What did he have to apologize for? He did nothing wrong. He used his own personal funds to support something that the majority of voters in California also supported. He never used his position to speak on or promote or influence the outcome of that vote and never brought up the issue since his donation.
This was a political correctness witch hunt. He was attacked for his personal beliefs and for what he used his personal funds to support.
Sleep with whomever you want but your piece of paper will not give you legitimacy. You are free to be happy but that requires a choice that only you can make. Happiness is a choice. No law is going to make you happy. People that you think hate you don't actually hate you. They hate people like you trying to change the definition of "normal". Be as gay as you want to be but don't trying to force everyone else to think of you as "normal". You will always be "queer" to them regardless of how many laws you get passed or lawsuits you win. Legitimacy is bestowed by society. It cannot be forced upon society by bullies like you.
Eich invented Javascript. What did you do?
I suggest that you stop using Javascript and all pages with Javascript on it including Slashdot.
You must stop using Javascript or you will be labels as fascists, heterophobes and hypocrites. After all, the man you demonized invented Javascript. He probably contributed more to the internet that you know and love than any living gay person or gay rights supporter. So if you are truly principled and not just a bunch of blind hypocrites and bigots, you all need to get off the javascript enabled internet immediately.
PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.
But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.
Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
I've got no patience for fascists regardless of how much they might think their cause of noble. What happened to Eich is a violation of basic human rights regardless of what country it happened in. If you are such a poofter supporter then maybe you should stop using all javascript enabled websites. Good luck on being productive.
Where was the deprival of basic human rights even ignoring that marriage never was a basic human right. You always had to obtain a license or permission from someone in authority and possibly obtain permission from the bride's family. There were also some very specific conditions for who you could marry.
In some cultures perhaps. In general, not.
In what cultures did you not have to get a marriage license? A license is required to legally marry and it used to require a blood test as well as a records search to determine that you were not marrying a blood relative or attempting to commit polygamy.
Marriage is a basic human right since a few 10k years.
Even in old, ancient roman culture slaves could marry each other. Or a non slave if he agreed.
Your other questions make more sense.
Gays have been free to marry. There was never anything stopping a gay man from marrying a woman regardless if she was straight or a lesbian.
Marriage was defined by gender, not sexual preference. Enlighten me. Where was the deprival of basic human rights even ignoring that marriage never was a basic human right. You always had to obtain a license or permission from someone in authority and possibly obtain permission from the bride's family. There were also some very specific conditions for who you could marry.
What's this nonsense that you're spewing forth? How do we have separation of church and state when the government listens to arguments that have absolutely no merit and are brought forth by religious cretins? There is a blatant religious agenda here (using religion to dictate what other people can do, or how terms are used by the government), and that sort of thing has no place in government.
Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
You can worship whoever you want. You just can't get your silly little religious definitions and rules imposed on everyone else by government thugs.
Do you also have a different definition of english words as well?
I quote the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first half states that Congress shall pass no law to establish a state religion. The second part prohibits congress from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom. What part of that do you have difficulty understanding? Are the words too big for someone who ironically calls religious people cretins? Do you need to go back to school and possibly enrol in some Sylvan tutoring?
Saying it's "a different opinion" is under-playing it. "Cheese is delicious" is an opinion. "I will donate money to deny a class of people basic human rights" is something more, something that speaks ill about you personally. I have no plans to stop using Firefox, but you'd have to be a dick to do that.
By your logic Fred Phelps just had a different take on the world, and can't we all just get along?
Basic human rights do not require a license. Marriage requires a license and has certain terms and conditions. For example, polygamy is illegal. Gay people are not denied basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right.
So your definition of tolerance differs from this?
1.the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"
I hate to break it to you, but you're sorely mistaken. Every State has gotten rid of the marital rape exemption. Some of them maintain differences in exactly how it's prosecuted, but it's still rape.
I hate to break it to you but US state laws have no power outside a state let alone in other countries. Some countries have legal consent age as low as 15 and some even lower. I also hate to break it to you but chances are that your great, great, great,grandmother might have married at 13.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
BULLSHIT. Gay people are humans correct? So consequently, they have human rights. So why do they need gay rights? What they do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. It only becomes everyone's business when we have to ascertain whether someone is gay or not and that is a requirement for "gay" rights.
