Tech Giant Brings Software To a Gun Fight (washingtonpost.com) 705
An anonymous reader shares a report: On its website, Salesforce touts retailer Camping World as a leading customer of its business software, highlighting its use of products to help sales staff move product. A Camping World executive is even quoted calling Salesforce's software "magic." But behind the scenes in recent weeks, the Silicon Valley tech giant has delivered a different message to gun-selling retailers such as Camping World: Stop selling military-style rifles, or stop using our software.
The pressure Salesforce is exerting on those retailers -- barring them from using its technology to market products, manage customer service operations and fulfill orders -- puts them in a difficult position. Camping World, for example, spends more than $1 million a year on Salesforce's e-commerce software, according to one analyst estimate. Switching to another provider now could cost the company double that to migrate data, reconfigure systems and retrain employees.
The pressure Salesforce is exerting on those retailers -- barring them from using its technology to market products, manage customer service operations and fulfill orders -- puts them in a difficult position. Camping World, for example, spends more than $1 million a year on Salesforce's e-commerce software, according to one analyst estimate. Switching to another provider now could cost the company double that to migrate data, reconfigure systems and retrain employees.
Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Software vendors absolutely should not have the power to extort customers or businesses in this way.
They could just as easily be telling music stores to "not sell hip hop records".
On the other hand, this kind of shit is the best way to make sure Trump is re-elected.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Wedding cake story anyone?
Distracting from incompetence (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is probably just PR to distract from the fact that they had an 18 hour outage the other week because some incompetent knob ran a DB update script in PROD and gave out database permissions to the entire world. So they just shut everything down for a day while they tried to figure out what the hell they were doing and prevent too much data from leaking.
https://www.cmswire.com/digital-experience/salesforces-major-outage-reinforces-pitfalls-of-cloud-software-world/ [cmswire.com]
Maybe if they were more worried about reviewing database scripts before running them in PROD than in telling their customers what to believe, they wouldn't be in that mess. Frankly, they deserve a whole mess of lawsuits after this one.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
"extort customers"
Maybe look up the definition of extortion. Companies are free to choose not to do business with other companies.
Note that this is different than choosing not to serve protected classes.
Not that these demonstrably in force legal details matter to the morons that make up /. these days :)
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you follow the true definition of "Open Source"
From the FSF/GNU definition, Freedom 0 is
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". This would include military, selling of evil black rifles, abortion clinics, or pro-choice vs. anti-abortion groups, etc.
Or from the OSI definition of Open Source, item 5 is "No discrimination against persons or groups" and item 6 is "No discrimination against fields of endeavor"
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, none of my guns has every spontaneously gone out and harmed anyone.
Why do people keep blaming the tool?
I mean, you don't hear of a drunk driver driving into people and killing them, and then people clamor for them to stop selling cars or sue the auto manufacturer.
It is simply a tool, no more, no less....it is the human wielding the tool that causes harm, BLAME THE HUMAN the uses the tools incorrectly to cause harm.
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:3)
So you're suggesting people should have lessons and have to pass a test before being allowed to own a gun? What an excellent idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Informative)
Err, if you are trying to draw an analogy to a car, that's not really a good one.
You do NOT need any training or pass a test or any type of background check to BUY and own a car.
And if with said car, you don't take it out on the public roads, and just keep it on private land, you can drive to your hearts content without any type of license, etc.
It's the same way with guns.
Now, if you want to carry a gun in public in most places, you need to take training and get a carry concealed license. And it is illegal to shoot them in public...but you can shoot them on private property that you own, or gun ranges, etc.
Now, there are some states with an exception to this, with "constitutional carry" meaning you can carry concealed or open carry, depending on the state without a permit, but that's not very wide spread at all.....but the citizens in that state have decided that this is perfectly acceptable and it should be if they want it.
But those are the exceptions to the rule, and my gun car analogy still stands up pretty well.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why do people keep blaming the tool?
1. Lack of (critical) thinking.
2. Easier to blame then to take responsibility.
I saw this awesome T-Shirt the other day that summarizes the stupidity of blaming the tool:
The other funny shirt I've seen is:
Obnoxious as it is you have to give props to the person wearing it because they recognize the responsibility of a (dangerous) tool.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the issue was "somewhat" overblown but yeah it looks like the U.K. is slowly going full retard -- or in this case full "bubble boy" -- absolutely no common sense with the excuse "think of the children!" (Blade has to be less then 3 inches and have a non-locking blade.)
Have we really devolved into "knife profiling" now? /s
The ironic thing is that criminals don't give a fuck about the law(s) -- which is WHY they are criminals in the first place! Slapping even MORE laws isn't going to stop the dedica
Re: (Score:3)
In and of themselves, no, they are not.
