You do realize they haven't stopped development of the OS, don't you? All they've stopped doing is signing agreements with OEMs to produce smartphones. They still have OEM partners for other devices. Further, as development continues, there's nothing to stop an interested manufacturer from producing a smartphone running FxOS.
The problem was getting one. They were only released in small emerging markets. Even their developer phone sold out before a lot of interested users knew it existed. The easiest one to get was the ZTE Open, an incredibly low-end phone with virtually non-existent support from ZTE. (you were stuck with v1.0 for a while. We got a 1.1 release, with impressive performance improvements, and a buggy 1.2 release long after those were outdated. Savvy users have 2.0 unofficially now, though that is also now outdated, with 2.5 being a rather dramatic update.) The Fx0 is the next viable option, as it was very recently discovered for a good price on Amazon. It sold so many so quickly that the vendor raised the price, all despite the locked bootloader making it less attractive as a dev unit.
Why they never released it a budget phone in established markets is beyond me. Or why they didn't produce enough dev units to meet the demand of interested developers. Unbelievably, they even gave some of those away to developers as an incentive, while shorting the clamoring hoards who wanted to buy the thing!
There was some talk about selling smart feature-phones running FxOS in the US next year. I guess we'll see if those partners strike out on their own or not.
For clarity: Chrome comes bundled, Ask Toolbar style, with a number of popular windows programs like CCleaner and Avast Anti-Virus. Naturally, it tries to set itself as the default browser.
Don't we have a term for software that comes bundled, opt out via a tiny checkbox, with other software, changes your settings, and then doesn't respect your privacy?
We have here two competing criminal gangs. I can't see how express some joy at seeing one take a hit is the same as a show of support for the other criminal gang.
Isn't it good when any criminal organization takes a knock on the chin?
That's why they just announced that they're dropping the FirefoxOS thing,
That's not happening:
We are proud of the benefits Firefox OS added to the Web platform and will continue to experiment with the user experience across connected devices. We will build everything we do as a genuine open source project, focused on user experience first and build tools to enable the ecosystem to grow.
Development continues. All they've actually done is stop signing contracts with OEMs for smartphones. Imagine if Google stopped developing their own smartphones or stopped partnering with third-parties to develop smartphones but continued to develop Android. This is the same thing. They're in no way dropping the OS..
I switched to FF from Chrome when FF introduced the new UI. Why? Chrome is a resource hog and the only thing keeping me there was the UI.
Chrome benefits from the myth of performance, as they were, at one time, the better performing browser. That's obviously no longer the case, so I expect the tide to turn again over the next few years. To call the death of FF seems a bit premature, considering the state of the competition.
I know that FF was the #1 browser for my customers for several years and since Australis every.single.one has asked me to help them move to something else or gone to Chrome.
I can imagine that conversation. "I hate this new UI, help me switch to a browser with a UI that's just like the one I hate!"
What's next? "Tracking protection is off by default? Help me switch to Chrome! Surely, they can be trusted."
Please, I'm deeply curious to see how you came up with such an astonishing interpretation. Elaborate further. Where in Searle's argument did you find him implicitly or explicitly defining consciousness as a human quality?
First, it is not a rebuttal, but a simple restatement of the assertion the argument is intended to address. It's the equivalent of saying "No it isn't!" like a petulant child. Consequently, it's not convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree.
Second, it does not address the argument in any way. The crux of the argument is that syntactic content is insufficient for semantic content. This is not addressed in any way by the systems reply. It also seem to be obviously and trivially true, which is why so few have bothered to address this. Chalmers, to my knowledge, was the only one to try with his sub-symbolic computation idea, though he failed miserably.
Still, people have a problem accepting emergent properties, so the argument persists anyway.
Emergence doesn't enter in to this at all, as you can see. The only people who buy this objection are those who already believe something wholly unrelated to the CR argument.
It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".
That's simply delusional. You know as well as everyone else that people demand far more from atheism than it can possibly deliver. Systems of belief, as we've seen, naturally grow around it.
A person's atheism, then, is used to support and/or inform a range of other beliefs and ideologies. The 'therefore' that follows the 'there are no gods', if you will.
