I'm sure that's what liberals would call a "false equivalence," you know, since the only people they consider equals are those lock n step with every single one of their views.
It doesn't. You can't form a strike because your boss participates in a Christian Church (likely where he was encouraged to make the donation) or is a very active Liberal Democrat. Pressure and coercion are the same thing, people claiming they're not are just trying to play semantics because they have no other leg to stand on. The thing Liberals don't understand that discrimination against someone for religious/political views is just as wrong as discriminating against someone for being gay or a being an ethnic Jew.
Maybe if Erich was part of some hate-group / borderline terrorist organization it would be okay, but we're talking about a law that was introduced and voted on by the Californian Govt. Excusing this sets a very awkward precedent. If an employer can choose to fire (strike, or force resignation) a person who supported Prop 8, what's to stop another employer from forcing someone who voted against Prop 8 for resigning. I thought Liberals were against voter ID laws for this very reason, I guess none of that logic applies when it's someone voting against their causes (ie: I can fire republican/religious persons but firing liberal activists etc is wrong).
There were many employees within Mozilla that were slandering his religious/political views and threatening to take action actions harmful to Mozilla (ie: quit) if he stayed on as CEO.
In California that is very clearly against the law
And if you think the smear campaign against him was "fair and balanced" (personally I think he should seek reparations from OK Cupid), because someone of his religious affiliation being the CEO of a company isn't "proper," that he should "know his place." Who's to say what's "proper." Since we're defining the ceiling of upward mobility of individuals based on religious/political affiliations, what is the "proper place" for a woman or transgender in society?
While there was no government action taken against Erich, is it really okay to publicly shame people for being different than others, for, in this case, his belief that children should have a mother? I don't agree with Prop 8, marriage inequality is wrong, but I think "children should have a mother" is a completely reasonable ideal for a person to hold. The fact that his actual political donation (whatever his opinion on homosexuality may be) has been and is STILL falsely spun to frame him as someone who took action to suppress homosexuals, to keep them from gaining equal rights speaks volumes about those that are supporting this action.
They permitted the hostile conditions that lead to his resign.
It's no different than jobs I've had, being the only white guy at work and being forced to resign because there was a strong corporate culture of "no gringo" aka "kill all the white man."
Libs are such hypocrites. A gay person is afforded protection because it isn't a "choice," but if you were born into a culture/religion and brainwashed from a young age to believe that "children need a mother" (the issue donated to), which is completely 100% not a choice (if you think it is you understand brainwashing/indoctrination about as much as a homophobe understands homosexuality), then you shouldn't be allowed a means of providing yourself an income.
But yeah, it's the people who don't think politics should be a deciding factor in employment (ie: we only employ republicans/democrats) that are the "bigots." smh
So what you're saying is, if Mozilla's customer base were "rednecks", and they were uninstalling Firefox because he was gay, that he should have been forced to resign for being gay? Or do only gays/liberals have the right to "speak their minds in opposition" of something, pretty sure that's all he was doing. Really, who has the double standard here?
PS: Personally I think he did the right thing, I think he should have resigned and I don't think anyone at Mozilla should be held criminally at fault. I do however take issue with Cupid running a smear campaign on the guy based on his political affiliations. I don't even agree with his political views, I'm just a guy who lives in the south that has lost jobs for being a Democrat and sometimes (as in not often) listening to "black music", I know how it feels.
Then again, to a neo Libreal anyone who isn't willing to give away half their paycheck so the impoverished can pop out 8 kids and watch Jerry Springier all day is a "NAZI sympathizer".
A stone age baby would be 4ft tall and have more likelihood of having a debilitating genetic disorder than not.
If you don't think things like immunity to disease and dietary patterns or even social structures have an effect on evolution then you haven't a clue what evolution is, and you should quit spreading misinformation as if you are some kind of expert on it.
As for "kid's quoting "Mien Kaumph", I don't believe anybody is talking about the Aryian race here. Care to point out who was declaring the white man to be the supreme race? The only person being quoted was Charls Darwin, who's literary works were twisted into a form of propaganda by Hitler and the NAZI party. It's like calling calling Democrats a bunch of Stalinists because they often quotes Orwell, who was somewhat influenced by Marx.
Actually, they're speaking views exactly in line with their fearless/glorious leaders Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. According to them you shouldn't buy any proprietary software because it should not exist, at all. They do not believe people should be even given the option of choosing free software; closed software should be illegal/banned and they tell people that they should be ashamed of themselves for using it. Just go to gnu.org and you can read Stallman's rants. You can see this reflected in the GPL licenses as well, aka "copyleft" licenses which are impossible to apply to a "software as a product" business model, only "software as a service."
