I'm not even sure about that. What Europe didn't get that the US did was the moral majority and televangelism movements of the 1970s and 1980s. Coupled with a lack of a state religion [amazing how well that can kill faith;-)] the US would have seen a temporary reversal in trends that would have peaked at around the time the Internet became popular.
Given that there's been nothing additional since (ie no third pro-religion movement, and nothing to particularly strengthen either the Moral Majority side or the Televangelists), the US has probably followed the natural decline curve that the rest of the Western world has since that peak.
Internet? A co-incidence, not a causation. The whole thing is easily explained by looking at why religion (particularly fundie religion) reversed the curve in the US.
With respect, the issue with Eich was co-funding the pro-Prop 8 campaigns, which were objectively homophobic and hate-stirring. His private views about whether gays should be allowed freedom of association aren't so much a problem as the very real judgement and respect issues reflected in his actions.
Obama did not fund Prop 8 campaigns. He did not dog-whistle with statements saying we needed to "protect children" from "homosexual marriages" (coupled with some plausible deniability but absurd explanation that all they mean is that children would be fooled into thinking that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal.)
I keep saying people here are missing the point. This is about judgement and respect. 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. (I'm not aware of any such campaign ever existing, but trying to come up with an example of something that technically could come from the left that would be equivalent.)
It's about judgement and respect. You need to be overflowing with both qualities if you want to be a CEO. Eich made a terrible mistake that brought into question both in his case, and compounded it by never distancing himself from what he did.
As I've said before, if he'd said something like "My private views about gay marriage aside, I never intended to demean or smear gays, and it was an error on my part to donate to campaigns that turned out to do just that", I think he'd still have the potential to be CEO.
Agreed. 99% of the time when a headline about Torvalds being in a fight with someone, I think "Here we go again", and my prejudices are confirmed. In this case though, it's a 100% legitimate response to someone who's being a four-letter-word to people suffering a legitimate issue with a bizarre implementation choice.
The only problem I can see is... well, is Kay actually a Linux developer? This sounds a little like me banning Brandon Eich from my house because I don't like his hate campaign donations. It's almost passive-aggressive. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you seriously comparing getting onto a no-fly list with incarceration?
No, I'm comparing incarceration with incarceration, and being put on the no-fly list with post demonstration harassment. You'll find it easier to get by in ordinary life if, when reading sentences, you don't skip words.
Original sentence again, try reading all the words this time: Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.
For a long time, there's been a dispute between the admins of Slashdot, who wanted it to be taken more seriously in its own right by hosting content, and the users, who generally feel Slashdot's columnist choices leave a hell of a lot to be desired. Everyone remember Jon Katz? Exactly.
BTW, as I understand it, the best algorithm to deal with traffic at Burning Man is a Hash Table. The joke is somewhat obvious so I'm just going to leave it at that.
There's a difference between the right to say something, and the right to lead a group of people after you co-funded a campaign that actively smeared and stirred up hatred against 5-10% of them.
A CEO is a position that requires a substantial amount of trust and respect, and requires good judgement. I support the right to free speech, to be wrong, to decide what drugs to put in your body, to change your license plate to "Fuck you", and so on. But each time you do these things, you tell us a story about your judgement, and you invite us to determine whether we respect you.
Eich failed on that point. Mozilla was wrong to hold Eich up as the kind of person they'd want as CEO. And again, it's NOT his personal opinions. It's not how he voted, or what petitions he signed, or whether he wrote a blog entry saying "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!?!!1!!".
It's his funding of a hate campaign.
Still, that'll pass by the minds of most Slashdotters, who in my experience are so wedded to the idea that this is a political correctness campaign against someone for their point of view, they'll call out the abusive modders, and reply to this post with all kinds of straw men. I say that from experience, unfortunately. The Tech Community failed on this one too - too wrapped up in a perceived slight from "political correctness" "we" (not me, I'm not part of this, I distance myself from it completely as should be obvious) refused to look at the bigger picture, and spent a lot of time silencing those who tried to point it out.
...I'd assume the only time that needs to be spent on development of an app that already works on Android is "Use this input device instead of a touchscreen." For some games, that'll be a problem, but for the type of FPS type thing you'd expect to play on a TV, I'd have thought it'd be simple.
So I guess the question is why are you even bothering to ask us? You'd going to have to spend a whole extra day programming. Big whoop. Just do it.
