Read the damned sentence as it was written, not one single phrase. No laws that respect any religion, no laws that create a state religion, no laws that will favor one religion over another.
Ok now, I guess you are reading a different sentence than I am, because none of those statements are anywhere in the entire bill of rights much less the 1st amendment.
What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism
So, this sounds like you are one of those people who thinks that atheism is a religion. Just like vacuum is a gas.
How else do you explain people's faith in a theory that is as yet untested? "We believe the earth is warming due to mankind's tampering with nature." Not, "We have found proof that the earth is warming due to mankind's activities." Just, "We believe", "We think", and "Some evidence seems to indicate".
It's really weird how you can write that "some evidence seems to indicate" and see that as a statement of faith and yet I read that same exact phrase and see that as pretty much the most succinct expression of the scientific principle.
The scientists studying global warming are constantly revising their predictions based on new data and test results. The broad statement that, "We believe the earth is warming due to mankind's tampering with nature" is just that, a broad statement that encompasses thousands of testable hypothesis for which the preponderance of results indicate that man's effects on the environment are the best possible explanation for the data seen so far.
The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar discrimination by to the government.
Perhaps you can explain how requiring a hindu to pay taxes for the minting of a monotheistic motto is not legal favortisim that discriminates against his polytheistic beliefs?
Nothing in that motto forces anyone to believe or not believe anything other than that the object they hold has some extrinsic
It was minted with tax money. That's forcing every single taxpayer to subsidize it. If collecting taxes on church revenue counts as prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then clearly spending taxes on an endorsement of a religion counts as supporting it.
You mean 13 years before the constitution was written? Arguments like that are designed to obscure the truth rather than help people better understand an issue. Therefore it follows that you aren't interested in getting to the truth, only in pushing an agenda.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the US House has an official chaplain,
If the office is at all funded with tax payer money then it seems like a pretty clear violation to me. On the other hand, the argument for such an office is that members of congress are away from home while serving and just like the government picks up all their other livings expenses such as food and lodging, so to should it pick the cost of their religious services.
The "respect" found in the 1st Amendment is not "showing respect for", it is "regarding" or "with respect to".
Of course it does. It is an official acknowledgement of a God. Furthermore, you argument has never been used as a defence in the various court cases on the issue. The rulings in favour of the motto have relied on the motto having been "watered down" by over use.
I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to understand the 1st Amendment, you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight.
It's ironic that the court rulings against my position actually indicate that your reading of the amendment is the lesser one here.
If deism is a religion, then so is atheism. They just believe in one fewer god.
Your (a) does not follow from your (b). That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby just because you have one fewer stamp book than the lowliest philatelist.
The concern is, if we don't consider our inalienable human rights to be derived from a deity, where do they come from?
From the simple fact of our existence which is essentially what deists mean when they say that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The rights come part and parcel with being created, whatever the mechanism.
?The people who don't believe in God are a tiny minority, and that minority is not growing.
While I think that would have absolutely nothing to do with the import of this law, I'm pretty sure you are wrong too. Religiosity has been on a steady decline in the US for decades. Furthermore, the number of hindus and other polytheists has been increasing.
Stupid, unconstitutional laws have been written and passed since practically the start of the union. This case is nothing special. Hell, we still have "In God We Trust" on all of our coins and that started in 1864 and was made the official motto of the US in 1956 by law.
What the hell kind of business doesn't keep track of their subscriber's name, address, phone number and billing info?
Real name, phone number and billing info (i.e. bank account numbers) are unncessary for regular operation. I have Fios and Verizon doesn't have those three pieces of information from me.
And furthermore, ISPs already log which IPs they assign to customers. They keep logs for abuse purposes,
I doubt they keep a year's worth of logs. A month's worth should be more than enough to handle any practical case of abuse involving the ISP's own systems.
Where the hell is the tea party? They talk about keeping the government out of our lives, but when it really matters they aren't anywhere to be found.
They can hold the entire country hostage with this ridiculous debt limit kabuki (it's ridiculous because congress already authorised the spending when they passed the bills spending the money earlier this year), they are trying to have their cake and eat it too) but they can't stop one minor bill that directly contradicts their stated ideology? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The concept also covers protocols and standards, and the context was the cloud. If I'm using a standardized API, then I can change providers, and how many people would actually bother to roll their own cloud computing provider?
Anybody who might want to take their app out of the generic cloud and host it in house. But portability isn't the only benefit of open-source. As I alluded to in my prior post - getting access to the source code trumps crappy docs.
"It's auditable because the source code is free". Well yes it is, but no one cares. I think even from the Slashdot crowd the number of people who bothered to build Firefox from source is a small minority compared to those who downloaded it
That exact same logic condemns "open surface" too - the vast majority of customers don't give a damn about documented interfaces, they just want to use the product.
