Hairyfeet just likes to spew venom and his own ignorance.
Why can't apps just work between versions like MacOSX, Solaris, FreeBSD with the compat libs, and even Windows?
They do. Every once in a while you find something that breaks, just like on all of those other platforms.
I can click on a setup.exe from the XP era and unless it is a horribly written business app requiring local admin (more like win98 style written) it will run on Windows 8 no problem.
Rather, it'll install (maybe) and run (maybe.)
Why do ATI drivers from 2 years ago not run on Linux?
Because the kernel has moved on and AMD refuses to keep pace.
ABI and API compatibilities as Linux developers feel that is evil and encourages binary blobs!
That will waste their time as they try to track down a bug only to find it's in a binary module that they can't look into.
Funny no other platform has this problem with them.
So you're taking up Hairyfeet's penchant for blatant lying?
Socialist ideology about everyone that is closed source is harmful I know lets purposedly not include a stable ABi so things break when I do an apt-get update to force ATI and NVidia will just work. That is the ticket.
And now it's just balls to the wall nutty rambling.
I might piss some some Slashdot moderators but I speak the truth.
Your opinion isn't the truth, and cut out the passive agressive garbage.
Why can't a stable ABI and API exist so one thing can just work? It is freaking 2014?
Because, again, the internel kernel APIs and ABIs do not need to be stable if you push your driver upstream. If you do, they keep it up to date for you and can debug issues for you. Otherwise you're just demanding that they assume the duty of maintaining backwards compatibility so that you may reap the rewards of the work done by them without aiding them in any way.
Such as refusal to have a compatability layer for binary driver compatability between kernel versions and the refusal to allow users to use binary drivers.
This isn't arrogance. It's acknowledging that things that belong in the kernel should be in the kernel. In the case of Linux, it's drivers. The only thing that binary drivers get you are hard to debug crashes, vendor dependence, and driver interfaces that must now be maintained ad infinitum. It won't save you from anything in the long run.
I have heard that many Linux developers wanted to drop support for floppy disks, "because few Linux developers have floppy drives", despite there being tons of floppies around that users may need to access.
You have, huh? Given how many "Linux developers" (since we're being vague) conduct all of their discussions in public, can you track this down to some reliable source or is this merely hearsay?
have heard that many Linux developers wanted to drop support for floppy disks, "because few Linux developers have floppy drives", despite there being tons of floppies around that users may need to access.
What does "development methodology" have to do with it? Sometimes you just want to start from scratch rather than hauling along someone else's baggage. I guess your complaint just falls into the category of "dissatisfaction with how others spend their own time."
none of which were brandished by the protesters, let alone used in a threatening manner.
Bullshit, unless you're going to claim the photos going around of not merely brandished but aimed weapons were staged.
Are you terrified because they don't share your ideology, or what?
Terrified that they've decided to toss the rule of law out the door and point guns at people to get their way.
The Dust Bowl was caused by a trifecta of over-farming, monoculture (wheat), and a massive drought - not grazing. It was also caused by activities performed primarily on private land, so the comparison is invalid on two fronts. Methinks you're reaching too much for hyperbole to support an otherwise somewhat valid point.
I don't see how it's hyperbole.
lso, why does the federal government have to supply this management, instead of by the state whose borders encompass the land in question
Because it's land held by the Federal Government. I'm sure Nevada could offer to purchase it.
But look at Nevada, a 1,000 man militia. Probably the first time a battalion size militia has been active in the U.S.
Terrifying. Unaccountable quasi-military organizations that tend to be high on ideology and low on reason. What happens if they were to try and pull the same shit to enforce their own rules (like they effectively did here) beyond just allowing a freeloader to not pay for grazing rights? These guys scream about "liberty" all the time but, down the line, they're either anarchist or authoritarian.
But one can also argue the Feds enacted unethical policies and mis-used laws, in an abusive way.
Hardly. Managing land to keep it from being destroyed like it was during the Dust Bowl is important and costs money. Otherwise we end up with a Tragedy of the Commons and the land is left in ruins, grazed down to barren earth.
