See, Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination.
See, INTERRACIAL Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination."
One person gives an "IMHO" OPINION that the government should not be involved in legislating marriage.... an argument that I am certain he identically applies to the issue of interracial marriage... and of course some anti-marriage wackjob leaps to the absolutely insane strawman assertion that allowing gays equals "mandating" the elimination.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution the law is not allowed to use race gender and religion as a basis for discriminatory treatment under the law.
A marriage law examining the races of marriage applicants in an attempt to deny interracial marriages is unconstitutional, invalid law. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to solve that invalid law problem by eliminating all marriage law, or we can simply solve that problem by removing racial examination from marriage law - which leaves no means for the law to exclude interracial marriages.
The identical situation applies to gay marriage. A marriage law examining the genders of marriage applicants in an attempt to deny gay marriages is unconstitutional, invalid law. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to solve that invalid law problem by eliminating all marriage law, or we can simply solve that problem by removing gender examination from marriage law - which leaves no means for the law to exclude gay marriages.
Although considering the way you jumped for someone's explicit OPINION for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE into some sort of "gay marriage MANDATES elimination of marriage", it is probably a complete waste of time for me to even attempt to logically discuss the operation and basis of law, and the hows and whys of valid constitutional law vs invalid unconstitutional law.
I think you have a reasonable but misplaced argument.
defining gay couples as a legally protected class
Not at all. You actually made an argument about marriage as a legally protected class. It has no particular relevance to gays per se being permitted or denied marriages.
Bible Thumper Baptists' Mutual Insurance [] legally obligated to take homosexual married couples as clients?
The exact same thing would apply to interracial marriage, or to some religion that rejects marriages preformed on Tuesdays.
The gay marriage issue is fundamentally about government action and governmental discrimination. It is impossible to write a marriage law denying interracial marriage applicants. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitutional prohibits the government from examining applicant's races as a basis to discriminate approved vs denied applicants. Equal protection prohibits the law from examining gender or race as a basis for legal treatment. Any law attempting to exclude gay marriages is simply invalid, for the exact same reason as a law trying to exclude interracial marriages.
I noticed that elsewhere you suggested eliminating any government/legal status of marriage. That would be a pretty radical and complex change to pull off, but I absolutely agree that would solve the problem as far as I am concerned. Some churches would preform gay marriages, some would preform polygamist marriages, some would preform incestuous marriages, and you know that somewhere some church is going to preform a marriage involving a goat. And most of the people complaining about the definition of marriage now are going to rant even louder. Well, people have every right to believe what they like, and to say what they like, so as far as I'm concerned they can keep believing and keep complaining and the problem is solved so long as no one is hijacking the force of government to write and impose discrimination in the law. The government can put up a public water fountain, or the government can *not* put up a public water fountain, but the government cannot put up a public drinking fountain and slap a "whites only" sign on in, and then proceed to imprison any blacks who use it.
I agree hat eliminating all laws officially granting and recognizing marriages is a legally valid option to resolve the problem. However there currently do exist such laws, and the rest of my post is going to confine itself to addressing the situation where they do exist and for so long as they continue to exist.
If you don't want limits
There are legally valid laws, and there are unconstitutional, invalid, laws. There are a variety of ways that valid laws can be written, a variety of things they can can be written to include or to exclude. The law can and routinely does recognize a legal distinction between minors and adults. The law CAN be written to limit marriages to adults. The law CAN be written with no such limit, written to allow 4-year-olds to marry, however if you propose such a thing I am going to vote against you. The law can and routinely does distinguish between humans and animals. Animals have no constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. You COULD write a valid law granting some sort of marriage involving animals, however if you propose such a thing I am going to vote against you. Just because it is a potentially VALID law does not make it a good or reasonable law.
This is about valid law vs invalid law.
There is no way you can write a valid law granting legal marriage to a white couples, while denying a marriage license to an otherwise identical interracial couple.
The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment under the law, equal civil rights. The law cannot examine people race, gender, or religion, as a basis to discriminate treatment under the law. The law can discriminate between minor and adult, but it cannot discriminate black vs white or male vs female or Catholic vs Protestant vs Jewish. I suspect you agree that is right and good, that as far as the law goes it should treat people as people, legally blind to race and gender and religion.
You cannot write a law granting marriages and denying interracial marriage because the law cannot examine the races of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate acceptable vs unacceptable marriage applications.
The Constitutional basis controlling interracial marriage law applies EXACTLY to gay marriage as well.
You cannot write a law granting marriages and denying gay marriage because the law cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate acceptable vs unacceptable marriage applications.
So long as the government hands out marriage licenses, they can no more use gender examination to deny gay marriages than it can use racial examination to deny interracial marriage.
Any jurisdiction currently denying gay marriage applicants is in violation f the law. In violation of constitutional law. In 1968 numerous states had laws denying interracial marriage. Then, exactly as now, such couples are legally entitled to sue the state under the Equal Pr
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Blacks of course have the right to marry. The same race. Which is exactly the same rights whites have, to marry the same race.
You cannot write valid law denying gay marriage for exactly the the same reason you cannot write a valid law denying interracial marriages. Under the Equal Protection clause of the constitution you cannot use race, gender, or religion, as a basis to discriminate legal treatment.
You cannot examine the races of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-race vs interracial applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between hetero vs gay applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the religions of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-faith vs inter-faith applicants for approval or denial.
Under the Constitution the law MUST be blind to race, gender, and religion.
I'm sure you pretty much agree that that is a GOOD thing, except you want to carve out an exception for marriage law, just because you dislike certain people getting married. And that is no more reasonable and no more valid than the people who did (and still do) want to deny interracial marriage. No different. Writing gender-based-discrimination into the law is no better than writing race-based-discrimination into the law. The law SHOULD and MUST BE blind to race gender and religion of people.
A Jewish man and a Christian woman go down to city hall and get a civil union preformed by a judge. A civil union is a marriage.
it seems like the majority rules. Well, so far in California, the majority HAS ruled
Might I remind you that in 1968, when the Supreme Court struck down all anti-interracial-marriage laws nationwide, "majority rules" and "democratic majority vote" was 20% in support of equal interracial marriage civil rights and 74% opposed? States all across the country had democratic majority vote laws against interracial marriage.
Gay marriage cannot be legally denied on the exact same basis interracial marriage cannot be denied. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution is it impossible to write a law that examines the races of marriage applicants in order to discriminate which applicants are approved by law and which are denied by law. Under the Equal Protection Clause you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. The must be blind to race, gender, and religion. You cannot write a marriage law that examines the religions of marriage applicants in order to discriminate acceptable same-faith marriages from unacceptable inter-faith marriages. And you cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate which marriage applicants to approve or deny under the law.
If something like gay marriage (or marrying an animal
Gay marriage cannot be denied by law under the US Constitution on the exact same basis that interracial marriage cannot be denied by law.
If you wanted to pass a law allowing marriages to animals, well that would be a Constitutionally permissible law, but animals have Equal Protection entitlement to such right to such civil rights, and I for one would most certainly vote against your marriage-to-animals proposal.
polygamy
The law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, the law cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, the law cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, but the law most certainly can distinguish between the numbers one, two, and three. Just because you can cast one vote for president does not mean the law must to permit you to cast three votes for president.
By the way, for forgot to mention the marrying-children one. And of course the law can and does distinguish between adults and minors. And yeah, I'd kinda sorta slightly vote against it if you proposed changing the law so that four year olds could get married.
