The Super Bowl isn't on cable.

Of note, "must carry" is the broacaster's option. The broadcaster can demand a cable operator carry a broadcast network, OR the broadcaster can waive that right and ask for payment/consideration.

Disney invented the practice of waiving must carry. Every ABC station in the country waives must carry, but will give a cable company the signal for free if they put the whole ESPN thing on basic cable.

Microsoft plans to distribute a key generator for Device Guard. You can take a binary of a commercial (or open source) program and SIGN IT YOURSELF and it will work with Device Guard. (Also, Device Guard is intended for Enterprise situations, where the IT department is blocking unapproved software based on their corporation's policy. This isn't a consumer thing anyway.)

It's not. CDs and DVDs won their wars and became universal formats. You still see more DVDs sold than Blu-Rays, and realistically, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both lost out to direct streaming (Netflix et al.)

Well, keep in mind, the government just threw up dumb roadblocks to something that Comcast wanted to do because Comcast didn't pay the Leftist executive branch regulators a big enough bribe. Comcast's last big entry into politics was Net Neutrality*, where the institutional Left demagogued against Comcast, despite the fact that like the institutional left, Comcast was supporting the so-called Net Neutrality plan. A plan based on "Comcast will lobby the government to do the right thing" is obviously not going to work at the moment.

*Also, once the government pretended to unveil the "Net Neutrality" rules and word started leaking out that the government's plan wasn't really Net Neutrality, but wholesale regulation of the ISP based on ex post facto rulings (see: Future Conduct Standard) the conventional wisdom on Slashdot switched to "ISPs have to be a monopoly because they're a natural monopoly."

Well, MSNBC is still on the air despite not making any money, so I'd say the executive branch regulators who they made the promises to are pretty happy with them.

The easiest way to keep corporations from buying laws is to keep governments from selling them.

Apparently a lot of states have a division of their state police that provides police services at state schools. Being the state police, they're sworn law enforcement officers (a.k.a. real cops.) But they're only at state schools, not private schools in the state. (My buddy went to a SUNY school, and the police were NY state troopers. I went to a private school upstate, and we had "Campus Safety" (pretend cops) but if you needed a real cop, you called the local police department (county sherrifs, because the town is too small for a dedicated police department.)

The school encouraged everyone to go through Campus Safety rather than the cops, which is bullshit and should be illegal, but if the school had real cops, people would presumably call the real cops.

I don't get what you're saying at all. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to participate in any event, regardless of whether you personally see anything wrong with the event.

If you're a county clerk* then you're acting on behalf of the government. MAYBE you could get yourself assigned to a different job with different duties than issuing out marriage licenses, but what you'd be asking for is for THE GOVERNMENT to be able to refuse someone service. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS A MONOPOLY, they shouldn't be able to do that.

Indiana just passed law legalizing gay marriage. The RFRA doesn't overturn that law. It just protects PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS from dopey activists looking for paydays on bogus discrimination claims.

*I actually think it's a town clerk in most states. I got my marriage license from a town, not a county, in New York, and New Jersey has towns issue marriage licenses as well.

Well, first off, that's neither what I said nor what the law says. Your dopey anti-redheads example would go before a judge who would rule on it, but he would have to consider your religious beliefs in the ruling. That's all the law says. The government wins RFRA cases sometimes.

I then predicted how the case would turn out. Since anti-discrimination laws protect PEOPLE but not EVENTS, someone who will serve gay people, but not participate in gay events, would probably do OK in court.

I do trust in God, but if we took "In God We Trust" off the money, it wouldn't bother me.

In fact, we should do what it says in Matthew 22:21 and instead of putting "In God We Trust," we should a picture of the current President (so Obama for another year and a half, then the next guy) standing in front of the IRS Building.

Happy April 15th, everyone.

The law in question did not do what you claim it does. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, such as the Indiana law and the federal RFRA, allow people to claim that a specific law or tort "substantially burdens" their ability to practice their religion.

In a defense under the RFRA, the person claiming discrimination and the government will make their case before a judge on how necessary the law/tort is to achieve the legitimate purposes of government and how substantially the person being discriminated against is burdened.

In practice, this means that under the RFRA, a business that refused all service to gays would probably lose, but a business that refused to participate in gay weddings would probably win.

The reason you heard differently is because the people who hate religious people lied to you.

I'm not saying this is right, but this isn't as recent a trend as you'd think. This construction has been part of the western PA dialect for a decent amount of time. Source: I'm from NJ and work with a lot of Pennsylvanians.

Exactly. But it's the MOST restrictive Open Source license MS has ever used, which is why I picked it.