Posts by dan1980

Re: give me a break

@jimbo60

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

I will now explain the evolution of the classic denier:

First: "There is no consensus!!!"

Then: "Consensus is irrelevant!!!"

Paralleled with:

First: "There is no evidence!!!"

Then: "The evidence doesn't count!!!"

Re: Overwhelming evidence that global warming is real?

@Bullseyed

What studies have you read? No, really? What research have you done to come away with assertion that "nothing that currently exists in the public space comes anywhere near proving this"?

Read through this:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#

and this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

Then reject the information out-of-hand.

Those who believe that either:

a.) there is no consensus, or

b.) consensus is a 'vapid' term

Might do well to look the info over as well, though they are just as likely to reject it out of hand as well.

Re: give me a break

@Rick Brasche

If you think "EVERY experimental result was nowhere near predicted results" then you simply haven't taken the time to understand the evidence.

When the 'pause' is discussed, understand this: it was a single measurement which was never going to give a full and scientific picture and has not been relied on to provide one in the past. The only way a 'pause' (more correctly a slowing of warming) can be seen is when one deliberately focusses on a single, incomplete data set.

This is not an evasion, nor is it trying to make "observation match hypothesis" - it is about a group of people cherry-picking data and pretending that it is the be-all-and-end-all of knock-out blows to AGW. For anyone who knows the measurements used as indicators and the reason why a single indicator is not proof of anything when taken in isolation, this 'pause' disappears.

Regarding this statement I keep reading about scientists "play[ing] up for government grant money", which government actually wants AGW to be true? I can tell you for a fact that the Australian Government certainly believes it isn't true and makes policy accordingly.

Re: give me a break

@jimbo60

There was no intention to compare you to Hovind as regards his pretended financial, and assured moral, bankruptcy - apologies if it came across that way.

No, my comparison was, as stated, based on Hovind's assertion that "no fossils counts as evidence of evolution", a claim that has nothing to do with tax avoidance. (That I can tell.)

The similarity I saw was that you, like him, assert that what those on the other side of the argument claim as evidence isn't really to be considered as such. The implication is therefore that those who claim this evidence is not only real but relevant and supportive of their theories as dishonest.

I see from this post that that is exactly your assertion. Fair enough.

It's very hard to have any kind of constructive argument when the other person proclaims his opponents to be dishonest and their evidence and arguments therefore inadmissible.

To finish (as it is late and even I am running out of steam), I would add to your warning that concensus != fact (a valid point) the admonition that just because some ideas previously held by consensus were proven false, that does not mean that a consensus is to be inherently distrusted.

With the disclaimer that I am not likening you to such people, that line of reasoning is a favourite of kooks the world over. "They laughed at Einstein!!!"

Again, late, so errors, apologies, etcetera.

Re: Loaded

@Davie Dee

My general agreement with you aside (have a vote thing), the 'supreme being' question does use the word 'supreme'. To me, this implies two things: an absolute pinacle, and a singular, unique existence. This preculdes 'some alien race'.

Though of course that kind of prooves your point, in it being down to an individual's reading of the question.

On the question of the earth's age, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old, just because, and then choose ~4.5b because I find it a reasonable estimate. I believe the earth is billions of years old because Clair Patterson (sp?) deduced that it was ~4.55b and, since then, other measurements have reinforced that.

Essentially, the reason I believe the Earth is the age it is said to be is because I accept the scientific consensus due to me having neither a good reason nor enough learning to challenge it.

Me saying that the Earth is only (e.g.) 4b years old would be odd - where would I have gotten that number from? Perhaps a paper I found argues for the younger age but on what basis and what knowledge would I be justified in replacing the esablished scientific consensus with this new figure?

Re: atheists are experts at NOT following consensus

@ Adam,

I don't believe in historical cycles - no real evidence and the scientists who proclaim that such cycles have occured in the past are just doing so to get grant money.

Or is the presented evidence and scientific consensus acceptable when it comes to historical, natural cycles? I forget which ice-cores I am supposed to accept as solid proof of out-of-our-hands natural movements and which I am supposed to recognise as flimsy evidence misrepresented to support alarmist exaggeration.

