man should be free to voice his opinion.
He is! And other people are free to not use a product that he represents, and they are free to tell everybody why they're doing so. That is what happened here. Nobody's freedoms have been impinged here, and certainly not by the government.
If you want general OS and application usage, you'll have to copy over all the data from your main disk first, which is going to take some time, and if anything changes, you'd need to sync it back to your main disk, which will take more time, and you're at risk of losing data if you have an unexpected shutdown. An SSD is way better for that kind of task.
It's completely unsuitable for any kind of long-term storage, of course.
You could use it for temporary files for applications like Photoshop... which is a good use of it, but very situational.
Using it as a swap disk would just be silly when you could just deactivate the ramdisk and have all that RAM again.
Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?
First of all, you don't have the right to remain in a job no matter what. Companies are well within their rights to fire you if you're hurting their bottom line. Eich's religion is not the issue here -- believe it or not, the majority of employed workers in the USA consider themselves Christians.
But even if you did have that right, he wasn't denied it. He chose to step down.
I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
Fortunately, he didn't get crucified. People were just being vocal about the fact that they wouldn't use a product he represented. Do you think that's unfair? Should people be required to shut up and keep using something even if they don't want to support him?
Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?
When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?
While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.
Why do so many people suggest newfangled technologies like FTP? I can understand it for Windows users, but Linux users should be able to just use netcat.
it is NOT a sin to BE homosexual at all.. it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts - whether one is homosexual or not.
So what you're saying is that it's ok to be attracted to members of the same sex; you only deserve to be tortured eternally if you are physically intimate with somebody you love.
Do you see how people might still be upset about that?
What does what you're saying even have to do with the topic at hand?
They literally want to censor dissident voices out of existence by prohibiting them in advance of social changes
No they don't, if by "they" you mean OkCupid. They want you to support products produced by companies whose views agree with theirs (and presumably their customers'). If you don't want to do that? Fine, whatever, they're not stopping you. And at no point do they ever call for censoring.
not wait for social changes to actually drive that change
What you're seeing are the social changes that are driving that change. You're just flailing about trying to resist it.
In the meantime, no parent ever said, "I'm so glad my child turned out gay!"
But plenty of parents have said, "I'm so glad my child is comfortable with their own identity!"
Well, we could argue about whether it's actually any good or not -- I'll point out that critic reviews have been pretty middling, which is rather bad for an AAA game. Even if it is, the entire FFXIII is completely different from the older FF games, and so it's not a particular good way to appeal to the "people that got the series there in the first place", as the original poster put it.
Considering that FFXI was (and still is) wildly successful and FFXIII has been a series of disappointments, I'm not sure how well that would've worked out for them.
(also, the game you're looking for is Bravely Default)
How many games actually promote violence against women? There are games that depict acts of violence with women on the receiving end, but games that depict that as a good thing seem quite rare.
Slashdot Mirror
your piece of paper will not give you legitimacy.
But it will give him legal privileges that are otherwise unobtainable. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care whether you approve of him or not -- he starts caring when you try to push laws to deny him that.
They hate people like you trying to change the definition of "normal".
If "but that's the way it's always been!" is the only argument you've got, you're no different from people who would deny women the right to vote or make interracial marriage illegal.
Eich invented Javascript.
Fuck that guy, then, that's way worse than just donating a wad of cash to an increasingly irrelevant hate group.
I suggest that you stop using Javascript and all pages with Javascript on it including Slashdot.
If you have such a problem with gay people, I suggest you stop using computers. Surely you're familiar with Alan Turing?
Why do you believe he was asked to resign? Everything I've seen indicates that this was his decision.
and that is perfectly fine. The issue is not with you its with the bigots demanding he be fired or step down who I have issue with
So... free speech is great as long as people are only saying things you agree with?
He did nothing wrong. He used his own personal funds to support something that the majority of voters in California also supported.
Let me make sure I'm getting this right. Are you saying that if a majority of people support something, it isn't wrong? Do I even need to start making the obligatory historical references?
I have never seen such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry until I saw how he was treated for expressing his absolutely-protected right to freedom of speech and expression.