Stallman is so far to the left that he doesn't even believe a person should be able to attach their name to a piece of their mathematical contributions / artwork, evident in his condemnation of the original BSD license. No, the only thing he believes code can have attached to it is the GNU public license, which people will see and associate with his name/movement and not the original creator/author-- just like any other tyrannical megalomaniac you read about in history.
"Linux and windows are apples and oranges." Next you're going to tell me that Word and Writer aren't both word processors, Apache and ISS aren't similar solutions... I guess AMD and Intel don't have anything in common either? NTSC and PAL aren't similar technologies?
PS: From a business perspective gnu/linux really is "free windows." Some office temp writing up trial research doesn't care about the kernel's threading capabilities or memory management subroutines, both Linux and XP will e-mail or print the fucking thing won't they?
GNU has been trying to hijack windows for years with the WINE project and they never will unless the big brother manages to force Microsoft to give them their source code. Exactly the kind of mentality you would expect from Richard Stallman's community of anti-capitalism communist sympathizers (use govt to take their property via violence/force).
I'm sure the entire FOSS community would love providing security fixes for the 1.x.x releases of the Linux kernel and/or every little fringe peice of GPL software that may or may not even be used by any members of the public, you know, just to avoid staying out of jail.
Please Guberment Windows 8 is so much better than Linux you have to do something to make Microsoft release their sources so that we can stop sucking and add it all to gnu/wine!
And if someone clicks a link I suppose you could "stop the packet before it reaches the shore" too?
What you're saying then, is, the US should setup a "great firewall" like China or Russia?
You're probably not going to get an interview either. The majority of college graduates, in many areas and in general end up working low-income jobs, under 20,000 a year. Now, that's probably different if you went to an Ivy League school, or if you majored in something like Nursing or Law, but we're talking about Computer Science here, right?
Computer Science is a complete sham at most colleges. I have a degree in CS from an accredited college, the most advanced thing we wrote was a linked list that we tested with something similar to a "Hello World" application. The only things I really got out of college were in the English/Rhetoric courses. After I graduated, I found out that I wasn't any more employable by adding a photocopy of my degree to my application/resume. I couldn't even get an >interviewexperience
With that degree that is marketed as a key that will open any door for you in life, after a year of hard work I went on to become an assistant manager at a Jason's Deli. Not a single other manager was a college graduate, none of the college grads were worth much more than minimum wage, they simply didn't have any experience/knowledge of how to run a business (payroll / taxes).
It doesn't cost anywhere near 30,000$ to make an app. I have friends who 2 years ago didn't know a single line of C++, they signed up for MS Bizspark, got a free copy of Visual Studio Ultimate (I think registering a business is about 50 bucks), and they wrote an app. They have also published books/training courses on how to write software within the bounds of various frameworks. This person didn't even finish high-school, much less College, and the content that he has produced/licensed is making him about 3,000 a month while he spends all of his time working on his next release.
30k a year isn't really that bad, especially when you consider the cold hard fact that overwhelming majority of college graduates end up making something close to minimum wage, not six figures a year with limitless benefits and paid vacations like these college PR firms like to lead us to believe.
For all the claims about college degrees turning people into sub-geniuses, and being the only source on Earth where you can find "critical thinking skills", the college suckers/shills on here claim to have, they still can't piece together that the main reason college is associated with financial success is because there is something called a "marketing team" that tries to inflate the "public image" of these very expensive schools. I used to be a hiring manager at Jason's Deli, the fact is many of the "cream of the crop" college grads weren't even fit for employment washing dishes, and only a single one ever made manager at my store.
Because without formal training in writing all the different version of Hello World, like Hello Bubble Sort, and Hello Linked List, a person has absolutely no skill as a developer to speak of.
As for the Target application, it's hard to tell who coded it, cause that "leaky application" was a fucking Trojan Horse Virus installed by people with access to a system, as if the operating system being programmed by a college grad would even matter to a hacker with physical access to the machine from breaking in. So you spent 4-8 years of college and you still can't differentiate a Trojan Horse from a exploit?
Because someone who pays for software instead of writing it themselves a "whiner", when all they're doing is saying they prefer to pay for software that works instead of hiring a contractor (10 - 50k sounds about right for a substantial result) to make FOSS software functional.
I wonder, did you build your car from metal you smelted mined from your back yard or are you just a crybaby that participates in an economy?
And in practice the lack of functionality and apps made for GNU platforms has a-lot to do with GNU licensing. Maybe if the FOSS "movement" wasn't so aggressively anti-capitalism (aka copyleft) that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno, maybe because Gold is what sparked the idea for currency based trade, and since the dawn of civilization it has withstood the test of time whereas other forms of currency far more creditable in their time than bit-coin haven't?