If only there was some neat rule, such as all evidence supporting natural cycles being valid and all evidence supporting a noticeable human component being fabrications of the leftist, mainstream conspiracy.

That'd make it easier for everyone!

Re: Rant bait

@Jim 59

Be that as it may, I, for one, am having a great time and quite enjoying the back-and-forward debate. Isn't that why such articles are so well attended - because we are all self-righteous, opinionated, holier-than-thou types who love to lob personal insults from the moral high-ground?

Or is that just me?

Re: The takeaway . . .

@ewozza

If you think that mean surface temperature is the 'most important metric' then you may have misunderstood things.

The very first thing to understand is that there is no 'pause' in global warming - what was touted by you in a previous post as "diddly squat" - is in fact a continued warming trend. It has not stopped, it has not reversed. The data shows that the warming trend merely slowed for that period.

Now, the next thing to understand is that the data set that was the basis of the slower-than-expected-warming-but-warming-nonetheless claim was ONE metric (surface temp data) from ONE source (the UK Met Office) - and that data is restricted to the coverage that that source has.

That coverage is about 85% of the globe but, of note, there is near zero coverage of the Arctic. If you keep up with climate science (one must presume . . . ) then you would be well aware that measurements show that the Arctic is warming nearly twice as rapidly as the rest of the globe. This 'gap' alone, once filled-in, increases the warming anywhere from 1.7x to 2.6x the original estimates. (Yes, another thing missing here is that these are estimates.)

This brings it FAR closer to the models and turns the slower-than-expected-warming-but-warming-nonetheless result into more of an almost-as-fast-as-expected-warming-but-slowed-by-enough-to-warrant-more-research.

So, now we come to the third thing that needs to be understood, and that is that increasing quantities of heat energy is being absorbed by the oceans, specifically the deeper layers. This has been known for a while and, once worked out, goes even further towards making up the difference.

Expanding on that, change in climate is, essentially, a mixture of positive and negative forcings, both natural and artificial/human-caused. What we have seen recently is strong negative forcings from most - if not all - of the natural cycles, from solar cycles to increased volcanic activity. This has been coupled with some increased artificial negative forcings, notably in the form of a significant increase in aerosols from India and China, contributing to radiative forcing, which reflects heat-energy back out into space.

Even with these compounded negative forcings, the temperature has still increased and this 'paused' decade is still the warmest recorded.

That put aside, and coming to your closing thought, you make an important point: that you, as a tax-payer and as someone who may be affected by 'mitigation measures', have a right to demand that the science is right.

The question is: when will you accept that it is right, and by what criteria will you judge it? As you do not have the requisite scientific knowledge and experience to make this judgement yourself, who will you trust? Whose pronouncement that AGW is real will you accept?

The very, very important point is that if AGW is true and that our behaviours are noticeably contributing to the net positive forcing, simply waiting and not changing that behaviour is making it worse. You may disagree with those who say that AGW is real but what if you are wrong? I'm not putting that forward as an argument, just a question, because the course of action whilst AGW is unproven to your standards appears to be the same as the course of action of AGW being false: change nothing.

If your broker/financial advisor warns of a potential drop in a sector then, while it might not be a great idea to pull all your money out, it would be prudent to diversify a bit and put some hedges in place.

So where is the cautious middle-ground? That's what's missing from the 'we need more evidence' position.

Re: What I personally think is strange is how...

@AC

". . . we must remember that there is a real place somewhere that the picture was taken of."

Apologies - that wasn't stated in the post, merely that there was an image composed of pixels. The interface of my web browser is just such an image and (thankfully) is not a 'real place'.

While dissecting analogies isn't overly productive, let me just add that viewing the image doesn't really help you create an accurate model of how it is generated, nor does it help you create a different image, whereas understanding how an image is generated can help you create an accurate model of what the image will look like or create a new image.

Applying it to, for example, climate change, one of the comments mentioned the recent so-called warming 'pause'.

Those who look just at the 'picture' see that average surface temperature increase has slowed and have concluded that, as we have continued to pump out CO2, during this 'pause', human-generated CO2 doesn't cause warming.

