Be careful what you wish for. Without taking sides on the ad blocker debate, I'm just going to point out that:

1. the most valuable content that is available freely (not behind a paywall) today is exactly the content that could successfully be moved behind a paywall tomorrow, and

2. a lot of significant parts of the modern web, from discussion sites like this one to services like search engines and social networks, provide indirect benefits rather than content of their own that can be similarly monetized, and if you take away their funding model we don't yet have distributed, community driven alternatives of the same quality to fill the gaps.

Why would you think that? Just because a majority of people voted for a certain political party, it certainly doesn't mean they necessarily support all of that party's policies. If you only get one vote every few years at a general election, then it is almost certain that you will have bigger concerns than "mere" spying activity that is potentially going to be harmful to you if abused or if someone makes a mistake. For example, you might be concerned about your child's education, or having a roof over your family's head tonight, or being able to afford to buy food without working three jobs at once.

The curse of modern party politics is that it reduces a very complicated issue (national government) to a single decision between a small number of often similar choices. Elections are dominated by a very small number of very high profile issues, even though the people elected will be responsible for a very large number of issues that can still affect many people during their term in office.

This is why I am increasingly in favour of a power of recall (where any individual elected office holder who isn't doing a satisfactory job can be kicked out by the same electorate) and of an overriding power of referendum (where a sensibly large proportion of the population can force a national vote on any single issue they want, and the result is then binding on the government).

I suspect most non-geeks who have SSDs get them as part of pre-built systems and have no choice about which parts to use.

Geeks tend to overestimate their influence dramatically in this sort of situation.

Now, system manufacturers, on the other hand, have their own reputations and margins to protect. If they are buying units by the thousand of a device that wasn't the one they previously evaluated, and then they start seeing a surprisingly high rate of failure, that is not good news for the device vendor at all.

I trust that was only there for contrast and not because you would say it verbatim to anyone asking for advice!

Strange that I've never seen or even heard of it, then. I do keep seeing qualified doctors and other healthcare professionals talking about the developing obesity crisis in the UK and what needs to be done about it, though. Can you cite any actual research that supports a theory that more than a minority of cases of obesity, such as those with eating disorders or mental health issues such as we mentioned earlier, are involuntary?

Interesting parallel. The scientific evidence about global warming is also very clear: while there are some natural factors that affect our climate over extended periods, the current situation is almost entirely caused by human behaviour and the only way to start reversing the effect is to change human behaviour.

But you can't write an OS kernel in C compiled to run under the JVM or .Net. Even if you could, it wouldn't run as efficiently as C compiled to optimised native assembly, an argument that more realistically affects other system software like device drivers and networking stacks.

We're talking about using programming languages in practice here, not just the theoretical properties of a bunch of syntax and semantics with a particular label attached. In that context, it doesn't make sense to treat the practical properties of a programming language as completely independent of its runtime environment in the way you're suggesting.

You keep coming back to this idea that large numbers of people are involuntarily obese, but if it's really down to genetics to that extent, how do you explain the dramatic discrepancies in body weights and weight-related medical conditions in different countries? Sure, it seems very likely there is some element of genetics involved, as with just about any other health matter, but the idea that you can just blame the whole situation on circumstance and genetics is still crazy. The Japanese and Southern Europeans aren't slimmer on average than people from say the US because they have vastly superior genetics, they're slimmer because they have much healthier diets.

Your argument is about the cold reality of obesity from a public health and public finances perspective, but we were discussing the practicality from an employer's perspective. If someone obese has a significantly higher likelihood of abruptly leaving your employment due to ill health or worse, that is an argument against hiring them.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

You say I don't care about people who have problems I don't have. You know what? My not having them wasn't an accident. I've put on a bit of weight at some times in my life, usually when I wasn't doing my normal level of physical activity for one reason or another. I enjoy a burger or kebab now and then too. And yet somehow I never wound up obese, because like most adults I know how to eat salad for lunch instead of a burger and I understand that sugary drinks are bad for me.

