You can't do the impossible, and no techniques will allow you to do infinite work in a given period of time. This can be a permanent push back (never going to do it) or a temporary one (we'll discuss it at the next planning meeting).

If they won't be pushed back, stop caring and dust off the resume. Don't work for people who aren't willing to compromise.

I dunno. I'm pretty liberal myself, and I've supported same sex marriage since even before it was legal here in Massachusetts. I see no reason to boycott an author *just because I disagree with him*.

Now I could perhaps see some point in it if it were ten years ago, and I'd be sending money to an anti-gay marriage activist who would turn around and spend it on perpetuating an injustice. But as Card says, it's a moot point now. Opposition to gay marriage has been defeated with stunning rapidity, and as the change is implemented people will discover that dire predictions for the institution of marriage won't come true. In twenty years young people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

So the only point of a boycott NOW is to punish Card for being wrong. I suppose there's something in that, but I can't get all that excited about it; it smacks of being a bad winner. And if we punish people on our right for being wrong, shouldn't we also punish people on our left? Shall we boycott Frederik Pohl for being a former communist? Granted, he's not really much to *my* left, but I've never advocated nationalizing private businesses, I think that's morally wrong.

Now I don't care a bit about the movie, it can sink without a trace as far as I'm concerned, but to be totally consistent in the Jihad Against Card we'd *also* have to target the book; to shame people who buy the book and stores that sell the book. Against the value of stroking our righteous indignation against Card for his past misdeeds, we have to set the loss the the public of what is a landmark literary work. It's hard to name a science fiction novel in the past thirty or forty years of greater literary importance. Perhaps THE DISPOSESSED, GATEWAY, THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, or TAU ZERO. Just a handful, and few of them are as accessible as ENDER'S GAME, which can be read as a straight up adventure story or bildungsroman. Accessible it may be, but ENDER'S GAME does something very interesting and ambitious: it explores the very nature of moral responsibility.

If there is a moral imperative to make the ENDER'S GAME movie into a commercial failure, then why wouldn't the *same* imperative must apply equally to the novel? And if we forced ENDER'S GAME out of the bookstores, we'd be depriving those future people (who have no idea what the fuss about same sex marriage was about) of an important science fiction novel.

And most of them made horrible developers. There's basic bits of theory and knowledge that most (not all, but most) self taught and high school educated developers never learn. The move to requiring a CS degree wasn't due to degree inflation, it was to get more knowledgeable developers.

We pay $50+ here in America for concerts because of music pirating

Oh, is that the reason? Why not just say pirating causes breast cancer too?

The quality of RIAA/MPAA troll has really gone down. I guess qualified people are figuring out that it's better doing something that's more ethical, like running three card monte games.

The product. Our justice system is designed to manufacture criminals which profits police, judges, lawyers, politicians, prison guards, prison owners, small towns that surround prisons, etc. There are lots and lots of people in our economy that benefit when someone is incarcerated, and fewer who benefit when one is freed. That creates a lot of perverse incentives.

As a white-male-hetero I fully agree with you on an intellectual level. They should have settled for the same privileges with a different name, it makes perfect logical sense... This was my initial stance, one I argued with my LGBT friends in college, and the stance I used to justify not signing their petitions or supporting their demonstrations.

I've come to realize, though, that this isn't a logical issue to them, this is an emotive "rights" issue. Why would they want to settle for the same, while accepting that they are (at least semantically) inferior? Civil unions might destroy the actual discrimination, but the context would still be discriminatory. We'd be telling them "fine, you can marry, but you're still really second class sorry."

Its like if we removed "separate but equal" from African American's, but classified them as different (lesser) still. The actual abuse has been eliminated, but all of the baggage behind it remains.

This is hard for people like me to understand, since I've never really been in that position. I've never been a topic, and no one has ever really wanted to classify me as anything other than the majority. I'm normal, by default. This is a very privileged position.

Another thing that turned me was the fact that I don't actually understand why they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. It doesn't hurt anyone to let them claim the title of "married". It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't hurt society. It doesn't hurt my relationship. If won't make America's abysmal marriage statistics much worse. There is no reason to really oppose it, then, at least according to my strong social libertarian (little-"L") principles. The main arguments I have seen have been from a religious foundation, which holds no water with me, nor should it in government. Some have been based bigoted exclusionist rhetoric; "they are different, therefore evil and corrupting". Or they have been based on naive political ideologies (big-"L" Libertarians, mostly), whose rationals often smell utopian, and verge on being completely aloof of human consequences, and some arguments from this quarter strike me as logically inconsistent.

The big thing is that there really is no reason whatsoever not to let them. It hurts no one. If is a net positive, in that there are more happy people, more inclusive definitions of "rights", and we're closer to all of us having an even playing field. And, a bit more snarkily, it pisses of bigots and homophobes, which is a personal plus.

Feeding a troll (I hope):

What contortions? "It doesn't hurt me or anyone else, therefore it is none of my business"; doesn't qualify as much of a contortion.

Then its your facebook contacts who are useless.

Wow! You mean a dodgy video (or other media file) can cause a player to stop execution and end in a controlled manner.

Is VLC actually exiting? It should put up a "this media file is corrupt" message with perhaps a backtrace under a disclosure pane. But that's a usability issue, not a security one.

VLC over-priced? What planet are you on, it's a free in both senses of the word, you plank!

Adjust the squelch on your sarcasm meter. He means that big expensive projects tend to pay exorbitant licensing fees to software companies and don't bother with free software.

Can the flight control system verify the sensor readings before launch? "Sensor 7 says the rocket is pointing towards the Earth on the launchpad - we might want to have a look".

/. has become ultra conservative when it comes to interface changes.

Interestingly, that conservatism also leaks over into 'vendor' loyalty. Rightly, GNOME 3 should never have been integrated into the major desktop linux distros. The idea that "we like what upstream has done with v2, and now they're going to v3, so we need to go to v3" is a degree of loyalty that ought to be proven, not granted.

It's probably a hard lesson to learn, but perhaps a necessary step for the ecosystem. Given the decision again, I wonder how many might have switched to LXDE, XFCE, or KDE as their default GUI.

I hope the rigor that was missed on GNOME 3 is applied to the Wayland/et. al. stack progression (and others making very large changes). That's a bit conservative too, but good progressivism in any field of endeavor ought to have a merit filter and not merely embrace change for the sake of change.

The state is a wholly owned subsidary of the prison/industrial/military complex.

Gnome wanted to shift its target market.

That's a good insight. I wish the governors of the major linux desktop distros would have realized this much earlier (or even today in some cases) and either not gone along with GNOME 3 or relegated it to a niche spin (which it does deserve as an interesting alternative technology).

I am only concerned with whether individual rights are being upheld or violated.

Except we're talking about the "rights" of corporations here, which are government fictions. If Apple wants to give up its corporate form, I'm right there with you. But I rather suspect what they want are the rights of a natural person without the liabilities that come with it. The (theoretical) trade for the corporate protection is the subjugation to regulation that natural persons (should) avoid.

And yes, I realize that many companies form a corporation to avoid the ravages of a dysfunctional court system. SNAFU.