Those analysing the 'pixels', however, found that two big factors have been overlooked - being measurements of the Arctic and increased mixing of sea water due to a period of stronger trade winds. Continuing to beat on our analogy, their model said that the red, green and blue (sub-)pixels combined as they were should show a certain image. The image seen was different and it was found that the screen had a filter on top, distorting the image.

In finding this, they were able to further refine their models with this new data, thus improving subsequent pictures.

Again, we gain little by dissecting the analogy but I enjoy it!

Re: give me a break

@jimbo60

"And the whole idea of consensus is such a vapid concept."

Why is consensus a 'vapid concept'?

What consensus should be taken to mean in a scientific context such as climate change or evolution, is that numerous lines of inquiry, backed by experiments and measurements and fulfilled predictions, conducted by many scientists across several different fields mutually support a given conclusion and that a majority of scientists (of relevant qualifications), having read and UNDERSTOOD the various results, agree with that conclusion.

That is what consensus means in this context and I would venture to say that if you consider such a thing 'vapid' then no amount of evidence is likely to move you.

You, and those like you, remind me of Kent Hovind and his blanket assertion that "no fossil counts as evidence for evolution".

The thing that you share in common is that, once your arguments are examined, you are essentially claiming that thousands of scientists from different universities and institutions, in different countries and from multiple disciplines are in cahoots, concocting some fanciful story and falsifying evidence to support it.

I mean, you claim there is little evidence and, what little there is, is the "thinest of evidence" and yet there are thousands of scientists who agree that this evidence points to human factors leading to climate change.

So surely, in your world view, these scientists (most of whom have never met more than a few handfuls of their peers) must be part of a grand conspiracy to trick the world into reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of their nefarious master plan.

How else could so many of them so completely misconstrue or misrepresent the data so often?

Re: Breaking News!!

@Leslie Graham

"And who told you anyway? Oh yeah - those same thousands of climate scientists who are also telling us that the current warming has nothing to do with any natural cycle."

My feelings exactly and I had this same argument in another thread.

Re: The climate facts are not that complex

@ewozza

". . . it has done diddly squat to global temperature."

No, that is an unscientific conclusion from incomplete, cherry-picked data.

What you are referring to is more accurately rephrased as: "a single climate indicator of truncated scope* has shown that the mean surface temperature has indeed risen over the last two decades but has done so less than the same indicator rose during previous periods."

A dozen or more other indicators - such as Arctic sea ice extent, sea level rise, ocean heat content, near-surface air temperature, lower tropospheric temperature, stratospheric cooling (yes, cooling), glacier mass balance, etc... - are taken into account when attempting to form an accurate picture of climate change and the majority of these (indeed all of the above-mentioned) show changes in accordance with the models and predictions.

* - Not taking into account the Arctic, or deeper sea measurements for instance.

I don't believe either religious folk or Republicans are - as a rule - stupid.

What this survey presents is a range of positions about which the scientific community overwhelmingly agree upon* but about which a significant portion of the general population (of North America, at least) disagree with.

There are many conclusions equally well supported by the scientific community that the general population have no problem with so why are these issues so contentious?

The answer is that many of the surveyed positions run to peoples' world view and, in some cases, contradict things they have been taught their entire lives. In many cases, this is religious.

For someone without specific scientific learning, on what grounds do they disagree with the position that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old? Maybe it is a failure of my imagination but I simply can't see any reason beyond it contradicting their faith and this is where the connection to religion lies.

Evolution is as settled as smoking causing cancer yet very few people seemed to have problems with accepting the latter.

It's not about stupidity, but about trying to understand why some people are willing to accept one position that is almost universally accepted amongst scientists but will reject another, equally well-agreed position.

* - Except the one about a designed universe.

Re: The takeaway . . .

@ewozza

The fact that the first argument you present is about the 'pause' in global warming is indicative of your mindset.

For the record, the warming 'pause' that is held in such high regard by those who disagree with AGW was based on a single measurement: the average surface temperature of the globe. Of note, it didn't even include the Arctic. That's not opinion - that's the data that these claims were based on.

