patrick.net

George Orwell & Ray Bradbury warned us.

This is scary, the campuses and what I was subjected to when I attended a Trump rally. The hate , bigotry of the left is scary-they hate with a passion anything they don't agree with-it is scary.
In our very own forum, there are people who think it is perfectly ok and understandable to assault and bloody people who attend a Trump rally. Apparently that teaches trump or us normal folks what to say or not. if we express our 1st amendment-according to these folks it is perfectly understandable to be assaulted and bloodied and chased on our own streets.

The left has gone mad. It has crossed the line from stupidity to dangerous. Trump may be our last hope before we collapse into this society where every thought is controlled and 1st amendment all but a distant memory.

Woohoo, a man with the balls to resign as a Nodevember organizer because of the shameful way that unjustified accusations were flung at Crockford:

http://www.kevinold.com/2016/09/05/stepping-down-as-nodevember-organizer.html

Maybe there is hope after all.

freespeechforever says

George Orwell & Ray Bradbury warned us.

I remain baffled as to how people thought the threat could only come from the right.

rando says

Woohoo, a man with the balls to resign as a Nodevember organizer because of the shameful way that unjustified accusations were flung at Crockford:

http://www.kevinold.com/2016/09/05/stepping-down-as-nodevember-organizer.html

Maybe there is hope after all.

There are a lot of good people. Unfortunately the Eddard Starks who refuse to take a knee and bow down at the PC alter frequently also pay the heavy price of doing so.

There isn't any reason why an Industry 90% male shouldn't shut these events down.

Feminism == The American Taliban

The problem is always absolute certainty that your own position is the only correct position, and an eagerness to prevent anyone who disagrees from being heard at all, by whatever means necessary (economic harm or raw physical violence).

It's not about discussion, debate, or critical thought, it's about preventing those good things because of fear that your own position might lose if everyone were allowed to speak openly.

Even considering voting for Rs or Ds is worse than Satan could ever do.
Destruction of america by ignorance!

rando says

It's not about discussion, debate, or critical thought, it's about preventing those good things because of fear that your own position might lose if everyone were allowed to speak openly.

At least in this example, I don't think it's about that. I think it's about maybe as little as one overly controlling idiot, making a bad call relative to what he or she feared might be a PR problem blowing up on social media. It's too much fear and caution about the opinions of idiots. This is about adapting to social media and the paradoxical aspect of freedom of speech on the internet, where sometimes idiots voices get a little bit more volume and attention than they should. (when I say "should" I don't mean I want to be the thought police. It's just that what you call thought police in this case are actually people worried about the reaction of all those freely and loudly reacting on twitter or instagram or wherever - with their free (but stupid) speech ).

rando says

Maybe there is hope after all

Yeah. In this case the the idiot (control freak) that made the decision is already regretting it or will be soon. It was simply a mistake, made by someone who probably is some sort of human resources, marketing, advertising or PR type person, not even a tech expert.

Our innovative Brain trust is eroding away by self anointed academics that has never achieved a damned thing, or had one single original idea in their lives.

This is a sort of democracy in action. From Patricks first link above:

There's more confusion and questions about Nodevember's decision than there is outrage against Crockford.

Therefore the organizers/promoters of the event have hurt themselves by listening too much to the idiots. Maybe they took a page out of Trumps book and thought drama, any drama, even if negative, will bring attention to their event. I doubt it will work out that way, unless the event is supposed to be more about workplace culture than it is about software.

Meanwhile, those who think there is good reason to disinvite Crockford may think Patrick and all those objecting are the "thought police" and the idiots. But majority rules, and I don't think it's going to be any contest in this case. The SJWs (who surely aren't sofware engineers) are losing this one.

