Curb the H1B problem, we probably will curb the recruiter spam problem

I disagree. These Indian recruiters all live in India, they aren't H1-B workers. Basically what's going on is a bunch of Indian companies have figured out that there's a good demand for engineers in the US, and that recruiting isn't exactly rocket science, you just have to have people who speak passable English and can sit on the phone for hours calling candidates and companies and matching them up. The recruiters don't even have to be very good, as long as they have an acceptable success rate to justify their pay. Since they're in India, they're not paid much relative to US salaries.

It doesn't matter when it was done.

If Hobby Lobby's CEO used to act in gay porn movies years ago, and someone dug that up and posted it on the internet, he'd be fired too.

Most of us hold at least one opinion that is not the majority viewpoint

Irrelevant. The "majority viewpoint" doesn't matter, only the viewpoint of the Board of Directors of a company. If the CEO doesn't fit with that, then he's out. It doesn't matter if it's some progressive-politics-espousing company like Apple, or some conservative Christian company like Hobby Lobby; at either one, if the CEO get involved in some publicity that makes the company look bad to its preferred audience, he's out. At Apple, if he comes out as a homophobe, he'll be fired, whereas at Hobby Lobby they'd consider that a good thing, and would fire him if he came out in favor of gay marriage.

This is the whole problem here; all these conservative Christian Slashdotters are butt-hurt because someone got fired for being anti-gay-marriage, but they'd have no problem if some CEO at a conservative company got fired for being pro-gay-marriage.

So you're saying your work should be able to control your religious beliefs. Sure...

Yes, when you're CEO, it should and it does.

Will Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby hire a CEO who isn't Christian?

It doesn't matter.

If someone digs up some dirt on Chick-Fil-A's CEO and finds he used to do gay porn movies, he's going to get fired because that makes the company look bad to its customers (conservative Christians).

This is no different.

You're being idiotic.

Here's another example: the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has a change of heart and decides to become a Satanist, and makes public statements to this effect. Should Chick-Fil-A be allowed to fire him? Of course; they're an openly Christian company, and that CEO reflects poorly on that.

It doesn't matter what you think is OK or not. The only thing that matters is what the Board of Directors of a company thinks is OK; if the CEO is not aligned with that, then the BoD has every right to terminate him. It's right there in his employment contract; every CEO has a contract which says the company has the right to terminate him if they don't like the job he's doing or they don't think he's representing their company well. Companies which espouse progressive ideals have every right to fire CEOs who publicly hold non-progressive views. Similarly, companies which espouse conservative Christian ideals have every right to fire CEOs who don't uphold their values (ones who aren't also Christian, or ones who get caught in affairs and things like that).

If you're trying to write software which bypasses the browser and does HTTPS directly, using Wireshark is extremely useful for debugging, and not easily replaced any other way.

You're a moron. Eich didn't lose his freedom of expression; he can express himself as much as he wants, but Mozilla corporation is not required to allow him to use their name as a podium for his speech.

As for a "usable UI", the UI hasn't changed significantly, you idiot. Press "Alt" and the menu is right there. BFD.

The criticism of this new HTTPS fiasco is warranted IMO, but you look like a blithering moron by spouting all that other crap.

Then there was the whole Eich debacle. Regardless of your stance, it's pretty disgusting that somebody had to lose his job merely because of his beliefs regarding same-sex marriages.

Bullshit.

When you're the CEO of a company, your personal beliefs are no longer your own; anything you do in public reflects on that company. You are in effect the company's face and public image. So if the company's board of directors doesn't like the image you're conveying of the company, they are entirely within their rights to fire you and hire someone else.

Simpletons like you don't seem to understand that being a CEO is not a normal job where you come to work, punch a time clock, do what you're told, and collect a paycheck and go home to live your private life. When you're CEO, you have no private life. Just look at Steve Jobs when he was alive: he was well-known, famous, he was Apple. Everything he did represented that company. Not only does the CEO direct the company and make all the big decisions, he also serves as the public face of the company.

Granted, Mozilla isn't as big or prominent a company as Apple Computer, but it's still fairly well-known, as countless people do use their browser (or have in the past). If they thought that Eich was making their company look bad, they had a very good reason to replace him.

Are you going to try to argue that if Coca-Cola hires some celebrity to do some ads for them, and that celebrity gets caught on camera spouting a bunch of racist stuff like Mel Gibson, that they shouldn't fire him, and that they should continue showing ads showing this now-controversial personality and thus completely ruin their public image?

I don't buy new music or go to concerts

Lots of people don't buy new music, and it's not because they're boycotting an "evil industry", it's because all the new music sucks.