It is good to be prudent and unwise to jump to conclusions, or rush into action. It also unwise - or at least unrealistic - however, to insist on perfect prediction and zero uncertainty before acting.

It is strange that people seem to expect this of climate scientists when they don't practice it themselves. Do you sell your house now because financial experts predict that the market will fall in the coming months or do you hold off until you can be shown unequivocal proof that prices will drop? Do you leave home without an umbrella and jacket unless you can see it raining and feel the chill?

Do you refuse preventative surgery before a condition can be proven beyond doubt?

Do governments decide not to spend money on their militaries unless it can be proven that they are under attack?

To address your last point, a lot of scientists saying one thing is evidence that a lot of scientists are in agreement. That's what this study is about - it presents the majority opinion of the scientific community to see how many people accept that.

If you don't accept the majority scientific consensus then it means that you either:

1. Understand the models, evidence, data and science better than they do.

2. Have evidence and data not available to the scientific community.

3. You have chosen to accept the minority position because it meshes with what you believe better than the majority position.

The point is that all these positions, including those around climate change, are the positions held by the majority of scientists in those fields. If you disagree with those positions - which is fine! - then you are saying that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. This is also fine, but I would hope that you then had a comparable scientific understanding to those you are disagreeing with. Your example of the warming 'pause' shows that if you do have such an understanding then you are not displaying it.

Re: What I personally think is strange is how...

"You will never see the picture by studying the pixels."

Perhaps not, but what you will see is that the image you thought was made up of gentle curves is actually made up of jagged lines. And, looking deeper, all the yellows and oranges and purples and crimsons and turquoises and browns and greys are, in fact, made up of groupings of red, green and blue.

All the millions of colours and subtle hues and shades you see are really just an illusion.

Looking at an image on the screen shows you what the image is of, but analysing the pixels shows you how it has been generated.

If you were to see a TV/computer screen for the first time, you might wonder if it had elements able to be excited to any particular wavelength, thus generating any colour. This was largely where sub-atomic physics was before the discovery of quarks: an unwieldy zoo of particles - pions and Psis and Upsilons and Kaons and Sigmas and so on.

A digression but the point is that understanding the elements that make up the whole is necessary to fully understand something.

As for how someone can 'have confidence' in evolution, perhaps you are focusing on semantics.

@J to the S

"If there was overwhelming evidence for global warming we wouldn't be having a debate now would we?

That argument only really works if the 'evidence' is properly understood by the 'we' that is/are(?) debating it.

I, personally, don't understand a great deal of it. I dare say that neither you, nor the vast majority of this site's readers and writers understand it either. It gets simplified for consumption because in many cases a full and accurate understanding may require years of diligent study - study that the general public neither have nor will put in. That simplification means that we can all digest the general gist, which is good, but also means that we can end up believing that we understand it when really we don't.

This is natural (we all like to think we understand everything) but tends to lead people to believe things that reinforce their existing biases.

There is still a big enough debate amongst the general public over the age of the earth - whether it is 'young' (~6000y) or 'old' (~4.5by). Does that mean the evidence isn't overwhelming? No, because it is.

Likewise for the 'big bang'. Sure, it may not be true but it is currently the best fit for the evidence gathered. If you (not you, specifically) do not accept that then you are either choosing to agree with a minority position that is not the best fit for the evidence or you have some new evidence - in which case I am sure the scientists who have made it their life's work studying the origins of the universe would be very interested to see it.

There is significant debate amongst lay people over the 0.99999... = 1 identity. There is no such debate amongst mathematicians.

I am not having a go at you, just pointing out that the existence of debate in the general population, unlearned and unskilled in a particular field, is not necessarily proof or even indication of a similar level of debate and uncertainty amongst professionals in that field.

Re: Something is Bad Wrong

@Don Jefe

I think there may well be arrogance but I am not sure that it is the defining characteristic. (Not that you claimed it was . . .)

I think there are three main types of Bitcoin advocates:

• Those who view it as an investment.
• Those who view it as a path to some utopian freedom of information-based society.
• Those who view it from an ideological position involving a return to the 'gold standard' or equivalent.