Just to make it clear, because a lot of posters here appear to be confused as to what this is for:
This isn't about securing individual passwords. This is about securing collections of passwords and doing something about situations where some website's master table of usernames and hashed passwords gets leaked, somehow.
Right now, when that happens, people with the password "123ABC" (or "password" or "secret" or whatever) are easily identifiable because you can look for the hashes of those texts amongst the passwords.
However, with this technology, you would need to already know a large number of existing username/password combinations before you could begin to look for users with easily guessed passwords.
How secure is it? Well, put it this way: if the system is rebooted, then it won't become available until a large enough body of users has tried to log in...
Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.
I'm pretty sure you can "get your message out" in Cuba too, it's the consequences of doing so that are the problem.
All of which said, I agree with the AC, this is a non-scandal. It's up there with "OMG! NSA tapped phones of German leaders!" Well, yeah. That's what it's supposed to do. I'm glad the Germans are our friends right now, but...
The GP said "editor" but it's likely to be a generic sound guy who works on numerous projects. Never worked in the industry, but based upon simple observation I think they pretty much work from a library of standard sounds that they add to everything by default.
It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me. Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc? Even better when the visuals show they're using a laptop's touchpad...
Generally, Microsoft charges a premium of about $100 for the Windows Professional product, and likewise their other Enterprisy operating systems, in addition to things like Active Directory client licenses.
Factor in Office, and I'd assume the cost comparison is actually much more complex than the write up is suggesting. It's probably somewhere in the region of $500 per workstation (plus hardware for a "Microsoft solution", with zero subscription fees, or perhaps something lower with some subscription fees for Microsoft's SAAS services, vs $0 per workstation (plus hardware) plus a $10/month Google Apps subscription for each user (not workstation.)
Look at that, factor in the lifespan of each workstation, and a $150 saving doesn't look unreasonable.
Seriously why would you use something as bloated as Windows for a mobile or embedded device?
Because desktop operating systems aren't much bigger than they were 10 years ago, yet modern mobile devices are pretty much as powerful as a large proportion of PCs were five years ago. The major issue with running Windows 7 on the Atom-based notebooks I've seen was screensize, not speed.
Yes, Apple and Google have both released mobile operating systems with substantially different userlands to their desktop cousins, but in Google's case that appears to be because of a different, non-Unix, vision they have for mobile devices, and Apple, of course, was stuck originally with a very poorly powered phone that was, in some ways, the Mac 128k to their desktop's Lisa. Both systems were developed when phones were considerably underpowered compared to how they are today. It's not clear to be that Apple or Google would have followed the path they took if they were to design a phone operating system today.
That's nice, but unless it's capable of streaming video from Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, et al, then it's not a replacement for the Fire TV. It's not actually that hard to build a "media streaming" box that no commercial services support. The CuBox is very easy on the eyes, but it's aimed at an entirely different application than the one under discussion.
2. No H.265 support means this model of FireTV will become obsolete later this year.
I think you may be exaggerating somewhat. Virtually nothing has H.265 support right now. Are you seriously suggesting every single electronic device capable of playing video will magically become "obsolete" in a few months? We'll all have to throw out our smartphones and tablets and PCs and media players and TVs? Are the landfills going to be overflowing with 250 million discarded LCD screens?
Allowed HTML
URLs
http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL
Important Stuff
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
The Kindle Fire isn't particularly locked down. Sideloading is explicitly allowed, and most complaints are more along the lines of "I bought all these games on Google Play and can't transfer them" (because Google doesn't licence Google Play for Kindle - ie it's Google's decision, not Amazon's), not "I can't install APKs I've developed myself."
The final straw wasn't the Pepsi branding, it was the blatant sexism and threat that women would be unfairly shown in an excessively negative light because of a combination of:
1. The infamous "Pepsi consultant" attempting to make gender an issue.
2. Stipulations in the contract basically making it clear the producers were free to edit reactions out of context and make participants look terrible.
3. General nastiness (again, the Pepsi consultant) to everyone involved.
Essentially, the nightmare scenario went something like: Pepsi consultant would have continued to push "Pretty girls in programming" angle; demeaned women get fed up and quit, show portrays such women as thin skinned and unable to handle the heat.
