So therefore a right wing company should have the right to fire gays, single mothers, and douchebags like you?
I won't get into the subjective "right/wrong" part of the argument, but I will point out that in many states employment is on an "At-Will" basis, which would make it legal for said company to fire whomever they want, moral justification notwithstanding.
So, it's still okay to fire gay CEO's, then? I mean, if I'm in a conservative state and someone spots my CEO at a gay bar or notices that he's donated to some gay cause, he has to go. I presume you're good with that?
Well, considering that most "conservative states" are also "right-to-work" states, meaning that either the employer or employee can terminate employment at any time without having to give a reason...
It would be legal, if that's what you mean by "..presume you're good with that."
> but there's no reason they couldn't have put him in a role where he didn't lead Mozilla.
That is not how I read the quoted statute:
'No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.'
Notice "Shall not coerce or influence" not simply "by means of threat of discharge" but "....or by...."
Seems to me that law is specifically referring to termination ("Threat of discharge or loss of employment'); I don't think it would apply to a title-and-duties swap, although IANAL, and am especially poorly versed on the CA legal system.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
I guess because free speech is a two-way street - You have a right to speak your mind, and everyone else has an equal right to adjust their relationship with you accordingly, and yes, speak their own minds in opposition.
The real question is, why and when is it OK to have a double-standard when it comes to voicing opinion?
Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."
Did you read the summary, or just stop at the sentence that seems to justify your point of view?
Because I saw this sentence in there as well:
Corporate Counsel's Marlisse Silver Sweeney adds, 'Mozilla is adamant that the board did not force Eich to resign, and asked him to stay on in another role.
"Not fit to lead" does not automatically equate to "not fit to work here."
So basically, the only reason he was not fired, was because he was given the option to resign, before they fired him.
So, then, you agree that he chose to quit, and thus cannot claim wrongful termination.
... in my [favored "grassroots" propaganda organization], the die-hard ["other" group of political extremists] seem to be rooting for and seem to be very satisfied by the friction between the masses of [Group A] and [Group B].
Back when I was a strapping young lad, abusing tiny cars was just a thing to do. Bugs were great to that end, as the rear-engine setup make them nice and tail heavy.
Now that I've christened my 30th year, not to mention not being in nearly as good of shape as I was at 18, I'm gonna have to pass.
The SF Smart Car thing is just part of the rage against tech workers.
Maybe the reporting on "the SF Smart Car thing" is part of it, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the actual flipping of the cars has a lot more to do with Occam's Razor than some conspiracy against tech workers.
Of course, by "Occam's Razor" I of course refer to the phenomena of "bored teenagers + lightweight car == vandalism."
My generation did the same crap to Geo Metros and Eagle Summits back in my day.
It's usually destructive because destruction is so much easier.
And fun! I mean, c'mon, we have whole genre's of entertainment dedicated to destruction!
Growing up as farm kids, my buddies and I had the unfair advantage that when we wanted something to destroy, there was usually some old derelict out in a field somewhere we could blow to tiny bits.
This was probably just a bunch of kids 'having fun.' I blame high schools and some colleges. High Schools are still focusing on bullying instead of teaching the kids that it is often assault or criminal intent. There are kids coming out school thinking that cursing out a stranger of threatening to hurt someone if they don't get their way is proper behavior. Likewise, some colleges still call borderline criminals acts 'hazing' or 'initiation', thus leading educated people to believe that getting drunk, committing crimes, and getting away with it makes everything ok.
Don't give the parents a free pass - after all, education starts at home.
Of course teenagers have mental problems. They go crazy during the transition from childhood to being an adult.
Sorry, but it doesn't count as "crazy" if it's something natural that every single human being experiences. Technically speaking.
I've had to come to terms with that fact myself, in regards to American political extremism.
I never went out destroying people's cars, and I doubt that you did either.