The first group is easy to understand. The second group I find myself sympathising with, even as I know - deep down - that that particular ship has long since sailed. They at least are in it for more-or-less good, or at least benign reasons.

The last group is the most interesting to me.

This group comprises the same people who argue for a return to the gold standard for currency and it's important to understand where they're coming from. While their arguments might be heavy on the fiscal justification for a commodity-backed currency, their position cannot be understood without connecting it to their Libertarian, "small government" ideals.

The reason they support such a currency is not, ultimately, about fiscal merits but about making currency independant of the government. Their arguments hold sway with those who believe that "tax is theft" and that the government providing a public healthcare option somehow means that the government will force you to stop seeing your local doctor and make you see a doctor of their choosing instead.

The most important part is that the currency portion of their plan can't just occur in isolation - it must be matched with a much-reduced government and the abolition of the vast majority of public services.

Re: Something is Bad Wrong

"It's no different than commodities trading in a totally unregulated environment."

I'd say the only real difference is that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value to support it.

@KjetilS

"I would never accept an 'invitation' from the US 'justice' system . . ."

What if you had requested the "US 'justice' system" hear your case to award you bankruptcy status in the US to protect you from US creditors?

Re: 100% of the rights afforded them by law

@Arachnoid

Unless I have misread the issue (or your post), they are seeking the protection (yes, protection) of bankruptcy in the US to deal with their US creditors.

If you are seeking legal protections of a jurisdiction it makes sense that you should have to comply with the laws of that jurisdiction.

While I am not possessed of great legal knowledge, international business has been a well-established fact of life for a long time now and one can reasonably expect the legal frameworks surrounding that to be equally well-established.

The US knows what it's doing here - it seems that Karpeles is the one that is acting a bit bizarrely.

Again, I'm not well-versed in international law or business law but I really can't see that Karpeles has anything to gain by this behaviour and, on the contrary, it seems he has much to lose.

He has a chance to tell his side of the story and get it on the record. He is being afforded the full protections of the law - should he avail himself of them. If he doesn't, I just can't see how his situation improves.

I am no fan of heavy-handed tactics or US arrogance and overreach but in this instance he is trying to "avail himself of [the US courts]" (Jernigan J) so should be co-operating with them and the government.

Re: Whay the need to travel to the USA when ...

@Don Jefe has really brought up the most salient point/question: why apply for bankruptcy in the US if you aren't going to show for an interview.

It's really quite bizarre.

What they did was not exceptional - they entrusted their investments to a custodian 'bank'.

Millions of people do this with places like Deutsche Bank, BNP, Goldman Sachs, etc . . .

The difference is that, as there is no regulation of BTC, there is no mandated protection for the clients.

If you use a custodian bank, you choose one based on the services they provide, including the security and guarantees of your funds. Those who chose MtGox chose a custodian with no securities or guarantees.

It is like storing your stuff in a dedicated storage facilities, which generally do not accept liability for any losses. Many of these places actually tell you that you have to have insurance as part of the agreement (which can be taken out privately or with the facility).

The unfortunate fact is that, until recently, there were no facilities that provided insurance for stored bitcoins.

Re: Something is Bad Wrong

"Ineptitude isn't a crime, but both the US and Japan can limit interstate, interprovincial and international trades of anything if it can be shown that anyone involved in gross ineptitude attempts to become involved in another situation where third party value can be lost (again)."

Ahh . . . If only it worked that way for politicians too.

"I like my regular money."

Me too; may I have some?

The thing about Bitcoin that gets me is that I wonder what people were/are thinking buying such quantities of BTC that they have been hit big by the loss.

Anyone who has/had enough BTC to be worried about losing them is using them as an investment device, rather than as currency. Given that's the case, surely they should understand the extreme volatility of this particular investment?

Of course, no one would expect more traditional investments (e.g. in plain old shares) to simply be lost but in this case, what they are effectively doing is this:

* Holding an extraordinarily volatile and utterly unregulated investment.

* Entrusting custody of that investment to a company that is not (and cannot be) certified by any meaningful authority and without any safeguards or guarantees for the investors.

Huh?

Bitcoin's status as an investment (however bad or good!) undermines its status as a currency.

