Well, I could point you to quite a number of commercial and open-source projects designed to manage the kind of data that goes into news stories. Or mention that Django was developed in large part for news organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)). And that a quick query on a global search engine could turn up this and more.
But those facts are obviously alternative to your facts. So Fake, I guess.
I don't make crap. You can reveal how much I make if you want. Reveal management salaries instead.
It is public record, ever read an annual report?
Very true. They also have to disclose major shareholders (which are often management) and other big-price incentives such as option grants. Salary, after all, is commonly the smallest part of a top-level exec's income.
That's because no bean counter has yet come up with a way to monetize routers by making them discriminatory.
Yet.
Of course, that could change if, say, Juniper and Netflix cut a deal where you only get the best quality Netflix using a Juniper router. Then Google/YouTube make another one with Cisco. etc., etc., etc. And let's not even think about what Apple could do.
Actually, the government did effectively control routers at one time. Back when the Internet was still the US Government's DARPA net, your router played nicely with to the other DARPA routers or you didn't get on the net.
Well, isn't that what the fuss is about? Getting the government out of being in charge of Quality of Service and letting those altruistic corporations do what they do best?
Please stay on the line. Your call is very important to us!
Much of the testosterone-laden crap from Silicon Valley, as well as "normal" programming from the world all over would not have been possible without someone like Sammet to lead the way.
That's a rather bold statement, unless the "someone like Sammet" part meant "either her or a workable substitute". Very few things in computing have been so unique as to require a single individual. And even that may be a stretch. Perhaps Alan Kay comes closest, but even that I'm not sure about.
Funny that you should mention Hamilton though; her popularity being a recent pop-culture phenomenon, quite the opposite of the towering Hopper.
The point here is that according to some, even a "someone like Sammet" would have to be male. Which, by her very prominence is demonstrably false.
I consider Kay to be one of the towering figures in the field, but Kay very likely has dealt directly or indirectly with a lot of Sammet's work - Many of his most significant ideas date back to the early 1960's when Sammet was in the prime of her career. There is certainly considerable overlap - Jean Sammet was the founder of ACM SigPLAN, so Kay's language develpments would have been of considerable interest to her - and vice versa.
Not to denigrate Hamilton's work - she was certainly valuable to the US Space Program, but yes, I think that perhaps she has gotten more attention than others who did equally important things. And like Kay, she was almost certainly using tools that were based on Sammet's work - everyone was. And still is, whether they realize it or not. You didn't get into Knuth's magnum opus without having had a hand in the foundations of the field.
Not to make it sound like the entire field of computer science is single-handedly the work of Jean Sammet or any other single individual, But the field was much smaller back then and virtually everything that anyone did was new and radical. So a relatively small number of people shaped almost everything that was to come.
This is why "brogrammers" disgust me. Yes, I've seen a lot of women drop out of the profession. Often to become parents, sometimes to move into management or project administration, sometimes for reasons unknown. But "J. Sammet" is an author or co-author of a lot of the historical computer literature in my library. You'll find her name in Knuth, in collections by Flores, and other places besides. She may not have been as publicly visible as Adm. Hopper or even Margaret Hamilton, but she helped build the foundations for modern-day IT.
In addition to valuable contributions in the field of programming language design, she was also the first female president of the Association for Computing Machinery, back when the real nerds all belonged to ACM.
Much of the testosterone-laden crap from Silicon Valley, as well as "normal" programming from the world all over would not have been possible without someone like Sammet to lead the way.
It's sad that she never got the full recognition she deserved from the world at large - even the appearance announcement here is 2 weeks late. Although her peers respected her greatly. We've lost a giant unawares.
Funny that you should say that. Dilbert, circa Y2K had the PHB approach Bob the Dinosaur and ask if he could do COBOL, and the conversation went something like that.
The idea of taking a graphical app design and converting it automatically to code goes back a long, long ways. It was supposed to eliminate the need for programmers.
Variations on this include decision-table based code generators and other similar things - it was just flowcharts. In one sense, Apple's HyperCard also was a player in that space.
