Right. ANYONE who can access the local network, or if the device is internet accessible ANYONE on the internet, can enter the username HPSupport and the password badg3r5.

This is a wide open highly dangerous back door, which was (formerly) protected by nothing more than the hope that (1) no one bothered to notice that HP publicly offered this sort of remote support and (2) the hope that no one who did notice it bothered spending 20 seconds on Google to find a website that could instantly decode the SHA-1 "78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50" of the password back into the raw password "badg3r5".

-

If I may borrow a quote from Representative Paul Broun on the House committee for Science Space and Technology, this so-called study is obviously just another Lie Straight From The Pit Of Hell. As he says, the Bible is "the manufacturer's handbook". Obviously science would be a lot easier if students spent a lot more time in Bible class and spent a lot less time in science class.

-

So..... you're saying that Science and English are both hard?

p.s.
fortitude

-

You've flipping the logic backwards.

Of course "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument.
The entire point of raising "Leviticus says [shellfish]" is to smack someone over the head with the fact that "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. If someone wants to cite Old Testament Law as an argument, they need something better than "I personally enjoy shellfish and I personally do not enjoy homosexuality" as a basis for claiming one is a valid God's Law and the other is a "no longer relevant" God's Law.

Even if we take the Bible as the undisputed word of God, we still have the Old Testament was fulfilled/thrown_out/clarified/whatever_you_want_to_call_it by Jesus. Therefore "Leviticus says [homosexuality]" is an unsustainable argument. Saying "Leviticus says [shellfish]" does not positively establish that homosexuality is fine and dandy, but it does positively refute any "Leviticus says..." argument that homosexuality is any worse than eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton mixed fiber T-shit.

-

*I* haven't. The present reality has.
I said *IF* the government issues marriage licenses *THEN* the government cannot discriminate based on race/religion/gender in granting those licenses.

*IF* the government gets entirely out of the marriage business, I'm fine with that. That is a perfectly reasonable perfectly valid option. If you want to get the law fixed to eliminate government-marriage-licenses, you have my blessing and my passive support. I don't think you're likely to succeed, but if you do, great, problem solved.

But so long as the government *is* issuing marriage licenses, I would appreciate your support, either passive support or preferably active support, that the government cannot use race/religion/gender as a basis to discriminate against interracial/interfaith/gay marriages.

-

And you know this how...?

Because he has a grasp of the English language that extends beyond calling every gun an "assault rifle", every worthless punk a "terrorist", every deadbeat a "victim of poor credit", and everyone who disagrees with him "faaaaaags"?

Going after 14YOs would make someone an ephebophile, not a pedo.

/ Read a book!

No, that's like saying "interracial rights are civil rights".... which is badly butchering the issue/description.

It's the that government should not (and cannot) discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. If the government issues driver's licenses the law cannot examine the applicant's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. If the government issues marriage licenses, then it's impossible to write a valid law excluding gay marriage for the exact same reason it's impossible to write a valid law that excludes interracial marriage. That's because there's no way fr the law to implement such discrimination other than explicitly on the basis of the race/religion/gender of the applicants.

A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.

-

The only thing I am asking them to accept is that our government does not.... cannot.... discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender.

If the government issues driver's licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicant as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.

If the government issues marriage licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.

The government cannot selectively exclude gay marriage applicants for the exact same reason the government cannot selectively exclude interracial marriage applicants. There's no way to write such a law without examining the race, religion, or gender of the applicants.

Gay marriage has no more effect (and no less effect) on opponents than interracial marriage has on those opponents. There is nearly no effect at all, other than denying them the "freedom" to use the force of government to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Live and let-live. They are being denied the power to constrain other people's lives.

-

Why is is it that so many on the right have NO CLUE what freedom of speech means?

If I call you ugly, stupid, bigoted, or otherwise insult you, that is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech. That is my usage of my freedom of speech. This seems to be the big one for right wingers. "Waaa.... waaa..... waaa..... I was insulted, that's an attack on my freedom of speech!". No it's not. You have the right to speech, and I respect your right to speak, and I have the right to not-respect the content of your speech, I have the right to criticize your speech, I have the right to insult you and your speech.

If I say "shut the fuck up", that is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You still have the right to continue speaking, and I have the right to express my opinion on it, and to say I think you should stop speaking.

I have the right to stop being your friend if I dislike your speech. I have the right to tell other people they shouldn't be your friend. I have the right to avoid you, and avoid spending my money in your business because I dislike you and what you say. And I have the right to suggest to other people that should avoid you and not spend their money in your business. None of that is a violation of your freedom of speech.

What DOES freedom of speech mean?

It means the government can't put you in prison because it doesn't like what you have to say, it means I can't use the government to put you in prison for saying things I dislike, it means the government cannot deny you equal-access under the law because the government dislikes the content of your speech.

You can be a member of the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, or whatever else. And if a city issues parade permits for activist groups, the city cannot deny you equal access to obtain a parade permit. THAT is a violation of your freedom of speech. I may utterly abhor your speech, but I will fight the government on your behalf, demanding that the government MUST issue parade permits on content-neutral terms. And once you do get that parade permit, I will either stay the hell away from your abhorrent parade, or I will show up at the parade to use MY freedom of speech to shout you down and insult you, protesting against your cause.

I will fight the government on your behalf if they try to imprison you for your speech, or if the government denies you equal access under the law. However beyond that I do NOT need to support cause, I do NOT need to respect you or what you have to say, I do NOT need to assist you in any way. I CAN and WILL oppose you in every way in my power. I will oppose you in every way SHORT of trying to criminalize your speech or deny you equal treatment under the law.