Patrick says

Remember how Javascript's inventor, Brendan Eich, was

not forced out of Mozilla, though he was demoted from CEO, a job he should never have held, for several reasons. I've written elsewhere on PatNet about it. Basically he lacked successful experience in mobile, where Firefox needed to go. To the extent he had experience, it consisted of turning Firefox OS into a JavaScript delivery vehicle, which crashed the phones that had been designed to run it. The most popular add-on for Firefox browser is NoScript, which exists solely to block JavaScript. Firefox OS prohibited that, and thus failed. ("Being able to disable...JavaScript in the browser would be a great first step, but Firefox OS offers no way to do that.") The fact he also tried forcibly to take away the marriages of thousands of people he never met, putting his religion above the advice of the Attorney General (who called Prop H8 indefensible and unconstitutional, right on both counts) and the state's chief executive (who called it a waste of time) showed terrible judgment on his part. He caused the state to waste millions of tax dollars, attempted unsuccessfully to strip the marriages of thousands of people who had never done him any harm, and all for his preferred charlatan. Think how much information goes through your browser, and whether you trust it to someone who puts his religion above your rights. Many people volunteer for Mozilla, and nobody is forced to use it. People used their free speech to call him what he was, a bigot, and to stop volunteering for him and using the browser. Mozilla would have foundered if he'd continued as the CEO. No government punished him for what he did, he was not censored, nor even forced out of Mozilla. Your view would force people to use a browser they don't trust, and to volunteer for someone they don't respect because he doesn't respect them. They are not your slaves. You can't force people to do that, and you can't silence them with your selective application of "free speech." He used his money to hurt people who had never done him any harm, and they exercised their free speech to object and to stop using Firefox. Imagine if he had paid $1,000 to a lying hateful campaign to take away your marriage, because his preferred charlatan told him to, and consider whether you would still volunteer your time for him, or trust him. End of story.

curious2 says

He used his money to hurt people who had never done him any harm

Utter bullshit. That wall of text (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) is obviously a strained self-serving rationalization.

Brandon Eich was forced out solely and explicitly because of his personal beliefs. He was simply not allowed to have those beliefs because they conflicted with your Koran.

Patrick--

I think curious is correct. Eich is certainly "allowed" to have those beliefs. But having those beliefs and expressing them in such a public fashion may disqualify him for some jobs. That's not a free speech issue. The free market is deciding what beliefs from a top exec are going to harm business to such an extent to affect business. At that point, the business, if public, has an obligation to represent shareholder best interests.

Free speech cuts both ways.

And Firefox has suffered since.

Firefox never blew up on me before he left. Now firefox downloads more affilate and publisher information to your compter and extracts more information from the end user than Chrome at this point.
I only use FF for javascript debugging. Though I'm actually using Firebug not Firefox. There's not a day goes by that I don't have to close and reopen Firefox.
Since they never made a 64 bit version. It's easy to reach the 3 gig memory max just with CNN advertisers in less than an hour.
I would like to think, the guy who was still around from the beginning was totally against turning Firefox into Chrome like Malware. I'm sure the pro gay marriage were also against the no follow checkbox that now does nothing whether you check it or not.

Eich was a dinosaur holding them back from making billions while they destroy a once great browser.

Patrick says

"promiscuous" web.

Well, I guess these SJWs are going to call chemistry sexist because carbon is the most promiscuous element.

www.youtube.com/embed/QnQe0xW_JY4

Burn him!

On a serious note, JavaScript: The Good Parts is a pretty good book. However, I prefer defining namespaces a bit different than it recommends, if memory serves. I use a self-executing function with public and private members like so...

var myNamespace = (function ()
{
    /** Public functions and state. */
    var pub = {};

    pub.somePublicProperty = {};

    somePrivateProperty = {};

    pub.somePublicFunction = function ()
    {
        somePrivateFunction();
    }

    function somePrivateFunction ()
    {
    }

    function initialize ()
    {
    }

    initialize();

    return pub;

Then you can just call myNamespace.somePublicFunction() but not myNamespace.somePrivateFunction();

thunderlips11 is deplorable says

There isn't any reason why an Industry 90% male shouldn't shut these events down.

This is a persistent myth, but it's not true. When people say there are no women in software development, they mean there are no white women in software development. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Chinese or Indian woman programmer, and that's in the United States. If you include all the outsourcing, the number of women is far greater.

