You are describing the literal job role of a CEO (or at least, one of the many roles the EO has).

So how many? "A lot".

Or perhaps "more than enough for this to be a serious problem".

Why? People do it all the time, from both sides of almost any conceivable argument.

It's human nature.

They key thing to take away from it is that while you are free to express any belief, you are not immune to the consequences of that belief.

It's not oppression for someone to disagree with you. This wouldn't even be a story if the guy was a racist - the bad PR for Mozilla would mean that his beliefs made him incompatible with the role of CEO. This is exactly what this is.

People will go on holding and expressing beliefs long after this is over. Of course, if those beliefs (that previously had been casually accepted by society, and thus had never been challenged) start to face opposition it doesn't mean you're suddenly being oppressed.

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.

The direct quote from you is "She used to work as a lawyer for Apple", which would fit your definition for "employment" which is what you're clearly trying to infer here without directly lying, when the truth of her actual employment is much closer to "working for a company that had a client".

What proof can you offer that her role during that time included work on Apple cases, other than the fact that she was employed at a law firm that Apple used? Evidence enough that you can assert that she "worked as a lawyer for Apple for crying out loud"?

Face it, you've been called on weasel words in an attempt to draw a direct connection between a sitting judge and Apple based on circumstantial evidence.

Well, clearly not Apple or she'd "get them off" in the other trial currently against them at this time - the employment collusion/anti-poaching case that she is involved in.

Unless you think Apple are telling her to let that one go to avoid suspicion.

Sheesh.

So by your account, "she used to work for Apple" is the same as "she worked for a large law firm that had Apple as a client" are the same thing?

Cool. I used to work for Caterpillar then. And Coke. And The UK government. This will really pad out my CV! Thanks!

Because the team that works on the non-flight-capable prototype suit cover design is the same one that works on the rockets, right?

The main reason we're not putting humans in space is that funding for that is so slim. The US military's annual air conditioning costs in Afghanistan exceed NASA's entire budget. Without large public support for space exploration it simply won't be funded. This sort of outreach is part of the way of doing that. Get the public interested and the funding may follow at some point in the future.

All of the cool "technology and science" is under the cover design - this is the second version of the new EVA suit. Of course, showing this to Joe Normal isn't going to engage him as much as allowing him to vote on three different "cool space" designs for the outside of the suit. All the "technology and science" is there as it was before, with various ways to access them.

Just because they are also engaging in public outreach like this doesn't mean they're not also working on the "hard" stuff.

I see you didn't read the FAQ in the linked article.

Oh, and you forgot to log in, kid.

Classic slashdot; proclaim your superior 'common sense' knowledge over a professional science and engineering team while posting anonymously.

I'm sure they'll pay serious, and I do mean *serious*, attention to your expert comments.

That depends on your ISP.

My ISP doesn't count traffic from Steam against the peak-hour monitoring (customers are uncapped, but may be throttled if they exceed 10-20GB of traffic at peak hours of the evening) because they have a CDN set up that serves bulk game downloads from within their own network which is nice. They don't explicitly say they do this, but I know the traffic policy is in effect and I am never throttled regardless of the time of day or regardless of how much I pull from steam or youtube, and I know for a fact I've blown through their stated throttle points - the policy is mainly aimed at file sharing traffic.

The fact that they do seem to consider in-network traffic differently is promising, at least.