Bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

He holds a different view to them, they were intolerant of his view, enough so to demand his dismissal over something entirely not work related and that had not affected his work in the slightest.

How is this not bigotry?

Liberal: 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

I'm not sure if not respecting others differing opinions can come under "liberal" in fact I think it's quite the opposite.

Definition of bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

He could plenty well be tolerant of those who have different opinions than his own, he can think gay marriage shouldn't be a thing while respecting that others disagree.

Can you tell me where he said that nobody should be allowed to be gay? Or are you just making things up and assuming things?

Again, citation please? or is this another assumption?

It is rhetoric, because you know nothing at all about the situation and are trying to paint an extremely hateful image of a person simply from them thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Did he say that? or are you assuming this again? It is quite possible to think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed while simultaneously harbouring no ill will towards homosexuals, not caring who couples with who but caring about marriage.

More like the bigoted (in the sense of not tolerating people with different views) left-wing hate machine found him when he took up a job with visibility.

You shouldn't assume so many things about him, when you do so you create a straw man.

There's a difference between not supporting a cause, and actively sabotaging unrelated things because of a persons political affiliation/beliefs.

One results in discussion and peaceful protest. The other results in "You can't work here because you campaigned for x" even if it's just a manufacturing job.

What happens when the latter gets the majority? Similar deal as to 'voluntary segregation' back in the old days, no need for laws to get their will done, those wielding the social power just make life difficult/impossible for anyone that doesn't agree with them.

If a left-wing person had everyone around them refuse to hire/work for them because of a political belief they hold, they'd cry murder. But when the tables are turned, it seems to be perfectly fine..

Where does this "right to be able to get married" come from? Here I thought it was a privilege, with conditions.

the definition of bigotry

"intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."

From other commenters here.

"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."

"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "

It is bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry, and pretty hypocritical at that.

Actually it speaks volumes. It's a thing of "get the job done, if niceties get in the way, prioritize the job over niceties" kind of thinking.

And it can function quite well, or not, depending on the situation.

I'm not sure whether I'd consider being willing to go the extra mile in competition adolescent or not, more.. determined.

Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.

Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.

If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?

That software can even be patented at all is ridiculous.

Not really

If I find a nice project that what I want.. but then I hit a bug, I then proceed to debug it until it is fixed (depending on complexity) then send a but report attaching the patch.

Nice and otherwise useful programs can have show-stopping bugs in edge cases sometimes. It's worth my while to fix the edge cases if they hit me to get the functionality I want back up and working as intended.

For the most part I'd advocate avoiding unnecessary interference. Let people be people. There are feminists out there who believe we should engineer society to be a certain way, and I'd disagree with that.

In regards to helping people in poor economic circumstances, I'd advocate not discriminating by race, do it by need. If one race happens to be more disadvantaged than another they can get help, but I do not see race-based advantages and laws working at all. In some cases they can even prove a detriment to the very groups they were made to help.

For the most part, I don't give a damn what other people want to do. It's none of my business. However when people interfere with something I'm involved in entirely on the premise of race or sex.. then I have issue. In regards to people who just want to get out there and get a job done, the only time feminism would appear is when it is causing unnecessary issues from possibly over-sensitive people.

The most reasonable feminists I see tend to rather be egalitarians than feminists. Funnily enough I'd consider trying to equate 'fair' with 'feminine' as slightly sexist itself.

Your friends, do they support affirmative action? If so to what level do you think they would find acceptable? Do you think sexism in the name of reducing sexism is a good idea?

Egalitarianism has troubles too, it can conflict with meritocracy (and meritocracy has it's own issues also).

The kinds of feminists I know are the sort that go to rallies and whose facebook feeds are a trove of propaganda. They mean well, but the intellectual dishonesty in their means of achieving their goals can aggravate at times.

The problem I find with well meaning and otherwise nice people feminists I've encountered, tends to be.

1. Having a very female-centric view of things at times.

2. Having a very oversimplified view of both history and the nature of human interaction.

3. Using these to form very pro-female policies without consideration of how it affects others than the target group.

We see people advocating effectively banning males from positions etc, which of course ran afoul of the sexual discrimination act 1975.. so what did they do? amend the act do it was ok to discriminate by sex so long as it was men who were being barred from positions.

Preaching equality is nice and all, but a lot of people here go by practical actions we have seen, and the public face of feminism is what people visibly do under it's name. Unfortunately a lot of nasty shit can be justified by some people under the name of 'equality'. I honestly think that the majority believe they are being good people, and doing the 'right' thing, there is just no consideration of the other groups they are affecting.

As for there is being difference in reaction to a man hitting a woman to a woman hitting a man. This video is an example of that kind of thing

Which oscilloscope?

And to get everything in focus at that level of detail you need a _very_ flat subject, or to have everything you want at the infinity focus level.

The depth of field (area that is in acceptable focus) decreases as required detail goes up, not to mention that if you up the required detail enough you wind up being forced to use a larger aperture otherwise diffraction effects will be the limiting factor.. using a larger aperture decreases the depth of field even more.

There are real practical limits for getting serious detail, unless your subject is completely flat and/or it's all at infinity focus.

It's the same problem large format photographers have had for ages, a surplus of detail at the sensor (film) level, but never enough depth of field to use it all.