What ties them to using iTunes to get music on it is that you can't just put mp3s on these devices like flash drives. You have to do a bunch of database bullshit... in part to reduce battery power later (or that is the excuse, at least). On a jailbroken iPhone you can use PwnTunes to actually scan the drive and import all mp3s found into iTunes so that they will actually fucking play. It's the most goddamn annoying awful thing. And oh, if you want to map your iPhone to a harddrive, that's another issue. You gotta get Expandrive. Yea. It's a bunch of bullshit. If this thing wasn't given to me for free I wouldn't have it.
heh, when i ran 100+ connections and d/l 12G of torrents in 2 days on my wife's non-jailbroke android phone, which we tethered when a drunk driver took out our internet for 12 days, all we got was a warning after 10-12G that we'd be reduced to dialup speeds. Which, considering I had no dial tone (also due to drunk driver who smashed telephone pole[3rd time]), was better than the alternative, and apparently better than if we'd done this with my jailbroken iPhone (which I got for free, and would never buy, but also would not just throw in the trash).
Correct. Your examples were not the same situation as this article. You supplied reasons for why throttling may be necessary. You did not supply reasons for why it is not false advertising to say "you can download whatever you want without limit". The two are not the same.
Actually, when I had my talks with them, they very specifically told me that I was not, at all, affecting their network operations negatively. My apologies for not including that information earlier, but I still win.
You may have missed the updated analogy, where I added that they specifically said you can eat all the lobster you want. And it is a bad analogy, because there are different foods, but truly there are not different bytes. You can't run out of 0s but only be served 1s. Analogies do tend to break things down. But it remains true that if they said "eat all the tomatoes you want", and then you couldn't, that it is false advertising.
SpeakEasy specifically told me in pre-sales chats that I could use 100 percent of my bandwidth 24/7/365 if I wanted. Then they later told me, informally, that if I downloaded more than 100G/mo, they would cancel me. Then they threatened me with a $300 earliy termination fee, even though it was them terminating me. They offered to waive it if I didn't talk about it online. I did not pay it, and I kept talking about it online. The best part is that I took screenshots of their pre-sales chats to cover my ass -- found here -- which is just nice after the fact, because several thousand people have now been made aware of their asshattery, and I can only assume they lost far more than my business with their lies.
News flash buddy - on 9/11/01, in fairfax county VA [5 mi from the pentagon], you could not get a land line call through to anybody either. Not that this has much to do with the conversation at hand. I'd just like to clear up the misconception that a land line is magical fairy goodness in a national emergency. It's not. Took me an hour just to get my parents on their land line.
And, getting back to comparing hypothetical situations with the actual article here on slashdot...
if the place had specifically said, "Eat all the crabs you want! We will never limit the amount!", they would be guilty of false advertising. End of story. I win.
Look up false equivalency. You just changed my scenario to a completely different one, where 20 friends are brought. That is not an apt comparison. You lose.
Anyone consider that if I sell you a ticket to an all you can eat buffet, and then turn around and say "too many people are eating tomatoes, so you can't have one right now", that that is false advertising? Get more tomatoes, or refund me my ticket, it's not all you can eat.
He wants normal people with normal phones to be able to call a normal phone number... and have it go to his phone, which has no service plan, but has data connectivity through wifi in his house.
He's talking about an ISP. Not a mobile service plan. I.E. Home DSL/cable modem/FIOS/whatever. Mod parent down. Irrelevant. You didn't understand what he said. He's in the situation I'm in, actually.
Care to elaborate? I'm coincidentally in the same position as the original poster. I love when Slashdot copies my life:)
Trying not to spend money, I was given a car. Yay. But it had no music. Boo. And I had no mp3 player. Boo. My sister gave me her old iPhone. Boo. But hey, it's free, and it's a neat toy, even if I'd never buy it myself, and prefer my wife's Android phone.
I have no service plan, nor do I intend to have one. I've never owned a cell phone. I have a land line. When I'm out, I'm with my wife and her cell phone.
It gets great data rates on wifi. I'd love to use Google Voice and somehow have it be a "real" phone. I'd love to finally cancel my land line.
I don't pretend to know the history of common carriage, but it's not a "deal with the government" that the airlines are voluntarily party to, to create the conditions of buying a ticket.