Hmmm...actually I'm pretty sure that the proponents of Prop 8 worked with in the purview of the constitutional legal system to pass such a law.
It doesn't mean squat if they followed proper state legal procedures for modifying the state constitution. All state laws and all state constitutions are subject to the US Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution the law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant interracial marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the races of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the races of the marriage applicants is null and void.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant gay marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the genders of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the genders of the marriage applicants is null and void.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant interfaith marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the religions of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the religions of the marriage applicants is null and void.
The exact same legal basis that struck down dozens of state laws barring interracial marriages applies to gay marriages. It is no more possible to to legally exclude gay marriages than it is possible to legally exclude interracial marriage.
And legalities aside, people may still be fighting the battles but the war is over. In 1948 when a California court issues the first ever ruling in support of interracial marriage (equivalent to the Massachusetts ruling in support of the first gay marriage), public opinion was 92% against interracial marriages. In 1968 when the US Supreme Court forcibly imposed interracial marriage rights nation wide, public approval for interracial marriage polled at 20%. Hell, even as recently as 1994 public approval for interracial marriage was still polling was below 50%.
Gay marriage is following nearly the exact same course interracial marriage took, both legally and socially. However acceptance of gay marriage is far higher than it was for interracial marriage, and in fact the acceptance rate for gay marriage is rising roughly twice as fast as interracial marriage was accepted.
In both cases the younger generation overwhelmingly saw/sees it as a civil rights and equal rights issue, accepting such marriages. In both cases it is and was senior citizens most opposed. The war is over. In a war of generational shift, the old discrimination and the old generation always lose. The younger generation always wins, even if they ave to bury the older generation to do it. The older generation racist opponents of interracial marriage just plain die faster. Opposition to gay marriage is primarily in the oldest population, and they are just plain dying down their percentages. The under 35 population overwhelmingly accept gay marriage, and the overall social acceptance of gay marriage has been increasing by almost 2% per year. California is currently in the process of crossing the 50% threshold right now, an the nation as a whole will be bumping up on the 50% level by the time the next two presidential elections roll around.
There is no way to fight a generational shift. The war is over. Gay marriage is taking the same course as interracial marriage, and those who dogmatically oppose it will just plain die out as the racists against interracial marriage have been dying out. Approval of interracial marriage was 20% when the courts nationally affirmed it. Even without the courts, the flat out majority vote is rapidly and unstoppably shifting in support of equal gay marriage rights.
To certain people, blacks and whites will never be married.
And that theme pretty well covers everything in your post.
definitions are set and clear.... So its not getting "hung up" on a word. It is about more than realistically can be said or summed up on/. It is about keeping somethings defined as they are.
Yeah. It's about keeping things defined as they are. It is about the exact same people and the exact same logic and the exact same arguments to legally prohibit interracial marriage.
It is about common sense.
Right. The exact same "common sense" that said blacks and whites could not marry.
not calling an ocean a mountain or calling a table a chair or calling an apple an orange.
Right. We shouldn't call a black man with a white woman a "marriage", because it is apples and oranges. If two people love each other and are living together as a couple, well race or gender makes it apples and oranges.
Yes, it may be fashionable to be so called "tolerant" in some circles.
Yes, in some circles it is "fashionable" to be tolerant of interracial marriage.
But these supposed "tolerant" folks are intolerant to those that express their disagreement
It's funny how intolerant racist bigots have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the word "tolerance", and try to play this persecution complex that other people are intolerant against them.
I am quite tolerant of bigots and assholes. What I am not tolerant of is attempts by bigots and assholes to hijack the law to legally oppress people they don't like. THAT is intolerance. Hijacking the force of law to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective races of the people involved, to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective genders of the people involved, to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective religions of the people involved, that is bigotry and asshattery, and moreover that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Under the US Constitution you cannot deny people equal treatment under the law on the basis or race, gender, or religion. You can choose to have a low granting civil marriages, or you can not have any government recognized marriage at all, however it is impossible to write a valid law granting marriages without also granting interracial marriages and same sex marriages and interfaith marriages. It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the races of marriage applicants in order to exclude interracial marriage applicants.It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the genders of marriage applicants in order to exclude same gender marriage applicants. It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the religions of marriage applicants in order to exclude interfaith marriage applicants.
The law is incapable of examining race, gender, or religion as a basis for discriminating which applicants are or are not permitted to marry.
People are constitutionally entitled equal protection under the law. Race gender and religion are not permissible traits to examine in determining legal treatment.
The law CAN and DOES discriminate on the basis of age. Minors can be treated differently under the law, minors do not have equal rights to drink, in work, or to marry. The law CAN and DOES discriminate between humans and animals, animals have almost no status of any sort under the law, and most certainly not any legal status to participate in marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who rant of such things don't understand the law, don't much care about legalities and logic, they are just offended by blacks people marrying white people and just insist it must be prohibited. Oh, I'm sorry.... I mean men marring men or women marrying women.
Has the incidence of car theift risen faster than the increase in population? If not there's not even no causation, there isn't even correlation.
Lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation.
It is possible that Pac Man and other computer games do cause children to turn into violent homosexual flag-burning atheist rapist crackheads, but that there is some other correlated effect independently reducing (by about the same amount) the rate of violent homosexual flag-burning atheist rapist crackheadism amongst game playing children. Grin.
No, I was merely wondering whether it was deliberate. The idea that it might have been technologically-generated particularly tickled my funnybone, moreso than the idea of simple intentional humor.
It is criminal to willfully or recklessly injure people, or place them in danger of such.
It is also criminal to cause people to fear for life or limb.
The "fire in a movie theater" thing causes many people to get the whole Free Speech thing wrong. There is law against yelling fire in a movie theater. Congress cannot create a law against yelling fire in a movie theater. Congress can make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.
The key is that congress can and does pass non-speech laws against non-speech crimes, and that there are many cases where someone can incidentally use speech while committing a non-speech crime. The fact that someone was using speech (yelling fire) when he caused the death or injury of people in a movie theater does not change the fact that causing injury or death is a non-speech criminal act.
It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a movie theater, if you are not endangering people's life or limb, and not placing people in fear for life or limb. If you are filming a movie and the theater is filled with actors that know the script calls for yelling fire, then yelling fire is perfectly legal.
It is perfectly legal for me to say "I'll give you $5000 to kill my wife". I in fact have no wife, and moreover it is clear that I am saying it to make a point. Saying those words is only criminal if done with intent to cause that non-speech criminal act to occur. The fact that one happens to use speech as a means of causing a death to occur does not alter the fact that attempting to cause that death is a (non-speech) crime.
And then of course there are dangerous evil people like Tanktalus (grandparent poster), who think they have some right to pull out a gun and kill or imprison anyone for OFFENDING him with speech that is (in his opinion) "obviously irresponsible". People who do not or will not grasp the difference between speech and actual criminal acts.
We just don't have the same reverence for free speech that Americans do, something I find unfortunate.
Even more unfortunate is how few Americans actually do have the reverence for free speech that you think we have.
Hell, half the population here want to goddamn amend the Constitution.... for the sole purpose of allowing them to pass a law making it criminal to burn the US flag. Far far too many people all too eager to criminalize anything that offends them.
Some northerN European countries have a minimum age of 16 or 17 for porn, which is criminal most everywhere else.
The US permits the Vigin Killer CD cover, and "artistic nudes" which are criminal most everywhere else.
Japan and I believe most of Asian permit animated/drawn artwork that is criminal most everywhere else.
