Why does it bother me so much.
Someone has an embarrassing post on their wall. After a few "ha ha" replies from friends, the person replies that they were hacked by a friend or family member.

No. You were not "hacked". You left your computer logged on and they posted.

I guess in the most literal sense they were hacked. Someone exploited their stupidity to access their account.

Still...

Any thoughts? Is this hacking?
If so, should there be a new word to distinguish this level of "hacking"?
I suggest IDLO(I Didn't Log Out).
Example: I got IDLOed.

That's not exactly what the pizza joint in Indiana said. They said they would have no problem serving gays in their restaurant, but would not cater a same sex marriage. Boy, did that stir up a shit storm!

Should a business be able to choose with whom they want to do business? Let's take religion out of this entirely. Let's say they are straight up bigots. Let's say the policy is "Gays make us uncomfortable, so we won't serve them here". They would lose the business of the lgbt community. Word would get out that it is a bigoted pizza place. Business would further drop as people that didn't want to be associate with bigots stop going there.

Would gay people still be able to find a pizza. Damn right they would. They would go to the place across town, and so would their friends and family. What if there were no other pizza place? My bet is that the sandwich shop around the corner would see that as a market opportunity and add pizza to the menu.

In today's world, allowing a business to discriminate freely would only result in self-segregation. Bigots segregated from everyone else.

The second issue here is force.
In this case, we are are asking the government to force a bigot to serve pizza against his will.
The bigot is not forcing anyone to do anything.

In a perfectly free world, no person would be forced to do anything, or be allowed to force another person to do anything. All interactions would have to me mutually agreed upon.
Of course that is a utopian ideal and cannot work. There HAS to be an authority to enforce the non-aggression. That authority would have the ultimate monopoly on force. Our government has that authority. All laws and regulations require compliance ultimately under threat of violence from the authorities. We should be careful about how we ask them to use that power.

My position is that the government should only be allowed to use force, to prevent the coercion of one of it's citizens.

When I first saw the trailer for Lone Ranger, I thought it would be worthless. Riding a horse on top of a train-stupid. Riding a horse inside of a train-stupid. Johnny Depp as Tonto-stupid.
I just watched it. I like it. All those things I mentioned are indeed stupid, but they are perfect for this movie. The story slowly introduces the bizarre, so that when the William Tell Overture finally plays, you are willing to accept anything.

I knew Her was going to be unique. I think it's the best sci-fi since Moon. Sci-fi to me means something specific. The science is just a framework to explore the human condition. Her explores what it is to be human, to love, and to lose love. The closest I can think of to compare it to is Blade Runner without the action.

I shot a commercial for a local church today. The minister makes one commercial a year that only runs during the holidays. It isn't a big client, but it isn't a particularly difficult client either.

While I was setting lights, we were making small talk. He asked about my religious views. I tried to sidestep. I told him that church doesn't really call to me.
He then told me that I don't have to put any faith in churches, but that I should trust in Jesus. It got a little uncomfortable, but I was nearly through setting the lights. We moved on to business.

We shot his commercial. One set-up with a wide and a tight. There were maybe 4 takes of each. It went quickly.

As I started packing the gear, he took another tack with me. He told me his life story, how he was a preacher's son that rebelled. He went to college and took philosophy courses. During one class, he had an epiphany that he was looking for answers that weren't really there and that he had a belief system that had worked for him until he had walked away. He returned to his faith.

He suggested that I open myself up to God. That a belief in Jesus Christ was the only real answer. That I already live by faith every day. I have faith that my brakes will work at the stoplight, but no concrete knowledge. I have faith that my job will be there, but no guarantee.

In the past, I may have followed one of two courses of action.
1. Confront him with why belief in things that have been tested to be true on a regular basis is far different than a belief in something that cannot be tested.
2. Mumble a halfhearted "I'll think about that".

The first course would be dangerous to my job. The second would be patronizing to a really nice man who has done me no harm.

I chose a third course. I thanked him. I told him that I knew he had other things waiting for him. They are in the middle of adding a storm shelter and handicap accessible restrooms.
This man that I spend an hour or so with once a year, gave up his time and tried to save me from what he believes to be a real danger. When he asked that I reconsider a faith in a higher power, he was really saying "I care for you and wish you well"

What's to hate about that?

I've heard several people list the song or album that they think is best to listen to as tribute.
I had a hard time picking one. New York is too upbeat. Magic&Loss is too obvious since it centers largely on death.

I settled on Berlin. I hadn't listened to it for a while. Damn that's one of the perfect albums. There are several songs that appear in different forms on other albums, but are crazy good when heard in sequence. By the time it rolls around to Caroline says II, it does my head in.