The TSA is not a contractual agreement between consensual partners of equal legal stature. Much like any other large body of legal law and case history, it's the outcome of political and judicial influences over literally hundreds of years. (Common carriage didn't start with airplanes; as indeed the name "carriage" implies!:-))
Much like any other political outcome, it is a "deal" in the sense that groups and individuals lobby the system to get an outcome that is acceptable to all players. However, operating as a common carrier is a take-it-or-leave-it deal just like any other legally enforced situation. You can't operate a airline and declare that you're not going to be a common carrier and thus ignore all TSA (not to mention tons of other bureaucracies') rules (even if those rules include "you can get a scanner who isn't TSA to scan").
Again, the upshot of constitutional protections are to constrain the behavior of the government. Whether the government is directly paying someone as a W-2 employee, or it's subcontracted out doesn't matter. A more apt analogy might be something like this...
The first amendment prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech." This prohibition does not mean that a private party cannot prohibit speech as part of a contractual agreement. In fact, such agreements are very common and called Non-Disclosure Agreements. There is no question that these are enforceable. (This, I think, is similar to how you're viewing airport searches?)
However, what if Congress passed a law saying that people publishing car reviews would be liable in civil court to penalties of at least $1 million? Since it's a civil liability issue, it would be enforceable by private parties (presumably car manufacturers?) having standing to sue you (the author/publisher) in civil court. The parties involved - both plaintiff and defendant, are non-governmental. However, such a law would still be quickly challenged and defeated as unconstitutional.
That scenario is closer to what the government has done. It's not a "deal" the airlines made to voluntarily create conditions to use their service; not in any sense of the word. The government has mandated that searches take place. Regardless of who's hands are used for the search, it's still a government mandate.
The bigger issue in trying to argue constitutionality is the classification of these searches as "administrative searches". Pretty much all the thinking we as lay people are used to about searches are related to criminal searches. In the criminal context, you need probable cause and a warrant (typically) to perform a search. But what the courts have said is that the airport searches are not criminal searches, they are instead "administrative". This places them in the same category as searches when you enter a court house or drug testing for jobs requiring highly reliable employees.
Administrative searches are not constrained by probable cause or the need for a warrant, rather (as far as I can tell) they are constrained by the need to balance the "cost" of the search vs. the benefit of performing the search - i.e. "reasonableness". The TSA has interpreted current court precedents to mean that they can do anything because the potential benefit of catching a terrorist is essentially infinite. i.e. the "we have to do everything we can to stop another 9/11" attitude.
The issue with challenging a search on grounds of "reasonableness" is that the administrative search case law doesn't seem to be nearly as well settled as the criminal search case law. So each time TSA changes their procedures, anyone who disagrees with the new process needs to pursue a legal challenge and get a court assessment of the reasonableness of the new process. That's not the same as it having been constitutional all this time. They are wiggled around existing laws and attitudes just as sure as the Bush administration wiggled around the Geneva Convention by inventing a new label, "enemy combatants", for people.
Driving a car is not a right. RIDING in one is. The right to travel is a constitutional right, and it is NOT just a right extended only to walking with your two feet. The government cannot say "Clint, you're not allowed to take a taxi". Comparing the PRIVILEGE of having a driver's license with the RIGHT to be a PASSENGER in a plane is a false comparison. And one that's dangerous for people to be mis-thinking about. An accurate comparison would be comparing the privilege of having a driver's license to the privilege of having a pilot's license. Not everyone gets to operate any vehicle they want. But yes, you do have a constitutional right to go from point A to point B. And that right isn't just for feet.
Awesome! Can't wait! The entire trilogy is quite good, if you watch all 3 movies in a row and don't wait through multiple years of hyped up marketing expectations for #2 and #3. The story simply never finished in #1. And while #3 did conclude things, it left a lot of questions unanswered. I like the idea suggested on another thread here that everything we thought was real in the original trilogy might actually be another layer of The Matrix.:)
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 1
"The right to advertise for everyone to come in but to select some subset you find undesirable to exclude was thrown out with the Jim Crow laws."
I forgot to point out this statement is total bullshit too. Every establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone they want, as long as it is not for one of the reasons currently made illegal by equal rights amendments and laws. Have you seriously never gone to a McDonald's or fast food joint and seen the sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
Have you seriously never gone a night club that rejected certain people based on dress code, or simply that they didn't look "Cool"? You seem to have this made up concept that Jim Crow laws ending meant that anyone can force themselves to be a customer anywhere, and quite simply, your right to patronize a place only trumps the right of that place to reject you for VERY FEW REASONS EXPLICITLY DEFINED BY LAW. And the law is currently in a good place with that.