Like-minded people tend to congregate together, which is why there are countless atheist groups. Each with different concordant beliefs, of course, about what atheism necessarily entails, demanding from their adherents conformity to a range of beliefs regarding everything from politics to ethics.
To say that atheism is "a singular belief", but not a "belief system" is more rhetorical than rational. It's a superficial defense, to differentiate your beliefs from the beliefs of the religious when, in reality, there is no significant difference. Atheists can still hold incredibly ridiculous beliefs, and justify them by their atheism or concordant beliefs, just as easily as a theist. They can even hold many of the same wild beliefs, regardless of their theological leanings.
Perhaps you don't consider those people to be true atheists?
An important feature, often over looked, were the message received and read notices. When communication is spotty, that sort of feature becomes essential.
As I've said before, if you think murder for hire is acceptable, you're free to speak out in it's defense, form groups of like-minded people, and even lobby for its legality.
However, until such time as it is legal, acting on that belief will remain illegal. You can't legally offer or otherwise engage in those services. That is obviously not a free speech issue.
You know this already, yet despite my admonitions, you persist. Why? What could possibly motivate you here? Embarrassment?
Now, are you going to answer my question? I suspect not, as you know that you wouldn't have objected to my post at all. I bet you would have even nodded your head in agreement. The reason is obvious -- your post was not motivated by reason, as you imply, but by ideology.
Reason needs to be applied uniformly. It's useless otherwise.
In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.
As I've already said, there is no issue with speaking in support of illegal activities. I took great pains to explain this to you, in anticipation of the nonsense in your previous post.
Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?
My response would have been identical. Now, are you going to answer or not?
"I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?
That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.
I'm not surprised, as you hinted at this earlier. I even took the time to preemptively address this in hopes that you wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time with pointless sophomoric nonsense. As I believe you already know this, I'm now very interested in seeing you respond to my earlier challenge, repeated below.
Getting back on topic: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?
We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested. First, however, I'd like to see your honest response.
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're [...]
Abandoning the same principles upon which you yourself depend. Acting directly against your own best interests. All because of...
the negative effects of that speech
I see. Fear. Pure and simple fear. Fear of ideas is very dangerous, which is why protected speech is so important. You depend on it greatly, yet you'd deny others the same liberty -- because all the what-if's have you terrified.
Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas
Don't be foolish. If you thought ideas with which you disagree couldn't out-compete your own, you wouldn't be so damn terrified of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Certainly not so afraid that you'd act against your own best interest, abandon important principles, and actively suppress the rights of others.
You don't worry about the content of the mad ravings of a crazy man on a street corner, nor something more wide-spread like a serial killers manifesto published in the newspaper, because you know that no one will take their ideas seriously. Their ideas simply can't compete. You do, however, care a great deal about the mad ravings of public figures as they are seriously considered by a large number of people.
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.
That's dishonest at best. There are limitations on speech here. None of which, you'll note, have anything to do with ideology. Competing ideologies, after all, are what are under discussion. I'm free to write and publish all sorts of vile nonsense promoting the legalization of murder-for-hire services, pro-terrorism propaganda, and, yes, even pro teen promiscuity pamphlets.
Presumably, you'd actively suppress those ideas as well. You certainly seem to think I would. The difference between you and I, obviously, is that I'm not terrified by the ideas and viewpoints of others. So, no, I would not act to suppress those ideas.
I'm also aware of the dangers that comes from suppressing speech. How much have you, and this modern atheist resurgence in general, benefited from that liberty? What do you think the consequences would have been had the politically powerful majority been able to take forceful action to suppress those ideas? Don't you think they strongly believe that "the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech" and would thus be justified by your own reasoning?
You're afraid of competing ideas, by your own admission. Assuming that you don't also fear ideas that have no chance of success, you clearly don't believe your ideas can compete favorably in the marketplace of ideas as evidenced by that same fear.
It's entirely obvious that 1) Ads convince people of things. 2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing. 3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.
Yes, perfectly obvious to everyone. How this relates to my post is a mystery.
How would you feel about an ad supporting [...]