At the end of the day you can always say "you never know what tomorrow may bring", but have some common sense / verisimilitude, or maybe we should all start investing in embalmed foreskins because hey they might become a major currency some day? YOU NEVER KNOW MAN!
Very useful indeed. It's one of the only "super" conductors that doesn't have to be frozen to absolute zero to work it's chemistry. It's also extremely rare, historically it was the first ever used currency.
Bitcoin on the other hand is more resembling of "Diablo Gold" (lmao), except that it's not tied to a game. Other than that it's created the exact same way, algorithmically. It's main property is that in the hands of a competent computer user it can't be traced online, so it's often used to buy drugs or hire hit-men w/o creating a record. Without the "silk road" appeal it wouldn't be worth shit.
Why would it cost any more than the 20$ a month, where are you getting this "250,000" dollars from? All you need is a couple programmers, maybe 3-4 artists who enjoy this sort of thing, if you pay people 30 grand a year to make an indie game sorry, but if you think the indie games industry is full of talent people who want to work for nothing you're an idiot. Those that can produce something are going to publish themselves and enjoy the spoils, those that can't aren't worth hiring.
The kind of people who get in on this are hobbyists who succeed or fail based on two things, their talent and technical ability and their personality and ability to make friends/connections. The second requirement isn't even required for some projects, there are indy games coming out made with UDK/Unity that were made by artists relying on the built-in features of the editor/graphical interface who STILL don't know how to write a single line of code.
And if you made your game with a GPL licensed engine you would have to release your game for free. Sure, you could charge for it, but any jerk with an internet connection could upload it to the 2nd hit on Google and because of the GPL license you used you would have no legal grounds to sue them, or even issue a takedown request.
As for the Unreal engine, it offers far more than "pretty rendering". What would you suggest a team use, Irricht, Ogre? I guess you expect a couple programmers to write their own terrain system, world builder, integrated physics, material editors, animation systems, sound engine, network protocals/layer, serialization system/file format, etc etc in a year or two when hundred man teams with million dollar budgets take years to build?
Then again, what do you know, you were actually suggesting someone us the GPL license to publish a commercial product lmao.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I get the feeling Slashdot is trolling me?
I'm sure that's what liberals would call a "false equivalence," you know, since the only people they consider equals are those lock n step with every single one of their views.
It doesn't. You can't form a strike because your boss participates in a Christian Church (likely where he was encouraged to make the donation) or is a very active Liberal Democrat. Pressure and coercion are the same thing, people claiming they're not are just trying to play semantics because they have no other leg to stand on. The thing Liberals don't understand that discrimination against someone for religious/political views is just as wrong as discriminating against someone for being gay or a being an ethnic Jew.
Maybe if Erich was part of some hate-group / borderline terrorist organization it would be okay, but we're talking about a law that was introduced and voted on by the Californian Govt. Excusing this sets a very awkward precedent. If an employer can choose to fire (strike, or force resignation) a person who supported Prop 8, what's to stop another employer from forcing someone who voted against Prop 8 for resigning. I thought Liberals were against voter ID laws for this very reason, I guess none of that logic applies when it's someone voting against their causes (ie: I can fire republican/religious persons but firing liberal activists etc is wrong).
There were many employees within Mozilla that were slandering his religious/political views and threatening to take action actions harmful to Mozilla (ie: quit) if he stayed on as CEO.
In California that is very clearly against the law
And if you think the smear campaign against him was "fair and balanced" (personally I think he should seek reparations from OK Cupid), because someone of his religious affiliation being the CEO of a company isn't "proper," that he should "know his place." Who's to say what's "proper." Since we're defining the ceiling of upward mobility of individuals based on religious/political affiliations, what is the "proper place" for a woman or transgender in society?
While there was no government action taken against Erich, is it really okay to publicly shame people for being different than others, for, in this case, his belief that children should have a mother? I don't agree with Prop 8, marriage inequality is wrong, but I think "children should have a mother" is a completely reasonable ideal for a person to hold. The fact that his actual political donation (whatever his opinion on homosexuality may be) has been and is STILL falsely spun to frame him as someone who took action to suppress homosexuals, to keep them from gaining equal rights speaks volumes about those that are supporting this action.
