He didn't say that either.

What he did do was lash out at the people pushing this law for being arbitrary, hypocritical, superstitious, bigoted, and (most importantly) wrong. It's a frequent problem with people whose religion has privilege and a marked persecution complex.

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not.

"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!

And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.

You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.

in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.

They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.

The next gambit in secure boot is to disallow the user putting in their own signing keys.

This is that gambit. If you cannot turn secure boot off, you cannot alter the keys.

if microsoft surface could run linux

The (x86) Surface is a standard PC, you can install and run Linux on it.

Of course, that requires giving money to Microsoft and not everyone wants their keyboard or solely the hardware on offer in the Surface.

It's a surface mount, single-package SSD.

I've just about started fist-fights with that observations.

Probably because it's profoundly and willfully ignorant, along with being unnecessarily antagonistic.

You should probably try not being an asshole.

With GNOME and Firefox, it was said early on that bad UI changes were just experimental, and could be ignored. If they were bad, they'd be reverted. Well, they did turn out to be bad. They were very bad, in fact.

Sounds like someone is presenting a subjective opinion as fact.

Any critics were ridiculed and silenced.

Nonsense, the critics got louder and more irritating while failing to seriously substantiate their arguments.

Linus' leadership role is on its way out, I fear. Linux is done, too. It's suffering from the same disease that has affected GNOME, Firefox and Debian: technological correctness taking a backseat to political correctness.

I see, you're not here to present anything rational, you're here to troll.

Google could actually fight back, while the handset vendors are far more likely to buckle if their business is threatened with a block. They also resist tipping their hand to reveal what patents they want licensed, but Google would actually demand to see it - and possibly file a patent counter-suit.

How many people have threatened to kill their boss in a moment of stress? It's not a credible threat.

If it was done in a similar manner to much of the harassment being discussed, you'd be leaving threatening notes in their cube/office or on their voice mail.

You'd be out pretty quick, or arrested.

If my kid threatens your kid with the power of the One Ring, do you take that seriously (that was just last month, remember)?

Of course not, because the One Ring isn't real and he's a kid. Mentally stunted manchildren who think it's funny to send death threats don't get that exception because it's completely different.

Most threats ever made are not credible, they're merely a stress blow-off. Credible threats rarely take the form of anonymous, over-the-top trolling.

Graphic, targeted descriptions of rape and threats of violence and/or death aren't in the same league ash what you described. Stop apologizing or attempting to minimize the acts of sociopaths.

If a reasonable person would find a threat credible, that justifies further investigation, but the speech is still entirely protected.

I don't think that point has been in contest here - my point is that it's stupid to say "you shouldn't take it seriously" when it's impossible to discern between idle threats and credible ones when assholes get creepy detailed.

But, of course, its your first amendment right to make people's lives a living hell and terrorize them with threats. It's your right to be a miserable piece of shit who sees fit to send people messages describing them in detail, and the horrible things they'd like to do. And we shouldn't ever, ever do anything about it.

Unless there's an overt act to turn the words into criminal conspiracy, the speech should be protected.

Indeed, people should just turn a blind eye to vile harassment all day long. No one needs to worry until it's obviously too late.

And maybe you should be less afraid of the world.

Indeed, that guy threatening to rape and murder your kid because he hates you for some reason? Just ignore him. Don't be so afraid of targeted threats of death or rape. Because it's your fault that you're terrorized, not their fault for being sociopathic.

That's the part the speech-banners and fascists keep forgetting.

Because, of course, it's your right to harass and threaten people! Just don't take it seriously and you'll see that my explicit description of violent acts towards you and your family are just jokes, really!

It would be difficult to release a violent work of fiction otherwise (or would you like to ban those too? video games too maybe?).

Surely there's a difference between descriptions of violence within artistic works, and sending graphic descriptions of violence (sometimes accompanied with names and addresses) to specific people?

Free speech is fine as long as you don't say things that aren't acceptable.

Oh, you have the right to say whatever you want without the government arresting you for it. That doesn't mean society can't turn around and point out you're wrong, or being a jackass, or whatever.

I remember that people used to have much thicker skin though about 4 or 5 decades ago.

4 or 5 decades ago puts you into periods where racism and legally enforced discrimination was rampant. Take off the rose tinted glasses and you'll realize the past was rife with shittiness.

Now if you hurt someone's feelings it's the end of the world. I'm pretty sure the world wont end with a bang or a whimper but a whine.

Oh poor you, unable to treat people like shit and get away with it anymore. You're just doomed, aren't you?

The need to "call people out" for saying something you don't agree with or that offends you is a key contributor to social problems you have enumerated.

So we should just let people spout bullshit unquestioned?

When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot as much as they dislike their remarks then and only then will real progress have been made.

By "respect" you mean "let them have their way" and "stop criticizing their statements," right?

Chromium, not Chrome. There's a distinct difference between the two.