I think FreeBSD's Jails would appeal to you.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning of this whole mess. I firmly believe that any women should have the right to enter the STEM field if she so chooses, just as I believe that any man should have the right to become a fashion model or a ballerina if he so chooses. If we treat both boys and girls with respect and allow them to become whatever they chose, that will do far more for "inequality" than giving preferential treatment to one or special toys for one will ever accomplish.

However, this is a bit off topic, but even so: Glassworking has been a hobby of mine for quite a long time, as even though it's somewhat artsy (and I do enjoy being artsy every now and then), it also requires a very high degree of multitasking, practice, quick thinking, and the strive for perfection (and it also has a practical use too, unlike most art things). Although this is just personal observation, there are many more women in the field then men - In fact, out of a group of maybe 10 or 12 people, I have sometimes been the only male in the entire thing. However, even when that happens, the nobody here gives a crap: we're here to make things and to learn, not to stare at each other in a lustful manner. Similarly, when there's only one woman in the class (a much rarer occurrence, granted), it's the same as usual. Nobody cares, so even though there are more woman than men statistically, everybody's treated equally - the difference essentially doesn't exist, because no one's treated differently. I don't know if it's a special quirk of the studio where I go to make glass, but I suspect it's pretty similar throughout most of them. Maybe it's the fact the skill is hands-on, as opposed to a field of conceptual thinking, but it might be worth looking at why that is.

You have evidently never heard of the Jesuits. It's entirely possible to believe in religion and still be a grounded person - and it's entirely possible to be completely devoted to science and still be crazy (see Nazi Germany as an example). Religion when taught as a form of philosophy (which is what it really should be) can make for a great moral compass. Religion when taught in the form of governmental law is what's harmful.

Ha! Take that, Emacs users! ;P

This entire summary reads like a slew of buzzwords. "Big data animal tracking"? "Massive multi-individual"? "Quorem sensing"? "Global animal collective"!?

.......

Yeah. Or, in other words, implanting GPS chips on the skin so that you can attempt to creepily stalk every living organism's location on this planet. Same thing as we've been doing for the last thirty years, but now with "big data" attached.

Can an animal even give consent to have a tag attached to it? What happens when this tag falls off? Does it leak toxic chemicals from its battery into the environment? What happens if the animal eats it? For animals that don't swim underwater, are they designed to be waterproof?

Did they really think that Amazon is going to put its profit on the line to fulfill some code of ethics, even if their views did prevail? (the article mentions that is was a "voluntary agreement", so they were not bound to follow it)

They're very handy for websites that have poor native security, as the passwords Lastpass generates are extremely tough. In a lot of cases, I'd rather trust Lastpass's security over that of a native website, and they have open sourced their client side decryption process as well (which has received several audits). I don't use it for anything I consider super sensitive (my bank account, for example), but it's pretty good for a lot of other applications.

They chose a very strange wording to categorize in this report. Why "responded"? Why not "complied with" or "fulfilled"? Do they mean to imply that they don't actually follow through with them all, even if law enforcement gets involved? Do they simply blow off those that they don't think are important? Very interesting, I wonder what the hidden meaning is...

This guy has anawful lot of confidence in how the universe works, I'll give him that much. I am only a lowly being compared to him, but isn't this all speculation? I'm pretty sure this is not a science with any kind of proof or even basic consistent knowledge, but don't let me get in the way.

The very next sentence in my paragraph and I entertain that exact thought. It was more meant as a barb for people who'd throw it out because it's not new, which I don't think is a very good reason - trashing it just because it's old. However, I do sympathize on the parts issue.

Why the negative backlash here? I think it's AWESOME that stuff from the 80's is still running to this day, and I think that's a mark of quality construction if the Amiga still runs to this day. Why are they supposed to replace it if it does the job? It's not like there's any networking here or areas that are exposed to the public, just a computer controlling the temperature. If anything, I can understand replacing it because the maintenance is getting difficult (Amiga parts are quite hard to find nowadays), and maybe when something on the Amiga actually does break that puts it out of commission for good (the processor, for instance). Replacing it because ZOMG IT'S FROM THE EIGHTIES KILL IT WITH FIRE seems like a very irrational and kneejerk reaction to me. If nothing else, let me have it! I'd love to see how this person did it, seems like a very interesting project. I once did something similar with a system that controlled automatic doors - I don't know if it's still running or not though.

Try looking at Seamonkey sometime. Even though it packs several additional features and modes to Firefox, it feels significantly more lightweight to me at least, and the interface is really nice to use (especially when you come from the older Mozilla crowd).

It's about expectations. If Mozilla never expected to accommodate their users, they should never have written their statements to make it sound like they will. It turns out that saying one thing and doing the opposite tends to draw people's ire.

Seamonkey is a pretty decent cousin. It's what Firefox itself was forked from!

Open source is more centric on the developers, yes. They are not strictly obligated to listen to their users. However, if you make something that people depend on everyday for their use, the product itself becomes rather personal to them. Observe: if I were to loan you my Netflix account, and let you use it however you liked, you would become rather annoyed with me if I took it away from you after several months of use. It's human nature; you form attachments to things you interact frequently with. If Mozilla explicitly was developed solely for their developers use, I think they should have explicitly said so. Navigate to their home page, and what do you see? "When it’s personal, choose Firefox." Right there, big bold letters. Turning around and then telling their users that they aren't entitled to anything does not send good messages, it makes them look deceitful.

Mozilla hasn't done anything technically wrong, but they've done an exceptionally poor job of communicating what their user's position in their eye was. Or perhaps their policies changed over time. Who knows, but it's one reason why I prefer to rely on Seamonkey instead as a web-browser.