But let's just stick with a semi-auto weapon.
This is simply where it fires one bullet for each actuation of the trigger. You pull the trigger, it fires, you release the trigger it resets ready to fire again.
Is it faster to shoot than a manually operated bolt action rifle, yes, but more dangerous inherently, no.
Most modern rifles and handguns are semi-auto.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they can set their own licensing terms (not rights), but when money is on the line, if they then later choose to change those licensing terms that would significantly interfere with the operation of a business that was already paying them, and the cost to migrate away would be significant, well, that may be a pretty massive suit coming at them for breach of contract.
I know personally if I were a judge overseeing this, I'd rule something along the lines of "fine, you can change them, but since you waited until they were deeply entrenched in your software and then chose to change the terms so they could no longer participate in a legal operation they were previously doing when you granted the original software license, you, salesforce, must refund their money and help pay for their migration to a new solution. Next time have your licenses moderately solid before doing business with a company you disagree with."
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Informative)
if I were a judge overseeing this, I'd rule something along the lines of
A judge in name but minus all the education, training, and legal guidelines/history/etc? You wouldn't be a judge, you'd just be a guy.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies are free to choose not to do business with other companies.
Note that this is different than choosing not to serve protected classes.
*sigh* ...it irks me that the Tweet-length version of that story is the one that got circulated. For someone complaining about 'legal details', a whole lot of detail on the case seems absent.
Ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs in that case explicitly drove over 50 miles to cross state lines in order to trip the 'interstate commerce' reason to get an audience in the Supreme Court (i.e. the whole ordeal was expressly done to get a Supreme Court verdict and had very little to do with the cake itself)...
The bakers offered to sell any pre-made cake.
The bakers offered to make any standard issue cake from their catalog.
The bakers offered to sell the ingredients required for the plaintiffs to decorate their own cake.
The bakers would have declined a contract for a cake intended for a gay wedding if it were a straight person requesting it; there was precedent for them doing so.
Where they drew the line was entering into a contract whereby they felt the contract itself would violate their religious beliefs.
The reason I side with the cake bakers on this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the 'religious grounds' part of the argument. Yeah, they probably should have just baked the damn cake, but I side with them on the sole basis of the fact that it wasn't retail sales, but contract work. In practice, had the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, it would set the precedent to compel businesses to enter into a contract with a member of a protected class, based purely on the fact that the individual is part of that protected class.
If a client makes comments making it incredibly obvious that they were going to be a problematic client, or require an unreasonable burden on the vendor, the client can pull the slight-of-hand that they are gay/black/whatever and it becomes he-said-she-said about the motive behind declining the contract; suddenly the business owner's question isn't about the client or whether they can provide the best service or product to that client, but whether they can avoid a lawsuit based on the entrance of a contract with no concern about the efficacy of fulfilling that contract.
Circling this back to Salesforce, I would at least partially agree with you. I would side with Salesforce *if*:
1. The business did not sell guns until after they entered into the contract with Salesforce.
2. Salesforce is willing to assist in migrating their data off of the Salesforce platform at no (additional) cost to the client.
By all means, let Salesforce decide to renegotiate their contract with a client if they want, especially if the addition of gun sales was done after the client was on Salesforce. However, Salesforce's biggest bargaining chip is "we have your data by the balls". If Salesforce wants to have a conscience, they can bargain with continuing to provide their service, but not with the data. Salesforce wants the responsibility of holding the data, letting go of it is the liability they signed up for.
To the grandparent's point, it's "free to choose not-to-do business with other companies" if it's a matter of terminating their account gracefully. If Salesforce isn't going to provide the data to the customer, that's when it crosses the line into extortion.
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
> What legitimate reason would not also have plenty of evidence to back it up?
What makes you think anyone looks at the evidence or that you can trust the general public to decide on the basis of evidence?
Hell, you can find people who have repeatedly, provably lied in public many times on various subjects and there are still people who believe them.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies are free to choose not to do business with other companies.
Unlike a TOS, however, companies are NOT free to unilaterally change the terms of a contract on the fly. If their money was good yesterday, why did it stop being good today?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Saying that some people should be treated differently than others is the epitome of anti-American.
That's literally what protected classes are. It's saying you can't treat people differently because of some attribute over which they have no control, like skin colour.
Protected classes confer no additional rights, they are merely a legal tool to help determine when someone is being discriminated against unfairly because of things they cannot control.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or Camping World could focus on selling weapons actually intended for hunting
They are used for hunting. The "military" attributes of the rifles are cosmetic, not functional.