The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!
Or you think it's wrong but your rationalizations are arbitrary and capricious, and somehow you use that to justify murdering people (or at least threatening to.)
Apple tried to save us from an Amazon monopoly and failed.
Hahaha! No they didn't. They tried to insulate themselves and their profits from having to compete with Amazon. It had nothing to do with "saving us" at all. Amazing how quickly fanboys will rewrite history for the sake of their favorite corporation, no matter how evil they're shown to be.
They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported.
That the majority supported it is meaningless. Eich put money behind an initiative that sought to deny equal rights to a subset of the citizens of this country, and for no legitimate reason.
They could have championed free speech instead.
No, the man fell on his own sword. It was not Mozilla's to fall on and he recognized that.
Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software?
I see comments like this one cropping up constantly, and it is at best deliberate misrepresentation.
They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later.
Or given that Mozilla is open source, you could go check for such behavior. Or even sniff packets coming out of Firefox and check.
Or you could just be stupidly paranoid because people got up in arms that Mozilla was now being led by someone who backed a regressive, short-sighted politician and a lie filled campaign that ran on misinformation.
They deserve a backlash.
No they don't. We, as a nation, need to look at what equality means and realize that while Eich is forced to leave office, you still have politicians in states like Arizona and Mississippi still trying to protect discriminatory behavior towards gays.
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with gitmo - we can tell, because your "side" was dead silent when gitmo was established.
Nor the fact that he's a man, or that he is Black.
Not that he's a man, but for far too many it is because he's black.
The real issue here is the massive deficit that we now have
That was massive, but hidden, before he was in office. And the fact that there are lots of extremely rich people in this country who endeavor to pay far less, as a percentage, in taxes than they should.
that was called unamerican when it was half as big
We would love to do something about it but a certain party has decided to play obstructionist.
also the issues we have with drone warefare on americans without trial
If your points were salient or rational I'm sure you'd find you have more allies on these issues.
and also obamacare
Which sucks because the GOP forced it to suck.
Yet We get called racists for that statement I just made all the time....
If you're being called racist, it's probably because you're saying stupid, racist shit. Or spouting off in an irrational and incoherent manner that is indistinguishable from "I hate him cause he's black" rather than resembling a valid, well constructed argument.
Because presumably gays do not choose to be gay. Gun owners choose to be gun owners.
I'll tell you a little secret... not all heterosexuals want to get married... nor do all marry... ditto for homosexuals.
While being straight or gay may not be a choice... marrying is... ditto for firearm ownership... or are you implying that cracking down on one ok... but not permitting the other the other a denial of a right?
Irrelevant. All of it.
Clearly you've an reading comprehension issue or lack a sufficient attention span, if you read the thread, you'd see he was responding to someone who asked:
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
'Gun owners' is a answer to that question...
No it isn't. Gun laws impact all people in the country equally. Prop 8 and similar laws impose an explicit and unjustified inequality on the execution of marriage laws.
you know, the fact that Democrats support 'reprehensible' legislation
Reprehensible? Like what? Most of what I've seen in terms of gun legislation is idiotic and poorly thought out, but hardly "reprehensible" on the level of Prop 8. Even less of it has been implemented, compared to Prop 8 style laws and DOMA.
If they were able to legally get the list of Prop 8 backers, then so be it. Your contribution was not private or anonymous. Don't forget that he also publicly donated MORE to the campaign of an anti-gay politician.
Additionally, this isn't a reprisal. This is criticizing the appointment of someone whose public donations show his stance on matters of equality. A reprisal would be a corporation searching the list for supporters and systematically firing them - which is not what happened here.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
A gun owner does so optionally.
What exactly is your issue with that?...other than an inability to respond.
Because he made no argument. He just spouted off "gun owners" as if it was in any way equivalent.
By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it.
I am tolerant of the point being made, evidenced by the fact that I don't demand that you be silenced. I reject your argument on the grounds that it is unsound and an attempt to falsely equate people criticizing someone for taking an oppressive stance with that same oppressive stance. No one is attempting to silence him, but they are saying, very loudly, that he is unfit to both hold those views and be CEO of Mozilla.
they acted in a mob fashion
So large numbers of people independently standing up and criticizing the decision is acting like a mob? Or are you just stunned by the fact that so many people were willing to voice their opinion?