It has never worked. As with every other automated code-generation system and 4GL that was supposed to render programmers obsolete, getting a flashy demo start-up app was easy. Then the ugly troll-fist of real-world problems smashed it flat. Auto-generated code always seems to encounter critical cases where the code generator had no idea of what to generate. The code quality usually inefficient, outside of the optimized stock core modules.
It's rather ironic. We're looking at automating driving, financial and other decision-making jobs, factories, and just about any human endeavor you can think of, but automating the automators themselves has steadfastly proven to be an insoluble challenge.
I'm not big on the "Every time before. "X" happened, so surely "X" will happen next time as well" (or in this case, "X" failed, so "X" will continue to fail.) Once, compilers generated crap machine code, but these days, automated code generation is so good that it's simply not economical to try and hand-optimize any system of any significant scale. So, likely one day, the high-level automation problem may ultimately fall once we've built enough tools and learned how to combine them properly.
In the mean time, however, flowcharts serve mostly as documentation aids. And at that, the necessity of flowcharts plummeted once programming languages became kitted out for Structured Programming. Flowcharts were most useful when everything was spaghetti code. Structured programs are generally better represented by decision tables.
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
Thank you. Glad to see someone gets it.
People like to say that the whole R/D thing is just like sports, where you cheer your own team and boo the other one.
But in sports, you're not rooting for the complete, total, and eternal annihilation of the other team. You play the game, you win or lose, no hard feelings (well, not many) and you come back again for a rematch. And again next season. The team is important, but the game is everything.
Ideology is a game for idiots. And far too many people are obsessive players.
And you know what the Tories and other good and faithful followers of our divinely-appointed King called those people back then? LEFTISTS!
Actually, no. The Left/Right thing came about as a result of the French Revolution more than 10 years afterwards. Literally, your political leanings determined whether you sat on the left side of the French legislative chamber or the right side. The term "Right" has nothing to do with being right, or of Rights.
The USA was founded in a time when every civilized country had, By Grace of God, a King. They were to the conservatives of the day what Communists were to the Captains of Industry in the 20th Century.
With Trump's bold policies on science, industry, business and the environment, the USA will be ready to confidently stride into the 13th Century before you know it!
Reminds me of old John Cage music. The only rule seemed to be that no 2 consecutive notes should be played by the same instrument or in the same octave. And with lots of awkward silences.
Then there's the minimalist music by Glass where you can leave the building, have lunch, watch a movie, take an Caribbean cruise, return and not feel like you've missed a note. Although some have complained that a lot of jazz suffers from the same failing.
Automatically-generated music has been around a long time, though. It was either Wolfgang or Leopold (his dad) Mozart (I forget which) who devised a compositional system that operated off the throws of dice.
I wonder about either your sources or your memory. It's got the right ideas, but the wrong geography.
Most of the State of Florida gets its water from the Floridan Aquifer, which runs down the state. The Aquifer's sources, however, are probably not primarily the Okefenokee Swamp, which is located just North of Jacksonville, whereas the Aquifer flow is primarily towards SSE. The Okefenokee is, however head of the Suwanee River system, which does flow SW before terminating in the Gulf of Mexico. The Suwanee and its tributaries are also fed by Aquifer Springs.
Central Florida has a ridge running down it. There are swamps to the East, heading the St. John's River, but the surface water in much of Central Florida is in lakes, many of which originated as sinkholes.
There is a smaller second aquifer located roughly under Miami International Airport, which supplies South Florida. Until desalination plants were built at Key West and Tampa, those 2 aquifers were basically it for water, discounting the occasional cistern.
The Floridan Aquifer has tested positive for agricultural chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers). The state's famous orange groves contribute a lot, as do golf courses.
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In Florida???? Open palm, insert money. Approved.
The point is, there are lots of neighborhoods where people didn't settle simply to be close to the beach - they needed to be close to their jobs. Especially considering that mass transit is a joke in the Sunshine State. You can pontificate about the wisdom of building on at-risk ground, but some of these areas were built on a half-century or more ago, and the biggest concern back then wasn't sea-level rise, it was hurricanes. There's no place in the state more than about 150 miles from some major coast and the highest point in the whole state is about 300 feet above sea level. Anywhere more than about 20 feet up is practically mountain territory.
