Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , AndyC wrote

    Eich funded a campaign that attempted, and briefly succeeded, to deny American citizens a right bestowed upon them by the constitution.

    President Obama spoke out against sex marriage at the same time... and even later.

    Joe Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage act, which Bill Clinton signed it into law (not to mention implementing Don't Ask Don't Tell).

    Is not the United States a place built on the idea that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

    Clearly then, all three are unfit for high position in such a land as this. Even if they did not donate a dollar to a Prop 8 like campaign, ALL (until their recanting) had far larger bullhorns with which to speak out against same-sex marriage and do more damage to the cause than a thousand Eich's could have done... which they also used.

    This is the double standard at work, at least have the honesty to admit it.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , AndyC wrote

    If Microsoft had been built around an ethic that had been instrumental in their success, *snip*

    The excuse of 'ethic' keeps being used as a justification, just the same way as someone on the other side might say "religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin... which is why it's ok to fire anyone I think is gay."

    Context is everything.

    Doubly so when one side purposely defines a context to suit their side of the debate and seek to prohibit counter arguments or evidence.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , AndyC wrote

    The employer in this case doesn't appear to have done anything to put Mr Eich in a position where he has no choice but to resign, rather he appears to have done rather a good job of that himself. You can't claim constructive dismissal in response to bringing a company into disrepute and expect it to stand up in court.

    Which actions did he take or or statements did he make *while CEO* which brought the company into disrepute?

    The LA Times has had a list of Prop 8 donors for a number of years now... it's even online. The fact of Mr Eich's donation has been publically known since at least 2012 per Wikipedia.

    Either the search committee wasn't sufficiently diligent, or ignored this fact... and when it blew up in their collective faces they distanced themselves from their decision through their silence. In such an environment when those who just hired you are no longer willing to publically support you... I'd say that's pretty constructive.

    Peaceful protest by boycott is not tort, so unless he can prove the claims that he donated to Prop 8 were factually inaccurate and intended to maliciously damage his career, he again has no leg to stand on.

    You aren't thinking this through. His donation is just as legal as those who said "I disagree with his appointment as CEO"... the moment they added "and we wish to cause harm to him and/or the company to force him out"... that is tortious interference.

    It's the same kind of difference between saying "I think you should get beat up" vs "I am going to help get you beat up". When said about the right person, both can earn you a visit from the Secret Service, only one where you are actually taking actions yourself will likely see charges.

    , Jason818 wrote

    You can't fire some one because of their religion.

    Um... actually you can. Yes, it's unlawful, it is certainly doable... and something that can be gotten away with if executed correctly.

    Companies for quite some time have dealt with claims of unlawful decimation because the terminated person claims that their membership in a protected class was the reason... as a result a smart company will keep copious documentation related to job performance & discipline... so that if the time to dismiss someone comes for a lawful reason, there is a good paper trail to show that it was for that reason.

    The up (and downside) of this process, is that it also means that you terminate someone for an unlawful reason provided there a sufficient documented history which can be used as the official reason.

  • Microsoft eliminates license fee on all phones and mid-sized tablets running Windows

    Not to mention a future Windows IoT (Internet of Things) SKU for the same price.

    Come on Windows powered router!

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    Ignoring the morality of the retribution involved here... I got a thinking this evening about something I've not heard any talk of... what kind of payout Eich will or did receive.

    While most of us are at-will employees who can be canned at the slightest whim and for a good number of reasons, it's very common for high level execs to have some type of contract which make that much much harder (hint: it's where golden parachutes tend to come from, along with other perks & promises).

    In all likelihood, the Mozilla board made Eich a sizeable offer to encourage him to walk away, with the condition he drop any potential suits against them.

    In the less likely event that he did voluntarily resign with no internal pressure, promises or perks from the board, constructive dismissal could still apply.

    There is another part... the potentially malicious tortious interference seen from a good number of external parties ... which could see the likes of OKCupid (amongst others) having to pay up either to settle or defend itself against such claims.

    Seems I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    @dahat: It's a hypothetical. JHC

    Gee! I hadn't noticed!

    Unlike you though, I think through different aspects of hypotheticals to determine it's likelihood and quality of application to a given situation... this like others of yours here keep on failing for the same reason... poor planning.

    Good thing I checked to see if you'd dishonestly edited your post prior to clicking submit....

    You are defending speech to the extreme.

    I defend most speech (remember my example of the KKK, Democrat party & NAMBLA?), even extreme speech that I disagree with. Notice I've not called for your silencing or firing... only asking you to comply with your own stance.

    I gave an extreme case. Can Mozilla pass him over if he admitted to hating gays?

    It was an utterly nonsense case which in no way relates to reality.

    Could Mozilla pass him over of he turned out to be an Martian? What if he was a Martian illegally in the country? What if he, used to be a she, but is now gay, a of a faith that required him to wear certain clothing items that did meet the normal dress code requirements of the company, and for medical reasons could only eat smelly cheese? Would civil rights, employment discrimination and medical privacy law still apply?

    Try to stick to the facts why don't you?

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    Suppose Eich wasn't already an employee but was being interviewed the position of CEO, and during the vetting process it was discovered that he donated to Yes on Prop 8.

    Asking such a thing would be risky, in fact it'd be about as smart to ask a female candidate if she was planning on getting pregnant... because he need only raise the "it was based on my religious beliefs card... and if doesn't get the job... lawsuit time.

    And when asked about it, he admits that he hates gays and affirmed that even now he does not believe that gay marriages should be legally recognized.