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
The people who were opposed to Obama for his lack of support for gay marriage in 2008 were obviously outnumbered by everyone else. Not necessarily by those who supported those views, but those who were indifferent or thought other things mattered more. There are enough differences between appointment of a CEO and election of a President that I think this is an unhelpful comparison.
his appointment was an act of tolerance
No, this is feeding into the "tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
Given his relative lack of power over Mozilla's non-technical policies and short term as CEO, we'll never know if this is true. And you can't claim shit about me, frankly, so stop trying.
Citation?
Correct, it wasn't false equivalence. It was broad-brush stereotyping and pigeonholing. You're engaging in false equivalence by suggesting that criticism of and opposition to Eich is bigotry.
The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Citation?
Cite what? What have the people opposed to Eich done in voicing their opposition to his being appointed CEO, that is in any way equivalent to pushing laws that specifically bias against a segment of society for specious reasons?
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...?
Gun owners choose to be gun owners - and while I will happily agree with you that a great many gun control laws are shit as written and ineffectual, to try and push the "plight" of gun owners as equivalent is farcical. Unless you're going to also argue that people who are gay choose to be gay, in which case you're wandering down a very dark rat hole.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
First off, criticizing Eich's position is not bigotry (otherwise criticizing any such position would be bigotry, and down that path lies madness) and criticizing Mozilla for appointing him is not bigotry.
This presumes two things:
1. That Eich should be left alone because no one is arguing against others doing worse. This does not follow because Eich's actions are independent of others. 2. That no one is arguing against those othe
Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.
Intolerance of what, exactly? A bad argument? Am I supposed to simply accept your argument without question, and any attempt to rebuttal it is simply "intolerance?"
You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.
From bigotry & bigot respectively:
1: the state of mind of a bigot
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Really? You're going to try and argue that people are being bigots because they're opposed to the appointment as CEO of a man who is known to have supported politicians and campaigns centered around denying equal rights being made CEO of an organization whose philosophies are antithetical to such a stance? You're not presenting a convincing argument here.
In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:
HYPOCRISY
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.
The appointment of Eich to CEO was hypocrisy, as it put someone known to support intolerant views in charge of an organization defined by its tolerance and acceptance. It could also be argued that Eich was a hypocrite for accepting the position, there's no way he could claim ignorance of how opposite his beliefs and those of Mozilla as an organization are.
this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!"... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.
False equivalence. The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.
Condescending and insulting. A masterful attempt at shutting down debate.
But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
This line is bullshit. They did not attempt to silence him, they opposed his being appointed CEO. Please stop trying to equate the protests as an attempt at censorship, because it's not.
Actually it is. That we apply legal benefits to it makes it even more apparent that if it is to be denied to anyone, there needs to be a damn good reason to deny it. Eich's side of the issue has never delivered such a reason.
I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments
The Prop 8 side never had a valid argument. They relied entirely on emotion, fear, and bigotry.
booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness."
Eich's beliefs lie in opposition to a "culture of openness," and while he was free to work within the organization he was a poor, poor choice for the most public face of Mozilla. He also wasn't "booted," he stepped down because he realized that the furor would only damage Mozilla.
It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.
If there's one thing I've learned over the past few days, it's that critical thinking is a weak point among a great many Slashdot posters.
Please. He could have thumbed his nose at everyone and stayed in the CEO position. It would have damaged Mozilla, but he could have done it.
Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?
He transitioned from mere "religious beliefs" to "actively acting against others" when he made those donations. He explicitly acted in support of forcing his religious beliefs on others.
They would never make those claims so explicitly as, iirc, firing for politics is actionable. Rather, they would fire you without cause.
Of course, any place that would systematically support firing you for $political_reason or would allow one person to force their opinion on others by canning those who they opposed is probably a place you don't want to work for.