About 80% of firearms deaths in America are from handguns. Rifles account for a small fraction, and "military" style rifles an even smaller fraction.
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed.
Rifles are used for a VERY tiny number of crimes or criminal killings in the US. The VAST majority of them are handguns, usually stolen by gangs.
And why do they keep saying "military" style rifles?
I mean, a military 'style' weapon would be selectable for fully automatic fire.
None of the so called military styled or assault rifles sold the the public are automatic, they are semi-automatic.
And there is really no difference in any semi-auto weapon, they fire once for each activation of the trigger. They don't keep firing till you let go like a true military weapon would do.
The AR platform just happens to be popular largely in part, because it is so modular. But you can get other semi-auto rifles, that fire the same exact round, or LARGER and more powerful....have the same functionality and capacity, but don't look as "scary" and black.
These so called assault weapon laws are, like you said...purely cosmetic.
Any gun can be used for hunting, and self defense (don't forget weapons are also for self defense).
I dunno why people keep calling the AR an military weapon, or an assault rifle.
Hell, people out there keep trying to say that "AR" in the name stands for Assault Rifle.
It does NOT.
The AR stands for the company that developed the platform, Armalite [armalite.com].
Hell, the AR-17 is a freak' shotgun....so, there you have it.
Seriously, people making gun laws, I wish they actually KNEW something about the pistols and rifles they are trying to regulate....as that they all are just about the same thing.
Most all of them, are semi-auto for any modern handgun or rifle...so, laws they keep writing will cover almost ANY modern gun....I guess they want to force us back to using revolvers and bolt action rifles......or do they want to force us all back to the black powder and cap and ball era?
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah.
I should note that I own a replica of a REAL military rifle. Look up "trapdoor" Springfield sometime. Used by the US Cavalry. Mine is an exact copy (with the addition of the legally mandated maker's marks, of course (serial numbers on guns weren't a big thing in 1873).
Plus there's the military surplus rifles I own - a Lee-Enfield .303 bolt action, a Mauser bolt-action, an M1 Carbine (look it up, it was carried by officers in WW2).
Oh, wait! We're not actually talking about REAL military weapons, are we?? We're talking about guns that frighten people to death, like an AR-15 clone (.223 semi-auto), not things like an M1 clone (.30-06 semi-auto)
Anyone remember the "Assault Weapon Ban"? Where, among other things, the Ruger Mini-14 was explicitly exempted from being considered an "assault weapon" because one of the co-authors of the Bill realized that the rifle he used to hunt small game was in danger of being labelled an "Evil Assault Weapon"....
And yes, I own a Mini-14....
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you people keep claiming this. AR does not stand for Armalite. It stands for automatic rifle. Just like BAR was/is the Browning Automatic Rifle, Etc. https://www.thefreedictionary.... [thefreedictionary.com]
Just like AK is Avtomat Kalashnikova or automatic Kalashnikov. https://www.outdoorlife.com/bl... [outdoorlife.com]
Consequently, the only difference between the M-15/16/27/A2/A4 you get in the military and the one you buy at walmart is a different bolt configuration, a sear, and a cam. Generally easier to get a new lower, but the AR c
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Informative)
Because of THIS [armalite.com].
Please read that link, it explains what the AR stand for.
If otherwise, can you explain why the AR-17 is SHOTGUN...?
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Informative)
You could do the exact came thing with any semi-auto rifle that didn't looks black and scary like an AR platform rifle does.
Plenty of them out there that aren't black, wooden or synthetic 'normal' looking stocks, that fire the same rounds (and even larger more powerful ones)....yet you aren't clamoring to ban those are you? I mean the "look" like hunting rifles.
Unless you are wanting to ban almost every modern firearm which are semi-auto....?
There are NO military grade or "Assault Weapons" that the common citizen can buy....none are full auto weapons.
None of these AR-15s and the type of weapons these stores are selling to the every day citizen are military weapons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's up to the market to decide which entity to punish.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Informative)
There's a similar analogy with the Patagonia Vests (of all things). For a while they became an unofficial uniform for finance companies. Patagonia didn't like this type of customer, so they now will only enter into new contracts with "socially responsible" companies. Existing contracts will be honored, but finance companies who never ordered a monogrammed vest from them will not be able to.
If Salesforce wants to do this the right way, that's the pattern they need to follow.
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened to "they shouldn't have to bake a cake for gay marriage"?
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Still valid.
But taking a deposit on said cake then refusing to bake it and refusing to return the deposit would be theft.
Re: Proof they need to be broken (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"They could just as easily tell radio stations to stop playing that Elvis Presley."
Re: (Score:3)
Hey! My kid is early-to-mid-thirties at this point!