Glad to see this article. After the "We must support jackasses on principle because we're anti-PC" crap over the last few days, it's nice to see software developers sticking up for those subject to this kind of jackassery.
I think you need to look up the word "hypocrisy". Also you might want to find out what OK Cupid is doing before suggesting that there's something inconsistent (which appears to be your definition of the H word) between not blocking "mobile firefox" and, uh, not blocking regular Firefox either.
I know you said Windows, but for those not using it (like the majority of Ubuntu One users one presumes...) there's actually a few FUSE drivers out there that can make your Google Drive part of your regular file system (these started being developed back in the Google Docs days), which is nice.
No problem with companies employing communists*. It becomes dubious when they're lead by active pro-Soviet pro-revolutionary communists and have significant power. If a Hollywood screenwriter or actor or journalist or, for that matter, a CTO or a company spokesperson or the head of HR or whatever is a communist, who cares? If, on the other hand, the CEO of GE is, and the CEO of GE is donating money to the CCCP at the height of the cold war, wouldn't that be a little bit of a problem, whatever we think of McCarthyism?
Eich was not someone who privately thought "The world would be a better place if gays were banned from marriage because of reasons I can't go into right now", he was someone who co-funded a anti-homosexual hate campaign to promote laws criminalizing certain forms of association between certain groups of consenting adults.
To date, Eich has blustered over it claiming that anyone who describes him as a bigot for funding such a campaign is wrong but without:
- Disassociating himself from the excesses of the campaign
- Providing funding to groups countering the smears the Prop-8 campaigners he funded spread
- Addressing the point, pretending instead that this is about his sincerely held views about marriage (which are never explained) rather than the campaign he donated money to.
In the absense of any serious attempt to address the issues, we're left with a man who ran a hate campaign against 5-10% of the people who rely upon him for their continued employment in a safe and supportive environment being the figurehead in charge of a major public organization.
* Communists in this sense doesn't mean "Anyone defined by that term including hippies who privately live in communes", but "People who were working in support of the Soviet Union and its political structure and who want that imposed on the United States, by force if necessary."
No, it's not even slightly the same logic. It's fucking stupid. I can't even fathom how you'd think it's remotely similar.
Eich isn't being targetted because he lives in the same state as a homophobic campaign. He's not even being targetted because he voted for the proposition the homophobic campaign was in support of. He's being targetted because he co-funded a smear campaign against homosexuals intended to deny them rights of association.
As usual I'm being modded down BTW. How amusing - the idiots claiming Brendan Eich is being punished for his opinions (no, he isn't, he's being asked not to represent and lead a large body of people because he actively donated towards an anti-gay hate campaign intended to deny them rights of association) are punishing me for expressing a view in support of Eich not being leader of Mozilla.
Well, it would be amusing, if it wasn't so pathetic and hypocritical. Because let's be honest here: this isn't about people "expressing opinions". It's about propping up anti-Gay bigots. If Eich had supported gay rights, and was being discarded because of that, nobody would say a thing. "Oh, he waded into a controversial issue", Slashdots army of hand-wringers would claim. "He can't be a CEO with that."
Again: This has NOTHING to do with Eich's beliefs. It has to do with his actions.
Privately believing homosexuals should be banned from marriage is one thing. Co-funding a hate campaign against them, that even on the surface (never mind the propaganda the anti-prop 8 campaigners spewed) supports laws criminalizing certain forms of consensual association and government officials who support it, is another thing entirely.
And even then, it's not as if we're talking about Eich being punished here for his actions, only that Mozilla doesn't pick someone associated with such a hate campaign as their CEO - a role, which, I'm sure even the most pro-Eich fanatic must admit, is a role where your publicly stated actions and the actions of the organization you represent can and will be conflated, and rightly so. A position where you have to lead some of the same people who you've funded a smear campaign against.
what happened to live and let live?
Why not ask Eich that question? In the mean time, ask a single person calling for him to step down as CEO whether they'd have a problem with him as CTO, or CFO, or, whatever. Some times your actions disqualify you for a particular job. I doubt many drunk drivers are going to become Ford CEOs either.
They're boycotting Firefox because that "one guy" co-funded a hate campaign against consenting adults, and those "thousands" are currently laboring under his leadership.