Some perspective. Go out offshore 2-3 miles or so in some of the waters surrounding Florida and look down. You might find the remains of an old Indian village. About 10,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age was not so distant, this was dry land and people lived there.
a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ. And I'm not talking boo-hoo poor little rich people losing some of their exclusive ocean view. Low-lying lower-class neighborhoods are already suffering and city officials are having to deal with the thorny issue of raising funds to buy them out. Another unexpected consequence is that clearances on bridges are being shortened, and boating brings in a lot of money in Florida.
Jacksonville has an upscale neighborhood that also serves as a major traffic connector to downtown. Several years back they had to put pumps in the streets because when the Autumn deluges begin and the Spring High Tide coincides, the St Johns River flows backwards up the storm drains. It has not only caused considerable distress to local merchants, the streets became impassible (to say nothing of the road damage).
Personally, I'm just waiting for the first incursions on Mar-A-Lago. I expect Trump to change his position on climate really fast once that happens. And I'm sure that more than one of the Trump Towers around the world is fairly close to sea level.
Look at depth charts of the Florida Keys and you'll notice that a 1-foot fluctuation in sea level would greatly increase or decrease the land area down there. Whole islands would appear or disappear.
Also it should not noted that not all consequences of rising seas roll in from the coast lines. Florida is largely porous limestone rock. It gets its water from aquifers in that rock, and sea water can and does intrude into that rock. Orlando, which is one of the most land-locked cities in the entire state has been fighting for decades with Brevard County for water resources and the last thing they want is for any of that water to turn brinier. Tampa Bay has already seen shortages because they pipe in water from inland sources but have seen pipe failures. And the less said about the fragile state of fresh water in the upscale areas of Fort Myers and Venice, the better.
I kind of assumed the church/state thing as part of my diatribe, actually.
HM, Queen Elizabeth II, By Grace of God, Defender of the Faith, etc., etc., etc. is still head of the Church of England in a procession of English Monarchs dating all the way back to its founding by Henry III who needed a church that served his purposes instead of demanding the other way around. Assuming I haven't missed a bit of recent history. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the religious leader, and as far as I can recall, none of the Anglican archbishops have held any significant political power. Unlike, say Cardinal Richileau of France.
It is - or was - common in European countries to tax people who didn't belong to their official state religion.
Closer to home, of course the Reagan Era saw the rise of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, transforming the Republican Party from respectable church-goers to would-be enactors of Christian Sharia law. This made/makes a lot of people nervous, and the Evangelicals still wield an uncomfortable amount of power within the party - Trump owes a lot of his success to them, despite hardly being a poster child for the life of a virtuous Christian. Just the other day, Jim Baker rose from his metaphorical grave to announce that making fun of Trump is the "spirit of the Anti-Christ". In other words, political dissent is Heresy.
And just to head off false equivalences, I do feel obliged to note that Democratics can't support a State Religion because they have too many New Agers, Wiccans, and other outliers of greater or lesser fame all vying for equal recognition, Libertarians think that the only thing worse than Government control is Religious Government control, Communists are nominally atheists, and the Green Party has other priorities.
Please explain, with relevant citations, how any of the Bill of Rights applies to the Executive's authority over immigration restrictions.
First of all, the Executive doesn't make laws. That's the job of the Legislative branch. The Executive has the discretion on how laws may be enforced, but that's not the same thing as being able to enact laws. Most of Trump's work to date has been in changing the Executive's policies and the change on immigration enforcement is one such. I know it can be hard to realize it, since Trump has a CEO mindset that makes him expect that he can just issue orders and the Congress and the Courts should do what he says or be fired, but that's not how the US Government was designed and implemented.
Secondly, the US was founded notably by a number of groups of people who fled to the Americas because they were unable to practice their chosen religion in the way that they wanted. The Pilgrims and the Quakers are the most famous, perhaps, but French Huguenots and other lesser-known groups also established colonies as well. Since a lot of the discrimination that they had faced in the old world had been governmentally-sanctioned - the Protestant/Catholic see-saw in England, persecution of the Anabaptists and Albigenses, etc., etc., etc.
