You seem to be missing the point.

No, the vast majority of professional web stacks don't use bash for anything at all. No serious web host has CGI's that start with #!/bin/sh.

But that's not the end of the vulnerability. Bash will trigger its bug whenever its run. It doesn't need to be the CGI handler. It just needs to be run. Loads of web shops use Perl or PHP. How many of them have written their code so that it always uses the array-form of system() in Perl or things like proc_open() in PHP? How many people have written code that uses system() or backticks or shell_exec() or its equivalent? If you have, then there's a good chance you've just invoked bash in your web environment. If you're running through any sort of CGI environment, then you're vulnerable.

This was petitioned by citizens, not the US government. The US government simply applied the laws it has on the books.

And those laws are simply a reflection of the role its played for quite some time: The US government does not (er... should not... tries not to...) support the mistreatment of protected classes of citizens. As a person, you're allowed to think whatever you want about another group, you're allowed to support whatever group you want, you're even allowed to say whatever you want about a group (within reason). But you won't always get the support of the US government in doing so. Sorry. If you want to toss racial slurs at Chinese workers and pretend its okay because no one complained about it in 1840, then... good luck with that. But the US government isn't going to support you. As far as I'm concerned, that is absolutely the role the federal government should be taking. I'm all for local government deciding how to spend local taxes and states setting local regulations, but I want the federal government making sure that basic human rights are preserved.

This is the basis for the Civil Rights movement. Are you also not a fan of the US government's enforcement of Civil Rights?

Unlikely.

This suit was specifically drawn up to avoid the procedural issue with the previous suit. Numerous lawyers have already said that the appeal used in 2009 is completely invalid for this suit.

It's been offensive since 1933, as well. Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean that it's okay. Jim Crow laws were around for about the same period of time before they got torn down, too.

There is no intelligent debate over whether "redskin" is a racial slur. If you're trying to make that argument... then you're just ignoring reality. The amount of time that the racial slur was ignored doesn't really increase its legitimacy. The law is clear: No racial slurs in trademarks. Actually the law is even more clear than you think: the racial slur status is determined at the time of the challenge. Even the law doesn't care when the trademark was originally issued. If, twenty years from now, the term "Pepsi" becomes a racial slur against people from Taiwan, then Pepsi can lose its trademark protection.

Of course that just ignores the bigger issue, of course: Yeah, a lot of people want the team renamed because its named for a racial slur. But what is up with all the people who want to keep the racial slur as a team name? Who would actually want that? What sort of upbringing do you have to have that makes you think its totally okay to have a team with a name that is derogatory to the people it claims to represent?

No.

A single counter-example does not prove a global fact.

In order for something to be derogatory (in the legal sense, and in the moral sense for most intelligent people), it doesn't need to be offensive to all people it describes. It only needs to be offensive to a significant portion of those people.

So how about we put your statement to the test. You claim its not derogatory because a Navajo school uses it. So why not walk into a town hall on a Nebraska reservation, or a Iroquois tribal gathering in upstate New York and say: "Hey, look at all these redskins!" If you honestly believe that your statement proves that its not derogatory, then you should have no reason not to do that. If you are thinking to yourself "No, they'll be mad at me..." then deep down, you recognize that its widely accepted as derogatory, but you just don't want to admit that it is.

And in a dozen generations:

...forgets what they were even trying to accomplish and just decide to drift in space and live their lives

...or sets up a new religion based on the vindictive Banishers who imprisoned them on the ship

...or go crazy looking into the vast darkness of space, and turn into bloodthirsty barbarians who seek out other colony ships to kill and eat them

What's a VCR?

...and why doesn't it support NTP?

However, It is illegal to take ladders around to every window and door looking for one which will give you a glimpse of what is inside.

Again: Intent matters

I always found this confusing about people. I don't know if its greed or selfishness, or an utter lack of personal morals, but at least in the US, there seems to be a common belief that failure to try and stop you from doing an action means that the action is legal.

Example: If I walk into a store and the cashier station is empty, with the register open and a stack of $20 lying on top, is it okay and legal for me to grab the money and walk out?

Of course not. That's not my money.

Somewhere, loads of people have gotten the idea that its only immoral or illegal if someone is actively trying to stop you from doing something. If I leave my car door open, that doesn't make it legal for you to drive off with it. If I leave my phone on a bench and look away, that doesn't mean that its okay for anyone passing by to take it. ATT didn't tell weev it was okay to take the info. Any person with half a brain knows that it wasn't intended to be public. The fact that it was easy to do doesn't make it legal

Should ATT get in trouble for lax security? Sure. But that doesn't absolve weev, either. If I build a house without a door, my insurance company might decide to deny my claim if I'm robbed. However, that doesn't mean that the robber didn't commit theft and shouldn't be punished.

"Gluten Free" is yet another in a chain of semi-fad dietary taglines. Yes, there are a bunch of people who should or must avoid gluten. However, they are greatly outnumbered by the number of people who should or must avoid lactose. Where are all the food tags bragging about being lactose free? Where are the articles claiming that a lactose-free diet is better for everyone? (Note: There is more biological support for adults eating a lactose-free diet than a gluten-free diet). Yes, my grocery store does have a tiny section of non-dairy dairy-like products. It's about a third of the size of the gluten free section, despite the fact that the number of people who need it is probably three times the number who truly need gluten-free food.

The point isn't that "Gluten Free" isn't something that is necessary for some people, the point is that a bunch of fad-crazed people are latching onto it blindly without actually having any real reason to do it. For a small percentage of people, it is a required dietary restriction. For many, many more people it is a pseudo-scientific food fad that they use to pretend like they are improving their lives.

The only upside of all this is that, like some people's illogical fascination with organic food, even if people have no logical reason to restrict gluten, the search for gluten free foods usually means that they eat less pre-prepared foods and less fast food, which is going to be a big upgrade and much more likely to improve their health and well-being than the existence or non-existence of a protein their body is probably just fine with.

Ah. So, you feel fine with freeloading and forcing everyone else to pay for your transportation and who knows what else, but you want a say in what gets fixed...

Yeah, not terribly sympathetic here. I grew up with very little money, and instead of stealing or cheating my way to getting things that we couldn't afford, we just made do without them. I guess you took the other path: If you can't afford it, steal it or make someone else pay, and then blame the world for not living up to the standards that you refuse to adhere to.

Whoa!

I was ready to disagree.. but... I don't. Finally someone who points out the actual problem with public schools: Parents and Society. Parents, for thinking that it's the schools' job to raise their children and their unwillingness to accept money being spent on anything that doesn't benefit their child. Society, for glorifying the weak education of bankers, stock traders, CEOs and reality stars while insulting scientists, engineers, and anyone who "knows too much".

Because its cheaper to just create a book that includes all the rubbish Texas wants and force everyone else to buy it, too.

Successful?

The whole point of the Tea Party is to be un-successful. They want to be part of government so that they can do nothing, and prevent others from doing anything. To date, they haven't really accomplished much of anything, other than passing some pretty offensive local laws. In national government, they've mostly only managed to keep the government from doing anything of value.

If that's success, then its a success I don't ever want to emulate.