Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 22:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

Fortunately though, Mozilla keeps on trucking, and Firefox OS appears to be constantly improving. The latest version available is 1.3.0, with the latest preview being 1.4. Now, sources from China have gotten their hands on a ton of screenshots and new information regarding Firefox OS 2.0, and we must say, the UI looks quite pretty.

This looks quite good indeed.

Thread beginning with comment 586797
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ...
by themwagency on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

>"It is amazing that after all those years of social development people still call "free speech" one's attempts at controling others' bedrooms."

...or redefining the definition of marriage.

For the record, nobody was saying gays couldn't do what gays do in the bedroom.... or even have the same legal rights as married people. Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.

if the problem is about government's recognition of marriage then let the government stop doing so. The whole reason why the government played any involvement in the first place was to reinforce the family unit as this helps society. That is a moot point if the redefinition of marriage includes those you can't create a family naturally.

I don't want to get off track so I'm hoping you will let this side-thread about gay rights relative to christian rights end with this comment.

Edited 2014-04-09 23:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:54 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And I am exercising my right to free speech and end this particular thread right here.

Heed the warning.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by HappyGod on Thu 10th Apr 2014 01:45 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Why are you ending the thread Thom?

This is pretty much everything that I hate about what's happened to the left these days. Old skool leftist used to believe in free speech, and personal freedoms. Now it's run by people like you, who assume people are idiots, and cannot be trusted to hear controversial views.

Your version of free speech is that you can talk about anything you like as long as you agree with it.

Threatening people to end a thread on a message board is *extremely* poor form. Especially when the thread wasn't particularly heated or abusive. 'themwagency' was just expressing an opinion.

It's pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by galvanash on Thu 10th Apr 2014 03:59 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And I am exercising my right to free speech and end this particular thread right here.

Heed the warning.


Yeah, its off topic... I get it. But I think this kind of back and forth is productive. Those that called for Eich's head were wrong, and those calling to boycott Mozilla over it are wrong too.

My hope is that after it bounces around a while both sides of the issue might gain a little perspective from the flip side.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: ...
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:53 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.


No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by galvanash on Thu 10th Apr 2014 03:47 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!


It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_) the same rights, privileges, and legal definition as marriage in California, with one major exception - it was not called "marriage"... It was established in 1999, but did not become "virtually equivalent" legally to marriage until about 2003 (5 years before Prop 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

Prop 8, the bill that Eich donated money to support, did not remove any of the rights, privileges, or legal definitions. What it did was strike down marriages that occurred in 2004 in San Francisco that were not established under supporting law. These were not Domestic Partnershps, they were deemed marriages - and at the time they was no supporting law to make them legal. They were defacto established by the Mayor at the time, Gaven Newsom. The Supreme Court of California had upheld those defacto marriages as legal in 2008, Prop 8 was intended to reverse this decision though a ballot initiative by popular vote.

I am posting this mostly because I'm tired of people arguing about this issue not knowing the fundamental truths involved. I am personally ALL for gay marriage, but saying things like "the term doesn't matter" is completely missing the point - the controversy is entirely about the term. Pro or against, whatever, that is EXACTLY what it is about. It is not a rights issue, it is about the term "marriage".

Someone who supported prop 8, who says they did so because they believe the term "marriage" should be reserved for it religious use, may very will be honest in saying so. They do not have to hate gays, they do not have to believe in taking away someones rights. Then again maybe they do - I can't see into Eich's heart. Just saying I don't personally believe that donating money to prop 8 automatically makes you a bigot.

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.


Both sides of the issue are guilty of this - that is kinda my point... The gay community did not want domestic partnerships or civil unions - it is very much about the word marriage.

I personally think the term does matter, and should be the same either way, but my preference would be to completely divorce the concept of religious marriage with legal marriage. Make everyone get "civil union" or "domestic partnership" licenses, and let religions figure out whether or not they want to recognize same sex couples. It shouldn't even be a political issue at all in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by Brendan on Thu 10th Apr 2014 04:46 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.


While I'd like to agree, I think you mean "married in the eyes of God" vs. "married in the eyes of the Government".

If the religious people weren't just hypocritical assholes they'd also complain about a man and women who don't believe in their God getting married by celebrants/registrars and not priests.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 3