Next question: Does Coors count as beer for these purposes? We know it doesn't count count as beer for personal consumption, but I'm wondering if the same principle holds for cooking meat with it. Clearly further study is called for.

Free ticket is easy. Just buy a ticket online and use someone else's bank account data (which should work in most of Europe via SEPA direct debit). Bank account data is widely availabe on the web, as this is generally not thought to be highly sensitive information. If you do it shortly before the flight, the account holder will most likely not notice what's going on to have the ticket cancelled in time.

For bonus points, you can get the ticket issued under a pseudonym and alter the boarding pass to match your real name, so whenever you get asked for ID you won't get into trouble. The only thing where this won't work is when you want to check luggage (or, when flying to the U.S.), as there people will match your ID against what is actually stored in the airline's database.

Of course, if you do this without the bank account holder's consent, this is plain old direct debit fraud. So kids, don't do this at home.

I don't think that's true. I distinctly remember seeing a shot of a mustang (not the car, the horse) with stripes on its hindquarters. These are wild horses descended from escaped Spanish horses in the western US. I distinctly remember the announcer saying their wild ancestors probably had stripes, and after half a millennium of independent evolution, some were regaining stripes.

According to this link the horses the Blackfeet used often had these stripes. Despite what their legends may say, Native Americans like the Blackfeet got their horses by taming them from this same pool of the descendants of escaped Spanish horses.

Wikipedia does say that the ancestor of the domestic horse, Equus Ferrus Ferrus, often had stripes on its shoulders.

So it sure looks like there's probably some kind of genetic usefulness for stripes in non-domesticated horses, both in ancient Asia and the modern American West as well.

In areas where there really is mass computing (i.e., heavy number crunching), this statement is actually true.

Microcomputers slaughtered mainframes in the marketplace because there was not widespread network for information transfer that mainframes could benefit from. Now we have this network and people are moving towards centralized computing facilities (the "cloud"). For physical goods, such distribution networks have been in place even longer so there's no economic benefit from switching to hyperlocal manufacturing.

We live in an economy of mass production because it is way, way cheaper per unit to produce stuff in very large quantities. Even if 3D printing should become the way of manufucturing in the future, we'll still go the big-box retailer for our shoes and get a 3D-printed one from the shelf (or order them online) rather than printing them at home.

You can put up a bounty for this bug here. Right now, Bountysource accepts only Google Wallet and Paypal, but support for Bitcoins is in the works.

You are absolutely correct that it isn't the way the current Koch-approved talking point is worded. But that hardly matters one bit to the rest of us once the drugs are removed from the insurance company's payment schedule, now does it? The effect most certainly would be that some medically necessary hormone treatments will become unpaid due to the fact that they are accomplished using pills or patches that are also used for birth control.

And yes, 50% of the population is trying to point this out. I hear it brought up all the time. You probably don't usually hear them if you spend all of your time consuming winger-only media. Go listen to someone who doesn't get their talking points from the Koch brothers. Failing that, you could try listening to a woman once in a while I suppose...

If I believed wholeheatedly what he wrote there and paid no attention to what he did when he thought nobody was looking, then sure.

Interestingly, the contents of that statement prove without a doubt that Mr. Eich understands completely why people have a problem with having him as CEO. It makes me wonder why so many people here claim to not see it.

You don't have to be clear on why. Its is a fact that it does (hundreds of them in fact), and has since essentially the mid-20th century. If you don't like this situation, you are free to rail against it (good luck with that). But in the meantime it is morally incumbent on us to be fair about it.

And traditional marriage has been outlawed in this country for quite a while. If you want to argue for polygamy and disenfranchisement of women go right ahead, but please do it somewhere far enough from me that I'm not liable to get caught in the crossfire. :-)

As a Man who spent the last 25 years paying for his wife's birth control out of his own paycheck (or via *gasp* his health insurance), that goes double for me. It was an entirely health-related expense, just like the three pregnancies were, and the tubal ligation was. Or should those not be paid for either? In fact, for the last three years, my wife has had a particular "birth control" prescribed to her purely as a method to keep her hormones balanced properly (otherwise she would get migraines so bad she couldn't work).

I know the whole topic makes immature people like teenagers and Republicans giggle, but the fact is that birth control is a continual and integral part of health care for any family that contains at least one female between the ages of puberty and menopause. Just like pap-smears for women, and protstrate exams for older men. It is all part of the healthcare expenses of being an actual human being with (clutch your pearls here folks) sexual parts.

I dunno. I don't think I'd be happy working for someone who considered me sub-human, and has said so publicly. Presumably Mozilla has gay employees and contributors, and this CEO is quite likely to have a big say in what benefits they are given and how they are treated. So if he honestly thinks gay folks (including ones working for Mozilla) shouldn't be treated like real people with real families to worry about, it damn well does relate to his job.

It seems pretty reasonable to be upset to me. I think perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you think this is some "coin flip" issue that has no effect whatsoever on the actual lives of the actual people in question.

You talk like that doesn't happen now.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the modern love-based marriages we have redefined for ourselves sometime around the early 20th Century.

I didn't realize he was arguing for marriages between one man and as many wives as he can support, as long as they are all female and over the age of 8. Marriages where there is effectively a property transfer of female progeny and other goods or chattel between one man and one of his adult peers. Marriages that are entirely about maintaining the man's household and giving him some heirs to carry that on after he's gone. Marriages that have nothing whatsoever to do with love, and in fact all parties concerned are expected (and in the man's case encouraged) to seek love elsewhere, with whatever partner of whatever gender they chose. You know, traditional marriage.

Hmmm. What could a better term for "people who care about fair treatment of their fellow human being" possibly be?

How about most Americans?

If I were picking a codename for my next product, I'm not sure I'd pick the name of a language famous for being useless for real work without vendor extensions.