However, no single breakaway group established dominance in the colonies, and to minimise the risk that some group, sect, or denomination might do so, the establishment of Freedom of Religion was made part of the very bedrock layer of the US principles of government and has been vigorously defended ever since, even as it allowed a lot of groups that many would dearly love to see suppressed, from the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses to Scientologists and beyond. Realize that, in fact some of these groups are illegal in other countries, but if you claim to be a religion in the USA you have to do seriously criminal things before the government will get involved.
The official government position on religion has always been carefully silent on what is a "true" religion. While many in this country assert that any "religion" that doesn't worship Jesus is false (and let's not get into nuances like how to baptize or doctrinal differences), the Jewish faith got a free pass, and actually, the USA recognized Islam from Tripoli on, even if mostly as something that existed outside its own borders.
So any form of discrimination against a religion in the USA is anathema to both US philosophy and law, no matter how weird or repugnant individuals might find that religion. Take away our guns (which some might argue amounts to a religion in itself), and you might more or less survive, but start running religious tests and you haven't merely touched the Third Rail, you've tapped into the whole power station.
Government can assist in forming monopolies, but monopolies can, will, and do form regardless. There's a reason that one of the most famous business adages is that "nothing succeeds like success". The bigger you are, the better terms you can dictate, and a positive feedback loop forms,
A self-regulating system has negative feedback in it that keeps outliers from breaking away and growing exponentially. You have exactly the opposite when businesspeople go around saying "Buy Microsoft. Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft". No government intervention need apply.
Capitalism breaks down when the disparity in power between corporation and consumer becomes so great that all the meaningful choices are solely made by the corporation.
Any manager will tell you that if the programmer isn't sitting in a chair in a cubicle (preferably open-plan) typing where everyone can see, then that programmer isn't really doing productive work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I could point you to quite a number of commercial and open-source projects designed to manage the kind of data that goes into news stories. Or mention that Django was developed in large part for news organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)). And that a quick query on a global search engine could turn up this and more.
But those facts are obviously alternative to your facts. So Fake, I guess.
I don't make crap. You can reveal how much I make if you want. Reveal management salaries instead.
It is public record, ever read an annual report?
Very true. They also have to disclose major shareholders (which are often management) and other big-price incentives such as option grants. Salary, after all, is commonly the smallest part of a top-level exec's income.
That's because no bean counter has yet come up with a way to monetize routers by making them discriminatory.
Yet.
Of course, that could change if, say, Juniper and Netflix cut a deal where you only get the best quality Netflix using a Juniper router. Then Google/YouTube make another one with Cisco. etc., etc., etc. And let's not even think about what Apple could do.
Actually, the government did effectively control routers at one time. Back when the Internet was still the US Government's DARPA net, your router played nicely with to the other DARPA routers or you didn't get on the net.
Well, isn't that what the fuss is about? Getting the government out of being in charge of Quality of Service and letting those altruistic corporations do what they do best?
Please stay on the line. Your call is very important to us!
Much of the testosterone-laden crap from Silicon Valley, as well as "normal" programming from the world all over would not have been possible without someone like Sammet to lead the way.
That's a rather bold statement, unless the "someone like Sammet" part meant "either her or a workable substitute". Very few things in computing have been so unique as to require a single individual. And even that may be a stretch. Perhaps Alan Kay comes closest, but even that I'm not sure about.
Funny that you should mention Hamilton though; her popularity being a recent pop-culture phenomenon, quite the opposite of the towering Hopper.
The point here is that according to some, even a "someone like Sammet" would have to be male. Which, by her very prominence is demonstrably false.
I consider Kay to be one of the towering figures in the field, but Kay very likely has dealt directly or indirectly with a lot of Sammet's work - Many of his most significant ideas date back to the early 1960's when Sammet was in the prime of her career. There is certainly considerable overlap - Jean Sammet was the founder of ACM SigPLAN, so Kay's language develpments would have been of considerable interest to her - and vice versa.
Not to denigrate Hamilton's work - she was certainly valuable to the US Space Program, but yes, I think that perhaps she has gotten more attention than others who did equally important things. And like Kay, she was almost certainly using tools that were based on Sammet's work - everyone was. And still is, whether they realize it or not. You didn't get into Knuth's magnum opus without having had a hand in the foundations of the field.
