So where is Citibank refuting it? It's not like the story is limited to his blog. Granted it's mostly other blogs and small little news sites carrying the story but there is definatley enough talk about it that, if he's lying, Citibank would stand up and take notice.
Actually the guy keeps defending them and saying he doesn't think the bank is homophobic. That doesn't change my opinion that the three little minions employed by Citibank aren't homophobes. The bank reinstated his account and apologized. Did they do that out of love? Out of pity for the poor gay guy? No, they did it because if they didn't then Jason Goldberg would have a nice, fat discrimination case against them and they'd be tied up in bad PR for years. Why would a guy who has already enjoyed great success in online businesses make this shit up? If he's lying Citibank could crush him like an egg. He was careful never to say homophobia in his blog post but that wouldn't stop them if there was no one at the bank that actually did this to him.
I have no reason to doubt that he is telling the truth until Citibank makes a statement countering his. Their silence speaks volumes to me; they know their employees were wrong and are probably trying to figure out what to do next. (Or just hoping it will go away).
I wasn't talking about the "Jews running the bank". I was talking about three different petty little self righteous assholes who felt they could bully this guy into submission. Once "the Jews" got a hold of it they apparently apologized.
Perhaps you should lookup the dictionary definition of Gullible.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of racist.
Yeah well I have to agree with you there. And I'm usually just as suspicious of cries of "racism" or "homophobia" but I gotta say, lately I've been giving gays a pass on this one. I really do think they deserve a civil rights movement like African Americans had in the '60's in the US. If all this is is self promotion then yeah, I fell for it. But on the other hand I think that any attention that can be given to this type of activity by a corporation is a good thing. I can't change what people think about each other but we as citizens and customers do have ways of standing up to governments and corporations and I for one hope that this gets picked up by some real news outlets and that Citibank is forced to respond publicly at some point.
The company I work for has an online site and we don't post any of our direct contact info. You have to fill out a contact us form. Of course we sell boring shit so there is nothing a bank might find objectionable. The bank obviously has his contact info and made no attempt to explain to him before closing his account that he might need to add some detail to his site out of concern for his customers. They shut it down without notice and then said his content was questionable. Not his business practices, not his site design and not a lack of data. His *content* was in question, pure and simple.
Did you even read the blog? Did you try to do any verification on who Jason Goldberg is before you wrote your post? Banks fund some of the most dubious shit you could imagine and as long as they are getting paid they don't generally give a hit about what you are doing unless it is so obviously illegal that they feel they might get caught up in it and therefore the risk outweighs the gain. It's obvious that Citibank as a company doesn't feel thsi way, they apologized and reinstated his account. But I still think this started as some homophobic conservative getting up in arms over what he percieved as just another Un-American attempt to further the gay/lesbian/communist/liberal/neo-liberal-monarchist agenda.
Nice glossing over the YRO aspect of it. OK, sure a website is not "techy" anymore. Social media is not "techy" anymore. Fine. But this is about a corporation bullying people over content. If this is not a thinly veiled attempt at censorship I don't know what is. I read through a lot of the blog, checked other sites and it seems like a lot of people were willing to pick up the story and run with it. And now apparently Citibank has apologized to the guy. I understand that most, if not all the stories, I found were other blogs and blog aggregations but it sure seems a lot of them were willing to risk pissing off a giant corporation like Citibank to carry the story. Did Citibank respond publicly? Did they deny the allegations? No, they privately apologized to the guy and now he's try to downplay the homophobe aspect in comments on other bloigs and follow ups to his original story. If you ask me he's being far too nice to them.
Or the three managers who supposedly contacted him may all be homophobes. Which is the more likely explanation? Or the three managers who supposedly contacted him may all be homophobes. Which is the more likely explanation?
Uh, the latter? Sorry, maybe I'm stereotyping here but it is not hard for me to believe that there are three stuffy, conservative PHBs at a bank (especially Citibank) that are homophobes and would use their power to try and bully or censor this guy. And after the latest update - they apologized and said the reasons given should never have been said - I'm even more convinced. Had this just been some little dude in his basement I have no doubt that he would have had his account closed. My guess is once they figured out who he was, his past business experience and who his backers are they are now scrambling to save their ass. Apparently news articles were good enough for Citibank when they decided to apologize.
