We sell software that has an accompanying account for users to download data feeds and related updates. We do not let users pick their own passwords. We give the user a randomly-generated password that he/she has to use.
There are two major benefits: If we get hacked and all the credentials are stolen, the passwords (with overwhelming probability) will not be usable on any other sites, so our users are safe. Conversely, if another web site used by our users is hacked, then (with overwhelming probability) those credentials will not work on our site.
Yes, it's a little inconvenient for our users. We tell them to write down the password on a piece of paper and keep it in their wallet.
I'm pretty sure it's my mother. Ages ago, I had supper with Linus Torvalds and although he's not that tall, he's at least 20cm taller than my mother.:)
My mother does receive quite a few PowerPoint-laden emails. So far, Libreoffice has opened them all perfectly. My mother doesn't even know what "PowerPoint" is; she just knows that she gets cute slideshows when she clicks on the attachment.
My mother (who is a grandmother to my kids) runs Debian Wheezy with the XFCE desktop environment. The machine is fairly locked down and I've made quick-launchers for the apps she uses 99% of the time: Email, web-browsing, word-processing, music player and video player.
She's happy and I can administer the machine remotely, so I'm happy.
That's true. All our desktops run Linux so we are at somewhat lower risk for most malware than Windows shops. I understand that it's still not completely foolproof, but so far we haven't had a problem.
I own my company, and no... I don't do this to my employees.
I have warned people who've abused the system (I had some casual employees who spent inordinate amounts of time on Facebook, and I've had to clamp down on music downloads that could have gotten me into trouble) but I generally use HR methods rather than technological methods to take action.
Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?
Probably not, because his or her safety might be endangered.
Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?
Yes, unless his or her safety were endangered.
Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?
Yes, yes and yes. Islam, Judaism and Veganism prohibit the consumption of pork. They don't prohibit the serving of pork, so there's no undue hardship.
But when you start in on all these other things...
Fortunately, the West is becoming more enlightened and sexual orientation is widely accepted as an invalid basis for discrimination, just as color has been for many years.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way?
Yes, definitely. A business should be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way unless it can prove that this would cause undue hardship, and infringing on "sincerely held religious beliefs" most certainly does not qualify.
So getting back to your examples, a hotel could refuse to host the KKK and the Black Panthers at the same time out of legitimate fears for security, or it could demand both organizations to fully fund the large numbers of security guards that would be needed.
A sex worker could refuse a homosexual client because that would qualify as undue hardship for a heterosexual sex worker.
But a bakery certainly could not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple... where's the undue hardship?
People in most other countries in the Middle East tend to be too preoccupied with killing one another (only occasionally remembering to surface to denounce the "Zionist Entity") So they don't have time for frivolous things like, you know, progress or betterment of humanity.
Chip-and-PIN is used in Canada. As for tipping, you don't need to enter the tip while the waiter is standing there looking. Or you can enter a zero tip and leave the tip in cash.
Nothing is free, not least of all when you are obviously paying for it.
Well, yes. Let me rephrase that: I don't have to pay when I need medical care; it's already paid for by taxes. And more cheaply than in the US, I might add.
Assertion without evidence. Correlation is not causation.
If you want to let the private sector take care of education, road maintenance, defense, and health care, then move to some place like Somalia or Afghanistan where that's effectively the case.
And I'm not. But do I get a choice in the matter?
No, you get no choice. That's the price of living in a society with civil institutions. Again, if you don't like it, Somalia beckons... go there for a taste of anarchy.
If I don't like the way a business operates, I stop buying its products, and it ceases to affect me.
Completely untrue. That business could affect you in many other ways: By polluting, through monopolistic market manipulation, through buying legislation,... I'm sure you can think of many more.
What little say I get in the government, a single vote on occasion, is always discarded in favor of the majority opinion. It is not accountable to me at all.
Yes, that's the cynical view that's easy to promote via sound bites. However, I would much rather live in a society like Canada's with our democratic system (flawed though it may be) than in any other society. And migration patterns show that most people agree and vote with their feet.
After busting your asses for your paychecks, why are you so willing to hand over so much of it to the state?
I live in Canada and I'm quite happy to pay taxes. That's because I get services in return, including free medical care, which is huge. There are some things that simply can't be done effectively by the private sector (education, road maintenance, defense, health care) and I'm very happy to pay the government to do those things. After all, the government is run by elected officials who (at least in my opinion, and at least in Canada) are certainly more accountable to the public than CEOs of private corporations.