He wasn't fired over his opinion, however. He resigned because he realized that the shit storm that Mozilla allowed to happen, by letting him be CEO of an organization whose philosophy flies in the face of his, was bad for Mozilla. Of the issues at hand, that's pretty much the only respectable thing he's done.
I'd argue that there is a difference between spouting a view in a public forum and supporting a cause through what should be an anonymous donation.
And if it had remained anonymous, that would be one thing. But the donations (both in favor of Prop 8 and the crazy politician) were public for whatever reason. That alone should have kept him out of the CEO seat at Mozilla.
Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat?
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage?
At really, really biased places (i.e. companies that slather themselves in religion) you shouldn't expect to get a job. I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't seek to work at such places.
I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.
the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry
It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.
the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done
Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.
and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.
No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.
This sentence is utter nonsense, sorry. One is free to criticize differing opinions. Bigotry has a very specific meaning.
Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).
That's why your ballot is anonymous, and if it isn't then you should push to fix that.
I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.
It's not like he had no idea what the goals of Prop 8 were. If you show support for an organization and politician who are dedicated to denying people rights on a wholly irrational and arbitrary basis, that just might come back to bite you. So I recommend looking closely at the goals of a group, and the progression of said group. And if you find that it targets a group of people and demans them and attempts to influence government in a way that specifically disadvantages them, yeah you might want to not be associated with it. People don't like that, at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, right? Freedom sucks ass. It's so much easier when you just use a proprietary platform that may suddenly cease to be supported (IRIX.)
Hairyfeet just likes to spew venom and his own ignorance.
They do. Every once in a while you find something that breaks, just like on all of those other platforms.
Rather, it'll install (maybe) and run (maybe.)
Because the kernel has moved on and AMD refuses to keep pace.
That will waste their time as they try to track down a bug only to find it's in a binary module that they can't look into.
So you're taking up Hairyfeet's penchant for blatant lying?
And now it's just balls to the wall nutty rambling.
Your opinion isn't the truth, and cut out the passive agressive garbage.
Because, again, the internel kernel APIs and ABIs do not need to be stable if you push your driver upstream. If you do, they keep it up to date for you and can debug issues for you. Otherwise you're just demanding that they assume the duty of maintaining backwards compatibility so that you may reap the rewards of the work done by them without aiding them in any way.
This isn't arrogance. It's acknowledging that things that belong in the kernel should be in the kernel. In the case of Linux, it's drivers. The only thing that binary drivers get you are hard to debug crashes, vendor dependence, and driver interfaces that must now be maintained ad infinitum. It won't save you from anything in the long run.
You have, huh? Given how many "Linux developers" (since we're being vague) conduct all of their discussions in public, can you track this down to some reliable source or is this merely hearsay?
Sounds more like you're out to beat up strawmen.
What does "development methodology" have to do with it? Sometimes you just want to start from scratch rather than hauling along someone else's baggage. I guess your complaint just falls into the category of "dissatisfaction with how others spend their own time."
Which is not a defense of the actions in Nevada - at best it is yet another indictment of the NYPD (and LAPD, and...)
Bullshit, unless you're going to claim the photos going around of not merely brandished but aimed weapons were staged.
Terrified that they've decided to toss the rule of law out the door and point guns at people to get their way.
I don't see how it's hyperbole.
Because it's land held by the Federal Government. I'm sure Nevada could offer to purchase it.
Terrifying. Unaccountable quasi-military organizations that tend to be high on ideology and low on reason. What happens if they were to try and pull the same shit to enforce their own rules (like they effectively did here) beyond just allowing a freeloader to not pay for grazing rights? These guys scream about "liberty" all the time but, down the line, they're either anarchist or authoritarian.
Hardly. Managing land to keep it from being destroyed like it was during the Dust Bowl is important and costs money. Otherwise we end up with a Tragedy of the Commons and the land is left in ruins, grazed down to barren earth.
Or you think it's wrong but your rationalizations are arbitrary and capricious, and somehow you use that to justify murdering people (or at least threatening to.)