Seriously? What exactly did they do to him? As far as I can tell, they complained loudly on the internet. Also, some people signed a petition saying they wouldn't use Firefox as long as he represented it. That's it.
He hasn't been physically harassed. He wasn't fired; he chose to step down. Heck, nobody even donated money to an organization dedicated to stripping his legal rights away. That would be some bigotry!
But you have never seen "such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry"? Where do you live?
Hmm interesting logic, do you think of it as evolution in action? Once homosexuals are no longer living double lives, in a few generations the number of homosexuals will decrease by an order of magnitude.
Sexuality is not a trait that is passed down from parent to child. Heterosexual parents have homosexual kids all the time (and the other way around, too).
Also, that's not how evolution works. It's not something that happens to an individual, it's a process that a species goes through. Individuals who don't reproduce still influence the evolution of their species by affecting who reproduces and which traits are valuable, and it takes far more than just a few generations.
I for one want a society where people are free to choose what to beleive without persecution, even if it happens not to match some PeeCee agenda.
You sure are obsessed with "persecution" and some "PeeCee agenda." Please show me where this guy was actually persecuted. From what I can tell, here's what happened:
1) Lots of people vocally objected to his actions.
2) He willingly stepped down from his position.
At no point did anybody force him to do anything. He is still free to say and do whatever he wants. People are not obligated to support a company if that company's CEO has beliefs they disagree with. He could have easily just kept going and ignored his opposition.
If OkCupid was actually doing more than just attention-seeking, they would've boycotted Javascript
What alternatives are there for browser-side scripting other than Javascript? Demonstrate a viable one and you'll have people flocking to it in droves.
without being persecuted for that or even loosing their job.
Vocally objecting to something somebody does isn't persecution, and he chose to step down from his job. He didn't even try to smooth things over with the people who were upset.
This is true even if their beleifs happen not to be the same PeeCee bullshit that the liberals and media are trying to opressively brainwash everyone with.
Apparently in this thread, asserting that it's wrong to push legislation that strips rights away from an entire class of people is "PeeCee bullshit."
You seem to be confused. People aren't throwing a fit because he's Christian (I don't know if that's even been confirmed anywhere), people are throwing a fit because he donated money to a group that pushes anti-gay legislation.
Find me an American company with a pro-equality position that has a Muslim CEO who supports anti-gay legislation, and I'll find you people who oppose him.
If you think there's a lack of general anti-Muslim rhetoric on the internet, you must be new here. Welcome.
Nice use of ad-hominems there bro.
Not sure you know what an ad hominem is. I'm not attacking the author of that post at all.
Where is this abhorrent belief here? He thinks it wrong that same-sex couples should be allowed to gain legally married status. Apart from anything else, that view coincides with what Christian and most other religious beliefs teach.
Yep, that's it. I'll give you that other Abrahamic religions are pretty similar, but what other families of religions have such a hate-on for homosexuality? Honestly, though, I don't really even care what they think. The source of his belief is irrelevant.
If we assume everyone in the US who claims to be Christian acutally beleives the teachings/priniciples of their own religion
You shouldn't assume that. Given that gay marriage is legal in many states and the rate at which it's being accepted is spreading increasingly quickly, I doubt that's the case at all. Besides, the USA's government isn't religious in nature, anyway, so why should its legislation be based on Christian teachings?
That means according to you over 75% of all Americans hold beleifs abhorent enough to be punshed by loss of their jobs.
Wow, this is a real stretch. First, Eich wasn't "punished" by the loss of his job, he stepped down voluntarily.
Second, I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to force it on other people. When you donate money to groups that try to push laws that oppress others based on those beliefs, though, that's when it crosses the line, and then I care.
But even if you have such beliefs and donate money to push them, no, I don't think you should be fired. But if enough people find your beliefs offensive enough to boycott your company and hurt its bottom line, then that means you get to pick between either staying the captain of a sinking ship or resigning, and I think that's perfectly acceptable.
Yes, really. Maybe you should look up "crucified" in the dictionary? Being painfully tortured to death is a far cry from stepping down from a leadership position due to public pressure. Even trying to make that into a metaphor is insulting and deceptive.