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:5, Informative)
New gun sales from FFL (your local gun store) all require NICS checks, which IS the federal background check.
It should not take an inordinate amount of time to do this check....a person should not have their constitutional rights blocked for an unreasonable period of time. For a modern computerized system, 3 day should be plenty.
Nope, the only use for a registry is a pre-requisite for confiscation, we've seen it too many times in other nations.
A large and growing populace off the gun owning society in the US (you know the law abiding ones)...are growing VERY weary of the NRA and its kowtowing and bending to the anti-gun rights folks.
They are the reason for the 1986 hughes act that prevented anyone after that as a civilian from owning new fully automatic weapons, EVEN if they passed the background checks and paid the tax stamps. The NFA didn't object to the bump stock ban, which essentially allowed the ATF, a NON-elected agency to re-define what a machine gun is.....which was previously spelled out by Congress in law.
That is a dangerous precedent for any rights you enjoy, not just gun owners. Hopefully the will be overturned at the lawsuits rise up the ranks of the courts.
Right now, one of the best gun owner groups is the GOA, the gun owners of America, at least so far they don't appear as anxious to give away our rights as the NRA, which just sucks in money, but really doesn't do anything much any more to protect valid, US citizen gun rights.
If anything the NFA needs to get rid of the leeches at the top of the organization and actually get back to fighting for gun rights of law abiding citizens...
Re:Proof they need to be broken (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
With out a doubt, buying into "Platforms" is a bad idea. Once you buy in, you are stuck paying their taxes forever (see: Oracle). And then, once the platform knows good and well that you are stuck and can't ever leave, they can make any demands they wish.
Personally, I hate guns solely intended to kill people. No one needs an AK to hunt deer. I wish everyone would voluntarily stop buying these things. I wish stores would voluntarily stop selling them.
But that's beside the point here. This is one company that is holding another company's business hostage making demands. What they are doing is proving that no company should buy into platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a problem with Google employees objecting, conscientiously, to supporting "weaponized software," but we won't tolerate the reverse?
Re:This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious what CRM platform Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops use. It sounds like they're about to get another big customer.
Seriously... bad move, Salesforce. You would be amazed how many businesses that have nothing to do with guns are owned or managed by NRA supporters, and you pretty much volunteered yourself to a boycott from them.
Re:This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget all the other shops that may not be trading in guns, but are perhaps selling MAGA hats or something, and are now wondering if their license will disappear just because Salesforce wants to make a political statement. I wouldn't stay with a platform like that if I had the chance.
Re:This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to imply that if I bought a rifle from Camp World and then shot someone illegally with it, that saleforce, the software company that sold some POS/inventory software is some how liable?
Even trying to say Camp World is accessory is a joke considering they abide by all city, state and federal laws regarding gun sales. Saleforce is just selling software by contract, so are removed by another step.
No way they would even be mentioned in a scenario as described.
Re:This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally agree with you with regards to a company holding another company hostage over political views. It's totally their right to do this, but it absolutely serves as a warning to any company that allows another to gain this type of leverage. I don't even know what Salesforce's platform does, but I'll never directly give them a penny after this nonsense. It wouldn't matter if I agree or disagree with their position, the idea of politically extorting companies like this is disgusting.
And, regarding guns designed to kill people: The United States was formed on the idea that "the people" would unite for the defense of our nation. The idea of standing armies was fiercely debated. The second amendment exists for a reason. That reason will never go away. Do we now have a problem (mass shootings) that is even more worrisome than foreign invasion or tyrannical government? Sometimes it seems so. Sometimes it doesn't. Regardless of your (or my) position on this, I would like to bring up Benjamin Franklin's excellent quote: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. I know you specifically stated "voluntarily," but there are many who sympathize with your wishes except for that pesky voluntary part. That, to me, is worrisome.
When did liberty go out of fashion?
Re:This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
I also didn't want this discussion to go in this direction.
I'll try to make this my last comment on this (feel free to have the last word): I think you overestimate the number of bombs in existence and their destructive capability, or you're seriously underestimating the number of firearms in the USA and/or the size of the USA. There currently are no weapons in existence that will overcome the power of an armed and determined populace. If you were to argue that it would only take a few cruise missiles taking out the leadership of any militia, or nuking one city to destroy the will of the people to fight, I might agree with you. But your apparent position about bombs vs. rifles is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a delusional fantasy. The USA is not made up of a single determined populace. Even if the majority of it wasn't incredibly partisan (they'd likely have more than enough trouble just fighting each other, let alone the government of the day), the overwhelming majority of a population does not take up arms and instead hides until the dust settles.
