I'm not suggesting I know one way or another, it's the folks saying "he was forced out" who seem to be insisting--as does the headline here.
That having been said, Eich doesn't make the claim he ws forced out by the board. Mozilla doesn't make that claim. Lilly, who resigned from the board before this ruckus because of Eich's appointment, says he resigned for reasons that had nothing to do with Prop 8, and doesn't appear to make that claim.
All I can see to support the claim that he was forced out by the board comes down to supposition and/or prejudice. Anything *could* be true, but I don't see any reason to find your explanation better than any other.
"GLBT organizations have a perfect right to express their opinions,"
I'll be impressed if you can point at a signficant GLBT organization that actually did discuss Eich. As near as I can tell, the repsonse was entirely grassroots, and not limited to GLBT individuals.
And, to my mind, the biggest point was not "how did you vote in 2008?" but "are you open enough to treating the people you intend to manage objetively, even if they are LGBT?"
Given his dodging about his feelings today, I'd suggest that even if he was forced out, the issue wasn't his vote, but instead, his ability to do his fucking job today.
If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?
In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.
That's not bigotry. That's common sense.
And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.
I've done Seattle -> San Francisco Bay Area on Amtrak, and it was (by comparison with plane travel) nice. I'd thought that that route might extend to Vancouver, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
...But I wonder how much of the mess that happens at borders is caused by cultural misunderstanding....I have great sympathy for the traveler described in the article, but I've never had a single problem traveling in the US and my only frustration with TSA is that they slow things down.
I'm sure some problems do happen because of cultural misunderstandings, but speaking as someone who grew up in the USA: the problems with the TSA are far more than cultural misunderstandings. I've had good experiences, to be sure, but some pretty horrible ones as well. I'll now drive half way across the country to avoid flying when it's possible, sadly that won't get me to many of the other places I need to get to.
No, the inclusion of "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" in the original act creating the FDA (the FFDCA, the C is "Cosmetics", btw) has been more or less uncontroversial for longer than you or I have likely been alive.
(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law— (1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information, (2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or (3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
Actually, the DMCA does have an anti-copyright notice stripping provision.
I'm not 100% convinced that Facebook's Terms of Service legally allow them around this, but I'll be damned if I'll be the one footing the bill for that case.
When I look to assess whether it's a few fringe conservative religious whackjobs running the GOP, or a large part of the base, I look to the results of individual ballot measures that touch on the questions that matter most to those folks--generally social conservative touchstones such as same-sex marriage, gay/lesbian employment discrimination measures, abortion, and so forth.
Those measures, even when they fail, pull 40%+ support.
I really see no way of explaining this as being a function of a tiny minority of the GOP.
In this election, I was able to find six high-profile races that touched on "Christian value" issues. The percentage of voters taking the "pro-theocrat" position on these individual issues is indicated below.
Florida abortion funds: 44.9%
Florida religious school funding: 44.5%
Maine same-sex marriage: 47.1%
Maryland same-sex marriage: 47.9%
Minnesota same-sex marriage ban: 47.6%
Washington same-sex marriage: 48.3%
These numbers are more or less consistent with each other and history, and in every case above, the individual voting patterns are highly party-aligned.
What they are not consistent with is the idea that the theocrats are a tiny minority of the GOP.
"small fringe" is sadly not, to my mind, a plausible interpretation of the evidence
When you look at many votes on questions touched on by the theocrats, it's pretty clear that they enjoy substantial support from large segments and often majorities of the GOP electorate.
I'm very sorry that the somewhat more sensible Republican party of the past is no longer with us. But that's the case, and it's time for people who supported a more sensible GOP to either figure out a way of more effectively persuading people to your view (because the theocrats are winning that war, despite last night's results), or, alternatively, get themselves a more sensible party of their own.
Slashdot Mirror
It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
Gah, I'm clearly tired, I can't even get subject-verb agreement right.
My point is, the discussion is about whether he was forced out by his employers.
His (past) employees are not his employers.
Sorry for the language difficulties, I'm going to bed now. :)
You're implying that Eich reports to the people who report to them?
Now there's a novel corporate structure!
I'm not suggesting I know one way or another, it's the folks saying "he was forced out" who seem to be insisting--as does the headline here.
That having been said, Eich doesn't make the claim he ws forced out by the board. Mozilla doesn't make that claim. Lilly, who resigned from the board before this ruckus because of Eich's appointment, says he resigned for reasons that had nothing to do with Prop 8, and doesn't appear to make that claim.
