Because I do NOT trust code from Russia, China, anywhere in the Middle East, and a few other places. Just look at all the crime (Target for one) that's based in Russia alone.
Well, unfortunately, maintainers have found they also cannot trust sources in the US and other nations due to corporate and government intrusion either. Nor can you trust the code is entirely bug free, and who knows if the security flaw bug was intentionally introduced.
The only answer for open source maintainers is constant vigilance. NOBODY is to be trusted.
Search back to when Linus Torvalds was asked if the NSA and other agencies had ever tried to make him to install back doors in the kernel. He said "Noooo..." while emphatically nodding his head "yes". He also claims to verify all the submissions that make it in, and claims to double-check all submissions that claim to have been made by him since spoofed changes have been known to happen.
Based on the heated, usually profanity-laden messages from the kernel mailing list when a maintainer lets a kernel bug through and he caught it, I'd say his personal level of distrust is just about right for what he is maintaining. Not even the highest-level maintainers have his complete trust.
But that's easily solved by XP Mode, which can be downloaded from Microsoft's site. So let's say she has a computer w/ Windows 7 and needs to run this, she can, for this application, run XP mode, run her greetings & card workshop in that Window, and she'd be just fine. She doesn't have to put up w/ all the security holes that won't be patched under XP moving forward.
I think you missed the point:
She has no apparent need to replace XP. The software does everything she requires.
She uses a computer for tasks X, Y, an Z. The computer she has right now today is able to perform those tasks in a satisfactory manner.
Sure, she can go buy a new operating system, also a new computer because her 10-year-old box won't handle it well, and also the latest generation of a bunch of software, and also install XP mode to run her old programs, and the net result is that she is running exactly the same system she had before, just on a newer box. It solves no problems except perhaps imminent hardware failure due to dust and age.
She currently has no need for the replacement software. Her current solution works just fine, thank you very much.
There are occasional gems in the comments, enough to make older visitors browse them, but you are quite correct, most of us have moved on to better sources of news.
Quit complaining, it doesn't help. I suggest visiting reddit and finding some topics you enjoy, perhaps/r/programming or/r/technology, and also move along to sources like IEEE and ACM discussion groups.
SSL/TLS communications are just as secure as they always were.
No, it is not.
CA model is much more important than the public CA "trust". There is nothing stopping an application designer from using private CAs for their application. This bug breaks the trust to any CAs, including the private ones.
Let's think about it (as a thought experiment) what is required for this to be an effective attack.
SSL spoofing is already a common attack. Not just France and the NSA but also regular old password-sniffers. This vulnerability falls under the same class of attack as SSL spoofing; a trusted certificate is secretly replaced by an untrusted certificate.
There were some common examples right after unicode was allowed in domain names and people came up with similar-looking links for major companies with unicode symbols that look identical to the ascii glyphs. That will be one comparison. The other comparison will be for a government-style ssl spoof attack.
First, the attacker must redirect you from the legitimate site to their illegitimate site. This is equally difficult with or without the TLS attack.
The government-style attack could intercept the traffic over the wire and redirect you to the bad MitM manually.
The fake link version could use bad links in phishing emails or spamming the internet with the fake link to the MitM server. Other options include host entries and software secretly installed on the machine. In any event, the bug does not affect this most difficult step.
Second, they need to appear as a valid connection. For the TLS bug, the attacker must create a false certificate that will test as valid. With the bug being known, that is pretty easy. Then they must use this when the certificate is requested during TLS handshaking. Now contrast this with a traditional attacker who must get their certificate signed by a CA for the fake domain; this is also fairly easy to do in practice. Many fake-name certs have been issued over the years and successfully used in news-reported attacks. Sometimes certificates have been forged in other ways, such as the Flame virus. Similarly the spy agencies have no difficulty getting their fake certificates signed by a CA.
Finally, the attacker needs to make a connection with the legitimate host. This is the same in all conditions, and has been successfully been used in SSL spoof attacks for years. When there is secondary authentication required the MitM just requests the data from the client. Complex attacks can sometimes permit a second connection directly to the victim where two-factor authentication across servers is required in such a way that the authentication passes. Nothing new here.
So really, the only thing the bug makes easier is the task of getting a fake certificate. Since this was arguably the EASIEST step in SSL Spoofing to begin with, and because SSL Spoofing is long-established as an easy attack that is difficult for lay people to detect, it means the attack really is a relatively small issue.
The bug requires a carefully-crafted certificate. That certificate will verify as valid and trusted when it should not be. The connection will still be secure, it will just be with an untrusted person.
So basically it allows a very dedicated attacker to forge a cert and become a MitM attack.
We all know governments have done this for years. It is widely known that root CA certificates have been violated by spy agencies. A few searches on Google will show bunches of news stories where attackers (all types, government attackers, ID theft attackers, etc) have made fake certificates, abused the CA model, and engaged in similar MitM attacks to what this allows.
SSL/TLS communications are just as secure as they always were. If you have personally verified and trusted the certificates the attack wouldn't work, it is only when your trust model allows a cert that you don't personally trust to be used in authentication, and even then it still allows a secure connection but to a wrongly-trusted individual.
The flaw is the trust model and using a cert that you don't personally trust to be valid, which is a well-known issue.
5GB @4G works for me. The many geeks I work with and have talked about this with have also said it works for them, too.
During the day it automatically switches to wifi while I'm around the office. Same at home, the phone is on wifi. The system automatically uses wifi-based calling, so it doesn't use either my phone's voice minutes or data.
If for some reason you consume more phone bandwidth than that you'll need to go to a different plan. That was the lowest-cost phone+data plan, there are many more to choose from if your needs are different.
Stockholders do not manage the company. They vote for the board of directors, which manages the rest. Only in special circumstances, like an offer to privatize the company, do the votes have any direct effect.
There have also been many lawsuits over the years trying to force the behavior in either direction.
There were a whole bunch of them in the 1940s to 1960s. Some state courts ruled that the business owners must be compelled to consider a profit motive in all things, others ruled that the executive boards were hired and placed in the positions so they could decide what was best, even if the changes were contrary to other common business plans or did no consider a profit motive. Exactly which rules apply depend on the state.
If the group represented a large enough collection of stockholders, maybe 5% or 10%, they could probably compel Apple to change through the courts to make the cheapest decision rather than a morally-guided decision. Without that kind of number they'll just need to accept the decisions of the board.
Verizon DSL is another weird story. I was their customer many years ago, getting around 5 Mbps down on a plan that promised up to 7. One day, they throttled it down to 1.5.... 1.1-3.0 Mbps down and 384 Kbps up.
