Apple "limited choice" because other carriers weren't willing to allow Apple to update phones directly and wanted to put carrier crap on it. Apple went to Verizon first.

Hindsight being what it is, which was the better choice? Allowing carriers to put their own crap on the phone and to control updates or to force their hand?

In fact VP9 spec was finalized quarters before H.265, and Google has the ear and other anatomical bits of all the hardware manufactures in the Android world, so VP9 hardware support from the start is in very good shape.

All of the hardware manufacturers in the Android world? Google has no control over half of the Android phones in the world -- those selling in China and India running AOSP.

Ask Adobe how far anything on the web gets without Apple's support.

If a business chooses not to serve everyone they don't deserve the protections being a business entity gives them -- limited liability, trademark/copyright protection, etc.

The Catholic Church is not a for profit business and has nothing to do with the law.

So is anything the article said factually incorrect? What if Hobby Lobby were run by Jehovah Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions and someone needed blood? Why should a company be able to decide what type of medical care their employee receives?

The law Clinton signed did not allow private for profit companies to discriminate. The Indiana law did -- including a private ambulance service.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

The problem with this statement is that, well, itâ(TM)s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRAâ"and most state RFRAsâ"do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to âoethe free exercise of religion.â The federal RFRA doesnâ(TM)t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolinaâ(TM)s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: âoeA person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.â (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has âoefree exerciseâ rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last yearâ(TM)s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Courtâ(TM)s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employeesâ(TM) statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a businessâ(TM)s âoefree exerciseâ right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, thereâ(TM)s a lot of evidence that the new wave of âoereligious freedomâ legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the coupleâ(TM)s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in âoepublic accommodationsâ on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexicoâ(TM)s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the stateâ(TM)s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply âoebecause the government is not a party.â

The widespread discrimination against women and minorities is well documented, but I guess as a white male those kinds of discrimination aren't worth talking about,

There are a whole lot of reasons that many tech companies don't have a large minority percentage or woman --- what percentage of minorities and women have STEM degrees compared to white males?

Before you accuse me of being a racist White Male, not only are some of my best friends Black, so are both of my biological parents......

The difference is that it is a different law that says something different. See how easy that was? If the law was exactly the same, why would the state need to pass it at all?

Ok, so is the same businessperson who is allowed to discriminate without government intervention also willing to give up all of the protection that the government affords the business -- limited liability, trademark/copyright protection, business tax breaks, etc.?

Adultery -- is a personal matter between the involved families, yes it hurts children but it is still no one else's concern outside of the family.

Child abuse - physically harms another person and is illegal.

Opposing adoption -- no scientific basis that harms children and by leaving a child in an orphanage instead of letting them be adopted is harming the child.

Why is there no religious objection to serving divorce people? What about catering a party for an unmarried people living together? What about serving a couple who are on their 2nd marriage?

What about refusing to serve people who don't give 10% to the church?

Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.

Since a church is not "for profit", the law doesn't apply to them.

Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle?

Why should I care as a businessman if two adults were in an adulterous relationship? So now you're saying there is a moral equivalence between adultery and child abuse?

This whole Indiana thing has been noting but bullying on the left's part. "Gay marriage" is nothing more than a ploy to force acceptance on people who have serious religious object to homosexual acts and supporting such acts. If this were not the case why is it that people who believed that a "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we're married." All of a sudden, that piece of paper is so important because homosexuals are the ones with traditional views of marriage.

And those same arguments were made about interracial marriages in the pass...

And that's what they want you to believe.

http://mediamatters.org/resear...

[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA -- and most state RFRAs -- do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

[...]

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party." [The Atlantic, 3/30/15]

Mark Hamil has had a renowned career as a voice actor. Among other roles, his work as the voice of the Joker in the DCAU in the 90's has received universal praise over the years.