Don_

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?

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.

>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.

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.

>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.