After finding out that baloney can strip a cars paint, I may or may not have experimented with cutting letters out of the meat-stuff and using them to spell... interesting things... out on the body of a couple cop cars. In addition, there were those few occasions that someone else vandalized my vehicle, and I felt compelled to return the favor.
But no, never randomly messed with a person's car, as not having a lot growing up taught me to respect personal property. Of course, I'm intelligent enough to not extrapolate my own experiences as a teen as representative of the population as a whole.
Short answer: ever dropped an egg? That is what happens to a space ship traveling with a few hundred km/sec. Albeit the look will be a bit more spectacular.
Long answer: with unobtainable technology, why not. You only need an unobtainable inertia compensator and an unobtainable huge amount of force generator/engine and an energy source that can create enough energy instantly to power both.
I really wonder why people honestly ask questions like this, the education system in no country can be that bad.
Didn't know inertia came into play in the empty vacuum of space.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the belief that a group of people should be second class to another group of people.
Why the double standard? He made the donation in 2004, when Obama was also against gay marriage.
Why no crys for Obama to step down?
Oh, they're there.
You just don't get to hear them, because the people making those cries aren't corporate CEOs, so to the media they don't matter.
So therefore a right wing company should have the right to fire gays, single mothers, and douchebags like you?
I won't get into the subjective "right/wrong" part of the argument, but I will point out that in many states employment is on an "At-Will" basis, which would make it legal for said company to fire whomever they want, moral justification notwithstanding.
Correction:
Instead of "right-to-work," I mean to say "at-will employment."
So, it's still okay to fire gay CEO's, then? I mean, if I'm in a conservative state and someone spots my CEO at a gay bar or notices that he's donated to some gay cause, he has to go. I presume you're good with that?
Well, considering that most "conservative states" are also "right-to-work" states, meaning that either the employer or employee can terminate employment at any time without having to give a reason...
It would be legal, if that's what you mean by "..presume you're good with that."
Users of the browser are the product, not the customers.
OK then, product backlash.
Which means the "customers," i.e. stakeholders, were losing money, so there was probably a fair amount of backlash from them, too.
> but there's no reason they couldn't have put him in a role where he didn't lead Mozilla.
That is not how I read the quoted statute:
Notice "Shall not coerce or influence" not simply "by means of threat of discharge" but "....or by...."
Seems to me that law is specifically referring to termination ("Threat of discharge or loss of employment'); I don't think it would apply to a title-and-duties swap, although IANAL, and am especially poorly versed on the CA legal system.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
I guess because free speech is a two-way street - You have a right to speak your mind, and everyone else has an equal right to adjust their relationship with you accordingly, and yes, speak their own minds in opposition.
The real question is, why and when is it OK to have a double-standard when it comes to voicing opinion?
Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."
Did you read the summary, or just stop at the sentence that seems to justify your point of view?
Because I saw this sentence in there as well:
Corporate Counsel's Marlisse Silver Sweeney adds, 'Mozilla is adamant that the board did not force Eich to resign, and asked him to stay on in another role.
"Not fit to lead" does not automatically equate to "not fit to work here."
So basically, the only reason he was not fired, was because he was given the option to resign, before they fired him.
So, then, you agree that he chose to quit, and thus cannot claim wrongful termination.
Damn you, Dave Grohl!!!
... in my [favored "grassroots" propaganda organization], the die-hard ["other" group of political extremists] seem to be rooting for and seem to be very satisfied by the friction between the masses of [Group A] and [Group B].
Universalized that for ya.
Or maybe gentrification runs out the poor, hard working population along with the poor, criminal riff-raff.
I'm open for any suggestions you happen to have on running out the poor, criminal riff-raff, while leaving the poor, hard working population in place.
Make education not suck, and fund good, useful after school programs.
Back when I was a strapping young lad, abusing tiny cars was just a thing to do. Bugs were great to that end, as the rear-engine setup make them nice and tail heavy.