Weird. I guess it really depends on where you live. Based on the email address and the info on the blog, it puts you right in dense Los Angeles suburbia. I cannot fathom the area having such pathetically bad ISPs, although because of the location I can imagine price gouging by corporations. (On second thought, I can imagine the price gouging no matter where you live.)
If we move, I've already got it own as a condition with my wife that the new home have fiber to the home; it can be Google Fiber, or any of the cities with municipal fiber, or even hook it up as part of moving in as long as it is available. FttH is becoming much like electric connections were a century ago. In just a few short years we'll be wondering how so many people live without it.
Oh, and the cost, a whopping $43 total combined bill for the 16/8 connection. Also, it looks like they do have a public static address listed as included as part of the package, so scratch that part, it wasn't luck, just XMission continuing to offer great support.
Who provides you DSL that doesn't slow down at peak? In my area it slows down, and even becomes dead at 830 every night like clockwork (two different providers).
Hmm. Sucks to be you.:-(
Cable has lines that run through the neighborhood. Those copper wires are shared at multiple houses, then hook up with a box by the major roads that connect it with fiber. If you have lots of people on a shared line it gets saturated very quickly. Also, if too many people on all of the lines begin to saturate the fiber equipment, it can slow down there, too.
DSL also has a wire that runs from the home to the DSLAM by the major road that connects to fiber; however, the wire is not shared with anyone. The DSLAM box can still be overwhelmed if too many in the area are running, but the connection from the home to the box at the corner is dedicated to the individual; that "last mile" segment should never have downtime and should never be slow since it is a direct wire from your home to the box.
If your DSL bandwidth slows down at peak times I'm guessing the phone company has over-saturated their equipment at the box or between the box and the CO. Sad, really, but with a monopoly you don't get many options when they do that. (Well, you might have some options. Somebody might accidentally damage the box, causing some down time but also some repairs and upgrades if you are lucky. You wouldn't want to have that accident yourself, so you might want to drop some hints to some pesky teenage vandals or something. Kids these days...)
As for resetting at 8:30, sounds like your providers are just jerks. I have read about some who intentionally reset the devices and daily rotate the IP address and drop 'poison packets' into BitTorrent and otherwise deter people from using the connection they paid for. Fortunately I don't have that problem. Also, even though my ISP offers static IP addresses I never paid for one, and my home device has had the same IP address ever since they updated the DSL equipment in the neighborhood about four years ago. Over those years I really only had two days with connectivity problems, both due to backhoes. Yay XMission for awesomeness.
Is that unlimited Internet service? No caps and fast like cable (e.g., 15/1)? I care not about voice.
If you want a big plan, T-Mobile's prepaid internet is cheap. Some of their older better plans are gone, but they still list $30/month for 100 minutes talk (10 cents per minute over), unlimited text, and data with 5 gigabytes of 4G, then unlimited 2G. There are no bonus fees added to the bill.
If you prefer a dumb-phone, prepaid through T-Mobile is ten cents per minute, ten cents per text, with no other fees. As long as you use put more money in every year the minutes don't expire. That's what we use for my kids' phones since I much prefer them to use dumb phones for parenting reasons. Combined we spend only a few dollars per month on their phones.
My household's monthly cell bill is about $40 to $45, with four phones in use.
Agreed. While the story submitter did get a lower cost, he still lost.
He is getting a phone connection for "$20 plus taxes and fees". They *love* those phone fees, as they can get away with $15 or more on untaxed profit. I'm sure he'll be pleasantly surprised by that.
Also, it is surprising that the DSL alternative is really 1.5Mbit. I'm guessing he hasn't verified that, as most modern DSL connections have a max of 24Mbit if the DSLAM box is relatively close in the neighborhood.
I will never do cable again. I get 16 down/ 8 up DSL for about 1/3 the cost of my neighbors who pay for "up to 25Mbit" Comcast shared cable. The funny thing is that with talking to my neighbors, none of them actually get those speeds. One of my neighbors who is a techie says he gets about 10Mbit during the day, and about 2Mbit during peak evening hours. At least with DSL my speeds are consistent rather than shared with everybody. The funny thing is that they refuse to switch because they want the TV shows, so they stick with the slower cable internet because is somehow they have a better value because it is a bundle. (I don't understand how their brains work, they figure costs using the "up to 25 Mbit" speed rather than "measured 2Mbit" speed... Oh well, Comcast makes money on normal people who are bad at math but good at corporate jingles. )
Some areas also have directional fixed-antenna wireless internet. Right now locally Digis is slightly slower and slightly more expensive than my ADSL connection, but if it becomes a better deal I'm jumping over to them instead. I have zero brand loyalty. As for phone, prepaid cell service costs me about $16/month for my smart phone, including my data and texting. With the phones in my family our combined monthly phone expenses are about $40.
If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces? Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles?... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.
Yes, businesses and individuals can discriminate on almost anything. And they do. We discriminate based on personality, attitudes, clothing, work history, salary, ability to pay, credit history, and so much more. Businesses CAN and DO discriminate all the time, and it is perfectly legal.
Federal law prohibit discrimination based on: race, religion, age (40 and over), gender, pregnancy, citizenship, disability status, veteran status, genetic information, or sexual orientation.... unless one of those things is relevant to the job or the action at hand. If you are looking for a clothing model for women's fashion in the 20-something age group, you absolutely can discriminate the models based on those relevant items like apparent age and gender as well.
Most people hear "discriminate" and instantly jump to "horrible awful treatment of minorities". That is not what the word means.
Most people hear the words "discriminate" and immediately think to evil, horrible, offensive actions.
The truth is that we discriminate all the time. We have to. There is a very short list of things that employers and governments are prohibited from discriminating against, but everything else is fair game.
When we have job interviews, we discriminate based on education, personality, work history, the perceived ability to to do the job, felony convictions, and so much more. We cannot discriminate based on age, gender, nationality, race, religion, veteran status, family status, sexual orientation, and a few others, but that is only because they are not significant to being a programmer. If they are relevant to the job (such as gender of a guard in the case of an all-women prison or something) then these can also be used for discrimination.
Many state courts and also many LGBT groups are pushing far beyond that. It is increasingly common to say that because the possibility exists for sexual orientation discrimination, businesses are COMPELLED to give them preferential treatments and cannot discriminate based on any other (perfectly legal) factors. A business may have many other reasons to stop working with someone, maybe they don't like the attitude or they just don't feel comfortable around them. But if the business is working with anyone in the LGBT community, be careful because some of them will sue you for everything under the perceived slight that the discrimination is not based on personality or a litigious attitude, but based on sexual orientation.