How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing. This is no different than the opposition to atheists ads you've seen before. One group is terrified that they'll end up marginalized if a competing viewpoint gains wide acceptance. It's cowardly, among other things.
A far more courageous, and reasonable, response to ads promoting ideas you dislike is to counter with your own ads. It's simply foolish to say "I'm justified in suppressing your speech because I disagree with your ideas" as the other side can offer the exact same justification. When you're the minority, doubly so!
Let's try this: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?
How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.
So... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
If you only buy from companies with a level 2 rating then that would give you a level 3 rating, etc... Again, this shouldn't be something done by the government but something done by the manufacturer based on consumer demand.
There is a serious problem relying on some private entity or consortium. That is, there is nothing preventing another private entity from offering those same ratings.
You're bound to end up with a few in competition. Kellogg might want an equal or higher rating than Post, so they abandon the Food Producers Consortium and join (or start) the Fair Food Group. Smaller companies might have trouble with the dues and fees or with meeting certain standards (likely tailored to benefit the bigger players) and fall prey to less scrupulous agencies like the Fair Food Bureau.
Consumers, naturally, aren't very likely to understand the differences between the various accreditors, making the ratings useless.
You'd need something like the threat of regulation or a very small industry before you can maintain a functional, single, regulating entity. We have a few examples, of course, like the MPAA and ESRB though you'll note that despite the size in terms of dollars, those industries are rather small in terms of people and major or influential players. They're both also under the threat of regulation, which seems to have incentivized regulation to a large degree.
Honestly now... did anybody believe this could be achieved?
Pretty much everyone believed that. Blackberry users have been running Android apps for ages. They even have Amazon's app store. If a much smaller company can do it, and do it well, there's no reason to believe that Microsoft couldn't.
And no, the first amendment is completely silent on whether or not your professed belief in magic should grant you more power of self expression
What a waste of my time... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This issue isn't about self-expression. (Apparently, you haven't managed to puzzle that out.) It's about specific religious prohibitions or requirements. It's yet another thing the colander wearing morons got wrong. One sensible civil servant denied one of these yahoos their silly hat when they couldn't show that their "religion" prohibited it from being removed. At least in that particular jurisdiction, if your beliefs allow the hat to be removed, there was no exemption. This is the most sensible response I've seen yet.
You don't think that government-issued identification, which is key to everything from boarding an airplane to cashing a check [...] is insignificant?
These pastafarians don't seem to take it very seriously. They treat the whole thing like a joke. You can't have it both ways. To answer your question, yes, it's not that important. As long as the persons face is visible, there isn't any reason to deny them their constitutionally protected rights. Face covering is a more complex issue, though it's been ruled to not be a violation so your fears are groundless for the time being. The face of all those scary Muslims (the one's you're afraid will jump out and get you) will be visible in their passport and ID photos.
Which is why when they are applied unevenly and capriciously, it flies in the face of the constitution.
The only people treating it like it's some kind of a joke are the one's donning colanders at the DMV. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. Your solution to this alleged affront to the constitution is to directly violate it!
By picking and choosing which lifestyle clothing (religious or otherwise) is more important than another, and thus deserving or not of government sanction and support, the government IS in the business of religion. How are you not getting that?
You're the one who's confused here. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. There's bound to be conflict, which is why exemptions exist. It's not the government getting in to the business of religion, it's the government trying its best to stay out of it!
Your solution seems to be to abandon those exemptions, which would then violate the constitutionally protected rights of others. You either care about the constitution or you don't. You clearly don't. If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment. Don't waste our tax dollars and limited public resources on nonsense like this.
The more we dig at this, the more fundamental problems with this absurd movement we seems to find. As I've said before: it actively works against the interests of those involved. It's completely irrational.
Slashdot Mirror
I switched to FireFox after the UI update, because I preferred it. The "overwhelmingly negative feedback" came from a tiny, if vocal, minority.
You do realize they haven't stopped development of the OS, don't you? All they've stopped doing is signing agreements with OEMs to produce smartphones. They still have OEM partners for other devices. Further, as development continues, there's nothing to stop an interested manufacturer from producing a smartphone running FxOS.
