Firstly, because of your Ken Ham's there are two sciences argument. And secondly, because of your statement of "they're not "truth" without faith.". I think you mean faith in science, like religious faith. Science is a method to search and gain knowledge, so there is only one scientific method, the scientific method. The scientific method makes use of experiments to falsify hypothesis and to observe nature. That is the case in both your experiment of the health issue of cigarettes smoking and the question of the age of the universe.
There are something like established theories in science. We would not make any progress if we not draw a line somewhere and say "we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt". And the topics in the survey are all established theories. For example, the age of the earth was determined of 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%). That means that scientists are 99% certain that the age is in fact between 4.59 and 4.49 billion years old. The age of the universe is determined as 13.798±0.037 billion years. That means that scientists are 99.7% certain that the age of the universe is in fact between 13.835 and 13.761 billion years old. What do you call a certainty of 99% or 99.7%? I call that certain, if we can be certain of anything at all.
You sir are an idiot. And your mod +5 insightful shows the scientific illiteracy even on Slashdot. There is only one scientific method, and it contains "testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis", also called theories. Yes we do have only one universe and only one earth, but what makes a scientific theory successful is a) the explanatory power and b) testable predictions. How can we test that the earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old? For example by searching for old rocks and date them with the radioactive dating methods (no there is not just carbon-14, Wikipedia lists over 9 methods[1]) and geologists actively trying to find older rocks to push the limit of the age of the earth. Then we confirmed the age of the solar system (4.568 billion years)[4] and it confirms the age of the earth. Furthermore, we actually can see now protoplanetery disks (thanks to the hubble space telescope)[2] that confirms our theory of how a solar systems are formed. Please see How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know? [3]
The scientific method deals with models. There are no truths, there are best explanations. Only religion deals with truths and for that you do need faith. But science makes correct predictions, whereas religious "prophecies" are all failures.
I have zero apples, which one will produce an apple seed to grow a tree.
Yes, nature is fascinating. Only because we can't grasp such supposedly impossible behaviour with our tiny mammalian brains, it does not mean that it can't be.
The article itself doesn't imply what the summary says, but the summary here makes the article seem like nonsense.
Not really, quantum mechanics behave that way. Nothing -> matter, space and time. Your analogy with zero apples is good.
Everything is a model, that is the problem of hard solipsism. But scientific models also make predictions.
Laws are not "something", because laws do not exist physically. Natural laws are concepts of how nature behaves. Let us imagine an observer outside of nature and she tries to observe the part of nature that have no matter, no space and no time. That observer will see that this part of nature that was literally nothing spontaneously (out of nothing) pops out matter, space and time. Since time does not existed before the spontaneously generation of time, it does not matter how long the observer was sitting there to observe the spontaneous generation. Also, since space did not existed, it does not matter what part of nature the observer watched.
Natural laws do not govern anything. Natural laws are descriptive laws, they describe how nature behaves. As such, the laws do not exist physically, they are an abstract concept. Nature behaves like nature behaves, with or without natural laws.
How do you call no matter, no space and no time? Physicist (and me personally) are not really concerned what labels you give to a set of properties (or the lack of properties). Quantum physics shows that the philosophical nothing is not possible in nature, that means that any argument "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?" is nonsensical. The answer is, because nothing is not possible in nature, therefore we have something and not nothing.
You could also ask, why the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle is Pi and not 5. Because in nature it is not possible to draw a circle that have any other ratio. Nature is the ultimate arbiter of what is possible and what is not possible. If nothingness is not possible, then nothingness will not exist.
So science have answered the question "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?". It's your problem if you don't like the answer.
Did she supported any bills that were discriminatory? If yes, then I would say that she deserves the same backslash as Mr. Eich. Of course, it's not to be to decide but from the homosexual community. From the short quote I can't decide, because same-sex marriage was never about the marriage itself but the recognition of the union from the government. Basically, I would agree with Rice on this particular quote.
Lets see what the quote says: "I don’t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country." - Great, I wish Mr. Eich would think the same way. " I happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that. "That’s tradition, and I believe that that’s the right answer." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that. "But perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union. ” - I agree fully. The government should stay out of marriages and just recognize a union between people. The problem with Mr. Eich was that he went beyond his personal opinion and actively tried to deny rights to his fellow citizens.
