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.
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?
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?
Capitalism is private ownership and operation of resources, it's not a relationship with an employer.
The problem is that the increased profit goes to the wrong people.
- so the people who come up with ideas that allow them to increase efficiencies and then implement them are the wrong people?
It's not entirely vaporware.
- it's Hydroware.
So.......we just had an article on Slashdot that showed there are more jobs in America now, at the end of the Obama administration, than there ever have been in the entire history of the US. More people working.
First, I'm not about to claim that Trump is going to improve anything for the common man. Having a populist revolt that emplaces a Billionare cabinet...
Yes, Obama got more people to work than anyone else ever. However, middle-class well-being has not correspondingly increased (meaning wages aren't great for a lot of those jobs) and the disparity between the most rich and everyone else has become much larger.
I haven't researched AI job reduction, but I think we could be no more than two decades away from the point where much menial labor is robotic and where professional drivers are for the most part replaced with machines.
Both Brexit and Trump can be seen as the final stage of neoliberal economics: it ends in a populist revolt.
It's not as if labor is just now facing the threat of automation. But nobody in the US - not the unions, not the companies, not the government - is solving the education gap that might help future workers.
MoCo could have paid as little as $1 for the license, along with an agreement to return profits, and that would be fair value. There's no question that the profits were returned.
However, there was never any possibility that any other entity would have been offered the license regardless of what they offered, and IMO had they considered that transaction based on the amount returned rather than achieving their purpose of a free internet, they would have disqualified themselves as a 501(c)3.
Fogle was a company spokesperson, who got fired before the trial started because whether or not he had actually committed any crime, the appearance of his behavior made him unsuitable as a spokesperson.
Was Eich similarly a company spokesperson? You need only look at Mozilla's press releases. He's quoted in them while he's CTO, and if you go on Youtube, you can see that he makes a number of conference keynotes representing the Foundation. Once he's CEO, he writes this piece on inclusiveness which is linked to in this Mozilla Foundation press release. So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.
Here's a video taking one apart and reverse-engineering it to see why it's so crappy.
You get what you pay for.
Did Mozilla Foundation get fair market value for licensing it trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, a how was this valuation arrived at?
Mozilla Foundation, as a 501(c)3 non-profit, would not base their decisions solely on valuation or profit, nor would they be required to, and indeed they could get in trouble with the IRS if they did. The decision to license to their own operating corporation was so that they could achieve the purposes in their constitution, which have to do with net freedom.
Don't like my answers? Do your own research.
To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.