The problem was getting one. They were only released in small emerging markets. Even their developer phone sold out before a lot of interested users knew it existed. The easiest one to get was the ZTE Open, an incredibly low-end phone with virtually non-existent support from ZTE. (you were stuck with v1.0 for a while. We got a 1.1 release, with impressive performance improvements, and a buggy 1.2 release long after those were outdated. Savvy users have 2.0 unofficially now, though that is also now outdated, with 2.5 being a rather dramatic update.) The Fx0 is the next viable option, as it was very recently discovered for a good price on Amazon. It sold so many so quickly that the vendor raised the price, all despite the locked bootloader making it less attractive as a dev unit.
Why they never released it a budget phone in established markets is beyond me. Or why they didn't produce enough dev units to meet the demand of interested developers. Unbelievably, they even gave some of those away to developers as an incentive, while shorting the clamoring hoards who wanted to buy the thing!
There was some talk about selling smart feature-phones running FxOS in the US next year. I guess we'll see if those partners strike out on their own or not.
For clarity: Chrome comes bundled, Ask Toolbar style, with a number of popular windows programs like CCleaner and Avast Anti-Virus. Naturally, it tries to set itself as the default browser.
Don't we have a term for software that comes bundled, opt out via a tiny checkbox, with other software, changes your settings, and then doesn't respect your privacy?
We have here two competing criminal gangs. I can't see how express some joy at seeing one take a hit is the same as a show of support for the other criminal gang.
Isn't it good when any criminal organization takes a knock on the chin?
That's why they just announced that they're dropping the FirefoxOS thing,
That's not happening:
We are proud of the benefits Firefox OS added to the Web platform and will continue to experiment with the user experience across connected devices. We will build everything we do as a genuine open source project, focused on user experience first and build tools to enable the ecosystem to grow.
Development continues. All they've actually done is stop signing contracts with OEMs for smartphones. Imagine if Google stopped developing their own smartphones or stopped partnering with third-parties to develop smartphones but continued to develop Android. This is the same thing. They're in no way dropping the OS..
I switched to FF from Chrome when FF introduced the new UI. Why? Chrome is a resource hog and the only thing keeping me there was the UI.
Chrome benefits from the myth of performance, as they were, at one time, the better performing browser. That's obviously no longer the case, so I expect the tide to turn again over the next few years. To call the death of FF seems a bit premature, considering the state of the competition.
I know that FF was the #1 browser for my customers for several years and since Australis every.single.one has asked me to help them move to something else or gone to Chrome.
I can imagine that conversation. "I hate this new UI, help me switch to a browser with a UI that's just like the one I hate!"
What's next? "Tracking protection is off by default? Help me switch to Chrome! Surely, they can be trusted."
That's not even a little bit true.
Please, I'm deeply curious to see how you came up with such an astonishing interpretation. Elaborate further. Where in Searle's argument did you find him implicitly or explicitly defining consciousness as a human quality?
I eagerly await your response.
... and that means the risk is lower so the amount they can charge diminishes
+5 Funny!
There are a few things wrong with that objection:
First, it is not a rebuttal, but a simple restatement of the assertion the argument is intended to address. It's the equivalent of saying "No it isn't!" like a petulant child. Consequently, it's not convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree.
Second, it does not address the argument in any way. The crux of the argument is that syntactic content is insufficient for semantic content. This is not addressed in any way by the systems reply. It also seem to be obviously and trivially true, which is why so few have bothered to address this. Chalmers, to my knowledge, was the only one to try with his sub-symbolic computation idea, though he failed miserably.
Still, people have a problem accepting emergent properties, so the argument persists anyway.
Emergence doesn't enter in to this at all, as you can see. The only people who buy this objection are those who already believe something wholly unrelated to the CR argument.
It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".
That's simply delusional. You know as well as everyone else that people demand far more from atheism than it can possibly deliver. Systems of belief, as we've seen, naturally grow around it.
A person's atheism, then, is used to support and/or inform a range of other beliefs and ideologies. The 'therefore' that follows the 'there are no gods', if you will.
