Yes. Yes I would. More to the point: If the tables were turned and it had been a pro-gay marriage CEO in a conservative company, we'd all be bitching and moaning about corporate culture suppressing the dissenting opinion. Why aren't we doing so when we don't agree with the dissenting opinion?
Mozilla's mission has nothing to do with gay rights, it's all about what the web should look like. Eich's opinion on gay marriage is immaterial to his work as CEO.
Now, it just so happen that there's a far few queer and ally Mozillians. If Eich's personal opinion were to extend into company policy about those people (or, in general, if his governance were to massively disagree with the company culture in any way), I'd question his fitness to lead. But coming from a company built on inclusiveness and tolerance, the shitstorm they're making about a member's personal opinions seems quite hypocritical, to be completely honest.
i'm pretty sure i have the right to protest what ever i want, regardless of how irrelevant my life problems may seem to you, and regardless of how easy it is for you to ascribe them all to matters of difference of opinion.
Despite the subtle ad hominem, yes, me too. Absolutely. I'm pro-gay marriage (or, more to the point, given that gay marriage is now legal in Portugal, the fight has moved on, and it'd be more relevant to say that I'm for gay co-adoption).
I think you're missing the bigger point here. There is one topic I definitely care about more than I do about gay marriage: The capacity to even discuss it, and the right to talk about and support that cause if I see fit. And this is very much a case of what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If you're OK with blocking Eich's ascension to CEO due to his position, it's hard to justify how you'd then be against other people being blocked like this for holding unpopular opinions.
In my experience, stifling debate usually hurts minorities and makes it easier to maintain the status quo, so if you want to further a minority cause, you need to be able to have open discussion, so all in all I'd rather allow people to voice unpopular opinions — in some circles, I'll be the one doing it!
OK, you got my upvote ;) not just because you're for gay co-adoption, but because you really make a strong case.
i was really not that upset about all this, until i read the interview today. he really turned out sleazy, equating himself with the future of Mozilla, hiding behind Indonesian people, proclaiming protests against Mozilla keeping him on as being anti-freedom... he truly came off bad.
edit: but it still kinda lingers, the question - does his behavior fit with Mozilla ideals?
well, we can all talk about what's a better way to move forward. I believe that just like the issue of "interracial" marriages, the issue of same sex marriage both share one thing: the march of normalization is strong. People get used to it, also those that didn't want to. For this reason I think the best way to go forward as a society is reconciliation, tolerance and not mobbing.
"Either you are with us or against us" is a harmful doctrine.
using such argumentation one can dismiss any protest one does not like. a protest is a perfectly legitimate form of political action, and is the only proven effective method of achieving change in this type of thing.
I don't agree, because my argument applies only when: the battle is already won. Same-sex marriage is normal. I'm talking about how we should behave after the battle is won.
i would not say that it is already won, though. only a minority of US states recognizes gay marriage, and over 70 countries (if i remember correctly) worldwide criminalize homosexuality. and even when it is won, it will still take time for the people affected by the discrimination to simply relax and transcend it all. i would certainly not expect, not even today, that a black person be all reconciliatory with someone supporting an interracial marriage ban... it just doesn't work that way.
and, no offense, but try to consider what it would like to be to walk in my shoes. it is very easy to give advice to other people about how they should handle such problems, but it can easily come across as condescending. all of us in the LGBT community think about and discuss these things A LOT. and what we won so far, we fought for it our way, in a way that we found to work.
Freedom of expression only works if we allow for and extend it to expression we find distasteful. That's the entire point of the 1st Amendment. There is no use for it otherwise.
> If someone is saying that men can't take care of children. He or She is not a feminist.
I find it extremely difficult to talk about feminism because it means different things to different people. More than once I have heard statements about feminism from women who self-identify as feminist that contradict one another.
How can I answer the question "are you a feminist?" when the term may mean something very different to the questioner than to myself? Indeed, it may mean something to them that I find incorrect or immoral.
Even amoung hard-core feminists (we're talking people who's job is to work in university's as women's studies professors and write books on this stuff), there can be a lot of disagreement.
Biggest example is trans people. Some old-skool femininsts are very trans-phobic.
Two domains I'm not using, stretchier.com and loners.org, are expiring this month. Anyone want either? They're regged at namecheap, can either transfer there or give you a code for another registrar
Don't want to do this exchange because I really don't want another two domains :P
I'd love to have loners.org to use for a (free, non-commercial, and personally-funded) resource for introverts, and I promise not to give you a domain in return!
I used to hold >100 domains of similar quality, until I realized I was paying $1k/year on registration, and the value of my portfolio was increasing much more slowly.
It's certainly possible to profit from domains if you actively seek out buyers, but if you're not going to, it's not worth holding on to domains of that quality. It's a poor investment.
> I don't see any reason that the marginal value to the consumer of software would be near-zero.
If you look at the top 10 paid apps in the iOS app store, 9/10 are games. In a sufficiently large market, games are interchangeable; I might equally prefer hundreds of games. As long as at least one of those games is free, the marginal value of some particular game to me is zero.
Now this may not be true for example when considering applications used for business, that provide perhaps a lot of value. But these represent just a tiny fraction of the overall market, which is mostly games and other mass-market, interchangeable software. It is large in absolute terms of course; that is how a great many developers make their living. But it is very small relative to the overall ecosystem, so it is fair to characterize most purchases as having essentially no marginal value.
