That's not the point. You can't blame anyone else for your own actions. If you follow that kind of logic nothing will ever be your own fault. Which really makes you as bad as those you're seeking revenge against.

No. Personal responsibility exists. Even in kids. They choose to do what they do. And while they may be scarred for life in some way, they're not dead. So it's certainly not justified.

While personal preference lets you do what you want, I'm fine with having that control with Javascript. The browser balances out the bad with user control. For pop-up dialogs, there is the checkbox to stop more. For right-click - well - there's always the inspector.

Dialog boxes that are too long need to be modal only to the tab and size limited, with scrolling enabled for long content.

Is this an appeal to the mods? Because you're certainly not winning favor yet. Perhaps you're just mad that you didn't think to link to that great comic?

How about knowing the history of the flagship product? Seeing the success or failure of ideas over time? And all of that in the domain of actually being involved with the company/product most of that time? You have to know business AND you have to know products.

You really need to make some separation here, at least in the Firefox case. On the one hand, you have a donation made years ago toward a specific legal cause. There are a lot of ideological reasons behind that, and not all of them involve marginalizing the individual (e.g. You can be against making it marriage, but be *for* increasing the rights of civil unions). On the other, you're saying he is against the people themselves. I'd argue that's a wider valley than you think it is.

And he wasn't even CEO when he made the one-time donation.

Or maybe you should tolerate the non-acceptance.

Isn't sandboxing the process that runs the javascript enough? Sounds fine to me. You just don't want to run Javascript. Nothing to do with security.

He wasn't even CEO at the time.

Except that's completely without context. The same Bible says that telling a white lie once is equivalent and deserving of the same punishment. There's a whole lot more to the message than that.

And yet most CEO's are literal psychopaths (medically speaking), and nobody objects much to that.

So what you're saying, is that knowledge, wisdom, skill and ability are less important to the job... He created JavaScript, but because he's not the greatest at everything, then clearly he's not suited for CEO. Considering that psychopaths, medically speaking, are the ones most likely to become CEO. And nobody seems to object to that....which is worse.

So...let's boycott an entire company over what one employee does in their spare time? Still doesn't sound very logical.

Thankfully, no one goes after "possession" for illicit content. It's only attempts to share that have been prosecuted. With P2P, downloading means sharing - but not with Dropbox.

I think the bigger problem if that happened would be the havoc on their de-duplication system. If you manage to create a collision, could download a copy of someone else's file.