Not to make it sound like the entire field of computer science is single-handedly the work of Jean Sammet or any other single individual, But the field was much smaller back then and virtually everything that anyone did was new and radical. So a relatively small number of people shaped almost everything that was to come.
This is why "brogrammers" disgust me. Yes, I've seen a lot of women drop out of the profession. Often to become parents, sometimes to move into management or project administration, sometimes for reasons unknown. But "J. Sammet" is an author or co-author of a lot of the historical computer literature in my library. You'll find her name in Knuth, in collections by Flores, and other places besides. She may not have been as publicly visible as Adm. Hopper or even Margaret Hamilton, but she helped build the foundations for modern-day IT.
In addition to valuable contributions in the field of programming language design, she was also the first female president of the Association for Computing Machinery, back when the real nerds all belonged to ACM.
Much of the testosterone-laden crap from Silicon Valley, as well as "normal" programming from the world all over would not have been possible without someone like Sammet to lead the way.
It's sad that she never got the full recognition she deserved from the world at large - even the appearance announcement here is 2 weeks late. Although her peers respected her greatly. We've lost a giant unawares.
Funny that you should say that. Dilbert, circa Y2K had the PHB approach Bob the Dinosaur and ask if he could do COBOL, and the conversation went something like that.
it was not just flowcharts.
Sorry.
The idea of taking a graphical app design and converting it automatically to code goes back a long, long ways. It was supposed to eliminate the need for programmers.
Variations on this include decision-table based code generators and other similar things - it was just flowcharts. In one sense, Apple's HyperCard also was a player in that space.
It has never worked. As with every other automated code-generation system and 4GL that was supposed to render programmers obsolete, getting a flashy demo start-up app was easy. Then the ugly troll-fist of real-world problems smashed it flat. Auto-generated code always seems to encounter critical cases where the code generator had no idea of what to generate. The code quality usually inefficient, outside of the optimized stock core modules.
It's rather ironic. We're looking at automating driving, financial and other decision-making jobs, factories, and just about any human endeavor you can think of, but automating the automators themselves has steadfastly proven to be an insoluble challenge.
I'm not big on the "Every time before. "X" happened, so surely "X" will happen next time as well" (or in this case, "X" failed, so "X" will continue to fail.) Once, compilers generated crap machine code, but these days, automated code generation is so good that it's simply not economical to try and hand-optimize any system of any significant scale. So, likely one day, the high-level automation problem may ultimately fall once we've built enough tools and learned how to combine them properly.
In the mean time, however, flowcharts serve mostly as documentation aids. And at that, the necessity of flowcharts plummeted once programming languages became kitted out for Structured Programming. Flowcharts were most useful when everything was spaghetti code. Structured programs are generally better represented by decision tables.
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
Thank you. Glad to see someone gets it.
People like to say that the whole R/D thing is just like sports, where you cheer your own team and boo the other one.
But in sports, you're not rooting for the complete, total, and eternal annihilation of the other team. You play the game, you win or lose, no hard feelings (well, not many) and you come back again for a rematch. And again next season. The team is important, but the game is everything.
Ideology is a game for idiots. And far too many people are obsessive players.
And you know what the Tories and other good and faithful followers of our divinely-appointed King called those people back then? LEFTISTS!
Actually, no. The Left/Right thing came about as a result of the French Revolution more than 10 years afterwards. Literally, your political leanings determined whether you sat on the left side of the French legislative chamber or the right side. The term "Right" has nothing to do with being right, or of Rights.
The USA was founded in a time when every civilized country had, By Grace of God, a King. They were to the conservatives of the day what Communists were to the Captains of Industry in the 20th Century.
That's not how UBI works. Unlike Welfare, UBI is a basic unconditional income, and any other income you make doesn't affect it.
The only benefit of under-the-table would be to hide the extra cash from taxation. People do that anyway.
With Trump's bold policies on science, industry, business and the environment, the USA will be ready to confidently stride into the 13th Century before you know it!
MAGA!!!!!!
Reminds me of old John Cage music. The only rule seemed to be that no 2 consecutive notes should be played by the same instrument or in the same octave. And with lots of awkward silences.
