I haven't seen any bigotry in these comments, and I think it's disingenuous for you to say so.
Arguing that we should have the right not to do business with groups we dislike, which was precisely the excuse given in the 60's by people who didn't blacks in their restaurant, is not-so-thinly veiled bigotry. It's painful listening to those who don't know history trying to repeat it, desperately hoping that this time it will be different and they'll be allowed to show "those people" who's in charge.
For the record, I'm not black, gay, or liberal. But things like this are exactly the reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I just can't go along willingly with the Attempt Of The Week to make this a hyperconservative theocracy. When someone inevitably comes along and wants to deny my right to fully participate in society, I hope we'll have built the momentum to shut it down.
Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
I cannot keep up with the contortion of intellectual dishonesty required to type that sentence with a straight face. I don't think you're lying to me and that you really believe this, but I equally believe that you're lying to yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck in your future endeavors.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Next, your strawman:
It's use did not create prohibition against religious expression.
No one believes that any of our rights are unlimited. You can speak your opinion, but you can't yell fire in a theater. You can bear arms, but don't expect to own a nuclear bomb. You can sincerely believe that whites are a superior species to blacks, but you don't get to own, kill, intimidate, lynch, or otherwise harm a black guy, regardless of your vile beliefs. This isn't something I'm making up out of whole cloth, but well-established and widely accepted interpretation of Federal law.
Documents which govern the FEDERAL government do not necessarily apply to State or Local governments.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This codified previous Constitutional supremacy thoughts by explicitly stating that States don't get to write laws violating the Constitution or selectively affording privileges to one group and not another.
Except we've decided as a country that there are certain ways it's not OK to be an asshole, particularly when it's because the other person is black, female, Muslim, etc. I did not advocate for restricting free speech. I'm advocating for what law already says regarding other minority classes: feel free to speak your mind, but you shouldn't get to act against gay people any more than you're allowed to act against black people.
I'm dyed-in-the-wool small-l libertarian (and a registered large-L), but I'm horrified at the idea of passing laws to explicitly protect the "right" to discriminate against minorities. "First they came..." and all that; we shouldn't be looking for new and creative ways to crap on our neighbors.
You mean the case where the court ruled very narrowly that atheism should be afforded the same legal respect as religions when ensuring the rights of people holding those opinions? You would be hard pressed to choose a case less helpful to your viewpoint.
You may be unaware but there are people who live outside of the US
So you're not American and you're unfamiliar with American law, but feel compelled to comment on a case involving one particular American state. Allow me to give you a quick introduction: your opinion is explicitly opposed to American case law. Feel free to speculate as much as you'd care to, but understand that from a US point of view, you are completely wrong.
Why can't both sides be free to live their own lives?
Recently, because of stupid laws like Indiana's RFRA which would prevent a minority chunk of their population from living theirs. "Opposition to bigotry" is not "bigotry".
No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion.
Are ye daft, son? That's exactly what it says: religion cannot become the basis for law. It is literally impossible for my religion to write laws without prohibiting your free exercise thereof; that's what laws do.
In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
You can say asshole things to people, but there are enumerated acts of assholery that are explicitly illegal. You have the freedom of speech, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says it ends at the cash register.
I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.
Jesus fucking Christ. What backwoods school did you go to that didn't teach American History? The rules you're protesting have been the law of the land for 51 years now and somehow we've persevered. Your opinion is wrong. We took a vote and decided, almost half a century ago. You lost.
Yes, I'm angry. I'm having a hard time believing the among of ignorant bigotry I've seen pouring into Slashdot very recently. Where the hell did you guys come from? Were you here all along, and just recently felt brave enough to come out of your hateful little closet?
I ask this honestly: would you have used the same argument when "those people" were blacks who didn't believe in "separate but equal", or is this your new opinion that only applies to gay citizens? Suppose I own a hamburger stand, that I am a white man, and that I dislike blacks and gays. By your words, it would seem that you'd be OK with me selling hamburgers to white men but not black men. If I am incorrect, what distinction do you draw between a black man and a gay man that would compel me to do business with the former but not require me to serve the latter?
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
It's right next to "freedom of speech", which I'd lay down cash that you claim to cherish.