We hate your tactics and your meddling in society and your attempts to redefine what the social norms are. We are not anti-gay. We are anti-gay activists. Live your life without trying to alter the social norms and nobody will bother you. If you try to "pervert" (change) what is considered normal then you will meet resistance.
The reality is that you people have invented this notion that you are hated in your own mind and that people hate you because you are gay. No, we hate you if you act like an asshole and try to lord over the rest of us. We hate you for what you are trying to do to the rest of us and our society. I am not responsible for your happiness. You are the only person who can decide if you are happy or not.
I never asked to be harassed and bullied when I was growing up in high school. Do you support bullying too? My bully was a gay kid. He bullied/harassed me to make himself feel better. He even tried to convince classmates that I was gay but he could not convince me or my girlfriends of that lie. I forgave that bully a long time ago but I don't know if he ever forgave himself. I would not be surprised if you were to try to blame the victim (me) and suggest that it was somehow my fault.
I think it is high time for society to stand up to bullies like you. We cannot make you happy. You have to choose to be happy and no amount of changes to laws will make you happy. Happiness is a choice.
Tolerance? Do you mean like all of those gay bullies yelling obscenities and other foul language? I see no tolerance from your side. I see only oppression. Do you consider it tolerance to threaten to close down a plant in Arizona? Tolerance requires at least two opposing viewpoints. You cannot have tolerance in a monoculture.
The majority of bullying in schools are perpetrated by gay kids.
You don't seek tolerance, what you want is a monoculture.
Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
He could but he didn't. He donated the grand total of $1000. To many people that is not much. Lets deal with what happened and not what might have happened.
I think he is confusing him with Tim Cook who has used his position to threaten both California and, most recently, the governor of Arizona by suggesting that Apple would cancel their Sapphire factory plans in that state. That should be illegal since Apple is a publicly traded company and Tim Cook does not have the authority to represent the shareholders on a social issue. What he did was an abuse of his position.
It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?
So are you saying that it was wrong for Tim Cook, as the CEO of Apple to use his position to influence politicians to oppose Prop 8? Are you saying that it was wrong for Tim Cook to threaten the Arizona Governor over anti-gay legislation there? Or are you saying that you are a hypocrite and it is only wrong if someone is against gay rights? See: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/...
If you are of that double minded position, then you are a hypocrite sir. Either both are wrong or neither are wrong. I happen to think a CEO can use their "own" money from their compensation to fund any cause they wish but a publicly traded company's money belongs to the shareholders and not the CEO so he should never threaten politicians over a social issue using the company as leverage. Tim Cook should be fired IMO.
Do you you even have a clue why separation of church and state exists? It was not created that atheists could attack religion. It was created to protect the "CHURCH" from the "STATE" and to prevent a state church. Full stop. Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
No, it's more like someone who wants to dehumanize other people.
BTW, I'm hot sure which population you were referring to, but in the USA, more than half the voters favor gay marriage, and that percentage is going up rapidly.
More than half of the voters? When was there ever a vote on it? Do you mean polling numbers? How are they supposed to reach people in the middle of the day if they are at work?
Are you saying that it is not dehumanizing to call someone a homophobe simply because they don't agree with gay rights activists? Did it ever occur to you that maybe they don't hate gay people and they simply are just standing up for their definition of normality? I don't see anyone, other than the westboro baptists suggesting throwing any stones. I think you will find that silence does not mean acceptance but rather likely means tolerance. You cannot be tolerant of something if you support it. You tolerate what you might not agree with. You might find that the majority would leave the final judgement up to God.
You sound like that gay bully I encountered in grade school. Grow up and stop expecting other people validate you. You can be as gay as you want but just to expect everyone to accept your way of life. You are the intolerant one. You have no tolerance for those who believe differently than you.
One of my colleagues in the past had a degree in divinity, and the one who hired my had a psychological degree. You appear to assume that a background in physics or mathematics would give a distinct advantage over others in programming in all fields. While I'm sure those skills are a basic necessity in developing new physics engines and possibly a new sorting, compression or encryption algorithm, many fields do not require a developer to "reinvent" the wheel and they can simply use existing proven technologies. This is often called building on the "shoulders of giants".
I think that the fact that I am multilingual and have a firm grasp of "logic" is far more useful than any mathematics that I might have learned in school. I view programming as more of an "art" than a science. It is a form of expression and the programming languages are analogous to human languages used in writing stories and prose. One could say that methods of a class are very much like prose on a conceptual level and the class is analogous to a chapter in a book.