If I ran a restaurant that served pork in every meal, Muslims and Jews would not be able to claim that I am discriminating against them just because they cannot stand to be there.
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 1
Dodged answering what?
If you can do what you want on your property, should you be able to refuse service to a person based on the color of their skin? Their gender? Their sexual preference?
Yea, I already answered that, and said that they should not be able to. I'm not sure how many times I need to re-answer that for you to believe that I did. I already did so here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1962140&cid=34971344. You seem to have major reading comprehension issues if I answer questions and you come back whining that I didn't answer them. Seems to be a theme in your responses.
You have some beliefs, which you are unwilling to define
I'll define any believe you want me to, and have been. Go ahead and make up facts about me so you can attack them. The strawman fallacy runs rampant in you.
Go on, don't answer a 4th time
Except I already did - see link provided above, and learn to read.
No, it doesn't change based on what some congressmen in Washington say. But my current opinion matches the law, so I did answer your question. It is amazing that if my current opinion matches current law, that you would then have to try to simply this into "he believes whatever the law says". It's very similar to how you completely mis-interpreted my one response because I mentioned the constitution in it. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. It does seem to me that personally, you are not a business or property owner and have no moral concept of property rights.
I meant "Whatever he wants within the law", which I thought was obvious when I typed it, but now realize there's no way you would interpret that as what I meant. Places with "no dogs" signs "discriminate" against dog owners, except not really, because they are free to come in without their dogs, they are not being denied entry, their dogs are, and dogs don't have constitutional rights. How about you run a bar in a place where nudity is legal, but you don't want nudity? So you ban patrons being nude. I wonder if you'd consider that "discrimination" too. Do I have to accept someone with vomit on their shirt? Or would that be discriminating against the slovenly if I didn't? What if someone distinctly smells?
A great deal of places have a sign that says "we refuse the right to serve anyone". I have a sneaking suspicion that people like you would rather force people to serve everyone.
The funny thing is, I had a long conversation with a retired DEA agent. He always dreamed of using his retirement money to buy a bar. But the smoking ban in Virginia was in the works at the time, and he said no fucking way would he start a business if he couldn't do what he wanted there. Even the DEA gets it, apparently. Which is quite ironic. The guy talked about how much he wished he had weed before his cancer surgery. Nice old man.
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 1
You are a master at missing my point, but I guess if you got my point we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason I mentioned the constitution does not play into your attempt to stereotype me as following some party [i.e. libertarian, republican] line, which I do not. There is no party whose line I follow; I follow whatever grants the most liberty, which, oddly, is not libertarianism for some of the reasons you already outlined [lack of government regulation to make things fair, anti-discrimination, etc.].
The reason I mentioned the constitution was to assert the point that it is a BIG DEAL to grant the government power to tell people what to do with their own property. It's been done, but it's almost always been abused.
Every law has been abused; even zoning laws. Why can't I operate a business out of my house? Oh yea, because of zoning laws. The tyrannical majority says, "We don't want cars parking on our street so people can't run businesses out of their house." (Nevermind that I don't have street parking anyway, I live on a busy street with no parking lane and only driveways!)
At least some of them make sense. The basics, like anti-discrimination. Which say you cannot refuse service to somebody. What they DON'T say is that you have to change your service so that everyone is happy. For instance, if 99.999999% hated Chinese food, banning it would accomplish making everyone happy. Restaurant space would then be used to serve the public interest, instead of serving food they hate. BUT IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG IN TERMS OF LIBERTY. But not a single person would complain, because 99.9999% would be happy. (Well, *I* would complain, I'm the rare breed who cares about the rights of those I disagree with as much as my own.)
After all, you've dodged answering it twice already.
Dodged answering what? If I didn't answer something, why do you not just re-paste it and re-ask it, like I have when you ignored me? Oh riiiight! You're the guy who likes the whine about how the debate is being conducted, rather than using that same energy to further the debate. Almost forgot for a second.
What attributes do you think a property owner should be able to discriminate based on?