The GP is very much correct. The people of the USA in any realistic scenario don't even remotely stand a chance against their own government.
Re: (Score:3)
How did Vietnam go again? Heck, the revolutionary war is also another great example of a small power winning against a big power. Also, you really think the entire military would just side with the US government?
Much more likely to break down into civil war and a certain percentage of police and military will join with the "rebels". They will steal equipment and acquire it as well. They may very well lose again, just like the Confederacy lost, but then again they might not.
Even losing doesn't mean the US go
Re: This is the problem with "Platforms" (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two main differences:
1) Sales force knew who they were before they signed contracts. If they had ethical issues with the company, that would have been the time to address them.
2) If Sales force has "seen the light" and decided to take a stand now, they should assist the company they disagree with in migrating away from their platform.
But that's not what they are doing. They are just holding the company they disagree with hostage.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike so many other replies that ignore what I actually said, your points are well taken.
I disagree with your third point. I think I like the way it was written and I like restricting possible changes to SCOTUS interpretation of the meaning of our founding fathers. Your option is, unfortunately, not possible. If we re-wrote the Second Amendment, there's no way to exclude influence from corporations or lobbying groups. I can't imagine the next time the Constitution is successfully amended, and have no i
Re:This is the probleAllm with "Platforms" (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know much about the AK. However, I can speak to the AR-15, which folks will refer to as a people killing weapon. The reasons for using it to hunt are:
1. Modular and inexpensive, so if you're a left shooter (I am) It's easy to find parts to change the handedness, reduce the trigger pull, reduce the carry weight, optimize the optics.
2. It's a very accurate weapon at ~500m with inexpensive rounds (prone with open sights I can generally get a group that can be covered by a dinner plate)
3. If you spend t
Re: (Score:3)
Not to nitpick, but while "AR" is the common term for the civilian legal semi-auto version of the M16/M4, "AK" is pretty commonly used for all forms of the AK, even the civilian legal versions.
Sometimes it's part of the name (eg, the Palmetto State Armory semi auto version is the "PSAK-47"), other times they each have their own model number such as the WASR-10 or Century C39, however the platform itself is always referred to as an AK.
That being said, the standard round used by AK's is the 7.62x39mm - a rela
Spend the money to migrate... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one can sue gun manufacturers for product liability, right?
It's a precedent.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No one can sue gun manufacturers for product liability, right?
Wrong. Nobody can sue a gun manufacturer for lawfully selling a product that is subsequently misused... just as you can't sue Ford because you crashed your car while drunk, and you can't sue McDonald's for 'making' you fat.
Salesforce can't force a law-abiding company to change its business practices because of their own rampant hoplophobia. Fark them.
Re:Spend the money to migrate... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can totally sue a gun manufacturer for product liability. If you buy a gun, it malfunctions and you are injured, then enjoy your lawsuit payout.
What has been set is that you CAN'T sue a gun manufacturer if a person buys the gun and then uses it for ill intent. They are only responsible for their manufacturing and functioning liability of their products, not the deeds people do with them.
It'd be like wanting to sue Dell because someone bought one of their computers and then hacked a nuclear power plant. Dell (rightly) isn't responsible for that. They sold a legal product that did was it supposed to - it was just used nefariously.
Re: (Score:3)
What you can't do is sue the gun manufacturer for the intentional misuse of the product by a third party. Sort of like you can't sue Chevron for making the gas used in an arson case, or you can't sue Louisville Slugger for making the bat someone beat you up with. That's not a problem with the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Sue them based on what? You do not have a constitutional right to CRM software.
Freedom has a price (Score:4, Insightful)
But would free them from a vendor that presumes to tell them how to run their business. How much is the freedom to make your own decisions worth?
Re: (Score:2)
All the players in this story have the freedom to make decisions.
I'm guessing the cheaper is to stop selling a small number of SKUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're misunderstanding the article. They're seeing improved profitability versus the previous few quarters. Essentially, the drop in sales has bottomed out and (slightly) reversed. They're still in a worse position than they were two years ago though, and stock price is still pretty bad. It dropped from ~$60 in 2017 almost overnight to $28 and has still only recovered to $36 per share.
how long... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how long it will take before congress is going to have to seriously consider laws against discrimination of political messages and groups. We already know that if a business does not cow to this madness they get called every name in the book.
I wonder how long it will take before the name callers begin to realize that they are only damaging their brand and turning people against them.. including their own. If you live in eternal outrage no one around you can be allowed to make a mistake without risking your wrath. This is not a great way to keep a group together... and if you cannot stand together, you will fall apart and be destroyed.