The article claimed that programming activated regions of the brain associated with language, not foreign language. Most programming languages they I've seen are in English. If you are a native English speaker, I don't see how this would count as a foreign language. If you are not a native English speaker, I suppose it could count as a really basic English credit.
I think you are confused. Since I assume that you are a native english speaker and a monolingual one at that, I can understand how you have trouble with this concept. While most programming languages might have "keywords" written in english, they have a distinct syntax that is not exactly the same as natural english syntax which is why it is like thinking/reading in a different language than you are used to.
Nothing wrong with giving said person -2% raises year after year either since they're piggybacking off the rest of the team that is available to help with emergencies when they come up.
Get a life. Your life and health are more important than your job. If they work hard, meet deadlines and live it their all when they are work, that is all that is needed. This is especially true if it is not their work that causes the emergencies in the first place.
Maybe you need to start taking your work more seriously so that you don't have to face "emergencies" so often.
You say Orwellian, but it's also what everybody on Star Trek lives with. The computer keeps track of every person on the ship, their location, and their vital signs, and never seems to require command-level authorization to dispense information. Any kid can query the computer and it'll respond "Counselor Troi is in Commander Worf's quarters. Her heart rate is accelerated and her pulmonary system is taxed." And we think of Star Trek as a utopian ideal.
Naive people might think of it is a utopia but I see it as a socialist dystopia similar to brave new world.
This is a popular reaction, and yet I suspect the majority of complainers willing carry a similar cell phone/tracking collar around all day.
Over my dead body. I have refused to carry a company blackberry. If there is an emergency, my manager can call me on my personal iPhone or email me at home.
The closest thing to a corporate chain is a company laptop that I sometimes take home and on business trips.
Yes, in fact, the majority of those apps mentioned are free from Apple with iOS 7 and the rest are relatively cheap from companies like Adobe, Pinnacle and Autodesk.
Does the Xbox have a word processor? A spreadsheet? A presentation creator? Does it have any photo manipulation apps or drawing programs with layers and filters? Are there any movie editors, effects composition apps? Does it have any music creation software available for it?
Because all of those are clearly available for the iPod Touch...
Yes, they are. There are the iWorks apps and the iLife apps which are available with iOS 7. Then there are various tools from Adobe, Pinnacle and Autodesk.
since were comparing the entire apple product line to one of microsofts, I think its only fair to toss in the second most popular MS product line out there and see how those numbers add up
Does the Xbox have a word processor? A spreadsheet? A presentation creator? Does it have any photo manipulation apps or drawing programs with layers and filters? Are there any movie editors, effects composition apps? Does it have any music creation software available for it?
Does an Ipod?
The iPod Touch? Yes, it has all of those applications because it runs iOS and iOS 7 comes with a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation creator, a photo editor, video editor and music composition program. Also, various third party iOS apps work on the iPod touch. This article is talking about the iPod touch, iPad and iPhone all of which run iOS.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a political correctness witch hunt. He was attacked for his personal beliefs and for what he used his personal funds to support.
Eich invented Javascript. What did you do?
I suggest that you stop using Javascript and all pages with Javascript on it including Slashdot.
PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.
I've got absolutely no time for poofter bashers.
But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.
Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
I've got no patience for fascists regardless of how much they might think their cause of noble. What happened to Eich is a violation of basic human rights regardless of what country it happened in. If you are such a poofter supporter then maybe you should stop using all javascript enabled websites. Good luck on being productive.
Where was the deprival of basic human rights even ignoring that marriage never was a basic human right. You always had to obtain a license or permission from someone in authority and possibly obtain permission from the bride's family. There were also some very specific conditions for who you could marry. In some cultures perhaps. In general, not.
In what cultures did you not have to get a marriage license? A license is required to legally marry and it used to require a blood test as well as a records search to determine that you were not marrying a blood relative or attempting to commit polygamy.
Marriage is a basic human right since a few 10k years. Even in old, ancient roman culture slaves could marry each other. Or a non slave if he agreed.
Your other questions make more sense.
Gays have been free to marry. There was never anything stopping a gay man from marrying a woman regardless if she was straight or a lesbian.
Marriage was defined by gender, not sexual preference. Enlighten me. Where was the deprival of basic human rights even ignoring that marriage never was a basic human right. You always had to obtain a license or permission from someone in authority and possibly obtain permission from the bride's family. There were also some very specific conditions for who you could marry.
