Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to a job if that job is as the public face of a company that has values that are at odds with that belief, especially if that company derives the bulk of its funding from a company that is very definitely at odds with those beliefs.

In what way?

No one is denying him the right to say or believe anything he likes, just that saying or believing those things also has consequences like jeopardising your employment as the CEO of a company that relies on 90% of its funding from a company with a CEO who believes the opposite thing to you.

Mozilla as a company is looking out for its image. There's no attempt to "stifle" his beliefs, just noting that they are incompatible with the job position he held. Having that job is not a right. Holding those beliefs is a right he has. Only one of those things has been put in jeopardy.

Simple. You are free to believe what you like, but that does not mean that what you believe or do that is a matter of public record (like donating to a homophobic campaign) means that you are free from consequence.

You are free to tell your boss he is a cock, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences of that action.

He is free to be a homophobe, but as the public face of a company, he may face scrutiny for that.

It's only a "right" insofar as the government has a set of circumstances that apply to some married couples but not others. For example, tax purposes.

Either all married couples get the same entitlements, or none of them do.

No, it has nothing to do with his job performance, but he is now the public face and representative of a corporation. His right to do what he likes and think what he likes are not at issue here - he is free to do them, and to donate to any political cause he likes (which is a matter of public record), but that does not mean that the decision is free from consequences.

The right to say and believe what you want is not carte blanche to avoid the repercussions of said beliefs; it might jeopardise your position as the head of an organisation that draws a lot of its funding from a company whose management believe differently than you do.

Marriage existed before the bible and before the christian god was invented.

Next question.

Here is where your argument falls down. It's not about "wanting something from the government" or "an example of entitlement society", it's about *being treated the same*.

Married couples get those benefits. Gay married couples do not (and are actively prevented from it by homophobic laws in some states).

The argument is about levelling the playing field.

Either everyone gets those benefits or no one does. The objection is that married couples are treated differently if the couple happens to have the same gender.

The muddy water false equivalence argument that homophobes have brought up (what's to stop two roommates getting married for the benefits, or two sisters etc) is no different to the current situation as it applies to heterosexual couples - what's to stop two heterosexual people marrying to claim the benefits by "gaming the system"? Namely that *they are then married* and that has certain legal and societal implications.

Interesting thanks.

strings says I have the user-space component on my system, but it's been a long time since I used it so I didn't realize the kernel-support might have gone away.

Actually iptables does have support for matching based on the process. You might have run commands that include "-m recent", or similar. The "-m" is used to specify a module-name, and there are many matching modules available and included by default.

For example on a CentOS system you might allow your webserver to make outgoing SMTP connections via something fun like this: "iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --cmd-owner httpd --dest-port 25 -j ACCEPT". (Why CentOS? Because it matches the command against HTTPD. On Debian systems the webserver process is more typically called 'apache2'.)

Hope that helps.

Just add an aftermarket wifi access point to the ethernet connection, then you can attach any number of local network X clients to the X server. Tablets, laptops, et al.

Slap that bitch inside the dash or something. They usually eat 12v DC anyway, so it shouldnt be hard to wire in.

Just make sure you aren't a total retard. Put the broadcast power on the access point to the absolute minimum needed to service the vehicle's interior, and use WPA2. Also, set access restrictions on the SSH, Telnet, and other vulnerable services so that digital signature checking is in force.

Running a minimalist GUI on the X server would allow the vehicle to do all manner of interesting things during the day. It could even run as a node on Folding@home if you really wanted. I was thinking more along the lines of encrypted email clients with GPG and something like clawsmail though.

Well, supposedly, the study took levels of exercise into account -- and driving to work in the morning would account for 30 minutes of sunlight exposure, without any real exercise.

I often keep a dozen or more windows open on my web browsers. Doing that, and a couple more things, you can sometimes break 4GB RAM -- and that's using Linux.
For Windows 8 users, you need a couple of Gig just to get the machine off of the ground. more than 4 is needed to do almost anything more than stare at a blank screen.

Yes and no.

This is a quality over quantity, and price valuation problem.

Advert company wants: Enormous quantity of inexpensive advert impressions for products they have exclusive contracts to advertise for, and comprehensive metrics about those impressions.

Content Producer wants: Enough operating capital to make a steady profit while producing engaging content that users like,

End User wants: Engaging content from the content producer.

The content producer sells the end user's eyeballs to the advertising company.

The advertising company pays the content producer for those eyeballs.

The user gets content paid for by the resale of their eyeballs.

Here's the rub:

All three parties seek to maximize their goals. This exchange only works when there is equity in the exchange. As any one party starts to leverage advantage, the arrangement becomes unstable.

Scenario 1:
Content provider demands too much money from advertisers for ad placements.