They permitted the hostile conditions that lead to his resign. It's no different than jobs I've had, being the only white guy at work and being forced to resign because there was a strong corporate culture of "no gringo" aka "kill all the white man." Libs are such hypocrites. A gay person is afforded protection because it isn't a "choice," but if you were born into a culture/religion and brainwashed from a young age to believe that "children need a mother" (the issue donated to), which is completely 100% not a choice (if you think it is you understand brainwashing/indoctrination about as much as a homophobe understands homosexuality), then you shouldn't be allowed a means of providing yourself an income. But yeah, it's the people who don't think politics should be a deciding factor in employment (ie: we only employ republicans/democrats) that are the "bigots." smh
So what you're saying is, if Mozilla's customer base were "rednecks", and they were uninstalling Firefox because he was gay, that he should have been forced to resign for being gay? Or do only gays/liberals have the right to "speak their minds in opposition" of something, pretty sure that's all he was doing. Really, who has the double standard here?
PS: Personally I think he did the right thing, I think he should have resigned and I don't think anyone at Mozilla should be held criminally at fault. I do however take issue with Cupid running a smear campaign on the guy based on his political affiliations. I don't even agree with his political views, I'm just a guy who lives in the south that has lost jobs for being a Democrat and sometimes (as in not often) listening to "black music", I know how it feels.
Then again, to a neo Libreal anyone who isn't willing to give away half their paycheck so the impoverished can pop out 8 kids and watch Jerry Springier all day is a "NAZI sympathizer".
A stone age baby would be 4ft tall and have more likelihood of having a debilitating genetic disorder than not. If you don't think things like immunity to disease and dietary patterns or even social structures have an effect on evolution then you haven't a clue what evolution is, and you should quit spreading misinformation as if you are some kind of expert on it. As for "kid's quoting "Mien Kaumph", I don't believe anybody is talking about the Aryian race here. Care to point out who was declaring the white man to be the supreme race? The only person being quoted was Charls Darwin, who's literary works were twisted into a form of propaganda by Hitler and the NAZI party. It's like calling calling Democrats a bunch of Stalinists because they often quotes Orwell, who was somewhat influenced by Marx.
Actually, they're speaking views exactly in line with their fearless/glorious leaders Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. According to them you shouldn't buy any proprietary software because it should not exist, at all. They do not believe people should be even given the option of choosing free software; closed software should be illegal/banned and they tell people that they should be ashamed of themselves for using it. Just go to gnu.org and you can read Stallman's rants. You can see this reflected in the GPL licenses as well, aka "copyleft" licenses which are impossible to apply to a "software as a product" business model, only "software as a service."
Stallman is so far to the left that he doesn't even believe a person should be able to attach their name to a piece of their mathematical contributions / artwork, evident in his condemnation of the original BSD license. No, the only thing he believes code can have attached to it is the GNU public license, which people will see and associate with his name/movement and not the original creator/author-- just like any other tyrannical megalomaniac you read about in history.
"Linux and windows are apples and oranges." Next you're going to tell me that Word and Writer aren't both word processors, Apache and ISS aren't similar solutions... I guess AMD and Intel don't have anything in common either? NTSC and PAL aren't similar technologies?
PS: From a business perspective gnu/linux really is "free windows." Some office temp writing up trial research doesn't care about the kernel's threading capabilities or memory management subroutines, both Linux and XP will e-mail or print the fucking thing won't they?
GNU has been trying to hijack windows for years with the WINE project and they never will unless the big brother manages to force Microsoft to give them their source code. Exactly the kind of mentality you would expect from Richard Stallman's community of anti-capitalism communist sympathizers (use govt to take their property via violence/force).
It's funny watching all these Linux fanboys foaming at the mouth at the prospect of being able to add the WinXP codebase to the WINE project.
I'm sure the entire FOSS community would love providing security fixes for the 1.x.x releases of the Linux kernel and/or every little fringe peice of GPL software that may or may not even be used by any members of the public, you know, just to avoid staying out of jail.
Please Guberment Windows 8 is so much better than Linux you have to do something to make Microsoft release their sources so that we can stop sucking and add it all to gnu/wine!
+1
And if someone clicks a link I suppose you could "stop the packet before it reaches the shore" too? What you're saying then, is, the US should setup a "great firewall" like China or Russia?
You're probably not going to get an interview either. The majority of college graduates, in many areas and in general end up working low-income jobs, under 20,000 a year. Now, that's probably different if you went to an Ivy League school, or if you majored in something like Nursing or Law, but we're talking about Computer Science here, right?
Computer Science is a complete sham at most colleges. I have a degree in CS from an accredited college, the most advanced thing we wrote was a linked list that we tested with something similar to a "Hello World" application. The only things I really got out of college were in the English/Rhetoric courses. After I graduated, I found out that I wasn't any more employable by adding a photocopy of my degree to my application/resume. I couldn't even get an >interviewexperience
With that degree that is marketed as a key that will open any door for you in life, after a year of hard work I went on to become an assistant manager at a Jason's Deli. Not a single other manager was a college graduate, none of the college grads were worth much more than minimum wage, they simply didn't have any experience/knowledge of how to run a business (payroll / taxes).