Uh... I'm no photographer, but I understand that one wouldn't mind taking pictures in straight scenes while being incomfortable regarding gay scenes, religious belief is not even a matter here, neither is homophobia.
Then it sounds like you would want this Arizona law. It says that basically while they don't want discrimination, they'll accept some since the alternative is to compel people an businesses into potentially bad choices.
I agree with you, as mentioned at several other points along the discussion. When the choice is between government-compelled actions and freedom, the default should be freedom.
The zero-thought, zero-tolerance "ALL THINGS NON-TRADITONALLY-SEXUAL MUST BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE!" cry going around the nation is just as bad as the "ALL WEAPONS AND POTENTIAL MUST BE SEVERELY PUNISHED AT SCHOOLS" from the 90s. and the "ALL AIRPORT USERS ARE TERRORISTS!" garbage after 9/11. The situation in schools brought us school lockdowns, involuntary-yet-'consentual' searches at schools, suspensions of 6-year-olds with knifes to cut their birthday cake, or with spoon/knife/fork camping supplies, and a long list of 17-year-old honor student boy scouts getting suspended because of a knife still in the car. The airport garbage is still..., well, we all know. The consequences of an "ALL THINGS IN NON-TRADITIONAL SEX" decree would be far worse in magnitude. (... But if precisely enforced, after the first decade or so of very expensive lawsuits and media firestorms would hopefully get repealed quickly.)
The DARPA project is not about protecting consumer-grade electronics from cheap knockoffs and badly-swapped ICs.
The project's stated purpose, and the DoD and other government acronym interests fall squarely inside the spy-vs-spy realm.
Sure, I suppose it is technically possible that businesses are going to invest in embedding this type of security inside critical chips, then spot-check every production run for authenticity. This might happen at bigger corporations for important big-budget projects.
But no, as per your stated example, the individual components of your consumer-grade assembly line automobile are not going to bear the cost of this type of security systems throughout every chip. Nor will your home PC feature such high security for every chip on the motherboard. For the big-budget chips you might see them for the main CPU, the GPU, and a few other expensive big-name parts; the little audio chip or the disk controller chip or the usb hubs and assorted other little components on the board, probably not.
In that part I am in complete and total agreement, and always have been: Government has no part in marriage.
Other nations have (quite successfully) attached the civil law aspects to a contract, leaving religious groups free to do whatever they want with marriage.
Moving on...
On the second issue of businesses dealing with marriage, that is a balancing act that is currently in a horrible condition. This specific law in Arizona is about COMPELLING businesses to accept customers. It stands in stark contrast to the Constitution and guarantees about free speech, free association, and free religion. The key point about the Arizona law is one of legal compulsion, which is a very big deal.
In a post up above there is a list of businesses who are in lawsuits because they hold that non-traditional wedding events violate their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Compelling a business to act is an extreme thing to do, and should be VERY thoughtfully considered. When governments broadly compel action, allowing zero tolerance and zero exceptions, removing all rational thought from the process, it often results in amazingly horrible results.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? For the venue, let's take racial discrimination first. If we look back a few decades when the organizations were in full swing, should the government COMPEL a venue to host a Black Panther rally and a KKK rally on the same day just because they have enough open rooms? You can imagine a riot breaking out in the lounge that management could easily avoid. Moving back to this Arizona law, today some states COMPEL businesses to accept non-traditional marriage events if they have room, and do not allow the business to consider other factors like safety of their guests, beliefs of other guests, or predominant religious views held within the organization.
On to other business, should a photographer be COMPELLED to take pictures at a non-traditional wedding, not just homosexual, but perhaps also a Dom/Sub 'bonding' or a plural marriage adding a spouse? Should they be COMPELLED to create artistic photographs, watch and record the kissing and petting and other (usually light) sexual behavior at the events? Does the photographer lose their rights to free association, free speech and expression, and the religious freedom to not attend an event of a different faith?
On another business, should a band be COMPELLED to attend one of these events just because they have performed at other events? Should they be COMPELLED to attend the venue, even if it takes place in a bar (for a band who doesn't drink for religious reasons), or takes place in a very smoky lounge (health concerns) or takes place in a church they dislike (compelled religious observance?) or for any other reason a facility contrary to their beliefs or associations?
And the last business since it has become popular in this/. topic, should sex workers be COMPELLED to accept homosexual events and clients? Should the porn star who has maintained a straight career be compelled to engage in homosexual acts? After all, they're just a contractor like the musician, photographer, or venue. They are a small business of one, should they be COMPELLED to accept any client, gay or straight? Or on a racial level, should they be COMPELLED to have any race relations because it would be discriminatory? Should they be COMPELLED to have any legally-aged relation, denying them their choice because of age discrimination concerns?
When you get into situations where government is COMPELLING a group to act, or when an organization or group like the gay community is trying to FORCE businesses to do something under the full authority of law, there really needs to be a lot of thought involved. This law says they are not compelled, and if it is in error, it is likely erring on the side of safety. If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.
Also, find me a case of where a church was required to host a gay wedding and I will help fund their defense. Churches are places of worship and are protected. The only cases of things like that are cases where they did not limit access except to gay couples and I have never seen it with a church.
I hope you have deep pockets.
For the religious facilities lawsuits, look to Iowa' Gortz Haus lawsuit (Mennonite), New Jersey's United Methodist Church in Orange Grove lawsuit, Hawaii has both Emmanuel Temple House of Praise and Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God lawsuits. Google shows many more in several states.
For the non-religious businesses being compelled into it, we have the Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii's lawsuit and in Illinois both the Beall Mansion and Timber Creek facility lawsuits. And of course many more, Google is your friend.
they just said no, rudely and then began to tell us why we were horrible people.
I'm sorry to hear about the rudeness and the berating. Those are not okay.
However, for your venue choices I would argue that they can limit their usage because a wedding or civil union is much farther along the spectrum of free speech and free association and free religion than many other business uses. You can advance it along a continuum. From the least extreme, should a department store be COMPELLED to accept ALL customers? Should an assembly hall be COMPELLED to accept ALL potential customers? Should a photographer be COMPELLED to accept all clients? Should a musician be COMPELLED to accept all gigs? Taking it even more extreme, should a porn actor be COMPELLED to accept any sexual act?