Whatever he wants, but allowing smoking inside IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. Discrimination is telling people they are not allowed to enter. Smokers are allowed to enter, but they do not. It is no more discrimination than a place that a restaurant that exclusively serves pork is "discriminating" against muslims because they can't eat there. It is no more discrimination than a gay strip club discriminates against fanatical Christians who don't want to be there. You not going somewhere is not discrimination.
At least conservatives admit when they are being assholes. Liberals try to pretend that they are doing you a favor. That's the main reason people are driven to the Republican party. If Liberals would be a little less nanny state, there'd be more democrats in congress, and our nation wouldn't be passing stupid fucking things like repealing Obamacare right now. The conservatives are supposed to be the ones taking away peoples' rights!
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 1
> How about the color of their skin? Their gender? I'm not equivocating
Oh, you mean, I was expected to actually answer that? What do you think I think? Jesus man. Of course not. But the only reason they cannot do that is because of a constitutional amendment. Not a law, but a constitutional amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
What ties them to using iTunes to get music on it is that you can't just put mp3s on these devices like flash drives. You have to do a bunch of database bullshit... in part to reduce battery power later (or that is the excuse, at least). On a jailbroken iPhone you can use PwnTunes to actually scan the drive and import all mp3s found into iTunes so that they will actually fucking play. It's the most goddamn annoying awful thing. And oh, if you want to map your iPhone to a harddrive, that's another issue. You gotta get Expandrive. Yea. It's a bunch of bullshit. If this thing wasn't given to me for free I wouldn't have it.
this was a T-Mobile HTC Dream (like $130 in 2007??), based in northern Virginia ("heart of the internet" area).
heh, when i ran 100+ connections and d/l 12G of torrents in 2 days on my wife's non-jailbroke android phone, which we tethered when a drunk driver took out our internet for 12 days, all we got was a warning after 10-12G that we'd be reduced to dialup speeds. Which, considering I had no dial tone (also due to drunk driver who smashed telephone pole[3rd time]), was better than the alternative, and apparently better than if we'd done this with my jailbroken iPhone (which I got for free, and would never buy, but also would not just throw in the trash).
Correct. Your examples were not the same situation as this article. You supplied reasons for why throttling may be necessary. You did not supply reasons for why it is not false advertising to say "you can download whatever you want without limit". The two are not the same.
Actually, when I had my talks with them, they very specifically told me that I was not, at all, affecting their network operations negatively. My apologies for not including that information earlier, but I still win.
SpeakEasy specifically told me in pre-sales chats that I could use 100 percent of my bandwidth 24/7/365 if I wanted. Then they later told me, informally, that if I downloaded more than 100G/mo, they would cancel me. Then they threatened me with a $300 earliy termination fee, even though it was them terminating me. They offered to waive it if I didn't talk about it online. I did not pay it, and I kept talking about it online. The best part is that I took screenshots of their pre-sales chats to cover my ass -- found here -- which is just nice after the fact, because several thousand people have now been made aware of their asshattery, and I can only assume they lost far more than my business with their lies.
IRC worked really well though :)
if the place had specifically said, "Eat all the crabs you want! We will never limit the amount!", they would be guilty of false advertising. End of story. I win.
Look up false equivalency. You just changed my scenario to a completely different one, where 20 friends are brought. That is not an apt comparison. You lose.
Anyone consider that if I sell you a ticket to an all you can eat buffet, and then turn around and say "too many people are eating tomatoes, so you can't have one right now", that that is false advertising? Get more tomatoes, or refund me my ticket, it's not all you can eat.
Oh wait. You said subscription. I guess that means it costs money. Hmmm. I guess I need to look into this more.
Don't suppose my google voice number [which only goes to my landline currently] could somehow go through Skype, could it?
Oh, you mean mobile network but not mobile phone network? My bad. Sorry.
How long do they keep in the freezer?
He wants normal people with normal phones to be able to call a normal phone number... and have it go to his phone, which has no service plan, but has data connectivity through wifi in his house.
He's talking about an ISP. Not a mobile service plan. I.E. Home DSL/cable modem/FIOS/whatever. Mod parent down. Irrelevant. You didn't understand what he said. He's in the situation I'm in, actually.
Trying not to spend money, I was given a car. Yay. But it had no music. Boo. And I had no mp3 player. Boo. My sister gave me her old iPhone. Boo. But hey, it's free, and it's a neat toy, even if I'd never buy it myself, and prefer my wife's Android phone.