Businesses should take these clowns to heart and say... yea, you are right... lets stop using your software and ask for our money back since you don't want any of it. This is just more evidence that Software/Vendor lock-in is becoming a bad thing. They are clearly overstepping their bounds. Maybe one of these businesses will decide to start a lawsuit. Can a group of businesses enter a class action?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long it will take before congress is going to have to seriously consider laws against discrimination of political messages and groups. We already know that if a business does not cow to this madness they get called every name in the book.
I wonder how long it will take for people who constantly talk about the free market's ability to solve these kinds of problems will turn to Congress when the free market shows there's little to no actual interest in solving these problems.
I wonder how long it will take for people who constantly talk about the importance of Constitutional freedoms to demand Congress destroy freedom of association as you describe.
I wonder how long it will take for these same people to decry all these efforts when these same l
Re: (Score:3)
Re:how long... (Score:4, Informative)
"What would the scope of such a law be?"
The same scope that the already existing anti-discriminatory laws are.
"Say I dislike a company's political stance and decide to take my business elsewhere."
This is different from getting your foot in the door and then changing your policy to damage them. This could be considered a form of "tortious interference" and is illegal. If business have a contract with another party to sell guns, and then another business decides that they should not be allowed to sell guns then they are at risk for this kind of litigation.
"What is the threshold for when I am prosecuted for "discriminating" against them?"
I don't know. I actually disagree with anti-discrimination laws. Everyone should just find out who is trash and who is not and avoid doing business with them. It's hard to do right now with software because of the draconian monopoly laws on intellectual property right now but still doable. It's funny how all of the pro-regulation zealots are starting to feel the pain of their own laws these days. I think it is hilarious, but they will never learn. The keep adhering to the "keep doing the same thing but expecting different results" kind of insanity.
"Would I be allowed to to publicly criticise them, possibly causing others to boycott them as well?"
yea, of course you would... but you would not be able to create a contract that forces others to criticize, boycott, or refuse business.
That is the crux of my point. Other people directly or indirectly "controlling" who does business with who. And I think everyone knows it is a bad idea to keep going down this road, regardless of the laws about it. But people are getting thirsty for blood of their enemies and far too many people these days want others dead or at least treated like less than human or made slaves.
The far left knows nothing about guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the many problems with gun control is that the left is profoundly ignorant about guns.
We already tried the "assault weapon ban" in the 90s. It didn't work. It was a stupid idea from the start since "military style weapons" are only different in the STYLE of the weapon. It's largely cosmetic features the distinguish them from hunting rifles. I assure you that it's just as easy to kill people with a hunting rifle as it is with an AR15.
People on the far left have this fantasy that legislation is going to fix this problem. People on far right think there's no problem at all. Both are wrong. There's likely some legislation that can fix a small portion of the problem, but it sure as shit ain't banning assault weapons. We need cultural change, and nobody but nobody wants to take that up.
Re:The far left knows nothing about guns. (Score:4, Insightful)
We already tried the "assault weapon ban" in the 90s. It didn't work.
Yes, but that's like saying I exercised one time, and it didn't work to help me be more healthy or lose weight, so I'm never exercising again. The ban wasn't in affect long enough (1994-2004) to determine long-term effects.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The ban wasn't in affect long enough (1994-2004) to determine long-term effects.
Consider Mexico. They had the right to keep and bear arms written into their constitution in 1857, but in 1917 they rewrote it to permit keeping but not bearing. (Bearing was still permitted, but only in accordance with the law, which essentially prohibited it anywhere but on private property.) They changed it again in 1971, to basically prohibit taking the gun out of your house without a permit. They permit only shotguns and small-caliber firearms (e.g. pistols are restricted to .38 caliber and less, with
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to lose a few innocent children than to lose all children's innocence. It would be better not to lose either, but that doesn't seem to be an option. When the police stop murdering over 500 Americans every year, maybe then it will make sense to trust the government.
The stats reported by police departments claim that officers kill only about 500 people a year, but the actual number is over 1000 (as studied.) That means that police departments are collectively trying to cover up over 500 people the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All those aborted children would beg to differ.
The bifurcation of the American economy (Score:2, Insightful)
Good to see that in 10 years time we're going to have one economy for conservatives, and a completely separate economy for liberals.
Deomcrat-only banks, republican-only grocery stores, it's all coming to you real soon!
"Military-style rifles" (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't quite come out and said that they want Elmer Fudd looking wood guns instead of black polymer guns, but you know that's what they are all thinking.