All I can see to support the claim that he was forced out by the board comes down to supposition and/or prejudice. Anything *could* be true, but I don't see any reason to find your explanation better than any other.
I'm not at OKCupid, (don't even have an account there anymore), but I totally agree with you about taking responsiblity for one's actions.
"Marriage is not a right...", says you.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", said the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Viriginia.
I'm afraid I'll take their opinions over yours.
What makes you think that people outside the company weren't as much or a greater influence?
Not from all accounts that have reached my ears, no.
"GLBT organizations have a perfect right to express their opinions,"
I'll be impressed if you can point at a signficant GLBT organization that actually did discuss Eich. As near as I can tell, the repsonse was entirely grassroots, and not limited to GLBT individuals.
Except that the statement followed the resignation.
So, if you're saying that Eich was psychic or had a time machine, and can prove that, you've made your case.
And, to my mind, the biggest point was not "how did you vote in 2008?" but "are you open enough to treating the people you intend to manage objetively, even if they are LGBT?"
Given his dodging about his feelings today, I'd suggest that even if he was forced out, the issue wasn't his vote, but instead, his ability to do his fucking job today.
I'm not going to acknowledge that.
If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?
In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.
That's not bigotry. That's common sense.
And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.
Ahh, cool! I'd just checked the Coast Starlight. Thanks!
I've done Seattle -> San Francisco Bay Area on Amtrak, and it was (by comparison with plane travel) nice. I'd thought that that route might extend to Vancouver, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
...But I wonder how much of the mess that happens at borders is caused by cultural misunderstanding....I have great sympathy for the traveler described in the article, but I've never had a single problem traveling in the US and my only frustration with TSA is that they slow things down.
I'm sure some problems do happen because of cultural misunderstandings, but speaking as someone who grew up in the USA: the problems with the TSA are far more than cultural misunderstandings. I've had good experiences, to be sure, but some pretty horrible ones as well. I'll now drive half way across the country to avoid flying when it's possible, sadly that won't get me to many of the other places I need to get to.
Printing, even if it's rarely used, can have significant up-front costs. I'd still like to see an accounting, though.
Meh. Wrong link, to the WP article history rather than the article. Sorry about that.
No, the inclusion of "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" in the original act creating the FDA (the FFDCA, the C is "Cosmetics", btw) has been more or less uncontroversial for longer than you or I have likely been alive.
Moreover, I have really have no desire to return to the era of Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness , or the bionic equivalent thereof.
The reason they do this is so ....
I look forward to your justification for why Facebook feels it necessary to strip embedded copyright information from uploaded images.
(Arguably in violation of the DMCA.)
I'll wait.
--Joe
Funny, I had just been talking about this the day before yesterday.
In any case, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202
(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
Actually, the DMCA does have an anti-copyright notice stripping provision.
I'm not 100% convinced that Facebook's Terms of Service legally allow them around this, but I'll be damned if I'll be the one footing the bill for that case.
High speed popcorn delivery.
When I look to assess whether it's a few fringe conservative religious whackjobs running the GOP, or a large part of the base, I look to the results of individual ballot measures that touch on the questions that matter most to those folks--generally social conservative touchstones such as same-sex marriage, gay/lesbian employment discrimination measures, abortion, and so forth.
Those measures, even when they fail, pull 40%+ support.
I really see no way of explaining this as being a function of a tiny minority of the GOP.
In this election, I was able to find six high-profile races that touched on "Christian value" issues. The percentage of voters taking the "pro-theocrat" position on these individual issues is indicated below.
These numbers are more or less consistent with each other and history, and in every case above, the individual voting patterns are highly party-aligned.
What they are not consistent with is the idea that the theocrats are a tiny minority of the GOP.
"small fringe" is sadly not, to my mind, a plausible interpretation of the evidence
When you look at many votes on questions touched on by the theocrats, it's pretty clear that they enjoy substantial support from large segments and often majorities of the GOP electorate.
I'm very sorry that the somewhat more sensible Republican party of the past is no longer with us. But that's the case, and it's time for people who supported a more sensible GOP to either figure out a way of more effectively persuading people to your view (because the theocrats are winning that war, despite last night's results), or, alternatively, get themselves a more sensible party of their own.
Stop it? Don't be silly.
They've added to it.