Like-minded people tend to congregate together, which is why there are countless atheist groups. Each with different concordant beliefs, of course, about what atheism necessarily entails, demanding from their adherents conformity to a range of beliefs regarding everything from politics to ethics.
To say that atheism is "a singular belief", but not a "belief system" is more rhetorical than rational. It's a superficial defense, to differentiate your beliefs from the beliefs of the religious when, in reality, there is no significant difference. Atheists can still hold incredibly ridiculous beliefs, and justify them by their atheism or concordant beliefs, just as easily as a theist. They can even hold many of the same wild beliefs, regardless of their theological leanings.
Perhaps you don't consider those people to be true atheists?
An important feature, often over looked, were the message received and read notices. When communication is spotty, that sort of feature becomes essential.
As I've said before, if you think murder for hire is acceptable, you're free to speak out in it's defense, form groups of like-minded people, and even lobby for its legality.
However, until such time as it is legal, acting on that belief will remain illegal. You can't legally offer or otherwise engage in those services. That is obviously not a free speech issue.
You know this already, yet despite my admonitions, you persist. Why? What could possibly motivate you here? Embarrassment?
Now, are you going to answer my question? I suspect not, as you know that you wouldn't have objected to my post at all. I bet you would have even nodded your head in agreement. The reason is obvious -- your post was not motivated by reason, as you imply, but by ideology.
Reason needs to be applied uniformly. It's useless otherwise.
Nope, I'm not seeing it
I think you do.
In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.
As I've already said, there is no issue with speaking in support of illegal activities. I took great pains to explain this to you, in anticipation of the nonsense in your previous post.
Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?
My response would have been identical. Now, are you going to answer or not?
"I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?
That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.
I'm not surprised, as you hinted at this earlier. I even took the time to preemptively address this in hopes that you wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time with pointless sophomoric nonsense. As I believe you already know this, I'm now very interested in seeing you respond to my earlier challenge, repeated below.
Getting back on topic: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?
We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested. First, however, I'd like to see your honest response.
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're [...]
Abandoning the same principles upon which you yourself depend. Acting directly against your own best interests. All because of ...
the negative effects of that speech
I see. Fear. Pure and simple fear. Fear of ideas is very dangerous, which is why protected speech is so important. You depend on it greatly, yet you'd deny others the same liberty -- because all the what-if's have you terrified.
Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas
Don't be foolish. If you thought ideas with which you disagree couldn't out-compete your own, you wouldn't be so damn terrified of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Certainly not so afraid that you'd act against your own best interest, abandon important principles, and actively suppress the rights of others.
You don't worry about the content of the mad ravings of a crazy man on a street corner, nor something more wide-spread like a serial killers manifesto published in the newspaper, because you know that no one will take their ideas seriously. Their ideas simply can't compete. You do, however, care a great deal about the mad ravings of public figures as they are seriously considered by a large number of people.
Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.
That's dishonest at best. There are limitations on speech here. None of which, you'll note, have anything to do with ideology. Competing ideologies, after all, are what are under discussion. I'm free to write and publish all sorts of vile nonsense promoting the legalization of murder-for-hire services, pro-terrorism propaganda, and, yes, even pro teen promiscuity pamphlets.
Presumably, you'd actively suppress those ideas as well. You certainly seem to think I would. The difference between you and I, obviously, is that I'm not terrified by the ideas and viewpoints of others. So, no, I would not act to suppress those ideas.
I'm also aware of the dangers that comes from suppressing speech. How much have you, and this modern atheist resurgence in general, benefited from that liberty? What do you think the consequences would have been had the politically powerful majority been able to take forceful action to suppress those ideas? Don't you think they strongly believe that "the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech" and would thus be justified by your own reasoning?
You're afraid of competing ideas, by your own admission. Assuming that you don't also fear ideas that have no chance of success, you clearly don't believe your ideas can compete favorably in the marketplace of ideas as evidenced by that same fear.
Where to begin ...
Strawman.
Nonsense.
It's entirely obvious that
1) Ads convince people of things.
2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing.
3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.
Yes, perfectly obvious to everyone. How this relates to my post is a mystery.