It's only a very tiny minority that need to get their hands dirty. And of that tiny minority, only a minute fraction are good with "open surface" but not actual open source. The minute that one of those API's turns out to be only partially documented, or the code behind it buggy, or disabled for marketing reasons, then those same people now need real open source and not a sucker's stand-in like "open surface."
Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling
No, not really. Despite what many on slashdot think, warrantless wire-tapping isn't terribly controversial with the most of the US. Remember, the only time we hear about public discontent with the TSA is when they grope a baby or a grandmother - the bullshit constitutional smokescreen of "administrative searches" isn't even mentioned, much less questioned. No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this meeting had been scheduled months in advance. But even if it wasn't, it's just opportunism to schedule it now, not the cause of the debt ceiling fiasco, just a side-effect.
Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that Texas town 'bout that rock outside La Grange and you know what I'm talkin' about. Just let me know if you wanna go to that stone out on the range. They gotta lotta nice girls ah.
Have mercy. A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw. A haw, haw, haw.
Well, I hear it's fine if you got the time and the ten to get yourself in. A hmm, hmm. And I hear it's tight most ev'ry night, but now I might be mistaken. hmm, hmm, hmm.
You misunderstand the intent of paper trails. They aren't for the voter to use to verify their vote ala a receipt. They are for recounting purposes only. The idea is that you vote electronically, it kicks out a paper ballot with all of your choices conspicuously spelled out and then that ballot goes into a lockbox, just like paper ballots do now.
While paper ballots are subject to various tampering issues, they are all well understood and their exist standard precautions for mitigating those issues. The same is not, and probably never will be, true for purely electronic balloting.
Contextually, that tell us that he did this in his capacity as a supporting member and fundraiser.
I don't think there was ever any question as to the context of the quote. The problem with it is that while the immediate context was fundraising, his position as CEO of Deibold was the larger context. He clearly didn't intend to announce a campaign of vote tampering.
Given Diebold's official position that paper trails were unnecessary and that the internal operations of Diebold's voting machines could not be inspected even by the districts purchasing them, making that statement gave the appearance of impropriety. At the very least, he was guilty of very poor judgement and an utter lack of understanding the situation he had put himself into by demanding that the public trust his company's impartiality and then publicly declaring his overwhelming partisanship.
To me, that quote represents just how little importance the people running the show have given to assuring fair elections. The ongoing, almost uniformly republican opposition to verifiable voting machines doesn't help either. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but for a variety of fairly petty reasons it has become one.
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it.
You are thinking about as if legailsation equals endorsement. It does not. In a free society everything is permitted except that which is explicitly forbidden. But just because something is permitted does not necessarily mean that anybody thinks it is good idea. It is just that it is not a bad enough thing to make it forbidden.
So being uncomfortable with something is perfectly fine. Don't participate. If that isn't enough, go and donate time to a community program designed to give people alternatives.
So... a guy who gets his account locked out because of his iPad
Jesus, diid you miss the entire message you quoted? SO what if this particular case is about a someone with an ipad? The guy went off with BIG BOLD CAPS about how it was a massive fatal totally unacceptable flaw when in reality its a very rare case so not worth all the increased risk and cost to handle it in code rather than an exception to a human.
Think about it - lock out all the domain administrator accounts, and the network is now yours to explore.
So this hacker already knows what the admin accounts are and there are no admins currently logged in and then you wrote something unintelligible about using regular accounts. Sounds like more hand-waving about a super unlikely event in order to justify increased complexity and risk in normal operations.
if you don't lock out a device, any one device can promptly go and lock out an entire company by attacking the userlist.
Such an attack ain't going to happen in a vacuum - if the entire company gets locked out (a) most users will still be logged in and (b) a human is going to notice right quick and handle the issue manually.
I don't see either of you making a compelling argument that the increased complexity of tracking where login attempts are coming from and giving a pass to failed logins from different devices is even close to a net win for anything like a common usage scenario, much less an absolutely critical feature that should be in every single authentication system.
Slashdot Mirror
Which religion? WHICH ONE?
Basically any and all branches of monotheism.
Read the damned sentence as it was written, not one single phrase. No laws that respect any religion, no laws that create a state religion, no laws that will favor one religion over another.
Ok now, I guess you are reading a different sentence than I am, because none of those statements are anywhere in the entire bill of rights much less the 1st amendment.
What you are demanding, is that atheism be favored over any other theism
So, this sounds like you are one of those people who thinks that atheism is a religion. Just like vacuum is a gas.
How else do you explain people's faith in a theory that is as yet untested? "We believe the earth is warming due to mankind's tampering with nature." Not, "We have found proof that the earth is warming due to mankind's activities." Just, "We believe", "We think", and "Some evidence seems to indicate".