The obvious solution is to kick him out. The second is a fork. The Mozilla Foundation should really have thought about this before picking someone with such a major disqualification for a CEO-type role.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not even sure about that. What Europe didn't get that the US did was the moral majority and televangelism movements of the 1970s and 1980s. Coupled with a lack of a state religion [amazing how well that can kill faith ;-)] the US would have seen a temporary reversal in trends that would have peaked at around the time the Internet became popular.
Given that there's been nothing additional since (ie no third pro-religion movement, and nothing to particularly strengthen either the Moral Majority side or the Televangelists), the US has probably followed the natural decline curve that the rest of the Western world has since that peak.
Internet? A co-incidence, not a causation. The whole thing is easily explained by looking at why religion (particularly fundie religion) reversed the curve in the US.
With respect, the issue with Eich was co-funding the pro-Prop 8 campaigns, which were objectively homophobic and hate-stirring. His private views about whether gays should be allowed freedom of association aren't so much a problem as the very real judgement and respect issues reflected in his actions.
Obama did not fund Prop 8 campaigns. He did not dog-whistle with statements saying we needed to "protect children" from "homosexual marriages" (coupled with some plausible deniability but absurd explanation that all they mean is that children would be fooled into thinking that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal.)
I keep saying people here are missing the point. This is about judgement and respect. 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. (I'm not aware of any such campaign ever existing, but trying to come up with an example of something that technically could come from the left that would be equivalent.)
It's about judgement and respect. You need to be overflowing with both qualities if you want to be a CEO. Eich made a terrible mistake that brought into question both in his case, and compounded it by never distancing himself from what he did.
As I've said before, if he'd said something like "My private views about gay marriage aside, I never intended to demean or smear gays, and it was an error on my part to donate to campaigns that turned out to do just that", I think he'd still have the potential to be CEO.
Agreed. 99% of the time when a headline about Torvalds being in a fight with someone, I think "Here we go again", and my prejudices are confirmed. In this case though, it's a 100% legitimate response to someone who's being a four-letter-word to people suffering a legitimate issue with a bizarre implementation choice.
The only problem I can see is... well, is Kay actually a Linux developer? This sounds a little like me banning Brandon Eich from my house because I don't like his hate campaign donations. It's almost passive-aggressive. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
No, I'm comparing incarceration with incarceration, and being put on the no-fly list with post demonstration harassment. You'll find it easier to get by in ordinary life if, when reading sentences, you don't skip words.
Original sentence again, try reading all the words this time: Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.
For a long time, there's been a dispute between the admins of Slashdot, who wanted it to be taken more seriously in its own right by hosting content, and the users, who generally feel Slashdot's columnist choices leave a hell of a lot to be desired. Everyone remember Jon Katz? Exactly.
BTW, as I understand it, the best algorithm to deal with traffic at Burning Man is a Hash Table. The joke is somewhat obvious so I'm just going to leave it at that.
There's a difference between the right to say something, and the right to lead a group of people after you co-funded a campaign that actively smeared and stirred up hatred against 5-10% of them.
A CEO is a position that requires a substantial amount of trust and respect, and requires good judgement. I support the right to free speech, to be wrong, to decide what drugs to put in your body, to change your license plate to "Fuck you", and so on. But each time you do these things, you tell us a story about your judgement, and you invite us to determine whether we respect you.
Eich failed on that point. Mozilla was wrong to hold Eich up as the kind of person they'd want as CEO. And again, it's NOT his personal opinions. It's not how he voted, or what petitions he signed, or whether he wrote a blog entry saying "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!?!!1!!".
It's his funding of a hate campaign.
Still, that'll pass by the minds of most Slashdotters, who in my experience are so wedded to the idea that this is a political correctness campaign against someone for their point of view, they'll call out the abusive modders, and reply to this post with all kinds of straw men. I say that from experience, unfortunately. The Tech Community failed on this one too - too wrapped up in a perceived slight from "political correctness" "we" (not me, I'm not part of this, I distance myself from it completely as should be obvious) refused to look at the bigger picture, and spent a lot of time silencing those who tried to point it out.
So I guess the question is why are you even bothering to ask us? You'd going to have to spend a whole extra day programming. Big whoop. Just do it.
Just to make it clear, because a lot of posters here appear to be confused as to what this is for:
This isn't about securing individual passwords. This is about securing collections of passwords and doing something about situations where some website's master table of usernames and hashed passwords gets leaked, somehow.