If the currency itself is increasing in value, that means more wealth is tied up in 'cash' and people are more reluctant to invest that money in something that actually helps the economy, like a company developing a new product or building some stuff - whatever. The point is that people hoarding their money in banks doesn't really help create jobs!

That was a digression - apologies.

Re: Everyone knows...

The policy of only rolling out services where it is 'commercially feasible' is the reason these 'black spots' exist in the first place.

The point of publicly-funded stuff in a social democracy is so that people everywhere get access to services, be they health, transport, education or even communication services.

Providing these services to people in more remote or less-densely populated areas or those on lower incomes involves the rest of the population effectively subsidising them. That is what it means to be in a social democracy.

That is where the ideological divide* comes in.

The ALP, just as the Republicans in the US, subscribe to the theory that services should be provided to the public by the private sector and that 'market forces' will somehow magically make everything fair and efficient, providing choice and competition and driving down prices.

If the current policy of rolling out network upgrades where they are most commercially advantageous was working then we wouldn't need such a country-wide project.

I believe that communication and the ability to interact the the wider world is an economic necessity and, increasingly (as more and more services move online), of great importance to the health and happiness of the public.

There are flow-on effects to all of this, allowing businesses in remote areas to access modern 'cloud-based' services and enable workers to telecommute. That enables them to exist and make use of the same efficiencies that larger or more urban businesses can. That allows them to employee people and provide goods and services where they are needed.

It's not fanciful - I have personally seen businesses hold onto old, inefficient systems simply because the did not have access to modern Internet connections, remaining little islands of personnel and data.

I digress.

The short version is that believe communication is a great benefit to society and it is the raison d'etre of a social democracy to provide such benefits to as broad a section of the population as possible.

Perhaps that is</em. a foolish notion.

* - <em>Though it's only a short hop from one side to the other these days . . .

@ John

Not convinced?

How are you even somewhat uncertain about it?

They most definitely don't care about the backbone. So far as I can tell, they don't actually care about the project at all and would much rather it didn't exist. Simply saying "we'll stop the NBN" wouldn't have been a popular election promise so instead they made out that they really did want it but the current plan was wasteful so they would come in and make it better, fast, cheaper.

So, they're somewhat committed to rolling this out but they don't really want to.

I think of it like the Sydney rail system.

What we need is a second harbor crossing. It'll be expensive but it is necessary. Anyone who travels in from the west in the morning knows that it is absurd - you slow and stall and stop the whole darned way because the capacity just isn't there. But hey - they've changed the name from 'City Rail' to 'Sydney Trains', given everyone new uniforms and renamed the lines - that's gotta count for something!!!

The solution to congestion is apparently to remove seats from stations and rebrand the network.

The problem is that governments don't want a future government to get credit for anything they start, thus the push is for big announcements with unclear or unattained goals or for smaller, get in and get out projects - which explains the fondness for buses. (No time-consuming infrastructure needed - just paint a lane red here and there.)

I'm bitter but I'm also pretty sick of our only choices being between governments doing nothing and governments rushing through publicity stunts and poorly thought-out band-aid 'fixes' addressing only the top layers of any problem. In doing so, they almost always create more problems requiring more band-aid fixes.

Not enough public transport to the city? More buses! City too congested because there are too many buses clogging all the lanes? Congestion tax!

Winning!

Re: Up the creek without paddle...

19,000 litres? That is a lot of He-3!!!

Well, unless this 'liter' measurement is something else . . .

@heyrick

True, and that is why I said that that is what should happen.

A strong modern economy requires some flexibility - if you can't have people working on weekends then 24/7 helpdesks will be outsourced to a country that does allow it*.

A healthy population - mentally, physically, socially - requires respect of personal/family time. As Don Jefe said, it doesn't matter if that time is spent playing with the kids or eating mayonnaise, it's important and governments and employers need to accept that

Companies - as a rule - don't really care about their employees' time outside of work. That's why regulations need to exist that place a value on that time and oblige companies to pay for the privilege of imposing on it.

An employee's private time is a resource. That resource should be available for companies to make use of but it is a valuable resource and must be treated as such and never taken for granted. Many, many, many employees just don't have the ability to get just compensation for the use of their time and this is were government regulations step in.