He will probably never get another shot at being a CEO anywhere else because of this.
Do you live in America? There are plenty of places who still hire bigots. He could probably get snapped right up by Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A.
Sounds like the LGBT community has finally caught up to the Catholic Church of the 1600s. Congratulations. /golfclap
You're saying the LGBT community threatened him with physical torture and imprisoned him for life? How horrible. Or are you still pushing this false equivalence thing as far as you can go?
The last time I checked America was a country of free speech.
It still is. The government has done absolutely nothing about this issue. You know the first amendment is about restrictions on what the government can do, not private citizens, right?
Then you get fired for expressing your opinion.
He didn't get fired, he chose to step down.
He contributed $1000 to a campaign opposing gay marriage. It doesn't mean that the guy hates gays.
"I don't hate gays, I just want them to be treated as second-class citizens and be denied rights and privileges and I'm willing to donate a chunk of money to people who are fighting to do that. But I don't hate them." Sure, whatever.
The point is that the man should be free to voice his opinion.
He is! And other people are free to not use a product that he represents, and they are free to tell everybody why they're doing so. That is what happened here. Nobody's freedoms have been impinged here, and certainly not by the government.
Use it as a ramdisk for what, though?
If you want general OS and application usage, you'll have to copy over all the data from your main disk first, which is going to take some time, and if anything changes, you'd need to sync it back to your main disk, which will take more time, and you're at risk of losing data if you have an unexpected shutdown. An SSD is way better for that kind of task.
It's completely unsuitable for any kind of long-term storage, of course.
You could use it for temporary files for applications like Photoshop... which is a good use of it, but very situational.
Using it as a swap disk would just be silly when you could just deactivate the ramdisk and have all that RAM again.
Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?
First of all, you don't have the right to remain in a job no matter what. Companies are well within their rights to fire you if you're hurting their bottom line. Eich's religion is not the issue here -- believe it or not, the majority of employed workers in the USA consider themselves Christians.
But even if you did have that right, he wasn't denied it. He chose to step down.
I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
Fortunately, he didn't get crucified. People were just being vocal about the fact that they wouldn't use a product he represented. Do you think that's unfair? Should people be required to shut up and keep using something even if they don't want to support him?
Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?
When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?
While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.
Why do so many people suggest newfangled technologies like FTP? I can understand it for Windows users, but Linux users should be able to just use netcat.
it is NOT a sin to BE homosexual at all.. it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts - whether one is homosexual or not.
So what you're saying is that it's ok to be attracted to members of the same sex; you only deserve to be tortured eternally if you are physically intimate with somebody you love.
Do you see how people might still be upset about that?
Because the people who "preach tolerance" are advocating tolerance of things that don't hurt anybody.
You're gay? Cool, whatever. You want to create legislation that makes gay people into second-class citizens? You're an asshole.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
What does what you're saying even have to do with the topic at hand?
They literally want to censor dissident voices out of existence by prohibiting them in advance of social changes
No they don't, if by "they" you mean OkCupid. They want you to support products produced by companies whose views agree with theirs (and presumably their customers'). If you don't want to do that? Fine, whatever, they're not stopping you. And at no point do they ever call for censoring.
not wait for social changes to actually drive that change
What you're seeing are the social changes that are driving that change. You're just flailing about trying to resist it.
In the meantime, no parent ever said, "I'm so glad my child turned out gay!"
But plenty of parents have said, "I'm so glad my child is comfortable with their own identity!"
Because they're popular and sell well.
Well, we could argue about whether it's actually any good or not -- I'll point out that critic reviews have been pretty middling, which is rather bad for an AAA game. Even if it is, the entire FFXIII is completely different from the older FF games, and so it's not a particular good way to appeal to the "people that got the series there in the first place", as the original poster put it.
Considering that FFXI was (and still is) wildly successful and FFXIII has been a series of disappointments, I'm not sure how well that would've worked out for them.
(also, the game you're looking for is Bravely Default)
How many games actually promote violence against women? There are games that depict acts of violence with women on the receiving end, but games that depict that as a good thing seem quite rare.