The former Soviet Block... well I don't know it it's actually legal or merely lack or enforcement... but the former Soviet Block is notorious for very sexualized nude "modeling".
And of course most countries permit ordinary family photos of children in bathing suits, which are criminal in quite a few countries.
And of course innocent intent family photos from nudist colonies, which entirely randomly are or are-not legal across the globe, or even randomly legal/criminal are varying times and places within a single country.
Every crusading beaurcrat wants to rule the internet and tell everyone else which pictures are naughty and which pictures are not naughty, often with little connection to what actually is or isn't legal even in their own country.
OH MY GOG OH MY GOD OH MY GOD! THERE'S A NIPPLE IN THAT FICTIONAL PENCIL SKETCH OF A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL! ANYONE WITH A COPY OF THAT PICTURE MUST BE PUT IN PRISON!!!!!111!!!1
Unfortunately things are not so simple, for two reasons.
One, AMD is going along with it and building their own version of the same thing. It's not clear if AMD actively wants to push this crap, or if they are reluctantly preparing their own version just in case it catches on.
Secondly, the entire point of Trusted Computing is to screw you over if you DON'T have it. You but some new music or some video or some software, and it only works on a New & Improved modern Trusted-Enhanced-Computer. If you don't have a Trust chip controlling your computer then you can't decrypt the Trusted-DRM music/movie/software. You go to a website, and it pops up a message saying you need a Trusted-Compliant computer. The website refuses to send the webpage to you unless your Trust chip sends a secure crypto message certifying that it is in total control of your PC. You want to run some game or other application that connects to the internet, and the computer at the other end drops the connection unless you are Trusted-Compliant.
You drive through McDonald's buying a pair of Happy Meals for your two young children, and each one comes with a FREE CD toy surprise. Your daughter gets a CD filled with the latest hot Britteny-Bubblehead music, and your son gets this super-cool Spongehead Squarepants computer game. And on the ride home your kids are all excited and arguing over who gets to use the computer first to try out their cool FREE disk first. And you get home and pop in one of the disks, and it says you need to upgrade your computer. And your kids start whining: WHY DOESN'T IT WORK? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER? IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK! OUR COMPUTER IS OLD! OUR COMPUTER SUCKS! WE NEED A NEW COMPYOOOOOOOOOTER!
And then your son starts with - well my friend Bryan has the Spongehead Squarepants game and it works on HIS computer! And your little daughter starts with - Yeah! my friend Mylyssa has the Britteny-Bubblehead CD and it works on HER computer!
And they chant in unison: WE NEED A NEW COMPYOOOOOOOOOTER!
And then mom and dad get sick of the kids whining, and they go out and pay several hundred dollars to buy a new Trusted-Enhanced PC running the latest Microsoft Windows Handcuff-Edition operating system, just to run the goddamn FREE motherfucking CDs for the kids. Because they don't work on your old obsolete computer without a Trust chip to decrypt them.
Or better yet, your boss sends you new secure e-mail. Trusted-secure email. because the new Trusted email has special security features - such as it cant be read on anyone's computer except the person who is supposed to get it. And you can't accidentally (or deliberately) forward that sooper-secret company email to anyone else. And because the boss gets a secure confirmation that it was received and that you opened it. And because the boss can set a Mission-Impossible style self destruct on it, so that it is securely deleted after reading. Or whatever. The new Trusted email has some funk security feature like that, that the boss wants to use. So he just starts using it and sending out those cool new features that are available in his new email sending software. Well, except you can't read the mail unless you have a Trusted Compliant computer. And if you tell your boss you can't read his mail, well guess what? It's your fault. He sent you an email, and you're supposed to be able to read it.And if you can't, well it's because you don't have the compatible software. It's because you have an old incompatible computer. And your boss most certainly does not want to hear your idiotic rant about how you don't want to upgrade to the latest Microsoft operating system, and he doesn't want to hear your idiotic rand about how you refuse to buy a new PC with some "evil" chip in it. Your boss just expects you to fix your problem and read the damn email.
And another fun one - your mostly-computer-illiterate mother or other relative send
But there is an entire litany of problems. They intend to progressively increase the anti-owner physical security, increasingly obnoxious self destruct mechanisms. They intend to revoke your public key if/when they detect that you have jail-broke your system, effectively bricking your hardware, and then you have to go out and pay for another entire PC that they will again revoke. And then there's the expectation that you are doing something wrong and criminal, the expectation that they can and will either sue you into oblivion or even put you in prison under the DMCA or some other new law they dream up. And then there's the problem that everyone who does rely on Trusted Computing actually winds up creating security disasters. Trusted Computing is built upon the security assumption that remote computers are (supposed to be) secure against their owners. This is a blatantly false assumption, any security system build upon invalid assumptions will fail. There will be spectacular security failures, and these events will be blamed on "evil hackers", and will of course only result in more pressure and legislation to consider it criminal for anyone to extract their key or otherwise jail-break their own computer.
And then of course there's the simple point that it is just plain stupid and obnoxious for an owner to need to go thought the cost and effort to (appropriately) extract their own key. And of course anyone offering services to preform that extraction will be considered a criminal, and anyone doing such extractions and reselling theses enhanced-capability computers will be considered a criminal.
First, the other person who already replied to you was absolutely right. Even in the case of business, the business itself or the business owner is the owner of the computer. And it is still illegitimate for the system to consider the owner to be the enemy. This system is still attempting to secure the computer AGAINST the owner.
Second, yes, Intel has explicitly said that vPro is intended for home PCs as well. This stuff is just targeting the business market first.
Next, the "rogue owner" quote was from the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) technical specification. The TPM chip is the central component of vPro. The TPM is explicitly targeted for both business and home use. In fact the Trusted Computing Group has explicitly announced their intention for this chip to become "ubiquitous", a standard component of essentially all computers and most other digital devices.
And lastly: NOT for preserving the non-existent freedoms of individual machines and "owners".
Ha. Putting owner in scare quotes. When I buy a computer I AM the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". My computer is my property. I have every right to rip open my computer, or do whatever I like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call me an "attacker". I cannot "attack" my own property because anything I do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
If I run a small business, then I AM still the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". I still have every right to rip open my computer, or do whatever I like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call me an "attacker". I cannot "attack" my own property because anything I do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
If a major public corporation owns a computer then it IS the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". The management of that company has every right to rip open that computer, or do whatever they like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call them an "attacker". They cannot "attack" their own property because anything they do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
Trusted Computing is designed to be hostile. It is designed to consider the rightful owner to be the enemy. It is designed to "secure" computers against their rightful owners. Trusted Computing is malicious and malignant.
Then Islam can spread to everyone who wishes to practice it and none of the things you describe will happen.
You're not exactly likely to convince him with that argument. He likely considers keeping people from praying to the wrong invisible sky-wizard to be more important than preserving our system and our freedoms and any of that other stuff. I mean really, what's the point of freedom and liberty and democracy when you pray to the wrong sky-wizard, and in His infinitely benevolent infinitely merciful wisdom He gets jealous and tortures you for all eternity?
What a load of crap. At best you are merely naive.
I am a programmer, and in particular I have studied the Trusted Platform Technical Specification documentation. All 332 pages of dense technicaleese. There is one particular page I would like to cite. In the TCPA Main TCG Architecture v1_1b.pdf on page 277 the documentation comes right out and announces the fact it is designed to be secure against "rogue Owners".