Evolution describes a population, not individuals. Sure, some individuals were born with more human like traits, but those individuals have interbreed with other individuals that had probably less human like traits. Also there are dominant traits and recessive traits, see Mendelian inheritance laws. So to talk about individuals that were our first ancestors is just wrong. Evolution is a drift of a population, that generation after generation adapting to the environment by natural selection and accumulates traits that were advantageous in some way.
Onodera has avoided publicly announcing the new missile-intercept order so as not to put a chill on those talks, Japanese media said.
[about the order] the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Thank you very much anonymous source for betraying your country and make peace negations more difficult with an insane regime, that threatened many times a war against South Korea and to nuke Soul.
There are currently over 1000 right and privileges that married couples enjoy from the state. Mr. Eich supported a law that would withhold those rights and privileges to homosexual couples. How is that not damaging the LGBT community?
Married couples enjoy this kind of benefits: http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... * Tax Benefits * Estate Planning Benefits * Government Benefits * Employment Benefits * Medical Benefits * Death Benefits * Family Benefits * Housing Benefits * Consumer Benefits * and Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Mr. Eich and the other supporters of Prop 8. wants to take away all those benefits from homosexual couples, from people who are born differently as Mr. Eich. That makes him a bigot.
1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.
Irrelevant. Gay couples do not hold the view of male-female view of marriage. Government is also in the business to protect minorities from the majority.
4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.
That is why the government should stop the whole marriage business. It is too loaded with religious views and personal opinions. For the state it should just be a contract of union between two people. Then people are free to perform any ceremony they like and can call it marriage. Then the churches can reject the ceremony for gay couples if they wish to, and some private "priest" can perform marriage ceremonies.
It is not about employability, it is about the representation of a whole organization to clients and other stakeholders as the CEO. Mozilla is a non-profit organization, it relies heavily on donations. The choice of who represents Mozilla is of utter importance, and to have a CEO like Mr. Eich that supports a law that is suppose to discriminate about 10% of the population is not an advantage. The very appointment of Mr. Eich as the CEO was a mistake in the fist place. Maybe it was done only because of his technical knowledge, but a CEO is a political position. I could speculate that it would be less of an issue of Mr. Eich was appointed as the CTO (chief technology officer), or no issue at all if Mr. Eich stood as a regular employee.
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.
And your position is a position of equivocation, not ethics or morality. If I were to believe it was my moral duty to oppose same sex marriage and homosexual behavior (because of my religious beliefs), then by your position, I should attempt to shame every practicing homosexual I ever see, maybe call gay people at work and attempt to preach the "good word", and whatnot.
Sure, I agree, if that would be the world we live in. And this world you are describing was very real a few generations ego (50 to 100 years ego), until some very courageous people stood up against discrimination and changed the world for the better.
Back in Martin Luther days blacks were discriminated, it was normal for black to have less rights then white people. Technically blacks were Americans, but they were regarded as second class citizens. Until Martin Luther stood up and did what you describe as not proportional.
Mr. Eich's donation of $1000 was nothing, he was one bigot under many, until he became the CEO of Mozilla. What do you think would happen if Larry Page (the CEO of Google) would have donated the same amount to support Prop 8.? The Internet would be on fire. Not because of those $1000 (a small amount) but because Larry Page represents the biggest Internet based company. And now the most successful open source browser is represented by a bigot. I can very much understand those employees of Mozilla and OKCupid.com.
Trying to ruin someones professional life because of a $1000 donation they made to a cause you disagree with is completely out of proportion with their behavior.
You exaggerate. He was just asked to step down as the CEO. I don't think that anyone asked him to leave Mozilla.
Didn't you started the discussion asserting that Mozilla is somehow forced to act against the law of California? But now it's somehow not about rights, but about ethics? And I already stated my moral position on the issue: unethical behavior and laws should be called out and boycotted. Discriminatory laws are unethical. You are not agreeing with my moral position?
Those Christians would have their right to do so. Freedom of speech. Also you are pretending like some Christians are not doing exactly that what you are describing. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist Church, and those bigots who protest funerals of homosexuals? It's all legal what they are doing.
You are not convincing by repeating the same argument to me. Religious believes do not excuse any action. And the board of Mozilla would not fire him because of his religious believes but because his actions caused actual harm to Mozilla. You can't harm your company that you are supposed to represent as a CEO and then hide behind your religious believes.
I do not think your understanding of that law is correct. The board of a company have the right to chose a CEO whom they think can lead and represent the company. If the CEO was a bad choice, the board in their rights to fire him. Religious freedom do not excuse any action. What if the new CEO is a racist because of his religious believes and supports the KKK? You are saying that Mozilla could not fire him, even if his opinions would ruin the organization.