It doesn't cost anywhere near 30,000$ to make an app. I have friends who 2 years ago didn't know a single line of C++, they signed up for MS Bizspark, got a free copy of Visual Studio Ultimate (I think registering a business is about 50 bucks), and they wrote an app. They have also published books/training courses on how to write software within the bounds of various frameworks. This person didn't even finish high-school, much less College, and the content that he has produced/licensed is making him about 3,000 a month while he spends all of his time working on his next release.
30k a year isn't really that bad, especially when you consider the cold hard fact that overwhelming majority of college graduates end up making something close to minimum wage, not six figures a year with limitless benefits and paid vacations like these college PR firms like to lead us to believe.
For all the claims about college degrees turning people into sub-geniuses, and being the only source on Earth where you can find "critical thinking skills", the college suckers/shills on here claim to have, they still can't piece together that the main reason college is associated with financial success is because there is something called a "marketing team" that tries to inflate the "public image" of these very expensive schools. I used to be a hiring manager at Jason's Deli, the fact is many of the "cream of the crop" college grads weren't even fit for employment washing dishes, and only a single one ever made manager at my store.
Because without formal training in writing all the different version of Hello World, like Hello Bubble Sort, and Hello Linked List, a person has absolutely no skill as a developer to speak of. As for the Target application, it's hard to tell who coded it, cause that "leaky application" was a fucking Trojan Horse Virus installed by people with access to a system, as if the operating system being programmed by a college grad would even matter to a hacker with physical access to the machine from breaking in. So you spent 4-8 years of college and you still can't differentiate a Trojan Horse from a exploit?
Because someone who pays for software instead of writing it themselves a "whiner", when all they're doing is saying they prefer to pay for software that works instead of hiring a contractor (10 - 50k sounds about right for a substantial result) to make FOSS software functional. I wonder, did you build your car from metal you smelted mined from your back yard or are you just a crybaby that participates in an economy?
And in practice the lack of functionality and apps made for GNU platforms has a-lot to do with GNU licensing. Maybe if the FOSS "movement" wasn't so aggressively anti-capitalism (aka copyleft) that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno, maybe because Gold is what sparked the idea for currency based trade, and since the dawn of civilization it has withstood the test of time whereas other forms of currency far more creditable in their time than bit-coin haven't? At the end of the day you can always say "you never know what tomorrow may bring", but have some common sense / verisimilitude, or maybe we should all start investing in embalmed foreskins because hey they might become a major currency some day? YOU NEVER KNOW MAN!
Very useful indeed. It's one of the only "super" conductors that doesn't have to be frozen to absolute zero to work it's chemistry. It's also extremely rare, historically it was the first ever used currency. Bitcoin on the other hand is more resembling of "Diablo Gold" (lmao), except that it's not tied to a game. Other than that it's created the exact same way, algorithmically. It's main property is that in the hands of a competent computer user it can't be traced online, so it's often used to buy drugs or hire hit-men w/o creating a record. Without the "silk road" appeal it wouldn't be worth shit.
Why would it cost any more than the 20$ a month, where are you getting this "250,000" dollars from? All you need is a couple programmers, maybe 3-4 artists who enjoy this sort of thing, if you pay people 30 grand a year to make an indie game sorry, but if you think the indie games industry is full of talent people who want to work for nothing you're an idiot. Those that can produce something are going to publish themselves and enjoy the spoils, those that can't aren't worth hiring.
The kind of people who get in on this are hobbyists who succeed or fail based on two things, their talent and technical ability and their personality and ability to make friends/connections. The second requirement isn't even required for some projects, there are indy games coming out made with UDK/Unity that were made by artists relying on the built-in features of the editor/graphical interface who STILL don't know how to write a single line of code.
And if you made your game with a GPL licensed engine you would have to release your game for free. Sure, you could charge for it, but any jerk with an internet connection could upload it to the 2nd hit on Google and because of the GPL license you used you would have no legal grounds to sue them, or even issue a takedown request. As for the Unreal engine, it offers far more than "pretty rendering". What would you suggest a team use, Irricht, Ogre? I guess you expect a couple programmers to write their own terrain system, world builder, integrated physics, material editors, animation systems, sound engine, network protocals/layer, serialization system/file format, etc etc in a year or two when hundred man teams with million dollar budgets take years to build? Then again, what do you know, you were actually suggesting someone us the GPL license to publish a commercial product lmao.