Would you force a hotel with a predominantly black staff and black managers to host a KKK meeting? Would you force a hotel that has already scheduled a Black Panther's meeting to also host a KKK meeting on the same date just because they have rooms available? The business must consider many other factors, not just schedule availability. In this case the law is about photographers being COMPELLED to attend regardless of their beliefs, about entertainers being COMPELLED to attend, about venues being COMPELLED to host.
This stands in stark contrast to the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Being compelled to create photographs and perform music must be balanced against compelled speech. Being compelled to host an event, having your name and banner tied to it, must be balanced against compelled association. Being compelled to attend a wedding from a different religion or no religion just because you served at a different religious wedding must be balanced against compelled religious expression.
Christianity is only ~2014 years old and marriage predated that in the time of the Greeks, the Romans, and in places with no mon-theistic gods so to claim it as a religious ceremony of tradition with limits can only be done if you ignore history. Many cultures allowed for plural marriages, and others allowed for extra marital relationships, and multigender marriages. Heck some are even described in the Bible. So for those that argue tradition I ask.
Exactly the point. Christianity goes back 2 millenia and has largely been around traditional marriage. Judaism is roughly 6000 years old, and their traditions have a firm distinction between a first or primary marriage, additional concubines, and inheriting family member's wives and children LARGELY BECAUSE SOCIAL PROGRAMS DID NOT EXIST. When there is no such thing as state welfare and orphanages, having a religion compel a relative to adopt was a fairly reasonable requirement.
The plural marriage argument always makes me laugh. 150 years ago, the Mormon church was forced from the country into Mexico because of plural marriage. When the US expanded and Utah was petitioning for statehood, the US government compelled the religion to abandon plural marriage (althoug
Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?
That is exactly the purpose of the law.
People at their wedding, or civil union, or reception, or whatever you want to call it, ARE being forced in to it.
Several state courts have issued rulings that compel the photographer, the caterer, the musicians, the church or reception hall and their staff, and all the others at the event to either accept and attend the event or face civil discrimination lawsuits.
Most of these businesses have been able to pick and choose in the past. Churches could limit events to traditional weddings and reject things like dom/sub 'bondings', civil union receptions (even when they aren't legally weddings), plural marriage additions, and the rest. But now in some states they are compelled to take them all. Their banners, logos, signs, and name are being associated with something contrary to their religious standards. This is not right.
Similarly photographers being compelled to attend the full range of events because they previously took pictures at traditional weddings, now their name and reputation gets affiliated with something against their beliefs. Musicians who performed at traditional weddings are getting compelled to tie their names to events that may be against their beliefs.
Like it or not, everything related to marriage ceremonies
and their receptions are being forced into that agenda. Many are fighting back in courts on free speech, free religion, and free association grounds.
Arizona's new law was clearly inspired by their neighboring state's recent judgements.
Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings.
Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation.
Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence.
Their neighbor state now forces photographers, musicians, caterers, and others to attend the event even when it is against their beliefs. So I immediately imagine a high profile gay wedding taking out a full-page printed public notice of a gay wedding, catered by Chick-fil-a (an anti-gay eatery), photographed by a major anti-gay photographer, with music by an anti-gay band, all of them compelled to be there or face serious civil lawsuits.
For businesses dealing in non-sexed events, I absolutely agree about this being sexual discrimination. But for weddings, civil unions, 'bondings', plural marriages, and whatever else the events are called, compelling a business to participate in the event that they object to for religious or other principles is absolutely out of line.
Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?... Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?
This, so many times over.
For some businesses it does make sense. Refusing to serve a lunch or to sell a suit or to sell a home, those are one thing. Many types of businesses have no intersection with sexual lives. However, everything related to marriage is deeply entwined with sexual relationships. For those businesses that have nothing to do with sex: wonderful! No need to discriminate, serve everyone the same.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) things are pushing beyond that.
Look at the rulings coming in from across the nation, everything touching marriage (and therefore sexual orientation) is under attack:
Compelling photographers, because at one point in their career they photographed a wedding they must now photograph all such events (not just gay, but open-relationship unions, Dom/Sub 'bondings', and more), even if it is against their beliefs, even if they dislike the couple, they must comply or face discrimination charges.
Compelling church-affiliated businesses and reception halls, because at some point they hosted a reception for people not of their faith, that they must now host all such receptions, even when the individuals are not of their faith or are demonstrating actions against their faith, or face discrimination charges.
Compelling bands and musicians who have performed at weddings in the past, that now they must perform at any such event when asked, or face discrimination charges.
Several states have dealt with this so far, and IIRC both Hawaii and New Mexico state supreme courts have compelled photographers, reception homes, and musicians to work at the events when asked (even when they object) or face extremely harsh penalties.
The word marriage is heavily entrenched in law and contract as a civil status. Religion may have used the term first (I don't actually know, nor do I care) but it's a legal word now and religious institutions should suck it up. It would probably even be expensive for the government to change the name of marriage to civil union.
Strongly disagree.
By redefining marriage, in turn the effect is telling religions that they must redefine themselves. Are you really going to claim that all religions, many with histories extending back for millennia, must all redefine themselves? All the Jewish variants, the Christian and assorted protestant faiths, the Muslim believers, the native American nations with their beliefs, they must all redefine their religions for the convenience of the US government?
Governments have decided to hang many benefits on the convenient hook of marriage. Up until recently this was generally accepted because most people got married. Today with so many unwed families, non-traditional arrangements (not just homosexual, but also open relationships or those with assorted plural relationships), the government is struggling to hook those benefits on to something else.
The summary and the article state that these counterfeit parts are so dangerous. Can anybody provide examples of harm done? And not just to somebody's bank account? I'm not saying I disagree, but if you tell me I should be afraid, at least point to examples of why I should be afraid.
That's about it.
For commercial purposes, the claim is somehow that your cheap off-brand machines are obviously inferior to the brand name equipment made by the same assembly lines. It doesn't work well in practice, since chip clones and cheap knockoffs usually mean success for the brand they are impersonating.
Government agencies are trying to find a way to allow cheap manufacture of standard certified equipment, using untrustworthy, lowest-bidder, often foreign manufacturing plants, while at the same time ensure that people paying lots of money didn't install backdoors or spyware onto the chips. They want to know that their underpaid lowball bids aren't being subsidized by other spy agencies, while at the same time these agencies are doing exactly the same espionage to other nation's computers.
It is basically a bunch of spy-vs-spy crap, a race to the bottom where all of society loses if the insanity doesn't stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I do NOT trust code from Russia, China, anywhere in the Middle East, and a few other places. Just look at all the crime (Target for one) that's based in Russia alone.