The fact is that white women and black women have hated software development and anyone using computers since the 1970s because of the Hollywood myth of the computer nerd. Hollywood made software development and anything dealing with computers to have low social status and women are extremely sensitive to social status. It's biological and the vast majority of women cannot override this instinctive behavior to seek out high social status for themselves and mates with high social status. The entire fashion and automotive industries are predicated on this principle.

In the U.S. before the 1970s, there was no social stigma associated with computers and the majority of people in the field were women since the field began during WWII when all the men were fighting. In China and India today, where most software developers live, there is no such stigma and women enter the field in large numbers.

Since the 1990s, Hollywood has realized that computers were becoming ambiguous and cool despite their efforts and that they would look old and irrelevant to the younger generations if they kept on bashing computer programmers. But instead of portraying male programmers as the highly paid and respectable professionals they are, Hollywood decided to keep ridiculing male programmers while writing one-dimensional, comically adept female programmers that can implement some sophisticated AI or hack in a few keystrokes. Of course, any girl who sees this and thinks programming might be fun then gets a big surprise when she finds out what real software development is like. Hollywood is still doing a disservice to girls by portraying software development as a quick and easy task.

But back to my original point... In every place I've worked with over the course of my career -- and since I did consulting in my early career, that's a lot of places -- about half of the developers were Asian or Indian women. There was just one white woman I worked with and zero black women. When you consider that white and black women choose to eliminate themselves from the technical job pool, women are over-represented in software development.

I have worked with a plenty of "artist" types that are white women. These women do "I'll make the website pretty" jobs involving HTML and CSS. This is not software development. It's drawing a brochure. I'm not saying that's not important, but it's not software development. However, white women love these jobs because they aren't very hard and there is no stigma associated with building web pages.

Hollywood loves the WWW because it makes so much money for them and everyone thinks it's cool. Can you imaging Hollywood attempting to make Facebook users look like dorks? They wouldn't dare because the backlash would be incredible. Yet, social media (via bulletin boards and forums), instant messaging, email, and electronic chat are exactly the things that Hollywood portrayed as dorky before the late 1990s.

So remember three things.
1. There are plenty of women in IT. Just not white women. (Or black women, but no white female SJW gives a damn about that.)
2. The reason there are no black and no white women in IT is because of Hollywood.
3. Blaming us men for the bigotry of white women is not an effective way to make us more welcoming of those bigots in STEM. If you want more white women in STEM, then get white women to respect the people already in STEM. No person is going to work in a field that he or she considers beneath him or her, especially when the stigma is a social one.

#whiteWomanBigotryInSTEM
#HollywoodIsToBlame

Tampajoe says

But having those beliefs and expressing them in such a public fashion may disqualify him for some jobs.

Sounds kind of USSRish or Cubaish.

Tampajoe says

At that point, the business, if public, has an obligation to represent shareholder best interests.

The reasons almost always given for huge layoffs.

curious2 says

The most popular add-on for Firefox browser is NoScript, which exists solely to block JavaScript.

I would have thought that Ad Block is most popular followed by Flashblock, although the later has become useless now that Firefox essentially forces you to opt into Flash.

As for blocking JavaScript, I like Quick Java, which was originally used to toggle Java applets and JavaScript on and off, but now also includes Flash, Web GL, Web RTC, Silverlight, Cookies, Images, Animations (Animated GIFs), and Cascading Style Sheets, each with a single click in the status bar.

This is what the UI looks like. Blue is on, and red is off. I highly recommend this extension.

Patrick says

Javascript's inventor, Brendan Eich

Can't we just all agree to hate Brendan Eich because he invented JavaScript? Isn't that enough?

Sure, JavaScript is today a very well-polished turd, but it's still a turd. The entire platform was created by the process of throwing as much shit on the wall as possible and seeing what stuck. Although you can do good programming in JavaScript, the platform makes it exponentially harder than Java or .NET does. You have to actively fight the platform to write good code and refuse to use 90% of the aspects of the language.

