What's the point of bringing it up, though? How is that relevant to a technical video like this one?
Furthermore, how is it fair to put the things he says under the same scrutiny as a person who doesn't have schizophrenia?
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue).
Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, that was the whole point of Mozilla's statement. He is not firing his gay employees or enforcing his agenda upon the organization because that has nothing to do with his current position at Mozilla. In fact, the money he spent was his own, not Mozilla's. One can do whatever the fuck one wants with his own money as long as it's legal.
Making his stance against gay marriage public was probably not a good idea from a business standpoint, but there's absolutely nothing from that that should taint Mozilla's image.
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care.
We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs will affect the company. Read through some of the other comments here, I agree it could just be in very subtle -- yet still negative -- ways.
What I think is more interesting is how this reveals how deeply rooted sexism and homophobia are in our society. Yes, racism is still obviously a problem, but think for a moment what the reactions would be if the new CEO was known to have donated to KKK.
Here are some more fun exercises:
* what if the new CEO was a scientologist?
* what if the new CEO was an African American and it was revealed he donated to a group that attempts to make interracial marriage illegal again because he believes white people are sub-human creatures (the way the actual new CEO probably sees gay people, since he doesn't believe they deserve human and civil rights)?
* what if the new CEO was a neo-nazi sympathizer?
* what if the new CEO was a woman who really, really doesn't like men (and maybe even donated to some cause that attacks men or men's rights in some way)?
You can argue that all of these are just opinions. But where do we draw the line? People are usually very inconsistent with that. Homophobia is tolerated while putting a woman in a leading position makes people question this decision. Heck, people get all riled up over Ben Affleck being the next Batman, but the fact Bill Murray abused his wife doesn't stop him from being a geek idol.
Yeah, I don't think that is how America works. You can hold any belief and support any organization in any way that is legal so long as that organization itself is not criminal or an enemy of the US. Maybe people will think you're a weird duck, but professionally punishing people ("you can't be CEO!") for something that doesn't affect the job at hand -- well, kind of an ass thing to do. He's apparently a good coder and a good leader by many metrics, so let him do his thing. I know that if the tables were turned, and I was the CEO of a company, and a fundamentalist Christian-majority started to yell,"Fire him! He doesn't believe in God and gives to organizations that seek to lure our children to Satan!", I wouldn't want their beliefs to wreck my professional career. We don't fight our battles in the office like that.
If you disagree with him, then disagree with him. And while you're at it, do it The American Way (TM) by boycotting sh*t and blogging and giving money to organizations that he finds morally reprehensible and electing (buying? :|) politicians that support your view.
I'm sorry, but you haven't really made any real argument here that wasn't a baseless non-sequitur or slippery slope, and apparently only acted on the fact that you have a strong stance against this person. None of the examples you provided really matter since it just so happens that the fact of the matter is not the opinions or actions this person has in his private life, but what he does for the organization (I'm also going to give you the benefit of ignoring that you just did a huge reductio ad absurdum by comparing being against gay marriage with the killing of black and jewish people).
Yes, making his opinions and actions public were a bad and stupid idea, but he's not a criminal for having opinions that differ from yours, and his current job isn't being the Pope. His job position isn't centered around his morality, it's centered around his performance as CEO of the organization. Again, stupid move to make his unpopular opinions public, yes. But having a personal stance doesn't make him evil.
What on earth are you talking about? Firstly, I don't even know this guy. Actions in private life? His actions could have had a real impact on real people if Prop 8 won. And while being murdered or have your loved ones killed is technically worse than being derived of other human (and civil) rights, human rights are human rights, they are here for everyone. The same for civil rights.
It wasn't a "stupid idea" to make his actions public. Actually he didn't, someone had to discover this. He's actually being a coward and won't even admit what his views are.
And while it's not criminal to stomp on other people's human and civil rights -- that is if those people are gay, one day it will be. Taking away (or at least trying to) someone's rights does make you evil.
In all of those cases, those are the private beliefs, and as long as the leadership is sound why does it matter?
The problem here is with the line "acting on his opinions". He didn't go into a church and bust-up a marriage ceremony. He didn't go drag a guy behind his truck. He didn't go and give weapons to his local skinheads to go make trouble.
He went and gave money, as is acceptable in place of a letter of support and considered an idiomatic way of voicing an opinion, to an organization doing something that many disagree with.
You are trying to make an argument for censuring people based on their participation in local government.
Much as we all hope that in a few years everyone will look back on LGBT discrimination as silly and outmoded, I hope we too will look back at this time of civic indifference and inactivity and say "Well, we now know that we get the kind of governance we work towards".
Are you even listening to yourself arguing with nothing but a baseless ad hominem AND still having the gall to ask someone if he's listening to himself?
Facebook has already proven to be a huge antagonist in many many ways. We can, however, give Oculus the benefit of the doubt; they might have ended up doing nasty things even if they hadn't gotten acquired by Facebook, sure, but Carmack's past actions were never even close to the nastyness of Zuck's actions. It's just a matter of analyzing the past and making a hypothesis on the future based on that. I don't see what's so difficult to understand.
The summary/abstract/whatever isn't really saying anything new. We've known we can make a brute force attack on WPA2 by temporarily de-authenticating a client for years, and yes, obviously it takes longer the longer the password is. I know they want to sell the article, but did they really need to keep the detail of what exactly do they improve upon also in secret? Are they really mentioning de-auth, spoofing and brute forcing as if they were anything new?
Would someone that bought/knows someone who bought the article be kind enough to clarify on whether or not these guys actually came up with someone new or not, and if whatever they came up with is actually an important improvement from previous techniques?
To be fair, at this point it is too late to reverse the situation and name things appropriately, specially due to the fact that "cracker" is a well known slang for something else... Using the appropriate terms at this point would just confuse people.
The word "hacker" has been ambiguous in the same way since its beginning. Its earliest appearance in print had to to with breaking into phone networks at MIT (sorry, no link handy but it's easy to look up). The two meanings of "clever technical feat" and "getting into someone else's system" have always been intertwined, and it's easy to see why—they're not unrelated.
The whole "distinguish hacker from cracker" thing has always seemed to me a classic effort to control language to suit an agenda. Such things are doomed to fail and rightly so. But I may be reading that wrong, as I've never looked into the history of it (correction is welcome).
>All these tape/paper/etc advices to cover the webcam
Jesus Christ, guys. Do you use Linux?
Just blacklist the webcam module to preventing it from loading whenever the system boots. Want to use the webcam? Load the module manually.
# modprobe uvcvideo
Want to unload the camera again? Easy.
# modprobe -r uvcvideo
Generally, it's the uvcvideo module, but it might change from system to system.
A malicious code would need root access to your system to load/unload the webcam module. If someone has root access to your computer/to execute code in your computer, you're in MUCH, much deeper shit than if you let someone film you. Seriously. Specially if you use your computer for money transactions or talk about important stuff to people.
The same thing is possible on OS X with kextload/unload and kextutil. Moving the extension to a "disabled" folder and so on, and you have a camera without a driver.
I would say that it's still notable even if it relies on root access, since it's been previously believed that this was not possible with software at all.