There are a lot of things I dislike, there are a lot of things that offend me, but I am DEDICATED to the position that no one.... not even me.... can use violence merely because we are offended by what you have to say. And that specifically means that no one.... not even me.... can use government-sanctioned violence to arrest or imprison you merely because we are offended by what you have to say. That neither I not anyone else can use the force of government to deny you equal rights under the law, simply because we dislike what you have to say.

Freedom of speech means I strictly reject violence against you for your objectionable speech (including the threat of police), and strictly oppose oppose striping your legal rights for your objectionable speech. But in the arena of speech-vs-speech, in the social arena, I can disrespect and combat your objectionable speech with all vigor.

Today we are nearly all of one mind that women should have an equal right to vote. And in getting to that point, there was nothing wrong with any disrespect that was expressed against opponents, there was nothing wrong with any insults cast against opponents, there was nothing wrong with social stigma against opponents. Anyone today who advocates revoking women's right to vote is going to dear well-deserved insults and social stigma for arguing such noxious ideas. Freedom of speech ensures they CAN pursue that speech, but there's no violation of freedom of speech when the general public loudly and viciously attacks that speech. There no violation of freedom of speech when people boycott that noxious individual.

Bad or noxious ideas are SUPPOSED to lose. And yes, loosing can be unpleasant. The point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot forcibly shut down objectionable speech. The point of freedom of speech is that people have the freedom to *try* to win people over to their side. It can get ugly to be right when everyone else is wrong, and unfortunately there's no simple fix for that. It can get even uglier for someone who is dedicated to some wrong or noxious idea, and who is too stupid or obstinate to learn why his ideas are wrong or noxious. And again, unfortunately there's no easy fix for that either. But in that case it's a self-inflicted problem.

-

It can. But that hardly seems to be the case here.

When he calls the government a "mortal enemy" and vows to use "any means necessary" to "destroy that government and bring it down", and says "that insane Constitution [] will die", that's a wee bit stronger than merely saying "I feel like voting against it" and gently suggesting "heay I think it would be swell if maybe you voted against it too". Not to mention the fact that voting against it is now pretty well futile. There's 55% nation-wide support for gay marriage, and that support is rising at a steady 2.4% per year. He can't muster majority support for a federal law against it, much less the supra-majority percentages that would be required to change the constitution, which would be needed to overcome constitutional court rulings in favor of gay marriage.

-

P.S.
Based on another post I see from you I think maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were arguing with the person you were replying to. If you were agreeing with the post you replied to, then consider my previous post to be "emphatic agreement" with you. Chuckle.

-

What contortions?

The law has no business examining a person's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable or unacceptable applicants for a driver's application, marriage application, or anything else. It's impossible to write a marriage law to discriminate against interracial couples without the law examining the applicants' races, it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against inter-faith couples without the law examining the applicants' religions, and it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against gay couples without the law examining the applicants' genders. It's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages for the exact same reason it's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages.

Race, religion, and gender are equally invalid criteria for the law to examine as a basis to approve or deny driver's applications or marriage applications or anything else in law. No contortions at all. Equal protection and equal treatment under the law for all people, as people, regardless of anyone's race religion or gender.

-

And again, he said "whatever means is made possible or necessary".

That clearly extends beyond merely voting. In fact voting is effectively no longer on the list of "possible" means. Gay marriage opponents can no longer muster a 50% vote for a federal law against it, much less the percentages they would need to amend the constitution against court rulings in favor of gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is now over 55% of the public, and that percentage is steadily rising at about 2.4% per year. Gay marriage is seen as a civil rights issue by an overwhelming percentage of people under 35, and the largest percentage of gay marriage opponents are senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burying more and more gay marriage opponents every day as they drop dead of old age.

If he (or his ideological allies) attempt to oppose gay marriage by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, if he (or his ideological allies) attempt to bring about the "death" of the constitution by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, then I am prepared if necessary to take up the same means, whatever those means may be, to preserve the constitution and to preserve interracial marriage and to preserve gay marriage.

I do not take kindly to anyone threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to kill the constitution. I do not take kindly to any bigot threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to exterminate interracial marriage or gay marriage. The government has no business using race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applicants.

-

A Gallup poll in May 2013 put support for gay marriage at 53% of Americans, and opposition at 45%.
A Pew poll also in May 2013 puts it at 52% support and 42% opposed.
A Post-ABC News poll in March 2013 puts it at 58% support and only 36% opposition.
USA Today in July 2013 puts it at 55% support 40% opposed.

Furthermore, long term polling trends show that acceptance of gay marriage has been rising at a rather steady 2.4% per year. For comparison, long term polling showed acceptance of interracial rose at just 1% per year. Acceptance of gay marriage is rising nearly two and a half times as fast as interracial marriage was accepted. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly seen as a civil rights issue by those under 35, with opposition primarily residing among senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burrying the core opposition as more and more of them are simply dying of old age.

The battles will drag on for a while, but the war is effectively over.

Gay marriage will be officially recognized nation wide in juts a few years, and any lingering gay marriage opponents will rapidly be dismissed as just as bigoted and just as irrelevant as the lingering interracial marriage opponents. I hope you enjoy Klan meetings. Pretty soon that's going to be the only place anyone is going to sympathetically listen to your persecution complex whinging.

-

So freedom of expression implies that I have to pay for others to express themselves? No thanks, that's not how it works.

Pay for it? No.

Actively ignore it (as opposed to having some mythical "right" not to hear the likes of Fred Phelps spewing his crazy)? Yes.