Grownups understand that things like "freedom of speech" and "separation of church and state" are phrases that refer to an enormous body of legal rulings that collectively establish and define those concepts. Grownups also recognize that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", and that a law keeping you from being an asshole to people you don't like is not oppressing your religious rights.
That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.
Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.
In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.
Python's string library isn't remotely what I'd call "overweight", but its strings are immutable. Some algorithms that are quick in other languages are slow in Python, and some operations that are risky in other languages (like using strings for hash keys) are trivial (and threadsafe) in Python. But regardless of the language involved, it's always a good idea to have a bare minimum of knowledge about it before you do something completely stupid.
But then these same people say that HTML5 and JS and CSS are better because they're "open".
I hate using non-open technologies like TCP/IP. They never once consulted me and now I have to go by their "standards" instead of what I want to do this week.
The UNIX ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux®. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux®, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.
Wasn't it proven that Novell owned any and all copyrights involved here? How long do you get to publicly libel someone (like everyone who uses Linux) before a judge can order you to cease and desist that idiocy?
But it looks like Apple is playing catchup to Sling TV.
Very true, but we already have and use an Apple TV. We have very little Apple-purchased content so it wouldn't be financially hard to switch to a different device (and I think we're out of HDMI ports so we'd more or less have to), but it'd be nicely convenient if we could get that content on what we're used to.
Yeah, we could do some AirPlay workaround but the Wife Approval Factor starts dropping quickly when that gets involved.
HTTP/2 doesn't require you to use TLS (the standard form of SSL, the Web's encryption layer), but its higher performance makes using encryption easier, since it reduces the impact on how fast your site seems.
In fact, many people believe that the only safe way to deploy the new protocol on the "open" Internet is to use encryption; Firefox and Chrome have said that they'll only support HTTP/2 using TLS.
They have two reasons for this. One is that deploying a new version of HTTP across the Internet is hard, because a lot of "middleboxes" like proxies and firewalls assume that HTTP/1 won't ever change, and they can introduce interoperability and even security problems if they try to interpret a HTTP/2 connection.
The other is that the Web is an increasingly dangerous place, and using more encryption is one way to mitigate a number of threats. By using HTTP/2 as a carrot for sites to use TLS, they're hoping that the overall security of the Web will improve.
So stick with plaintext HTTP/1.0 as long as you want, but the rest of us are moving to secure-by-default.
Yes, they do. The information I transmit to the site in the form of an HTTP request is something I want to be private from prying eyes. I don't care if it's not anything particularly incriminating! It's just no one else's business but mine and that website.
The things my mom texts me aren't sensitive - "Hi son! Here's a picture of my dog napping outside!" - but they're certainly private and I'd be pissed if I thought anyone was reading them. Every web request, every chat message, every email should be considered private until explicitly proven otherwise.
Static sites without forms, uploads, or sign ins, do not have any security benefit.
First, lots of things are sensitive. Would you want someone in the coffee shop watching you browse the NIH website for sexually transmitted diseases? It would be hideously expensive for each government agency to classify each and every URL as "OK for snooping" or "visitors probably want privacy", certainly several orders of magnitude harder and costlier than just saying that everything is sensitive and treating it accordingly.
Second, what's you're requirement for not having the security benefit? Given that certs are about $10 a year and require negligible resources, what is your compelling reason for not having encryption by default?
Third, there's a real and enormous benefit to having everything encrypted. If encryption is only applied to critical things, then the presence of encryption is a red flag that something is critical. When it's the normal, boring default mode and everything is encrypted, its presence is no longer an indicator that something sensitive is taking place.
Apple declined to comment on the reports. But the Journal said its sources suggested the tech giant is aiming for a June unveiling, ahead of a September launch of the TV service, compatible with all devices running iOS, including iPhones, iPads, and Apple TV boxes.
That's a pretty big deal for a lot of people, and the rumors are that it'll be unveiled at WWDC. I like stories like this: plausible, and soon enough to be interesting.
I am so, so ready to be done with Comcast. I'd pick this up in a heartbeat to get away from their ludicrously priced packaging (I don't want to rent a DVR just so I can watch baseball in HD!). Toss in the unbundled HBO subscription and this is close to my cord cutting dream.