Unethical behavior should be called out and boycotted. The employees of Mozilla and OKCultip.com think that Mr. Eich supported an unethical law and they are in their rights to call out on it and OKCultip.com is in their rights to call a boycott.
I really don't understand why I even need to discuss that any unethical behavior should be called out and boycotted. We can discuss if a law that discriminate people that are born like they were born is unethical or not.
These activists are essentially trying to force Mozilla to violate California labor laws, the same labor laws which protect their own right to not be fired for their personal activism.
That is BS. The employees of Mozilla have asked Mr. Eich to step down. And OKCupid.com is asking to not to use FIrefox as long as Mr. Eich is the CEO. If Mr. Eich would have the best interest of Mozilla in mind he would step down as the CEO. Stepping down is a voluntary action, nobody threaten Mr. Eich and nobody should fire Mr. Eich because of his religious believes.
California is a State that recognizes that people have a legal right to participate in lawful activities outside of work without consequence to their job.
What the fuck does that have anything to do that private citizens calling out on his bigotry? Did anyone called the police to arrest Mr. Eich? No, those are private citizens that have asked him to step down as the CEO and a private company that asks visitors of their site to boycott Firefox.
You really need to realize the difference between the state and private citizens. The same protection of California to participate in lawful activities outside of work can equally be applied to anyone who calls Mr. Eich a bigot and to OKCupid.com.
You are an idiot. Homosexuality is genetic. 10% of sheep have a long stable gay relationship, for example. Being homosexual is universal among mammals. Here is a list of animals who show homosexual behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
The Christian believes that there IS an afterlife, and our job is to help as many people get there with us as they can by turning from ALL sins, and turning towards God.
And that is why Christians turn into bigots, like Mr. Eich. By assuming that it is your job to "help" people to follow your ideas. That is why I'm all for calling out on Mr. Eich and demanding from him to step down. Someone who wants to legislate what other people ought to be doing based on their religious believes should not represent an open source project like Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, because of your Ken Ham's there are two sciences argument. And secondly, because of your statement of "they're not "truth" without faith.". I think you mean faith in science, like religious faith. Science is a method to search and gain knowledge, so there is only one scientific method, the scientific method. The scientific method makes use of experiments to falsify hypothesis and to observe nature. That is the case in both your experiment of the health issue of cigarettes smoking and the question of the age of the universe.
There are something like established theories in science. We would not make any progress if we not draw a line somewhere and say "we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt". And the topics in the survey are all established theories. For example, the age of the earth was determined of 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%). That means that scientists are 99% certain that the age is in fact between 4.59 and 4.49 billion years old. The age of the universe is determined as 13.798±0.037 billion years. That means that scientists are 99.7% certain that the age of the universe is in fact between 13.835 and 13.761 billion years old. What do you call a certainty of 99% or 99.7%? I call that certain, if we can be certain of anything at all.
You sir are an idiot. And your mod +5 insightful shows the scientific illiteracy even on Slashdot. There is only one scientific method, and it contains "testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis", also called theories. Yes we do have only one universe and only one earth, but what makes a scientific theory successful is a) the explanatory power and b) testable predictions. How can we test that the earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old? For example by searching for old rocks and date them with the radioactive dating methods (no there is not just carbon-14, Wikipedia lists over 9 methods[1]) and geologists actively trying to find older rocks to push the limit of the age of the earth. Then we confirmed the age of the solar system (4.568 billion years)[4] and it confirms the age of the earth. Furthermore, we actually can see now protoplanetery disks (thanks to the hubble space telescope)[2] that confirms our theory of how a solar systems are formed. Please see How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know? [3]
The scientific method deals with models. There are no truths, there are best explanations. Only religion deals with truths and for that you do need faith. But science makes correct predictions, whereas religious "prophecies" are all failures.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
[4] http://www.universetoday.com/1...
I have zero apples, which one will produce an apple seed to grow a tree.
Yes, nature is fascinating. Only because we can't grasp such supposedly impossible behaviour with our tiny mammalian brains, it does not mean that it can't be.
The article itself doesn't imply what the summary says, but the summary here makes the article seem like nonsense.
Not really, quantum mechanics behave that way. Nothing -> matter, space and time. Your analogy with zero apples is good.