How would you feel about an ad supporting [...]
How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.
When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing. This is no different than the opposition to atheists ads you've seen before. One group is terrified that they'll end up marginalized if a competing viewpoint gains wide acceptance. It's cowardly, among other things.
A far more courageous, and reasonable, response to ads promoting ideas you dislike is to counter with your own ads. It's simply foolish to say "I'm justified in suppressing your speech because I disagree with your ideas" as the other side can offer the exact same justification. When you're the minority, doubly so!
Let's try this: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?
How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.
So ... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?
It must be difficult for you...
The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights
You mean "of" not "to". It completely changes the meaning.
Not content with being reviled near-universally, Dawkins seeks the ire of the few crazy extremists who still take him seriously.
If you only buy from companies with a level 2 rating then that would give you a level 3 rating, etc... Again, this shouldn't be something done by the government but something done by the manufacturer based on consumer demand.
There is a serious problem relying on some private entity or consortium. That is, there is nothing preventing another private entity from offering those same ratings.
You're bound to end up with a few in competition. Kellogg might want an equal or higher rating than Post, so they abandon the Food Producers Consortium and join (or start) the Fair Food Group. Smaller companies might have trouble with the dues and fees or with meeting certain standards (likely tailored to benefit the bigger players) and fall prey to less scrupulous agencies like the Fair Food Bureau.
Consumers, naturally, aren't very likely to understand the differences between the various accreditors, making the ratings useless.
You'd need something like the threat of regulation or a very small industry before you can maintain a functional, single, regulating entity. We have a few examples, of course, like the MPAA and ESRB though you'll note that despite the size in terms of dollars, those industries are rather small in terms of people and major or influential players. They're both also under the threat of regulation, which seems to have incentivized regulation to a large degree.
The much more massive food industry, in contrast, has little chance of self-regulating. We've tried, it turns out that they can't be trusted.
Honestly now ... did anybody believe this could be achieved?
Pretty much everyone believed that. Blackberry users have been running Android apps for ages. They even have Amazon's app store. If a much smaller company can do it, and do it well, there's no reason to believe that Microsoft couldn't.
And no, the first amendment is completely silent on whether or not your professed belief in magic should grant you more power of self expression
What a waste of my time... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This issue isn't about self-expression. (Apparently, you haven't managed to puzzle that out.) It's about specific religious prohibitions or requirements. It's yet another thing the colander wearing morons got wrong. One sensible civil servant denied one of these yahoos their silly hat when they couldn't show that their "religion" prohibited it from being removed. At least in that particular jurisdiction, if your beliefs allow the hat to be removed, there was no exemption. This is the most sensible response I've seen yet.
You don't think that government-issued identification, which is key to everything from boarding an airplane to cashing a check [...] is insignificant?
These pastafarians don't seem to take it very seriously. They treat the whole thing like a joke. You can't have it both ways. To answer your question, yes, it's not that important. As long as the persons face is visible, there isn't any reason to deny them their constitutionally protected rights. Face covering is a more complex issue, though it's been ruled to not be a violation so your fears are groundless for the time being. The face of all those scary Muslims (the one's you're afraid will jump out and get you) will be visible in their passport and ID photos.
Which is why when they are applied unevenly and capriciously, it flies in the face of the constitution.
The only people treating it like it's some kind of a joke are the one's donning colanders at the DMV. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. Your solution to this alleged affront to the constitution is to directly violate it!
By picking and choosing which lifestyle clothing (religious or otherwise) is more important than another, and thus deserving or not of government sanction and support, the government IS in the business of religion. How are you not getting that?
You're the one who's confused here. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. There's bound to be conflict, which is why exemptions exist. It's not the government getting in to the business of religion, it's the government trying its best to stay out of it!
Your solution seems to be to abandon those exemptions, which would then violate the constitutionally protected rights of others. You either care about the constitution or you don't. You clearly don't. If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment. Don't waste our tax dollars and limited public resources on nonsense like this.
The more we dig at this, the more fundamental problems with this absurd movement we seems to find. As I've said before: it actively works against the interests of those involved. It's completely irrational.
Pure delusion.