Those who can already name their price don't need those protections but many 'ordinary people' do.

* - Of course that's likely to happen anyway but some companies genuinely do want local support available for their clients and they charge appropriately. Many businesses are willing to and, in practice, do, pay for that service level.

The real problem is not some overt form of retribution - like being reprimanded or fired - but the more subtle forms, where managers may preference some workers over others.

That is much harder to get rid of.

Making it actually illegal to call employees after hours or have them work overtime does avoid those potential problems but is far too inflexible. You have to accept that many modern businesses require 'after hours' work from time to time or even routinely. While governments must accept that for the sake of the economy, they must also accept that people and their families require 'down time' - for the sake of the well being of the population.

It is a balance and not always an easy one. That's why things usually go back and forward in search of an equilibrium. Unfortunately, with so many of the variables in constant flux, that equilibrium doesn't really exist.

Re: Up the creek without paddle...

@Don Jefe

Unlike Salts, I cannot totally agree.

While listening to Eric Bogle is fine, when you do so you should be quietly contemplating the beauty of the great country of Australia. Wistfulness is encouraged (and all but impossible to avoid) if one is anywhere but the aforementioned jewel of this otherwise crude sphere.

I suppose the mayonnaise might be acceptable but I would suggest a Chiko roll instead. Or, if it's a sweet tooth that needs satisfying, a Cherry Ripe might be the way to go.

Re: dan1980 Prop 8 != free speech

Matt . . .

". . . you failed to demonstrate that Eich had let his views in any way negatively impact either his work as CEO at Mozilla or his relationship and dealings with LGBT employees. In short, you want him to lose the job because YOU believe he MAY do something in the future . . ."

And how exactly have YOU demonstrated that I "want him to lose the job"?

I've read through my posts again, just to be sure, and I really can't find anything that even you could construe as me "want[ing] him to lose the job". Nor is there even a hint that I am talking about things he may do "In the future".

Where have you pulled these assertions from?

Something about motes and beams in there, mate.

You have missed my point - seemingly deliberately. It was, just so we are clear, that public image is important for a CEO and recent events have shown a large backlash against Eich based on his views and actions, which are demonstrably in opposition with the views of Mozilla.

It is important for companies to have clear, unambiguous messages delivered by a 'united front'. Once Eich's contribution to Prop 8 became known, there was always going to be a problem. If YOU can't see that then fine, but don't assume that just because YOU think it isn't a problem, that no one else does.

We, as democracies, routinely choose candidates and vote out politicians for things they say or have done that otherwise don't effect their performance in the job. That YOU might focus solely on actions is great but that is far from the norm.

Mozilla knows understands that and Eich understands that; it doesn't really matter if you do or not.

Re: Look at this! - Compare to Mozilla FAQ

@Nigel 11

"An honorable man . . ."

I heartily agree. He realised that his appointment as CEO was not in the best interests of the company and so stepped-down.

Companies can use their 'ethics' as a brand differentiator because many people will want to choose a product/company/service that aligns with their own views, even if it doesn't really affect the finished 'product'.

That means that in such companies, the image is very important.

Imagine a company that, as part of their corporate image, are very environmentally minded - they implement all manner of policies to reduce emissions, plant trees and have a factory with one of those gardens for a roof and re-use waste water for heating systems and so on. None of that affects the end product they sell but a customers may well choose that brand over another because of their 'green' image.

Now, image that company appoints a CEO and it is found out that he/she is a climate change 'denier' who has supports campaigns against green initiatives.

That company is now less able to leverage it's 'green credentials' as a way of attracting customers and thus the CEO has had a negative impact on the company even before making the first decision.

Re: Prop 8 supporters are bigots

@AC

Some supporters of Prop 8 would be homophobes and therefore most certainly bigots. It doesn't follow, however, that to support Prop 8 you must be a bigot or that in supporting it you become a bigot.