    Way to put words in someone's mouth... or do you have a SPECIFIC QUOTE (of course not, you refuse to cite anything but yourself for the most part) that demonstrates that he "hates gays"?

    Clearly he's a smarter person than you to get to where he did... so clearly he would know (if he had such views) how to answer the question in a way that wouldn't shoot himself in the foot.

    Would it be OK for Mozilla to pass him over for the position considering the corporations well document stance on supporting LGBT equality?

    Know how I've said you are amazingly close minded and refuse to consider citations? Well yeah, I discussed that already... he's already discussed that rather recently, something you casually dismissed out of hand without explanation (a common behavior of yours).

    Could their decision stand up in civil court if Eich were to take this to court for discrimination on the basis of his religion?

    As you described... no... but given realistic circumstances, oh yes... but then, why trouble yourself with reality?

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    @dahat: OMG, your verbal diarrhea is all over the map.

    I'm still waiting for a specific citation of that.

    Try actually understanding what I typed after I try to explain myself after you initially misinterpret what I meant, which you do on nearly every single one of my posts.

    Wait... they have a point other than "Bigotry is wrong!... except for when we do it." ?

    You're so set on turning every sentence into a "gotcha" to throw back into my face, you sound like raving lunatic.

    Sound familiar? Only notice the difference (once I keep demonstrating)... citations and expanded discussion.

    I said your argument about the different wedding venues available to gay couples making it OK to legally ban them from the use of City Hall is EXACTLY like the argument for "separate but equal".

    Again we see your reading comprehension fail (a common theme I know).

    Allow me to do what I think you've done twice in this entire thread... cite something, in this case, you:

    , cbae wrote

    That's a great argument for "separate but equal". Good job! Where were you 60 years ago? You would have kicked Thurgood Marshall's *!

    You are claiming that I am making an argument for "separate but equal", an acceptable compromise to the segregationists... coupled with your other bits of implied racism... there is only one way to read that statement.

    That sh1t didn't fly 60 years ago, and it doesn't fly now. Did I accuse you of being an actually segregationist? Maybe you are. I don't care, because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

    Based on your previous comments, you made a specific claim... you now say you don't think that... where/why the change? Unless you come out and apologize for the earlier statement and express remorse for ever making it... you will remain to be unqualified for any CEO position down the line (granted we already hit that point earlier).

    Again... you are clearly not mentally well... get help before you hurt yourself or others. Keep in mind that if you do end up hurting someone due to your raving intolerance (god help them if they accidently mention that they donated to Prop 8, only to be physically accosted by you before they can say that they later came to regret it), pray the police do not find this thread and it's signs that it may have been pre-meditated.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , evildictait​or wrote

    We shouldn't be in this ridiculous situation where in order to protect the equality and freedom of speech to same-sex couples we have to deny equality and freedom of speech to Catholics and Mormons.

    What you describe is epidemic of a larger issue though, some unilaterally decree that the debate is over and that the other side must be written off as racists, homophobes, deniers, etc and then actively prevented the ability to speak.

    Back in my college days, I went the talks of a number of speakers, including a number (deliberately) whose views I strongly disagreed with so I could learn more and engage.

    Today though, it is seemingly acceptable to shout down people who you disagree with who are invited to speak as guests.

    The Eich case is simply another form of this, the shouting down of someone who dared to speak, and the implicit warning that others are vulnerable to the same hostility.

    While South Park is not exactly a go to place for moral lessons, the Death Camp of Tolerance episode was ahead of it's time in this area, reminding us that tolerance not only is a two way street, but does not require the other side to endorse something, but to simply put up with.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    You're using the same type of arguments that segregationists used.

    How many times have I cited specific things, highlighting your hypocrisy, bigotry and inability to understand basic concepts (as I will below)... and yet you continue to make such false accusations? Again... liberals...

    You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

    You may need to connect the dots for me... because when reading something like the Row vs Wade decision... I can at least see how they got from A to Q... even though a good chunk of it was made up along the way and self-serving. Instead, you might as well accuse me of conspiring with extra-terrestrials to conquer Canada... as there's probably more evidence of the latter... I mean, I don't live too far from Canada, it'd be an easy place to strike from.

    Should I start making up wild and fanciful accusations which I don't offer supporting evidence for as well?

    Riiight. I'm advocating "the removal or diminishing the rights of ANY individual"

    I think you forgot to follow that up with: "we've always been at war with Eastasia."

    Seriously, you need to get help as you are starting to sound sufficiently unhinged that you may be a threat to yourself or others.

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    As far as I know, that's when all "full humans", including bigots, got their freedom of speech, which is a different from "protection from discrimination".

    So wait... "full humans" only got their  "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment was ratified?

    This is one of those fine examples where we see how you like to pick & choose which parts of the Constitution you care about... because if you knew much about it's creation, you'd know that, even going back to the Declaration of Independence (a couple decades earlier ) the founders wrote of "unalienable rights"... you should read up on them.

    Again, this is the difference between a liberal and a conservative & constutionalist...

    Liberals believe that rights are government granted, while conservatives & constutionalist believe in unalienable rights that pre-existed this (or any) government, which governments are (in part) created to protect and cannot easily be taken away.

    Why must I remind you that YOU are the one advocating for reduction of rights of some, not the rest of us here.

    Edit: To add an example of your desire to remove rights from some groups (from this thread):

    , cbae wrote

    The right to vote should be based on mental maturity, but it's not. It's based on an arbitrary age--i.e. a technicality.

    Spin all you like, but you advocated from the removal of the right to vote from those over the age of majority but who you do not deem to have sufficient mental maturity.

    Notice how I keep citing things? You could learn a thing or two...