Our gun laws are a fucking mess. I could think of a half dozen sensible gun "restrictions" that any reasonable person should get behind. Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby consistently prioritizes sensationalism above all else. The emphasis on mass shootings over smaller scale gun crime isn't any better, and "gun violence" statistics are frequently quoted instead of gun crime (which lumps in gun suicides with murder rates, which is intellectually dishonest because America has a mid-low suicide rate--the fact that people are more likely to choose guns here because they're more available does not indicate a problem. Also, it lumps in legitimate police shootings.)
There is no such thing as a "military style rifle" or a "semi-automatic assault rifle". These are only guns that you happen to think look particularly scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tracking and licensing for all gun & ammunition ownership and sales.
That's a terrible and meaningless idea. It's terrible because of the privacy implications, and it's meaningless because of straw purchases, reloading, and home manufacturing.
Pre-firing guns and sending bullets to be logged into ballistic fingerprinting databases. Some scheme to increase the reliability of ballistic fingerprinting and all preferably also a efface the casing in a way that can be traced back to a particular gun
See above. Same objections. Same pointlessness.
A reasonable, rational liberal
...wouldn't promote such privacy-eroding ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is a worthwhile discussion. (Rare on /.)
Tracking and licensing for all gun & ammunition ownership and sales.
By itself, this would accomplish little, and it would provoke a powerful backlash from gun owners who are concerned about confiscation. I don't think legislation banning confiscation would do anything at all to calm those concerns.
It would provoke less concern if you removed the "tracking" part. Licensing of gun owners would provide a registry of gun ownership, true, but if it didn't indicate who had guns, or what guns, or how many, then gun owners co
Re:"Military-style rifles" (Score:5, Interesting)
take away the murders done by inner city gangs and *presto* we have the murder rate of European country. They're the ones doing 70% the rest of the non-suicide homicides. We have a massive gang problem, paying people in inner cities to breed a criminal class without upbringing or moral code.
I happen to believe getting guns away from that type and getting them in jail is a trivial problem to solve, that the mayors of these cities don't dare do it because they are afraid of losing their voters and party support. It is EASY to tell who these gang members are, it is WELL KNOWN who they are.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Don't want you to exercise your 2A rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is problematic (Score:5, Informative)
I've been in the position of running RFP's and making recommendations to senior leadership on multi-million dollar software contracts for very large enterprise environments a number of times. Having a vendor implement social clauses into their licensing would quickly become a risk that would quickly exclude a vendor. This would happen even though the companies I worked for were liberal and did not have anything to do with firearms.
The reason is simple, if a vendor would put a clause like this in their contract, their is a risk that they would put in other clauses. What if a vendor puts in a clause requiring that their customers cannot sell animal products? The list of potential risks to a business is limited only by the imagination of your vendor.
This can cause a significant disruption to the business where a vendor gets to choose how you run your business or you get to choose an expensive platform migration. Either one of these is unacceptable in any enterprise I have ever worked at. Whether you agree with this vendors stance on guns or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not vendors get to tell people what their social values and force others to run their business accordingly.
Shopify did the same thing in Canada (Score:3)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]
A couple online gun stores I deal with had to redo their e-commerce sites, and they made a point of telling us why. I purposely try to patronize them to help them recoup their loss. They seem to be getting along just fine without Shopify now though.
The urge to save... (Score:4, Insightful)
A contract is a contract (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have a contract with you, and it does not specifically state that I cannot do certain things, put pressure all you want.
The proper response is: "Go fuck yourself."
Sounds to me like this is a good opportunity for another company to come in, undercut Salesforce to help convert these companies off, and then reap the benefits.
Sell your Salesforce stock (Score:3)
...I may even agree with them in principle, but it'll be a cold day in hell that I let ANY vendor dictate my business's policies.
Reducing gun violence (Score:3)
If you honestly wanted to reduce gun violence you'd make drugs legal and then work to create living wage low skilled jobs in cities with the magic combination of high violence and high youth unemployment.
No-one wants to do that though. Why address the actual problem when it's much more politically useful to yip yap about assault rifles. Silly details like 'rifles are used in less than 10% of all gun homicides' are irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at it again I'm doing something subtly different with that.
The drug trade funnels money to criminal gangs. Those gangs recruit desperate unemployed youths that end up making less than minimum wage. Legalizing drugs cuts off the money supply from gangs and reduces their ability to afford to recruit people. Something else would fill that void, and that's where the jobs program comes in.
The underlying problem is there are a bunch of people with nothing to lose. That's what you have to fix.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that would have been a "great" idea back in 1998, when Microsoft was actually anti-Linux.
Now they don't give a shit what client you use, since the money is made by hosting your services on Office365 and Azure.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it ignore MS's Azure? 40 percent [google.com] of all VMs runs on Linux!
Re: The Right to (Score:2, Interesting)
Salesforce is neither interfering with, nor enforces your rights. They're not in charge of them.