Right now, when that happens, people with the password "123ABC" (or "password" or "secret" or whatever) are easily identifiable because you can look for the hashes of those texts amongst the passwords.
However, with this technology, you would need to already know a large number of existing username/password combinations before you could begin to look for users with easily guessed passwords.
How secure is it? Well, put it this way: if the system is rebooted, then it won't become available until a large enough body of users has tried to log in...
Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.
I'm pretty sure you can "get your message out" in Cuba too, it's the consequences of doing so that are the problem.
All of which said, I agree with the AC, this is a non-scandal. It's up there with "OMG! NSA tapped phones of German leaders!" Well, yeah. That's what it's supposed to do. I'm glad the Germans are our friends right now, but...
The GP said "editor" but it's likely to be a generic sound guy who works on numerous projects. Never worked in the industry, but based upon simple observation I think they pretty much work from a library of standard sounds that they add to everything by default.
It's the (computer) mice clicks that always get me. Anyone actually have a mouse that loudly clunks in the way shown on virtually every television show, news show, etc? Even better when the visuals show they're using a laptop's touchpad...
For Windows Home Premium?
Generally, Microsoft charges a premium of about $100 for the Windows Professional product, and likewise their other Enterprisy operating systems, in addition to things like Active Directory client licenses.
Factor in Office, and I'd assume the cost comparison is actually much more complex than the write up is suggesting. It's probably somewhere in the region of $500 per workstation (plus hardware for a "Microsoft solution", with zero subscription fees, or perhaps something lower with some subscription fees for Microsoft's SAAS services, vs $0 per workstation (plus hardware) plus a $10/month Google Apps subscription for each user (not workstation.)
Look at that, factor in the lifespan of each workstation, and a $150 saving doesn't look unreasonable.
Because desktop operating systems aren't much bigger than they were 10 years ago, yet modern mobile devices are pretty much as powerful as a large proportion of PCs were five years ago. The major issue with running Windows 7 on the Atom-based notebooks I've seen was screensize, not speed.
Yes, Apple and Google have both released mobile operating systems with substantially different userlands to their desktop cousins, but in Google's case that appears to be because of a different, non-Unix, vision they have for mobile devices, and Apple, of course, was stuck originally with a very poorly powered phone that was, in some ways, the Mac 128k to their desktop's Lisa. Both systems were developed when phones were considerably underpowered compared to how they are today. It's not clear to be that Apple or Google would have followed the path they took if they were to design a phone operating system today.
That's nice, but unless it's capable of streaming video from Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, et al, then it's not a replacement for the Fire TV. It's not actually that hard to build a "media streaming" box that no commercial services support. The CuBox is very easy on the eyes, but it's aimed at an entirely different application than the one under discussion.
I think you may be exaggerating somewhat. Virtually nothing has H.265 support right now. Are you seriously suggesting every single electronic device capable of playing video will magically become "obsolete" in a few months? We'll all have to throw out our smartphones and tablets and PCs and media players and TVs? Are the landfills going to be overflowing with 250 million discarded LCD screens?
Allowed HTML
URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help. Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
The Kindle Fire isn't particularly locked down. Sideloading is explicitly allowed, and most complaints are more along the lines of "I bought all these games on Google Play and can't transfer them" (because Google doesn't licence Google Play for Kindle - ie it's Google's decision, not Amazon's), not "I can't install APKs I've developed myself."
The final straw wasn't the Pepsi branding, it was the blatant sexism and threat that women would be unfairly shown in an excessively negative light because of a combination of:
1. The infamous "Pepsi consultant" attempting to make gender an issue.
2. Stipulations in the contract basically making it clear the producers were free to edit reactions out of context and make participants look terrible.
3. General nastiness (again, the Pepsi consultant) to everyone involved.
Essentially, the nightmare scenario went something like: Pepsi consultant would have continued to push "Pretty girls in programming" angle; demeaned women get fed up and quit, show portrays such women as thin skinned and unable to handle the heat.
Glad to see this article. After the "We must support jackasses on principle because we're anti-PC" crap over the last few days, it's nice to see software developers sticking up for those subject to this kind of jackassery.
I think you need to look up the word "hypocrisy". Also you might want to find out what OK Cupid is doing before suggesting that there's something inconsistent (which appears to be your definition of the H word) between not blocking "mobile firefox" and, uh, not blocking regular Firefox either.