Hmmm, again, info@fabulis.com does not appear to be good enough for you. How about this then or this. Any google search for Jason Goldberg + Fabulis turns up a ton of news articles, information about the site, it's investors and his past endeavors, like xing. It all looks pretty lame to me, but I think that about Facebook and Twitter too. Other then looking like another useless social media site I don't see anything wrong with it and it doesn't feel scammy to me unless you also think twitter and facebook (and Buzz!) are scammy.
Yeah sure, an international conglomerate swinging it's weight around and closing a *website* because of "objectionable content" is hardly news and has nothing to do with technology at all.
You do know that websites run on computers right? And since when did nerds not care about censorship? Especially censorship by a corporation.
Explain real world contact info. Jason Goldberg links two news articles that contain a lot of data on who founded and invested in this company. If you take a sec to google him there is plenty of data on him here: Jason Goldberg on Crunchbase. What? Because his contact info on the site is info@fabulis.com? That's pretty standard actually. Just because he doesn't list his home phone number and personal email address doesn't make him anonymous. He doesn't seem to have anything to hide, quite the contrary actually given the nature of the site. Just because he doesn't list his personal contact info for you to contact doesn't mean Citibank doesn't have it.
My guess is that this is a good old fashion case of homophobia. Especially after reading this: Update on story.
I doubt the intended audience is ever going to touch the command line and most, if not all, modern gui file managers for any given Linux distro do the same thing as Windows, warn you before you delete anything. And because Linux encourages you not to run as root as opposed to the nothing-works-unless-I'm-admin approach that Windows* takes I would argue that Linux makes it harder for users to hose their system then Windows does.
* yes, I know it's getting better with Vista and 7, but not much.
It's better then a stylus though. I have an HP tc1100 and while it has a detachable keyboard I tend to use it without that. Almost everything I need to do is fine because I generally just use it for reading but at those odd times when I want to do something on it that requires typing, and I'm too lazy to get up and find the keyboard, I would rather use something like the v-keyboard in the video then the tiny on screen keyboard and stylus combo.
Well your comment isn't really exclusive of mine. There are definitely other reasons (e.g. Unix Wars!) but MS practically giving away developer software + the fact that said developer software was brain dead easy to use (didn't always create good software, but still) is why there are so many applications that only work on Windows.
And piracy works there as well. In the late 90's I worked for a company that had a single MSDN subscription that was shared with every developer in the company, including allowing them to take copies home. This gave us not only "free" copies of the dev tools but also to free Windows OS software and to a lesser extent free Office.
Now where I work there is a single MSDN subscription used by a single developer that keeps careful track of how often he has installed anything he gets. The OS's need keys to be installed, need activation like any other copy and are subject to WGA. IMHO the proliferation of Windows Apps was definitely influenced by the earlier "look the other way behavior". And of course now that it's accepted practice to give away dev tools for an OS, MS is doing the same but guards Windows and Office more and more. The free dev tools still encourage Windows only apps but they don't want people pirating Windows or Office because they don't need them to.
I don't think so. MS allowed rampant piracy for years. It wasn't until long after they were the king of the desktop that they suddenly became concerned with piracy. Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.
Other then fashionable bashing what does RMS have to do with this?
1. Mozilla is Open Source, not Free Software.
2. The term open source grew out of ESR and others (Bruce Perens?) convincing Netscape that they could beat Microsoft by taking Netscape "Open Source". This was one of, if not the, first successful attempts to court business with the idea of open source.
3. Mozilla isn't even considered Fee Software anymore because of their take on their IP embedded in Firefox. Thus Debian's Iceweasel.
RMS had very little if anything to do with Netscape morphing into to Mozilla. RMS does Free Software, not Open Source.
White listed docs/publishers are the only ones allowed to run JavaScript. White listing should be as easy as pushing a "Trust this document" or "Trust this publisher" button.
Will it/can it be abused? Sure, but it's better then running script by default without user consent.
Doesn't emacs have a vi mode? IMHO that would provide both the full IDE and the familiarity of vi. I personally feel, as other posters have mentioned, that vi/shell/compiler/debugger are enough of an IDE but to each his own. What is that old saying? Unix doesn't need an IDE, it *is* an IDE. Or something like that.
Because "don't you see, it all changed after 9/11!". If I hear this one more time from a "conservative" I might seriously consider cutting off my ears.
Slashdot Mirror
So where is Citibank refuting it? It's not like the story is limited to his blog. Granted it's mostly other blogs and small little news sites carrying the story but there is definatley enough talk about it that, if he's lying, Citibank would stand up and take notice.