Well, unfortunately, maintainers have found they also cannot trust sources in the US and other nations due to corporate and government intrusion either. Nor can you trust the code is entirely bug free, and who knows if the security flaw bug was intentionally introduced.
The only answer for open source maintainers is constant vigilance. NOBODY is to be trusted.
Search back to when Linus Torvalds was asked if the NSA and other agencies had ever tried to make him to install back doors in the kernel. He said "Noooo..." while emphatically nodding his head "yes". He also claims to verify all the submissions that make it in, and claims to double-check all submissions that claim to have been made by him since spoofed changes have been known to happen.
Based on the heated, usually profanity-laden messages from the kernel mailing list when a maintainer lets a kernel bug through and he caught it, I'd say his personal level of distrust is just about right for what he is maintaining. Not even the highest-level maintainers have his complete trust.
But that's easily solved by XP Mode, which can be downloaded from Microsoft's site. So let's say she has a computer w/ Windows 7 and needs to run this, she can, for this application, run XP mode, run her greetings & card workshop in that Window, and she'd be just fine. She doesn't have to put up w/ all the security holes that won't be patched under XP moving forward.
I think you missed the point:
She has no apparent need to replace XP. The software does everything she requires.
She uses a computer for tasks X, Y, an Z. The computer she has right now today is able to perform those tasks in a satisfactory manner.
Sure, she can go buy a new operating system, also a new computer because her 10-year-old box won't handle it well, and also the latest generation of a bunch of software, and also install XP mode to run her old programs, and the net result is that she is running exactly the same system she had before, just on a newer box. It solves no problems except perhaps imminent hardware failure due to dust and age.
She currently has no need for the replacement software. Her current solution works just fine, thank you very much.
There are occasional gems in the comments, enough to make older visitors browse them, but you are quite correct, most of us have moved on to better sources of news.
Quit complaining, it doesn't help. I suggest visiting reddit and finding some topics you enjoy, perhaps /r/programming or /r/technology, and also move along to sources like IEEE and ACM discussion groups.
SSL/TLS communications are just as secure as they always were.
No, it is not.
CA model is much more important than the public CA "trust". There is nothing stopping an application designer from using private CAs for their application. This bug breaks the trust to any CAs, including the private ones.
Let's think about it (as a thought experiment) what is required for this to be an effective attack.
SSL spoofing is already a common attack. Not just France and the NSA but also regular old password-sniffers. This vulnerability falls under the same class of attack as SSL spoofing; a trusted certificate is secretly replaced by an untrusted certificate.
There were some common examples right after unicode was allowed in domain names and people came up with similar-looking links for major companies with unicode symbols that look identical to the ascii glyphs. That will be one comparison. The other comparison will be for a government-style ssl spoof attack.
First, the attacker must redirect you from the legitimate site to their illegitimate site. This is equally difficult with or without the TLS attack. The government-style attack could intercept the traffic over the wire and redirect you to the bad MitM manually. The fake link version could use bad links in phishing emails or spamming the internet with the fake link to the MitM server. Other options include host entries and software secretly installed on the machine. In any event, the bug does not affect this most difficult step.
Second, they need to appear as a valid connection. For the TLS bug, the attacker must create a false certificate that will test as valid. With the bug being known, that is pretty easy. Then they must use this when the certificate is requested during TLS handshaking. Now contrast this with a traditional attacker who must get their certificate signed by a CA for the fake domain; this is also fairly easy to do in practice. Many fake-name certs have been issued over the years and successfully used in news-reported attacks. Sometimes certificates have been forged in other ways, such as the Flame virus. Similarly the spy agencies have no difficulty getting their fake certificates signed by a CA.
Finally, the attacker needs to make a connection with the legitimate host. This is the same in all conditions, and has been successfully been used in SSL spoof attacks for years. When there is secondary authentication required the MitM just requests the data from the client. Complex attacks can sometimes permit a second connection directly to the victim where two-factor authentication across servers is required in such a way that the authentication passes. Nothing new here.
So really, the only thing the bug makes easier is the task of getting a fake certificate. Since this was arguably the EASIEST step in SSL Spoofing to begin with, and because SSL Spoofing is long-established as an easy attack that is difficult for lay people to detect, it means the attack really is a relatively small issue.
The bug requires a carefully-crafted certificate. That certificate will verify as valid and trusted when it should not be. The connection will still be secure, it will just be with an untrusted person.
So basically it allows a very dedicated attacker to forge a cert and become a MitM attack.
We all know governments have done this for years. It is widely known that root CA certificates have been violated by spy agencies. A few searches on Google will show bunches of news stories where attackers (all types, government attackers, ID theft attackers, etc) have made fake certificates, abused the CA model, and engaged in similar MitM attacks to what this allows.
SSL/TLS communications are just as secure as they always were. If you have personally verified and trusted the certificates the attack wouldn't work, it is only when your trust model allows a cert that you don't personally trust to be used in authentication, and even then it still allows a secure connection but to a wrongly-trusted individual.
The flaw is the trust model and using a cert that you don't personally trust to be valid, which is a well-known issue.
Sure congratulate him for doing his job. ... Dam's are monitored for these issues. Routine and annual inspections are made.
I think that is why so many people above are disliking the story.
Inspector does job, discovers the exact issue he is paid to find. Repair crews dispatched. Disaster averted. SUCCESS!
5GB @4G works for me. The many geeks I work with and have talked about this with have also said it works for them, too.
During the day it automatically switches to wifi while I'm around the office. Same at home, the phone is on wifi. The system automatically uses wifi-based calling, so it doesn't use either my phone's voice minutes or data.
If for some reason you consume more phone bandwidth than that you'll need to go to a different plan. That was the lowest-cost phone+data plan, there are many more to choose from if your needs are different.
I've already got it own as a condition with my wife
Good luck with that. . .
Insert joke about dropping a D as a typo. "down".
Stockholders do not manage the company. They vote for the board of directors, which manages the rest. Only in special circumstances, like an offer to privatize the company, do the votes have any direct effect.
There have also been many lawsuits over the years trying to force the behavior in either direction.
There were a whole bunch of them in the 1940s to 1960s. Some state courts ruled that the business owners must be compelled to consider a profit motive in all things, others ruled that the executive boards were hired and placed in the positions so they could decide what was best, even if the changes were contrary to other common business plans or did no consider a profit motive. Exactly which rules apply depend on the state.
If the group represented a large enough collection of stockholders, maybe 5% or 10%, they could probably compel Apple to change through the courts to make the cheapest decision rather than a morally-guided decision. Without that kind of number they'll just need to accept the decisions of the board.