They're exercising their right to run their business as they see fit.
Good for them. First thing they've done that I like.
Re: The Right to (Score:4, Insightful)
If you believe they have a "right to run their business as they see fit" and can't "interfere with rights" because "they're not in charge of them," your logic then forces you to support, say, a retail or property rental firm being able to refuse to do business with ethnic groups as they see fit.
Re: The Right to (Score:3)
A more realistic analogy is: could Tesla (or Waymo or Ford...) prohibit you from operating their networked self-driving system for military, police or EMS use. Yes, I think they could.
Another might be: can a movie studio prevent you from playing a US DVD in a European region player. Yes, they do, and it's laws like the DMCA that interfere with your fair use rights, not the studios' wishes and business practices.
Guns in the trunk? I think the doctrine of first sale gives you the right to do so.
Purchased vehi
Re: The Right to (Score:4, Insightful)
"A more realistic analogy is: could Tesla (or Waymo or Ford...) prohibit you from operating their networked self-driving system for military, police or EMS use. Yes, I think they could."
The difference here being that they first sold an entire fleet of Teslas to a law enforcement department, THEN, after they'd installed their own superchargers, powerwalls, support and maintenance infrastructure, etc.. Tesla came out and said a couple years later "you can't use our vehicles for law enforcement". Doesn't work so well now, does it?
Re: The Right to (Score:3)
Yes, I have, and my kids are clearly smarter than you.
Salesforce doesn't control your rights. They're yours by birth, enumerated, enforced and regulated by law, not by companies.
That companies and people will do anything they can get away with is the reason there are laws.
Last bite for the troll. I'm out
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I interest you in a rock that prevents tiger attacks? It only costs twice as much as whatever gun you are desperately clinging to at the moment, and protects you and your family from viscous tigers mauling all of you in your sleep.
Re: The Right to (Score:4, Funny)
Viscous tigers? Can they ooze through bars like that Terminator robot guy?
Re:Leftists hate when people are self sufficient (Score:4, Interesting)
Leftists, like those currently found all over Silicon Valley, absolutely hate the idea of average people being self sufficient, especially when it comes to defending one's self and one's property.
Leftism is an ideology built around turning everybody into victims who need to rely on the state for everything. Naturally, leftists insist that the state is controlled by leftists.
I am so far left of left that most democraps can't even see me from where they're standing, and I think you're either trolling, or playing the part of the useful idiot. There is nothing "left" or "liberal" about supporting taking away one's right to keep and bear arms. Those people are actually fascists and don't even know it. But plenty of us genuine leftists exist. I support the abolition of the corporation in favor of co-ops, but I also favor private gun ownership. I want to make a better citizen, not make a better fascist state. But I also want the state to provide assistance to people who need it. Some people will never develop self-reliance. Some people will only ever develop a limited amount. Should we simply throw them to the wolves? I think not. That only makes more wolves.
Re: Leftists hate when people are self sufficient (Score:5, Funny)
Leftism is an ideology built around turning everybody into victims who need to rely on the state for everything.
It has indeed become that. Now if we could just get the religious nuts, "social" conservatives, the fake (Koch) libertarians that want the playing field tilted in their favor through nepotism and corruption, the RINO's, the snakes that want to allow ISP's to regulate our data packets, the gullible/low-info climate deniers and the crooked fucks who want to sell off public infrastructure to private parties and take a cut of all public services the fuck out of the Republican Party, I might join up; until then, they're going to get [almost] as much criticism as I direct at the so-called "left."
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me exactly, what is a military style rifle? Do you mean a rifle that has its stock painted black instead of a traditional wood stock? Automatic weapons are already illegal...
One would assume something similar to AR, AK, FAL, Galil, FAMAS, etc style platforms. You know, firearms that tend to be issued to militaries, hence "military style". Because as you state, fully automatic weapons-aka assault rifles- are (effectively) illegal, and "assault weapons" is basically a made up terms by people who really didn't know firearms. The point is though, you have to call them something. I suppose you could go with "firearms derived from or resembling magazine fed semi or fully automatic
Re: Stop selling military-style rifles (Score:3)
You know, firearms that tend to be issued to militaries, hence "military style".
It's clearly so very tempting to speculate on things we feel strongly about, even if it's limited to "feelings" and not based on facts:
We've repeated thos a thousand times in an attempt to address the [willful] ignorance of dangerous fools: Military "style" means fuck-all; you have "military grade" (full auto or Select Fire) and you have semi-auto civilian grade. Adding a spoiler to your FWD doesn't make it a supercar and having a pistol grip or a folding stock to a rifle doesn't make it military "grade" an