Everything is a model, that is the problem of hard solipsism. But scientific models also make predictions.
Laws are not "something", because laws do not exist physically. Natural laws are concepts of how nature behaves. Let us imagine an observer outside of nature and she tries to observe the part of nature that have no matter, no space and no time. That observer will see that this part of nature that was literally nothing spontaneously (out of nothing) pops out matter, space and time. Since time does not existed before the spontaneously generation of time, it does not matter how long the observer was sitting there to observe the spontaneous generation. Also, since space did not existed, it does not matter what part of nature the observer watched.
Natural laws do not govern anything. Natural laws are descriptive laws, they describe how nature behaves. As such, the laws do not exist physically, they are an abstract concept. Nature behaves like nature behaves, with or without natural laws.
What do you call no matter, no energy, no space and no time? I would think it's a pretty good nothing.
How do you call no matter, no space and no time? Physicist (and me personally) are not really concerned what labels you give to a set of properties (or the lack of properties). Quantum physics shows that the philosophical nothing is not possible in nature, that means that any argument "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?" is nonsensical. The answer is, because nothing is not possible in nature, therefore we have something and not nothing.
You could also ask, why the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle is Pi and not 5. Because in nature it is not possible to draw a circle that have any other ratio. Nature is the ultimate arbiter of what is possible and what is not possible. If nothingness is not possible, then nothingness will not exist.
So science have answered the question "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?". It's your problem if you don't like the answer.
Did she supported any bills that were discriminatory? If yes, then I would say that she deserves the same backslash as Mr. Eich. Of course, it's not to be to decide but from the homosexual community. From the short quote I can't decide, because same-sex marriage was never about the marriage itself but the recognition of the union from the government. Basically, I would agree with Rice on this particular quote.
Lets see what the quote says:
"I don’t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country." - Great, I wish Mr. Eich would think the same way.
" I happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that.
"That’s tradition, and I believe that that’s the right answer." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that.
"But perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union. ” - I agree fully. The government should stay out of marriages and just recognize a union between people. The problem with Mr. Eich was that he went beyond his personal opinion and actively tried to deny rights to his fellow citizens.
Evolution describes a population, not individuals. Sure, some individuals were born with more human like traits, but those individuals have interbreed with other individuals that had probably less human like traits. Also there are dominant traits and recessive traits, see Mendelian inheritance laws. So to talk about individuals that were our first ancestors is just wrong. Evolution is a drift of a population, that generation after generation adapting to the environment by natural selection and accumulates traits that were advantageous in some way.
Hehe sorry, I mean Seoul.
Onodera has avoided publicly announcing the new missile-intercept order so as not to put a chill on those talks, Japanese media said.
[about the order] the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Thank you very much anonymous source for betraying your country and make peace negations more difficult with an insane regime, that threatened many times a war against South Korea and to nuke Soul.
There are currently over 1000 right and privileges that married couples enjoy from the state. Mr. Eich supported a law that would withhold those rights and privileges to homosexual couples. How is that not damaging the LGBT community?
Married couples enjoy this kind of benefits:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
* Tax Benefits
* Estate Planning Benefits
* Government Benefits
* Employment Benefits
* Medical Benefits
* Death Benefits
* Family Benefits
* Housing Benefits
* Consumer Benefits
* and Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Mr. Eich and the other supporters of Prop 8. wants to take away all those benefits from homosexual couples, from people who are born differently as Mr. Eich. That makes him a bigot.
1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.
Irrelevant. Gay couples do not hold the view of male-female view of marriage. Government is also in the business to protect minorities from the majority.
4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.
That is why the government should stop the whole marriage business. It is too loaded with religious views and personal opinions. For the state it should just be a contract of union between two people. Then people are free to perform any ceremony they like and can call it marriage. Then the churches can reject the ceremony for gay couples if they wish to, and some private "priest" can perform marriage ceremonies.
It is not about employability, it is about the representation of a whole organization to clients and other stakeholders as the CEO. Mozilla is a non-profit organization, it relies heavily on donations. The choice of who represents Mozilla is of utter importance, and to have a CEO like Mr. Eich that supports a law that is suppose to discriminate about 10% of the population is not an advantage. The very appointment of Mr. Eich as the CEO was a mistake in the fist place. Maybe it was done only because of his technical knowledge, but a CEO is a political position. I could speculate that it would be less of an issue of Mr. Eich was appointed as the CTO (chief technology officer), or no issue at all if Mr. Eich stood as a regular employee.