Let's be clear about this. Being clinically obese isn't just a slight loss of control over your weight, it's a serious condition that develops over an extended period with obvious symptoms. If you really can't control your junk food cravings, you should be seeking proper medical help as soon as possible, because being severely overweight is a condition that can severely harm or even kill you. If you really do have a clinical eating disorder, treatment at work is the least of your worries. But of course there won't be any doubt that you have a genuine medical condition in this case, because obviously you'll be seeing your healthcare providers and undergoing treatment.

With the possibility of genuine medical problems acknowledged, let us be equally clear about reality. Almost everyone who is obese could control their cravings. Most obese people do not have an addiction in the sense of a dependency where cutting down on the junk will cause serious harm or medical complications. They could choose not get that 500 calorie drink from Starbucks on the way to work, not to go to McDonalds for lunch, and not to live off microwave ready meals at home. They could get off a stop or two earlier and walk the last quarter mile to work or the shops. Their problem is not addiction, it is simply a lack of willingness to look after themselves properly if it means giving up something they like or doing something they don't enjoy.

I don't see why anyone else should lose out because of those people, just because they can't find the time or the willpower to cook a decent meal or eat a salad for lunch like the rest of us. You want inhuman and cowardly? That would be the guy who refuses to take the most basic responsibility for their own health and then expects the entire world to adapt to the inevitable consequences.

IMNSHO, by arguing that these people are somehow the victims here, you are the one doing a disservice to the unfortunate few who really do have medical conditions that cause similar symptoms and really do struggle to overcome their unlucky disadvantages.

I think I was clear that if someone is obese for a genuine medical reason they can't avoid then we should look after them, as we would anyone else suffering from a medical problem. That includes people with clinical eating disorders or other mental health problems where obesity results.

The fact remains that most people who are obese are obese because they eat junk and don't exercise. Their condition is entirely voluntary, the solution to their condition is to eat a healthier diet and do more physical activity, and it really is as simple as that. I see no reason that anyone else, whether employers, coworkers, or any other relevant party, should have to pick up the slack for these people.

Assuming that was a serious question, the first thing that comes to mind is that clinical obesity appears to significantly increase the risk of quite a few serious medical conditions. In much (all?) of Europe, employers are directly on the hook financially when employees take time off sick. Moreover, there are indirect consequences, such as unfairly increasing the workload on other staff when someone is off work, possibly putting up the price for the employer and/or all of their staff if the employer offers benefits like subsidised private health insurance, and even little resentment-breeding things like reserving scarce parking spaces for specific staff necessarily at a loss to everyone else.

To me, the moral position here seems very simple. If someone is obese for a genuine medical reason they can't avoid then everyone should try to accommodate them in reasonable ways. If someone is obese for any other reason, perhaps they should try going to the park or the gym instead of going to court. Employers should no more be forced to accommodate a voluntarily obese person's laziness than they should be forced to grant smokers longer breaks than everyone else and provide dedicated facilities for the smokers to poison themselves in.

Whether it is worth hiring an obese person anyway because they are good at doing a certain job is a separate question, of course. I'm just trying to show some reasonably objective arguments for why an employer might wish to discriminate on the basis of obesity.

You're certainly not alone in that. When I've seen Facebook campaigns running, it's not unusual to have a spike in visits originating directly from Facebook but also spikes in direct traffic and in visits via a search engine looking for the name of the product/company/whatever.

The buzzword for this is "retargeting", and it can reportedly be very effective.

To give a somewhat balanced view, like most forms of targeted advertising, it can also be better for the person seeing the ad, in the sense that if they're going to see an ad anyway then it might as well be for something they might actually be interested in.

Personally, I have no moral problem with Facebook showing ads targeted based on the freely declared details and interests of its users. The users chose to provide that information, Facebook is offering its service for free in exchange for showing the ads, everyone knows the deal. Whether you choose to hide those ads some other way is between you and Facebook; we pay for clicks.

However, I find the cross-site tracking a bit too creepy. None of the sites I work on have things like trackable 'like' buttons or retargeting cues, because helping Facebook to covertly track its users around other sites seems to cross a line. Even if it would be a profitable line to cross, I'm not comfortable with imposing that on our visitors without some sort of explicit consent, which almost by definition isn't going to be practical in this kind of situation.