Google Drive?
I know you said Windows, but for those not using it (like the majority of Ubuntu One users one presumes...) there's actually a few FUSE drivers out there that can make your Google Drive part of your regular file system (these started being developed back in the Google Docs days), which is nice.
Is everyone else missing the point that 2/3 of buyers of wearable devices are still using them after six months?
You and I can protest all day that these things seem stupid to us, but like the Wii, describing them as a "fad" seems way off.
No problem with companies employing communists*. It becomes dubious when they're lead by active pro-Soviet pro-revolutionary communists and have significant power. If a Hollywood screenwriter or actor or journalist or, for that matter, a CTO or a company spokesperson or the head of HR or whatever is a communist, who cares? If, on the other hand, the CEO of GE is, and the CEO of GE is donating money to the CCCP at the height of the cold war, wouldn't that be a little bit of a problem, whatever we think of McCarthyism?
Eich was not someone who privately thought "The world would be a better place if gays were banned from marriage because of reasons I can't go into right now", he was someone who co-funded a anti-homosexual hate campaign to promote laws criminalizing certain forms of association between certain groups of consenting adults.
To date, Eich has blustered over it claiming that anyone who describes him as a bigot for funding such a campaign is wrong but without:
- Disassociating himself from the excesses of the campaign
- Providing funding to groups countering the smears the Prop-8 campaigners he funded spread
- Addressing the point, pretending instead that this is about his sincerely held views about marriage (which are never explained) rather than the campaign he donated money to.
In the absense of any serious attempt to address the issues, we're left with a man who ran a hate campaign against 5-10% of the people who rely upon him for their continued employment in a safe and supportive environment being the figurehead in charge of a major public organization.
* Communists in this sense doesn't mean "Anyone defined by that term including hippies who privately live in communes", but "People who were working in support of the Soviet Union and its political structure and who want that imposed on the United States, by force if necessary."
No, it's not even slightly the same logic. It's fucking stupid. I can't even fathom how you'd think it's remotely similar.
Eich isn't being targetted because he lives in the same state as a homophobic campaign. He's not even being targetted because he voted for the proposition the homophobic campaign was in support of. He's being targetted because he co-funded a smear campaign against homosexuals intended to deny them rights of association.
Not even in the same ballpark.
Good Lord. This is the best you can do?
As usual I'm being modded down BTW. How amusing - the idiots claiming Brendan Eich is being punished for his opinions (no, he isn't, he's being asked not to represent and lead a large body of people because he actively donated towards an anti-gay hate campaign intended to deny them rights of association) are punishing me for expressing a view in support of Eich not being leader of Mozilla.
Well, it would be amusing, if it wasn't so pathetic and hypocritical. Because let's be honest here: this isn't about people "expressing opinions". It's about propping up anti-Gay bigots. If Eich had supported gay rights, and was being discarded because of that, nobody would say a thing. "Oh, he waded into a controversial issue", Slashdots army of hand-wringers would claim. "He can't be a CEO with that."
Fuck that.
Again: This has NOTHING to do with Eich's beliefs. It has to do with his actions.
Privately believing homosexuals should be banned from marriage is one thing. Co-funding a hate campaign against them, that even on the surface (never mind the propaganda the anti-prop 8 campaigners spewed) supports laws criminalizing certain forms of consensual association and government officials who support it, is another thing entirely.
And even then, it's not as if we're talking about Eich being punished here for his actions, only that Mozilla doesn't pick someone associated with such a hate campaign as their CEO - a role, which, I'm sure even the most pro-Eich fanatic must admit, is a role where your publicly stated actions and the actions of the organization you represent can and will be conflated, and rightly so. A position where you have to lead some of the same people who you've funded a smear campaign against.
Why not ask Eich that question? In the mean time, ask a single person calling for him to step down as CEO whether they'd have a problem with him as CTO, or CFO, or, whatever. Some times your actions disqualify you for a particular job. I doubt many drunk drivers are going to become Ford CEOs either.
They're boycotting Firefox because that "one guy" co-funded a hate campaign against consenting adults, and those "thousands" are currently laboring under his leadership.
The obvious solution is to kick him out. The second is a fork. The Mozilla Foundation should really have thought about this before picking someone with such a major disqualification for a CEO-type role.
Yeah, this'll double the price of all those brand new $200 cars you see driving around!