Hahaha! No they didn't. They tried to insulate themselves and their profits from having to compete with Amazon. It had nothing to do with "saving us" at all. Amazing how quickly fanboys will rewrite history for the sake of their favorite corporation, no matter how evil they're shown to be.
That the majority supported it is meaningless. Eich put money behind an initiative that sought to deny equal rights to a subset of the citizens of this country, and for no legitimate reason.
No, the man fell on his own sword. It was not Mozilla's to fall on and he recognized that.
I see comments like this one cropping up constantly, and it is at best deliberate misrepresentation.
Or given that Mozilla is open source, you could go check for such behavior. Or even sniff packets coming out of Firefox and check.
Or you could just be stupidly paranoid because people got up in arms that Mozilla was now being led by someone who backed a regressive, short-sighted politician and a lie filled campaign that ran on misinformation.
No they don't. We, as a nation, need to look at what equality means and realize that while Eich is forced to leave office, you still have politicians in states like Arizona and Mississippi still trying to protect discriminatory behavior towards gays.
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with gitmo - we can tell, because your "side" was dead silent when gitmo was established.
Not that he's a man, but for far too many it is because he's black.
That was massive, but hidden, before he was in office. And the fact that there are lots of extremely rich people in this country who endeavor to pay far less, as a percentage, in taxes than they should.
We would love to do something about it but a certain party has decided to play obstructionist.
If your points were salient or rational I'm sure you'd find you have more allies on these issues.
Which sucks because the GOP forced it to suck.
If you're being called racist, it's probably because you're saying stupid, racist shit. Or spouting off in an irrational and incoherent manner that is indistinguishable from "I hate him cause he's black" rather than resembling a valid, well constructed argument.
Because presumably gays do not choose to be gay. Gun owners choose to be gun owners.
Irrelevant. All of it.
No it isn't. Gun laws impact all people in the country equally. Prop 8 and similar laws impose an explicit and unjustified inequality on the execution of marriage laws.
Reprehensible? Like what? Most of what I've seen in terms of gun legislation is idiotic and poorly thought out, but hardly "reprehensible" on the level of Prop 8. Even less of it has been implemented, compared to Prop 8 style laws and DOMA.
If they were able to legally get the list of Prop 8 backers, then so be it. Your contribution was not private or anonymous. Don't forget that he also publicly donated MORE to the campaign of an anti-gay politician.
Additionally, this isn't a reprisal. This is criticizing the appointment of someone whose public donations show his stance on matters of equality. A reprisal would be a corporation searching the list for supporters and systematically firing them - which is not what happened here.
A gun owner does so optionally.
Because he made no argument. He just spouted off "gun owners" as if it was in any way equivalent.
I am tolerant of the point being made, evidenced by the fact that I don't demand that you be silenced. I reject your argument on the grounds that it is unsound and an attempt to falsely equate people criticizing someone for taking an oppressive stance with that same oppressive stance. No one is attempting to silence him, but they are saying, very loudly, that he is unfit to both hold those views and be CEO of Mozilla.
So large numbers of people independently standing up and criticizing the decision is acting like a mob? Or are you just stunned by the fact that so many people were willing to voice their opinion?
The people who were opposed to Obama for his lack of support for gay marriage in 2008 were obviously outnumbered by everyone else. Not necessarily by those who supported those views, but those who were indifferent or thought other things mattered more. There are enough differences between appointment of a CEO and election of a President that I think this is an unhelpful comparison.
No, this is feeding into the "tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
Given his relative lack of power over Mozilla's non-technical policies and short term as CEO, we'll never know if this is true. And you can't claim shit about me, frankly, so stop trying.
Correct, it wasn't false equivalence. It was broad-brush stereotyping and pigeonholing. You're engaging in false equivalence by suggesting that criticism of and opposition to Eich is bigotry.
Cite what? What have the people opposed to Eich done in voicing their opposition to his being appointed CEO, that is in any way equivalent to pushing laws that specifically bias against a segment of society for specious reasons?