Then there's the minimalist music by Glass where you can leave the building, have lunch, watch a movie, take an Caribbean cruise, return and not feel like you've missed a note. Although some have complained that a lot of jazz suffers from the same failing.
Automatically-generated music has been around a long time, though. It was either Wolfgang or Leopold (his dad) Mozart (I forget which) who devised a compositional system that operated off the throws of dice.
Isn't is sort of a central premise to AI that it's self-adjusting?
Only One Man (THUD),,,
High-speed chase (SCEECHES, BANTER)
Explosions and people jumping out of building ahead of hypersonic fireballs.
Brought to you by SequelGenerator v 2.7
I wonder about either your sources or your memory. It's got the right ideas, but the wrong geography.
Most of the State of Florida gets its water from the Floridan Aquifer, which runs down the state. The Aquifer's sources, however, are probably not primarily the Okefenokee Swamp, which is located just North of Jacksonville, whereas the Aquifer flow is primarily towards SSE. The Okefenokee is, however head of the Suwanee River system, which does flow SW before terminating in the Gulf of Mexico. The Suwanee and its tributaries are also fed by Aquifer Springs.
Central Florida has a ridge running down it. There are swamps to the East, heading the St. John's River, but the surface water in much of Central Florida is in lakes, many of which originated as sinkholes.
There is a smaller second aquifer located roughly under Miami International Airport, which supplies South Florida. Until desalination plants were built at Key West and Tampa, those 2 aquifers were basically it for water, discounting the occasional cistern.
The Floridan Aquifer has tested positive for agricultural chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers). The state's famous orange groves contribute a lot, as do golf courses.
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In Florida???? Open palm, insert money. Approved.
The point is, there are lots of neighborhoods where people didn't settle simply to be close to the beach - they needed to be close to their jobs. Especially considering that mass transit is a joke in the Sunshine State. You can pontificate about the wisdom of building on at-risk ground, but some of these areas were built on a half-century or more ago, and the biggest concern back then wasn't sea-level rise, it was hurricanes. There's no place in the state more than about 150 miles from some major coast and the highest point in the whole state is about 300 feet above sea level. Anywhere more than about 20 feet up is practically mountain territory.
Some perspective. Go out offshore 2-3 miles or so in some of the waters surrounding Florida and look down. You might find the remains of an old Indian village. About 10,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age was not so distant, this was dry land and people lived there.
a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ. And I'm not talking boo-hoo poor little rich people losing some of their exclusive ocean view. Low-lying lower-class neighborhoods are already suffering and city officials are having to deal with the thorny issue of raising funds to buy them out. Another unexpected consequence is that clearances on bridges are being shortened, and boating brings in a lot of money in Florida.
Jacksonville has an upscale neighborhood that also serves as a major traffic connector to downtown. Several years back they had to put pumps in the streets because when the Autumn deluges begin and the Spring High Tide coincides, the St Johns River flows backwards up the storm drains. It has not only caused considerable distress to local merchants, the streets became impassible (to say nothing of the road damage).
Personally, I'm just waiting for the first incursions on Mar-A-Lago. I expect Trump to change his position on climate really fast once that happens. And I'm sure that more than one of the Trump Towers around the world is fairly close to sea level.
Look at depth charts of the Florida Keys and you'll notice that a 1-foot fluctuation in sea level would greatly increase or decrease the land area down there. Whole islands would appear or disappear.
Also it should not noted that not all consequences of rising seas roll in from the coast lines. Florida is largely porous limestone rock. It gets its water from aquifers in that rock, and sea water can and does intrude into that rock. Orlando, which is one of the most land-locked cities in the entire state has been fighting for decades with Brevard County for water resources and the last thing they want is for any of that water to turn brinier. Tampa Bay has already seen shortages because they pipe in water from inland sources but have seen pipe failures. And the less said about the fragile state of fresh water in the upscale areas of Fort Myers and Venice, the better.
I kind of assumed the church/state thing as part of my diatribe, actually.