Oh, and NBC? I'll be subsidizing this by dropping my Hulu Plus subscription. Don't for a second think that your programming is so valuable that I'll pay extra for it a la carte. This would be an excellent time to make nice with Apple and get over yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen any bigotry in these comments, and I think it's disingenuous for you to say so.
Arguing that we should have the right not to do business with groups we dislike, which was precisely the excuse given in the 60's by people who didn't blacks in their restaurant, is not-so-thinly veiled bigotry. It's painful listening to those who don't know history trying to repeat it, desperately hoping that this time it will be different and they'll be allowed to show "those people" who's in charge.
For the record, I'm not black, gay, or liberal. But things like this are exactly the reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I just can't go along willingly with the Attempt Of The Week to make this a hyperconservative theocracy. When someone inevitably comes along and wants to deny my right to fully participate in society, I hope we'll have built the momentum to shut it down.
Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
I cannot keep up with the contortion of intellectual dishonesty required to type that sentence with a straight face. I don't think you're lying to me and that you really believe this, but I equally believe that you're lying to yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck in your future endeavors.
"Separation of church and state", as a specific quote or concept, is nowhere in the founding legal documents of the United States.
It was no less than Thomas Jefferson who said:
Next, your strawman:
It's use did not create prohibition against religious expression.
Correct. Still doesn't. You're legally entitled to say "blacks are of the devil" (or whites for that matter). Go ahead! No government agency will stop you. However, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (court-upheld interpretation: pretty much anywhere).
No one believes that any of our rights are unlimited. You can speak your opinion, but you can't yell fire in a theater. You can bear arms, but don't expect to own a nuclear bomb. You can sincerely believe that whites are a superior species to blacks, but you don't get to own, kill, intimidate, lynch, or otherwise harm a black guy, regardless of your vile beliefs. This isn't something I'm making up out of whole cloth, but well-established and widely accepted interpretation of Federal law.
Documents which govern the FEDERAL government do not necessarily apply to State or Local governments.
Read your Constitution, son. The 14th amendment says:
This codified previous Constitutional supremacy thoughts by explicitly stating that States don't get to write laws violating the Constitution or selectively affording privileges to one group and not another.
Except we've decided as a country that there are certain ways it's not OK to be an asshole, particularly when it's because the other person is black, female, Muslim, etc. I did not advocate for restricting free speech. I'm advocating for what law already says regarding other minority classes: feel free to speak your mind, but you shouldn't get to act against gay people any more than you're allowed to act against black people.
I'm dyed-in-the-wool small-l libertarian (and a registered large-L), but I'm horrified at the idea of passing laws to explicitly protect the "right" to discriminate against minorities. "First they came ..." and all that; we shouldn't be looking for new and creative ways to crap on our neighbors.
"The Aristocrats!"
You mean the case where the court ruled very narrowly that atheism should be afforded the same legal respect as religions when ensuring the rights of people holding those opinions? You would be hard pressed to choose a case less helpful to your viewpoint.
You may be unaware but there are people who live outside of the US
So you're not American and you're unfamiliar with American law, but feel compelled to comment on a case involving one particular American state. Allow me to give you a quick introduction: your opinion is explicitly opposed to American case law. Feel free to speculate as much as you'd care to, but understand that from a US point of view, you are completely wrong.
Why can't both sides be free to live their own lives?
Recently, because of stupid laws like Indiana's RFRA which would prevent a minority chunk of their population from living theirs. "Opposition to bigotry" is not "bigotry".
No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion.
Are ye daft, son? That's exactly what it says: religion cannot become the basis for law. It is literally impossible for my religion to write laws without prohibiting your free exercise thereof; that's what laws do.
In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
You can say asshole things to people, but there are enumerated acts of assholery that are explicitly illegal. You have the freedom of speech, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says it ends at the cash register.
I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.
Jesus fucking Christ. What backwoods school did you go to that didn't teach American History? The rules you're protesting have been the law of the land for 51 years now and somehow we've persevered. Your opinion is wrong. We took a vote and decided, almost half a century ago. You lost.
Yes, I'm angry. I'm having a hard time believing the among of ignorant bigotry I've seen pouring into Slashdot very recently. Where the hell did you guys come from? Were you here all along, and just recently felt brave enough to come out of your hateful little closet?
