What is the difference between Eich supporting a campaign to prevent gay marriage and his detractors supporting a campaign to prevent Eich from being CEO of Mozilla?
Eich doesn't suddenly find himself unwed, nor does he now have to leave the state to exercise all the rights and privileges he had yesterday.
However, we've won.
You can still be fired for being homosexual in a majority of states.
"Mission Accomplished?"
Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant
First, it is a false equivalence to claim that actively reducing the legal standing of a class of citizens based exclusively on sexual orientation is merely "something that some might see as intolerant."
Secondly, Eich has (present tense) still not apologized. He made no meaningful effort or gesture to those he helped hurt and disenfranchise, just the typical corporate "Sorry if you're offended" spiel.
A great deal of this furor would have gone away if there was an act of genuine contrition on his part. But he couldn't manage to do what George Wallace and Robert Byrd could.
the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done
He hasn't had a marriage revoked.
Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"
This is wrong.
It's all perfectly legal, as is firing someone for being homosexual in many states. And for that one (at least) Eich has worked to keep it that way.
People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly
Eich worked to criminalize what people do privately.
not using the company brand
The CEO is the brand.
To my knowledge, he has said nothing otherwise and apparently did not interfere with apparently LGBT friendly policies of the Mozilla Corporation.
He had no need to. He'd already used government coercion to impose on the private lives of Mozilla's gay employees outside of the office as well as all California gays regardless of whether or not they worked for Mozilla.
And besides, at the time he did not have the power to impose on gay employees' professional lives to the extent that a CEO can.
So what do I get out of this? The board saw a win-win, if he can weather the storm of the Prop 8 fiasco then they get one of the most technically competent CEOs available
But it would be at the cost of alienating all LGBTQ clients, contributors and their allies. OKCupid had a point: as an internet dating site they have an immediate business concern in gay rights.
otherwise, they push him out and get a lot of visibility for doing so (and maybe more converts).
No, Mozilla is now left with a heck of a lot of people with grudges and long memories. The fact that they thought promoting Eich was a good idea in the first place does not reflect well on them and will be remembered for a long time to come.
I think Howard Stern was right, if you're planning on leading a public company, keep your mouth shut and be everybody's best friend.
You don't sell a product and promote a brand by pissing people off.
a cross-section of society.
They're called "clients."
Unless you run an explicitly religious organization, your "religious rights" do not extend to imposing your religious beliefs on your employees.
His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'
It revoked them.
... that group and it's side lost.
No, Prop 8 won.
Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.
Eich sought to and succeeded to criminalize behavior between consenting adults, and succeeded. There is no realistic effort to have the state (any state) sanction Eich for his views.
He's still perfectly free to get a job at Hobby Lobby, Cracker Barrel, Chick-Fil-A, Target and Best Buy.
There is also a difference between calling for someone's ouster and working to criminalize behavior between consenting adults.
I've grown attached to my ten inch Android tablet. I'd be willing to wipe it and try installing free Windows on it myself, but between having to be under 9 inches and being OEM only, I'm not about to buy a whole new tablet, especially not in a form factor that's too small for my purposes, just so that I can run Windows.
Too little, too late, in both senses of the word "little."
I can see a business model where you'd sell these glasses from the backs of comic books.
while these secret deals to fix recruiting were bad (and illegal), they were also needed to protect innovation by keeping teams together while avoiding spiraling costs
Yes, needing to offer competitive wages to creative team members would have increased the cost of the individual project, but that need not affect the company's bottom line if it finds cost savings elsewhere, like in executive compensation.
Anyway, billing cycles could simply ignore these days, just as they now ignore that our months are not equal in length.
If you start service on an epagomenal day, are you expected to pay for all of month 13? If you stop it on that day, are you excpected to pay for all of month 1?
I don't find a combination of 4, 100 and 400 easier to remember than 2^2 and 2^7.
The last skipped bissextile year was 1900. List all the skipped years from now until 3000 if we start using the 128-year cycle from that date, using only your head.
Now do the same for the Gregorian system.
This is America. Finding gunshot victims isn't that hard.
(which requires us to memorize a freakin' poem to remember how long months are)
It's a system that affords an easy division of the year into "quarters" (12 is highly composite, contrasted with prime 13), based on tropical seasons of unequal lengths (thanks to our elliptical orbit), seasons on which agriculture (the basis of all civilization) depends. By gaining ease of use in one area you're losing it in another.
In other words, we need to accept the fiction of an inaccurate placement of bissextile days which will ultimately cause the calendar to drift, because we need a simple system.
When asked if AD 4000 should be a bissextile or common year, the best that modern astronomy in 2014 can say is "maybe." Changing the intercalation cycle from one based on 400 years to one based on 128 years does not add appreciable precision or meaningful longevity into the calendar, but does increase the complexity in implementing it.
Don't think Clavius didn't know that 400 years was less precise than other options.
In case you haven't noticed, you are offering completely inconsistent justifications, using whatever logic is necessary to maintain the status quo.
Even if I am, the status quo is already in place and has a lot of social inertia behind it. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the extraordinary change of implementing this calendar will require extraordinary justification. All I'm seeing here is a different arrangement of trade-offs, and we'd have nothing to gain from changing but entropy.
By the way, I'm pretty sure your billing software would work just as easily with 13 standard month lengths, and a day grafted on (as a fiction) to a neighboring month for billing or whatever
Which neighboring month? What's to stop the water company from appending it to month 1 and the power company from appending it to month 13? Hell, it only took 1800 years for everyone to agree that the new year started in January rather than March.
And if/when we do ever reach an agreed-upon standard for which month to append the epagomenal day to, why then treat it as its own month to begin with?
Again: epagomenal days aren't new, but aren't popular and are currently only used in religious practice (where "God Himself told them to"). I don't see how this new proposal addresses this old problem.
just as we already do with leap day
Because everyone agrees the intercalary day is a part of February, because that's a part of the defined standard.
And the reason the Julian calendar got screwed up has to do with an ambiguity in Roman counting about whether to count "inclusively" (i.e., including the starting and ending points) or not. We don't have that problem nowadays
Again: do arrays start with 0 or 1?
Regardless, it highlights the need for ease-of-use when communicating a concept to the general public, especially when transitioning between counting systems, which this proposal with its "month 0" does.
We don't have that problem nowadays, and with modern technology and advance notice, it would be easy to implement non-leap-day years whenever necessary to be more accurate
We already have that with the Chinese calendar. The PRC's national observatory communicates exactly when the first lunar conjunction east of ecliptic longitude 300 degrees occurs (Beijing Time) and the duration of every true lunation thereafter (also Beijing Time) until the next new year. It is as precise as modern astronomy allows, because that's exactly what it is. Why aren't you using it?
The real reason for many of your quibbles is simply because we have a standard time system and nobody wants to change it.
... and?
Are you having fun yet?