What's this nonsense that you're spewing forth? How do we have separation of church and state when the government listens to arguments that have absolutely no merit and are brought forth by religious cretins? There is a blatant religious agenda here (using religion to dictate what other people can do, or how terms are used by the government), and that sort of thing has no place in government.
Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
You can worship whoever you want. You just can't get your silly little religious definitions and rules imposed on everyone else by government thugs.
Do you also have a different definition of english words as well? I quote the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first half states that Congress shall pass no law to establish a state religion. The second part prohibits congress from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom. What part of that do you have difficulty understanding? Are the words too big for someone who ironically calls religious people cretins? Do you need to go back to school and possibly enrol in some Sylvan tutoring?
Saying it's "a different opinion" is under-playing it. "Cheese is delicious" is an opinion. "I will donate money to deny a class of people basic human rights" is something more, something that speaks ill about you personally. I have no plans to stop using Firefox, but you'd have to be a dick to do that.
By your logic Fred Phelps just had a different take on the world, and can't we all just get along?
Basic human rights do not require a license. Marriage requires a license and has certain terms and conditions. For example, polygamy is illegal. Gay people are not denied basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right.
1.the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. "the tolerance of corruption"
I hate to break it to you, but you're sorely mistaken. Every State has gotten rid of the marital rape exemption. Some of them maintain differences in exactly how it's prosecuted, but it's still rape.
I hate to break it to you but US state laws have no power outside a state let alone in other countries. Some countries have legal consent age as low as 15 and some even lower. I also hate to break it to you but chances are that your great, great, great,grandmother might have married at 13.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
BULLSHIT. Gay people are humans correct? So consequently, they have human rights. So why do they need gay rights? What they do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. It only becomes everyone's business when we have to ascertain whether someone is gay or not and that is a requirement for "gay" rights.
We hate your tactics and your meddling in society and your attempts to redefine what the social norms are. We are not anti-gay. We are anti-gay activists. Live your life without trying to alter the social norms and nobody will bother you. If you try to "pervert" (change) what is considered normal then you will meet resistance.
The reality is that you people have invented this notion that you are hated in your own mind and that people hate you because you are gay. No, we hate you if you act like an asshole and try to lord over the rest of us. We hate you for what you are trying to do to the rest of us and our society. I am not responsible for your happiness. You are the only person who can decide if you are happy or not.
I never asked to be harassed and bullied when I was growing up in high school. Do you support bullying too? My bully was a gay kid. He bullied/harassed me to make himself feel better. He even tried to convince classmates that I was gay but he could not convince me or my girlfriends of that lie. I forgave that bully a long time ago but I don't know if he ever forgave himself. I would not be surprised if you were to try to blame the victim (me) and suggest that it was somehow my fault.
I think it is high time for society to stand up to bullies like you. We cannot make you happy. You have to choose to be happy and no amount of changes to laws will make you happy. Happiness is a choice.
The majority of bullying in schools are perpetrated by gay kids.
You don't seek tolerance, what you want is a monoculture.
Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
He could but he didn't. He donated the grand total of $1000. To many people that is not much. Lets deal with what happened and not what might have happened.
I think he is confusing him with Tim Cook who has used his position to threaten both California and, most recently, the governor of Arizona by suggesting that Apple would cancel their Sapphire factory plans in that state. That should be illegal since Apple is a publicly traded company and Tim Cook does not have the authority to represent the shareholders on a social issue. What he did was an abuse of his position.
It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?
So are you saying that it was wrong for Tim Cook, as the CEO of Apple to use his position to influence politicians to oppose Prop 8? Are you saying that it was wrong for Tim Cook to threaten the Arizona Governor over anti-gay legislation there? Or are you saying that you are a hypocrite and it is only wrong if someone is against gay rights? See: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/...
If you are of that double minded position, then you are a hypocrite sir. Either both are wrong or neither are wrong. I happen to think a CEO can use their "own" money from their compensation to fund any cause they wish but a publicly traded company's money belongs to the shareholders and not the CEO so he should never threaten politicians over a social issue using the company as leverage. Tim Cook should be fired IMO.
Do you you even have a clue why separation of church and state exists? It was not created that atheists could attack religion. It was created to protect the "CHURCH" from the "STATE" and to prevent a state church. Full stop. Anything else is a fiction created by activist atheists trying to ironically use it to limit religious freedom when the intention of the amendment was to "PROTECT" religious freedom and prevent "LIMITS" being imposed on that freedom by the "STATE".