HM, Queen Elizabeth II, By Grace of God, Defender of the Faith, etc., etc., etc. is still head of the Church of England in a procession of English Monarchs dating all the way back to its founding by Henry III who needed a church that served his purposes instead of demanding the other way around. Assuming I haven't missed a bit of recent history. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the religious leader, and as far as I can recall, none of the Anglican archbishops have held any significant political power. Unlike, say Cardinal Richileau of France.
It is - or was - common in European countries to tax people who didn't belong to their official state religion.
Closer to home, of course the Reagan Era saw the rise of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, transforming the Republican Party from respectable church-goers to would-be enactors of Christian Sharia law. This made/makes a lot of people nervous, and the Evangelicals still wield an uncomfortable amount of power within the party - Trump owes a lot of his success to them, despite hardly being a poster child for the life of a virtuous Christian. Just the other day, Jim Baker rose from his metaphorical grave to announce that making fun of Trump is the "spirit of the Anti-Christ". In other words, political dissent is Heresy.
And just to head off false equivalences, I do feel obliged to note that Democratics can't support a State Religion because they have too many New Agers, Wiccans, and other outliers of greater or lesser fame all vying for equal recognition, Libertarians think that the only thing worse than Government control is Religious Government control, Communists are nominally atheists, and the Green Party has other priorities.
Please explain, with relevant citations, how any of the Bill of Rights applies to the Executive's authority over immigration restrictions.
First of all, the Executive doesn't make laws. That's the job of the Legislative branch. The Executive has the discretion on how laws may be enforced, but that's not the same thing as being able to enact laws. Most of Trump's work to date has been in changing the Executive's policies and the change on immigration enforcement is one such. I know it can be hard to realize it, since Trump has a CEO mindset that makes him expect that he can just issue orders and the Congress and the Courts should do what he says or be fired, but that's not how the US Government was designed and implemented.
Secondly, the US was founded notably by a number of groups of people who fled to the Americas because they were unable to practice their chosen religion in the way that they wanted. The Pilgrims and the Quakers are the most famous, perhaps, but French Huguenots and other lesser-known groups also established colonies as well. Since a lot of the discrimination that they had faced in the old world had been governmentally-sanctioned - the Protestant/Catholic see-saw in England, persecution of the Anabaptists and Albigenses, etc., etc., etc.
However, no single breakaway group established dominance in the colonies, and to minimise the risk that some group, sect, or denomination might do so, the establishment of Freedom of Religion was made part of the very bedrock layer of the US principles of government and has been vigorously defended ever since, even as it allowed a lot of groups that many would dearly love to see suppressed, from the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses to Scientologists and beyond. Realize that, in fact some of these groups are illegal in other countries, but if you claim to be a religion in the USA you have to do seriously criminal things before the government will get involved.
The official government position on religion has always been carefully silent on what is a "true" religion. While many in this country assert that any "religion" that doesn't worship Jesus is false (and let's not get into nuances like how to baptize or doctrinal differences), the Jewish faith got a free pass, and actually, the USA recognized Islam from Tripoli on, even if mostly as something that existed outside its own borders.
So any form of discrimination against a religion in the USA is anathema to both US philosophy and law, no matter how weird or repugnant individuals might find that religion. Take away our guns (which some might argue amounts to a religion in itself), and you might more or less survive, but start running religious tests and you haven't merely touched the Third Rail, you've tapped into the whole power station.
Government can assist in forming monopolies, but monopolies can, will, and do form regardless. There's a reason that one of the most famous business adages is that "nothing succeeds like success". The bigger you are, the better terms you can dictate, and a positive feedback loop forms,
A self-regulating system has negative feedback in it that keeps outliers from breaking away and growing exponentially. You have exactly the opposite when businesspeople go around saying "Buy Microsoft. Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft". No government intervention need apply.
Capitalism breaks down when the disparity in power between corporation and consumer becomes so great that all the meaningful choices are solely made by the corporation.
Apparently erac never heard the old saw that went IBM means "I've Been Moved".
Or the newer one that says IBM means "I've been replaced by someone overseas".
No, no, no, no no.
Any manager will tell you that if the programmer isn't sitting in a chair in a cubicle (preferably open-plan) typing where everyone can see, then that programmer isn't really doing productive work.