You are either mistaken, or you're full of crap. The chip is in fact designed to lock the computer against the owner. Yes, locks that are designed to protect the computer against it's owner will also prevent outside attackers from doing things that the owner himself is forbidden to do. However that is incidental. A hostile Trusted Computing system trying to lock computers against their owners is fundamentally different than a system designed to secure computers for the owner.
If you really do believe that this is solely intended for the benefit of the owner, perhaps you could answer some questions for me.
Why the absolute refusal to implement the EFF's Owner Override proposal? It would give the owner full control of his own computer while still securing against remote attacks. You could even secure against local attackers (other than the owner) by placing adding some sort of Owner Authentication element to the Override system.
Or how about my proposal? I merely want a printed copy of the master key to my own computer. I merely want the option to buy a computer that comes with a printed copy of my master key. (Technical note: I am referring to the PrivEK key, and having the option to export the RSK key encrypted to the PrivEK would be beneficial for ease and security reasons.) Go ahead, explain to why I am absolutely forbidden to know the master key to my own computer. Go ahead and explain why they absolutely refuse to PERMIT anyone to manufacture any compatible Trust Chip that permits the owner to know their own master key.
And best of all, explain to me all of the documented systems and plans to REVOKE and (for all practical purposes) brick any chip if they ever detect that you have learned the master key locked inside you computer, if you ever learn the master key to control your own computer, if they ever detect that you have the power and control to override any DRM system based on the chip.
And don't even try the line about how this revocation system is "not part of the chip itself". The chip was explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner, the chip was explicitly designed to to support that revocation system, and the chip's technical documentation and design specification explicitly mention this revocation system.
The design specs endlessly list all of the things that the owner MUST be forbidden to be able to do, all of the things the owner MUST be forbidden to know, the specification even has a section that mandates that any owner's data under "non-migable keys" MUST be effectively impossible to back up and MUST be irretrievably lost if the chip ever dies.
And on and on and on. Yes, the chip was explicitly designed to consider the owner to be the enemy. The chip is explicitly designed to be secure against "attacks" by the owner. Yes, the current generation of chips are relatively vulnerable to physical attack - by the owner or by a hostile attacker. However it is fundamentally designed to lock against the owner, there is a supplemental specification on how to increase the physical security against the owner and how to certify hardware as possessing stronger anti-owner physical security, and there is mention in the CHIP speck itself and in supplemental specifications on how to revoke and lock-out any chip where an owner does manage to gain local override control over his own computer.
Yes, there are some people working on Trusted Computing with the intent of securing your computer for you, of protecting you against remote attackers. However that does not change the fact tha
You do the same thing. If you say "nature created life" it begs the question "who created nature?"
I believe you are misapplying the phrase begging the question, but that's an irrelevant nitpick.
One can say the universe has always existed (which is no less reasonable than an assertion that God always existed!), or one can say God created the universe, or one can simply answer "science has no good data or answer for that question yet", but in no case does it in any way undermine the fact that evolution is true. All evidence demonstrates the fundamental validity of evolution.
One can say "If chemistry is true, then where did elements come from?". It doesn't matter if an atheistic universe naturally created the elements, it doesn't matter if God created the elements, it doesn't matter if you ask the question in the year 1900 and all the best scientists on the planet answer "we have no clue where elements came from". *Today* we know the science of nuclear fusion, and that that is how elements were made, but there is absolutely nothing wrong if science says it has no answer and no clue on explaining the origin of the elements.
All the evidence still proves CHEMISTRY is still true, no matter what anyone knows or doesn't know about the origins of elements. All the evidence still proves EVOLUTION is still true, no matter what anyone knows or doesn't know about the origins of life or the origin of the universe.
Science says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. Evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God.
Chemistry is true, and if God exists then chemistry is one of God's chosen mechanisms for running the universe. Evolution is true, and if God exists then evolution is one of God's chosen mechanisms for running the universe.
If you think evolution and God are in conflict, then you have a problem with God. You have the hubris to tell God how he is and is not permitted to run His universe.
For what it's worth, aside from the video itself being dishonest which I won't blame you for, I think the troll mod you got hit with was unjustified. You made some reasonable comments and asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner.
The video claims to be "RAW FTGE", which I presume is supposed to mean raw footage, but it was blatantly cut and spliced at the 29-30 second mark. They deceptively cut to what is obviously an answer to a completely different question. They pulled the exact same fraud in the Expelled movie - asking Dawkins one question and then fraudulently cutting to an answer to a completely different question making it look nutty. The people making these anti-evolution propaganda pieces have more than a small problem with honesty and ethics.
But hopefully we can agree it doesn't matter what the video makers did or didn't do, and that it doesn't matter if Dawkins can or cannot answer the question. *I* will answer your question. I hope you reasonably and fairly consider my answer, and I am open to considering any objections or questions you have on it.
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Yes.
There are several ways I can answer this and many examples, and I can cite and link some if you like, but this post I am going to aim for understanding. I am going to try to explain how it can happen in a way that I hope you will agree that "increase the information in the genome" obviously can and would occur. My explanation will take a few steps, but follow along and consider each point, and consider whether you agree each point is reasonable and true.
As you may know, dogs and many other animals are colorblind. There is one particular protein in eye cells that are sensitive to light. That protein is most sensitive to a certain frequency of light - a particular color. And obviously there is a gene that produces that protein.
Now consider some small mutation to that gene, one or two letters of DNA get damages or mis-copied. That DNA will then produce a almost the same protein, but with some small change at one particular spot in the molecule. That can have several possible effects. For one, it may have no effect. The protein may still work. Lets ignore that. A change at some other point may change the protein such that it no longer works - such that it is no longer light sensitive. Well in that case any children carrying that mutation will be blind. We can pretty much assume those blind animals will die, that mutation dies out. We can ignore that too. However there's a third interesting possibility. The vision protein may change a tiny bit such that it is still light sensitive, but it is most sensitive to a slightly different frequency of light. An animal carrying that mutation will still be colorblind - it will still see in black and white - however its vision will will be changed to see a different frequency of light - it will see in black and white based on the brightness of a different color of light.
A this point it would be an extremely weak claim to try to assert that constitutes an "increase in information". In fact I'm not going to make such a claim. Not yet, not here, not with just that. So let's set that animal aside for just a moment, and keep following along.
I want you to consider a different very simple mutation. Consider when DNA is getting copied, part of that DNA gets copied twice in a row. Instead of getting ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, you get ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. The LMNOP in the middle doubled. If LMNOP was the light sensitive vision gene, then the animal will have two copies of the gene. It wouldn't really have any effect on the animal. It would just go about life normally, and having children with the harmless two-copies of the gene.
And no, I'm not going to claim that this mutation increases information either. It's just the same information appearing twice. But follow me just one more moment.
Slashdot Mirror
See, Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination.
See, INTERRACIAL Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination."
One person gives an "IMHO" OPINION that the government should not be involved in legislating marriage.... an argument that I am certain he identically applies to the issue of interracial marriage... and of course some anti-marriage wackjob leaps to the absolutely insane strawman assertion that allowing gays equals "mandating" the elimination.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution the law is not allowed to use race gender and religion as a basis for discriminatory treatment under the law.
A marriage law examining the races of marriage applicants in an attempt to deny interracial marriages is unconstitutional, invalid law. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to solve that invalid law problem by eliminating all marriage law, or we can simply solve that problem by removing racial examination from marriage law - which leaves no means for the law to exclude interracial marriages.
The identical situation applies to gay marriage. A marriage law examining the genders of marriage applicants in an attempt to deny gay marriages is unconstitutional, invalid law. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to solve that invalid law problem by eliminating all marriage law, or we can simply solve that problem by removing gender examination from marriage law - which leaves no means for the law to exclude gay marriages.