I have no service plan, nor do I intend to have one. I've never owned a cell phone. I have a land line. When I'm out, I'm with my wife and her cell phone.
It gets great data rates on wifi. I'd love to use Google Voice and somehow have it be a "real" phone. I'd love to finally cancel my land line.
The TSA is not a contractual agreement between consensual partners of equal legal stature. Much like any other large body of legal law and case history, it's the outcome of political and judicial influences over literally hundreds of years. (Common carriage didn't start with airplanes; as indeed the name "carriage" implies! :-))
Much like any other political outcome, it is a "deal" in the sense that groups and individuals lobby the system to get an outcome that is acceptable to all players. However, operating as a common carrier is a take-it-or-leave-it deal just like any other legally enforced situation. You can't operate a airline and declare that you're not going to be a common carrier and thus ignore all TSA (not to mention tons of other bureaucracies') rules (even if those rules include "you can get a scanner who isn't TSA to scan").
Again, the upshot of constitutional protections are to constrain the behavior of the government. Whether the government is directly paying someone as a W-2 employee, or it's subcontracted out doesn't matter. A more apt analogy might be something like this...
The first amendment prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech." This prohibition does not mean that a private party cannot prohibit speech as part of a contractual agreement. In fact, such agreements are very common and called Non-Disclosure Agreements. There is no question that these are enforceable. (This, I think, is similar to how you're viewing airport searches?)
However, what if Congress passed a law saying that people publishing car reviews would be liable in civil court to penalties of at least $1 million? Since it's a civil liability issue, it would be enforceable by private parties (presumably car manufacturers?) having standing to sue you (the author/publisher) in civil court. The parties involved - both plaintiff and defendant, are non-governmental. However, such a law would still be quickly challenged and defeated as unconstitutional.
That scenario is closer to what the government has done. It's not a "deal" the airlines made to voluntarily create conditions to use their service; not in any sense of the word. The government has mandated that searches take place. Regardless of who's hands are used for the search, it's still a government mandate.
The bigger issue in trying to argue constitutionality is the classification of these searches as "administrative searches". Pretty much all the thinking we as lay people are used to about searches are related to criminal searches. In the criminal context, you need probable cause and a warrant (typically) to perform a search. But what the courts have said is that the airport searches are not criminal searches, they are instead "administrative". This places them in the same category as searches when you enter a court house or drug testing for jobs requiring highly reliable employees.
Administrative searches are not constrained by probable cause or the need for a warrant, rather (as far as I can tell) they are constrained by the need to balance the "cost" of the search vs. the benefit of performing the search - i.e. "reasonableness". The TSA has interpreted current court precedents to mean that they can do anything because the potential benefit of catching a terrorist is essentially infinite. i.e. the "we have to do everything we can to stop another 9/11" attitude.
The issue with challenging a search on grounds of "reasonableness" is that the administrative search case law doesn't seem to be nearly as well settled as the criminal search case law. So each time TSA changes their procedures, anyone who disagrees with the new process needs to pursue a legal challenge and get a court assessment of the reasonableness of the new process. That's not the same as it having been constitutional all this time. They are wiggled around existing laws and attitudes just as sure as the Bush administration wiggled around the Geneva Convention by inventing a new label, "enemy combatants", for people.
Driving a car is not a right. RIDING in one is. The right to travel is a constitutional right, and it is NOT just a right extended only to walking with your two feet. The government cannot say "Clint, you're not allowed to take a taxi". Comparing the PRIVILEGE of having a driver's license with the RIGHT to be a PASSENGER in a plane is a false comparison. And one that's dangerous for people to be mis-thinking about. An accurate comparison would be comparing the privilege of having a driver's license to the privilege of having a pilot's license. Not everyone gets to operate any vehicle they want. But yes, you do have a constitutional right to go from point A to point B. And that right isn't just for feet.
Awesome! Can't wait! The entire trilogy is quite good, if you watch all 3 movies in a row and don't wait through multiple years of hyped up marketing expectations for #2 and #3. The story simply never finished in #1. And while #3 did conclude things, it left a lot of questions unanswered. I like the idea suggested on another thread here that everything we thought was real in the original trilogy might actually be another layer of The Matrix. :)
I forgot to point out this statement is total bullshit too. Every establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone they want, as long as it is not for one of the reasons currently made illegal by equal rights amendments and laws. Have you seriously never gone to a McDonald's or fast food joint and seen the sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
Have you seriously never gone a night club that rejected certain people based on dress code, or simply that they didn't look "Cool"? You seem to have this made up concept that Jim Crow laws ending meant that anyone can force themselves to be a customer anywhere, and quite simply, your right to patronize a place only trumps the right of that place to reject you for VERY FEW REASONS EXPLICITLY DEFINED BY LAW. And the law is currently in a good place with that.
