I just commented on your use of the word bigot. I am having "fun" reading the comments. I couldn't care less what the CEO of Mozilla says or thinks and what causes he chooses to donate to. It's not going to stop using the Mozilla browser any less than the fact that Tim Cook is (allegedly) gay could cause me to abandon Apple products (it won't).

So I guess that make me rather tolerant, or maybe just indifferent. But I don't go around calling people bigots. Maybe I just have better manners. Or maybe I don't think hiding behind a keyboard gives me license to be uncivil.

And so you prove my point.

Anyone who calls the person they are debating with a bigot doesn't really want a debate or a discussion.

Are gay people who oppose polygamy and polyandry bigots?

By your reasoning, anyone who refused to tell the Nazis where any Jews were hiding was practicing censorship.

If I was the CEO, I would contact the said employee and let him/her know that if they couldn't work for Mozilla because I was the CEO, then I would gladly accept their resignations.

Well, that is up to you, but where does it end?

Let us assume that he is let go because of this. Why stop at the CEO? Why not the COO, the CIO and the CFO? And the management level below that? Soon, maybe we are demanding that companies audit their employees to make sure there are none whose views you find objectionable.

Why not go down all the way to the janitor? Basically, if anyone ever expresses a thought that is at odds with the contemporary thinking, they should be barred from any job, because, well, you don't want to support a company that employs bigots right? Because the CEO is just a job holder. He is doing a job which he was given, not because he passes some litmus test on his personal political views.

Why end there? Why not ask every potential employee what their views on every topic you might find objectionable to ensure that you don't employ the wrong sort of people?

I'd hate to live in a country where I am only allowed to earn a living if I have the correct thoughts and the correct political affiliations.

Your views are scary.

Sometimes I think "bigot" is the new "communist". Anyone who disagrees with the now accepted position is a bigot (which incidentally means you can't have a reasoned discussion with them).

MEPs are not only for election periods. They represent UK constituents throughout their term of office. While the UK populace may feel the EU parliament to be an irrelevancy and a nuisance, the representation of UKIP on air is entirely consistent with their electoral mandate. I for one would not want the BBC to be deciding on our behalf (or on anyone else's behalf) than the EU is irrelevant, and thus it is not necessary to give airtime to the UK's representatives to the EU.

Secondly, as I explained, UKIP chooses to have one strong personality representing their views on air. That is their prerogative. And if Question Time is going to represent politicians fairly, somewhat in proportion to their mandate, you are going to see Nigel Farage more frequently than other for the simple reason that his party chooses him to attend Question Time rather than any of their other MEPs.

I am not a UKIP supporter. But they do have more MEPs than the Greens. And they also have one really recognisable face, so you are going to see him more than you see an average MP from other parties.

No conspiracy here.

I don't know who views a phone as a status symbol any more. It sounds to me like you are projecting your biases onto people who own these phones and who you think consider them to be status symbols.

Apple sold in excess of 150m iPhones last year. That might be more than the total number of Mercedes Benz, BMW and Audi cars ever produced. iPhones are everywhere one looks. No one, even the most rabid fans, considers them to be status symbols. People might consider them to be fashionable, but that is very different from being a status symbol.

I don't know why I am doing this, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... (Great Zimbabwe Ruins)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... (Khami Ruins)

Yes, built by black people with painstaking effort.

So disproved your rubbish claim with just two examples from Zimbabwe alone. There are lots of examples from Zimbabwe, and I would bet there are lots more elsewhere in Africa.

So, you are not only racist, but ignorant as well. Actually, I think the last statement was _almost_ a tautology.

Not if the thief is caught. The insurer does blame the victim, The insurer just incentivises safer and more secure behaviour as a way to keep premiums down among other things. Insurers couldn't care less if stuff gets stolen, as long as the premium rates reflect the actual level of risk.

The truth is 99% of the population understand the word "hacker" to mean some nefarious nerd (or Angelina Jolie) sitting in some basement somewhere doing bad stuff remotely on other people's systems. So you either educate the 99%, or you just figure this is not a battle worth fighting.

Aircraft are fuelled at airports. And aircraft typically only fuel enough to get them to their destination. So these planes would have to be fuelled at the airfield anyway. Now the question is whether NASA should have sold the fuel at full price and included taxes (which they can't do), whether they should ask H2-11 to provide their own fuel, which is probably a very inefficient way to run an airfield, or whether the government should change the law to ensure that government owned airfields are ableto sell fuel at the market price.

Oh, and someone needs to think of Exxonmobile!

People are treating gold as a store of value rather than as a currency.

And why would we want to make the owners of gold so incredibly wealthy and perpetuate and greatly increase the gap between rich and poor. Gold suffers from much the same problems as BTC. It is deflationary and it is finite.

I would add that the only reason that the infinite (or arbitrary) divisibility is useful is because the value of individual BTC would need to go up very much if BTC ever became a commonly accepted currency, whether this was because some BTC were being lost, or because the supply is already limited.

I would argue a good currency needs to be linked to the amount of economic activity to avoid it being deflationary. No technological solution exists that would allow a currency that is only based on "maths" to avoid the inevitable deflationary spiral.