Verizon DSL is another weird story. I was their customer many years ago, getting around 5 Mbps down on a plan that promised up to 7. One day, they throttled it down to 1.5. ... 1.1-3.0 Mbps down and 384 Kbps up.
Weird. I guess it really depends on where you live. Based on the email address and the info on the blog, it puts you right in dense Los Angeles suburbia. I cannot fathom the area having such pathetically bad ISPs, although because of the location I can imagine price gouging by corporations. (On second thought, I can imagine the price gouging no matter where you live.)
If we move, I've already got it own as a condition with my wife that the new home have fiber to the home; it can be Google Fiber, or any of the cities with municipal fiber, or even hook it up as part of moving in as long as it is available. FttH is becoming much like electric connections were a century ago. In just a few short years we'll be wondering how so many people live without it.
Oh, and the cost, a whopping $43 total combined bill for the 16/8 connection. Also, it looks like they do have a public static address listed as included as part of the package, so scratch that part, it wasn't luck, just XMission continuing to offer great support.
Who provides you DSL that doesn't slow down at peak? In my area it slows down, and even becomes dead at 830 every night like clockwork (two different providers).
Hmm. Sucks to be you. :-(
Cable has lines that run through the neighborhood. Those copper wires are shared at multiple houses, then hook up with a box by the major roads that connect it with fiber. If you have lots of people on a shared line it gets saturated very quickly. Also, if too many people on all of the lines begin to saturate the fiber equipment, it can slow down there, too.
DSL also has a wire that runs from the home to the DSLAM by the major road that connects to fiber; however, the wire is not shared with anyone. The DSLAM box can still be overwhelmed if too many in the area are running, but the connection from the home to the box at the corner is dedicated to the individual; that "last mile" segment should never have downtime and should never be slow since it is a direct wire from your home to the box.
If your DSL bandwidth slows down at peak times I'm guessing the phone company has over-saturated their equipment at the box or between the box and the CO. Sad, really, but with a monopoly you don't get many options when they do that. (Well, you might have some options. Somebody might accidentally damage the box, causing some down time but also some repairs and upgrades if you are lucky. You wouldn't want to have that accident yourself, so you might want to drop some hints to some pesky teenage vandals or something. Kids these days...)
As for resetting at 8:30, sounds like your providers are just jerks. I have read about some who intentionally reset the devices and daily rotate the IP address and drop 'poison packets' into BitTorrent and otherwise deter people from using the connection they paid for. Fortunately I don't have that problem. Also, even though my ISP offers static IP addresses I never paid for one, and my home device has had the same IP address ever since they updated the DSL equipment in the neighborhood about four years ago. Over those years I really only had two days with connectivity problems, both due to backhoes. Yay XMission for awesomeness.
Is that unlimited Internet service? No caps and fast like cable (e.g., 15/1)? I care not about voice.
If you want a big plan, T-Mobile's prepaid internet is cheap. Some of their older better plans are gone, but they still list $30/month for 100 minutes talk (10 cents per minute over), unlimited text, and data with 5 gigabytes of 4G, then unlimited 2G. There are no bonus fees added to the bill.
If you prefer a dumb-phone, prepaid through T-Mobile is ten cents per minute, ten cents per text, with no other fees. As long as you use put more money in every year the minutes don't expire. That's what we use for my kids' phones since I much prefer them to use dumb phones for parenting reasons. Combined we spend only a few dollars per month on their phones.
My household's monthly cell bill is about $40 to $45, with four phones in use.
Agreed. While the story submitter did get a lower cost, he still lost.
He is getting a phone connection for "$20 plus taxes and fees". They *love* those phone fees, as they can get away with $15 or more on untaxed profit. I'm sure he'll be pleasantly surprised by that.
Also, it is surprising that the DSL alternative is really 1.5Mbit. I'm guessing he hasn't verified that, as most modern DSL connections have a max of 24Mbit if the DSLAM box is relatively close in the neighborhood.
I will never do cable again. I get 16 down/ 8 up DSL for about 1/3 the cost of my neighbors who pay for "up to 25Mbit" Comcast shared cable. The funny thing is that with talking to my neighbors, none of them actually get those speeds. One of my neighbors who is a techie says he gets about 10Mbit during the day, and about 2Mbit during peak evening hours. At least with DSL my speeds are consistent rather than shared with everybody. The funny thing is that they refuse to switch because they want the TV shows, so they stick with the slower cable internet because is somehow they have a better value because it is a bundle. (I don't understand how their brains work, they figure costs using the "up to 25 Mbit" speed rather than "measured 2Mbit" speed... Oh well, Comcast makes money on normal people who are bad at math but good at corporate jingles. )
Some areas also have directional fixed-antenna wireless internet. Right now locally Digis is slightly slower and slightly more expensive than my ADSL connection, but if it becomes a better deal I'm jumping over to them instead. I have zero brand loyalty. As for phone, prepaid cell service costs me about $16/month for my smart phone, including my data and texting. With the phones in my family our combined monthly phone expenses are about $40.
If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces? Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles? ... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.
Yes, businesses and individuals can discriminate on almost anything. And they do. We discriminate based on personality, attitudes, clothing, work history, salary, ability to pay, credit history, and so much more. Businesses CAN and DO discriminate all the time, and it is perfectly legal.
Federal law prohibit discrimination based on: race, religion, age (40 and over), gender, pregnancy, citizenship, disability status, veteran status, genetic information, or sexual orientation. ... unless one of those things is relevant to the job or the action at hand. If you are looking for a clothing model for women's fashion in the 20-something age group, you absolutely can discriminate the models based on those relevant items like apparent age and gender as well.
Most people hear "discriminate" and instantly jump to "horrible awful treatment of minorities". That is not what the word means.
Most people hear the words "discriminate" and immediately think to evil, horrible, offensive actions.
The truth is that we discriminate all the time. We have to. There is a very short list of things that employers and governments are prohibited from discriminating against, but everything else is fair game.
When we have job interviews, we discriminate based on education, personality, work history, the perceived ability to to do the job, felony convictions, and so much more. We cannot discriminate based on age, gender, nationality, race, religion, veteran status, family status, sexual orientation, and a few others, but that is only because they are not significant to being a programmer. If they are relevant to the job (such as gender of a guard in the case of an all-women prison or something) then these can also be used for discrimination.