The following line of reasoning is an entirely plausible reason to support Proposition 8 and involves no fear or hatred or distrust or prejudice:

* Marriage is a religious institution

* Religious texts provide the template of man + woman

* Marriage should therefore adhere to the religious template

Again, there is nothing in that which can be called bigoted as nothing in it requires or even implies that the holder of such a belief treats or views no-heterosexual people with any fear or hatred.

Not supporting bigots is well and good but be careful not to judge someone unfairly based on a sweeping characterisation of their motives, which you are unlikely to know.

Re: Prop 8 != free speech

@Vladimir

If you're responding to me then you have completely missed my point. (I accept that may be my fault more than yours.)

It isn't about gay marriage being right or 'wrong'.

It's about Mozilla holding one position and then having a CEO who not only supports the opposite position but financially contributed to a campaign with the aim of supplanting Mozilla's position with his own, opposing one*.

Remove the equal rights component and it barely changes the situation - he financially supported a group campaigning against Mozilla's stated position.

Feeding off another response, if you take a company that professes strong anti-firearm sentiments then it's not really a good look to have a CEO who is a member of the NRA. A normal employee, sure - their job is to, well, just do their job. A CEO must be the public face of the company and thus his/her views must align with the company's.

* - The reason I went to the detail I did was not to intentionally side-track onto gay marriage, but to show the situation in the context of exactly what Eich was supporting and why that was so different to Mozilla's position. Mozilla believe equal-rights extends to all areas of life for all people regardless of race/gender/sexuality/etc... Eich believes that equal rights should NOT extend to all areas. It might just be one area - marriage - and one group - non-heterosexual couples - but that is a BIG issue and very much in the public eye. CEO, not janitor, remember - not a good look.

Re: Shame, Mozilla!

@RonWheeler

If they are CEOs for a companies that professes as a company identity the inalienable right to own firearms then I suspect they most certainly would face similar pressure from their communities.

That's the thing people are missing here.

What Brendan Eich did is entirely within his rights as a citizen in a democracy. He is allowed to hold those views, allowed to campaign for those views and allowed to financially support others who share those views. He is allowed to protest and march and rant and rave and persuade and criticise and expound and argue for the constitution to be changed to explicitly exclude non-heterosexual couples from marriage.

The 'community' however, is also entirely within its rights and are equally allowed to campaign and protest and rant and rave and criticise and argue for Eich's removal.

As a CEO, your views and attitude dictate the tone of the company, not only in the eyes of the staff but of the consumers/users/community. You are not a normal employee and your public image can have as much effect on the company as your boardroom decisions.

Boil it down to the essentials:

- Mozilla are a company.

- Brendan Eich was the figurative and literal head of that company

- Mozilla, as a company, have strongly-expressed views

- Brendan Eich has views diametrically opposed*

Free speech/democracy/equal rights aside - do you really think that is a tenable position?

* - Mozilla believe that gay couples should be able to marry, Brendan Eich believes they should not be able to marry.

Re: Shame, Mozilla!

Whatever your stance, the fact is that Eich was exercising his democratic right to support a particular position.

It just turns out, however, that that position was to REMOVE existing rights for a specific group of the population (non-heterosexuals). Prior to prop 8, straight and gay* couples were on an equal footing regarding marriage. Prop 8 aimed to change that so that gay people were unequal, by removing one of their rights - the right to marry.

How anyone, personally, feels about marriage is irrelevant - the constitution of California grants gay people the same rights as straight people and that includes the right to marry.

It's really very little different than trying to get a constitution changed to say that religion should be defined as the Christian religion only. People can still worship in their own homes but they won't get any of the benefits of being an organised religion.

You can call it a 'philosophical system' if you want - just don't call it religion because that's a special term that only applies to our beliefs.

It's a bit of a silly comparison but that's the point and illustrates the kind of thing Eich was supporting.

Now, I am not saying he had no right to support such a proposal - he did and does - but that proposal was, and is, unconstitutional as it attempted to deprive a portion of the population of California of a "basic civil right" which cannot be withheld on the basis of sexual orientation.

That's not my view - that's the view of the supreme court of California in their role as interpreters of the constitution of the state.

Eich is then identified as someone who wanted to deny a constitutionally-protected right on the basis of sexual orientation.

* - used for convenience . . .