Although considering the way you jumped for someone's explicit OPINION for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE into some sort of "gay marriage MANDATES elimination of marriage", it is probably a complete waste of time for me to even attempt to logically discuss the operation and basis of law, and the hows and whys of valid constitutional law vs invalid unconstitutional law.
-
I think you have a reasonable but misplaced argument.
defining gay couples as a legally protected class
Not at all. You actually made an argument about marriage as a legally protected class. It has no particular relevance to gays per se being permitted or denied marriages.
Bible Thumper Baptists' Mutual Insurance [] legally obligated to take homosexual married couples as clients?
The exact same thing would apply to interracial marriage, or to some religion that rejects marriages preformed on Tuesdays.
The gay marriage issue is fundamentally about government action and governmental discrimination. It is impossible to write a marriage law denying interracial marriage applicants. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitutional prohibits the government from examining applicant's races as a basis to discriminate approved vs denied applicants. Equal protection prohibits the law from examining gender or race as a basis for legal treatment. Any law attempting to exclude gay marriages is simply invalid, for the exact same reason as a law trying to exclude interracial marriages.
-
I noticed that elsewhere you suggested eliminating any government/legal status of marriage. That would be a pretty radical and complex change to pull off, but I absolutely agree that would solve the problem as far as I am concerned. Some churches would preform gay marriages, some would preform polygamist marriages, some would preform incestuous marriages, and you know that somewhere some church is going to preform a marriage involving a goat. And most of the people complaining about the definition of marriage now are going to rant even louder. Well, people have every right to believe what they like, and to say what they like, so as far as I'm concerned they can keep believing and keep complaining and the problem is solved so long as no one is hijacking the force of government to write and impose discrimination in the law. The government can put up a public water fountain, or the government can *not* put up a public water fountain, but the government cannot put up a public drinking fountain and slap a "whites only" sign on in, and then proceed to imprison any blacks who use it.
I agree hat eliminating all laws officially granting and recognizing marriages is a legally valid option to resolve the problem. However there currently do exist such laws, and the rest of my post is going to confine itself to addressing the situation where they do exist and for so long as they continue to exist.
If you don't want limits
There are legally valid laws, and there are unconstitutional, invalid, laws. There are a variety of ways that valid laws can be written, a variety of things they can can be written to include or to exclude. The law can and routinely does recognize a legal distinction between minors and adults. The law CAN be written to limit marriages to adults. The law CAN be written with no such limit, written to allow 4-year-olds to marry, however if you propose such a thing I am going to vote against you. The law can and routinely does distinguish between humans and animals. Animals have no constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. You COULD write a valid law granting some sort of marriage involving animals, however if you propose such a thing I am going to vote against you. Just because it is a potentially VALID law does not make it a good or reasonable law.
This is about valid law vs invalid law.
There is no way you can write a valid law granting legal marriage to a white couples, while denying a marriage license to an otherwise identical interracial couple.
The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment under the law, equal civil rights. The law cannot examine people race, gender, or religion, as a basis to discriminate treatment under the law. The law can discriminate between minor and adult, but it cannot discriminate black vs white or male vs female or Catholic vs Protestant vs Jewish. I suspect you agree that is right and good, that as far as the law goes it should treat people as people, legally blind to race and gender and religion.
You cannot write a law granting marriages and denying interracial marriage because the law cannot examine the races of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate acceptable vs unacceptable marriage applications.
The Constitutional basis controlling interracial marriage law applies EXACTLY to gay marriage as well.
You cannot write a law granting marriages and denying gay marriage because the law cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate acceptable vs unacceptable marriage applications.
So long as the government hands out marriage licenses, they can no more use gender examination to deny gay marriages than it can use racial examination to deny interracial marriage.
Any jurisdiction currently denying gay marriage applicants is in violation f the law. In violation of constitutional law. In 1968 numerous states had laws denying interracial marriage. Then, exactly as now, such couples are legally entitled to sue the state under the Equal Pr
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Blacks of course have the right to marry. The same race.
Which is exactly the same rights whites have, to marry the same race.
You cannot write valid law denying gay marriage for exactly the the same reason you cannot write a valid law denying interracial marriages. Under the Equal Protection clause of the constitution you cannot use race, gender, or religion, as a basis to discriminate legal treatment.
You cannot examine the races of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-race vs interracial applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between hetero vs gay applicants for approval or denial.
You cannot examine the religions of marriage applicants in order to discriminate between same-faith vs inter-faith applicants for approval or denial.
Under the Constitution the law MUST be blind to race, gender, and religion.
I'm sure you pretty much agree that that is a GOOD thing, except you want to carve out an exception for marriage law, just because you dislike certain people getting married. And that is no more reasonable and no more valid than the people who did (and still do) want to deny interracial marriage. No different. Writing gender-based-discrimination into the law is no better than writing race-based-discrimination into the law. The law SHOULD and MUST BE blind to race gender and religion of people.
-
a civil union
A Jewish man and a Christian woman go down to city hall and get a civil union preformed by a judge. A civil union is a marriage.
it seems like the majority rules. Well, so far in California, the majority HAS ruled
Might I remind you that in 1968, when the Supreme Court struck down all anti-interracial-marriage laws nationwide, "majority rules" and "democratic majority vote" was 20% in support of equal interracial marriage civil rights and 74% opposed? States all across the country had democratic majority vote laws against interracial marriage.
Gay marriage cannot be legally denied on the exact same basis interracial marriage cannot be denied. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution is it impossible to write a law that examines the races of marriage applicants in order to discriminate which applicants are approved by law and which are denied by law. Under the Equal Protection Clause you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. The must be blind to race, gender, and religion. You cannot write a marriage law that examines the religions of marriage applicants in order to discriminate acceptable same-faith marriages from unacceptable inter-faith marriages. And you cannot examine the genders of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate which marriage applicants to approve or deny under the law.
If something like gay marriage (or marrying an animal
Gay marriage cannot be denied by law under the US Constitution on the exact same basis that interracial marriage cannot be denied by law.
If you wanted to pass a law allowing marriages to animals, well that would be a Constitutionally permissible law, but animals have Equal Protection entitlement to such right to such civil rights, and I for one would most certainly vote against your marriage-to-animals proposal.
polygamy
The law cannot discriminate on the basis of race,
the law cannot discriminate on the basis of gender,
the law cannot discriminate on the basis of religion,
but the law most certainly can distinguish between the numbers one, two, and three. Just because you can cast one vote for president does not mean the law must to permit you to cast three votes for president.
By the way, for forgot to mention the marrying-children one.
And of course the law can and does distinguish between adults and minors. And yeah, I'd kinda sorta slightly vote against it if you proposed changing the law so that four year olds could get married.
-
Hmmm...actually I'm pretty sure that the proponents of Prop 8 worked with in the purview of the constitutional legal system to pass such a law.
It doesn't mean squat if they followed proper state legal procedures for modifying the state constitution. All state laws and all state constitutions are subject to the US Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution the law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant interracial marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the races of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the races of the marriage applicants is null and void.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant gay marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the genders of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the genders of the marriage applicants is null and void.
There is simply no way to write a valid law granting marriages that does not also grant interfaith marriages. Any attempt by the law to examine the religions of the marriage applicants to discriminate between approved and rejected marriages would be invalid. The portion of the law examining the religions of the marriage applicants is null and void.