Now that I've christened my 30th year, not to mention not being in nearly as good of shape as I was at 18, I'm gonna have to pass.
Smart cars are fine, if you put a hyabusa engine in it.
... Only because F1 engines are so damn hard to source.
The SF Smart Car thing is just part of the rage against tech workers.
Maybe the reporting on "the SF Smart Car thing" is part of it, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the actual flipping of the cars has a lot more to do with Occam's Razor than some conspiracy against tech workers.
Of course, by "Occam's Razor" I of course refer to the phenomena of "bored teenagers + lightweight car == vandalism."
My generation did the same crap to Geo Metros and Eagle Summits back in my day.
It's usually destructive because destruction is so much easier.
And fun! I mean, c'mon, we have whole genre's of entertainment dedicated to destruction!
Growing up as farm kids, my buddies and I had the unfair advantage that when we wanted something to destroy, there was usually some old derelict out in a field somewhere we could blow to tiny bits.
Good times...
It may not be universal but that doesn't mean its not incredibly common.
Probably more common today than it was when I was a teenager.
For starters, we didn't have Guy Fawkes masks. Those things have exploded in popularity the last few years.
This was probably just a bunch of kids 'having fun.' I blame high schools and some colleges. High Schools are still focusing on bullying instead of teaching the kids that it is often assault or criminal intent. There are kids coming out school thinking that cursing out a stranger of threatening to hurt someone if they don't get their way is proper behavior. Likewise, some colleges still call borderline criminals acts 'hazing' or 'initiation', thus leading educated people to believe that getting drunk, committing crimes, and getting away with it makes everything ok.
Don't give the parents a free pass - after all, education starts at home.
Teenagers are usually idiots though, they don't usually have the foresight to disguise themselves.
Translation: "When I was a teenager doing stupid stuff, I lacked the foresight to disguise myself..."
Some of us wouldn't have made it to adulthood without a criminal record if that were a universal case.
Of course teenagers have mental problems. They go crazy during the transition from childhood to being an adult.
Sorry, but it doesn't count as "crazy" if it's something natural that every single human being experiences. Technically speaking.
I've had to come to terms with that fact myself, in regards to American political extremism.
I never went out destroying people's cars, and I doubt that you did either.
After finding out that baloney can strip a cars paint, I may or may not have experimented with cutting letters out of the meat-stuff and using them to spell... interesting things... out on the body of a couple cop cars. In addition, there were those few occasions that someone else vandalized my vehicle, and I felt compelled to return the favor.
But no, never randomly messed with a person's car, as not having a lot growing up taught me to respect personal property. Of course, I'm intelligent enough to not extrapolate my own experiences as a teen as representative of the population as a whole.
It looks like a group of people with mental problems
Or, you know - teenagers.
The only "mental problem" necessary to find joy in such an activity as vandalizing cars is adolescence.
You did stupid shit when you were a kid, too. We all did.
First link, second photo.
HA!
In other news, the local cattle herds have never been less paranoid!
It takes more than two people to tip over a smart? Guess they must be little girly men.
What do they weigh compared to a vintage VW Bug?
One person could flip an old Bug by himself, granted he was sober enough to pick up the right end.
Short answer: ever dropped an egg? That is what happens to a space ship traveling with a few hundred km/sec. Albeit the look will be a bit more spectacular.
Long answer: with unobtainable technology, why not. You only need an unobtainable inertia compensator and an unobtainable huge amount of force generator/engine and an energy source that can create enough energy instantly to power both.
I really wonder why people honestly ask questions like this, the education system in no country can be that bad.
Didn't know inertia came into play in the empty vacuum of space.
No need to be a cock about it.
They did a test of that thing on the news the other day; it detected carbon monoxide and smoulder-type fires just fine.
What it failed to do was detect an actual fire that didn't produce much, if any, smoke.
Maybe they should just relabel it as the "Nest Toxic Chemical Detector."