Surely having set this Frankenstein monster loose on the world is enough reason to hate Brendan Eich.

P N Dr Lo R says

Tampajoe says

But having those beliefs and expressing them in such a public fashion may disqualify him for some jobs.

Sounds kind of USSRish or Cubaish.

Actually, it's the exact opposite! It is the free market and democracy at it's most basic. People choosing to buy from whoever they want to--unless you think I should be forced to buy from someone whose views I find offensive. If so, doesn't that impinge on my free speech then?

It's amazing how the right to free speech is so misunderstood these days. Is this no longer taught at high school?

rando says

That wall of text (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) is obviously a strained self-serving rationalization [of] your Koran.

If you think so, then let's tear down the wall and look at the pieces point by point.
1) You can't force people to use Firefox, nor to continue volunteering for Mozilla.
2) OKCupid and others told Firefox users they should switch to a different browser. OKCupid and other sites have a right to say that, and you can't silence them from saying it.
3) I would not use a Vatican browser, nor a Moronic browser, nor an Islamic browser, because I would not trust any of them. I doubt whether many people would use them other than believers in those sects. If you have a browser with the "made by Muslims" logo, it would probably do worse than a browser made by Kaspersky. I stopped using Firefox, as many others did, and the switch away from Firefox was growing rapidly.
4) My "Koran" is the Constitution of the United States, including specifically the 14th Amendment. Read it sometime. You seem to paraphrase one clause of the 1st Amendment, and to focus in a binary way on that, while misapplying it. You seem to ignore centuries of law regarding defamation, advocating the violent overthrow of the government, fighting words and yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. There has always been accountability for free speech, according to our social contract, which you now call the founding "Koran" of our country.
5) You have not explained how you would react if a neighbor spent $1,000 to take away your marriage. Methinks the lady doth protest too little. At a minimum, you'd probably think he's nuts, and you wouldn't trust him.
6) You have not acknowledged that (a) he was not forced out of Mozilla, and (b) people within Mozilla had other reasons for opposing him as CEO. To the contrary, in your excessively binary way, you illustrate the Backfire Effect by amplifying your false claim, now adding it was "solely and explicitly" because of the reason you have chosen to focus on. Perhaps you should read what Mozila board members said:

"Three Mozilla board members—including former CEOs—step down [Updated]
Resignations tendered last week, blamed on Mozilla not choosing an outside hire.
***
Fallout over Mozilla Corporation's hire of Brendan Eich as CEO led to the resignation of three board members, two of whom were former Mozilla CEOs. Today, The Wall Street Journal reported that former Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs, along with two other board members, stepped down last week in response to Eich's controversial hire.

Kovacs, who departed the CEO post last April to take up the same job at AVG Technologies, was joined in tendering his resignation from the board by Shmoop CEO Ellen Siminoff and Greylock partner John Lilly, himself also a former Mozilla Corporation CEO. According to anonymous sources cited by the Journal, Kovacs and co. resigned because they had sought an outside hire to work alongside Eich (then-CTO) and Mozilla co-founder Mitchell Baker. Eich's financial support of Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in California, was not mentioned as a reason for their resignations.
***
Yesterday, Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman issued a statement to Ars in response to employees speaking out against Eich's hiring. "Our culture of openness extends to letting our staff and community be candid about their views on Mozilla’s direction," Surman wrote. "We're proud of that inclusiveness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations."
***
Update: On Saturday, a Mozilla spokesperson forwarded a statement to Ars: "The three board members ended their terms last week for a variety of reasons. Two had been planning to leave for some time, one since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search, regardless of the person selected." The representative offered no further clarification.

That contradicts your narrative, and exposes a contradiction in your "free speech" Koran. Eich can say what he believes, government didn't censor him, but other people can say what they believe too. Mozilla depends on volunteers, who have other things to do with their time, and the voluntary cooperation of other companies, who have choices of their own. I have a right to say that I don't trust a person who puts his religion above of other people's rights at law. Maybe you should focus on Donald Sterling, who at least didn't use his money to finance a campaign to take away other people's fundamental rights.