Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.
They felt he was the public face of the company.
Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.
There's just too much volume to track all the content everywhere.
There are 350 million people in the USA, more or less. Including kids not of age to use computers. One computer, just one, operates at billions of instructions per second (when the code is written in anything efficient, like c.) The NSA has a newish huge data center located on the main trunks.
You do the math. If you still think they can't sieve that amount of data effectively, why then, good on you for your optimism.
Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.
However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.
It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.
It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.
Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.
Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.
Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?
Trump is assumed by some to have won based on (anticipated) EC votes. However, three facts:
1 - The EC hasn't voted yet.
2 - The EC does not have to vote for Trump.
3 - Clinton got (a lot) more votes from, you know, the people.
Trump may well end up to be president. But he isn't the president yet; he isn't even the president-elect yet.
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.
She should have been paid at least prevailing wages for time spent on the case.
That would be really dumb to do since a web of cameras and recordings can track you all the way back to entering the terminal.
I am 100% against all forms of taxation, have been 100% against all forms of taxation. I am not against charity though and this is charity.
I wonder why you don't see that this type of charity is much better than any form of taxation for the purposes outlined in the story? So if FB had to pay more taxes than it managed to pay (legally, but I don't care, I think everybody needs to hide 100% of their money from all forms of taxation legally or illegally, whatever) why would it be better for your position? Why would it be better to take money from a company and use it for all the things that government uses it instead of using it specifically to attempt some form of charity that government pretends it's doing?
Let's say FB had to pay 10Million USD in income taxes (I don't know the numbers, could be many times that) so why wouldn't it be better to have that money go directly to the cause they are supporting instead of funnelling it through any form of government at all?
Is it because you cannot stand the idea that there is no oppression by the mob involved there?
If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.