Gun owners choose to be gun owners - and while I will happily agree with you that a great many gun control laws are shit as written and ineffectual, to try and push the "plight" of gun owners as equivalent is farcical. Unless you're going to also argue that people who are gay choose to be gay, in which case you're wandering down a very dark rat hole.
First off, criticizing Eich's position is not bigotry (otherwise criticizing any such position would be bigotry, and down that path lies madness) and criticizing Mozilla for appointing him is not bigotry.
This presumes two things:
1. That Eich should be left alone because no one is arguing against others doing worse. This does not follow because Eich's actions are independent of others.
2. That no one is arguing against those othe
That's pretty funny, right there. Get back to me when you decide to actually construct an argument.
Intolerance of what, exactly? A bad argument? Am I supposed to simply accept your argument without question, and any attempt to rebuttal it is simply "intolerance?"
1: the state of mind of a bigot
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Really? You're going to try and argue that people are being bigots because they're opposed to the appointment as CEO of a man who is known to have supported politicians and campaigns centered around denying equal rights being made CEO of an organization whose philosophies are antithetical to such a stance? You're not presenting a convincing argument here.
The appointment of Eich to CEO was hypocrisy, as it put someone known to support intolerant views in charge of an organization defined by its tolerance and acceptance. It could also be argued that Eich was a hypocrite for accepting the position, there's no way he could claim ignorance of how opposite his beliefs and those of Mozilla as an organization are.
False equivalence. The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Condescending and insulting. A masterful attempt at shutting down debate.
Just the same. Mozilla's board felt he was the best person for the job, and a great many people disagreed.
This line is bullshit. They did not attempt to silence him, they opposed his being appointed CEO. Please stop trying to equate the protests as an attempt at censorship, because it's not.
Actually it is. That we apply legal benefits to it makes it even more apparent that if it is to be denied to anyone, there needs to be a damn good reason to deny it. Eich's side of the issue has never delivered such a reason.
The Prop 8 side never had a valid argument. They relied entirely on emotion, fear, and bigotry.
Eich's beliefs lie in opposition to a "culture of openness," and while he was free to work within the organization he was a poor, poor choice for the most public face of Mozilla. He also wasn't "booted," he stepped down because he realized that the furor would only damage Mozilla.
If there's one thing I've learned over the past few days, it's that critical thinking is a weak point among a great many Slashdot posters.
Please. He could have thumbed his nose at everyone and stayed in the CEO position. It would have damaged Mozilla, but he could have done it.
He transitioned from mere "religious beliefs" to "actively acting against others" when he made those donations. He explicitly acted in support of forcing his religious beliefs on others.
They would never make those claims so explicitly as, iirc, firing for politics is actionable. Rather, they would fire you without cause.
Of course, any place that would systematically support firing you for $political_reason or would allow one person to force their opinion on others by canning those who they opposed is probably a place you don't want to work for.
He wasn't fired over his opinion, however. He resigned because he realized that the shit storm that Mozilla allowed to happen, by letting him be CEO of an organization whose philosophy flies in the face of his, was bad for Mozilla. Of the issues at hand, that's pretty much the only respectable thing he's done.
And if it had remained anonymous, that would be one thing. But the donations (both in favor of Prop 8 and the crazy politician) were public for whatever reason. That alone should have kept him out of the CEO seat at Mozilla.
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
At really, really biased places (i.e. companies that slather themselves in religion) you shouldn't expect to get a job. I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't seek to work at such places.
DaHat is running the irrational "omg it's a conspiracy against conservatives" line of argument, it seems.
I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.
It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.
Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.
No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.
This sentence is utter nonsense, sorry. One is free to criticize differing opinions. Bigotry has a very specific meaning.
That's why your ballot is anonymous, and if it isn't then you should push to fix that.
It's not like he had no idea what the goals of Prop 8 were. If you show support for an organization and politician who are dedicated to denying people rights on a wholly irrational and arbitrary basis, that just might come back to bite you. So I recommend looking closely at the goals of a group, and the progression of said group. And if you find that it targets a group of people and demans them and attempts to influence government in a way that specifically disadvantages them, yeah you might want to not be associated with it. People don't like that, at all.