Actually the guy keeps defending them and saying he doesn't think the bank is homophobic. That doesn't change my opinion that the three little minions employed by Citibank aren't homophobes. The bank reinstated his account and apologized. Did they do that out of love? Out of pity for the poor gay guy? No, they did it because if they didn't then Jason Goldberg would have a nice, fat discrimination case against them and they'd be tied up in bad PR for years. Why would a guy who has already enjoyed great success in online businesses make this shit up? If he's lying Citibank could crush him like an egg. He was careful never to say homophobia in his blog post but that wouldn't stop them if there was no one at the bank that actually did this to him.
I have no reason to doubt that he is telling the truth until Citibank makes a statement countering his. Their silence speaks volumes to me; they know their employees were wrong and are probably trying to figure out what to do next. (Or just hoping it will go away).
I wasn't talking about the "Jews running the bank". I was talking about three different petty little self righteous assholes who felt they could bully this guy into submission. Once "the Jews" got a hold of it they apparently apologized.
Perhaps you should lookup the dictionary definition of Gullible.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of racist.
Yeah well I have to agree with you there. And I'm usually just as suspicious of cries of "racism" or "homophobia" but I gotta say, lately I've been giving gays a pass on this one. I really do think they deserve a civil rights movement like African Americans had in the '60's in the US. If all this is is self promotion then yeah, I fell for it. But on the other hand I think that any attention that can be given to this type of activity by a corporation is a good thing. I can't change what people think about each other but we as citizens and customers do have ways of standing up to governments and corporations and I for one hope that this gets picked up by some real news outlets and that Citibank is forced to respond publicly at some point.
The company I work for has an online site and we don't post any of our direct contact info. You have to fill out a contact us form. Of course we sell boring shit so there is nothing a bank might find objectionable. The bank obviously has his contact info and made no attempt to explain to him before closing his account that he might need to add some detail to his site out of concern for his customers. They shut it down without notice and then said his content was questionable. Not his business practices, not his site design and not a lack of data. His *content* was in question, pure and simple.
Did you even read the blog? Did you try to do any verification on who Jason Goldberg is before you wrote your post? Banks fund some of the most dubious shit you could imagine and as long as they are getting paid they don't generally give a hit about what you are doing unless it is so obviously illegal that they feel they might get caught up in it and therefore the risk outweighs the gain. It's obvious that Citibank as a company doesn't feel thsi way, they apologized and reinstated his account. But I still think this started as some homophobic conservative getting up in arms over what he percieved as just another Un-American attempt to further the gay/lesbian/communist/liberal/neo-liberal-monarchist agenda.
Nice glossing over the YRO aspect of it. OK, sure a website is not "techy" anymore. Social media is not "techy" anymore. Fine. But this is about a corporation bullying people over content. If this is not a thinly veiled attempt at censorship I don't know what is. I read through a lot of the blog, checked other sites and it seems like a lot of people were willing to pick up the story and run with it. And now apparently Citibank has apologized to the guy. I understand that most, if not all the stories, I found were other blogs and blog aggregations but it sure seems a lot of them were willing to risk pissing off a giant corporation like Citibank to carry the story. Did Citibank respond publicly? Did they deny the allegations? No, they privately apologized to the guy and now he's try to downplay the homophobe aspect in comments on other bloigs and follow ups to his original story. If you ask me he's being far too nice to them.
Or the three managers who supposedly contacted him may all be homophobes. Which is the more likely explanation? Or the three managers who supposedly contacted him may all be homophobes. Which is the more likely explanation?
Uh, the latter? Sorry, maybe I'm stereotyping here but it is not hard for me to believe that there are three stuffy, conservative PHBs at a bank (especially Citibank) that are homophobes and would use their power to try and bully or censor this guy. And after the latest update - they apologized and said the reasons given should never have been said - I'm even more convinced. Had this just been some little dude in his basement I have no doubt that he would have had his account closed. My guess is once they figured out who he was, his past business experience and who his backers are they are now scrambling to save their ass. Apparently news articles were good enough for Citibank when they decided to apologize.
Hmmm, again, info@fabulis.com does not appear to be good enough for you. How about this then or this. Any google search for Jason Goldberg + Fabulis turns up a ton of news articles, information about the site, it's investors and his past endeavors, like xing. It all looks pretty lame to me, but I think that about Facebook and Twitter too. Other then looking like another useless social media site I don't see anything wrong with it and it doesn't feel scammy to me unless you also think twitter and facebook (and Buzz!) are scammy.