I don't go to movies or subscribe to cable

"Cord cutting" is skyrocketing, and again it's not because people are intentionally boycotting, it's because cable TV is just commercial-packed bullshit programming like Honey Boo Boo and people have lost interest, as they would rather spend their free time doing or seeing things on the internet. It's not just geeks, it's everyone.

It's not that hard. You can save up a good amount of money with a job like that when you live with your parents and they pay for all your food.

No, it really isn't. The Tesla can already go over 200 miles per charge. Commuters don't need that much range.

The key thing, which most people are just too fucking stupid to understand (including most Slashdotters I've noticed, in fact it seems to me that Slashdotters are far less able to understand this than the general public), is that you don't need an electric car to do everything a gas car does to make it viable. A Prius can't tow a boat, but that doesn't stop countless people from buying them and driving them daily. It's the same with electric cars; they're already perfectly viable as commuter vehicles. No, they're not great for road trips; that's why you use your other car for the road trip.

Most families these days have multiple vehicles, so you have one electric car, and one gas-powered car. This isn't a foreign concept to countless married couples, where the husband and wife both have a car: the wife's car is nearly brand-new and expensive, while the husband's car is a 20-year-old piece of shit beater car. The wife uses her fancy car to get her nails done and go to the spa, while the husband drives his shitbox to work every day so he can afford the payments for the wife's car. So, now, the husband can get an EV for his daily commute and they can use the wife's Mercedes for road trips. The main problem with this, of course, is that EVs are still relatively expensive, and since the wife insists on spending most of the car budget on her car and not one red cent on the husband's car even though he spends so much time in it, there's no money for a $30K Chevy Spark or Nissan Leaf or similar low-end EV. But as EVs become more commonplace and older used ones become available, this will change, and husbands will be driving 10-year-old beat-up Leafs to work, and toiling in the garage at night to replace dead cells in their battery packs.

You would need an impractically sized cable to carry the voltage required to "fast charge" a plane battery, and that would still be much slower than using a liquid fuel.

Wrong. With planes, it'd be trivial to just swap out batteries at the airport. Aircraft aren't like cars owned by individuals. With aircraft, they're owned by large companies like Southwest or Delta, who have whole wings or even concourses, plus giant hangars, at every airport they have a presence at. If they actually had batteries sufficient for this task, they'd simply swap them out at each stop, just like they refuel and swap out the baggage right now.

They're already talking about doing exactly this with cars, but with cars there's some problems with the idea. Battery packs aren't fungible like fuel; an old one doesn't work as well as a new one, they can develop problems and need repairs (like replacing individual cells), so if you swap out your brand-new $20K pack for a worn-out old one, you're in effect losing a lot of money. So they're coming up with ideas like leasing the pack when you get a swapped one, and later returning for your charged-up old pack which you own, but that's obviously problematic.

All this goes away with aircraft, since the airline company and the company swapping packs at the airport are one in the same. When a Delta plane lands and docks at the jetway, Delta personnel will swap out the pack for another Delta-owned pack. Delta will manage all its own battery packs, so issues of who owns which pack and who's responsible if one develops problems all go away.

Obviously, this discussion is academic since we certainly don't have batteries capable of storing the amount of energy needed for an electric airplane, but if some giant breakthrough in battery technology is made next year and all of a sudden, electric airplanes are totally feasible and completely capable of replacing modern jet-fuel-powered aircraft, the recharge time will NOT be a problem; they'll just swap batteries the way people do now for rechargeable power tools.

This won't help with your crappy host OS, but the beauty of running a VM is that it's trivial to save the state, then shut it down. You don't need to close any applications at all; they'll be right where you left them when you restore the state.

But the problem is you have to tell users "no, you don't want to play that game", "no, you don't want to use the software that came with your camera", "no, you can't use that VPN software, please spend three years learning unix shell and networking".

You have to tell Mac users the exact same things. MacOSX doesn't play Windows games or run shitty bundled camera software. Yet Apple seems to have no problem profiting greatly off Macbook sales. And why on earth would you want to run bundled software anyway? You can just plug your camera's flash card into your PC and copy the images with your file manager, and then use the image editor of your choice to modify them if desired. I'm sure Macs work the same: plug in a card and some program included in OSX pops up for you. It's only Windows where people have a nasty habit of using some horrible, shitty, buggy bundled software or device driver for every little device they use.

BTW, VPN on Linux is easy. On KDE, I just use the network manager to import the OpenVPN profile files that PIA gives me. Click, click, click, done.