Many state courts and also many LGBT groups are pushing far beyond that. It is increasingly common to say that because the possibility exists for sexual orientation discrimination, businesses are COMPELLED to give them preferential treatments and cannot discriminate based on any other (perfectly legal) factors. A business may have many other reasons to stop working with someone, maybe they don't like the attitude or they just don't feel comfortable around them. But if the business is working with anyone in the LGBT community, be careful because some of them will sue you for everything under the perceived slight that the discrimination is not based on personality or a litigious attitude, but based on sexual orientation.
Uh... I'm no photographer, but I understand that one wouldn't mind taking pictures in straight scenes while being incomfortable regarding gay scenes, religious belief is not even a matter here, neither is homophobia.
Then it sounds like you would want this Arizona law. It says that basically while they don't want discrimination, they'll accept some since the alternative is to compel people an businesses into potentially bad choices.
I agree with you, as mentioned at several other points along the discussion. When the choice is between government-compelled actions and freedom, the default should be freedom.
The zero-thought, zero-tolerance "ALL THINGS NON-TRADITONALLY-SEXUAL MUST BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE!" cry going around the nation is just as bad as the "ALL WEAPONS AND POTENTIAL MUST BE SEVERELY PUNISHED AT SCHOOLS" from the 90s. and the "ALL AIRPORT USERS ARE TERRORISTS!" garbage after 9/11. The situation in schools brought us school lockdowns, involuntary-yet-'consentual' searches at schools, suspensions of 6-year-olds with knifes to cut their birthday cake, or with spoon/knife/fork camping supplies, and a long list of 17-year-old honor student boy scouts getting suspended because of a knife still in the car. The airport garbage is still..., well, we all know. The consequences of an "ALL THINGS IN NON-TRADITIONAL SEX" decree would be far worse in magnitude. (... But if precisely enforced, after the first decade or so of very expensive lawsuits and media firestorms would hopefully get repealed quickly.)
The DARPA project is not about protecting consumer-grade electronics from cheap knockoffs and badly-swapped ICs.
The project's stated purpose, and the DoD and other government acronym interests fall squarely inside the spy-vs-spy realm.
Sure, I suppose it is technically possible that businesses are going to invest in embedding this type of security inside critical chips, then spot-check every production run for authenticity. This might happen at bigger corporations for important big-budget projects.
But no, as per your stated example, the individual components of your consumer-grade assembly line automobile are not going to bear the cost of this type of security systems throughout every chip. Nor will your home PC feature such high security for every chip on the motherboard. For the big-budget chips you might see them for the main CPU, the GPU, and a few other expensive big-name parts; the little audio chip or the disk controller chip or the usb hubs and assorted other little components on the board, probably not.
In that part I am in complete and total agreement, and always have been: Government has no part in marriage.
Other nations have (quite successfully) attached the civil law aspects to a contract, leaving religious groups free to do whatever they want with marriage.
Moving on...
On the second issue of businesses dealing with marriage, that is a balancing act that is currently in a horrible condition. This specific law in Arizona is about COMPELLING businesses to accept customers. It stands in stark contrast to the Constitution and guarantees about free speech, free association, and free religion. The key point about the Arizona law is one of legal compulsion, which is a very big deal.
In a post up above there is a list of businesses who are in lawsuits because they hold that non-traditional wedding events violate their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Compelling a business to act is an extreme thing to do, and should be VERY thoughtfully considered. When governments broadly compel action, allowing zero tolerance and zero exceptions, removing all rational thought from the process, it often results in amazingly horrible results.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? For the venue, let's take racial discrimination first. If we look back a few decades when the organizations were in full swing, should the government COMPEL a venue to host a Black Panther rally and a KKK rally on the same day just because they have enough open rooms? You can imagine a riot breaking out in the lounge that management could easily avoid. Moving back to this Arizona law, today some states COMPEL businesses to accept non-traditional marriage events if they have room, and do not allow the business to consider other factors like safety of their guests, beliefs of other guests, or predominant religious views held within the organization.
On to other business, should a photographer be COMPELLED to take pictures at a non-traditional wedding, not just homosexual, but perhaps also a Dom/Sub 'bonding' or a plural marriage adding a spouse? Should they be COMPELLED to create artistic photographs, watch and record the kissing and petting and other (usually light) sexual behavior at the events? Does the photographer lose their rights to free association, free speech and expression, and the religious freedom to not attend an event of a different faith?
On another business, should a band be COMPELLED to attend one of these events just because they have performed at other events? Should they be COMPELLED to attend the venue, even if it takes place in a bar (for a band who doesn't drink for religious reasons), or takes place in a very smoky lounge (health concerns) or takes place in a church they dislike (compelled religious observance?) or for any other reason a facility contrary to their beliefs or associations?
And the last business since it has become popular in this /. topic, should sex workers be COMPELLED to accept homosexual events and clients? Should the porn star who has maintained a straight career be compelled to engage in homosexual acts? After all, they're just a contractor like the musician, photographer, or venue. They are a small business of one, should they be COMPELLED to accept any client, gay or straight? Or on a racial level, should they be COMPELLED to have any race relations because it would be discriminatory? Should they be COMPELLED to have any legally-aged relation, denying them their choice because of age discrimination concerns?
When you get into situations where government is COMPELLING a group to act, or when an organization or group like the gay community is trying to FORCE businesses to do something under the full authority of law, there really needs to be a lot of thought involved. This law says they are not compelled, and if it is in error, it is likely erring on the side of safety. If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.
Also, find me a case of where a church was required to host a gay wedding and I will help fund their defense. Churches are places of worship and are protected. The only cases of things like that are cases where they did not limit access except to gay couples and I have never seen it with a church.
I hope you have deep pockets.
For the religious facilities lawsuits, look to Iowa' Gortz Haus lawsuit (Mennonite), New Jersey's United Methodist Church in Orange Grove lawsuit, Hawaii has both Emmanuel Temple House of Praise and Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God lawsuits. Google shows many more in several states.
For the non-religious businesses being compelled into it, we have the Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii's lawsuit and in Illinois both the Beall Mansion and Timber Creek facility lawsuits. And of course many more, Google is your friend.
they just said no, rudely and then began to tell us why we were horrible people.
I'm sorry to hear about the rudeness and the berating. Those are not okay.
However, for your venue choices I would argue that they can limit their usage because a wedding or civil union is much farther along the spectrum of free speech and free association and free religion than many other business uses. You can advance it along a continuum. From the least extreme, should a department store be COMPELLED to accept ALL customers? Should an assembly hall be COMPELLED to accept ALL potential customers? Should a photographer be COMPELLED to accept all clients? Should a musician be COMPELLED to accept all gigs? Taking it even more extreme, should a porn actor be COMPELLED to accept any sexual act?