No, it's more like someone who wants to dehumanize other people.
BTW, I'm hot sure which population you were referring to, but in the USA, more than half the voters favor gay marriage, and that percentage is going up rapidly.
More than half of the voters? When was there ever a vote on it? Do you mean polling numbers? How are they supposed to reach people in the middle of the day if they are at work?
Are you saying that it is not dehumanizing to call someone a homophobe simply because they don't agree with gay rights activists? Did it ever occur to you that maybe they don't hate gay people and they simply are just standing up for their definition of normality? I don't see anyone, other than the westboro baptists suggesting throwing any stones. I think you will find that silence does not mean acceptance but rather likely means tolerance. You cannot be tolerant of something if you support it. You tolerate what you might not agree with. You might find that the majority would leave the final judgement up to God.
You sound like that gay bully I encountered in grade school. Grow up and stop expecting other people validate you. You can be as gay as you want but just to expect everyone to accept your way of life. You are the intolerant one. You have no tolerance for those who believe differently than you.
I think that the fact that I am multilingual and have a firm grasp of "logic" is far more useful than any mathematics that I might have learned in school. I view programming as more of an "art" than a science. It is a form of expression and the programming languages are analogous to human languages used in writing stories and prose. One could say that methods of a class are very much like prose on a conceptual level and the class is analogous to a chapter in a book.
The article claimed that programming activated regions of the brain associated with language, not foreign language. Most programming languages they I've seen are in English. If you are a native English speaker, I don't see how this would count as a foreign language. If you are not a native English speaker, I suppose it could count as a really basic English credit.
I think you are confused. Since I assume that you are a native english speaker and a monolingual one at that, I can understand how you have trouble with this concept. While most programming languages might have "keywords" written in english, they have a distinct syntax that is not exactly the same as natural english syntax which is why it is like thinking/reading in a different language than you are used to.
Nothing wrong with giving said person -2% raises year after year either since they're piggybacking off the rest of the team that is available to help with emergencies when they come up.
Get a life. Your life and health are more important than your job. If they work hard, meet deadlines and live it their all when they are work, that is all that is needed. This is especially true if it is not their work that causes the emergencies in the first place.
Maybe you need to start taking your work more seriously so that you don't have to face "emergencies" so often.
You say Orwellian, but it's also what everybody on Star Trek lives with. The computer keeps track of every person on the ship, their location, and their vital signs, and never seems to require command-level authorization to dispense information. Any kid can query the computer and it'll respond "Counselor Troi is in Commander Worf's quarters. Her heart rate is accelerated and her pulmonary system is taxed." And we think of Star Trek as a utopian ideal.
Naive people might think of it is a utopia but I see it as a socialist dystopia similar to brave new world.
This is a popular reaction, and yet I suspect the majority of complainers willing carry a similar cell phone/tracking collar around all day.
Over my dead body. I have refused to carry a company blackberry. If there is an emergency, my manager can call me on my personal iPhone or email me at home.
The closest thing to a corporate chain is a company laptop that I sometimes take home and on business trips.
IOS has those things?
Yes, in fact, the majority of those apps mentioned are free from Apple with iOS 7 and the rest are relatively cheap from companies like Adobe, Pinnacle and Autodesk.
Does the Xbox have a word processor? A spreadsheet? A presentation creator? Does it have any photo manipulation apps or drawing programs with layers and filters? Are there any movie editors, effects composition apps? Does it have any music creation software available for it?
Because all of those are clearly available for the iPod Touch...
Yes, they are. There are the iWorks apps and the iLife apps which are available with iOS 7. Then there are various tools from Adobe, Pinnacle and Autodesk.
since were comparing the entire apple product line to one of microsofts, I think its only fair to toss in the second most popular MS product line out there and see how those numbers add up
Does the Xbox have a word processor? A spreadsheet? A presentation creator? Does it have any photo manipulation apps or drawing programs with layers and filters? Are there any movie editors, effects composition apps? Does it have any music creation software available for it?
Does an Ipod?
The iPod Touch? Yes, it has all of those applications because it runs iOS and iOS 7 comes with a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation creator, a photo editor, video editor and music composition program. Also, various third party iOS apps work on the iPod touch. This article is talking about the iPod touch, iPad and iPhone all of which run iOS.
I did not mention a web browser. Even the Wii has a web browser.