Let’s see: Infinity Blade II, RAGE HD, Real Racing 3, Grand Theft Auto, Modern Combat 4, Riven, realMyst, Year Walk, Bastion, Eufloria... I would call those real games.
Out of the literally hundreds of thousands of other games, those are just outliers. Even if you named another 200 of them, they would not be statistically significant to the whole list.
If we’re talking about the majority, then the same can be said for PC games, yet no one says all PC games are awful. There’s a reason why the games I mentioned sell better than 99% of the games in the App Store: they are GOOD. There are hundreds of good games in the App Store, and even though that number may seem minuscule compared to the total catalog, it’s more than many other platforms have to offer.
When I started out, accounting packages routinely sold for 20k or more. And they have been trending strongly toward zero ever since... As for the price of AAA video games, they do spend millions of dollars in production, so of course that will have to be recouped. Hard to compare that to an app that was created in 4 man months.
And even then the price I'd be willing to pay is less than 10 € (usually, thanks to steam)
Does your 9 € app delivers 9 € of value to me? I honestly doubt that.
I don't really understand how this process works. I use multiple accounts from the same machine every day. I'm usually signed into more than one at the same time. But there's no indication that the accounts have been "merged" to any degree, or there being a primary account.
The OP checked the "stay signed in" option when logging in to his or her Google account on another computer and all of the accounts that were logged in were listed in one menu. He thought Google had merged the accounts and ended up deleting his account.
The solution is simple, just click the sign out button and Google signs out all accounts that are configured to "stay signed in." Alternatively, he could have cleared his cookies or waited for them to expire.
Some people have been saying this is because of bad UX on Google's part. Google is kind of in a catch-22 situation here. They want to upgrade how multiple users check their Gmail on one browser but no one wants to learn how use their new system (I got frustrated when they introduced their new UI to compose emails and had to show a tutorial on how to use it.)
They do... The problem is a possibly confusing UI for multiple sign-ins (distinct email addresses and passwords). Most sites don't have this as a feature so there's not a standard UI for it [yet].
The "primary" will have a /u/0/ in the address. It's the one you logged into first if all accounts were logged out. It's the one it defaults to if you go to other google services (plus, youtube, etc).
Nothing exclusive about it, except that you logged into it first sequentially.
Possible id10t error? I've shared G logins on a few machines with others for years and no one has ever thought that their accounts were "merged" and deleted them in the effort to "unmerge" them.
Perhaps even more oddly, when I have an interesting link, I tend to post it to the facebook group chat I have running with four of my closest friends.
It's useful because everyone can see everyone else's reaction.
I use facebook almost every day, but I can't remember the last time I posted a status update or read anyone else's status update.
I use it as a glorified chat/email hybrid client. It's useful because only people I've chosen to accept can send me messages (like chat), but it's truly asynchronous, stores everything and supports rich messages (like email).
If, tomorrow, facebook disabled the ability of everyone to post statuses, play games, use apps, answer quizzes, post photos and all the rest of it, my usage of facebook would be precisely the same as it is now.
> I'd rather flag the entire submission. Cooking cheap is one thing, but the "healthy" throughline continues to go nowhere.
Perhaps a better title would be "how to eat as healthily as possible for £1 per day", but I tried to find a balance between precision and clarity.
Yes, the primary energy source is starch, but this is simply a necessity on such a limited budget. Even if you were comfortable getting the majority of your calories from vegetable oil or lard, it would be extremely difficult to find a palatable diet that incorporated such large quantities without breaking the budget.
I don't see why it's necessary to overreach and make health claims at all. It could just be "Meals You Can Cook On £1/day".
Frankly, it's this wishy-washy "Food Pyramid" definition of healthy eating (load up on carbs by default, also, FaVs solve everything) that's put the general population in such a bad state.
> Whatever the make-up of the tower below, if it is stable, we can always place the top brick so that it extends half way into the void.
I don't understand the meaning of this statement. If a brick extending halfway into the void is stable, and we can place a brick extending halfway into the void on any stable brick, then we can create an infinitely overhanging tower by placing an infinite series of bricks each of which extends halfway over the void relative to the tower beneath it.
Clearly this is not the case. What does 'stable' mean (precisely) in the above quote?
I think the reasoning is wrong here. Obviously a tower could be stable, but still applying force to an edge of the top could make it collapse.
What's actually happening is that at each step, you already have a max-overhang tower of N bricks, then you add another brick below, to produce a max-overhang tower of N+1 bricks. Because the old N-brick tower is stable, you can place it anywhere on the new bottom brick as long as its center of gravity is not off the edge of the new brick.
The top brick can be placed so that its centre of mass is positioned over the edge of the brick below. This two block system is stable.
The two block system can be placed on a third block so that the centre of mass of the two blocks is positioned over the edge of the third block. This three block system is then stable.
If you do this so that the top brick is overhanging by half it's length and then place another brick on it, the first brick is no longer the top brick so this no longer applies.
When I lived in the UK, I called for an ambulance. The responder listened to my situation and told me I didn't sound high enough risk, so I got a taxi. I didn't get the sense this was unusual.
However, it wouldn't surprise me if the liability issues were very different in the UK.