Would you force a hotel with a predominantly black staff and black managers to host a KKK meeting? Would you force a hotel that has already scheduled a Black Panther's meeting to also host a KKK meeting on the same date just because they have rooms available? The business must consider many other factors, not just schedule availability. In this case the law is about photographers being COMPELLED to attend regardless of their beliefs, about entertainers being COMPELLED to attend, about venues being COMPELLED to host.
This stands in stark contrast to the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Being compelled to create photographs and perform music must be balanced against compelled speech. Being compelled to host an event, having your name and banner tied to it, must be balanced against compelled association. Being compelled to attend a wedding from a different religion or no religion just because you served at a different religious wedding must be balanced against compelled religious expression.
Christianity is only ~2014 years old and marriage predated that in the time of the Greeks, the Romans, and in places with no mon-theistic gods so to claim it as a religious ceremony of tradition with limits can only be done if you ignore history. Many cultures allowed for plural marriages, and others allowed for extra marital relationships, and multigender marriages. Heck some are even described in the Bible. So for those that argue tradition I ask.
Exactly the point. Christianity goes back 2 millenia and has largely been around traditional marriage. Judaism is roughly 6000 years old, and their traditions have a firm distinction between a first or primary marriage, additional concubines, and inheriting family member's wives and children LARGELY BECAUSE SOCIAL PROGRAMS DID NOT EXIST. When there is no such thing as state welfare and orphanages, having a religion compel a relative to adopt was a fairly reasonable requirement.
The plural marriage argument always makes me laugh. 150 years ago, the Mormon church was forced from the country into Mexico because of plural marriage. When the US expanded and Utah was petitioning for statehood, the US government compelled the religion to abandon plural marriage (althoug
Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?
That is exactly the purpose of the law.
People at their wedding, or civil union, or reception, or whatever you want to call it, ARE being forced in to it.
Several state courts have issued rulings that compel the photographer, the caterer, the musicians, the church or reception hall and their staff, and all the others at the event to either accept and attend the event or face civil discrimination lawsuits.
Most of these businesses have been able to pick and choose in the past. Churches could limit events to traditional weddings and reject things like dom/sub 'bondings', civil union receptions (even when they aren't legally weddings), plural marriage additions, and the rest. But now in some states they are compelled to take them all. Their banners, logos, signs, and name are being associated with something contrary to their religious standards. This is not right.
Similarly photographers being compelled to attend the full range of events because they previously took pictures at traditional weddings, now their name and reputation gets affiliated with something against their beliefs. Musicians who performed at traditional weddings are getting compelled to tie their names to events that may be against their beliefs.
Like it or not, everything related to marriage ceremonies and their receptions are being forced into that agenda. Many are fighting back in courts on free speech, free religion, and free association grounds.
Arizona's new law was clearly inspired by their neighboring state's recent judgements.
Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings.
Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation.
Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence.
Their neighbor state now forces photographers, musicians, caterers, and others to attend the event even when it is against their beliefs. So I immediately imagine a high profile gay wedding taking out a full-page printed public notice of a gay wedding, catered by Chick-fil-a (an anti-gay eatery), photographed by a major anti-gay photographer, with music by an anti-gay band, all of them compelled to be there or face serious civil lawsuits.
For businesses dealing in non-sexed events, I absolutely agree about this being sexual discrimination. But for weddings, civil unions, 'bondings', plural marriages, and whatever else the events are called, compelling a business to participate in the event that they object to for religious or other principles is absolutely out of line.
Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? ... Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?
This, so many times over.
For some businesses it does make sense. Refusing to serve a lunch or to sell a suit or to sell a home, those are one thing. Many types of businesses have no intersection with sexual lives. However, everything related to marriage is deeply entwined with sexual relationships. For those businesses that have nothing to do with sex: wonderful! No need to discriminate, serve everyone the same.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) things are pushing beyond that.
Look at the rulings coming in from across the nation, everything touching marriage (and therefore sexual orientation) is under attack:
Compelling photographers, because at one point in their career they photographed a wedding they must now photograph all such events (not just gay, but open-relationship unions, Dom/Sub 'bondings', and more), even if it is against their beliefs, even if they dislike the couple, they must comply or face discrimination charges.
Compelling church-affiliated businesses and reception halls, because at some point they hosted a reception for people not of their faith, that they must now host all such receptions, even when the individuals are not of their faith or are demonstrating actions against their faith, or face discrimination charges.
Compelling bands and musicians who have performed at weddings in the past, that now they must perform at any such event when asked, or face discrimination charges.
Several states have dealt with this so far, and IIRC both Hawaii and New Mexico state supreme courts have compelled photographers, reception homes, and musicians to work at the events when asked (even when they object) or face extremely harsh penalties.
The word marriage is heavily entrenched in law and contract as a civil status. Religion may have used the term first (I don't actually know, nor do I care) but it's a legal word now and religious institutions should suck it up. It would probably even be expensive for the government to change the name of marriage to civil union.
Strongly disagree.
By redefining marriage, in turn the effect is telling religions that they must redefine themselves. Are you really going to claim that all religions, many with histories extending back for millennia, must all redefine themselves? All the Jewish variants, the Christian and assorted protestant faiths, the Muslim believers, the native American nations with their beliefs, they must all redefine their religions for the convenience of the US government?
Governments have decided to hang many benefits on the convenient hook of marriage. Up until recently this was generally accepted because most people got married. Today with so many unwed families, non-traditional arrangements (not just homosexual, but also open relationships or those with assorted plural relationships), the government is struggling to hook those benefits on to something else.
The summary and the article state that these counterfeit parts are so dangerous. Can anybody provide examples of harm done? And not just to somebody's bank account? I'm not saying I disagree, but if you tell me I should be afraid, at least point to examples of why I should be afraid.
That's about it.
For commercial purposes, the claim is somehow that your cheap off-brand machines are obviously inferior to the brand name equipment made by the same assembly lines. It doesn't work well in practice, since chip clones and cheap knockoffs usually mean success for the brand they are impersonating.
Government agencies are trying to find a way to allow cheap manufacture of standard certified equipment, using untrustworthy, lowest-bidder, often foreign manufacturing plants, while at the same time ensure that people paying lots of money didn't install backdoors or spyware onto the chips. They want to know that their underpaid lowball bids aren't being subsidized by other spy agencies, while at the same time these agencies are doing exactly the same espionage to other nation's computers.
It is basically a bunch of spy-vs-spy crap, a race to the bottom where all of society loses if the insanity doesn't stop.