The exact same legal basis that struck down dozens of state laws barring interracial marriages applies to gay marriages. It is no more possible to to legally exclude gay marriages than it is possible to legally exclude interracial marriage.
And legalities aside, people may still be fighting the battles but the war is over. In 1948 when a California court issues the first ever ruling in support of interracial marriage (equivalent to the Massachusetts ruling in support of the first gay marriage), public opinion was 92% against interracial marriages. In 1968 when the US Supreme Court forcibly imposed interracial marriage rights nation wide, public approval for interracial marriage polled at 20%. Hell, even as recently as 1994 public approval for interracial marriage was still polling was below 50%.
Gay marriage is following nearly the exact same course interracial marriage took, both legally and socially. However acceptance of gay marriage is far higher than it was for interracial marriage, and in fact the acceptance rate for gay marriage is rising roughly twice as fast as interracial marriage was accepted.
In both cases the younger generation overwhelmingly saw/sees it as a civil rights and equal rights issue, accepting such marriages. In both cases it is and was senior citizens most opposed. The war is over. In a war of generational shift, the old discrimination and the old generation always lose. The younger generation always wins, even if they ave to bury the older generation to do it. The older generation racist opponents of interracial marriage just plain die faster. Opposition to gay marriage is primarily in the oldest population, and they are just plain dying down their percentages. The under 35 population overwhelmingly accept gay marriage, and the overall social acceptance of gay marriage has been increasing by almost 2% per year. California is currently in the process of crossing the 50% threshold right now, an the nation as a whole will be bumping up on the 50% level by the time the next two presidential elections roll around.
There is no way to fight a generational shift. The war is over. Gay marriage is taking the same course as interracial marriage, and those who dogmatically oppose it will just plain die out as the racists against interracial marriage have been dying out. Approval of interracial marriage was 20% when the courts nationally affirmed it. Even without the courts, the flat out majority vote is rapidly and unstoppably shifting in support of equal gay marriage rights.
-
To certain people, gays will never be married.
To certain people, blacks and whites will never be married.
And that theme pretty well covers everything in your post.
definitions are set and clear.... /. It is about keeping somethings defined as they are.
So its not getting "hung up" on a word. It is about more than realistically can be said or summed up on
Yeah. It's about keeping things defined as they are. It is about the exact same people and the exact same logic and the exact same arguments to legally prohibit interracial marriage.
It is about common sense.
Right. The exact same "common sense" that said blacks and whites could not marry.
not calling an ocean a mountain or calling a table a chair or calling an apple an orange.
Right. We shouldn't call a black man with a white woman a "marriage", because it is apples and oranges. If two people love each other and are living together as a couple, well race or gender makes it apples and oranges.
Yes, it may be fashionable to be so called "tolerant" in some circles.
Yes, in some circles it is "fashionable" to be tolerant of interracial marriage.
But these supposed "tolerant" folks are intolerant to those that express their disagreement
It's funny how intolerant racist bigots have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the word "tolerance", and try to play this persecution complex that other people are intolerant against them.
I am quite tolerant of bigots and assholes. What I am not tolerant of is attempts by bigots and assholes to hijack the law to legally oppress people they don't like. THAT is intolerance. Hijacking the force of law to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective races of the people involved, to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective genders of the people involved, to prohibit people from marrying because you dislike the respective religions of the people involved, that is bigotry and asshattery, and moreover that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Under the US Constitution you cannot deny people equal treatment under the law on the basis or race, gender, or religion. You can choose to have a low granting civil marriages, or you can not have any government recognized marriage at all, however it is impossible to write a valid law granting marriages without also granting interracial marriages and same sex marriages and interfaith marriages. It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the races of marriage applicants in order to exclude interracial marriage applicants.It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the genders of marriage applicants in order to exclude same gender marriage applicants. It is impossible to write a constitutional marriage law that examines the religions of marriage applicants in order to exclude interfaith marriage applicants.
The law is incapable of examining race, gender, or religion as a basis for discriminating which applicants are or are not permitted to marry.
People are constitutionally entitled equal protection under the law. Race gender and religion are not permissible traits to examine in determining legal treatment.
The law CAN and DOES discriminate on the basis of age. Minors can be treated differently under the law, minors do not have equal rights to drink, in work, or to marry. The law CAN and DOES discriminate between humans and animals, animals have almost no status of any sort under the law, and most certainly not any legal status to participate in marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who rant of such things don't understand the law, don't much care about legalities and logic, they are just offended by blacks people marrying white people and just insist it must be prohibited. Oh, I'm sorry.... I mean men marring men or women marrying women.
-
Do they even ask the opinion of experts like paedopsychatrists or anything before writing such laws?
Of course they did. They just made sure to ask the right ones.
-
Has the incidence of car theift risen faster than the increase in population? If not there's not even no causation, there isn't even correlation.
Lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation.
It is possible that Pac Man and other computer games do cause children to turn into violent homosexual flag-burning atheist rapist crackheads, but that there is some other correlated effect independently reducing (by about the same amount) the rate of violent homosexual flag-burning atheist rapist crackheadism amongst game playing children. Grin.
-
I'm immune to the worm. I'm still running Windows98 and it doesn't have "Windows Server service" and all that other wormbait crap.
Oh, hold on.... I'll be right back. I've been online 40 minutes and I need to reboot.
-
No, I was merely wondering whether it was deliberate. The idea that it might have been technologically-generated particularly tickled my funnybone, moreso than the idea of simple intentional humor.
-
That's not your left nut. That's your head. Disgust.
And the big question....
Was "Disgust" deliberate, or a spellchecko?
-
It is criminal to willfully or recklessly injure people, or place them in danger of such.
It is also criminal to cause people to fear for life or limb.
The "fire in a movie theater" thing causes many people to get the whole Free Speech thing wrong. There is law against yelling fire in a movie theater. Congress cannot create a law against yelling fire in a movie theater. Congress can make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.
The key is that congress can and does pass non-speech laws against non-speech crimes, and that there are many cases where someone can incidentally use speech while committing a non-speech crime. The fact that someone was using speech (yelling fire) when he caused the death or injury of people in a movie theater does not change the fact that causing injury or death is a non-speech criminal act.
It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a movie theater, if you are not endangering people's life or limb, and not placing people in fear for life or limb. If you are filming a movie and the theater is filled with actors that know the script calls for yelling fire, then yelling fire is perfectly legal.
It is perfectly legal for me to say "I'll give you $5000 to kill my wife". I in fact have no wife, and moreover it is clear that I am saying it to make a point. Saying those words is only criminal if done with intent to cause that non-speech criminal act to occur. The fact that one happens to use speech as a means of causing a death to occur does not alter the fact that attempting to cause that death is a (non-speech) crime.
And then of course there are dangerous evil people like Tanktalus (grandparent poster), who think they have some right to pull out a gun and kill or imprison anyone for OFFENDING him with speech that is (in his opinion) "obviously irresponsible". People who do not or will not grasp the difference between speech and actual criminal acts.
-
We just don't have the same reverence for free speech that Americans do, something I find unfortunate.
Even more unfortunate is how few Americans actually do have the reverence for free speech that you think we have.
Hell, half the population here want to goddamn amend the Constitution.... for the sole purpose of allowing them to pass a law making it criminal to burn the US flag. Far far too many people all too eager to criminalize anything that offends them.
-
Which country allows hosting child-porn?
Pretty much all of them.
Some northerN European countries have a minimum age of 16 or 17 for porn, which is criminal most everywhere else.