Yeah sure, an international conglomerate swinging it's weight around and closing a *website* because of "objectionable content" is hardly news and has nothing to do with technology at all.
You do know that websites run on computers right? And since when did nerds not care about censorship? Especially censorship by a corporation.
Explain real world contact info. Jason Goldberg links two news articles that contain a lot of data on who founded and invested in this company. If you take a sec to google him there is plenty of data on him here: Jason Goldberg on Crunchbase. What? Because his contact info on the site is info@fabulis.com? That's pretty standard actually. Just because he doesn't list his home phone number and personal email address doesn't make him anonymous. He doesn't seem to have anything to hide, quite the contrary actually given the nature of the site. Just because he doesn't list his personal contact info for you to contact doesn't mean Citibank doesn't have it.
My guess is that this is a good old fashion case of homophobia. Especially after reading this: Update on story.
I doubt the intended audience is ever going to touch the command line and most, if not all, modern gui file managers for any given Linux distro do the same thing as Windows, warn you before you delete anything. And because Linux encourages you not to run as root as opposed to the nothing-works-unless-I'm-admin approach that Windows* takes I would argue that Linux makes it harder for users to hose their system then Windows does.
* yes, I know it's getting better with Vista and 7, but not much.
Just don't tell Jack Thompson!
It's better then a stylus though. I have an HP tc1100 and while it has a detachable keyboard I
tend to use it without that. Almost everything I need to do is fine because I generally just
use it for reading but at those odd times when I want to do something on it that requires
typing, and I'm too lazy to get up and find the keyboard, I would rather use something like the
v-keyboard in the video then the tiny on screen keyboard and stylus combo.
Well your comment isn't really exclusive of mine. There are definitely other reasons (e.g. Unix Wars!) but MS practically giving away developer software + the fact that said developer software was brain dead easy to use (didn't always create good software, but still) is why there are so many applications that only work on Windows.
And piracy works there as well. In the late 90's I worked for a company that had a single MSDN subscription that was shared with every developer in the company, including allowing them to take copies home. This gave us not only "free" copies of the dev tools but also to free Windows OS software and to a lesser extent free Office.
Now where I work there is a single MSDN subscription used by a single developer that keeps careful track of how often he has installed anything he gets. The OS's need keys to be installed, need activation like any other copy and are subject to WGA. IMHO the proliferation of Windows Apps was definitely influenced by the earlier "look the other way behavior". And of course now that it's accepted practice to give away dev tools for an OS, MS is doing the same but guards Windows and Office more and more. The free dev tools still encourage Windows only apps but they don't want people pirating Windows or Office because they don't need them to.
You misunderstand, he spelled Elitist wrong. :-)
I don't think so. MS allowed rampant piracy for years. It wasn't until long after they were the king of the desktop that they suddenly became concerned with piracy. Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.
Elitists are jerks, news at 11.
There, fixed that for you...
Other then fashionable bashing what does RMS have to do with this?
1. Mozilla is Open Source, not Free Software.
2. The term open source grew out of ESR and others (Bruce Perens?) convincing Netscape that
they could beat Microsoft by taking Netscape "Open Source". This was one of, if not the,
first successful attempts to court business with the idea of open source.
3. Mozilla isn't even considered Fee Software anymore because of their take on their IP
embedded in Firefox. Thus Debian's Iceweasel.
RMS had very little if anything to do with Netscape morphing into to Mozilla. RMS does
Free Software, not Open Source.
That explains a lot actually.
Are book sales going to be affected ?
Sure, they'll probably increase a bit as people hear about the phone and go "Oh yeah, I always
wanted to read that book!".
White listed docs/publishers are the only ones allowed to run JavaScript. White listing
should be as easy as pushing a "Trust this document" or "Trust this publisher" button.
Will it/can it be abused? Sure, but it's better then running script by default without
user consent.
I just don't see "values personal freedom" as being inline with this stated goal:
To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.
Doesn't emacs have a vi mode? IMHO that would provide both the full IDE and the familiarity of vi. I personally feel, as other posters have mentioned, that vi/shell/compiler/debugger are enough of an IDE but to each his own. What is that old saying? Unix doesn't need an IDE, it *is* an IDE. Or something like that.
Exactly. I can't stand the one where he keeps telling me how white my shirts could be.
Because "don't you see, it all changed after 9/11!". If I hear this one more time from a
"conservative" I might seriously consider cutting off my ears.