I ask this honestly: would you have used the same argument when "those people" were blacks who didn't believe in "separate but equal", or is this your new opinion that only applies to gay citizens? Suppose I own a hamburger stand, that I am a white man, and that I dislike blacks and gays. By your words, it would seem that you'd be OK with me selling hamburgers to white men but not black men. If I am incorrect, what distinction do you draw between a black man and a gay man that would compel me to do business with the former but not require me to serve the latter?
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
It's right next to "freedom of speech", which I'd lay down cash that you claim to cherish.
Grownups understand that things like "freedom of speech" and "separation of church and state" are phrases that refer to an enormous body of legal rulings that collectively establish and define those concepts. Grownups also recognize that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", and that a law keeping you from being an asshole to people you don't like is not oppressing your religious rights.
R. Pirsig wrote a paper on the philosophical and mental challenges in defining "quality". I suggest reading it.
The target should be Apple not Google.
That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.
Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.
In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.
Python's string library isn't remotely what I'd call "overweight", but its strings are immutable. Some algorithms that are quick in other languages are slow in Python, and some operations that are risky in other languages (like using strings for hash keys) are trivial (and threadsafe) in Python. But regardless of the language involved, it's always a good idea to have a bare minimum of knowledge about it before you do something completely stupid.
But then these same people say that HTML5 and JS and CSS are better because they're "open".
I hate using non-open technologies like TCP/IP. They never once consulted me and now I have to go by their "standards" instead of what I want to do this week.
According to SCO's website:
Wasn't it proven that Novell owned any and all copyrights involved here? How long do you get to publicly libel someone (like everyone who uses Linux) before a judge can order you to cease and desist that idiocy?
Yes, when almost everything else from snack stands to food trucks takes plastic and you get into the habit of never needing cash.
But it looks like Apple is playing catchup to Sling TV.
Very true, but we already have and use an Apple TV. We have very little Apple-purchased content so it wouldn't be financially hard to switch to a different device (and I think we're out of HDMI ports so we'd more or less have to), but it'd be nicely convenient if we could get that content on what we're used to.
Yeah, we could do some AirPlay workaround but the Wife Approval Factor starts dropping quickly when that gets involved.
Fortunately, more informed parties disagree with you:
So stick with plaintext HTTP/1.0 as long as you want, but the rest of us are moving to secure-by-default.
Not all sites deal in private information.
Yes, they do. The information I transmit to the site in the form of an HTTP request is something I want to be private from prying eyes. I don't care if it's not anything particularly incriminating! It's just no one else's business but mine and that website.
The things my mom texts me aren't sensitive - "Hi son! Here's a picture of my dog napping outside!" - but they're certainly private and I'd be pissed if I thought anyone was reading them. Every web request, every chat message, every email should be considered private until explicitly proven otherwise.
Static sites without forms, uploads, or sign ins, do not have any security benefit.
First, lots of things are sensitive. Would you want someone in the coffee shop watching you browse the NIH website for sexually transmitted diseases? It would be hideously expensive for each government agency to classify each and every URL as "OK for snooping" or "visitors probably want privacy", certainly several orders of magnitude harder and costlier than just saying that everything is sensitive and treating it accordingly.
Second, what's you're requirement for not having the security benefit? Given that certs are about $10 a year and require negligible resources, what is your compelling reason for not having encryption by default?
Third, there's a real and enormous benefit to having everything encrypted. If encryption is only applied to critical things, then the presence of encryption is a red flag that something is critical. When it's the normal, boring default mode and everything is encrypted, its presence is no longer an indicator that something sensitive is taking place.
This isn't an Apple TV thing. From the article:
That's a pretty big deal for a lot of people, and the rumors are that it'll be unveiled at WWDC. I like stories like this: plausible, and soon enough to be interesting.
I am so, so ready to be done with Comcast. I'd pick this up in a heartbeat to get away from their ludicrously priced packaging (I don't want to rent a DVR just so I can watch baseball in HD!). Toss in the unbundled HBO subscription and this is close to my cord cutting dream.
Oh, and NBC? I'll be subsidizing this by dropping my Hulu Plus subscription. Don't for a second think that your programming is so valuable that I'll pay extra for it a la carte. This would be an excellent time to make nice with Apple and get over yourself.
Is there any reason at all why American merchants couldn't start swiping US-style signature only cards at the table today?