If I ran a restaurant that served pork in every meal, Muslims and Jews would not be able to claim that I am discriminating against them just because they cannot stand to be there.
If you can do what you want on your property, should you be able to refuse service to a person based on the color of their skin? Their gender? Their sexual preference?
Yea, I already answered that, and said that they should not be able to. I'm not sure how many times I need to re-answer that for you to believe that I did. I already did so here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1962140&cid=34971344. You seem to have major reading comprehension issues if I answer questions and you come back whining that I didn't answer them. Seems to be a theme in your responses.
You have some beliefs, which you are unwilling to define
I'll define any believe you want me to, and have been. Go ahead and make up facts about me so you can attack them. The strawman fallacy runs rampant in you.
Go on, don't answer a 4th time
Except I already did - see link provided above, and learn to read.
No, it doesn't change based on what some congressmen in Washington say. But my current opinion matches the law, so I did answer your question. It is amazing that if my current opinion matches current law, that you would then have to try to simply this into "he believes whatever the law says". It's very similar to how you completely mis-interpreted my one response because I mentioned the constitution in it. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. It does seem to me that personally, you are not a business or property owner and have no moral concept of property rights.
A great deal of places have a sign that says "we refuse the right to serve anyone". I have a sneaking suspicion that people like you would rather force people to serve everyone.
The funny thing is, I had a long conversation with a retired DEA agent. He always dreamed of using his retirement money to buy a bar. But the smoking ban in Virginia was in the works at the time, and he said no fucking way would he start a business if he couldn't do what he wanted there. Even the DEA gets it, apparently. Which is quite ironic. The guy talked about how much he wished he had weed before his cancer surgery. Nice old man.
The reason I mentioned the constitution was to assert the point that it is a BIG DEAL to grant the government power to tell people what to do with their own property. It's been done, but it's almost always been abused.
Every law has been abused; even zoning laws. Why can't I operate a business out of my house? Oh yea, because of zoning laws. The tyrannical majority says, "We don't want cars parking on our street so people can't run businesses out of their house." (Nevermind that I don't have street parking anyway, I live on a busy street with no parking lane and only driveways!)
At least some of them make sense. The basics, like anti-discrimination. Which say you cannot refuse service to somebody. What they DON'T say is that you have to change your service so that everyone is happy. For instance, if 99.999999% hated Chinese food, banning it would accomplish making everyone happy. Restaurant space would then be used to serve the public interest, instead of serving food they hate. BUT IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG IN TERMS OF LIBERTY. But not a single person would complain, because 99.9999% would be happy. (Well, *I* would complain, I'm the rare breed who cares about the rights of those I disagree with as much as my own.)
After all, you've dodged answering it twice already.
Dodged answering what? If I didn't answer something, why do you not just re-paste it and re-ask it, like I have when you ignored me? Oh riiiight! You're the guy who likes the whine about how the debate is being conducted, rather than using that same energy to further the debate. Almost forgot for a second.
What attributes do you think a property owner should be able to discriminate based on?
Whatever he wants, but allowing smoking inside IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. Discrimination is telling people they are not allowed to enter. Smokers are allowed to enter, but they do not. It is no more discrimination than a place that a restaurant that exclusively serves pork is "discriminating" against muslims because they can't eat there. It is no more discrimination than a gay strip club discriminates against fanatical Christians who don't want to be there. You not going somewhere is not discrimination.
At least conservatives admit when they are being assholes. Liberals try to pretend that they are doing you a favor. That's the main reason people are driven to the Republican party. If Liberals would be a little less nanny state, there'd be more democrats in congress, and our nation wouldn't be passing stupid fucking things like repealing Obamacare right now. The conservatives are supposed to be the ones taking away peoples' rights!
Oh, you mean, I was expected to actually answer that? What do you think I think? Jesus man. Of course not. But the only reason they cannot do that is because of a constitutional amendment. Not a law, but a constitutional amendment.