I would certainly not be happy to pay taxes to a country I don't live in and that doesn't offer me any useful services in return for my taxes.
Banks in New Zealand cannot be compelled to comply
Sure, except that non-compliant banks face a 30% tax on every single transaction in and out of the US. The US government could probably even prohibit US banks from dealing with non-compliant banks, which is the kiss of death.
Legally and morally, the US cannot compel foreign banks to obey US laws. But practically speaking, it can.
This is affecting Canada as well, and according to one article, this may affect Canadian citizens as well even if they have never been US residents or citizens.
Could you imagine the uproar if (say) Iran threatened to trawl through US bank records for details on Iranian Americans? Totally disgusting. And yet the US can get away with it.
I also use LaTeX for writing text documents. However, I still use LibreOffice a lot... mostly for the calc (spreadsheet) component and occasionally the presentation tool. LibreOffice is a very competent office suite and certainly a no-brainer for replacing MS Office.
Sorry but why is creationism something that shouldn't be taught?
Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science.
It can be taught in a class on mythology. Or comparative religion. Just not in a science class.
Has it been disproven?
It's not science, so it's neither provable nor disprovable. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Green Arkleseizure or ancient Egyption creation myths. Should those be taught in science class?
As such it's still valid to teach it as a possibility
No, it's not. Science class is for teaching scientific theories, not creation myths.
Once you start banning ideas and theories from being taught you go down the path of censorship and book banning.
So it's OK to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc? Or are you one of those steekin' censors?
No, not at all. Islam is a huge problem in large swaths of the world. Luckily for us in North America, it is not yet as big a problem (though we have to be vigilant) so it makes perfect sense to spend some energy countering the Creationists.
Slashdot Mirror
We sell software that has an accompanying account for users to download data feeds and related updates. We do not let users pick their own passwords. We give the user a randomly-generated password that he/she has to use.
There are two major benefits: If we get hacked and all the credentials are stolen, the passwords (with overwhelming probability) will not be usable on any other sites, so our users are safe. Conversely, if another web site used by our users is hacked, then (with overwhelming probability) those credentials will not work on our site.
Yes, it's a little inconvenient for our users. We tell them to write down the password on a piece of paper and keep it in their wallet.
I'm pretty sure it's my mother. Ages ago, I had supper with Linus Torvalds and although he's not that tall, he's at least 20cm taller than my mother. :)
My mother does receive quite a few PowerPoint-laden emails. So far, Libreoffice has opened them all perfectly. My mother doesn't even know what "PowerPoint" is; she just knows that she gets cute slideshows when she clicks on the attachment.
My mother (who is a grandmother to my kids) runs Debian Wheezy with the XFCE desktop environment. The machine is fairly locked down and I've made quick-launchers for the apps she uses 99% of the time: Email, web-browsing, word-processing, music player and video player.
She's happy and I can administer the machine remotely, so I'm happy.
You are correct... my company is small (10 people).
That's true. All our desktops run Linux so we are at somewhat lower risk for most malware than Windows shops. I understand that it's still not completely foolproof, but so far we haven't had a problem.
I have never fired someone for abusing our Internet policy. I've issued warnings, though.
I own my company, and no... I don't do this to my employees.
I have warned people who've abused the system (I had some casual employees who spent inordinate amounts of time on Facebook, and I've had to clamp down on music downloads that could have gotten me into trouble) but I generally use HR methods rather than technological methods to take action.
Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?
Probably not, because his or her safety might be endangered.
Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?
Yes, unless his or her safety were endangered.
Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?
Yes, yes and yes. Islam, Judaism and Veganism prohibit the consumption of pork. They don't prohibit the serving of pork, so there's no undue hardship.
But when you start in on all these other things...
Fortunately, the West is becoming more enlightened and sexual orientation is widely accepted as an invalid basis for discrimination, just as color has been for many years.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way?
Yes, definitely. A business should be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way unless it can prove that this would cause undue hardship, and infringing on "sincerely held religious beliefs" most certainly does not qualify.
So getting back to your examples, a hotel could refuse to host the KKK and the Black Panthers at the same time out of legitimate fears for security, or it could demand both organizations to fully fund the large numbers of security guards that would be needed.