It's really weird how you can write that "some evidence seems to indicate" and see that as a statement of faith and yet I read that same exact phrase and see that as pretty much the most succinct expression of the scientific principle.
The scientists studying global warming are constantly revising their predictions based on new data and test results. The broad statement that, "We believe the earth is warming due to mankind's tampering with nature" is just that, a broad statement that encompasses thousands of testable hypothesis for which the preponderance of results indicate that man's effects on the environment are the best possible explanation for the data seen so far.
The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar discrimination by to the government.
Perhaps you can explain how requiring a hindu to pay taxes for the minting of a monotheistic motto is not legal favortisim that discriminates against his polytheistic beliefs?
Nothing in that motto forces anyone to believe or not believe anything other than that the object they hold has some extrinsic
It was minted with tax money. That's forcing every single taxpayer to subsidize it. If collecting taxes on church revenue counts as prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then clearly spending taxes on an endorsement of a religion counts as supporting it.
the first continental congress was opened with a prayer by Reverend Jacob DuchÃf© Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia,
You mean 13 years before the constitution was written? Arguments like that are designed to obscure the truth rather than help people better understand an issue. Therefore it follows that you aren't interested in getting to the truth, only in pushing an agenda.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the US House has an official chaplain,
If the office is at all funded with tax payer money then it seems like a pretty clear violation to me. On the other hand, the argument for such an office is that members of congress are away from home while serving and just like the government picks up all their other livings expenses such as food and lodging, so to should it pick the cost of their religious services.
No laws in respect to religion,
Hello, McFly! The motto is an endorsement of a religion. It doesn't get any more "in respect to" religion than endorsing it.
The "respect" found in the 1st Amendment is not "showing respect for", it is "regarding" or "with respect to".
Of course it does. It is an official acknowledgement of a God. Furthermore, you argument has never been used as a defence in the various court cases on the issue. The rulings in favour of the motto have relied on the motto having been "watered down" by over use.
I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to understand the 1st Amendment, you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight.
It's ironic that the court rulings against my position actually indicate that your reading of the amendment is the lesser one here.
If deism is a religion, then so is atheism. They just believe in one fewer god.
Your (a) does not follow from your (b). That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby just because you have one fewer stamp book than the lowliest philatelist.
The concern is, if we don't consider our inalienable human rights to be derived from a deity, where do they come from?
From the simple fact of our existence which is essentially what deists mean when they say that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The rights come part and parcel with being created, whatever the mechanism.
Wow. Really.
"In God We Trust" on money Establishes a religion?
No. But it does clearly "respect an establishment of religion," namely all branches of monotheism.
I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to read the 1st amendment you can't expect anyone to give your opinion on the 1st amendment any weight.
?The people who don't believe in God are a tiny minority, and that minority is not growing.
While I think that would have absolutely nothing to do with the import of this law, I'm pretty sure you are wrong too. Religiosity has been on a steady decline in the US for decades. Furthermore, the number of hindus and other polytheists has been increasing.
Stupid, unconstitutional laws have been written and passed since practically the start of the union. This case is nothing special. Hell, we still have "In God We Trust" on all of our coins and that started in 1864 and was made the official motto of the US in 1956 by law.
You know those anti-piracy "ads" that say something like, "You wouldn't steal a car, would you?"
I always though the obvious response was, "No, but if I could download a car and print it out for free, I sure would!"
Looks like that day is getting pretty close.
Which is why the lobbyists are there ... to stand in with clues.
What the hell kind of business doesn't keep track of their subscriber's name, address, phone number and billing info?
Real name, phone number and billing info (i.e. bank account numbers) are unncessary for regular operation. I have Fios and Verizon doesn't have those three pieces of information from me.
And furthermore, ISPs already log which IPs they assign to customers. They keep logs for abuse purposes,
I doubt they keep a year's worth of logs. A month's worth should be more than enough to handle any practical case of abuse involving the ISP's own systems.
Where the hell is the tea party? They talk about keeping the government out of our lives, but when it really matters they aren't anywhere to be found.
They can hold the entire country hostage with this ridiculous debt limit kabuki (it's ridiculous because congress already authorised the spending when they passed the bills spending the money earlier this year), they are trying to have their cake and eat it too) but they can't stop one minor bill that directly contradicts their stated ideology? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The concept also covers protocols and standards, and the context was the cloud. If I'm using a standardized API, then I can change providers, and how many people would actually bother to roll their own cloud computing provider?
Anybody who might want to take their app out of the generic cloud and host it in house. But portability isn't the only benefit of open-source. As I alluded to in my prior post - getting access to the source code trumps crappy docs.