Advertisers cut off the producer, or, (if the advertiser cannot find other producers) goes out of business as they stop making profits. Producer stops making content as the money dries up, user stops getting content. All parties fail.

Scenario 2:
Advertising company pays too little for adverts. (current reality)

Content producers have to oversell the eyeballs viewing their content, resulting in end users going elsewhere to get that content, (Piracy, other sites, other networks, et al.) and to find technological measures to sanitize the content if alternative channels cannot be secured. Content producers do not get paid enough by the advert stream, stop producing content, advert company stops getting eyeballs, user stops getting content. All parties fail.

Scenario 3:

Users simply won't watch the adverts, period.

Users simply refuse any and all adverts. Content producers cannot secure a revenue stream from advert companies, and have to charge for content directly. This limits the available form and expression of the content to what end user is willing to directly pay for. This stifles the creativity of the producer, limits the variety of content consumed by the end user, and kills advertiser completely, reducing the ability to spread awareness of new products and offerings. All parties fail.

The ONLY WAY, and I mean THE ONLY WAY that advert supported services *CAN* work in the long term, is if there is across the board equity.

Advertisers *MUST* pay what the advert impression is REALLY worth.

Content producers MUST provide quality content with emphasis on content, not advertisement.

End users MUST watch the advertisements.

The problem, is that NONE of these actors are acting equitably, starting with the advertisers.

The advertisers found that they could leverage more profit by using mass-tracking analytics to evaluate how best to make payouts, to maximize their profit margins, pretending that this was in some fashion sustainable, creating an unreasonable stockholder expectation which they now must uphold. This is a technological advance that upset the equity.

Advertisers now pay less to the content producers.

To make up for the loss, content producers have to display more ads, further degrading the quality of the impressions received, and degrading the prices paid out, thanks to the analytics.

The end user says "Fuck that shit, I am going to block your BS adverts! They cover the whole damned screen!", and installs adblocking software.

The advert company screams to the content producer that the quality of their impressions has reached all time lows, and that they wont pay enough to keep the site running.

The content producer says that end users are blocking the adverts, resulting in a reduction in the number of unique impressions.

End user blames the content producer, saying they are now consuming a solid diet of advertisements if they dont use the adblock software.

The content producer blames the advertiser, saying they arent paying enough to keep the content in production.

Problem: Advertiser does not pay enough to sustain equity, by seeking to maximize its own profits in an unsustainable fashion.

The problem is simple.

The user wants the CONTENT to have focus, as that is what they go there to get.

The advertisers want the ADVERTISEMENTS to have focus, so they have "Impact."

That is why advertisements are obnoxious, obtrusive, cover 80 to 90% of the display, hoover around, make blaring noises, flash rapidly enough to induce epileptic seizures in those vulnerable, and overall make users reach for adblock software.

The solution? Advertisers need to pay more for less obtrusive ads.

If a site can get enough revenue to operate on just a simple hyperlinking rotating image banner, they wont need full page flash plague competing with their content.

But advertisers want eyeballs. ALL of the user's eyeballs. If advertisers had their way, people would spend 80 to 90% of their time watching adverts-- both on the internet and on television.

Allowing advertisements to become ubiquitous to the point of requiring brain bleach to control is NOT the answer, and only further increases the "Need" to inject yet more adverts to secure a workable revenue stream for the site/channel operators. Basically, they are saturating the market for adverts, and the price paid out per advert served drops. To make up for that, they have to display more adverts. Works GREAT for advertising companies, but is poison for content producers. It has a double-edge, in that as the percentage of time spent viewing adverts goes up, the number of viewers watching the site goes down.

It should not be any bit at all hard to determine where the two trends meet, especially with the INSANE amounts of analytics going on with advert tracking, and page viewing.

The problem is that the advert companies dont want to pay what the adverts are actually worth, and are driving the price paid per impression into the ground, while making a killing doing so. Users dont want to actually pay a fee to use the internet's various webpage services, which have traditionally always been free. (with a few exceptions.)

The real solution is to keep content as the primary focus, put a fucking ball gag and super glue in the mouths of the advertisers, and cut off the flow of gravy by refusing to plaster wall to wall adverts all over the internet, thus making the internet advert real-estate space a premium commodity, commanding a high price through encouraging scarcity.

Users would easily handle a 30% advert (max), 70% content (min) mix. They will walk away from, or start using adblock to circumvent anything above where the curves meet.

This isnt hard.

oh no, we know.

We call this "lock ins", because its impossible to use anything else, even if what you have is pretty shitty. Windows might suck, but its the only thing that works for your specific software.

This is the only thing keeping windows, and for that matter, microsoft going. People don't like microsoft, they have to use it.

No, there is no short term solution.

Long term, microsoft is fucked, because when it launches new products, no one gives a fuck.