A sex worker could refuse a homosexual client because that would qualify as undue hardship for a heterosexual sex worker.
But a bakery certainly could not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple... where's the undue hardship?
Have you actually READ the Koran? It's basically disgusting hate literature. What do you think inspires the radicals and terrorists?
As long as they blow themselves up when they get there, it'll be OK.
The OP mentioned Middle Eastern countries. I didn't know that the UK and California were in the Middle East.
People in most other countries in the Middle East tend to be too preoccupied with killing one another (only occasionally remembering to surface to denounce the "Zionist Entity") So they don't have time for frivolous things like, you know, progress or betterment of humanity.
Chip-and-PIN is used in Canada. As for tipping, you don't need to enter the tip while the waiter is standing there looking. Or you can enter a zero tip and leave the tip in cash.
Now with any luck, you can switch to the SI system of measurement and join the 18th century as well!
Nothing is free, not least of all when you are obviously paying for it.
Well, yes. Let me rephrase that: I don't have to pay when I need medical care; it's already paid for by taxes. And more cheaply than in the US, I might add.
Assertion without evidence. Correlation is not causation.
If you want to let the private sector take care of education, road maintenance, defense, and health care, then move to some place like Somalia or Afghanistan where that's effectively the case.
And I'm not. But do I get a choice in the matter?
No, you get no choice. That's the price of living in a society with civil institutions. Again, if you don't like it, Somalia beckons... go there for a taste of anarchy.
If I don't like the way a business operates, I stop buying its products, and it ceases to affect me.
Completely untrue. That business could affect you in many other ways: By polluting, through monopolistic market manipulation, through buying legislation, ... I'm sure you can think of many more.
What little say I get in the government, a single vote on occasion, is always discarded in favor of the majority opinion. It is not accountable to me at all.
Yes, that's the cynical view that's easy to promote via sound bites. However, I would much rather live in a society like Canada's with our democratic system (flawed though it may be) than in any other society. And migration patterns show that most people agree and vote with their feet.
After busting your asses for your paychecks, why are you so willing to hand over so much of it to the state?
I live in Canada and I'm quite happy to pay taxes. That's because I get services in return, including free medical care, which is huge. There are some things that simply can't be done effectively by the private sector (education, road maintenance, defense, health care) and I'm very happy to pay the government to do those things. After all, the government is run by elected officials who (at least in my opinion, and at least in Canada) are certainly more accountable to the public than CEOs of private corporations.
I would certainly not be happy to pay taxes to a country I don't live in and that doesn't offer me any useful services in return for my taxes.
Banks in New Zealand cannot be compelled to comply
Sure, except that non-compliant banks face a 30% tax on every single transaction in and out of the US. The US government could probably even prohibit US banks from dealing with non-compliant banks, which is the kiss of death.
Legally and morally, the US cannot compel foreign banks to obey US laws. But practically speaking, it can.
This is affecting Canada as well, and according to one article, this may affect Canadian citizens as well even if they have never been US residents or citizens.
Could you imagine the uproar if (say) Iran threatened to trawl through US bank records for details on Iranian Americans? Totally disgusting. And yet the US can get away with it.
I also use LaTeX for writing text documents. However, I still use LibreOffice a lot... mostly for the calc (spreadsheet) component and occasionally the presentation tool. LibreOffice is a very competent office suite and certainly a no-brainer for replacing MS Office.
Sorry but why is creationism something that shouldn't be taught?
Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science.
It can be taught in a class on mythology. Or comparative religion. Just not in a science class.
Has it been disproven?
It's not science, so it's neither provable nor disprovable. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Green Arkleseizure or ancient Egyption creation myths. Should those be taught in science class?
As such it's still valid to teach it as a possibility
No, it's not. Science class is for teaching scientific theories, not creation myths.
Once you start banning ideas and theories from being taught you go down the path of censorship and book banning.
So it's OK to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc? Or are you one of those steekin' censors?
Science states that matter cannot just appear out of nowhere,
Science states no such thing.
Matter can and does spontaneously appear out of nowhere. Any more strawmen for us to knock down?
*whoosh*
No, not at all. Islam is a huge problem in large swaths of the world. Luckily for us in North America, it is not yet as big a problem (though we have to be vigilant) so it makes perfect sense to spend some energy countering the Creationists.