"It's auditable because the source code is free". Well yes it is, but no one cares. I think even from the Slashdot crowd the number of people who bothered to build Firefox from source is a small minority compared to those who downloaded it
That exact same logic condemns "open surface" too - the vast majority of customers don't give a damn about documented interfaces, they just want to use the product.
It's only a very tiny minority that need to get their hands dirty. And of that tiny minority, only a minute fraction are good with "open surface" but not actual open source. The minute that one of those API's turns out to be only partially documented, or the code behind it buggy, or disabled for marketing reasons, then those same people now need real open source and not a sucker's stand-in like "open surface."
How is this "huge?" What the hell are you going to do with it? Someone tweets and uses an exclamation point, so you... what now?
What's your point? 2:1 doesn't qualify as huge to you? If it were 10:1 odds what now?
If it is 65% right all the time, then yes it was rather a waste.
Disagree - that's 2:1 odds, which is still pretty huge all on its own.
Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling
No, not really. Despite what many on slashdot think, warrantless wire-tapping isn't terribly controversial with the most of the US. Remember, the only time we hear about public discontent with the TSA is when they grope a baby or a grandmother - the bullshit constitutional smokescreen of "administrative searches" isn't even mentioned, much less questioned. No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this meeting had been scheduled months in advance. But even if it wasn't, it's just opportunism to schedule it now, not the cause of the debt ceiling fiasco, just a side-effect.
Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that Texas town
'bout that rock outside La Grange
and you know what I'm talkin' about.
Just let me know if you wanna go
to that stone out on the range.
They gotta lotta nice girls ah.
Have mercy.
A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw.
A haw, haw, haw.
Well, I hear it's fine if you got the time
and the ten to get yourself in.
A hmm, hmm.
And I hear it's tight most ev'ry night,
but now I might be mistaken.
hmm, hmm, hmm.
Ah have mercy.
You misunderstand the intent of paper trails.
They aren't for the voter to use to verify their vote ala a receipt.
They are for recounting purposes only. The idea is that you vote electronically, it kicks out a paper ballot with all of your choices conspicuously spelled out and then that ballot goes into a lockbox, just like paper ballots do now.
While paper ballots are subject to various tampering issues, they are all well understood and their exist standard precautions for mitigating those issues. The same is not, and probably never will be, true for purely electronic balloting.
Contextually, that tell us that he did this in his capacity as a supporting member and fundraiser.
I don't think there was ever any question as to the context of the quote. The problem with it is that while the immediate context was fundraising, his position as CEO of Deibold was the larger context. He clearly didn't intend to announce a campaign of vote tampering.
Given Diebold's official position that paper trails were unnecessary and that the internal operations of Diebold's voting machines could not be inspected even by the districts purchasing them, making that statement gave the appearance of impropriety. At the very least, he was guilty of very poor judgement and an utter lack of understanding the situation he had put himself into by demanding that the public trust his company's impartiality and then publicly declaring his overwhelming partisanship.
To me, that quote represents just how little importance the people running the show have given to assuring fair elections. The ongoing, almost uniformly republican opposition to verifiable voting machines doesn't help either. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but for a variety of fairly petty reasons it has become one.
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it.
You are thinking about as if legailsation equals endorsement. It does not. In a free society everything is permitted except that which is explicitly forbidden. But just because something is permitted does not necessarily mean that anybody thinks it is good idea. It is just that it is not a bad enough thing to make it forbidden.
So being uncomfortable with something is perfectly fine. Don't participate. If that isn't enough, go and donate time to a community program designed to give people alternatives.
but it is not the deeper level most simpletons would make it out to be.
Lol. That's a criticism the self-important have levelled at pretty much every work of art, high or law, in recorded history.
So... a guy who gets his account locked out because of his iPad
Jesus, diid you miss the entire message you quoted? SO what if this particular case is about a someone with an ipad? The guy went off with BIG BOLD CAPS about how it was a massive fatal totally unacceptable flaw when in reality its a very rare case so not worth all the increased risk and cost to handle it in code rather than an exception to a human.
Think about it - lock out all the domain administrator accounts, and the network is now yours to explore.
So this hacker already knows what the admin accounts are and there are no admins currently logged in and then you wrote something unintelligible about using regular accounts. Sounds like more hand-waving about a super unlikely event in order to justify increased complexity and risk in normal operations.
if you don't lock out a device, any one device can promptly go and lock out an entire company by attacking the userlist.
Such an attack ain't going to happen in a vacuum - if the entire company gets locked out (a) most users will still be logged in and (b) a human is going to notice right quick and handle the issue manually.
I don't see either of you making a compelling argument that the increased complexity of tracking where login attempts are coming from and giving a pass to failed logins from different devices is even close to a net win for anything like a common usage scenario, much less an absolutely critical feature that should be in every single authentication system.