Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:SAVE US AND THE WEB FROM MOZILLA! (Score 1) 317

by Xtifr (#49602337) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

Well, yes. But the paranoid Social Injustice Warriors who believe that Mozilla has become part of an ebul liberal plot to undermine western society and force us to all become devil worshippers and give Hugo awards only to registered members of the Communist party also believe that he was secretly forced to resign, and since the question wasn't relevant to my point, I decided to skirt the issue. But that is why I chose the (admittedly ambiguous) phrase "let him go." No matter who actually made the decision, the foundation certainly allowed it. :)

Comment: Re:SAVE US AND THE WEB FROM MOZILLA! (Score 1) 317

by Xtifr (#49595329) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

You mean the way we never hear the end of it now? I mean, here we are discussing it how many years later? :)

Seriously, I'm surprised the bigots didn't get together and fund him enough money to retire on, the way they did that pizza owner who said he'd refuse to cater a gay wedding recently.

And then there's the whole blaming Mozilla for the situation, when they were facing a massive boycott. The browser may be free, but the foundation depends on money from third parties (like Google), who only pay if the brower actually gets into people's hands. He thus became a liability to the foundation, quite literally, and even he clearly knew it.

1. The point of the foundation is to promote the use of Firefox.
2. Eich's appointment had the opposite effect; it was causing people to switch away from Firefox.

You can say all those people who were organizing the boycott are evil if you want (that's another debate), but I don't see how anyone with two brain cells to rub together can blame the foundation for taking what was the only reasonable way out of the no-win corner they'd painted themselves into. They either kept him, and faced widespread outrage and an ongoing boycott, or they let him go and faced widespread outrage. So, they picked outrage, because that was already unavoidable.

Comment: Re:SAVE US AND THE WEB FROM MOZILLA! (Score 2) 317

by Goaway (#49594593) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

However, I think the point Anonymous Coward was making is that if it were reversed, and someone lost their job for supporting same sex marriage, you'd never hear the end of it.

First thing to remember is that this is not someone who lost their job, it's a boss being rejected by his employees. That is a very special and unusual kind of situation, where normal power relationships are inverted. You can't really say the person in question is being oppressed here.

So if a company rejected their boss for agreeing with same-sex marriage, if the rest of the company was by and whole against it, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I would not claim they had done anything morally wrong (beyond to whatever extent I think holding such an opinion is morally wrong).

Comment: Difference between "need" and "want" (Score 1) 301

Technically, I only need one. I can always attach a hub. And, in an emergency, one is enough that I could suck out its power to recharge my phone. However, it would have to have a truly outstanding set of other features to make up for its lack. I'm not sure I can imagine a laptop with only USB that I'd actually be willing to buy, but I can't say it's not possible. But I do need at least one.

Want, however, is another issue. I want probably at least four, and would be dubious about buying anything with less than three. :)

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 5, Insightful) 700

by Xtifr (#49578403) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

Ah, I see. The rights of gay people, people of color, and women are "bullshit to get people worked up over petty, unimportant, feelgood crap." Let me guess: you're not gay, of color, or female. Because I assure you that to people who do fall into at least one of those categories, those are not unimportant issues! For that matter, weed, while much less important, is still a fairly big issue to many sick people who don't respond well to other medications; a not insignificant number of people. But, of course, to you, anyone who cares about weed must be a useless stoner...

You're correct to suggest that the parties are identical on a lot of important issues, which is sad, because they're quite often both on the same wrong side. But they're on different sides on a lot of other issues, which, despite your lack of interest, are actually important to a lot of people. And on those issues, it seems to me, as someone faced with chosing between them on a regular basis, that the Dems are on the correct side the overwhelming majority of the time. Not always--I judge candidates by their stands on the issues, and I have voted for Republicans in the past, and may do so again if moderate fiscal conservatives ever manage to take back the party from the religious, anti-science nutjobs that seem to be running it now--but usually.

Comment: Re:What is or is not a religion? (Score 1) 700

by Xtifr (#49486961) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

So, for capital crimes, relying on people's judgement is ok, but not for money matters? I think your priorities may be a bit screwed up.

The simple fact is that the government is already making those judgements. As someone who has founded three religions (one of which had as many as five members at one point), I assure you my ability to write off church expenses is precisely nil.

I agree, "common sense" is not sufficient by itself for such matters, but since these judgements are already being made (see my earlier reference to the Mormons), why can't they be applied to Scientology? I don't know the gory details, but I'm pretty sure the criteria for becoming a tax-deductable church are rather more complicated than "just some guy who decides". I'm pretty sure there are laws and precedence.

If some random guy (like me) could just declare himself a church and stop paying taxes, and the government weren't allowed to decide whether that's a valid claim (as OP seems to think), I'm pretty sure the amount of taxes collected in this country would be pretty close to zero! :)

Comment: Re:They have been, but there's a snag (Score 1) 309

by Xtifr (#49483389) Attached to: NVIDIA's New GPUs Are Very Open-Source Unfriendly

As someone who has been using AMD Linux drivers (the built-in ones in the kernel) for the past year+, without noticing any of these problems you mention, I'm curious if you can document any of this. I'm certainly not going to claim you're wrong, since I don't push the drivers, and they may well have problems I've never noticed. But all I know is they've sped up incredibly since 3.9 or so, and now seem to do everything I ask of them. If there are problems I should be wary of, I'd really like to know.

Comment: Re:What is or is not a religion? (Score 1) 700

by Xtifr (#49480017) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

how are we deciding what is or is not a religion?

Using these things called "judgement" and perhaps even "common sense". The same tools used to distinguish Murder One from mere Manslaughter (fer example).

If there's no legal criteria to refer to, then you're setting a precedent for revoking the legal protections for any religion that you don't like.

There's already precedent: the LDS church was not considered a valid religion for a long time. Once they cleaned up their act, the decision was reconsidered.

No directory.

Working...