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.
And your position is a position of equivocation, not ethics or morality. If I were to believe it was my moral duty to oppose same sex marriage and homosexual behavior (because of my religious beliefs), then by your position, I should attempt to shame every practicing homosexual I ever see, maybe call gay people at work and attempt to preach the "good word", and whatnot.
Sure, I agree, if that would be the world we live in. And this world you are describing was very real a few generations ego (50 to 100 years ego), until some very courageous people stood up against discrimination and changed the world for the better.
Back in Martin Luther days blacks were discriminated, it was normal for black to have less rights then white people. Technically blacks were Americans, but they were regarded as second class citizens. Until Martin Luther stood up and did what you describe as not proportional.
Mr. Eich's donation of $1000 was nothing, he was one bigot under many, until he became the CEO of Mozilla. What do you think would happen if Larry Page (the CEO of Google) would have donated the same amount to support Prop 8.? The Internet would be on fire. Not because of those $1000 (a small amount) but because Larry Page represents the biggest Internet based company. And now the most successful open source browser is represented by a bigot. I can very much understand those employees of Mozilla and OKCupid.com.
Trying to ruin someones professional life because of a $1000 donation they made to a cause you disagree with is completely out of proportion with their behavior.
You exaggerate. He was just asked to step down as the CEO. I don't think that anyone asked him to leave Mozilla.
Didn't you started the discussion asserting that Mozilla is somehow forced to act against the law of California?
But now it's somehow not about rights, but about ethics?
And I already stated my moral position on the issue: unethical behavior and laws should be called out and boycotted. Discriminatory laws are unethical.
You are not agreeing with my moral position?
Those Christians would have their right to do so. Freedom of speech.
Also you are pretending like some Christians are not doing exactly that what you are describing. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist Church, and those bigots who protest funerals of homosexuals? It's all legal what they are doing.
You are not convincing by repeating the same argument to me. Religious believes do not excuse any action. And the board of Mozilla would not fire him because of his religious believes but because his actions caused actual harm to Mozilla. You can't harm your company that you are supposed to represent as a CEO and then hide behind your religious believes.
I do not think your understanding of that law is correct. The board of a company have the right to chose a CEO whom they think can lead and represent the company. If the CEO was a bad choice, the board in their rights to fire him. Religious freedom do not excuse any action. What if the new CEO is a racist because of his religious believes and supports the KKK? You are saying that Mozilla could not fire him, even if his opinions would ruin the organization.
Unethical behavior should be called out and boycotted. The employees of Mozilla and OKCultip.com think that Mr. Eich supported an unethical law and they are in their rights to call out on it and OKCultip.com is in their rights to call a boycott.
I really don't understand why I even need to discuss that any unethical behavior should be called out and boycotted. We can discuss if a law that discriminate people that are born like they were born is unethical or not.
These activists are essentially trying to force Mozilla to violate California labor laws, the same labor laws which protect their own right to not be fired for their personal activism.
That is BS. The employees of Mozilla have asked Mr. Eich to step down. And OKCupid.com is asking to not to use FIrefox as long as Mr. Eich is the CEO. If Mr. Eich would have the best interest of Mozilla in mind he would step down as the CEO. Stepping down is a voluntary action, nobody threaten Mr. Eich and nobody should fire Mr. Eich because of his religious believes.
California is a State that recognizes that people have a legal right to participate in lawful activities outside of work without consequence to their job.
What the fuck does that have anything to do that private citizens calling out on his bigotry? Did anyone called the police to arrest Mr. Eich? No, those are private citizens that have asked him to step down as the CEO and a private company that asks visitors of their site to boycott Firefox.
You really need to realize the difference between the state and private citizens. The same protection of California to participate in lawful activities outside of work can equally be applied to anyone who calls Mr. Eich a bigot and to OKCupid.com.
You are an idiot. Homosexuality is genetic. 10% of sheep have a long stable gay relationship, for example. Being homosexual is universal among mammals. Here is a list of animals who show homosexual behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
The Christian believes that there IS an afterlife, and our job is to help as many people get there with us as they can by turning from ALL sins, and turning towards God.
And that is why Christians turn into bigots, like Mr. Eich. By assuming that it is your job to "help" people to follow your ideas. That is why I'm all for calling out on Mr. Eich and demanding from him to step down. Someone who wants to legislate what other people ought to be doing based on their religious believes should not represent an open source project like Mozilla.