The US permits the Vigin Killer CD cover, and "artistic nudes" which are criminal most everywhere else.
Japan and I believe most of Asian permit animated/drawn artwork that is criminal most everywhere else.
The former Soviet Block... well I don't know it it's actually legal or merely lack or enforcement... but the former Soviet Block is notorious for very sexualized nude "modeling".
And of course most countries permit ordinary family photos of children in bathing suits, which are criminal in quite a few countries.
And of course innocent intent family photos from nudist colonies, which entirely randomly are or are-not legal across the globe, or even randomly legal/criminal are varying times and places within a single country.
Every crusading beaurcrat wants to rule the internet and tell everyone else which pictures are naughty and which pictures are not naughty, often with little connection to what actually is or isn't legal even in their own country.
OH MY GOG OH MY GOD OH MY GOD! THERE'S A NIPPLE IN THAT FICTIONAL PENCIL SKETCH OF A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL! ANYONE WITH A COPY OF THAT PICTURE MUST BE PUT IN PRISON!!!!!111!!!1
-
Can't we just buy AMD?
Unfortunately things are not so simple, for two reasons.
One, AMD is going along with it and building their own version of the same thing. It's not clear if AMD actively wants to push this crap, or if they are reluctantly preparing their own version just in case it catches on.
Secondly, the entire point of Trusted Computing is to screw you over if you DON'T have it. You but some new music or some video or some software, and it only works on a New & Improved modern Trusted-Enhanced-Computer. If you don't have a Trust chip controlling your computer then you can't decrypt the Trusted-DRM music/movie/software. You go to a website, and it pops up a message saying you need a Trusted-Compliant computer. The website refuses to send the webpage to you unless your Trust chip sends a secure crypto message certifying that it is in total control of your PC. You want to run some game or other application that connects to the internet, and the computer at the other end drops the connection unless you are Trusted-Compliant.
You drive through McDonald's buying a pair of Happy Meals for your two young children, and each one comes with a FREE CD toy surprise. Your daughter gets a CD filled with the latest hot Britteny-Bubblehead music, and your son gets this super-cool Spongehead Squarepants computer game. And on the ride home your kids are all excited and arguing over who gets to use the computer first to try out their cool FREE disk first. And you get home and pop in one of the disks, and it says you need to upgrade your computer. And your kids start whining:
WHY DOESN'T IT WORK?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER?
IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK!
OUR COMPUTER IS OLD!
OUR COMPUTER SUCKS!
WE NEED A NEW COMPYOOOOOOOOOTER!
And then your son starts with - well my friend Bryan has the Spongehead Squarepants game and it works on HIS computer!
And your little daughter starts with - Yeah! my friend Mylyssa has the Britteny-Bubblehead CD and it works on HER computer!
And they chant in unison:
WE NEED A NEW COMPYOOOOOOOOOTER!
And then mom and dad get sick of the kids whining, and they go out and pay several hundred dollars to buy a new Trusted-Enhanced PC running the latest Microsoft Windows Handcuff-Edition operating system, just to run the goddamn FREE motherfucking CDs for the kids. Because they don't work on your old obsolete computer without a Trust chip to decrypt them.
Or better yet, your boss sends you new secure e-mail. Trusted-secure email. because the new Trusted email has special security features - such as it cant be read on anyone's computer except the person who is supposed to get it. And you can't accidentally (or deliberately) forward that sooper-secret company email to anyone else. And because the boss gets a secure confirmation that it was received and that you opened it. And because the boss can set a Mission-Impossible style self destruct on it, so that it is securely deleted after reading. Or whatever. The new Trusted email has some funk security feature like that, that the boss wants to use. So he just starts using it and sending out those cool new features that are available in his new email sending software. Well, except you can't read the mail unless you have a Trusted Compliant computer. And if you tell your boss you can't read his mail, well guess what? It's your fault. He sent you an email, and you're supposed to be able to read it.And if you can't, well it's because you don't have the compatible software. It's because you have an old incompatible computer. And your boss most certainly does not want to hear your idiotic rant about how you don't want to upgrade to the latest Microsoft operating system, and he doesn't want to hear your idiotic rand about how you refuse to buy a new PC with some "evil" chip in it. Your boss just expects you to fix your problem and read the damn email.
And another fun one - your mostly-computer-illiterate mother or other relative send
pulling the keys straight out of the hardware
Oh, I absolutely agree.
But there is an entire litany of problems. They intend to progressively increase the anti-owner physical security, increasingly obnoxious self destruct mechanisms. They intend to revoke your public key if/when they detect that you have jail-broke your system, effectively bricking your hardware, and then you have to go out and pay for another entire PC that they will again revoke. And then there's the expectation that you are doing something wrong and criminal, the expectation that they can and will either sue you into oblivion or even put you in prison under the DMCA or some other new law they dream up. And then there's the problem that everyone who does rely on Trusted Computing actually winds up creating security disasters. Trusted Computing is built upon the security assumption that remote computers are (supposed to be) secure against their owners. This is a blatantly false assumption, any security system build upon invalid assumptions will fail. There will be spectacular security failures, and these events will be blamed on "evil hackers", and will of course only result in more pressure and legislation to consider it criminal for anyone to extract their key or otherwise jail-break their own computer.
And then of course there's the simple point that it is just plain stupid and obnoxious for an owner to need to go thought the cost and effort to (appropriately) extract their own key. And of course anyone offering services to preform that extraction will be considered a criminal, and anyone doing such extractions and reselling theses enhanced-capability computers will be considered a criminal.
Sigh.
-
First, the other person who already replied to you was absolutely right. Even in the case of business, the business itself or the business owner is the owner of the computer. And it is still illegitimate for the system to consider the owner to be the enemy. This system is still attempting to secure the computer AGAINST the owner.
Second, yes, Intel has explicitly said that vPro is intended for home PCs as well. This stuff is just targeting the business market first.
Next, the "rogue owner" quote was from the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) technical specification. The TPM chip is the central component of vPro. The TPM is explicitly targeted for both business and home use. In fact the Trusted Computing Group has explicitly announced their intention for this chip to become "ubiquitous", a standard component of essentially all computers and most other digital devices.
And lastly:
NOT for preserving the non-existent freedoms of individual machines and "owners".
Ha. Putting owner in scare quotes.
When I buy a computer I AM the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". My computer is my property. I have every right to rip open my computer, or do whatever I like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call me an "attacker". I cannot "attack" my own property because anything I do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
If I run a small business, then I AM still the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". I still have every right to rip open my computer, or do whatever I like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call me an "attacker". I cannot "attack" my own property because anything I do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
If a major public corporation owns a computer then it IS the owner. Not some sarcastic-scare-quotes "owner". The management of that company has every right to rip open that computer, or do whatever they like with it. It is entirely illegitimate and nonsensical to call them an "attacker". They cannot "attack" their own property because anything they do is inherently authorized, legitimate, and rightful.
Trusted Computing is designed to be hostile. It is designed to consider the rightful owner to be the enemy. It is designed to "secure" computers against their rightful owners. Trusted Computing is malicious and malignant.
-
Then Islam can spread to everyone who wishes to practice it and none of the things you describe will happen.
You're not exactly likely to convince him with that argument.
He likely considers keeping people from praying to the wrong invisible sky-wizard to be more important than preserving our system and our freedoms and any of that other stuff. I mean really, what's the point of freedom and liberty and democracy when you pray to the wrong sky-wizard, and in His infinitely benevolent infinitely merciful wisdom He gets jealous and tortures you for all eternity?
-
Orly?
What a load of crap. At best you are merely naive.
I am a programmer, and in particular I have studied the Trusted Platform Technical Specification documentation. All 332 pages of dense technicaleese. There is one particular page I would like to cite. In the TCPA Main TCG Architecture v1_1b.pdf on page 277 the documentation comes right out and announces the fact it is designed to be secure against "rogue Owners".
You are either mistaken, or you're full of crap. The chip is in fact designed to lock the computer against the owner. Yes, locks that are designed to protect the computer against it's owner will also prevent outside attackers from doing things that the owner himself is forbidden to do. However that is incidental. A hostile Trusted Computing system trying to lock computers against their owners is fundamentally different than a system designed to secure computers for the owner.
If you really do believe that this is solely intended for the benefit of the owner, perhaps you could answer some questions for me.
Why the absolute refusal to implement the EFF's Owner Override proposal? It would give the owner full control of his own computer while still securing against remote attacks. You could even secure against local attackers (other than the owner) by placing adding some sort of Owner Authentication element to the Override system.
Or how about my proposal? I merely want a printed copy of the master key to my own computer. I merely want the option to buy a computer that comes with a printed copy of my master key. (Technical note: I am referring to the PrivEK key, and having the option to export the RSK key encrypted to the PrivEK would be beneficial for ease and security reasons.) Go ahead, explain to why I am absolutely forbidden to know the master key to my own computer. Go ahead and explain why they absolutely refuse to PERMIT anyone to manufacture any compatible Trust Chip that permits the owner to know their own master key.
And best of all, explain to me all of the documented systems and plans to REVOKE and (for all practical purposes) brick any chip if they ever detect that you have learned the master key locked inside you computer, if you ever learn the master key to control your own computer, if they ever detect that you have the power and control to override any DRM system based on the chip.
And don't even try the line about how this revocation system is "not part of the chip itself". The chip was explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner, the chip was explicitly designed to to support that revocation system, and the chip's technical documentation and design specification explicitly mention this revocation system.
The design specs endlessly list all of the things that the owner MUST be forbidden to be able to do, all of the things the owner MUST be forbidden to know, the specification even has a section that mandates that any owner's data under "non-migable keys" MUST be effectively impossible to back up and MUST be irretrievably lost if the chip ever dies.
And on and on and on. Yes, the chip was explicitly designed to consider the owner to be the enemy. The chip is explicitly designed to be secure against "attacks" by the owner. Yes, the current generation of chips are relatively vulnerable to physical attack - by the owner or by a hostile attacker. However it is fundamentally designed to lock against the owner, there is a supplemental specification on how to increase the physical security against the owner and how to certify hardware as possessing stronger anti-owner physical security, and there is mention in the CHIP speck itself and in supplemental specifications on how to revoke and lock-out any chip where an owner does manage to gain local override control over his own computer.
Yes, there are some people working on Trusted Computing with the intent of securing your computer for you, of protecting you against remote attackers. However that does not change the fact tha
Fifteen dolla. Me love you long time. Me so horny.
-
You could simplify WoW down to a joystick and two buttons.
Warrior needs food, badly.
Elf has been eating all the food lately!
-
if you're not precise with your words, the ID crowd get funny ideas.
Yeah, right. As if they don't get funny ideas when we *are* precise :)
-
You do the same thing. If you say "nature created life" it begs the question "who created nature?"
I believe you are misapplying the phrase begging the question, but that's an irrelevant nitpick.
One can say the universe has always existed (which is no less reasonable than an assertion that God always existed!), or one can say God created the universe, or one can simply answer "science has no good data or answer for that question yet", but in no case does it in any way undermine the fact that evolution is true. All evidence demonstrates the fundamental validity of evolution.
One can say "If chemistry is true, then where did elements come from?". It doesn't matter if an atheistic universe naturally created the elements, it doesn't matter if God created the elements, it doesn't matter if you ask the question in the year 1900 and all the best scientists on the planet answer "we have no clue where elements came from". *Today* we know the science of nuclear fusion, and that that is how elements were made, but there is absolutely nothing wrong if science says it has no answer and no clue on explaining the origin of the elements.
All the evidence still proves CHEMISTRY is still true, no matter what anyone knows or doesn't know about the origins of elements. All the evidence still proves EVOLUTION is still true, no matter what anyone knows or doesn't know about the origins of life or the origin of the universe.
Science says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. Evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God.
Chemistry is true, and if God exists then chemistry is one of God's chosen mechanisms for running the universe.
Evolution is true, and if God exists then evolution is one of God's chosen mechanisms for running the universe.
If you think evolution and God are in conflict, then you have a problem with God. You have the hubris to tell God how he is and is not permitted to run His universe.
-
For what it's worth, aside from the video itself being dishonest which I won't blame you for, I think the troll mod you got hit with was unjustified. You made some reasonable comments and asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner.
The video claims to be "RAW FTGE", which I presume is supposed to mean raw footage, but it was blatantly cut and spliced at the 29-30 second mark. They deceptively cut to what is obviously an answer to a completely different question. They pulled the exact same fraud in the Expelled movie - asking Dawkins one question and then fraudulently cutting to an answer to a completely different question making it look nutty. The people making these anti-evolution propaganda pieces have more than a small problem with honesty and ethics.
But hopefully we can agree it doesn't matter what the video makers did or didn't do, and that it doesn't matter if Dawkins can or cannot answer the question. *I* will answer your question. I hope you reasonably and fairly consider my answer, and I am open to considering any objections or questions you have on it.
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Yes.
There are several ways I can answer this and many examples, and I can cite and link some if you like, but this post I am going to aim for understanding. I am going to try to explain how it can happen in a way that I hope you will agree that "increase the information in the genome" obviously can and would occur. My explanation will take a few steps, but follow along and consider each point, and consider whether you agree each point is reasonable and true.
As you may know, dogs and many other animals are colorblind. There is one particular protein in eye cells that are sensitive to light. That protein is most sensitive to a certain frequency of light - a particular color. And obviously there is a gene that produces that protein.
Now consider some small mutation to that gene, one or two letters of DNA get damages or mis-copied. That DNA will then produce a almost the same protein, but with some small change at one particular spot in the molecule. That can have several possible effects. For one, it may have no effect. The protein may still work. Lets ignore that. A change at some other point may change the protein such that it no longer works - such that it is no longer light sensitive. Well in that case any children carrying that mutation will be blind. We can pretty much assume those blind animals will die, that mutation dies out. We can ignore that too. However there's a third interesting possibility. The vision protein may change a tiny bit such that it is still light sensitive, but it is most sensitive to a slightly different frequency of light. An animal carrying that mutation will still be colorblind - it will still see in black and white - however its vision will will be changed to see a different frequency of light - it will see in black and white based on the brightness of a different color of light.
A this point it would be an extremely weak claim to try to assert that constitutes an "increase in information". In fact I'm not going to make such a claim. Not yet, not here, not with just that. So let's set that animal aside for just a moment, and keep following along.
I want you to consider a different very simple mutation. Consider when DNA is getting copied, part of that DNA gets copied twice in a row. Instead of getting ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, you get ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. The LMNOP in the middle doubled. If LMNOP was the light sensitive vision gene, then the animal will have two copies of the gene. It wouldn't really have any effect on the animal. It would just go about life normally, and having children with the harmless two-copies of the gene.
And no, I'm not going to claim that this mutation increases information either. It's just the same information appearing twice. But follow me just one more moment.
Now lets cons